Opinion ID: 1418227
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Application of the leasing program to port districts

Text: Finally, plaintiff port districts contend that even if the leasing program is generally valid, it cannot be applied to them because the legislature has delegated to them the power to use or dispose of the state-owned submerged and submersible lands within their boundaries. The Court of Appeals held that the legislature's delegation to the port districts of authority relating to navigation did not constitute a surrender of the state's power to charge rental for the use of state lands. This issue was correctly resolved in the Board's favor. In their petition for review, the plaintiff port districts stress the language of ORS 777.210(3), which authorizes the ports to acquire, construct, maintain or operate piers, wharves, docks, boat landings and other facilities with full power to lease and sell the same, together with the lands upon which they are situated, whether held by the port in its governmental capacity or not. Clearly, this authority to lease and sell the lands upon which navigational and other structures are situated is limited to those lands in which the ports have properly acquired the necessary interest. The statute simply grants to port districts the power to engage in activities of the kinds enumerated. It does not purport to be a grant of state lands for that purpose. The phrase whether held by the port in its governmental capacity or not was apparently intended to make it clear that the power to sell or lease port-owned facilities does not depend upon whether they are owned in a proprietary rather than a governmental capacity as was assumed in, for example, Dix v. Port Orford, 131 Or. 157, 282 P. 109 (1929). In ORS 777.120(1) each port is granted full control of all bays, rivers and harbors within its limits, and between its limits and the sea, to the full extent the State of Oregon might exercise control   . There is here no express delegation of authority to occupy or dispose of the state's lands, and we do not believe such a delegation was intended. The statute as a whole [16] discloses an intent to delegate to the ports only the state's power to regulate use of the navigable waters, not its proprietary interest in the lands under them. In summary, then, we hold that the Court of Appeals correctly resolved the issues in this case, with two exceptions. First, its holding that the state owns the navigable waters themselves in a proprietary capacity was not necessary to the resolution of this case. We express no opinion as to whether that conclusion is correct. Second, we hold that the Board is not estopped by the decisions of this court to collect rentals for the occupation of state lands by structures (other than wharves within the purview of the wharfing statute) which were placed on those lands prior to the institution of the leasing program. There is, therefore, no need to remand the case, as the Court of Appeals ordered, for determination of which plaintiffs are entitled to a period of rent-free use of the lands. In all other respects, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.