Tuesday, February 14

Sam Adams is on Yelp

News The other day I noticed a curious tweet from our venerable mayor's Twitter account:Yes, Sam is tweet... More

Feb 13, 2012 01:20 pm by RUTH BROWN  | Comments 1
 

Doctor Groups Flex Muscle In Capitol: $2.3 Million in Campaign Cash to Influence Health-Care Reform

News The State Capitol has been abuzz the last couple of days because of a hot list (PDF) circulating in ... More

Feb 10, 2012 06:00 pm by NIGEL JAQUISS  | Comments 4
 

Nonsense Knows No State Boundary: Washington Legislators Get Bogus Job Claims on CRC

News Up north of here, Washington legislators in Olympia are debating whether or not they should authoriz... More

Feb 10, 2012 09:09 am  | Comments 1
 

Occupy Arrestees Win Their Right to Full Trials—Even Though They May Not Need It

News The estimated 160 people arrested during Occupy Portland protests in the past five months have won t... More

Feb 9, 2012 01:24 pm by HANNAH HOFFMAN  | Comments 3
 
 
 
Home · Articles · News · Letters to the Editor · LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
June 15th, 2005 WW Editorial Staff | Letters to the Editor
 

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

6/15/2005

1 Comments
     
Tags:
Boat Missed, Facts Omitted

Aside from the part that neither side likes the bill, the boat was missed in your recently published article about Senate Bill 1028 ["Surf, Turf Oppose Rivers Bill," June 8, 2005]. Worse than that, key facts were omitted that will mislead the public as to what this bill can and likely will do if passed.

By focusing on the navigability study process as the sole source of river-use rights, existing federal law and the Public Use Doctrine were completely ignored. By skipping those, you do not provide full disclosure of what the public's current rights are to use our rivers, especially those that have not had a formal navigability study.

The recent attorney general's written opinion on this subject gives a clear interpretation of the rights that we already have. After reviewing that, it becomes clear that SB 1028 doesn't give any new rights or even clarify existing ones, as the bill sponsors promise. It simply establishes a new bureaucracy with the power to systematically restrict our ability to use the rivers. Section 4 of SB 1028 has language that is very clear regarding the new authority to implement restrictions on how, or even if, we can continue our waterways.Ę

It appears to me that Willamette Week did not follow through with the research and investigation that you're known for. I urge you to do further research on this topic and print a new article. Next time you can lay out our current rights accurately, then review the clauses in SB 1028 that give blanket authority to reduce those rights. Heck, you might even want to point out some of the immediate restrictions, such as the special exemption that would make sections of the world-famous Metolius River off-limits from day one.

Barry J. Kundert
Sherwood

Editor's Note: WW's story should have included the state attorney general's opinion on this issue, as well as a more comprehensive history of river rights in Oregon. If you really want to see us getting blasted, go to www.wweek.com and see the Story Forum posts on this story.

clarification

An item in last week's Winners and Losers about Multnomah County jail inmates failed to include that the city will pay for 57 new jail beds and that the county will also get another 22 jail beds, both as of July 1.

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 
 

 

 
06.26.2005 at 09:00 Reply
jail bedsyeah but it took alot of media hype + 2 sweeps, 1 public forum, & a "meth congress" for the county to cough up the funds for the beds...the city was game but the stingy county wasn't going to kick down the $$ -- notice how quick they are to bump up their salaries thought! Also, one of the "final priorities" summarized from the"meth congress" include adding two (2) prosecutors to the payroll for a meer $220K !!! —SATURATED NEWSREADER

 

 
 

Web Design for magazines

Close
Close
Close