2017 ORS 199.464¹
Commission approval for exercise of additional district function, to extraterritorially extend district or city sewer or water line or to establish privately owned community water system

(1) Approval or disapproval under this section shall be based on the policy stated in ORS 199.410 (Policy).

(2) Without the approval of a boundary commission, a district with territory in the jurisdiction of the commission may not initiate an additional function of the district. Any proposal by a district to initiate an additional function shall be referred immediately to the boundary commission that has jurisdiction of the territory in which the district lies. The district shall take no further action on the proposal unless the commission approves the proposal as proposed or modified.

(3) Except for lines which provide no extraterritorial service, without the approval of a boundary commission, a city or district with territory in the jurisdiction of the commission shall not extend a water or sewer line extraterritorially to an extent not effected on October 5, 1973. Tentative plans for such extraterritorial extension shall be submitted to the boundary commission that has jurisdiction of the territory in which the extension is proposed. If the commission disapproves the plans, no further action may be taken.

(4) Except as provided in subsection (5)(d) of this section, within territory subject to the jurisdiction of a boundary commission, no person may establish a community water supply system or a privately owned sewerage system or privately owned disposal system or extend a water line or sewer line without commission approval. Tentative plans for such approval shall be submitted to the boundary commission that has jurisdiction of the territory for which the establishment or extension is proposed. However, extension by a city or district of water lines or sewer lines shall be governed by subsection (3) of this section and the requirements of this section shall not apply to establishment of a city-owned or district-owned community water supply system within its boundaries.

(5)(a) A community water supply system within the territory subject to the jurisdiction of a commission may apply to the commission for allocation of service territory. If the territory is allocated to a community water supply system, no other community water supply system may serve within the territory without approval of the commission and the approval may not be given so long as the existing system is reliable and has an adequate quality and quantity of water.

(b) In condemning all or part of the properties and allocated service territory of a private community water supply system through eminent domain, the acquisition price shall be fair market value.

(c) No part of the acquisition price for all or part of a community water supply system acquired by eminent domain shall be specially assessed against the property within the acquired service territory, or its owners on a special benefit assessment basis.

(d) A community water supply system to which service territory has been allocated under this subsection may extend or establish water lines within the territory without further approval of the commission.

(6) Action which under this section requires approval by a boundary commission but is taken without that approval may be enjoined, upon suit in a court of competent jurisdiction, by the boundary commission in whose territorial jurisdiction the action is taken.

(7) As used in this section:

(a) “Community water supply system” means a source of water and distribution system whether publicly or privately owned that serves more than three residences or other users where water is provided for public consumption including, but not limited to, a school, farm labor camp, an industrial establishment, a recreational facility, a restaurant, a motel, a mobile home or manufactured dwelling park, or a group care home.

(b) “Disposal system” is that system described by ORS 468B.005 (Definitions for water pollution control laws), except for individual subsurface disposal systems.

(c) “Sewer line” includes every gravity sewer line that is eight inches or more in diameter and all force lines regardless of size, except a line connecting a sewer system with the premises of the user unless the line provides for extraterritorial extension of service.

(d) “Sewerage system” is that system described by ORS 468B.005 (Definitions for water pollution control laws).

(e) “Tentative plans” submitted to the boundary commission for approval shall include:

(A) For the establishment of a water system or extension of a water line:

(i) The source of the supply and quantity of water available.

(ii) The transmission, distribution and storage system size and location.

(iii) The proposed number of service connections, a map, and a legal description indicating the proposed service area.

(B) For the establishment of a sewer system or extension of a sewer line:

(i) The location of the treatment facility and outfall or other method of disposal.

(ii) The size and location of the collection system.

(iii) The proposed number of service connections, a map, and a legal description indicating the proposed service area.

(f) “Water line” includes every water line except a line connecting a community water supply system with the premises of the water user unless the line provides for extraterritorial extension of service. [1973 c.684 §2; 1975 c.330 §1; 1979 c.374 §3; 1979 c.880 §4; 1983 c.336 §9; 1989 c.92 §19; 1989 c.648 §58; 2003 c.469 §2; 2005 c.22 §149]

Notes of Decisions

Where city, prior to es­tab­lish­ment of Boundary Commission, assumed assets and liabilities of satellite wa­ter districts, but annexed only por­tions of such districts, extension of wa­ter service to unannexed por­tions was not “extraterritorial” extension within meaning of this sec­tion. Lane County v. City of Eugene, 34 Or App 257, 578 P2d 473 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Concerning Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Commission goals upon wa­ter service applica­tions, (1976) Vol 38, p 490

Notes of Decisions

The statutory scheme of authority and pro­ce­dures for com­mis­sions created by this Act, plus adherence to the prescribed pro­ce­dure as set out in the Act, release the com­mis­sions from the limita­tions placed upon local govern­mental bodies in zone-change matters in Fasano v. Washington County Comm., 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23 (1973). Marion County Fire Dist. 1 v. Marion-Polk County Local Govt. Boundary Comm., 19 Or App 108, 526 P2d 1031 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

In Proceeding Involving Proposed Merger of Three Water Districts

1) no elec­tion was re­quired before com­mis­sion order approving merger could take effect; 2) com­mis­sion made the findings re­quired by statute; 3) com­mis­sion’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, adequate for review and sufficient to support its order; and 4) these sec­tions did not constitute invalid delega­tion of legislative power. Redland Water District v. Portland Metro. Area LGBC, 63 Or App 641, 665 P2d 1241 (1983), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Dissolu­tion of insolvent metropolitan service district, (1972) Vol 35, p 1117

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 199—County Consolidation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors199.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 199, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano199.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.