Guest Post: Who Owns the Riverbank? Why Senate Bill 74 Matters to Oregon Landowners

The following post is written by Victoria Reiners, a second-year law student at Lewis & Clark Law School and OPOA’s Legal Extern for the semester. We are thrilled to have Victoria in the office and are excited to see how she continues advocating for private property rights into the future! 

Imagine this: You wake up one morning, step outside with your coffee, and realize your riverfront property just got a little… bigger. Or maybe smaller. The river shifted, like it sometimes does, and you’re left wondering: “Does that new sandbar belong to me or the State of Oregon?”

Welcome to the wonderfully murky world of accretion, avulsion, and navigability law. It’s not just water law wonks and surveyors who should care. If you own land along a river in Oregon, or ever hope to, then Senate Bill 74 (and its latest amendments) just might affect your backyard, front yard, or space to fish.

Let’s break it down in plain English.

First, What the Heck Is Accretion?

Accretion is nature’s slow and steady land-building process. Over time, rivers and streams shift, sediment gets deposited, shorelines move, and before you know it, the edge of your property has expanded like bread rising in the oven. In legal terms, that added land? Yours. Congratulations.

But there’s a catch, if that river shifted suddenly, say during a flood or major storm, that’s called avulsion. And the land that disappears (or reappears) in a flash? That’s not yours. The law says it stays in the hands of whoever owned it before the big shakeup.

Now imagine trying to figure out whether a river moved slowly over decades…or got nudged in a storm back in 1882. That’s the reality the state has faced every time it tries to decide who owns the bed and banks of Oregon’s rivers.

Enter Senate Bill 74 (a.k.a. “Let’s Try to Make This Easier For Navigable Waterways”)

The Department of State Lands (DSL) oversees the state’s claim to navigable waterways, the rivers and streams considered public property. The idea is to protect public access and ensure fair use for things like fishing, boating, and commerce.

But under current law, before the state can officially say, “Hey, we own this part of the river,” it has to prove two things.  First, DSL must demonstrate that the segment of the waterway in question was navigable at the time Oregon became a state in 1859.  Determining navigability is a complicated, fact based, historical test that is the subject for another article, not this one.  SB 74 only applies to navigable waterways, not non-navigable waterways, so if two neighbors are fighting over the property boundary along a small creek, SB 74 won’t apply.

If DSL is asserting title for the state, in addition to having to prove the waterway was navigable at statehood, if a waterway has shifted over time, DSL must also demonstrate, mile by mile, whether the riverbed moved by accretion or avulsion. That means digging through over 165 years of geological history. No, really. It’s like a legal detective novel with footnotes and flood maps. Some of which may be too difficult to pan through or read, some may not exist, and some may show the state owned your land 100 years ago, but what does that mean for your land and the riverbank now?

SB 74 proposes a simpler approach: Let the state go ahead and claim the current riverbed and submersible lands, where the water actually is today, without always needing to prove exactly how it got there.

Sounds efficient, right?

Property Owners: We See the Red Flags Too

Let’s get real, when legislation comes along promising to “streamline” anything, it’s natural to raise an eyebrow, especially if you own property along one of Oregon’s many rivers. Senate Bill 74 (SB 74) set out with good intentions: reduce litigation between the state and upland property owners, clarify ownership, and avoid long, costly battles over who owns what when rivers change course. But the first version of the bill missed a pretty critical step, actually protecting the rights of the people who live on and pay taxes for that land.

The original language of SB 74 allowed the state to presume that accretion had occurred, that is, land was added gradually by the movement of a river, and then automatically claim that land as its own. Worse, the state could do this without notifying the property owner or conducting a full, fact-specific ownership analysis. In plain terms: your land could’ve been reclassified as state property overnight, and you might not even know until you ran into trouble selling it, developing it, or defending it.

That’s a huge problem. It creates murky, clouded titles, undermines confidence in private property ownership, and blurs the lines between what’s yours and what the state thinks is theirs. For rural landowners, farmers, and everyday Oregonians, that uncertainty isn’t just frustrating, it’s a threat to livelihoods.

The Oregon Property Owners Association (OPOA) isn’t against efficiency or good governance. In fact, we’re all for avoiding unnecessary lawsuits and bureaucratic red tape. But never, not once, should efficiency come at the cost of your constitutional property rights. That’s why we’ve stepped in to advocate for a more balanced version of SB 74, one that respects common sense and common law.

What’s Changing? (We Can’t Say Everything… Yet)

Here’s what we can share: the revised version of SB 74 includes significant improvements. The changes, aim to correct the bill’s most dangerous provisions.

Under the -6 amendment:

• No more surprise land grabs. Before the state can assert ownership over river-adjacent property due to accretion or navigability claims, they must get landowner consent or provide formal notice.
• No more assumptions without investigation. Unless the state and the property owner both agree, the state will no longer be able to “deem” ownership without conducting a full analysis and respecting existing title records.
• No shortcuts around due process. Landowners will have a voice and a role in any proceeding that could impact their property interests.

In essence, these changes signal a move away from unilateral state action and toward cooperative, transparent processes that keep you, the landowner, in the loop.

What If You Live Next to a River in Oregon?

If your land borders a river, here’s why you should be paying attention to SB 74:

Rivers are dynamic, they change course over time. When they do, ownership boundaries can shift.  If the state claims the waterway in front of your property is navigable, then you may have to fight the government.

In its improved form, SB 74 still addresses these complex issues, but without leaving you in the dark. You’ll now have the opportunity to:

• Be notified if the state is planning to assert new boundaries.
• Participate in the process if there’s a dispute over ownership.
• Avoid unnecessary litigation by working with the state to clarify or swap deeds, fix boundaries, and ensure your title stays clear.

And if you’re planning to sell or develop your land and are willing to agree that the waterway moved slowly over time through accretion, these updates could actually make your life easier by speeding up the process to resolve ownership issues, reducing title insurance issues, avoiding last-minute surprises at closing, and giving you more certainty over what’s yours.

Bottom Line: We’re Advocating for Balance

At the end of the day, SB 74 can work, if it’s done right. The changes we’re supporting are about finding balance: protecting the public interest without trampling individual rights. We believe landowners shouldn’t be blindsided by government decisions, and the state shouldn’t be operating on assumptions where property rights are concerned.

That’s why OPOA will keep fighting for thoughtful, legally sound reforms that serve both the public and the people who actually live and work on Oregon’s land. Because your rights don’t stop where the river starts.

The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not represent the opinions or positions of any party represented by the OPOA Legal Center on any particular matter.