2017 ORS 376.185¹
Way of necessity over public land

(1) A way of necessity may not be established under ORS 376.150 (Definitions for ORS 376.150 to 376.200) to 376.200 (Transfer of jurisdiction over establishment of ways of necessity to circuit court) across land owned by the state or a political subdivision of the state without the consent of the governing body of the political subdivision or of the appropriate agency of the state. The governing body of a political subdivision of this state and any agency of the state shall not unreasonably withhold consent required under this subsection.

(2) Whenever a way of necessity is sought over land owned by the state or a political subdivision of the state, a copy of the petition for the way of necessity, of the county report and of the notice of hearing shall be forwarded by certified mail to:

(a) If the political subdivision owns the land, the governing body of the political subdivision.

(b) If the state owns the land, to the Department of State Lands and to each agency of the state that has use or control of the land. [1979 c.862 §7; 1993 c.98 §17]

Notes of Decisions

That state may not unreasonably withhold con­sent means state may not arbitrarily and capriciously withhold con­sent. Where state agency expressed concerns about potential adverse impact of plaintiffs’ way of necessity and concerns were supported by evidence in record, agency was not unreasonable. Bradley v. Dept. of Forestry, 262 Or App 78, 324 P3d 504 (2014), Sup Ct review denied

Notes of Decisions

Way of necessity may not be es­tab­lished if peti­tioner could acquire ease­ment for access to public road through other legal ac­tion. Chambers v. Disney, 65 Or App 684, 672 P2d 711 (1983)

Way of necessity created under these sec­tions must be open to public and, so construed, sec­tions do not violate article I, sec­tion 18 of Oregon Constitu­tion. Chapman v. Perron, 69 Or App 445, 685 P2d 492 (1984)

Where peti­tioner’s land does not abut highway, ORS 376.180 (Conditions for way of necessity) requires peti­tioners to show they lack ease­ment so as to show need for way of necessity. Witten v. Murphy, 71 Or App 511, 692 P2d 715 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Under these sec­tions, if peti­tioners have existing enforceable access to public road, they are not entitled to way of necessity, notwithstanding whether such access is reasonable. Pike v. Wyllie, 100 Or App 120, 785 P2d 764 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 376—Ways of Necessity; Special Ways; Pedestrian Malls, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors376.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 376, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano376.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.