|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Department|
|Supreme Court Case 1|
|Jordan R. Silk and W. Michael Gillette on behalf of City of Cottage Grove|
Lisa A. Brown and Thomas M. Christ on behalf of Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc.
Denise Fjordbeck on behalf of Oregon Water Resources Department
Statement of Issues:
|Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Department (S062036) (A147071) (on judicial review from the Oregon Water Resources Department; opinion reported at 259 Or App 717, 316 P3d 330 (2013)).|
The City of Cottage Grove has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that reversed and remanded a final order of the Water Resources Department granting to the city an extension of time to perfect its water rights under a permit first issued in 1977, on the basis that the department had erroneously construed ORS 537.230(2), and, consequently, had failed to condition the extension of the permit as required in ORS 537.230(2)(b) and (c).
On review, the issues are:
(1) When the legislature has provided that an agency order is conclusive as to the rights of a party if the order is not challenged within a specified time, and no one challenges that order within the time that the legislature has prescribed, does the Supreme Court's decision in Hamel v. Johnson, 330 Or 180, 998 P2d 661 (2000), nonetheless render that order vulnerable to attack if some aspect of the predicate agency action may have been erroneous?
(2) Does ORS 183.486(1)(b) authorize the Court of Appeals, in a judicial review of a final order, to assess the legal validity of other orders to which the legislature has granted conclusive effect, and which no party has challenged within the time allowed by statute for such challenges?
(3) Did the legislature intend the phrase "before the extension, " as used in the larger phrase "beyond the maximum rate diverted for beneficial use before the extension" in ORS 537.230(2)(b), to refer to the time before a prior extension of time (if any) to complete construction or perfect a water right expired, or the time when the Water Resources Department makes a decision on the extension request?
(4) Did the legislature intend the phrase "undeveloped portion of the [water right] permit, " as used in ORS 537.230(2)(c), to refer to the undeveloped portion of the permit at the time that a prior extension of time (if any) to complete construction or perfect a water right expired, or the time when the Water Resources Department makes a decision on the extension request?
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: