recognizing that APA exclusivity serves the same purposes as the exhaustion requirement, because “the APA establishes a comprehensive pattern for the judicial review of administrative decisions” (internal citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that APA exclusivity serves the same purposes as the exhaustion requirement, because “the APA establishes a comprehensive pattern for the judicial review of administrative decisions” (internal citation omitted)
- stating that “[w]e have held that when APA review is avail- able, APA jurisdiction is exclusive” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before this court may assert jurisdiction over groundwater rights
- “[W]hen there is an administra- tive remedy, review of that remedy is exclusively under the APA.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DEITS, C. J.,
concurring.
In my opinion, it is doubtful that the legislature intended to preempt the authority of local governments to regulate groundwater wells in the manner that the county has attempted to do in Ordinances 94-89 and 94-90. As the state and county assert, the purpose of those local ordinances is a matter of legitimate local concern and the ordinances involve objectives that are quite different from that of the state regulatory authority. Nonetheless, as the majority concludes, the text and context of ORS 537.769 do not provide a basis to limit the preemptive effect of the statute on local authority in the manner that the county desires. Accordingly, I must concur with the majority opinion with respect to plaintiffs’ claims against the county defendants.