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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 540.505 (2026)

Definitions

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

      540.505 Definitions. As used in ORS 540.505 to 540.586:

      (1) “District” means an irrigation district formed under ORS chapter 545, a drainage district formed under ORS chapter 547, a water improvement district formed under ORS chapter 552, a water control district formed under ORS chapter 553 or a corporation organized under ORS chapter 554.

      (2) “Primary water right” means the water right designated by the Water Resources Commission as the principal water supply for the authorized use, or if no designation has been made, the water right designated by the applicant as the principal water supply for the authorized use.

      (3) “Supplemental water right or permit” means an additional appropriation of water to make up a deficiency in supply from an existing water right. A supplemental water right or permit is used in conjunction with a primary water right.

      (4) “Water use subject to transfer” means a water use established by:

      (a) An adjudication under ORS chapter 539 as evidenced by a court decree;

      (b) A water right certificate;

      (c) A water use permit for which a request for issuance of a water right certificate under ORS 537.250 has been received and approved by the Water Resources Commission under ORS 537.250; or

      (d) A transfer application for which an order approving the change has been issued under ORS 540.530 and for which proper proof of completion of the change has been filed with the Water Resources Commission. [1991 c.957 §2; 1995 c.274 §1; 1997 c.42 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2007–2024 · leading case: Fort Vannoy Irrigation Dist. v. Water Resources Comm'n, 188 P.3d 277 (Or. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fort Vannoy Irrigation Dist. v. Water Resources Comm'n, 188 P.3d 277 (Or. 2008). · cites it 13× “510(1) to include the phrase “holder of any water use subject to transfer” also amended ORS 540.505 to include the four-part definition of the phrase “water use subject to transfer” that, notwithstanding a minor *76 amendment in 1997 (Or Laws 1997, ch 42, § 2), exists at present.”
Fort Vannoy Irrigation Dist. v. Water Resources Comm'n, 162 P.3d 1066 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “The certificates in the district’s name provide expressly that the district “has made proof to the satisfaction of the STATE ENGINEER of Oregon, of a right to the use of the waters.” (Uppercase in original.”
WaterWatch of Oregon v. Water Resources Dept., 468 P.3d 478 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “348(1) provided that “[a] person who transfers a water right by purchase, lease or gift under this subsec- tion shall comply with the requirements for the transfer of a water right under ORS 540.505 to 540.580.” ORS 537.348(1) 632 WaterWatch of Oregon v.”
Bridge Creek Ranch v. Water Resources Dept. (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 12× “The position of the OWRD is that, under ORS 540.510 and other relevant statutes, the OWRD is empow- ered to entertain an application to transfer the POD for a water right only from an applicant who holds a “water use subject to transfer,” and that relator does not hold such a…”
WaterWatch of Oregon v. Water Resources Dept., 501 P.3d 507 (Or. 2021). · cites it 3× “Except as provided in subsections (2) to (6) of this section, a person who transfers a water right by purchase, lease or gift under this subsection shall com- ply with the requirements for the transfer of a water right under ORS 540.505 to 540.585 [(establishing procedures for…”
Fort Klamath Critical Habitat Landowners v. Woodcock (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “ORS 540.505(4)(a) (A “water use subject to transfer” includes a water use established by an “adjudication under ORS Chapter 539 as evidenced by court decree.”
Fort Klamath Critical Habitat Landowners v. Woodcock (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “ORS 540.505(4)(a) (A “water use subject to transfer” includes a water use established by an “adjudication under ORS Chapter 539 as evidenced by court decree.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 540.505(2) — 1 case
Bridge Creek Ranch v. Water Resources Dept. (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “The position of the OWRD is that, under ORS 540.510 and other relevant statutes, the OWRD is empow- ered to entertain an application to transfer the POD for a water right only from an applicant who holds a “water use subject to transfer,” and that relator does not hold such a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 540.505(4) — 3 cases
Fort Vannoy Irrigation Dist. v. Water Resources Comm'n, 188 P.3d 277 (Or. 2008). “510(1) to include the phrase “holder of any water use subject to transfer” also amended ORS 540.505 to include the four-part definition of the phrase “water use subject to transfer” that, notwithstanding a minor *76 amendment in 1997 (Or Laws 1997, ch 42, § 2), exists at present.”
Fort Vannoy Irrigation Dist. v. Water Resources Comm'n, 162 P.3d 1066 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “The certificates in the district’s name provide expressly that the district “has made proof to the satisfaction of the STATE ENGINEER of Oregon, of a right to the use of the waters.” (Uppercase in original.”
Bridge Creek Ranch v. Water Resources Dept. (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “The position of the OWRD is that, under ORS 540.510 and other relevant statutes, the OWRD is empow- ered to entertain an application to transfer the POD for a water right only from an applicant who holds a “water use subject to transfer,” and that relator does not hold such a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 540.505(4)(a) — 3 cases
Fort Vannoy Irrigation Dist. v. Water Resources Comm'n, 188 P.3d 277 (Or. 2008). “510(1) to include the phrase “holder of any water use subject to transfer” also amended ORS 540.505 to include the four-part definition of the phrase “water use subject to transfer” that, notwithstanding a minor *76 amendment in 1997 (Or Laws 1997, ch 42, § 2), exists at present.”
Fort Klamath Critical Habitat Landowners v. Woodcock (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “ORS 540.505(4)(a) (A “water use subject to transfer” includes a water use established by an “adjudication under ORS Chapter 539 as evidenced by court decree.”
Fort Klamath Critical Habitat Landowners v. Woodcock (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “ORS 540.505(4)(a) (A “water use subject to transfer” includes a water use established by an “adjudication under ORS Chapter 539 as evidenced by court decree.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 540.505(4)(b) — 1 case
Bridge Creek Ranch v. Water Resources Dept. (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “The position of the OWRD is that, under ORS 540.510 and other relevant statutes, the OWRD is empow- ered to entertain an application to transfer the POD for a water right only from an applicant who holds a “water use subject to transfer,” and that relator does not hold such a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 540.505(4)(c) — 1 case
Fort Vannoy Irrigation Dist. v. Water Resources Comm'n, 188 P.3d 277 (Or. 2008). “510(1) to include the phrase “holder of any water use subject to transfer” also amended ORS 540.505 to include the four-part definition of the phrase “water use subject to transfer” that, notwithstanding a minor *76 amendment in 1997 (Or Laws 1997, ch 42, § 2), exists at present.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 540.505(4)(d) — 1 case
Fort Vannoy Irrigation Dist. v. Water Resources Comm'n, 188 P.3d 277 (Or. 2008). “510(1) to include the phrase “holder of any water use subject to transfer” also amended ORS 540.505 to include the four-part definition of the phrase “water use subject to transfer” that, notwithstanding a minor *76 amendment in 1997 (Or Laws 1997, ch 42, § 2), exists at present.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 540.505(l)(b) — 1 case
Fort Vannoy Irrigation Dist. v. Water Resources Comm'n, 188 P.3d 277 (Or. 2008). “510(1) to include the phrase “holder of any water use subject to transfer” also amended ORS 540.505 to include the four-part definition of the phrase “water use subject to transfer” that, notwithstanding a minor *76 amendment in 1997 (Or Laws 1997, ch 42, § 2), exists at present.”
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.