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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 468B.025 (2026)

Prohibited activities

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

      468B.025 Prohibited activities. (1) Except as provided in ORS 468B.050 or 468B.053, no person shall:

      (a) Cause pollution of any waters of the state or place or cause to be placed any wastes in a location where such wastes are likely to escape or be carried into the waters of the state by any means.

      (b) Discharge any wastes into the waters of the state if the discharge reduces the quality of such waters below the water quality standards established by rule for such waters by the Environmental Quality Commission.

      (2) No person shall violate the conditions of any waste discharge permit issued under ORS 468B.050.

      (3) Violation of subsection (1) or (2) of this section is a public nuisance. [Formerly 449.079 and then 468.720; 1997 c.286 §5]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1997–2010 · leading case: Riverkeepers v. Oregon Dep't of Env't Quality, 230 P.3d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Riverkeepers v. Oregon Dep't of Env't Quality, 230 P.3d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 16× “8 In essence, petitioners contend that, in light of *139 ORS 468B.025, respondent was required to impose stricter permit requirements on municipal storm water discharges than are required pursuant to the federal scheme.”
Env't Quality Comm'n v. City of Coos Bay, 14 P.3d 649 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 11× “The City argues that violations of the terms of that permit are separately covered by ORS 468B.025, which it agrees it did violate.”
Umatilla Waterquality Protect. Ass'n, Inc. v. Smith Frozen Foods, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1312 (D. Or. 1997). “ORS 468B.025(1). In addition, statutes require a permit before any person can: (a) Discharge any wastes into the waters of the state from any industrial or commercial establishment or activity or any disposal system.”
City of Portland v. Boeing Co., 179 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (D. Or. 2001). “§ 468B.025(1) creates a nuisance per se,” City of LaGrande, supra, at 28, and allowed the city to proceed on its common law public nuisance claim.”
Holdner v. Oregon Dep't of Agric., 676 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (D. Or. 2009). · cites it 2× “Exhibit 1 is a notice of noncompliance with ORS 468B.025 from the State. The notice states that Hold *1144 ner’s Confined Animal Feeding Operation was “out of compliance with water quality and Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) statutes of Oregon.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 468B.025(1) — 2 cases
Umatilla Waterquality Protect. Ass'n, Inc. v. Smith Frozen Foods, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1312 (D. Or. 1997). “ORS 468B.025(1). In addition, statutes require a permit before any person can: (a) Discharge any wastes into the waters of the state from any industrial or commercial establishment or activity or any disposal system.”
City of Portland v. Boeing Co., 179 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (D. Or. 2001). “§ 468B.025(1) creates a nuisance per se,” City of LaGrande, supra, at 28, and allowed the city to proceed on its common law public nuisance claim.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 468B.025(2) — 1 case
Env't Quality Comm'n v. City of Coos Bay, 14 P.3d 649 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “The City argues that violations of the terms of that permit are separately covered by ORS 468B.025, which it agrees it did violate.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 468B.025(l)(a) — 1 case
Riverkeepers v. Oregon Dep't of Env't Quality, 230 P.3d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “8 In essence, petitioners contend that, in light of *139 ORS 468B.025, respondent was required to impose stricter permit requirements on municipal storm water discharges than are required pursuant to the federal scheme.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 468B.025(l)(b) — 2 cases
Riverkeepers v. Oregon Dep't of Env't Quality, 230 P.3d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “8 In essence, petitioners contend that, in light of *139 ORS 468B.025, respondent was required to impose stricter permit requirements on municipal storm water discharges than are required pursuant to the federal scheme.”
Env't Quality Comm'n v. City of Coos Bay, 14 P.3d 649 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “The City argues that violations of the terms of that permit are separately covered by ORS 468B.025, which it agrees it did violate.”
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.