1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.3d
  4. 119 P.3d
  5. 119 P.3d 221 (2005)
 

WATERWATCH v. WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION

(Agency No. CC 13; CA A113693; SC S51586, S51587).

119 P.3d 221 (2005)

339 Or. 275

WATERWATCH OF OREGON, INC., an Oregon nonprofit corporation, Respondent on Review, v. WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION, a state agency; Water Resources Department, a state agency; and Coos Bay-North Bend Water Board, an Oregon Municipal Corporation, Petitioners on Review, and City of Lakeside, an Oregon municipal corporation; Tenmile Lakefront Owners Association; and Department of Fish and Wildlife, a state agency, Other parties.

Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc.

Decided September 9, 2005.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Philip Schradle, Special Counsel to the Attorney General, argued the cause for petitioners on review Oregon Water Resources Commission and Oregon Water Resource Department. With him on the briefs were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

James C. Coffey, of Stebbins & Coffey, North Bend, argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner on review Coos Bay-North Bend Water Board.

Brian Posewitz, of Tonkon Torp LLP, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for respondent on review WaterWatch of Oregon, Inc.

Richard M. Glick and Margarita Molina, of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, filed briefs on behalf of amici curiae League of Oregon Cities, Special Districts Association of Oregon and Oregon Association of Water Utilities.

David E. Filippi and Ellen Hawes Grovers of Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, filed briefs on behalf of amicus curiae Oregon Water Resources Congress.

DE MUNIZ, J.

This case centers on the statutes governing the water appropriation permit process. Coos Bay-North Bend Water Board (CBNB) applied to the Water Resources Department (the department) for a permit to appropriate water from a creek. The department issued a proposed final order approving the permit application. WaterWatch and others opposed the issuance of the permit asserting that it was not in the public interest. The department held a contested case proceeding...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases