2015 ORS 390.815¹
Policy
  • establishment of system

The people of Oregon find that many of the free-flowing rivers of Oregon and Waldo Lake and lands adjacent to such lake and rivers possess outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geological, botanical, historic, archaeologic, and outdoor recreation values of present and future benefit to the public. The people of Oregon also find that the policy of permitting construction of dams and other impoundment facilities at appropriate sections of the rivers of Oregon and Waldo Lake needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve Waldo Lake and selected rivers or sections thereof in a free-flowing condition and would protect and preserve the natural setting and water quality of the lake and such rivers and fulfill other conservation purposes. It is therefore the policy of Oregon to preserve for the benefit of the public Waldo Lake and selected parts of the state‚Äôs free-flowing rivers. For these purposes there is established an Oregon Scenic Waterways System to be composed of areas designated in accordance with ORS 390.805 (Definitions for ORS 390.805 to 390.925) to 390.925 (Enforcement) and any subsequent Acts. [1971 c.1 §1; 1983 c.334 §2]

Law Review Cita­tions

4 EL 301 (1974)

Notes of Decisions

An ease­ment is not involved in the state's 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 state's 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 city's 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;, 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.