Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Ownership Historically Filled Lands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears competing views on resolving ownership of historically filled lands
Summary
Testimony on Senate Bill 165 focused on ending most state ownership claims to historically filled lands created before 1963, while preserving state claims for higher‑value lands in city limits zoned commercial, industrial, or marine industrial.
Chair Senator Floyd Prozanski opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 165, which would limit and clarify the State of Oregon—s pursuit of ownership in historically filled lands — lands created by filling publicly owned waterways prior to 1963.
The nut graf — SB 165 seeks a final, pragmatic resolution: it would terminate the state's ability to pursue ownership claims for most historically filled lands while retaining the state—s claim for filled lands inside city limits that are zoned commercial, industrial, or marine industrial. The bill would also require the Department of State Lands to record a county‑level notice summarizing potentially historically filled lands no later than Dec. 31, 2028.
Department of State Lands (DSL) staff described implementation history and the reasons for the proposed change. "The bill limits the state ownership claim to specific type of historically filled lands," said Chris Castelli, deputy director of land management for DSL, adding that lands within city limits and zoned commercial/industrial/marine industrial have the "highest potential value and greatest benefit for the people of Oregon." Bill Ryan, DSL Deputy Director of Aquatic Resource Management, said DSL conducted targeted studies (Chetco, Tillamook, Siletz, and segments of the Lower Columbia) and found that identifying and litigating claims often costs more than the parcels' value.
Opponents representing landowner and industry groups urged the committee to preserve the 2015 framework (Senate Bill 912). Dave Honeycutt of the Oregon Property Owners Association said the 2015 law was the product of a long stakeholder process and warned that SB 165 would "walk that agreement back a little bit," reopening uncertainty for high‑value, city‑front properties. Rich Armstrong of the Oregon Concrete Aggregate Producers Association also opposed the change and said one provision of SB 165 misstated historical title lines and needs cleanup in drafting.
Committee members questioned how SB 165 would "remove uncertainty" while leaving exceptions in place for city‑zoned lands. Senator Thatcher asked whether removing the 2025 deadline for certain lands would increase uncertainty for those parcels; DSL staff confirmed those lands would remain within the state's potential claim and therefore not be covered by the deadline relief.
DSL officials said the bill includes a technical amendment to correct drafting errors and that implementation costs would be absorbable within DSL's current budget for fiscal years 2025–27. DSL emphasized the measure is intended to resolve title uncertainty for the majority of private landowners while protecting public interests for higher‑value waterfront parcels. Witnesses asked the committee to direct the agency and stakeholders to continue discussions on the technical amendment; the chair encouraged parties to meet and report back.
No formal committee vote was taken on SB 165 during the hearing. The record shows substantive disagreement over whether removing the deadline for selected high‑value parcels is consistent with the stakeholder agreement reached in 2015 (SB 912). The committee left the record open for continued agency‑stakeholder discussions and possible amendments.
