The Oregon State Legislature is considering legislation that would require public entities discharging stormwater into canals or other infrastructure belonging to special districts or local governments to obtain permission from the affected district or government and ensure the discharge complies with water quality standards. This proposed legislation reflects the growing prevalence of development in rural and agricultural areas and the resulting conflicts between stakeholders trying to encourage economic development and maintain the integrity of historic water uses.
The bill before the Oregon State Legislature (SB 866) requires that state agencies, special districts, and local governments (public entities): 1) take reasonable steps to ensure that stormwater discharge into the canals or infrastructure of a special district or local government complies with state water quality standards and the requirements of the Clean Water Act; and 2) obtain the permission of the affected entity before discharging stormwater into a special district or local government’s canal or other infrastructure.
If a public entity were to discharge stormwater without the required permission, it would be liable to the affected special district or local government for actual damages, losses, costs, and attorney fees resulting from the discharge. However, a public entity would avoid liability if: 1) the affected special district or local government refuses to grant its permission or grants but later revokes its permission; and 2) the discharging public entity devises a detailed plan for infrastructure improvements that would provide a method to convey and discharge storm water without affecting the water conveyance infrastructure or imposing additional liability on the affected special district or local government. The public entity must implement this plan within five years of discharging storm water without written permission, otherwise it would remain liable to the affected special district or local government for actual damages, losses, costs, and attorney fees resulting from the discharge.
This proposed legislation would go into effect upon passage; however, the provisions addressing permission to discharge and resulting liability would become operative on July 1, 2019.
If passed, this proposed legislation would be a major step in regulating stormwater in Oregon. Although its text creates new requirements only for public entities, its passage would cause a major shift in the regulation of stormwater at the state level, imposing broad liability on public entities who discharge unwanted and polluted water. If passed, this legislation would almost certainly generate court battles and perhaps inspire similar legislation in other states.
The Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources must move SB 866 out of committee and onto the Senate floor by April 18, 2017, and the bill must be out of the relevant house committee by June 2, 2017. The legislation must be approved by both chambers by July 10, 2017, when the 2017 regular legislative session ends. See, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/calendar.
For more information about SB 866 and to track the bill’s progress in the legislature, see, https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Measures/Overview/SB866.
(Sarah J. Wightman)
![Federal District Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Over Shasta Dam Operations, Upholding U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Water PlanThe U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied three environmental organizations’ request for a preliminary injunction requiring the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to modify its 2026 operations of Shasta Dam and Reservoir. The court classified the requested relief as a mandatory injunction and concluded that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the heightened standard applicable to such relief. [San Francisco Baykeeper v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, ___F.Supp.4th___, Case No. 2:26-cv-00671-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2026).] Background On March 2, 2026, San Francisco Baykeeper, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Friends of the River filed suit against Reclamation, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and several federal officials. The broader lawsuit alleges that the federal defendants violated the federal Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act in connection with Reclamation’s operation of the Central Valley Project. Among other allegations, the plaintiffs contend that Reclamation failed to comply with protective measures and incidental-take limits established by the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS’s) 2024 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for winter-run chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, and North American green sturgeon. The preliminary-injunction motion addressed a narrower issue: Reclamation’s operation of Shasta Dam and Reservoir during the summer and early fall of 2026. Keswick Dam prevents winter-run chinook salmon from reaching their historic upstream spawning habitat. Consequently, the survival of eggs deposited downstream depends substantially on Reclamation’s release of sufficiently cold water from Shasta Reservoir. The 2024 BiOp established a “Shasta Framework” for managing water temperature and reservoir storage while accounting for fish protection, water-delivery obligations, flood control, and other authorized project purposes. In the framework, Reclamation designated 2026 as a “Bin 2A” year based on projected end-of-April and end-of-September reservoir storage. The plaintiffs argued that the high end-of-April storage level required Reclamation to treat 2026 as a more protective Bin 1 year and preserve at least 2.4 million acre-feet of water through September unless achieving that target was impossible. Reclamation responded that the framework uses both April storage and projected September storage to make the initial classification and that the forecasts therefore supported its Bin 2A designation. The plaintiffs sued Reclamation under sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that Reclamation was operating outside the 2024 biological opinion’s Shasta Framework. The plaintiffs then sought emergency relief requiring Reclamation to reduce releases from Shasta Reservoir, prepare a new operating plan, and operate consistently with the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Bin 1 requirements. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order on July 9, 2026, and subsequently denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. The District Court’s Ruling Although the order is not a final ruling on the merits, it indicates that the court views Reclamation’s interpretation of the Shasta Framework as better supported by the governing documents. The court expressly stated that the plaintiffs did not appear likely to succeed on the claim advanced in the motion and failed to make the stronger showing required for a mandatory injunction. In its ruling, the District Court first rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the requested injunction would merely preserve the status quo. The proposed relief would have required Reclamation to conduct new modeling, prepare and implement a new temperature-management plan, and materially change its reservoir operations. Because the requested order would compel affirmative action, the court treated it as a mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs therefore had to demonstrate that the law and facts clearly favored their position, not merely that they were likely to prevail. Second, the court found Reclamation’s interpretation of the 2024 BiOp more persuasive. Although language in Table 25 of the BiOp supported the plaintiffs’ position, the court concluded that the underlying Proposed Action, decision tree, and operational modeling supported using both projected April and September storage to determine the applicable Bin. The court suggested that Table 25 may have inaccurately summarized the end-of-April storage ranges described in the Proposed Action. The court used the interpretive framework from Kisor v. Wilkie as guidance but did not ultimately rely on agency deference. The Court directly addressed the interpretations of the BiOp, and underlying data to support and, in doing so, made clear that the decision was not based on any level of agency-deference but, instead, based on a finding that Reclamation’s position was more factually supported and, therefore, did not assess questions of deference. Conclusion and Implications The ruling leaves Reclamation’s 2026 Shasta operations unchanged by the requested federal injunction. It does not, however, finally approve those operations or resolve the plaintiffs’ broader allegations concerning incidental take, reinitiation of ESA consultation, or the validity and application of the 2024 BiOp. Legally, the decision underscores the high threshold plaintiffs face when seeking mandatory injunction against federal agency operations, particularly when relying on narrow claims regarding BiOp framework, and addresses the importance of a fact-based assessment, while declining to address to questions of agency deference. The court’s order is available here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/baykeeper-injuction-denied-ruling.pdf (Stephanie Cook, Miles Krieger)](https://argentco.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ARTICLES-Land_Fog-230x100.jpg "Federal District Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Over Shasta Dam Operations, Upholding U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Water PlanThe U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied three environmental organizations’ request for a preliminary injunction requiring the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to modify its 2026 operations of Shasta Dam and Reservoir. The court classified the requested relief as a mandatory injunction and concluded that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the heightened standard applicable to such relief. [San Francisco Baykeeper v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, ___F.Supp.4th___, Case No. 2:26-cv-00671-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2026).] Background On March 2, 2026, San Francisco Baykeeper, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Friends of the River filed suit against Reclamation, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and several federal officials. The broader lawsuit alleges that the federal defendants violated the federal Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act in connection with Reclamation’s operation of the Central Valley Project. Among other allegations, the plaintiffs contend that Reclamation failed to comply with protective measures and incidental-take limits established by the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS’s) 2024 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for winter-run chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, and North American green sturgeon. The preliminary-injunction motion addressed a narrower issue: Reclamation’s operation of Shasta Dam and Reservoir during the summer and early fall of 2026. Keswick Dam prevents winter-run chinook salmon from reaching their historic upstream spawning habitat. Consequently, the survival of eggs deposited downstream depends substantially on Reclamation’s release of sufficiently cold water from Shasta Reservoir. The 2024 BiOp established a “Shasta Framework” for managing water temperature and reservoir storage while accounting for fish protection, water-delivery obligations, flood control, and other authorized project purposes. In the framework, Reclamation designated 2026 as a “Bin 2A” year based on projected end-of-April and end-of-September reservoir storage. The plaintiffs argued that the high end-of-April storage level required Reclamation to treat 2026 as a more protective Bin 1 year and preserve at least 2.4 million acre-feet of water through September unless achieving that target was impossible. Reclamation responded that the framework uses both April storage and projected September storage to make the initial classification and that the forecasts therefore supported its Bin 2A designation. The plaintiffs sued Reclamation under sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that Reclamation was operating outside the 2024 biological opinion’s Shasta Framework. The plaintiffs then sought emergency relief requiring Reclamation to reduce releases from Shasta Reservoir, prepare a new operating plan, and operate consistently with the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Bin 1 requirements. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order on July 9, 2026, and subsequently denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. The District Court’s Ruling Although the order is not a final ruling on the merits, it indicates that the court views Reclamation’s interpretation of the Shasta Framework as better supported by the governing documents. The court expressly stated that the plaintiffs did not appear likely to succeed on the claim advanced in the motion and failed to make the stronger showing required for a mandatory injunction. In its ruling, the District Court first rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the requested injunction would merely preserve the status quo. The proposed relief would have required Reclamation to conduct new modeling, prepare and implement a new temperature-management plan, and materially change its reservoir operations. Because the requested order would compel affirmative action, the court treated it as a mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs therefore had to demonstrate that the law and facts clearly favored their position, not merely that they were likely to prevail. Second, the court found Reclamation’s interpretation of the 2024 BiOp more persuasive. Although language in Table 25 of the BiOp supported the plaintiffs’ position, the court concluded that the underlying Proposed Action, decision tree, and operational modeling supported using both projected April and September storage to determine the applicable Bin. The court suggested that Table 25 may have inaccurately summarized the end-of-April storage ranges described in the Proposed Action. The court used the interpretive framework from Kisor v. Wilkie as guidance but did not ultimately rely on agency deference. The Court directly addressed the interpretations of the BiOp, and underlying data to support and, in doing so, made clear that the decision was not based on any level of agency-deference but, instead, based on a finding that Reclamation’s position was more factually supported and, therefore, did not assess questions of deference. Conclusion and Implications The ruling leaves Reclamation’s 2026 Shasta operations unchanged by the requested federal injunction. It does not, however, finally approve those operations or resolve the plaintiffs’ broader allegations concerning incidental take, reinitiation of ESA consultation, or the validity and application of the 2024 BiOp. Legally, the decision underscores the high threshold plaintiffs face when seeking mandatory injunction against federal agency operations, particularly when relying on narrow claims regarding BiOp framework, and addresses the importance of a fact-based assessment, while declining to address to questions of agency deference. The court’s order is available here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/baykeeper-injuction-denied-ruling.pdf (Stephanie Cook, Miles Krieger)")
