Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 196.805 (2026)

Policy

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

      196.805 Policy. (1) The protection, conservation and best use of the water resources of this state are matters of the utmost public concern. Streams, lakes, bays, estuaries and other bodies of water in this state, including not only water and materials for domestic, agricultural and industrial use but also habitats and spawning areas for fish, avenues for transportation and sites for commerce and public recreation, are vital to the economy and well-being of this state and its people. Unregulated removal of material from the beds and banks of the waters of this state may create hazards to the health, safety and welfare of the people of this state. Unregulated filling in the waters of this state for any purpose, may result in interfering with or injuring public navigation, fishery and recreational uses of the waters. In order to provide for the best possible use of the water resources of this state, it is desirable to centralize authority in the Director of the Department of State Lands, and implement control of the removal of material from the beds and banks or filling of the waters of this state.

      (2) The director shall take into consideration all beneficial uses of water including streambank protection when administering fill and removal statutes.

      (3) There shall be no condemnation, inverse condemnation, other taking, or confiscating of property under ORS 196.600 to 196.921 without due process of law. [Formerly 541.610 and then 196.675; 2003 c.738 §16; 2012 c.108 §7]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2007–2020 · leading case: Bridgeview Vineyards, Inc. v. State Land Bd., 154 P.3d 734 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
Bridgeview Vineyards, Inc. v. State Land Bd., 154 P.3d 734 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Here, the legislature has stated its policy regarding fill and removal in ORS 196.805(1), which provides, in part: “The protection, conservation and best use of the water resources of this state are matters of the utmost public concern.”
Examilotis v. Dep't of State Lands, 244 P.3d 880 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “815 if the director determines that the removal described in the application will not be inconsistent with the protection, conservation and best use of the water resources of this state as specified in ORS 196.805.[ 2 ] “(2) The director shall issue a permit applied for under…”
Examilotis v. Dept. of State Lands, 244 P.3d 880 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “815 if the director determines that the removal described in the application will not be inconsistent with the protection, conservation and best use of the water resources of this state as specified in ORS 196.805.[ [2] ] *884 "(2) The director shall issue a permit applied for…”
Bridgeview Vineyards, Inc. v. Oregon State Land Bd., 309 P.3d 1103 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “DSL is required to follow this manual in making wetland determinations under ORS 196.805(4). “4) Was the area of the January 1999 repair on the site of an existing farm road? If so, was the existing farm road on exclusive farm use zoned lands? DSL has admitted this fact in…”
Coos Waterkeeper v. Port of Coos Bay Oregon, 395 P.3d 14 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “Finally, ORS 196.805, which sets out the general policy underlying DSLs authority to issue fill/removal permits, reflects a focus on development that necessitates fill and removal activity.”
Citizens for Responsible Dev. in the Dalles v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 433 P.3d 364 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “610 (1977), renumbered as ORS 196.805 (1989). 2 It then turned to the statute that listed the considerations that DSL must address before issuing a permit.”
Citizens for Resp. Devel. in The Dalles v. Walmart, 461 P.3d 956 (Or. 2020). · cites it 2× “825(5) provides, in relevant part, that, “[i]f the director issues a permit, the director may impose such conditions as the director considers neces- sary to carry out the purposes of ORS 196.805 and 196.830 and subsection (1) of this section and to provide mitigation for the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 196.805(1) — 6 cases
Bridgeview Vineyards, Inc. v. State Land Bd., 154 P.3d 734 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “Here, the legislature has stated its policy regarding fill and removal in ORS 196.805(1), which provides, in part: “The protection, conservation and best use of the water resources of this state are matters of the utmost public concern.”
Examilotis v. Dep't of State Lands, 244 P.3d 880 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “815 if the director determines that the removal described in the application will not be inconsistent with the protection, conservation and best use of the water resources of this state as specified in ORS 196.805.[ 2 ] “(2) The director shall issue a permit applied for under…”
Examilotis v. Dept. of State Lands, 244 P.3d 880 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “815 if the director determines that the removal described in the application will not be inconsistent with the protection, conservation and best use of the water resources of this state as specified in ORS 196.805.[ [2] ] *884 "(2) The director shall issue a permit applied for…”
Citizens for Responsible Dev. in the Dalles v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 433 P.3d 364 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “610 (1977), renumbered as ORS 196.805 (1989). 2 It then turned to the statute that listed the considerations that DSL must address before issuing a permit.”
Coos Waterkeeper v. Port of Coos Bay Oregon, 395 P.3d 14 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Finally, ORS 196.805, which sets out the general policy underlying DSLs authority to issue fill/removal permits, reflects a focus on development that necessitates fill and removal activity.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 196.805(4) — 1 case
Bridgeview Vineyards, Inc. v. Oregon State Land Bd., 309 P.3d 1103 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “DSL is required to follow this manual in making wetland determinations under ORS 196.805(4). “4) Was the area of the January 1999 repair on the site of an existing farm road? If so, was the existing farm road on exclusive farm use zoned lands? DSL has admitted this fact in…”
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.