## Facts

- Chemical Waste Storage and Disposition, Inc. bought roughly 6,000 acres at Alkali Lake in southeastern Oregon to store pesticide-residue wastes and research biodegradation in alkaline soil.
- Beginning in 1969, the company transported residue materials under contract and stored them in 55-gallon steel drums within a ten-acre plot on the property.
- During development, the company cooperated with regulators and obtained permits or licenses from the Oregon Department of Agriculture and a federal research grant with Oregon State University.
- In 1971, Oregon enacted the Environmentally Hazardous Wastes Statutes, ORS 459.410–459.690; by December 1971 the company terminated disposal operations and transferred most assets to shareholders.
- The disposal area was remote, completely fenced, and several miles from the nearest inhabitants.
- DEQ brought an equity action seeking (1) an order compelling statutory compliance, including site licensing, and (2) a declaration that the site was a public nuisance requiring abatement.

## Issues

1. Whether a court should compel the operator of an existing, inactive hazardous-waste disposal site to apply for a license and otherwise comply with the later-enacted Environmentally Hazardous Wastes Statutes.
2. Whether the disposal site, on the evidentiary record presented, constituted a public nuisance warranting an order of abatement.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court decree.
- The injunction prohibiting the defendant from adding any further waste to the site remained in effect.
- The court upheld denial of DEQ’s request to require the defendant to apply for a hazardous-waste site license.
- The court upheld denial of DEQ’s request to declare the site a public nuisance and compel abatement.

## Legal Principles

- Injunctive relief under a statutory hazardous-waste scheme is not automatic; a court may decline to order affirmative licensing or operational steps where the challenged operation has ceased and the existing decree already prevents further disposal.
- A public nuisance determination requires proof of sufficient public harm or danger on the record; isolation and restricted access may weigh against finding a public nuisance requiring judicial abatement.
- In equity, courts may consider the practical posture of the defendant and the regulatory history when deciding whether to impose additional affirmative obligations beyond prohibitory relief.

## Conclusion

The court allowed DEQ to bar any future waste disposal at the Alkali Lake site but refused to compel licensing or order nuisance abatement, concluding that the record did not justify those additional remedies against an operator whose disposal activity had ended and whose site conditions did not establish the public harm necessary for nuisance relief.


Or. Dep’t of Env’t Quality v. Chem. Waste Storage & Disposition, Inc., 528 P.2d 1076 (Or. Ct. App. 1974)