Kramer v. City of Lake Oswego
446 P.3d 1, 365 Or. 422 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the public trust doctrine, the public has a right to enter navigable waters held in trust by the state from abutting public lands. A municipality may not unreasonably interfere with that right; any restrictions must be objectively reasonable in light of the trust's purpose and the surrounding circumstances.
Facts:
- An entity named Oregon Iron & Steel acquired all property surrounding a body of water, built dams to increase its size, and created a residential development around what is now known as Oswego Lake.
- The company reserved riparian rights for itself and later transferred them to the Lake Oswego Corporation, whose shareholders, primarily waterfront property owners, pay for access to the lake.
- The City of Lake Oswego owns four properties that abut the lake: three waterfront parks (Millennium Plaza Park, Sundeleaf Plaza, Headlee Walkway) and one swim park.
- The three waterfront parks are open to the public, but the City of Lake Oswego passed a resolution prohibiting any person from entering Oswego Lake from these parks.
- The swim park land was deeded to the city for use by resident children and is operated by the city as a small, enclosed swimming area open only to city residents during the summer.
- Plaintiffs, who are not shareholders of the Lake Oswego Corporation and have no private access, wish to use Oswego Lake for recreational activities like kayaking and swimming but are prevented by the city's restrictions at the public parks.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued the City of Lake Oswego, the State of Oregon, and the Lake Oswego Corporation in an Oregon trial court, seeking a declaratory judgment.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court, assuming for argument that the lake was a public waterway, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims.
- Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Oregon Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the public trust doctrine grant the public a right to enter a navigable waterway from abutting public parkland, thereby limiting a city's authority to prohibit such access?
Opinions:
Majority - Flynn, J.
Yes, if a waterway is held by the state under the public trust doctrine, the public's right to use that water includes a right of access from abutting public land. The public trust doctrine limits a city's authority to interfere with this right of access; any such restriction must be objectively reasonable. The court distinguished the public trust doctrine, which arises from state ownership of the underlying land, from the 'public use' doctrine, which is merely an easement to use the water itself and does not grant a right to cross private upland to reach it. Because cities are instrumentalities of the state, they are subject to the same common-law limitations on their authority as the state, including those imposed by the public trust doctrine. The court held that prohibiting access from public parks can be a 'substantial impairment' of the public's rights, and therefore the city's waterfront resolution is only valid if it is a reasonable restriction. The case was remanded for a factual determination of whether Oswego Lake is a public trust waterway and, if so, whether the city's prohibition on entry from its waterfront parks is reasonable under the circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the public trust doctrine in Oregon by establishing a public right of access to navigable waters from abutting public lands, a question previously unaddressed by the court. It clarifies that municipalities, as subdivisions of the state, are bound by the same public trust responsibilities and cannot enact restrictions that the state itself would be prohibited from imposing. By establishing a 'reasonableness' test for such restrictions, the court creates a framework for future legal challenges that will require a fact-intensive inquiry, making it more difficult for municipalities to summarily prohibit public access to waterways from public parks. This case will likely lead to further litigation to define the scope of 'reasonableness' and to determine the public trust status of other bodies of water in the state.
