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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040 (2026)

Duties of commission; rules

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

      197.040 Duties of commission; rules. (1) The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall:

      (a) Direct the performance by the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development and the director’s staff of their functions under ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A.

      (b) In accordance with the provisions of ORS chapter 183, adopt rules that it considers necessary to carry out ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A. Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, in designing its administrative requirements, the commission shall:

      (A) Allow for the diverse administrative and planning capabilities of local governments;

      (B) Consider the variation in conditions and needs in different regions of the state and encourage regional approaches to resolving land use problems;

      (C) Assess what economic and property interests will be, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed rule;

      (D) Assess the likely degree of economic impact on identified property and economic interests; and

      (E) Assess whether alternative actions are available that would achieve the underlying lawful governmental objective and would have a lesser economic impact.

      (c)(A) Adopt by rule in accordance with ORS chapter 183 or by goal under ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A any statewide land use policies that it considers necessary to carry out ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A.

      (B) Adopt by rule in accordance with ORS chapter 183 any procedures necessary to carry out ORS 215.402 (4)(b) and 227.160 (2)(b).

      (C) Review decisions of the Land Use Board of Appeals and land use decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court within 120 days of the date the decisions are issued to determine if goal or rule amendments are necessary.

      (d) Cooperate with the appropriate agencies of the United States, this state and its political subdivisions, any other state, any interstate agency, any person or groups of persons with respect to land conservation and development.

      (e) Appoint advisory committees to aid it in carrying out ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A and provide technical and other assistance, as it considers necessary, to each such committee.

      (2) Pursuant to ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A, the commission shall:

      (a) Adopt, amend and revise goals consistent with regional, county and city concerns;

      (b) Prepare, collect, provide or cause to be prepared, collected or provided land use inventories;

      (c) Prepare statewide planning guidelines;

      (d) Review comprehensive plans for compliance with goals;

      (e) Coordinate planning efforts of state agencies to assure compliance with goals and compatibility with city and county comprehensive plans;

      (f) Insure widespread citizen involvement and input in all phases of the process;

      (g) Review and recommend to the Legislative Assembly the designation of areas of critical state concern;

      (h) Report periodically to the Legislative Assembly and to the committee;

      (i) Review the land use planning responsibilities and authorities given to the state, regions, counties and cities, review the resources available to each level of government and make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly to improve the administration of the statewide land use program; and

      (j) Perform other duties required by law.

      (3) The requirements of subsection (1)(b) of this section shall not be interpreted as requiring an assessment for each lot or parcel that could be affected by the proposed rule. [1973 c.80 §§9,11; 1977 c.664 §5; 1981 c.748 §22; 1991 c.817 §19; 1993 c.792 §51; 1995 c.299 §1; 2009 c.873 §2]

 

      Note: Sections 1 and 2, chapter 597, Oregon Laws 2025, provide:

      Sec. 1. Rules for nature-based solutions for shoreline stabilization. (1) On or before January 1, 2028, the Land Conservation and Development Commission shall adopt rules that incorporate guidance for nonstructural, nature-based solutions for shoreline stabilization in estuaries, coastal shorelands and the ocean shore by, at a minimum:

      (a) Adopting a definition of “nonstructural, nature-based solutions.” The definition:

      (A) Must include natural materials that are dynamic and absorb wave energy and are meant to mimic natural systems, including but not limited to native organisms, such as shellfish, trees and plants, and locally sourced logs, rocks, sand, clay and woody debris.

      (B) May not include structural methods of shoreline stabilization that are static and reflect wave energy.

      (C) Must include criteria for habitat for wildlife, improving water quality, cultural and recreational resources and, where appropriate, public access.

      (D) Must be separate and distinct from existing rules and definitions for shoreline stabilization in estuaries, coastal shorelands and the ocean shore that include jetties, bulkheads, seawalls, riprap, beachfront protective structures and other similar protective structures.

      (b) Providing guidance for the use of nonstructural, nature-based solutions to minimize harmful impacts from flooding, and erosion, including through provisions for monitoring, maintenance and reconstruction.

      (c) Requiring that nonstructural, nature-based solutions conform with statewide land use planning goals and that nonstructural, nature-based solutions and ecologically focused land use management practices are prioritized over structural solutions in addressing problems of erosion and flooding.

      (2) In adopting rules under this section, the commission:

      (a) Shall confer with the Department of State Lands, the Department of Transportation and the State Parks and Recreation Department;

      (b) Shall appoint an advisory committee under ORS 183.333 that must include members who are coastal engineering professionals, restoration professionals, representatives of environmental and recreational organizations, tribal representatives, land owners or managers, fish and wildlife professionals and local government officials; and

      (c) May not substantively amend any process established by rule that allows the Department of Transportation to perform actions or undertake projects that use shoreline stabilization that includes structural methods, elements or solutions. [2025 c.597 §1]

      Sec. 2. Authorization for Department of State Lands and State Parks and Recreation Department to adopt conforming rules. On or before January 1, 2029, the Department of State Lands and the State Parks and Recreation Department may adopt rules conforming or consistent with the rules adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission under section 1 of this 2025 Act. [2025 c.597 §2]

 

      Note: Sections 8a and 8b, chapter 38, Oregon Laws 2025, provide:

      Sec. 8a. Section 8b of this 2025 Act is added to and made a part of ORS chapter 197. [2025 c.38 §8a]

      Sec. 8b. Harmonizing “single-unit” and “multiunit” terminology. (1) For the purpose of harmonizing and clarifying land use law, a state agency or local government may, wherever the terms appear within land use regulations, zoning maps, comprehensive plans, regional framework plans or administrative rules, substitute the terms:

      (a) “Single-unit housing” for “single-family housing” or similar terms; and

      (b) “Multiunit housing” for “multifamily housing” or similar terms.

      (2) A substitution of terms under this section:

      (a) Is considered a minor correction to administrative rules.

      (b) May be done by ordinance or resolution of a local government without requiring any notice or hearing, notwithstanding any provision of ORS chapter 215 or 227. [2025 c.38 §8b]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: 1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 752 P.2d 271 (Or. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 752 P.2d 271 (Or. 1988). · cites it 5× “ORS 197.040(1) (b) and (c). Where the rules adopted by LCDC are reasonable interpretations of the goals, they will be recognized as such by this court.”
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 942 P.2d 278 (Or. 1997). · cites it 2× “” ORS 197.040(l)(c) (emphasis added). Given LCDC’s mandate under ORS chapter 197 to protect agricultural lands generally, and high value farmland in particular, we hold that, in the absence of any evidence of a contrary legislative intent, LCDC has the authority pursuant to ORS…”
Marion Cnty. v. Fed'n for Sound Plan., 668 P.2d 406 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “” “The Commission (in ORS 197.040[(1)] (b)) is required to recognize differences among local governments.”
Ochoco Constr., Inc. v. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 667 P.2d 499 (Or. 1983). · cites it 2× “ORS 197.040. The powers of the Commission are listed in ORS 197.”
Byrd v. Stringer, 666 P.2d 1332 (Or. 1983). · cites it 2× “ORS 197.040(2) (d). The acknowledgment order is LCDC’s recognition that the plan and regulations conform with the goals.”
Willamette Univ. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 608 P.2d 1178 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “225; second and more generally, to "promulgate rules,” ORS 197.040(1)(b). In this statutory scheme, the goals occupy a preferred position.”
Newcomer v. Clackamas Cnty., 764 P.2d 927 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “” Although that conferral of policymaking authority does not expressly refer to the agricultural lands provisions of ORS chapter 215, they are implicitly within its scope.”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 642 P.2d 1158 (Or. 1982). “1 Although LCDC is authorized by ORS 197.040 to promulgate rules in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), ORS 183.”
Wetherell v. Douglas Cnty., 160 P.3d 614 (Or. 2007). “The legislature also authorized LCDC to adopt rules to implement the land use planning statutes and goals, ORS 197.040(l)(b), and all parties agree that LCDC’s rules are valid only if they are consistent with both the applicable statutes and goals.”
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 910 P.2d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Meanwhile, in accordance with its general charge to adopt and to amend land use goals that it considers necessary to carry out the provisions of Oregon's land use statutes, see ORS 197.040; ORS 197.245, LCDC adopted statewide land use planning goals, one of which—Goal 3—is…”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 686 P.2d 375 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “" ORS 197.040(1)(b); 197.040(2)(a); 197.225.”
Ciecko v. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 415 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “" ORS 197.040(1)(a). The parties disagree about which version of ORS 196.”
Show all 40 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(1) — 6 cases
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 752 P.2d 271 (Or. 1988). “ORS 197.040(1) (b) and (c). Where the rules adopted by LCDC are reasonable interpretations of the goals, they will be recognized as such by this court.”
Newcomer v. Clackamas Cnty., 764 P.2d 927 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “” Although that conferral of policymaking authority does not expressly refer to the agricultural lands provisions of ORS chapter 215, they are implicitly within its scope.”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Washington Cnty., 696 P.2d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
Goracke v. Benton Cnty., 683 P.2d 106 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
City of Cornelius v. Dept. of Land Conservation (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(1)(a) — 1 case
Ciecko v. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 415 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “" ORS 197.040(1)(a). The parties disagree about which version of ORS 196.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(1)(b) — 5 cases
Willamette Univ. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 608 P.2d 1178 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “225; second and more generally, to "promulgate rules,” ORS 197.040(1)(b). In this statutory scheme, the goals occupy a preferred position.”
Marion Cnty. v. Fed'n for Sound Plan., 668 P.2d 406 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “” “The Commission (in ORS 197.040[(1)] (b)) is required to recognize differences among local governments.”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 686 P.2d 375 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “" ORS 197.040(1)(b); 197.040(2)(a); 197.225.”
City of Cornelius v. Dept. of Land Conservation (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
Landwatch Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 415 P.3d 1064 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(1)(b)(A) — 1 case
City of Cornelius v. Dept. of Land Conservation (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(1)(b)(C) — 1 case
City of Cornelius v. Dept. of Land Conservation (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(1)(b)(D) — 1 case
City of Cornelius v. Dept. of Land Conservation (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(1)(c) — 1 case
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(1)(c)(A) — 3 cases
City of Cornelius v. Dept. of Land Conservation (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
Delta Prop. Co. v. Lane Cnty., 352 P.3d 86 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
Jackson Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 888 P.2d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(1)(e) — 1 case
Ciecko v. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 415 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “" ORS 197.040(1)(a). The parties disagree about which version of ORS 196.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(2) — 3 cases
Byrd v. Stringer, 666 P.2d 1332 (Or. 1983). “ORS 197.040(2) (d). The acknowledgment order is LCDC’s recognition that the plan and regulations conform with the goals.”
Cent. Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 457 P.3d 369 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
Hildenbrand v. City of Adair Vill., 177 P.3d 40 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(2)(a) — 3 cases
Willamette Univ. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 608 P.2d 1178 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “225; second and more generally, to "promulgate rules,” ORS 197.040(1)(b). In this statutory scheme, the goals occupy a preferred position.”
Marion Cnty. v. Fed'n for Sound Plan., 668 P.2d 406 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “” “The Commission (in ORS 197.040[(1)] (b)) is required to recognize differences among local governments.”
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 629 P.2d 831 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(2)(c) — 1 case
City of Cornelius v. Dept. of Land Conservation (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(2)(d) — 3 cases
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 752 P.2d 271 (Or. 1988). “ORS 197.040(1) (b) and (c). Where the rules adopted by LCDC are reasonable interpretations of the goals, they will be recognized as such by this court.”
Oregonians in Action v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 854 P.2d 1010 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
Yamhill Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 839 P.2d 238 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(2)(f) — 1 case
Fish & Wildlife Dep't v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 588 P.2d 80 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(3) — 1 case
City of Cornelius v. Dept. of Land Conservation (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(b) — 1 case
City of Pendleton v. Kerns, 650 P.2d 101 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(c) — 2 cases
Valley & Siletz R.R. v. Laudahl, 681 P.2d 109 (Or. 1984).
Ochoco Constr., Inc. v. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 641 P.2d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(l)(b) — 9 cases
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 752 P.2d 271 (Or. 1988). “ORS 197.040(1) (b) and (c). Where the rules adopted by LCDC are reasonable interpretations of the goals, they will be recognized as such by this court.”
Wetherell v. Douglas Cnty., 160 P.3d 614 (Or. 2007). “The legislature also authorized LCDC to adopt rules to implement the land use planning statutes and goals, ORS 197.040(l)(b), and all parties agree that LCDC’s rules are valid only if they are consistent with both the applicable statutes and goals.”
Marion Cnty. v. Fed'n for Sound Plan., 668 P.2d 406 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “” “The Commission (in ORS 197.040[(1)] (b)) is required to recognize differences among local governments.”
Jones v. Douglas Cnty., 270 P.3d 278 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 686 P.2d 375 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “" ORS 197.040(1)(b); 197.040(2)(a); 197.225.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(l)(c) — 7 cases
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 942 P.2d 278 (Or. 1997). “” ORS 197.040(l)(c) (emphasis added). Given LCDC’s mandate under ORS chapter 197 to protect agricultural lands generally, and high value farmland in particular, we hold that, in the absence of any evidence of a contrary legislative intent, LCDC has the authority pursuant to ORS…”
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 752 P.2d 271 (Or. 1988). “ORS 197.040(1) (b) and (c). Where the rules adopted by LCDC are reasonable interpretations of the goals, they will be recognized as such by this court.”
Byrd v. Stringer, 666 P.2d 1332 (Or. 1983). “ORS 197.040(2) (d). The acknowledgment order is LCDC’s recognition that the plan and regulations conform with the goals.”
Newcomer v. Clackamas Cnty., 764 P.2d 927 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “” Although that conferral of policymaking authority does not expressly refer to the agricultural lands provisions of ORS chapter 215, they are implicitly within its scope.”
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 696 P.2d 550 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(l)(c)(A) — 1 case
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 942 P.2d 278 (Or. 1997). “” ORS 197.040(l)(c) (emphasis added). Given LCDC’s mandate under ORS chapter 197 to protect agricultural lands generally, and high value farmland in particular, we hold that, in the absence of any evidence of a contrary legislative intent, LCDC has the authority pursuant to ORS…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.040(l)(d) — 1 case
Ochoco Constr., Inc. v. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 667 P.2d 499 (Or. 1983). “ORS 197.040. The powers of the Commission are listed in ORS 197.”
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.