A state agency says Oregon's newest land-use law will drastically reduce the number of houses built in the countryside.

Instead of seeing as many as 100,000 houses built in a wave of rural development, the state will see about 13,000, according to a report to the Legislature.

Oregon voters have passed two major rural land-use bills in recent years. Measure 37 opened up the potential for large numbers of new rural homes, but Measure 49 restricted it.

With the passage of Measure 49 last year, landowners are reducing the scope of rural development, and lawsuits are dropping out of the court system, said Richard Whitman, director of the state Department of Land Conservation and Development.

Measure 37 gave landowners waivers from land-use laws that were imposed after they bought their property — if the rules also restricted the property's use and reduced its value.

More than 6,600 claims were filed with the state, most of them seeking to build subdivisions on farm and forest land outside of urban growth boundaries.

Many property owners said they filed extensive claims — 100 lots on 100 acres and a house on each, for example — merely to preserve future development rights.

Measure 49 gave landowners three options: build one to three homes under an "express" option, build as many as 10 homes by documenting how much land-use laws had reduced their property's value, or complete a Measure 37 project by proving they'd spent enough money and done enough work to have a "vested right" to finish it.

The state gave claimants 90 days to choose an option. The last responses are due this week. Of the 4,022 responses returned by mid-June, 91 percent chose the express route, Whitman told legislators.

But 1,258 property owners didn't respond at all, essentially giving up the chance to develop their property.

"There are quite a few people who just said, 'Forget it, every time we get something back it's taken away from us,' " said David Hunnicutt, president of Oregonians in Action. The property-rights group sponsored Measure 37 in 2004 and opposed Measure 49.

"What I've counseled people is that the very worst thing you can do with Measure 49 is nothing, that if they don't turn in their Measure 49 claim they're not going to get anything," he said.