2015 ORS 390.805¹
Definitions for ORS 390.805 to 390.925

As used in ORS 390.805 (Definitions for ORS 390.805 to 390.925) to 390.925 (Enforcement), unless the context requires otherwise:

(1) Related adjacent land means all land within one-fourth of one mile of the bank on the side of Waldo Lake, or a river or segment of river within a scenic waterway, except land that, in the State Parks and Recreation Departments judgment, does not affect the view from the waters within a scenic waterway.

(2) Scenic easement means the right to control the use of related adjacent land, including airspace above such land, for the purpose of protecting the scenic view from waters within a scenic waterway; but such control does not affect, without the owners consent, any regular use exercised prior to the acquisition of the easement, and the landowner retains the right to uses of the land not specifically restricted by the easement.

(3) Scenic waterway means Waldo Lake, or a river or segment of river that has been designated as such in accordance with ORS 390.805 (Definitions for ORS 390.805 to 390.925) to 390.925 (Enforcement) or any subsequent Act, and includes related adjacent land. [1971 c.1 §2; 1981 c.787 §55; 1983 c.334 §1; 1983 c.642 §10; 1989 c.904 §25; 1995 c.79 §203; 2001 c.104 §132]

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Authority to designate seg­ment of Snake River as a scenic wa­terway, (1972) Vol 35, p 1226

Law Review Cita­tions

4 EL 301 (1974); 21 EL 133 (1991)

Notes of Decisions

An ease­ment is not involved in the states right under these sec­tions to regulate use of related adjacent land, but an ease­ment is an addi­tional right which the state may acquire by purchase or gift. Scott v. State Hwy. Comm., 23 Or App 99, 541 P2d 516 (1975)

Time factors involved are not designed to freeze land values to subsidize later acquisi­tion by the state, nor do they impose unreasonable restraints upon landowners. Scott v. State Hwy. Comm., 23 Or App 99, 541 P2d 516 (1975)

The regulatory pro­vi­sions are separate from the pro­vi­sions giving the state the right to acquire land or interests in related adjacent land, and the state does not gain an interest in land by the adop­tion of the Act. Scott v. State Hwy. Comm., 23 Or App 99, 541 P2d 516 (1975)

The states power to regulate is analogous to zoning restric­tions and therefore the state does not acquire an interest for which compensa­tion must be paid. Scott v. State Hwy. Comm., 23 Or App 99, 541 P2d 516 (1975)

Where wa­ter would otherwise flow through scenic wa­terway, pro­vi­sions of Scenic Water­ways Act requiring showing that proposed diversion was necessary to beneficial use applied to proposed diversion in citys applica­tion for permit to operate hydroelectric facility. Diack v. City of Portland, 306 Or 287, 759 P2d 1070 (1988)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Prohibi­tion of landfills on scenic wa­ter­ways, (1971) Vol 35, p 844; authority to designate seg­ment of Snake River as a scenic wa­terway, (1972) Vol 35, p 1226; defini­tion and regula­tion of placer mining, (1982) Vol. 42, p 213

Law Review Cita­tions

4 EL 299-303, 373-376 (1974); 19 EL 841 (1989); 21 EL 133 (1991); 29 WLR 95 (1993)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 390—State and Local Parks; Recreation Programs; Scenic Waterways; Recreation Trails, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors390.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 390, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano390.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.