468B.050 Water
quality permit; issuance by rule or order; rules. (1) Except as provided in ORS
468B.053 or 468B.215, without holding a permit from the Director of the
Department of Environmental Quality or the State Department of Agriculture,
which permit shall specify applicable effluent limitations, a person may not:
(a) Discharge any
wastes into the waters of the state from any industrial or commercial
establishment or activity or any disposal system.
(b) Construct,
install, modify or operate any disposal system or part thereof or any extension
or addition thereto.
(c) Increase in
volume or strength any wastes in excess of the permissive discharges specified
under an existing permit.
(d) Construct,
install, operate or conduct any industrial, commercial, confined animal feeding
operation or other establishment or activity or any extension or modification
thereof or addition thereto, the operation or conduct of which would cause an
increase in the discharge of wastes into the waters of the state or which would
otherwise alter the physical, chemical or biological properties of any waters
of the state in any manner not already lawfully authorized.
(e) Construct or
use any new outlet for the discharge of any wastes into the waters of the
state.
(2) The
Department of Environmental Quality or the State Department of Agriculture may
issue a permit under this section as an individual, general or watershed
permit. A permit may be issued to a class of persons using the procedures for
issuance of an order or for the adoption of a rule. Notwithstanding the
definition of “order” or “rule” provided in ORS 183.310, in issuing a general
or watershed permit by order pursuant to this section, the State Department of
Agriculture or Department of Environmental Quality:
(a) Is not
required to direct the order to a named person or named persons; and
(b) May include
in the order agency directives, standards, regulations and statements of
general applicability that implement, interpret or prescribe law or policy.
(3) When deciding
whether to issue a permit to a confined animal feeding operation under this
section, the Department of Environmental Quality or the State Department of
Agriculture shall consider any relevant determination by the Water Resources
Department pursuant to ORS 468B.216 (2).
(4)
Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, the Department of Environmental
Quality or the State Department of Agriculture may not issue a general NPDES or
WPCF permit to a new large confined animal feeding operation that:
(a) Is located in
a ground water quality management area declared under ORS 468B.180; and
(b) Applies
manure, litter, wastewater or processed waste to land within the ground water
quality management area.
(5) Subsection
(4) of this section does not apply to the issuance of water quality permits to
regulate stormwater.
(6) The State
Department of Agriculture or the Department of Environmental Quality may define
“confined animal feeding operation” by rule for purposes of implementing this
section.
(7) As used in
this section:
(a) “New large
confined animal feeding operation” has the meaning given that term in ORS
468B.215.
(b) “NPDES” and “WPCF”
have the meanings given those terms in ORS 561.255. [Formerly 449.083 and then
468.740; 1997 c.286 §6; 2001 c.248 §4; 2005 c.523 §4; 2023 c.465 §1; 2025 c.605
§27]
Note: Sections 1 to 3, chapter 19,
Oregon Laws 2025, provide:
Sec. 1. Section 2 of this 2025 Act is
added to and made a part of ORS chapter 468B. [2025 c.19 §1]
Sec. 2.
Temporary exemption for treatment works in North Santiam Basin. (1) As used in this section, “treatment
works” has the meaning given that term in ORS 454.010.
(2) The
prohibitions of ORS 468B.050 (1)(b) do not apply to the construction and
installation of a publicly owned treatment works located within the North
Santiam Basin if:
(a) Construction
of the treatment works is commenced on or after April 15, 2025, and before June
16, 2025; and
(b)(A) The owner
of the treatment works does not operate the treatment works or discharge any
wastes or pollutants into the waters of the state without holding an applicable
permit issued by the Director of the Department of Environmental Quality under
ORS 468B.050; and
(B) Any
discharges from the treatment works meet the terms and conditions of the
permit.
(3) Subsection
(2) of this section does not eliminate the need for the owner of the treatment
works to obtain any other applicable permit, including but not limited to a
construction stormwater permit.
(4) The
Department of Environmental Quality may require that a treatment works
constructed without a permit, as described in subsection (2) of this section,
be modified to satisfy the terms and conditions of a permit ultimately issued
to the facility under ORS 468B.050. [2025 c.19 §2]
Sec. 3. Section 2 of this 2025 Act is
repealed on January 2, 2027. [2025 c.19 §3]
Notes of Decisions
Riverkeepers v. Oregon Dep't of Env't Quality, 230 P.3d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 22× “Petitioners sought judicial review of several municipal storm water permits issued by respondent 1 pursuant to ORS 468B.050 and the federal Clean Water Act, see 33 USC § 1342 .”
Env't Quality Comm'n v. City of Coos Bay, 14 P.3d 649 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 21× “025(2), which provides: “No person shall violate the conditions of any waste discharge permit issued under ORS 468B.050.” The hearings officer concluded that the City did not commit the first violation, as a matter of law, because ORS 468B.”
E. Oregon Mining Ass'n v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 398 P.3d 449 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Although petitioners’ argument in this assignment is not entirely clear, they appear to argue that, although the 2010 700-PM permit “purports” to be issued under state law, ORS 468B.050, as well as the federal Clean Water Act, it actually is solely authorized, incorrectly in…”
E. Oregon Mining Ass'n v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 376 P.3d 288 (Or. 2016).
“The 2010 permit contained the same provisions requiring compliance with section 402 of the federal Clean Water Act. Petitioners challenged the validity of the 2010 permit.”
Kinross Copper Corp. v. State, 981 P.2d 833 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“ORS 468B.050 expressly provides that, subject to enumerated exceptions, no person may discharge any waste into the waters of the state without obtaining a permit from DEQ.”
Nw. Env't Def. Ctr. v. Env't Quality Comm'n, 223 P.3d 1071 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“015”); ORS 468B.050 (prohibiting the discharge of waste into the waters of the state without a permit and providing that DEQ may issue such permits).”
Nedc v. Eqc, 223 P.3d 1071 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“015"); ORS 468B.050 (prohibiting the discharge of waste into the waters of the state without a permit and providing that DEQ may issue such permits).”
State v. Waters, 359 P.3d 526 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “The italicized language tracks the language in the underlying statute, ORS 468B.050. 1 In short, the charging instrument contained all of the elements of the offense with which defendant was charged.”
E. Oregon Mining Ass'n v. DEQ (Or. 2016).
“The 2010 permit contained the same provisions requiring compliance with section 402 of the federal Clean Water Act. Petitioners challenged the validity of the 2010 per- mit.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 468B.050(1) — 2 cases
Env't Quality Comm'n v. City of Coos Bay, 14 P.3d 649 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“025(2), which provides: “No person shall violate the conditions of any waste discharge permit issued under ORS 468B.050.” The hearings officer concluded that the City did not commit the first violation, as a matter of law, because ORS 468B.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 468B.050(1)(a) — 1 case
Env't Quality Comm'n v. City of Coos Bay, 14 P.3d 649 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“025(2), which provides: “No person shall violate the conditions of any waste discharge permit issued under ORS 468B.050.” The hearings officer concluded that the City did not commit the first violation, as a matter of law, because ORS 468B.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 468B.050(2) — 3 cases
E. Oregon Mining Ass'n v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 376 P.3d 288 (Or. 2016).
“The 2010 permit contained the same provisions requiring compliance with section 402 of the federal Clean Water Act. Petitioners challenged the validity of the 2010 permit.”
E. Oregon Mining Ass'n v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 398 P.3d 449 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“Although petitioners’ argument in this assignment is not entirely clear, they appear to argue that, although the 2010 700-PM permit “purports” to be issued under state law, ORS 468B.050, as well as the federal Clean Water Act, it actually is solely authorized, incorrectly in…”
E. Oregon Mining Ass'n v. DEQ (Or. 2016).
“The 2010 permit contained the same provisions requiring compliance with section 402 of the federal Clean Water Act. Petitioners challenged the validity of the 2010 per- mit.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 468B.050(l)(a) — 2 cases
Env't Quality Comm'n v. City of Coos Bay, 14 P.3d 649 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“025(2), which provides: “No person shall violate the conditions of any waste discharge permit issued under ORS 468B.050.” The hearings officer concluded that the City did not commit the first violation, as a matter of law, because ORS 468B.”
Riverkeepers v. Oregon Dep't of Env't Quality, 230 P.3d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“Petitioners sought judicial review of several municipal storm water permits issued by respondent 1 pursuant to ORS 468B.050 and the federal Clean Water Act, see 33 USC § 1342 .”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 468B.050(l)(d) — 2 cases
Riverkeepers v. Oregon Dep't of Env't Quality, 230 P.3d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“Petitioners sought judicial review of several municipal storm water permits issued by respondent 1 pursuant to ORS 468B.050 and the federal Clean Water Act, see 33 USC § 1342 .”
State v. Waters, 359 P.3d 526 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“The italicized language tracks the language in the underlying statute, ORS 468B.050. 1 In short, the charging instrument contained all of the elements of the offense with which defendant was charged.”
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.