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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 536.300 (2026)

Formulation of state water resources program; public hearing in affected river basin

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

      536.300 Formulation of state water resources program; public hearing in affected river basin. (1) The Water Resources Commission shall proceed as rapidly as possible to study: Existing water resources of this state; means and methods of conserving and augmenting such water resources; existing and contemplated needs and uses of water for domestic, municipal, irrigation, power development, industrial, mining, recreation, wildlife, and fish life uses and for pollution abatement, all of which are declared to be beneficial uses, and all other related subjects, including drainage, reclamation, floodplains and reservoir sites.

      (2) Based upon said studies and after an opportunity to be heard has been given to all other state agencies which may be concerned, the commission shall progressively formulate an integrated, coordinated program for the use and control of all the water resources of this state and issue statements thereof.

      (3) The commission may adopt or amend a basin program only after holding at least one public hearing in the affected river basin. After the commission itself conducts one public hearing in the affected river basin, the commission may delegate to the Water Resources Director the authority to conduct additional public hearings in the affected river basin. [1955 c.707 §10(1), (2); 1965 c.355 §2; 1985 c.673 §14]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Comm'n, 88 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Comm'n, 88 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “153(2) provides: “In reviewing the application under subsection (1) of this section, the department shall presume that a proposed use will not impair or be detrimental to the public interest if the proposed use is allowed in the applicable basin program established pursuant to…”
Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson Cnty., 4 P.3d 748 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “In particular, plaintiffs seek a judgment stating that the commission has "failed and refused to implement the `Start Card' program" by: (1) failing to issue water resource statements pursuant to ORS 536.300 explaining its inspection program; (2) failing to advise local…”
Benz v. Water Resources Comm'n, 764 P.2d 594 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “” ORS 536.300; see also ORS 537.170(5). Petitioners contend that the regular flushing into the water table of boron accumulated after each irrigation season cannot be characterized as a “beneficial use,” at least not without affirmative proof from the applicant that (1) the…”
Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 121 P.3d 1141 (Or. 2005). “That statute also creates a rebuttable presumption that a proposed water permit will ensure the preservation of the public welfare, safety and health when four conditions are met: (1) the proposed use is allowed under the “basin program” established under ORS 536.300 and ORS…”
East Valley Water v. Water Resources Comm'n, 539 P.3d 789 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Water Resources Commission “In reviewing the application * * *, the department shall presume that a proposed use will not impair or be detri- mental to the public interest if the proposed use is allowed in the applicable basin program established pursuant to ORS 536.300 and…”
Steamboaters v. Winchester Water Control Dist., 688 P.2d 92 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). ““(g) The state water resources policy formulated under ORS 536.300 to 536.350 and 537.505 to 537.”
Hennings v. Water Resources Dep't, 622 P.2d 333 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “Thus, the statute limits the certificate holder’s right by authorizing use of appropriated water only for the *125 specific purpose set out in the application which the Water Resources director has determined to be beneficial.”
East Valley Water v. Water Resources Comm'n, 374 Or. 148 (Or. 2025). “, ORS 536.300(1) (declaring those uses of water to be “beneficial uses”); ORS 537.”
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Oregon Water Resources Comm'n, 776 P.2d 1307 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 8× “” The materially identical predecessor of ORS 536.300 was enacted by Oregon Laws 1955, chapter 707, section 10.”
Bridge Creek Ranch v. Water Resources Dept. (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “, 50 Or App 121, 125 , 622 P2d 333 (1981) (citing ORS 536.300). Pursuant to OAR 690-300-0010(5), “beneficial use” means “the reasonably efficient use of water without waste for a purpose consistent with the laws, rules and the best interests of the people of the state.”
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Oregon Water Resources Comm'n, 774 P.2d 1118 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “ORS 536.300(3). That could not be accomplished soon enough to prevent these hardships during the 1989 irrigation season.”
East Valley Water v. Water Resources Comm'n (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Water Resources Commission “In reviewing the application * * *, the department shall presume that a proposed use will not impair or be detri- mental to the public interest if the proposed use is allowed in the applicable basin program established pursuant to ORS 536.300 and…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 536.300(1) — 6 cases
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Comm'n, 88 P.3d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “153(2) provides: “In reviewing the application under subsection (1) of this section, the department shall presume that a proposed use will not impair or be detrimental to the public interest if the proposed use is allowed in the applicable basin program established pursuant to…”
Hennings v. Water Resources Dep't, 622 P.2d 333 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “Thus, the statute limits the certificate holder’s right by authorizing use of appropriated water only for the *125 specific purpose set out in the application which the Water Resources director has determined to be beneficial.”
East Valley Water v. Water Resources Comm'n, 374 Or. 148 (Or. 2025). “, ORS 536.300(1) (declaring those uses of water to be “beneficial uses”); ORS 537.”
Bridge Creek Ranch v. Water Resources Dept. (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “, 50 Or App 121, 125 , 622 P2d 333 (1981) (citing ORS 536.300). Pursuant to OAR 690-300-0010(5), “beneficial use” means “the reasonably efficient use of water without waste for a purpose consistent with the laws, rules and the best interests of the people of the state.”
East Valley Water v. Water Resources Comm'n, 374 Or. 148 (Or. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 536.300(2) — 1 case
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Oregon Water Resources Comm'n, 776 P.2d 1307 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “” The materially identical predecessor of ORS 536.300 was enacted by Oregon Laws 1955, chapter 707, section 10.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 536.300(3) — 1 case
Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Oregon Water Resources Comm'n, 774 P.2d 1118 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “ORS 536.300(3). That could not be accomplished soon enough to prevent these hardships during the 1989 irrigation season.”
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.