Well, I used to be your river rights news broadcaster, but had to retire from that volunteer life to chase making a living.

Word on the street is that there is a special legislative session being called and a "work group" on a new river rights bill.

I'm wondering what folks know about this? I haven't had time to look into any of it, and am asking around if folks know what's happening?

Oh crap! Here we go again.

I've been waitin' for the other shoe to drop, and that just sounded like a thud. Please keep us posted. I'm getting really tired of this carp. But if the battle is to be joined, then so be it.

Phil

TroutGirl,

Maybe the state only wants to own "submerged and submersible" land underlying all navigable and "tidally influenced" waters in Oregon. In most cases, state ownership extends to the ordinary level of high water or high tide.

WHEN THEY CAN TAX IT!

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/oregon_proposal_for_higher_doc.html

Hoopie,

Wouldn't they be better off expanding the number of navigable waterways than in making a minor increase in the fees charged on existing waterways?

The report that I got from a friend (leadership for ANWS) is that ANWS, Common Waters, the Attorney General and a bunch of other groups expect to get a bill out of the special session that gives us a Montana like law that doesn't go into the ownership issues. Just lets you fish, hike , recreate on rivers/streams.

If this does in fact make it into law it will be a good thing.

Just to clarify, I'm not sure CWO has issued any note of support on this one. They haven't published anything on that. I haven't heard anything from their board about it. That's why I'm asking around here.

I did just recieve a copy of the newest bill from the Steelheaders. If you want a pdf of it, send me a pm with your e-mail address and I'll send it this weekend.

Senator Bates is the one heading up this special work group and special session. He has not clearly been on the side of protecting public rights, so don't be fooled by a a title of a bill or the propoganda around it.

You actually have very good legal rights now, stemming from the time of statehood. But we have very poor enforcement of your rights, and well a run propoganda machine that you don't have those rights (comes from several landowner groups).

This may lead you to conclusion that you need a better law. We need better enforcement. Even landowners could benefit from much better enforcement on the rivers. The issues being complained about are already illegal- littering, defecating, upland trespass, illegal campsites, poaching... And landowners have rightly been upset by the lack of enforcement.

The solution put forth by them has been to restrict or eliminate public rights, but that's a pretty poor solution. Remember the navigable rivers are listed as "common highways." If these issues were happening along our state highways, the solution would not be to eliminate or reduce the public right to use the highways, it would be to enforce the laws we have in place. So please don't be fooled that the only solution to these problems is to lose your public river rights. Moreover is that really a solution? Sometimes the litterer and destroyer of the waterway is a poor steward landowner. Getting the public off the waterway, only reduces the number of witnesses to that issue, but does not change the core principal that OUR rivers need to be corridors of travel with routine law enforcement, not a wild west version of justice that happens now.

To date all river rights bills have actually been attempting to reduce your river rights and have also made no changes in enforcement, so that's not really to your benefit.

I'll try to read the bill later tonight. Like I said, I'll e-mail it to whoever wants it. Send me your e-mail.

Heather, we have little info posted here from Common Waters. Please pass on to us what you learn. Thanks.

We do? I'm not on the board there anymore. So please don't take me posting as CWO action. I'm just me.

You're our only contact. I am not associated with CWO either but I think the WF membership would like to know what is going. If anyone who represents CWO wants to chime in, that would be good for those at WF who do care about river rights.

Hey Gene, I see a long winter ahead.

Hey Gene, We're all CWO, card-carrying or not.

We all need to dig and and report back. Grassroots all the way.

Hugh

You're right about that, Hugh.