# Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson County

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · June 28, 2000 · 168 Or. App. 624

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788477

## Case

- **Full name:** ASHLAND DRILLING, INC., Darryl Baker, Richard Fujas, Elizabeth Fujas and Oregon Ground Water Association, Appellants, v. JACKSON COUNTY, Cliff S. Bentz, John Frewing, Anita Johnson, Nancy Leonard, Michael Jewett, Tyler Hansel, Commissioners of the Oregon Water Resources Commission, Acting in Their Personal Capacities, and Martha O. Pagel, Director, Acting in Her Personal Capacity, Respondents
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** June 28, 2000
- **Citations:** 168 Or. App. 624; 4 P.3d 748; 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 1112
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Deits
- **Judges:** Landau, Deits, Wollheim
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788477

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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)

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788477. Public record. Not legal advice.