2017 ORS 92.104¹
District to report boundary locations

(1) For the purposes of providing cities and counties with the necessary information to fulfill the requirements of ORS 92.103 (Notice to district of tentative plan), each irrigation district, drainage district, water control district and water improvement district shall submit a report detailing the locations of the district boundaries, district facilities and any easements and rights of way held by the district to each city and county in which any part of the district is located.

(2) An irrigation district, drainage district, water control district or water improvement district that submits a report to a city or a county under subsection (1) of this section shall give notice to the city or the county within 90 days of any change to the location of a district boundary, district facility or any easement or right of way held by the district. [2017 c.357 §4]

Note: 92.104 (District to report boundary locations) was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 92 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Note: The definitions applicable to ORS chapter 198 apply to 92.104 (District to report boundary locations). See section 3, chapter 357, Oregon Laws 2017.

Note: Section 5, chapter 357, Oregon Laws 2017, provides:

Sec. 5. Each irrigation district, drainage district, water control district and water improvement district shall submit the report required under section 4 (1) of this 2017 Act [92.104 (District to report boundary locations) (1)] on or before January 1, 2019. [2017 c.357 §5]

Notes of Decisions

Due process standards applicable to land use decisions apply to ad­min­is­tra­­tion of subdivision ordinance. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Due process require­ments for granting of variances are identical regardless of whether variance is area variance or use variance. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Approval of tentative plan under subdivision ordinance is final order reviewable in writ of review pro­ceed­ing. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Modifica­tion of sought-after approval of tentative plan must be treated same procedurally as initial applica­tion. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Owner of parcel unlawfully conveyed without having been parti­tioned could not unilaterally seek to parti­tion parcel from remainder of original prop­erty remaining in separate ownership. Kilian v. City of West Linn, 88 Or App 242, 744 P2d 1314 (1987)

Under statutes in effect in 1981, parti­tioning of land parcel had effect of vacating pre­vi­ous lot lines unless parti­tion map indicates continued existence of parti­tioned lots. Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Develop­ment Co. v. Polk County, 246 Or App 548, 267 P3d 855 (2011)

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 398, 399 (1974)

Chapter 92

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Standards county may impose for approval of private roads created in parti­tioning land, (1972) Vol 35, p 1230; effect of county zoning ordinances on approved subdivision plat, (1973) Vol 36, p 702; applica­tion of Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., decision, (1974) Vol 36, p 960

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 394-403 (1974)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 92—Subdivisions and Partitions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors092.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 92, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano092.­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.