Here we go again...thanks to Mr. Grensky -

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... WS/7070325

State officials have said they would work with owners of property where the river has changed course since 1859 and offer quitclaim deeds to property owners of land that once was in the river channel. If the river remains listed as non-navigable, river users could face heightened restrictions on access to the river banks, although the river itself would still be open to the public.

Hardy and his wife, Kathryn, were among eight property owners who had sued the state over the navigability debate. Other property owners included in the lawsuit which came before the court on April 5 following an administrative appeal are Idelle Colins, Craig Tompkins of Kirtland Farms, Mary and Cris Caldwell, Robert Malloy and retired actress Marilyn Kim Novak Malloy

So, now we know who the "bad guys" are.

The definition in question is not whether, or not, commercial shipping defines navagability for the Rogue. It is simply a question of greedy landowners grabbing at straws in order to privatize a section of the river for themselves. Realizing that when Gold Rey Dam comes down, the river will be open to anyone with guts enough to float it. And that includes beaching the boat to get out and wade/fish through their property. They do not like that one bit!

This whole thing should be thrown out as a frivolous law suit. And that also goes for the suit these same people have filed against the county for, allededly, not following their own rules. Furthermore, as I understand it, they are demanding the county re-imburse them their court costs, including lawyer fees, in the event they win. O.K. As long as it's understood that in the event they do not win, they pay the county for the court costs, including lawyers fees. Sounds fair enough to me.

We have a federal mandate, accompanied by $5M+ in funding, to take that dam out by the end of the year. I say let's take it down. And then let these nut cakes try to get it put back.

Dead on Jimmie, dead on!
Fred

Whether or not they are greedy landowners is irrelevant because that is not a matter of law. The judge has to rule on law, and he has stated that law is whether or not it has been commercially shipped (that is how I read the newspaper article at least).

Now isn't the issue of navagatibility complex, with a couple of different definitions depending on whether it is state, or federal?
Did a quick google ( only looked at a few links) and this seems to sum it up (that it does not matter if it has been navigated, even commercially, just needs to be able to be navigated. Thus it looks like the judge fudged up, but it must be more complex than this since I have no legal knowledge)

"The vast body of federal regulation concerning navigable waters frequently gives rise to litigation, and in many cases the courts have the difficult job of determining whether particular bodies of water are navigable (and thus subject to the law or regulation in question). Lakes and rivers are generally considered navigable waters, but smaller bodies of water may also be navigable. Attempting to address years of problematic litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 created four tests for determining what constitutes navigable waters. Established in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 100 S. Ct. 383, 62 L. Ed. 2d 332, the tests ask whether the body of water (1) is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, (2) connects with a continuous interstate waterway, (3) has navigable capacity, and (4) is actually navigable. Using these tests, courts have held that bodies of water much smaller than lakes and rivers also constitute navigable waters. Even shallow streams that are traversable only by canoe have met the test."

If a stream only navigable by a canoe has met the test, how can the judge say that the stream has to have been navigated by commercial SHIPS (which are dang large compared to a boat, and a boat can be many times larger than a canoe, but still be many times smaller than a "ship".

The judge is only required to rule on a law that is being contested. The state had declared the river navagable a couple of years ago. Law, or not. That would have been the end of it had this group of trouble makers not stepped in to muddy the waters by appealing the ruling. One then has to ask, why are they contesting this ruling? There is, to be sure, an ulterior motive.

The newspaper article is misleading (as they often are) regarding commercial shipping. The river had only to have been used, prior to statehood, as a(ny) means of conducting commerce. Thus, had I, at any time of year, transported trade goods on any stretch of the river, no matter how short, that section of river would be deemed navagable. It matters not whether I strapped them to a log, or put them on an ocean going vessel.

It has been well documented that the First Nation people did travel by boats on certain sections of the river. And, while doing so, the white settlers would take pot shots at them with their rifles. I cannot imagine putting one's life at risk for the simple pleasure (if indeed you could by any stretch of the imagination call it that) of taking on such an endeavor.

Rest assured this will not be the end of it. The saga will continue until all avenues have been exhausted.

Oregonsteel, et. al., there is but one legal definition of "navigable waterway" and your google search turned up that definition. The judge in this case made an erroneous ruling, ignoring case law that extends back to Oregon's entering statehood in 1859. Accepting the Federal definition of "navigable" waterways was in fact, a condition for Oregon (and all others) statehood. How this judge could so badly interpret law seems odd unless there is an activist component.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but the State merely reaffirmed the existing "navigable waterway" definition a couple years ago, giving river users the teeth they need to stand up for their right to use what is already public.
Landowners living next to public waterways and later, realtors who deal in those properties like to try to privatize public water over the years and start to think of it as their own. Unless the navigable waterway users stand up for their rights when and if challenged by the adjacent landowners, this same confusion will perpetuate itself. That a sitting judge should not be able to read the definition of "navigable waterway" and understand it is really remarkable. This same battle plays out all across the country over and over again.