Bend Bulletin: Ruling: Irrigation districts properly tasked with pollution controls
By Mateusz Perkowski
Two irrigation districts in Southern Oregon were lawfully pronounced “responsible persons” tasked with reducing pollutants under the Clean Water Act, according to a state appellate court.
The Oregon Court of Appeals has overturned a previous ruling that determined the Horsefly and Langell Valley irrigation districts were wrongly designated as “responsible persons” by state environmental regulators.
“We perceive no basis on which to conclude that petitioners do not have regulatory authority over the facilities that they own, maintain, and operate — and petitioners do not offer such a basis,” according to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
In 2019, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality established “total maximum daily loads,” or TMDLs, for pollutants in the Upper Klamath and Lost River basins.
As part of that decision, the DEQ identified the two irrigation districts as “responsible persons” that must develop plans to help bring pollutant levels below the TMDL thresholds.
The irrigation districts objected to this designation, arguing that charging them with reducing pollutant levels was “outside the scope of the powers granted to them” under state law.
“That grant of authority does empower petitioners to take the actions that respondent seeks to impose on them,” the irrigation districts said in a lawsuit against DEQ.
Marion County Circuit Court Judge Channing Bennett agreed with the irrigation districts, finding that DEQ’s reasoning in designating them as “responsible persons” was “vague and circular.”
The agency fails to “cite any statute or regulation that empowers any of the petitioners to enforce implementation plans,” and does not even assert the irrigation districts are actually sources of pollution — only that they “could be” polluters, the judge said.
However, the DEQ has now convinced the Oregon Court of Appeals to overturn that ruling because the agency’s interpretation of the regulations is “plausible.”
“ODEQ had legal authority to require petitioners, as sources of the pollutants addressed in the TMDLs, to be responsible for developing source-specific implementation plans within their areas of jurisdiction,” the appellate ruling said. While the judge said DEQ improperly “mixes and matches” regulatory language to come up with the “responsible person” designation, the Court of Appeals said the agency was permissibly interpreting regulations for implementing “water quality management plans,” or WQMPs.
“It was using an easy-to-understand shorthand term for a category of persons it was required by regulation to identify in the WQMPs,” the appellate ruling said. As to the scope of the irrigation districts’ authority, the Court of Appeals said it’s “undisputed that petitioners own, operate and maintain various irrigation, drainage and impoundments facilities,” which they’re empowered to enter for various purposes, including regulation.
The DEQ is required to identify sources that “may cause the introduction of pollutants to a waterbody,” but not necessarily to prove that specific irrigation “facilities are causing a specified amount of pollution,” the appellate ruling said. The irrigation districts won’t be expected to enforce the pollution TMDLs on private land or facilities they don’t control, but are only “responsible for developing source-specific implementation plans within their areas of jurisdiction,” according to the Court of Appeals.
“The circuit court granted summary judgment based on its conclusion that ODEQ lacked legal authority to designate petitioners as responsible persons,” the appellate ruling said. “As to that conclusion, we conclude that the circuit court erred as a matter of law.”
Read more at: https://bendbulletin.com/2025/10/08/ruling-irrigation-districts-properly-tasked-with-pollution-controls/
