## Facts

- Oswego Lake is largely bordered by private residential property; a private corporation held title to most of the lakebed and controlled much of the lake’s access.
- The City of Lake Oswego owned three waterfront parks abutting the lake; two lacked physical water access, and the third had steps to the shoreline.
- The city adopted and enforced policies prohibiting the public from entering the lake from any of the city-owned waterfront parks.
- The city also operated a swim park on donated lakefront land; the donation required that the swim park be limited to city residents.
- Two members of the public sought to swim and recreate on the lake and brought a declaratory-judgment action alleging that the city’s policies (and the state’s acquiescence) unlawfully restricted public rights in the lake.
- The trial court and Court of Appeals assumed, without deciding, that the lake was subject to the public trust doctrine, but granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims.

## Issues

1. If the lake is subject to the public trust doctrine, may the city prohibit the public from entering the lake from city-owned waterfront parks, or would that be an unreasonable interference with public trust rights?
2. Do the public trust doctrine or a claimed public use doctrine require the city to allow public entry to the lake from the city’s waterfront parks?
3. Do the public trust doctrine or a claimed public use doctrine require the city to open a residents-only swim park to the general public as a point of lake access?
4. Do the residents-only swim park rules and related access restrictions violate Oregon Constitution Article I, section 20 (equal privileges and immunities)?

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment for defendants on the Article I, section 20 claim.
- Affirmed summary judgment for defendants on the claim that public trust or public use doctrines required access through the residents-only swim park.
- Affirmed summary judgment for defendants on the public use doctrine claim as to access from the waterfront parks.
- Reversed summary judgment on the public trust doctrine claim to the extent plaintiffs sought to enter the lake from the city’s waterfront parks.
- Remanded for (1) a determination whether the lake is a navigable waterway subject to the public trust doctrine and, if so, (2) a factual determination whether the city’s park-based access restrictions unreasonably interfered with public trust rights.

## Legal Principles

- Public trust rights, if applicable, attach to navigable waters and the state’s related interests in submerged and submersible lands; the doctrine does not create a general right to cross privately owned uplands to reach the water.
- A municipality lacks authority to impose restrictions that the state, as trustee, would be barred from imposing under the public trust doctrine; municipal regulation of adjacent public land cannot indirectly defeat public trust rights.
- Whether an access restriction constitutes an “unreasonable interference” with public trust rights is context-dependent and may require factual findings, including the degree of impairment of public use and any legitimate public purposes served by the restriction.
- A residents-only condition on a municipally operated swim facility located on donated upland property does not become invalid merely because the facility is adjacent to a waterbody; the public trust doctrine does not require that such a facility be opened as a public access point.
- Residency-based limits on use of a municipal recreational facility do not, without more, establish a violation of Oregon Constitution Article I, section 20.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court held that neither the public trust doctrine nor any public use theory compelled the city to provide lake access through a residents-only swim park, and it rejected the state constitutional equal-privileges challenge; however, it remanded for determination whether the lake is subject to the public trust doctrine and, if so, whether the city’s prohibition on entering the lake from city-owned waterfront parks unreasonably interferes with public trust rights.


Kramer v. City of Lake Oswego, 365 Or. 422, 446 P.3d 1 (2019)