## Facts

- Agricultural irrigators and other groundwater users pumped from a basalt aquifer underlying parts of Umatilla and Morrow counties, Oregon.
- The Oregon Water Resources Director initiated administrative proceedings under state groundwater statutes to determine whether to declare the area a “critical ground water area.”
- After hearings and technical analysis, the Director (as amended in 1986) designated approximately 274 square miles as a critical ground water area.
- The Director found withdrawals for irrigation, domestic, and stock uses exceeded the basin’s “sustained yield,” causing long-term groundwater-level declines.
- The Director concluded continued unregulated pumping would jeopardize public welfare, health, and safety.
- The order barred new groundwater appropriations within the area and tightly controlled changes in use or location of existing rights.
- The water users challenged the designation and restrictions, asserting Oregon law allowed pumping to the point of overdraft.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the order; the Oregon Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Director correctly interpreted and applied Oregon’s statutes governing declaration of a critical ground water area, including “sustained yield.”
2. Whether the Director’s findings and explanation adequately supported the designation and the associated restrictions, including a moratorium on new appropriations.
3. Whether existing groundwater users possessed a right to pump to the point of overdraft that would limit the state’s authority to impose preventive controls.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and upheld the Director’s amended order.
- The court held the Director’s interpretation of the groundwater management statutes, including “sustained yield,” was correct.
- The court concluded the findings and reasoning adequately supported both the critical-area designation and the restrictions adopted to protect public welfare, health, and safety.
- The court rejected the claim that existing users had a legally protected right to deplete the aquifer through overdraft.

## Legal Principles

- Oregon’s critical-groundwater-area statutes authorize preventive regulation when pumping exceeds sustained yield and produces significant long-term declines in groundwater levels.
- “Sustained yield” may be treated as a long-term recharge benchmark; withdrawals exceeding that benchmark can justify restricting new appropriations and regulating changes to existing uses.
- Groundwater rights are usufructuary and remain subject to state regulation adopted to protect public welfare, health, and safety; they do not include an absolute right to pump to exhaustion.
- An administrative order designating a critical ground water area is valid when supported by substantial evidence and accompanied by findings and reasoning that connect the facts to the statutory criteria and chosen controls.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court upheld the designation of a 274-square-mile critical ground water area and associated limits on new appropriations and certain changes to existing uses, holding that sustained-yield overdraft and documented water-level declines justified preventive regulation and that groundwater users had no right to continue pumping to depletion.


Doherty v. Or. Water Res. Dir., 308 Or. 543, 783 P.2d 519 (1989)