390.805
Definitions for ORS 390.805 to 390.925. As used in ORS 390.805 to 390.925, 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 Department’s 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 owner’s 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 to 390.925 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]
Notes of Decisions
Diack v. City of Portland, 759 P.2d 1070 (Or. 1988).
· cites it 4× “In this case we are called upon to examine the impact, if any, of provisions of Oregon’s Scenic Waterways Act, ORS 390.805 et seq (the Act), on a decision to permit hydroelectric generation on a portion of a river that thereafter flows into a scenic waterway.”
Yamhill Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 839 P.2d 238 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“” The policy, as drafted by the county, provides that the river and creek have a scenic waterway designation, and “[s]o long as it retains its state designation [under ORS 390.805 et seq\, the county recognizes Walker Creek *** as a significant Goal 5 resource.”
Diack v. City of Portland, 736 P.2d 198 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “They assert that the proposed diversion will violate the Scenic Waterways Act, ORS 390.805 - ORS 390.925, and that the Department’s order is defective in a number of other respects.”
Miller v. Columbia River Gorge Comm'n, 848 P.2d 629 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“The property owner there contended that limitations that the Scenic Waterways Act, ORS 390.805 et seq, placed on the use of her land constituted the taking of a scenic easement.”
State High. Comm'n v. Chaparral Rec. Ass'n, 510 P.2d 352 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
“This appeal is from a compensation award in a condemnation action under ORS 390.805 through 390.925 which is the Scenic Waterways Act adopted by initiative on November 3, 1970.”
State v. Solomon, 643 P.2d 1312 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “” See ORS 390.805. The property on which the mobile home is located is owned by defendant and is adjacent to part of the John Day River which has been designated a scenic waterway pursuant to the Scenic Waterways Act (ORS 390.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Hilderbrand, 582 P.2d 13 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “The sequence of events leading up to the filing by plaintiff of this condemnation action may be summarized as follows: Defendants are the owners of a tract which is "related adjacent land” under the Scenic Waterways Act, ORS 390.805 to 390.925. In August 1972 a dilapidated bam,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.