Opinion ID: 1190882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: ) Inapplicability of Beach Bills

Text: The 1967 Oregon legislature took a major step in preserving the public's access to and use of the Oregon beaches when it enacted the first Oregon Beach Bill, Or. Laws 1967, ch. 601. The purposes of the measure were expressed in sections 1, and 2(1) and (2) (codified as ORS 390.610(1), (2), and (3) (1967)): (1) The Legislative Assembly hereby declares it is the public policy of the State of Oregon to forever preserve and maintain the sovereignty of the state heretofore existing over the seashore and ocean beaches of the state from the Columbia River on the North to the Oregon-California line on the South so that the public may have the free and uninterrupted use thereof. (2) The Legislative Assembly recognizes that over the years the public has made frequent and uninterrupted use of lands abutting, adjacent and contiguous to the public highways and state recreation areas and recognizes, further, that where such use has been sufficient to create easements in the public through dedication, prescription, grant or otherwise, that it is in the public interest to protect and preserve such public easements as a permanent part of Oregon's recreational resources. (3) Accordingly, the Legislative Assembly hereby declares that all public rights and easements in those lands described in subsection (2) of this section are confirmed and declared vested exclusively in the State of Oregon   . Section 5 of the same measure went on to provide that, in order to protect the public's interest in the areas described in ORS 390.610, no person shall, except as provided in [a construction permit system provided in section 6 of the Act, codified as] ORS 390.650, erect, make or place any appurtenance, structure or improvement on any property that is within the area along the Pacific Ocean located between the extreme low tide and the elevation of 16 feet following natural topographic contour lines. Thus, the legislature had created a restrictive zoning provision designed to keep abutting land owners from building anything that would interfere with the public's enjoyment of the ocean beaches. See State Highway v. Fultz, 261 Or. 289, 491 P.2d 1171 (1972). The legislature apparently considered the 16-foot elevation line to roughly correspond to the permanent vegetation line east of the Pacific shore. The legislature recognized, however, that the 16-foot elevation line designation might not prove satisfactory. It therefore directed the State Highway Commission to survey Oregon's Pacific shoreline and to report back to the next legislative session. Or. Laws 1967, ch. 601, § 11. The State Highway Commission did report back with a survey, which the Legislative Assembly then enacted into law. Or. Laws 1969, ch. 601, § 8 (codified as ORS 390.770); Or. Laws 1969, ch. 601, § 2. The legislature also amended ORS 390.610(1), (2), and (3) to their present form (deleted language is shown in brackets; added language is underlined): (1) The Legislative Assembly hereby declares it is the public policy of the State of Oregon to forever preserve and maintain the sovereignty of the state heretofore legally existing over the [seashore and] ocean [beaches] shore of the state from the Columbia River on the North to the Oregon-California line on the South so that the public may have the free and uninterrupted use thereof. (2) The Legislative Assembly recognizes that over the years the public has made frequent and uninterrupted use of the ocean shore [lands abutting, adjacent and contiguous to the public highways and state recreation areas] and recognizes, further, that where such use has been legally sufficient to create rights or easements in the public through dedication, prescription, grant or otherwise, that it is in the public interest to protect and preserve such public rights or easements as a permanent part of Oregon's recreational resources. (3) Accordingly, the Legislative Assembly hereby declares that all public rights [and] or easements legally acquired in those lands described in subsection (2) of this section are confirmed and declared vested exclusively in the State of Oregon   . Or. Laws 1969, ch. 601, § 4. Finally, the legislature also amended former ORS 390.710(2) (recodified as ORS 390.605(2)) to provide the following definition of ocean shore: `Ocean shore' means the land lying between extreme low tide of the Pacific Ocean and the line of vegetation as established and described by ORS 390.770. Nothing in either the 1967 or the 1969 measure suggests that the legislature intended, by its enactment, to acquire for the state any interest not already vested in the public. Similarly, nothing in either measure fairly could be said to indicate any intention on the part of the legislature to waive or surrender any right the public might have acquired in areas not specifically covered by the metes and bounds description found in ORS 390.770. The effect of the 1969 amendments simply was to clarify the intended scope of the earlier Beach Bill and to provide specific coordinates that the legislature believed would approximate the permanent vegetation line for zoning purposes. [9] In the present case, however, defendants at one point in their pleadings alleged as an affirmative defense to the state's assertion of a public interest in Little Whale Cove that the cove did not lie within the metes and bounds set out in ORS 390.770: ORS 390.605, et seq., (hereinafter the `Oregon Beach Bill'), enacted in 1967 and amended in 1969, reserves designated areas of the ocean shore for public recreational use. Little Whale Cove is not designated for public use under the Oregon Beach Bill and therefore is not subject to the public recreational rights herein asserted. Defendants' Amended Answer to Intervenor's First Amended Complaint, first affirmative defense, paragraph 14. The state responded by moving for summary judgment as to this affirmative defense. In essence, it argued that the source of the public's right to Little Whale Cove (if there was such a right) arose not out of the Beach Bill but out of the common law and State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay, supra . The state noted, The State is willing to stipulate that some portion of Little Whale Cove is located landward of the statutory vegetation line [ i.e., to the east of the line established by ORS 390.770].         [But] the State [does seek]    a judgment that the Beach Bill, does not, by its statutory vegetation line, extinguish common law public rights existing up to the actual vegetation line in any location on the Oregon Coast where there is a discrepancy between the two lines. Intervenor's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 13 n 6 (emphasis added). The trial court granted the state's motion for summary judgment as to this issue. The case was therefore tried without reference to the Beach Bill, on the assumption that the bill did not, by its terms, purport to govern Little Whale Cove. Having no independent way of verifying the geographic assumptions involved, we assume (as, apparently, did the trial court and the parties) that the Beach Bill is not pertinent to our decision in this case. [10] We return to consideration of those factual and legal questions that are pertinent.