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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 536.075 (2026)

Judicial review of final order of commission or department; stay of order; scope of review

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

      536.075 Judicial review of final order of commission or department; stay of order; scope of review. (1) Any party affected by a final order other than contested case issued by the Water Resources Commission or Water Resources Department may appeal the final order to the Circuit Court of Marion County or to the circuit court of the county in which all or part of the property affected by the final order is situated. Review of the final order must be conducted according to the provisions of ORS 183.484, 183.486, 183.497 and 183.500. The first page of the final order must state that the final order is a final order other than contested case, that the final order is subject to judicial review under ORS 183.484 and that any petition for judicial review of the final order must be filed within the time specified by ORS 183.484 (2). Any order other than contested case issued by the commission or department that does not comply with the requirements of this section is not a final order.

      (2) Any party affected by a final order in a contested case issued by the commission or department may appeal the order to the Court of Appeals.

      (3) An appeal under subsection (2) of this section shall be conducted as provided in ORS 183.482 except as specifically provided in this section.

      (4) The petition for review shall state the facts showing how the petitioner is adversely affected by the final order and the ground or grounds upon which the petitioner contends the final order should be reversed or remanded.

      (5) Except as provided in subsections (6) and (7) of this section, the filing of a petition for review in either the circuit court or the Court of Appeals shall stay enforcement of the final order.

      (6) If the commission or department determines that substantial public harm will result from staying the final order, the commission or department may deny the stay. The denial shall be in writing and shall specifically state the substantial public harm that will result from staying the final order. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, if the petitioner requests a hearing on the denial:

      (a) The court shall hold the hearing not more than 21 days after the request is made; and

      (b) The denial shall remain in effect until the hearing has been held and the court has issued a decision concerning the denial.

      (7) Enforcement of a final order that regulated off a diversion, appropriation or other use of surface or ground water in favor of a senior existing water right of record or senior determined claim:

      (a) May only be stayed on appeal if the petition for review is served on the commission or department and proof of the service is filed with the court.

      (b) Is not stayed if the commission or department denies the stay under subsection (6) of this section.

      (8) If the commission or department receives service of a petition for review pursuant to subsection (7) of this section, not more than five business days after receiving the service the commission or department shall send the petition to the person or federally recognized Indian tribe that made the call for water to enforce the senior existing water right of record or senior determined claim.

      (9) The review by the Court of Appeals under subsection (2) of this section shall be on the entire record forwarded by the commission or department. The court may remand the case for further evidence taking, correction or other necessary action. The court may affirm, reverse, modify or supplement the order appealed from, and make such disposition of the case as the court determines to be appropriate.

      (10) The provisions of this section do not apply to any proceeding under ORS 537.670 to 537.695 or ORS chapter 539.

      (11) For the purposes of this section:

      (a) “Contested case” has the meaning given that term in ORS 183.310.

      (b) “Determined claim” means a water right determined and established in an order of determination certified by the Water Resources Director under ORS 539.130.

      (c) “Existing water right of record” has the meaning given that term in ORS 540.045.

      (d) “Final order” has the meaning given that term in ORS 183.310. [1985 c.673 §9; 1999 c.791 §1; 2021 c.354 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Pete's Mountain Homeowners Ass'n v. Oregon Water Resources Dep't, 238 P.3d 395 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pete's Mountain Homeowners Ass'n v. Oregon Water Resources Dep't, 238 P.3d 395 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 19× “” ORS 536.075. In this case, as we have noted, the water company already held a water right permit and submitted an application to the department to change the place of use, as provided in ORS 537.”
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 316 P.3d 330 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 14× “Indeed, subsection (6) of ORS 536.075 specifies that, on review, “[t]he court may remand the case for further evidence taking, correction or other necessary action.”
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Comm'n, 88 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 11× “Notably, that statute does not require the party to be “adversely affected” or “aggrieved,” common terms used to describe standing to seek review of administrative actions.”
TPC, LLC v. Water Resources Dept., 482 P.3d 121 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 15× “484, which governs 6 ORS 536.075 provides, in part: “(1) Any party affected by a final order other than contested case issued by the Water Resources Commission or Water Resources Department may appeal the order to the Circuit Court of Marion County or to the circuit court of the…”
Harrington v. Water Resources Dep't, 171 P.3d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “” 2 The third final order contained a statement that was identical except for citing ORS 536.075 instead of ORS 537.409(9); petitioner raises no issues concerning the differences among the orders.”
Beck v. City of Portland, 122 P.3d 131 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “We need not decide whether LUBA had exclusive or primary jurisdiction of this matter because we conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction of plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief on the ground that it was not ripe and, hence, was not justiciable.”
WaterWatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 342 P.3d 712 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Petitioner asserts that the department’s fish-persistence finding is not supported by substantial evidence, because it is not based on existing data or the advice of ODFW, is improperly dependent on unknown future actions, and lacks substantial reason. Under ORS 183.482(8)(c),…”
Benz v. Water Resources Comm'n, 764 P.2d 594 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “ORS 536.075(3). Kelly and Tandy Creeks flow westerly, crossing the lands of petitioners and Rockford, and drain naturally into Goose Lake.”
Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources Dir., 758 P.2d 865 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “With one exception, ORS 536.075, (Or Laws 1985, ch 673, § 9), all statutory references in this opinion are to the sections as they existed before the 1985 revisions.”
Buchanan v. Water Resources Comm'n (D. Or. 2023). · cites it 28× “” ORS § 536.075(1). The court may affirm, reverse, or _ remand the order.”
WaterWatch of Oregon v. Water Resources Dept., 324 Or. App. 362 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “” WaterWatch I, 268 Or App at 212 ; ORS 536.075(2), (3) (judicial review of a contested case order issued by the department is to be conducted according to ORS 183.”
WaterWatch of Oregon v. Water Resources Dept., 468 P.3d 478 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “See ORS 536.075(1) (providing for judicial review in the circuit court of a final order in other than contested cases issued by the Water Resources Commission or WRD).”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 536.075(1) — 9 cases
Pete's Mountain Homeowners Ass'n v. Oregon Water Resources Dep't, 238 P.3d 395 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “” ORS 536.075. In this case, as we have noted, the water company already held a water right permit and submitted an application to the department to change the place of use, as provided in ORS 537.”
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 316 P.3d 330 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Indeed, subsection (6) of ORS 536.075 specifies that, on review, “[t]he court may remand the case for further evidence taking, correction or other necessary action.”
Harrington v. Water Resources Dep't, 171 P.3d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “” 2 The third final order contained a statement that was identical except for citing ORS 536.075 instead of ORS 537.409(9); petitioner raises no issues concerning the differences among the orders.”
TPC, LLC v. Water Resources Dept., 482 P.3d 121 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “484, which governs 6 ORS 536.075 provides, in part: “(1) Any party affected by a final order other than contested case issued by the Water Resources Commission or Water Resources Department may appeal the order to the Circuit Court of Marion County or to the circuit court of the…”
WaterWatch of Oregon v. Water Resources Dept., 468 P.3d 478 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “See ORS 536.075(1) (providing for judicial review in the circuit court of a final order in other than contested cases issued by the Water Resources Commission or WRD).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 536.075(2) — 8 cases
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Comm'n, 88 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “Notably, that statute does not require the party to be “adversely affected” or “aggrieved,” common terms used to describe standing to seek review of administrative actions.”
Pete's Mountain Homeowners Ass'n v. Oregon Water Resources Dep't, 238 P.3d 395 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “” ORS 536.075. In this case, as we have noted, the water company already held a water right permit and submitted an application to the department to change the place of use, as provided in ORS 537.”
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 316 P.3d 330 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Indeed, subsection (6) of ORS 536.075 specifies that, on review, “[t]he court may remand the case for further evidence taking, correction or other necessary action.”
East Valley Water v. Water Resources Comm'n, 374 Or. 148 (Or. 2025).
Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources Dir., 758 P.2d 865 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “With one exception, ORS 536.075, (Or Laws 1985, ch 673, § 9), all statutory references in this opinion are to the sections as they existed before the 1985 revisions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 536.075(3) — 3 cases
WaterWatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 342 P.3d 712 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Petitioner asserts that the department’s fish-persistence finding is not supported by substantial evidence, because it is not based on existing data or the advice of ODFW, is improperly dependent on unknown future actions, and lacks substantial reason. Under ORS 183.482(8)(c),…”
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 316 P.3d 330 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Indeed, subsection (6) of ORS 536.075 specifies that, on review, “[t]he court may remand the case for further evidence taking, correction or other necessary action.”
Benz v. Water Resources Comm'n, 764 P.2d 594 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “ORS 536.075(3). Kelly and Tandy Creeks flow westerly, crossing the lands of petitioners and Rockford, and drain naturally into Goose Lake.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 536.075(4) — 2 cases
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Comm'n, 88 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “Notably, that statute does not require the party to be “adversely affected” or “aggrieved,” common terms used to describe standing to seek review of administrative actions.”
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 316 P.3d 330 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Indeed, subsection (6) of ORS 536.075 specifies that, on review, “[t]he court may remand the case for further evidence taking, correction or other necessary action.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 536.075(5) — 3 cases
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 316 P.3d 330 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Indeed, subsection (6) of ORS 536.075 specifies that, on review, “[t]he court may remand the case for further evidence taking, correction or other necessary action.”
TPC, LLC v. Water Resources Dept., 482 P.3d 121 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “484, which governs 6 ORS 536.075 provides, in part: “(1) Any party affected by a final order other than contested case issued by the Water Resources Commission or Water Resources Department may appeal the order to the Circuit Court of Marion County or to the circuit court of the…”
Buchanan v. Water Resources Comm'n (D. Or. 2023). “” ORS § 536.075(1). The court may affirm, reverse, or _ remand the order.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 536.075(6) — 1 case
Buchanan v. Water Resources Comm'n (D. Or. 2023). “” ORS § 536.075(1). The court may affirm, reverse, or _ remand the order.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 536.075(6)(a) — 1 case
Buchanan v. Water Resources Comm'n (D. Or. 2023). “” ORS § 536.075(1). The court may affirm, reverse, or _ remand the order.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 536.075(7) — 2 cases
TPC, LLC v. Water Resources Dept., 482 P.3d 121 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “484, which governs 6 ORS 536.075 provides, in part: “(1) Any party affected by a final order other than contested case issued by the Water Resources Commission or Water Resources Department may appeal the order to the Circuit Court of Marion County or to the circuit court of the…”
Buchanan v. Water Resources Comm'n (D. Or. 2023). “” ORS § 536.075(1). The court may affirm, reverse, or _ remand the order.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 536.075(8) — 2 cases
Pete's Mountain Homeowners Ass'n v. Oregon Water Resources Dep't, 238 P.3d 395 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “” ORS 536.075. In this case, as we have noted, the water company already held a water right permit and submitted an application to the department to change the place of use, as provided in ORS 537.”
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Dep't, 316 P.3d 330 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Indeed, subsection (6) of ORS 536.075 specifies that, on review, “[t]he court may remand the case for further evidence taking, correction or other necessary action.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 536.075(9) — 1 case
WaterWatch of Oregon v. Water Resources Dept., 324 Or. App. 362 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “” WaterWatch I, 268 Or App at 212 ; ORS 536.075(2), (3) (judicial review of a contested case order issued by the department is to be conducted according to ORS 183.”
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.