Contested case hearing on application
- final order
- appeal
Source:
Section 537.170 — Contested case hearing on application; final order; appeal, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors537.html
(accessed May 26, 2025).
Notes of Decisions
Phrase “impair or be detrimental to public interest” in this section was sufficiently specific that Water Policy Review Board was not required to adopt rules establishing more definite standards before deciding whether to approve application for hydroelectric project. Steamboaters v. Winchester Water Control Dist., 69 Or App 596, 688 P2d 92 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Applicant is not exempt from requirement that protest of proposed order must be filed with Water Resources Department before judicial review of order in other than contested case. Lentz v. Water Resources Dept., 154 Or App 217, 962 P2d 41 (1998)
Water Resources Commission did not err by concluding that proposed reservoir “would impair or be detrimental to the public interest,” as used in this section, because proposed reservoir would frustrate beneficial purpose of vested in-stream water right supporting cutthroat trout habitat. East Valley Water District v. Water Resources Commission, 328 Or App 790, 539 P3d 789 (2023)
Law Review Citations
4 EL 332, 333 (1974); 16 EL 583, 592 (1986); 21 EL 11, 133 (1991); 32 WLR 187 (1996)