537.525
Policy. (1) The
Legislative Assembly recognizes, declares and finds that the right to
reasonable control of all water within this state from all sources of water
supply belongs to the public, and that in order to ensure the preservation of
the public welfare, safety and health it is necessary that:
(a) Provision be
made for the final determination of relative rights to appropriate ground water
everywhere within this state and of other matters with regard thereto through a
system of registration, permits and adjudication.
(b) Rights to
appropriate ground water and priority thereof be acknowledged and protected,
except when, under certain conditions, the public welfare, safety and health
require otherwise.
(c) Beneficial
use without waste, within the capacity of available sources, be the basis,
measure and extent of the right to appropriate ground water.
(d) All claims to
rights to appropriate ground water be made a matter of public record.
(e) Adequate and
safe supplies of ground water for human consumption be assured, while
conserving maximum supplies of ground water for agricultural, commercial,
industrial, thermal, recreational and other beneficial uses.
(f) The location,
extent, capacity, quality and other characteristics of particular sources of
ground water be determined.
(g) Reasonably
stable ground water levels be determined and maintained.
(h) Depletion of
ground water supplies below economic levels, impairment of natural quality of
ground water by pollution and wasteful practices in connection with ground
water be prevented or controlled within practicable limits.
(i) Whenever
wasteful use of ground water, impairment of or interference with existing
rights to appropriate surface water, declining ground water levels, alteration
of ground water temperatures that may adversely affect priorities or impair the
long-term stability of the thermal properties of the ground water, interference
among wells, thermal interference among wells, overdrawing of ground water
supplies or pollution of ground water exists or impends, controlled use of the
ground water concerned be authorized and imposed under voluntary joint action
by the Water Resources Commission and the ground water users concerned whenever
possible, but by the commission under the police power of the state except as
specified in ORS 537.796, when such voluntary joint action is not taken or is
ineffective.
(j) Location,
construction, depth, capacity, yield and other characteristics of and matters
in connection with wells be controlled in accordance with the purposes set
forth in this section.
(k) All
activities in the state that affect the quality or quantity of ground water
shall be consistent with the goal set forth in ORS 468B.155.
(2) The
Legislative Assembly finds and declares that expanded group domestic use for a
public water system located in a ground water quality management area declared
under ORS 468B.180 using an amount of water equivalent to the amount of water
provided by abandoned water wells as provided in ORS 537.617 ensures the
preservation of the public welfare, safety and health. [1955 c.708 §2; 1985
c.673 §46; 1989 c.201 §2; 1989 c.833 §56; 2025 c.605 §33]
537.530 [Repealed by 1955 c.708 §38]
(Aquifer Storage and
Recovery)
Notes of Decisions
Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources Dir., 783 P.2d 519 (Or. 1989).
· cites it 26× “ORS 537.525 provided in part: “The Legislative Assembly recognizes, declares and finds that the right to reasonable control of all water within this state from all sources of water supply belongs to the public, and that in order to insure the preservation of the public welfare,…”
Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources Dir., 758 P.2d 865 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 19× “” Petitioners argue that the legislature has delegated to the Director the responsibility and discretion for developing a specific policy for the application of the terms “overdrawn” and “excessive” within the legislature’s general policy stated in ORS 537.”
Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson Cnty., 4 P.3d 748 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiffs present a list of state provisions with which the ordinances allegedly conflict: ORS 537.525; ORS 537.545(2); ORS 537.765(4).”
Schnitzer Inv. Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 104 P.3d 1162 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“6 Plaintiff argues, however, that the studies also showed that the groundwater *158 under the property is contaminated and that some of the actions that DEQ threatened to require plaintiff to take involved evaluating and remedying the contamination of the groundwater. The…”
Water Resources Dept. v. City of Klamath Falls, 682 P.2d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “) The state contends that legislative intent to vest exclusive authority in the state is apparent from reports of the Water Resources Committee, established to make “specific recommendations regarding the formulation of a statewide coordinated system of water resource…”
Lane Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins., 834 P.2d 502 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“ORS 537.525(1). Although ground water is subject to appropriation, 4 there is no evidence that plaintiff or anyone else made any attempt, lawful or otherwise, to appropriate the ground water.”
North Pac. Ins. v. United Chrome Prods., Inc., 857 P.2d 158 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“ORS 537.525(1). Although ground water is subject to appropriation, there is no evidence that plaintiff or anyone else made any attempt, lawful or otherwise, to appropriate the ground water.”
Phillips v. Gardner, 469 P.2d 42 (Or. Ct. App. 1970).
“U* «: # * # » ORS 537.525 deals with ground waters, not surface waters.”
Dinsdale v. Young, 706 P.2d 944 (Or. 1985).
“See ORS 537.525(2), (3), (7) and (8), 537.620, ORS 537.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 537.525(1) — 4 cases
Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson Cnty., 4 P.3d 748 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“Plaintiffs present a list of state provisions with which the ordinances allegedly conflict: ORS 537.525; ORS 537.545(2); ORS 537.765(4).”
Lane Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins., 834 P.2d 502 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“ORS 537.525(1). Although ground water is subject to appropriation, 4 there is no evidence that plaintiff or anyone else made any attempt, lawful or otherwise, to appropriate the ground water.”
North Pac. Ins. v. United Chrome Prods., Inc., 857 P.2d 158 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“ORS 537.525(1). Although ground water is subject to appropriation, there is no evidence that plaintiff or anyone else made any attempt, lawful or otherwise, to appropriate the ground water.”
Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources Dir., 783 P.2d 519 (Or. 1989).
“ORS 537.525 provided in part: “The Legislative Assembly recognizes, declares and finds that the right to reasonable control of all water within this state from all sources of water supply belongs to the public, and that in order to insure the preservation of the public welfare,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 537.525(11) — 1 case
Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson Cnty., 4 P.3d 748 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“Plaintiffs present a list of state provisions with which the ordinances allegedly conflict: ORS 537.525; ORS 537.545(2); ORS 537.765(4).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 537.525(2) — 1 case
Dinsdale v. Young, 706 P.2d 944 (Or. 1985).
“See ORS 537.525(2), (3), (7) and (8), 537.620, ORS 537.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 537.525(3) — 3 cases
Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources Dir., 783 P.2d 519 (Or. 1989).
“ORS 537.525 provided in part: “The Legislative Assembly recognizes, declares and finds that the right to reasonable control of all water within this state from all sources of water supply belongs to the public, and that in order to insure the preservation of the public welfare,…”
Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources Dir., 758 P.2d 865 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“” Petitioners argue that the legislature has delegated to the Director the responsibility and discretion for developing a specific policy for the application of the terms “overdrawn” and “excessive” within the legislature’s general policy stated in ORS 537.”
Water Resources Dept. v. City of Klamath Falls, 682 P.2d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“) The state contends that legislative intent to vest exclusive authority in the state is apparent from reports of the Water Resources Committee, established to make “specific recommendations regarding the formulation of a statewide coordinated system of water resource…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 537.525(5) — 3 cases
Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources Dir., 758 P.2d 865 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“” Petitioners argue that the legislature has delegated to the Director the responsibility and discretion for developing a specific policy for the application of the terms “overdrawn” and “excessive” within the legislature’s general policy stated in ORS 537.”
Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources Dir., 783 P.2d 519 (Or. 1989).
“ORS 537.525 provided in part: “The Legislative Assembly recognizes, declares and finds that the right to reasonable control of all water within this state from all sources of water supply belongs to the public, and that in order to insure the preservation of the public welfare,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 537.525(7) — 3 cases
Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources Dir., 783 P.2d 519 (Or. 1989).
“ORS 537.525 provided in part: “The Legislative Assembly recognizes, declares and finds that the right to reasonable control of all water within this state from all sources of water supply belongs to the public, and that in order to insure the preservation of the public welfare,…”
Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources Dir., 758 P.2d 865 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“” Petitioners argue that the legislature has delegated to the Director the responsibility and discretion for developing a specific policy for the application of the terms “overdrawn” and “excessive” within the legislature’s general policy stated in ORS 537.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 537.525(8) — 3 cases
Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources Dir., 783 P.2d 519 (Or. 1989).
“ORS 537.525 provided in part: “The Legislative Assembly recognizes, declares and finds that the right to reasonable control of all water within this state from all sources of water supply belongs to the public, and that in order to insure the preservation of the public welfare,…”
Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources Dir., 758 P.2d 865 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“” Petitioners argue that the legislature has delegated to the Director the responsibility and discretion for developing a specific policy for the application of the terms “overdrawn” and “excessive” within the legislature’s general policy stated in ORS 537.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 537.525(9) — 1 case
Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources Dir., 783 P.2d 519 (Or. 1989).
“ORS 537.525 provided in part: “The Legislative Assembly recognizes, declares and finds that the right to reasonable control of all water within this state from all sources of water supply belongs to the public, and that in order to insure the preservation of the public welfare,…”
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.