A Visit to the Murtha Ranch on the John Day River

Scott Richmond takes a trip to the John Day river in eastern Oregon and fishes on the Murtha Ranch. This property has been purchased by the Western Rivers Conservancy. Listen to the audio feature and learn why this is good news for fly anglers. (by Scott Richmond)

Click here for audio.

Permission by Scott Richmond 14NOV2010.

Scott Richmond is Westfly’s creator and Executive Director. He is the author of eight books on Oregon fly fishing, including Fishing Oregon’s Deschutes River (second edition).

The Secretary of State’s office is coordinating these meetings. She sets the agenda, and e-mails the announcements. To get added to her contact list for those meetings contact Amy Williams in her office. Anyone can be added to the list by emailing a request to amy.k.williams@state.or.us or by calling Amy Williams at (503) 986.1523

If anyone needs information about who has been in attendance, the meeting agendas, minutes, or other matters, Amy is the person tracking that information.

Hope that helps anyone interested in getting involved, or catching up on what has been happening.

As discussed during the last River User Workgroup meeting, we are going to begin a series of conference calls, each focused on a different facet of the issue.  The first call is scheduled for Wednesday, July 14th, from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM.  Dial-in information can be found toward the end of this notice.

Kate Brown has asked Bill Cloran, a Portland attorney formerly with the DOJ, and Bill Moshofsky of Oregonians in Action, to co-chair this call, which will focus on the types of river user behavior to be prohibited by statute up to the line of Ordinary High Water (OHW).  Mr. Cloran provided these suggested regulations as a starting point for the conversation:

1.       Open container law to apply to boaters, no alcohol streamside for fishermen.

2.      No fires within 100′ of OHW except in an established campground or private fire place. No Charcoal BBQs. Stoves OK. No smoking.

3.       Vegetation to be undisturbed. No taking anything from the land.

4.      Comply with property owner’s reasonable restrictions, close gates and stay on paths.

5.      No radios or loud music.

6.       Use in day light hours only.

7.       Present identification if requested by property owner.

8.       Users required to contain and pack out all garbage, domestic animal waste and human waste. This has been the rule in Mt. Rainier NP for at least 30 years and is a condition for getting a climbing permit. It works well once people are used to it.

9.    Users to have no involvement with domestic animals or livestock.

10.   No use of private piers, wharfs or floats or of private recreational equipment (slides and rope swings, etc) except with owner permission.

11.   The use area must be accessed from a public access on the water or from the water. There is no express or implied right to cross the privately owned upland, whether posted, fenced, enclosed or open to reach the access area. No right of access to the water shall arise by prescription upon lands where public use is allowed pursuant to this act.

In addition, attached is page 14 of the 2005 Attorney General’s Opinion, which discusses the Ordinary High Water Mark as defined under federal law and also as defined under ORS 274.005.

Call-in information:

Dial 1-866-476-8702, participant code 388724

This notice is being emailed to a list that has been compiled from attendees at previous meetings and individuals who have expressed interest in participating.  Anyone can be added to the list by emailing a request to amy.k.williams@state.or.us or by calling Amy Williams at 503.986.1523.

Is this agenda a constructive use of time? With most of those items already being law, or able to be regulated by various agencies, now, why will it do anygood to retype the laws into a new law? Why are we not talking about education and enforcement of existing laws first? If we actually enforced the laws and just got on with it, instead of debating if we should write the same laws down again, in a new section of laws, maybe we could move forward!

And a few of these items are quite feudal. The landowners being able to demand ID? This is so very not American. Sounds like the serfs having to pay homage to the lords. Can people imagine if any landowner on a street asks you to present your ID because you’re driving your car down a street, or walking down the sidewalk? Has anyone heard of the right to privacy? How exactly do I get to ask the cattle, standing the river, for their ID?

Lets just drop the ridiculous and delve into the items that everyone agrees upon. Wouldn’t it be novel, to just move forward because we agree on some things? Those things we don’t agree upon, can wait until we get a program in place to take on the things we do agree upon.

The 2008 Rogue Navigability Declaration which has been appealed by eight landowners, has had an initial summary judgment delivered by Judge Ron Grensky of Oregon’s First Circuit Court in Medford.

This summary judgement does NOT say the Rogue is not Navigable. It does however say that so far the state has presented insufficient information to make the navigability determination for the river section from mile 100-157.5.

A lack of determination, does not mean the Rogue is not navigable, it merely means it is not yet decided to the satisfaction of Judge Grensky.

In addition, the summary says the state has a responsibility to set a clear property line if such a declaration is made, and that the property line of “ordinary high water” does not meet the state requirements for clarity of property boundaries.

It’s important to note on this secondary item, that additional Oregon administrative rules for a clarity of property boundary, will not invalidate a federal navigability determination, only require a more exacting boundary to be determined to comply with Oregon law.

The state is now required to present the necessary information.

“The Court would like petitioner to prepare an order that complies with this opinion. The Court further will allow the parties to the extent they deem necessary to proceed to trial on any remaining issues.”

The full “Summary Judgement” can be read by clicking the image above or here.

The Future of Oregon River Rights?

“Scruffy Bearded Varmint” gives us a warning about the direction of Kate Brown’s Salem “work group” and who is really running the show.

This is a call to action.

From the Westfly.com Oregon forum June 9, 2010…

http://www.west-fly-fishing.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=613800#Post613800

River Navigability and the “Work Group” Direction

Ever heard the term, “Railroading?”

It is starting to look pretty grim. These are my observations:

Those that want to eliminate or severely curtail public use drive the discussion with virtually no recognition of the input from the recreational community. I have observed that those in favor of restriction have the floor on about an 8 to 1 ratio. In other words, they do most of the talking, provide most of the input, and definitely steer the direction the group is going.

During breaks, I observe the moderator of the group and the head of DSL always seem to huddle with folks that actively want to restrict public river use.

In the past, river users had three lobby groups to contend with: Oregon Cattlemen, Oregon Realtors, and The Farm Bureau. These folks recruited several more large and wealthy business related groups to join their side. The Oregon Association of Nurseryman, The Railroads, AOI, the sand and gravel industry, and many, many, more. The room is full of lawyers and lobbyists.

In addition to this new firepower, a handful of landowners, particularly from the Tillamook area, have gained a lot of power over the management of the group. They control much of the discussion.

Not once has the discussion involved protecting the public’s current rights on our waterways. The discussion is 100% focused on how those rights can be reduced, restricted, or eliminated.

Those that would strip away your rights to use Oregon’s Rivers are better organized than we have seen in the past. They have more money behind them, and they seem to have gained complete control of the situation regarding the writing of the new legislation.

The passage of a law in Utah stripping away public rights on that state’s river emboldened those that would do the same in Oregon.

In private discussions with some of the river users representatives, (And there are dang few of them at the meetings.) it looks like we will have a real fight on our hands come 2012. Don’t say it is unexpected.

Anyone that tells you that this group has anything other than the wholesale elimination of public rights as their underlying motive is either not paying attention, gullible, or lying for their own gain.

Some things to watch for:

- They will play the “endangered species” card as a way to take away your right to contact stream beds. “It damages habitat” will be the hue and cry.

- They will use the taxpayer subsidized “habitat restoration projects” as justification for eliminating boating and fishing along the restored habitat. “It will undo our hard work,” will be the claim.

- They will change the demarcation from High Water to “The water line.” “High Water is to hard to define,” will be the mantra. While it does not give them what they want, it does take them a helluva lot closer, doesn’t it?

- They will include a clause that says a river can only be used at a time when it can float a craft. This takes low water wading away from the public.

- They will attempt to eliminate all use below a certain cfs. (cubic feet per second) rating.

- They will restrict portage to boat users only, making it even more difficult for bank anglers in the winter months. “If a boat is not involved, it isn’t really portage,” they will claim.

This ain’t gonna be pretty folks. There is simply to much money to be made by privatizing our waterways. And they are too well organized for us.

What can you do to help stop this train wreck regarding your right to use your rivers?

Contact your state representative and Senator now. Let them know anything less than their full support of the Public’s right to use our waterways to the high water mark is unacceptable.

Find your Senator at:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/senate/

Find your Representative at:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/house/

Contact Louise Solliday
Director of the Division of State Lands:

http://oregonstatelands.us/DSL/DO/contact_us_directory.shtml

And most importantly, Contact Kate Brown:
136 State Capitol
Salem OR 97310-0722
phone (503) 986-1523
fax (503) 986-1616
oregon.sos@state.or.us

And ask every candidate for office how they feel about this issue. If it is important to you, you better be willing to join in the battle. We need 100% participation, or we will loose.

I cannot carry the ball for you. Heather cannot carry the ball for you. The Steelheaders cannot carry the ball for you. Either you get angry, organized, and involved, or kiss your river rights goodbye, cause that is where this is definitely headed.

Most importantly, if there is any way you can do it, show up, show up, SHOW UP. Warm bodies in the chairs can and will make a difference. Right now, at these meetings, I see at least seven paid lobbyists for every recreational user representative. Most of whom are volunteers. And because river users don’t “represent” anyone, they pretty much get marginalized by the big money boys.

Right now those that want to take away your rights are in the drivers seat. You either let them control the process, or you don’t.

The choice is yours.

The time is now.

And please, don’t think you can do something today and be finished with this. I’ve been involved since ’03. One guy at the meeting has been fighting for you for over thirty years. Don’t expect this to end anytime soon.

One finally note. We can’t just rely on Westfly to help us on this. Engage your families, friends, co-workers, and everyone else you can think of. This needs to be an issue for all Oregonians. After all, all Oregonians own these waterways.

Secretary of State Kate Brown will be forming a River Users Workgroup to develop policy recommendations for the 2011 legislative session. You are invited to the first organizational meeting, on May 7th, that will be focused on process and goals for the year. All meetings are open to the public and will be held at the State Capitol in Room 350 at 10:00 AM. Additional meetings will be held and the schedule of those meetings is below.
This notice is being e-mailed to a list that has been compiled from attendees at previous meetings. To be added to the list, e-mail a request to jackie.cleary@state.or.us or call Jackie at 503-986-1523.

The meeting information is listed below:

River Users Workgroup Meetings
All meetings are scheduled to run from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM
in Room 350 of the State Capitol Building, 900 Court Street NE, Salem, OR 97301

2010 Meeting Dates:

May 7
June 4
(No meeting in July)
August 13
September 10
October 8
November 12

We want to encourage all Oregonians to find out more about your river rights and participate in the process to ensure your rights are protected and not compromised or given away.

Why isn’t it announced for all Oregonians?  If we were talking about Beaches, it would be a public meeting, not a stakeholder meeting.    This issues affects the rights of every single Oregonian, forever.   So, we’re trying to get the word out.  This is a very very short session, and if you can make it to this meeting, you should go.

Navigability Stakeholders Meeting with Kate Brown
Monday, February 8th from 2:00-4:00 PM
State Capitol Rm. 350

This new SB 1060-2 amendment is NOT supported by Common Waters of Oregon. SB 1060-2 would result in local bodies having control over rivers in a way  they cannot now.

If a business in Astoria decided they wanted to run beaches in Astoria differently than the rest of the state, the state is not obligated to support that effort.   A local group can lobby the state, but to have a mandate that the state must work with a local group is not acceptable.  The state management for state resources and rights should be conducted at the level of the state, to ensure a democratic process and that policies are for ALL the people, not just the local people.

While CWO could support SB1060-1 as we described previously we oppose SB 1060-2 and urge others to oppose it also.

The clock is ticking and the Environment and Natural Resources hearing is tomorrow at 1pm in Hearing Room B.

LIVE ONLINE BROADCAST OF THE ENR HEARING AT 1pm Thursday

To watch a live broadcast of the meeting , goto The Oregon Channel- http://www.oregonchannel.org/rams.htm and click on the link to hearing Rm B.

Please write to the Senators on the Environment & Natural Resources committee and also send that same letter to your own senator.  Below are the e-mail links for the Environment & Natural Resources committee.

sen.jackiedingfelder@state.or.us Jackie Dingfelder, Chair
sen.jasonatkinson@state.or.us Jason Atkinson, Vice-Chair
sen.brianboquist@state.or.us Brian Boquist
sen.markhass@state.or.us Mark Hass
sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us Floyd Prozanski

To find your own district Senator’s addresses, email, and phone numbers, use this link.  http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/

We hope that you’ll customize your letter to mention why you care about public rivers for Oregon.   A unique letter is more effective than copy & paste letter, and copy & paste letter is better than nothing.  Here’s the main points that we hope you’ll make.

Dear Senator                    ,

River rights are an important part of this state’s infrastructure.  Many businesses and communities across this state were founded due to river travel, and are supported by river travel.  It’s critical that we never give up our river rights.

Senate Bill 1060 is not ideal, it has several problems that could result in diminished river rights, but the amendment Senate Bill 1060-1 fixes nearly all of those problems.  In addition to the changes in SB 1060-1, a few more items will help clarify the bill and make it a better piece of legislation.

• The use of  the term “Class 1″ and “Class 2″ waterways should be replaced throughout the document with the respective terms “floatable” and “non-floatable”.    Class 1 and Class 2 would be confused with the much more popular and widely accepted terms that refer to the amount of rapids in a river.    By using the terms “floatable” and “non-floatable” it will greatly reduce that confusion.  The terms Class 1 and Class 2 should be replaced throughout the document with the terms “floatable” and “non-floatable.”
• Page 3, line 4  after the word “waterway”  insert the phrase “to protect public health and safety or protect natural resource values of the waterway”.   This clarification helps direct that any rules related to controlling the public should stem from concern for these issues.
• Page 4 line 8 delete the phrase “related to conflicts.”   There is no definition of the word “conflict” in the document.  The use of this word often masks a more definitive description of littering, or trespass, or harassment, or menacing.   All of those words offer much more understanding and accuracy of any problem that arises, and may help point to more simple and accurate solution while the word “conflict” does not.  When the public litters along the highway we do not call it “conflict”, nor do we call it “conflict” if a private landowner adjacent to a highway damages the roadway or makes it unsafe.  “Conflict” by it’s nature is impossible to manage, these other issues are very possible to address.   Delete of the phrase “related to conflicts.”
• Page 4 line 26 delete the word “unreasonably”.  This law codifies the public’s right to be on floatable waterways,  there should be no level of harassment that is allowed.    Delete the word “unreasonably”.
• Page 4 line 30 after the word “group” insert “with representatives of from the public’s various water use pursuits and interest and owner’s of property adjacent to floatable waterways”  It’s important that any advisory body represent the wide array of public interest in waterways from scientific concerns, sport, commercial interest, historical interest, and the interest of land owners.

With these changes to SB 1060-1, it would be a good piece of legislation for Oregon.   It would be simple and clear codification of the Public Use Doctrine that has always been critical  for river travel and commerce in this state.  Codification will help with law enforcement.

Finally, the people of Oregon cannot support any quit claim amendment that may be proposed to this legislation.  Navigable waterways are a critical part of the 1859 Admission Act that made Oregon a state.   Public rivers are in the best interest of the people of the state, they are travel corridors and natural resources that were set aside at statehood, for the people of the state.   Our public rivers have been and will always be good for the people.  Even before we had the wisdom to pass the Oregon Beach Bill in 1970, we already had public rivers.  Rivers that were navigable in 1859 are “Common Highways…  and Forever Free,” and we safeguard safeguard that during this very short legislative session.

Rivers rights are important to me……

Please support SB 1060-1 and the changes suggested here.  Together these changes would make a good piece of legislation for Oregon.

Sincerely,

John/Jane Q. Public

Please send those letters today. Please ask others to send their letters. You can help encourage others by posting your letters or part of your letter as a comment here.

SB 1060-1 amendment was issued last Friday from Senator Bates office and it looks good.

The bill’s goal is to confirm the public river rights that exist as part of  the Public Use Doctrine which was described by the Attorney General of Oregon in 2005 (#8281).   It confirms the rights of the public to utilize floatable waterways of the state and it provides definitions of floatable so that law enforcement, the public, and landowners adjacent to floatable waterways all have clarity on this important issue.

We have a few more suggestions to help improve understanding and enforcement.

• The use of  the term “Class 1″ and “Class 2″ waterways should be replaced throughout the document with the respective terms “floatable” and “non-floatable”.  We suggest this clarification because Class 1 and Class 2 would be confused with the much more popular and widely accepted use of these terms that refers to the amount of rapids in a river.    By using the terms “floatable” and “non-floatable” it will greatly reduce that confusion.  We suggest that the terms Class 1 and Class 2 be replaced throughout the document with the terms “floatable” and “non-floatable.”
• Page 3, line 4  after the word “waterway”  insert the phrase “to protect public health and safety or protect natural resource values of the waterway”.    We suggest this clarification to direct that any rules related to controlling the public should stem from concern for these issues.
• Page 4 line 8 delete the phrase “related to conflicts.”   There is no definition of the word “conflict” in the document.  The use of this word often masks a more definitive description of littering, or trespass, or harassment, or menacing.   All of those words offer much more understanding and accuracy of any problem that arises, and may help point to more simple and accurate solution while the word “conflict” does not.  When the public litters along the highway we do not call it “conflict”, nor do we call it “conflict” if a private landowner adjacent to a highway damages the roadway or makes it unsafe.  “Conflict” by it’s nature is impossible to manage, these other issues are very possible to address.   So we suggest the deletion of the phrase “related to conflicts.”
• Page 4 line 26 delete the word “unreasonably”.  This law codifies the public’s right to be on floatable waterways,  there should be no level of harassment that is allowed.    Delete the word “unreasonably”.
• Page 4 line 30 after the word “group” insert “with representatives of from the public’s various water use pursuits and interest and owner’s of property adjacent to floatable waterways”  It’s important that any advisory body represent the wide array of public interest in waterways from scientific concerns, sport, commercial interest, historical interest, and the interest of land owners.

Common Waters of Oregon urges you to support SB 1060-1 Amendment and the proposed amendments we’ve listed. Without this amendment, SB 1060 may be problematic for the state of Oregon and hence for the people of Oregon. With this amendment, it’s an good bill for the people of this state.

According to the committee agenda, this bill and this amendment are likely to be heard in the Senate  Environment and Natural Resources Committee this Thursday February 4th. You can offer your support for the adoption of this critical amendment by writing to the members of the Oregon Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee.

Environment and Natural Resources Committe

Jackie Dingfelder, Chair
Jason Atkinson, Vice-Chair
Brian Boquist
Mark Hass
Floyd Prozanski

To find any Senator’s’ addresses, email, and phone numbers, use this link.  http://www.leg.state.or.us/senate/

A final note, Common Waters of Oregon will not support any quit claim amendment that may be proposed to this legislation.  Navigable waterways are an integral part of the 1859 Admission Act that made Oregon a state.   Public rivers are in the best interest of the people of the state, they are travel corridors and a natural resource that was set aside at statehood, for the people of the state.  CWO continues to stand behind the fundamental value that our public rivers have been and will always be good for the people.  Even before we had the wisdom to pass the quintessentially Oregon Beach Bill in 1970, we already had public rivers.  Rivers that were navigable in 1859 are “Common Highways…  and Forever Free,” and we will work to safeguard that during this legislative session.