The Oregon Natural Resources Report - Agricultural News from Oregon

I’m reading a book about “Ancient Dictators and Modern Tyrants.” This action (above related) appears like one of the seemingly “small” pieces of actions on the part of the “state” (in whatever country) that precedes that country ending up under the power of ONE not-so-benevolent person (commonly called a dictator!). God help us!

This article is simply scaremongering. The bill does NOTHING to change current established case law in Oregon. Remember, the right to use waterways in Oregon is written into Oregon’s Constitution.

Please get the facts right to scaring folks with false information. The proposed legislation does NOTHING to affect the ownership of river beds. In fact, it expressly states that title to riverbeds is not affected by the bill. What it does do is merely codify the Public Use Doctrine which has been the common law of the land in Oregon for many, many years as setforth in numerous Oregon court cases and as recently confirmed by the Oregon Attorney General in an extensive opinion in 2005. The public has a right to use floatable rivers in Oregon—-there is nothing new about that right. It has existed for many, many years. The public does NOT, however, have a right to cross private property to gain access to floatable rivers. The Public Use Doctrine never granted that right and this proposed legislation doesn’t grant that right either. If someone crosses private property to gain access to a floatable river and they don’t have permission from the landowner, then that person is trespassing. That has always been the law and will continue to be the law after this legislation is enacted.

SB 1060, does not make any changes to navigable rivers in Oregon. The expressly states that it is not changing ownership of waterways. The bill has been online for people to read for about a month now.

It is consistent with the Public Use Doctrine in Oregon that has maintained public’s ability to travel and carry commerce on the “floatable” rivers of the state. The Public Use Doctrine, has not changed land ownership, only allowed the public to travel the river below the ordinary high water mark of the river.

This body of law has been very important in the economy of the state. It has allowed logging companies to float logs to market, and to other agricultural producers to ship milk, wheat, and produce to market on the waterways. This law has helped ensure a passageway of goods to market for many years.

This bill establishes guidelines of boundaries of public right of way and requires that the landowner may not obstruct the river passage. It’s pretty simple and consistent with agricultural practices and shipping.

It’s important to remember that corridors of travel help enable the economy of this state. Traditionally agriculture has been one of the biggest users of these river rights. We should not fall prey to the small view that limiting travel better serves landowners, especially agricultural landowners. Instead ensuring travel corridors has helped the businesses of this state.

Many businesses have the opportunity to prosper when they have many travel and shipping routes. Ag and logging have always supported shipping routes by water in the past.

Finally the Farm Bureau wrote:

“..it also has no complimentary measures for increased enforcement along waterways to ensure the public is using the property correctly and respectfully, it provides no funding for facilities, trash clean-up, public access points or any other items that provide protections and balance for landowners.”

I would concur with the Farm Bureau that we should improve funding for law enforcement, for building facilities, for litter cleanup, and for education on responsible use. I think there would be many groups and individuals in the state that would whole heartedly support that idea. If someone were to put forth that type of bill or amendment, would the Farm Bureau support it or advocate for it?

It sounds like a really good idea. Could the landowners and and all the people of Oregon count on the Farm Bureau to advocate for improving funding for law enforcement on waterways, for increased litter control, for more facilities and access points, and for education on responsible use?

If so, lets sit down and get it done. We’ve got common ground here and we agree it needs to happen for all the people of the state, including landowners. I’m serious lets make that happen.

I normally LOVE your articles, however this one angers me. You’re portraying this bill as a “land grab” which is absolutely is not! It’s a “public access” bill.

Don,

You are right–it is certainly not a land grab. The State of Oregon is not asserting title or ownership of anything. And, it really isn’t providing public “access” to the river, rather it is confirming the public’s right to “use” the river (“pubic use”). That is an important distinction because “access” suggests the public would have the right to cross private upland property (“access”) to get to a floatable river, when that is not the case. The public only has the right to “use” the river, assuming they have “accessed” it (gotten to the river) via a public access point or a private access point (with the landowner’s permission).

Many people use the terms “access” and “use” interchangeably, but I think it is important to make the distinction so everyone understands the legislation does NOT give anyone permission to cross upland private property to get to a floatable river.

This is an irresponsible and misleading article.

Irresponsible indeed. Clearly this was written for the purpose of inciting and inflaming with fiction rather than reporting with facts. It does a huge disservice to the agriculture community to provide information that is so incorrect.

Nick February 2, 2010 says, “The bill does NOTHING to change current established case law in Oregon. Remember, the right to use waterways in Oregon is written into Oregon’s Constitution.”

Others make similar claims, including the assertion that Oregon Constitution already gives the public these rights to use others’ property.

I’ve read up on this a bit, and the constitution does no such thing. And current laws don’t either. Neither give anyone rights to dry land-only water. Seems reasonable, since the purpose was travel and shipping. There was never any mention of CAMPING, for example. (And who’s going to keep human excrement from pollutin these waterways?)

I CHALLENGE any of you letter writers to show me where these so-called “rights” (the ones I’m referring to) are delineated in any law or constitutional writings.) Look it up. Google it. Read it-it will save you the embarrassment of making wild-eyed claims about this bill in the future.

I have no problem whatsoever with people using oregon’s waterways as they are supposed to be used. i encourage people to float the creek by my place. They are not welcome, however, to camp, as I have no porta-potties. And I’ll take down the “welcome signs” if I’m told I HAVE TO let people camp, hike, build fires, etc.

This is a land grab. It’s legalizing trespass. What else, but a land grab, when the right of non-owners take precedence over the ability of the owner to use the property as he/she chooses?