Opinion ID: 1418227
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Propriety of the rental formula

Text: Plaintiffs' petition for review suggests that some confusion has resulted from the Court of Appeals' statement that the state is the owner of both the navigable waters and the underlying land. 30 Or. App. at 515-16, n. 7, 567 P.2d at 1042. Ownership of the water was apparently considered material because the Board, in calculating the amount of rental required for a particular structure, bases its calculation in part on the total amount of water surface area which is occupied rather than on the amount of bed area occupied by pilings, dolphins, or other structural features which actually touch the bed. It also appears from the record that at least some of plaintiffs' structures do not rest on the bed at all, but are anchored only to the adjoining privately-owned riparian land. Plaintiffs insist that it is the public, not the state in its proprietary capacity, which is the owner of the waters of the state. See ORS 537.110. We need not reach that question. We conclude, rather, that the parties' concern about the ownership of the water itself is misplaced, and that the Court of Appeals' ruling on that issue was not necessary. The state's ownership of the submerged and submersible lands alone is sufficient to justify the rental which the Board proposes to charge for occupation of the surface of the water. We are aware of no general principle which requires a lessor, whether public or private, to calculate rentals on any particular basis such as the amount of surface area physically in contact with structures. Assuming, although plaintiffs have not submitted any authority to this effect, that when the state is the lessor it must calculate its rentals on a reasonable basis, there is nothing unreasonable about basing that calculation on the amount of the state's land which is effectively occupied and thus unavailable for lease to others or for use by the public, whether or not that occupation is accomplished by physical contact with the land. Plaintiffs contend that this court, in Atkinson et al. v. Bernard, Inc., 223 Or. 624, 355 P.2d 229 (1960), rejected the theory that the owner of land also owns, and is entitled to exclude others from the space above that land. Atkinson was a suit for an injunction by landowners near an airport, seeking to prohibit takeoffs and landings over their property. The concern in that case was primarily with noise and vibrations caused by low-flying aircraft. We examined the theories available for analysis, rejected the privileged trespass approach to overflights by aircraft as formulated in Restatement, 1 Torts § 194 (1934), and held:    that whenever the aid of equity is sought to enjoin all or part of the operations of a private airport, including flights over the land of the plaintiff, the suit is for the abatement of a nuisance, and the law of nuisance rather than that of trespass applies. 223 Or. at 633, 355 P.2d at 233. See, also, Thornburg v. Port of Portland, 233 Or. 178, 376 P.2d 100 (1962), another airport noise case, in which compensation for an inverse condemnation was approved on a theory of nuisance rather than trespass. While Atkinson clearly held that a landowner may not prevent, as a trespass, every invasion of the airspace above his land, it did not hold that the owner's exclusive possessory rights were limited to the surface of the land itself. Both before and after that decision we have recognized a landowner's right to prevent permanent intrusions above the surface of the land but within the zone of normal use or occupancy. See, e.g., Austin v. Bloch, 165 Or. 116, 105 P.2d 868 (1940) (injunction properly granted to enjoin trespass by, among other intrusions, overhanging wall); Zerr v. Heceta Lodge No. 111, 269 Or. 174, 184, 523 P.2d 1018 (1974) (landowner entitled to removal of encroachment in form of overhanging eaves). We need not determine in this case how far above the surface of the land the owner's right of exclusive possession extends. See generally, VI-A American Law of Property, § 28.4 (Casner ed 1954). The owner of the bed of a river is certainly entitled to prevent permanent structures on the surface of the water which preclude other uses of the bed, whether or not they actually rest on the bed itself. We hold, then, that the state, by virtue of its ownership of the submerged and submersible land under navigable waters, has the power to require leases and the payment of rent for the occupation of those lands, and has delegated that power to the Board. We further hold that the basis upon which the Board calculates the rentals has not been shown to be improper.