Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.785 (2026)

Placing offensive substances in waters, on highways or other property

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      164.785 Placing offensive substances in waters, on highways or other property. (1)(a) It is unlawful for any person, including a person in the possession or control of any land, to discard any dead animal carcass or part thereof, excrement, putrid, nauseous, noisome, decaying, deleterious or offensive substance into or in any other manner befoul, pollute or impair the quality of any spring, river, brook, creek, branch, well, irrigation drainage ditch, irrigation ditch, cistern or pond of water.

      (b)(A) In a prosecution under this subsection, it is a defense that:

      (i) The dead animal carcass that is discarded is a fish carcass;

      (ii) The person returned the fish carcass to the water from which the person caught the fish; and

      (iii) The person retained proof of compliance with any provisions regarding angling prescribed by the State Fish and Wildlife Commission pursuant to ORS 496.162.

      (B) As used in this paragraph, “fish carcass” means entrails, gills, head, skin, fins and backbone.

      (2) It is unlawful for any person to place or cause to be placed any polluting substance listed in subsection (1) of this section into any road, street, alley, lane, railroad right of way, lot, field, meadow or common. It is unlawful for an owner thereof to knowingly permit any polluting substances to remain in any of the places described in this subsection to the injury of the health or to the annoyance of any citizen of this state. Every 24 hours after conviction for violation of this subsection during which the violator permits the polluting substances to remain is an additional offense against this subsection.

      (3) Nothing in this section shall apply to the storage or spreading of manure or like substance for agricultural, silvicultural or horticultural purposes, except that no sewage sludge, septic tank or cesspool pumpings shall be used for these purposes unless treated and applied in a manner approved by the Department of Environmental Quality.

      (4) Violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

      (5) The Department of Environmental Quality may impose the civil penalty authorized by ORS 468.140 for violation of this section. [Formerly 449.105; 1983 c.257 §1; 1987 c.325 §1; 2013 c.132 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case: Ahern v. Kammerer (D. Or. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ahern v. Kammerer (D. Or. 2022). · cites it 7× “785(1) to determine whether spit was in the class of substances encompassed by the statute.”
Mignot v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 613 P.2d 86 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 6× “The question is, do tires constitute substances within the class described in subsection (1) of ORS 164.785? We hold that they do not. An examination of the items set out in ORS 164.”
State v. Carter, 955 P.2d 342 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “PER CURIAM Defendant was charged with two counts of unlawfully discarding dead animal carcasses, ORS 164.785, and two counts of failure to bury the carcass of a domestic animal, ORS 601.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.785(1) — 2 cases
Ahern v. Kammerer (D. Or. 2022). “785(1) to determine whether spit was in the class of substances encompassed by the statute.”
Mignot v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 613 P.2d 86 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “The question is, do tires constitute substances within the class described in subsection (1) of ORS 164.785? We hold that they do not. An examination of the items set out in ORS 164.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.785(2) — 2 cases
Ahern v. Kammerer (D. Or. 2022). “785(1) to determine whether spit was in the class of substances encompassed by the statute.”
Mignot v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 613 P.2d 86 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “The question is, do tires constitute substances within the class described in subsection (1) of ORS 164.785? We hold that they do not. An examination of the items set out in ORS 164.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.