That's no compromise.

By Nicole Bowmer of Portland, Oregon who describes herself as a freelance writer living in Portland's Hawthorne District. She also notes that "Yes, that's Senator Kate Brown's turf, but, please, don't hold it against me."

After reading WW's article, "Surf, Turf Oppose Rivers Bill," I had to question the true identity of the writer. Was it really Adrian Chen? Or Senator Kate Brown in disguise? By the sound of the literary bullhorn offered to the supporters of SB 1028, my money's on Kate.

My reasons for wholeheartedly disagreeing with both SB 1028 and SB 1066 do not delve back as far as Russell Sadler's admirable understanding of the river rights issue. My reasons only go as far back as 2002-2003.

That's when I volunteered on the Columbia River Swim in which Christopher Swain swam the entire 1,243-mile length of the Columbia River in support of clean water. I donated supplies, watched over him from the support boat, and attended more school visits than I could count. The final outreach message was always the same to the kids: "Who owns the river? You do! It's the law, and it's up to all of us to restore and protect it."

Then along comes Senators Ted Ferrioli and Kate Brown with their "compromise." Compared to what? Perhaps compared to another bill Ted sponsored in 2001, HB 3741, that would have given the public the "right to use beds and banks... for safe navigation and to fish unless landowner has posted signs indicating otherwise." Yep. That Ted sure is a generous fellow. Should SB 1028 and SB 1066 become law, just think of all the money he'll save his constituents - the riparian landowners - who wouldn't even need to buy signs to post on what once was public property telling us public folk to get lost.

Like most concerned citizens closely following this issue, I'm deeply disturbed at the idea of being forced to pay a fee to take an inflatable raft (like the kind that guided us down the Columbia) or even a canoe out for an afternoon on a river. It seems as fair as asking riparian landowners to pay additional fees for the enjoyment they receive every day of the year by living along a waterway. Yet it's the generalization of the language involved in this "compromise" that I find flat out scary: all recreational use may be "conditioned, limited, restricted or excluded."

I was fortunate to learn many valuable lessons on the Columbia River Swim and later on Christopher's swims of the Hudson River and Lake Champlain. Perhaps the most valuable lesson of all was how personal connections to waterways are an essential first step when it comes to restoring and protecting our rivers and streams for future generations.

SB 1028 and SB 1066 only create barriers to building those personal connections. Our leaders would be wise to ensure that future connections to our waterways are based on an appreciation and love for this great state. Not on who may or may not be able to afford it or who may or may not have been declared conditional, limited, restricted or excluded.

  • Heather McNeill (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nicole-

    Thank you for the excellent perspective and insight. That WW article a tremendous blow of misinformation that will deceive many Oregonians about what their rights are. Thank you for the excellent article that explains that. Thank you for explaining it to the kids.

    Heather

  • Bob Crook (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you for the fine article. It is about time that the politicians wake up and start doing something for the rights of the people and not just for the special interest groups.

    KEEP OREGON RIVERS FOREVER FREE!

  • Bryan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ms. Bowmer,

    Thank you. You understand the connection. If Oregon's rivers are privatized, which SB 1028 sets the path for and takes the first 3 steps down that path, the public will slowly but surely lose connection with our rivers. River section by river section, and river by river, the public will be "restricted and excluded" from using our rivers. We're not making this up. That is exactly what SB 1028 says. Our biggest challenge to prevent Kate Brown, Ferrioli and Randall Edwards (the leaders of this parade to privatize our rivers) from completing this coup is education: we must work hard to help the public understand (a) their existing river use rights and (b) how SB 1028 and SB 1066 threaten those rights. Unfortunately, the WW article was a setback in that effort----it was simply wrong on both (a) and (b).

    To better understand your existing river rights read the summary of the recent Attorney General Opinion that describes and confirms your rights. http://www.oregonstatelands.us/ag_op_navigability_sum.pdf

    To better understand how SB 1028 and SB 1066 threaten those rights, go to http://www.oregonriverrights.com/ and click on "Read the Bill" then read the "SB 1028 Summary," the "SB 1028 Myths" and the "SB 1066 Summary".

    Read these documents, once, twice and then three times. Then you'll have the knowledge to be powerful in this fight. "Scientia est potestas" (Knowledge is Power).

  • Nicole (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Heather, Bob, and Bryan ~ Thanks for your kind words.

    I really enjoyed talking with the kids because they really get the fundamentals of it. They want to be able to enjoy clean streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans. Period. End of story. Close the book.

    None of this economic-theory-necessitates-we-dump-muck-in-your-waterways business. And they certainly wouldn't be okay with politicians dumping their own form of muck into the mix either.

    Take care, everybody.

  • Lawrence Edwards (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nicole,

    Thank you for speaking out on a topic and issue many Oregonians have been concerned about for years, mainly the drive to privatize Oregon's waterways.

    Two facts missing from the Willamette Week article. First, prior to 1973, Oregonians enjoyed the same freedom to walk along Oregon’s rivers as they now enjoy along Oregon’s coast. At the urging of the Cattlemen’s Association and the Farm Bureau, the 1973 Oregon House Agriculture Committee quietly stripped Oregonians of that right. Mr. Stonebrink failed to mention this. He also failed to mention that it was his group that helped create the states navigability study process that requires the state to seize land if a stream is determined and declared navigable under the process the Cattlemen helped create. Now the results are in, and the Cattlemen want to change the rules to suit their political agenda once again.

    Second, Oregon’s ownership of all navigable waterways was clearly established by 1927 and in fact, the people of Oregon granted the legislature the power of eminent domain over all navigable waterways in 1923, when they amended Article I, Sec. 18 of the Oregon Constitution. The language added was very specific to waterways. These are the laws to which I refer:

    Article I, Sec. 18. Private property shall not be taken for public use, nor the particular services of any man be demanded, without just compensation; nor except in the case of the state, without such compensation first assessed and tendered; provided, that the use of all roads, ways and waterways necessary to promote the transportation of the raw products of mine or farm or forest or water for beneficial use or drainage is necessary to the development and welfare of the state and is declared a public use.

    1940 Statute: 113-1405. Navigable waters deemed public highways: Franchise holder a common carrier: Improvement of waters a public use. All navigable waters in this state shall be deemed public highways, and said franchise holder shall be declared a common carrier for the purposes of this act; and the improvement of such streams, sloughs and waters shall be deemed and declared a public use and benefit.

    1940 Statute: 113-1406 What streams are navigable: Any stream or its tributaries in this state upon which logs or other forest products can be floated during certain periods of the year with or without the use of splash dam, save and except Oswego Lake, is hereby declared to be a navigable stream ...

    1940 Statute; 82-342 (Public waters: Right of licensee to hunt and fish therein.) Navigable rivers, sloughs or streams between the lines of ordinary high water thereof, of the state of Oregon, and all rivers, sloughs and streams flowing through any public lands of the state, shall hereafter be public highways for the purpose of angling, hunting, or trapping thereon, and any rights or title to such streams, or the land between the high water flow lines or within the meander lines of navigable streams, shall be subject to the right of any person owning an angler's, hunter's or trapper's license of this state who desires to angle, hunt or trap therein or along their banks to go upon the same for such purpose.

    These laws protected your father's right to take you fishing, your grandfather’s right to take him fishing, and your great grandfather’s right to take your grandfather fishing. Why would any Oregonian settle for anything less for their children and grandchildren?

  • Nicole (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Lawrence, that's fascinating. Thank you. And great final thought!

  • Jerry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I have to admit that Majority Leader Brown seems to care more about her relationship with Ted Ferrioli than with her constituents who put her in office to protect their interests. With this bill, it's about giving ranchers more authority to run their cows in riparian areas. This threatens not only human river access, but water quality, salmon runs and ecosystem health-But what's a little degradation among colleagues?

    Unfortunately, Senator Brown's deference and lack of diligence also resulted in the continuation of a seriously imbalanced Board of Forestry, when she failed to reign Ferrioli in as he trashed former Democratic Congressman AuCoin in his confirmation hearing. I'm still waiting for she and Governor Ted to fix that one.

    As Rules committee chair, she gets to decide what lives, what dies and what gets traded for short term gains. Unfortunately, clean water and access issues are not important to her (or to much of the Democratic Caucus). If they were, we'd see a quick and hasty death for Representative Whisnant's bill to continue plundering the Deschutes. Like almost every other bad House bill, it will end up on her desk.

    Democratic activists should keep an eye on what emerges from that committee as the legislative silly season continues.

    Funny, I thought Southeast Portland was supposed to elect environmental leaders. Anyone remember Earl Blumenauer ever selling out on this level?

  • John Richen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks Nicole.

    I'm not sure what happened to Kate Brown, but clearly it hasn't been a change for the better.

    I'd like to think public pressure can kill this bill. I'd like to think that Sen. Brown would listen to her constituents. But I am no longer sure. Current evidence would lead me to believe she's been taken in by the cancerous bribe system of the legislative process in this state just like the rest of of her elected peers. You vote for my pet project and I vote for yours. It makes me want to puke.

    We need to turn up the burners on this issue. We need to kill 1028 and 1066 now.

    If not the battle moves to the House.

    jr

  • John (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h2>Folks who love Oregon's world-class rivers should also speak out against HB 3494, which will make its way into the Oregon Senate shortly, and Senator Brown's Rules Committee. This bill would allow new groundwater use in the Deschutes River basin to diminish flows in the lower Deschutes River even though those flows are protected by the state Scenic Waterweay Act and by instream water rights. The science here is quite clear and really beyond dispute. Oregonians would not tolerate mining off the top few hundred feet of Mount Hood or lowering the level of Crater Lake. Why should we tolerate reduced streamflows in another of our state's crown jewels - the Deschutes River? If you care about our world-class rivers and the future of our visionary river protection laws, please register your opposition to this damaging bill.</h2>
guest column

connect with blueoregon