2017 ORS 215.299¹
Policy on mining resource lands

(1) The Legislative Assembly finds that:

(a) The extraction of aggregate, other minerals and other subsurface resources is an essential contribution to Oregon’s economic well-being.

(b) Oregon has an economic and social interest in locating and providing affordable aggregate, other minerals and other subsurface resources in close proximity to the end user of the materials.

(c) Oregon has an interest in balancing competing land use demands for lands identified as farmlands or forestlands in a manner that protects the economic viability of mining and other resource uses.

(d) To balance competing resource uses, Oregon has an interest in providing significant volumes of high-quality aggregate, other minerals and other subsurface resources that are critical to building Oregon’s communities and infrastructure while preserving farmland for agricultural production.

(2) The Legislative Assembly declares that:

(a) High-value farmland composed predominantly of Class I and Class II soils in the Willamette Valley should not be available for mining unless there is a significant volume of high-quality aggregate and other minerals and other subsurface resources available for extraction.

(b) State agencies and local governments should balance competing resource uses and not restrict the removal of the full depth of aggregate unless public health and safety concerns necessitate the restriction of mining activity. [2013 c.706 §1]

Note: 215.299 (Policy on mining resource lands) was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 215 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Effect of constitu­tional pro­vi­sion requiring pay­ments based on govern­ment regula­tions restricting use of prop­erty, (2001) Vol 49, p 284

Chapter 215

Notes of Decisions

Published notice is adequate if prop­erty owners can reasonably ascertain that prop­erty in which they hold interest may be affected. Clackamas County v. Emmert, 14 Or App 493, 513 P2d 532 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

Statutory scheme es­tab­lishing LCDC and granting it authority to es­tab­lish state-wide land use planning goals does not unconstitu­tionally delegate legislative power where both standards (under this chapter) and safeguards ([former] ORS 197.310) exist. Meyer v. Lord, 37 Or App 59, 586 P2d 367 (1978)

Where county had not yet adopted comprehensive plan but had zoned certain por­tions “primarily agricultural,” county had not enacted adequate interim measures to protect its agricultural land until exclusive farm use zoning was completed. Columbia County v. LCDC, 44 Or App 749, 606 P2d 1184 (1980)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., applica­tion to county governing bodies and planning com­mis­sions, (1974) Vol 36, p 960; binding effect on govern­mental agencies of the adop­tion of interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894

Law Review Cita­tions

36 EL 25 (2006)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 215—County Planning; Zoning; Housing Codes, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors215.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 215, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano215.­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.