A proposal to simplify Oregon’s process for determining state ownership of waterways has raised concerns about potential government and public incursions onto private farmland.

“Landowners who have responsibly stewarded these lands for generations could suddenly find the state taking control with little recourse and no guarantee of compensation,” said Ryan Krabill, government affairs manager for the Oregon Farm Bureau, during a recent hearing.

Senate Bill 74 is opposed by the Farm Bureau for much the same reason it’s favored by such supporters as the Backcountry Hunters & Anglers nonprofit: Once a waterway is declared state-owned, it’s open to public access from the river bed to the bank.

“By affirming state ownership of submerged lands in waterways and establishing a process for declaring and adjusting waterway boundaries, this amendment will ensure that these vital natural resources remain protected under public trust,” the group said in submitted testimony.

The latest version of the bill aims to allow the Department of State Lands to forgo some of the extensive studies required to prove the state government owns a waterway, so long as the landowner does not object.

While many waterways came under the government’s ownership when Oregon attained statehood in 1859, the state must establish its claim to some streams and creeks through a navigability determination.

To this end, the DSL must show a waterway could have been used for trade and travel in 1859, said Bill Ryan, the agency’s deputy director of aquatic resources. “Could it have been floated by a canoe?”

The second part of the analysis is thornier, requiring the agency to document changes to the waterway’s channel over time with historical maps and photos.

If a waterway’s twists and turns shifted gradually over time, the adjacent property boundaries moved along with the channel under state law. If a waterway’s course changed rapidly due to a flood or human intervention, though, the property lines remained locked in place.

The latter eventuality can leave the state government owning dry land that’s not immediately next to a river or stream, blocking public access to the waterway.

The documentation process is also lengthy and costly, particularly since a sudden “avulsive event” can occur after many years of slow-moving “accretion,” and vice versa, said Ryan of DSL. “It’s complicated to figure out the history of what has happened.”

Due to the time and expense involved, the DSL has a backlog of about a dozen waterways that various organizations sought to have declared as publicly accessible, but which the agency lacks the resources to study, he said.

Under SB 74, the state government would be allowed to declare that a navigable waterway’s current course comes under public ownership, unless a landowner demands the determination to be backed up with the traditional  boundary documentation. The navigability determination would continue to apply regardless.

“If the property owner says, ‘No, no, no, that’s not where it should be,’ then we would follow the old process and do that historic analysis of that segment of the waterway,” Ryan said. “It’s a streamlining proposal but it doesn’t require anyone to accept the declaration to be where the waterway is today.”

Those provisions have not assuaged the fears of the Farm Bureau, which argues the bill’s provisions put the onus on landowners to prove a waterway shouldn’t be publicly owned.

“They dramatically expand state authority over submerged lands, threatening private property rights, agricultural water use and the stability of land ownership in Oregon,” said Krabill, the group’s government affairs manager.

Many small farmers can’t afford costly legal battles over waterway ownership, but if they chose to swap property with the state government, the bill doesn’t require an equal exchange of property values, he said.

“That doesn’t seem like a fair deal,” Krabill said.