Judge defers decision on Waldo

Gas-and diesel-powered boats will be banned from the lake in three months absent a ruling in the federal court case

With a ban on gas-powered motors on Waldo Lake three months away, Eugene timber heir Steven Stewart is waging an inch-by-inch battle in federal court to block the ban and retain his right to putt across the Cascade lake’s pristine waters.

On Wednesday, U.S. Magistrate Thomas Coffin presided over about a half-dozen attorney contentions that the court should dismiss the other side’s case because the facts — for and against — were obvious.

But after about two hours, the only thing obvious was that a half-dozen obscure federal laws and constitutional principles that each side had rallied did not add up to a clear ruling for the judge.

County Commissioner Faye Stewart, who was in the courtroom to observe his cousin’s defense of gas- or diesel-powered boats — and what the family believes is Oregon’s ownership of Waldo Lake — said he couldn’t tell which way Coffin was leaning.

“There were interesting questions from the judge to both parties,” he said.

Coffin put off a decision and, instead, offered attorneys an additional two weeks to submit briefs on court interpretations of a particular statute, followed by an additional week to submit a counterargument to the other side’s brief.

Without a ruling, the U.S. Forest Service is preparing to enforce the motorboat ban, which the agency adopted two years ago after a lengthy public process that determined the lake should be managed as a “semi-primitive, non-motorized experience.” Boats powered by electric motors are not subject to the ban.

“We know this is something that the majority of users have wanted for a long time, and so we expect good compliance,” Forest Service spokeswoman Judy McHugh said.

McHugh said the Forest Service would, first, emphasize compliance through education. Under law, the maximum possible penalty is six months in jail and/or a $5,000 fine, she said.

The lake is popular with kayakers, canoeists and all manner of other boat paddlers, along with campers who flock to the shore. About 5 percent of Waldo Lake’s visitors use boats with gas-powered engines, according to Forest Service documents.

But Stewart, son of the late timberman “Stub” Stewart, who also fought the motor ban, said in court records that he has plied the waters on the 8-mile-long lake since he was a boy and has always been protective of its waters.

“At my own expense, I have used my personal 14-foot wood boat powered by a 4-cycle outboard motor and have rented a 24-foot aluminum pontoon boat powered by a 4-cycle outboard motor to conduct informal ‘grand tours’ of the lake. My purpose was to introduce and educate friends, family and influential private citizens to the Lake to emphasize its preservation,” Steven Stewart said in written testimony.

Stewart also wrote that he tours the lake to picnic and to pick wild huckleberries. His attorney argued that a motorboat ban would deprive Stewart of much, including huckleberries as a food supplement.

On Wednesday, Edelman public relations professional Chuck Deister — who said he was volunteering as a friend to represent Stewart — said that Stewart had no comment on the case.

The major arguments during Wednesday’s hearing were about which government owns the lake bed, who can determine who owns the lake bed, which federal laws prescribe how to determine who owns the lake bed and whether the Forest Service can enforce a motor boat ban, no matter who owns the lake bed.

Coffin praised attorneys on both sides of the argument for the elegance of their briefs and their verbal arguments.

The judge and the attorneys proposed various scenarios about how lake ownership might play out.

If a boater tossed a soda can over the side, the judge asked, could a federal ranger cite the boater for littering if it’s true that the state owns the lake bed and controls the surface of the water?

Stewart’s attorney answered no, except, maybe, under the assumption that the soda can might drift to shore, which the Forest Service owns without dispute.

Pete Frost, an environmental attorney representing fly fishermen in the case, asked, What if someone were standing on the shore, setting off M-80 explosives. What if the culprit then stepped into the water? Could a ranger arrest him?

Coffin asked whether the Forest Service could ban lake users from transporting a gas-powered engine over its property to the lake, which would have the same effect as a gas-powered motor ban.

Stewart’s attorney said that would depend on who owned the road and adjacent property in 1859, when the state of Oregon was created.

The arguments could go on and on and on, Frost said.

“Stewart would have to prove that the Forest Service doesn’t own the road,” Frost said. “It’s just nuts. Who is paying for all of this?”