{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-09","fingerprint":"ewai:us:85f6be","proof":"sha256:26d2ac9405961cd603da86d16b88da5498276730537f31e574d5cba255b9756b","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"110 September 23, 2026 No. 879","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"STATE OF OREGON","paragraphs":["para_4","para_5","para_6"]},{"title":"DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE","paragraphs":["para_8","para_9","para_10"]},{"title":"Tillamook County Circuit Court","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"19CV41007; A187044","paragraphs":["para_13","para_14"]},{"title":"Thomas R. Benke argued the cause and filed the briefs","paragraphs":["para_16"]},{"title":"Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, argued the","paragraphs":["para_18"]},{"title":"Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Interim Deputy","paragraphs":["para_20"]},{"title":"Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and","paragraphs":["para_22","para_23","para_24"]},{"title":"Cite as 353 Or App 110 (2026) 111","paragraphs":["para_26"]},{"title":"This case is before us after our remand in Hayes","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Oyster Co. v. Dept. of Agriculture, 333 Or App 133, 552 P3d","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"97 (2024) (Hayes II). In Hayes II, we concluded that the cir-","paragraphs":["para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35"]},{"title":"(collectively, ODA). Hayes now appeals from the resulting","paragraphs":["para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44"]},{"title":"We recite only those facts necessary to this appeal.1","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"In 2001, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(ODEQ) issued a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for","paragraphs":["para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51"]},{"title":"333 Or App at 136 (brackets in Hayes II). ODA is the desig-","paragraphs":["para_53"]},{"title":"TMDL. Both parties agree that ODA is required to create","paragraphs":["para_55"]},{"title":"(AWQMAP) to implement that TMDL. The parties part ways","paragraphs":["para_57"]},{"title":"Coast Basin AWQMAP, the North Coast Basin AWQMAP","paragraphs":["para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65"]},{"title":"112 Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dept. of Agriculture","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"After unsuccessfully petitioning ODA to promul-","paragraphs":["para_68"]},{"title":"TMDL, Hayes petitioned the circuit court, under ORS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"183.490, for an order compelling ODA to “initiate rulemak-","paragraphs":["para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74"]},{"title":"Hayes had stated a claim under ORS 183.490, because the","paragraphs":["para_76"]},{"title":"North Coast AWQMAP and rules but, rather, was based on","paragraphs":["para_78","para_79","para_80"]},{"title":"On remand, the parties filed cross-motions for sum-","paragraphs":["para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87"]},{"title":"Coast) instead of via the existing rules appended to the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"TMDL, the CAFO program and the North Coast Basin","paragraphs":["para_90"]},{"title":"In addition, Plaintiffs have not cited the Court to any por-","paragraphs":["para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96"]},{"title":"On appeal, Hayes argues that the circuit court","paragraphs":["para_98","para_99"]},{"title":"Allocation * * * is in the Tillamook Bay Watershed TMDL","paragraphs":["para_101","para_102"]},{"title":"2 We note at the outset that we reject Hayes’s reading of Hayes II offered at","paragraphs":["para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108"]},{"title":"Cite as 353 Or App 110 (2026) 113","paragraphs":["para_110"]},{"title":"TMDL is the Tillamook Bay Watershed TMDL itself. Hayes","paragraphs":["para_112","para_113"]},{"title":"(EPA). Hayes asserts that ODA has not satisfied its obli-","paragraphs":["para_115"]},{"title":"AWQMAP, the North Coast Basin AWQMAP rules, and the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"CAFO permit program are not substantively sufficient to","paragraphs":["para_118","para_119"]},{"title":"Under ORS 183.490, “[t]he court may, upon petition","paragraphs":["para_121","para_122","para_123"]},{"title":"Hayes’s claim is that the Tillamook Bay Watershed TMDL","paragraphs":["para_125"]},{"title":"Tillamook Bay Watershed, but that ODA has refused to do","paragraphs":["para_127"]},{"title":"North Coast Basin AWQMAP rules, and the CAFO permit","paragraphs":["para_129","para_130"]},{"title":"The problem with Hayes’s argument on appeal in support","paragraphs":["para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136"]},{"title":"AWQMAP that it is required to develop due to a TMDL. See","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"ORS 568.909(1)(a) (“The State Department of Agriculture","paragraphs":["para_139","para_140","para_141"]},{"title":"Commission to establish a Total Maximum Daily Load for a","paragraphs":["para_143"]},{"title":"3 Of note, the memorandum of agreement between ODEQ and EPA that","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Hayes relies on includes a provision that “ODA will convene an advisory com-","paragraphs":["para_146","para_147","para_148"]},{"title":"AWQMAP is prepared before a TMDL, the AWQMAP will be reevaluated after","paragraphs":["para_150","para_151"]},{"title":"114 Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dept. of Agriculture","paragraphs":["para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159"]},{"title":"We agree with the circuit court that Hayes’s inabil-","paragraphs":["para_161","para_162"]},{"title":"183.490 claim. The gravamen of Hayes’s arguments is truly","paragraphs":["para_164","para_165"]},{"title":"Bay Watershed. However, Hayes’s arguments about the sub-","paragraphs":["para_167"]},{"title":"North Coast Basin AWQMAP rules, and the CAFO permit","paragraphs":["para_169","para_170","para_171"]},{"title":"(“Review under ORS 183.490 is available when an agency","paragraphs":["para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176"]},{"title":"582 (1997), rev dismissed, 328 Or 331 (1999) (holding that","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"ORS 183.490 does not “afford[ ] relief for erroneous agency","paragraphs":["para_179","para_180"]},{"title":"In a second assignment of error, Hayes argues that","paragraphs":["para_182","para_183"]},{"title":"ODEQ. Hayes appears to assert that, because the Oregon","paragraphs":["para_185"]},{"title":"4 In its reply brief and at oral argument, Hayes for the first time on appeal","paragraphs":["para_187"]},{"title":"AWQMAP that is specific to the Tillamook Bay Watershed TMDL, because","paragraphs":["para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194"]},{"title":"Cite as 353 Or App 110 (2026) 115","paragraphs":["para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199"]},{"title":"System-Oregon, 349 Or 481, 489, 245 P3d 642 (2010) (dis-","paragraphs":["para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"110 September 23, 2026 No. 879","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"STATE OF OREGON","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"HAYES OYSTER COMPANY,","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"Petitioner-Appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"and Lisa Charpilloz Hanson,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"in her official capacity as Director,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Respondents-Respondents.","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Tillamook County Circuit Court","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"19CV41007; A187044","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Mari Garric Trevino, Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Argued and submitted January 21, 2026.","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Thomas R. Benke argued the cause and filed the briefs","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"for appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, argued the","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"cause for respondents. Also on the brief were Dan Rayfield,","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Interim Deputy","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Attorney General.","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Hellman, Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"ORTEGA, P. J.","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"Affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Cite as 353 Or App 110 (2026) 111","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"ORTEGA, P. J.","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"This case is before us after our remand in Hayes","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"Oyster Co. v. Dept. of Agriculture, 333 Or App 133, 552 P3d","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"97 (2024) (Hayes II). In Hayes II, we concluded that the cir-","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"cuit court had erred in dismissing Hayes’s claim to compel","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"agency action under ORS 183.490, and we remanded to","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"the circuit court for further proceedings on that claim. On","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"remand, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judg-","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"ment, and the circuit court granted summary judgment","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"to the Oregon Department of Agriculture and its director","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"(collectively, ODA). Hayes now appeals from the resulting","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"judgment. We conclude that the circuit court did not err and","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"“On review of cross-motions for summary judgment,","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"we view the record for each motion in the light most favor-","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"able to the party opposing it to determine whether there is","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"a genuine issue of material fact and, if not, whether either","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” O’Kain v.","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"Landress, 299 Or App 417, 419, 450 P3d 508 (2019).","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"We recite only those facts necessary to this appeal.1","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"In 2001, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"(ODEQ) issued a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"the Tillamook Bay Watershed, which “established that the","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"amount of fecal coliform that can enter a waterbody for","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"‘[f]arm buildings and pastures that have had manure","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"applied to them’ is zero (the zero Load Allocation).” Hayes II,","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"333 Or App at 136 (brackets in Hayes II). ODA is the desig-","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"nated management agency for the Tillamook Bay Watershed","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"TMDL. Both parties agree that ODA is required to create","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"an Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"(AWQMAP) to implement that TMDL. The parties part ways","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"on whether ODA can fulfill that obligation with its North","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"Coast Basin AWQMAP, the North Coast Basin AWQMAP","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"rules that implement the non-voluntary components of the","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"plan, and the Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"permit program. Hayes contends that ODA is required to","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"adopt a separate AWQMAP as a rule that is specific to the","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"Tillamook Bay Watershed TMDL and zero Load Allocation.","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"1 For additional background, see Hayes Oyster Co. v. DEQ, 316 Or App 186,","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"504 P3d 15 (2021), rev den, 369 Or 507 (2022) (Hayes I), and Hayes II.","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"112 Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dept. of Agriculture","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"After unsuccessfully petitioning ODA to promul-","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"gate a rule to implement the Tillamook Bay Watershed","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"TMDL, Hayes petitioned the circuit court, under ORS","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"183.490, for an order compelling ODA to “initiate rulemak-","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"ing proceedings to implement the zero Load Allocation of","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"the 2001 Tillamook Bay Watershed TMDL.” The circuit","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"court dismissed that claim for failure to state a claim, and","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"we reversed and remanded in Hayes II. We determined that","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"Hayes had stated a claim under ORS 183.490, because the","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"claim, as alleged, was not based on the insufficiency of ODA’s","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"North Coast AWQMAP and rules but, rather, was based on","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"the allegation that ODA was required to adopt a plan as a","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"rule specific to the Tillamook Bay Watershed TMDL and","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"that ODA had not done so.2 Hayes II, 333 Or App at 146-47.","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"On remand, the parties filed cross-motions for sum-","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"mary judgment on the merits of Hayes’s ORS 183.490 claim.","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"The circuit court granted summary judgment for ODA,","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"stating:","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"“In conclusion, it appears that while Plaintiff desires","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"that [ODA] implement the Tillamook Bay TMDL via new","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"rules limited to Tillamook Bay (rather than the North","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"Coast) instead of via the existing rules appended to the","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"TMDL, the CAFO program and the North Coast Basin","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"plan and rules, no rule or statute compels [ODA] to do so.","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"In addition, Plaintiffs have not cited the Court to any por-","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"tion of the TMDL itself that requires such rulemaking as","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"alleged in the Corrected Amended Petition. The Court finds","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"that the existing regulatory structure outlined by [ODA] is","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"within its lawful discretion to fulfill its legal obligation to","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"implement the terms of the Tillamook Bay TMDL.”","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"On appeal, Hayes argues that the circuit court","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"erred because “the requirement [for ODA] to promulgate","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"an AWQMAP specifically to implement the zero Load","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"Allocation * * * is in the Tillamook Bay Watershed TMDL","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"as an order.” (Underline omitted.) That is, Hayes argues","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"that the source of law requiring ODA to initiate a new","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"2 We note at the outset that we reject Hayes’s reading of Hayes II offered at","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"oral argument that suggested we had addressed some of the merits of Hayes’s","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"claim in that case. To the contrary, the statements in Hayes II relied on by Hayes","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"were about Hayes’s allegations in the complaint having sufficiently stated a claim","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"under ORS 183.490 and not about the merits of those allegations or the suffi-","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"ciency of the North Coast Basin AWQMAP and rules. 333 Or App at 146-47.","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"Cite as 353 Or App 110 (2026) 113","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"rulemaking to implement the Tillamook Bay Watershed","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"TMDL is the Tillamook Bay Watershed TMDL itself. Hayes","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"also points to a memorandum of agreement between ODEQ","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"and the United States Environmental Protection Agency","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"(EPA). Hayes asserts that ODA has not satisfied its obli-","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"gation because ODA’s adoption of the North Coast Basin","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"AWQMAP, the North Coast Basin AWQMAP rules, and the","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"CAFO permit program are not substantively sufficient to","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"implement the zero Load Allocation of the Tillamook Bay","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"Watershed TMDL.","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"Under ORS 183.490, “[t]he court may, upon petition","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"as described in ORS 183.484, compel an agency to act where","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"it has unlawfully refused to act or make a decision or unrea-","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"sonably delayed taking action or making a decision.” Here,","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"Hayes’s claim is that the Tillamook Bay Watershed TMDL","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"required ODA to adopt an AWQMAP as a rule specific to the","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"Tillamook Bay Watershed, but that ODA has refused to do","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"so, instead relying on the North Coast Basin AWQMAP, the","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"North Coast Basin AWQMAP rules, and the CAFO permit","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"program. See Hayes II, 333 Or App at 146-47 (explaining on","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"what basis Hayes had stated a claim under ORS 183.490).","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"The problem with Hayes’s argument on appeal in support","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"of that claim is that Hayes has not pointed to anything in","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"the Tillamook Bay Watershed TMDL, or elsewhere, that","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"requires ODA to promulgate an AWQMAP and rules that are","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"specific only to the Tillamook Bay Watershed.3 Rather, ODA","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"has authority to set the boundaries of the land subject to an","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"AWQMAP that it is required to develop due to a TMDL. See","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"ORS 568.909(1)(a) (“The State Department of Agriculture","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"may describe the boundaries of agricultural and rural lands","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"that are subject to a water quality management plan * * *","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"[d]ue to a determination by the Environmental Quality","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"Commission to establish a Total Maximum Daily Load for a","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"body of water under the [Clean Water Act] (33 U.S.C. 1313)","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"3 Of note, the memorandum of agreement between ODEQ and EPA that","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"Hayes relies on includes a provision that “ODA will convene an advisory com-","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"mittee in developing AWQMAPs to assist in development, and to determine the","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"boundary within which the plan will apply.” (Emphasis added.) That memoran-","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"dum also contemplates that AWQMAPs may be prepared before a TMDL: “If an","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"AWQMAP is prepared before a TMDL, the AWQMAP will be reevaluated after","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"the TMDL is prepared to ensure that the load allocation for agricultural sources","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"is met.”","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"114 Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dept. of Agriculture","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"[.]”); see also ORS 568.909(2) (“For an area whose boundar-","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"ies have been designated under this section, the department","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"shall develop and carry out a water quality management","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"plan for the prevention and control of water pollution from","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"agricultural activities and soil erosion. The department","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"shall base the plan and rules adopted to implement the plan","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"upon scientific information.”).4","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"We agree with the circuit court that Hayes’s inabil-","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"ity to locate a source of law that requires ODA to engage in","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"the specific rulemaking sought by Hayes is fatal to its ORS","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"183.490 claim. The gravamen of Hayes’s arguments is truly","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"that the actions that ODA has taken are insufficient to faith-","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"fully implement the zero Load Allocation for the Tillamook","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"Bay Watershed. However, Hayes’s arguments about the sub-","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"stantive deficiency of the North Coast Basin AWQMAP, the","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"North Coast Basin AWQMAP rules, and the CAFO permit","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"program to implement the zero Load Allocation are not cog-","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"nizable under an ORS 183.490 claim. See Salibello v. Board","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"of Optometry, 276 Or App 363, 368, 367 P3d 932 (2016)","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"(“Review under ORS 183.490 is available when an agency","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"has not issued a ‘final’ order and allows the circuit court to","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"compel an agency to act ‘with greater alacrity,’ although not","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"to compel the agency to act in a particular way.”); Mendieta","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"v. Division of State Lands, 148 Or App 586, 594, 941 P2d","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"582 (1997), rev dismissed, 328 Or 331 (1999) (holding that","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"ORS 183.490 does not “afford[ ] relief for erroneous agency","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"action * * * the APA elsewhere expressly provides for review","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"in those circumstances”).","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"In a second assignment of error, Hayes argues that","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"the circuit court erred in not applying an adverse infer-","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"ence to ODA’s failure to produce a supporting affidavit from","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"ODEQ. Hayes appears to assert that, because the Oregon","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"Department of Justice represents both ODA and ODEQ,","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"4 In its reply brief and at oral argument, Hayes for the first time on appeal","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"argues that ORS 568.909 is the source of law that requires ODA to adopt an","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"AWQMAP that is specific to the Tillamook Bay Watershed TMDL, because","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"the agency under that statute that designates AWQMAP boundaries is ODEQ","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"through establishment of the TMDL. Although we agree that ORS 568.909","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"requires ODA to adopt an AWQMAP due to a TMDL, and ODA does not assert","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"otherwise, that statute also, by its plain text, states that it is ODA that may","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"describe the boundaries of the land subject to the AWQMAP due to a TMDL. We","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"do not further address Hayes’s late-raised argument.","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"Cite as 353 Or App 110 (2026) 115","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"the circuit court should have applied an adverse “missing","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"witness” inference because ODA did not present an affida-","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"vit on what the Tillamook Bay Watershed TMDL requires","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"from ODEQ’s perspective. See Cler v. Providence Health","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"System-Oregon, 349 Or 481, 489, 245 P3d 642 (2010) (dis-","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"cussing when a “missing witness” inference, as described","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"in 2 McCormick on Evidence § 264, 220 (6th ed 2006), may","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"be argued to the jury). However, the circuit court concluded","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"that there were no genuine issues of disputed material fact","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"on summary judgment, and, on appeal, Hayes has not iden-","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"tified any genuine issues of disputed material fact in the","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"record that would preclude the circuit court from granting","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"summary judgment. Arguing for an adverse evidentiary","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"inference has relevance only when there are disputes of fact","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"to be resolved. Hayes has not identified any reversible error","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"in its second assignment of error.","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"Affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_212"}],"word_count":1918,"cites":[],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"7661daa9a3ac38f3161929112f16676e3fd968bdfbd2aea222fc081f7c4cd64b","source_url":"https://ojd.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/42858/download","fetched_at":"2026-10-06T07:16:43.35+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23"},"hash":"sha256:26d2ac9405961cd603da86d16b88da5498276730537f31e574d5cba255b9756b","version":"legal-2026-10-09","expires":"2026-10-11T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-09+legal-2026-10-09+2026-10-09T21:48:48","content_hash":"sha256:26d2ac9405961cd603da86d16b88da5498276730537f31e574d5cba255b9756b","revalidate_after":"2026-10-10T07:57:12.018Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-3bc771e234a17a955acc4deb0f3c0576","response_hash":"sha256:26d2ac9405961cd603da86d16b88da5498276730537f31e574d5cba255b9756b"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"stable","as_of":"2026-11-03T07:53:07.590Z","valid_for":604800,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aorctapp-a187044-2026-09-23","note":"Oföränderligt objekt med hash. Får cachas länge.","tokens":10589}}