TOOKEY, J.

Dominic M. Carollo argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs were Matthew D. Query and Yockim Carollo LLP.

David C. Johnston argued the cause for respondent Dement Ranch, LLC. Also on the brief was Law Office of David C. Johnston, LLC.

John R. Huttl argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent Curry County Board of Commissioners.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.

TOOKEY, J. This is a case concerning Oregon's livestock district statutes set forth in ORS chapter 607. Weyerhaeuser appeals a judgment entered in a writ-of-review proceeding that vacated and annulled Curry County Order No. 20479, which annexed approximately 17,000 acres of Weyerhaeuser's forestlands into the Curry County Livestock District pursuant to ORS 607.020(6) and (7) (2017). On appeal, Weyerhaeuser contends that "[t]he trial court erred in granting the County's motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that ORS 607.005 et seq. imposes a contiguity requirement" to annex land into an existing livestock district. We conclude that, at the time Weyerhaeuser's forestlands were annexed into the Curry County Livestock District, ORS chapter 607 did not preclude noncontiguous annexations and, accordingly, we reverse and remand.

This appeal arises from a writ-of-review petition that was filed by Dement pursuant to ORS 34.040 and ORS 34.100, and a separate petition for judicial examination that was filed by the county pursuant to ORS 33.710 and ORS 33.720 after the county received certain objections from ranchers in the local community and questioned the validity of its own order, Order No. 20479, which approved Weyerhaeuser's petition to annex approximately 17,000 acres of Weyerhaeuser's forestlands into the existing Curry County Livestock District. The trial court consolidated the writ-of-review proceeding and the judicial validation proceeding, because both actions arose from the county's adoption of Curry County Order No. 20479.

As relevant here, in Dement's fifth claim for relief in its petition for writ-of-review, Dement argued that the county improperly construed the applicable law, because the law allowing for the annexation for livestock districts requires contiguity, and Weyerhaeuser's "proposed annexed district is not contiguous to the existing Curry County Livestock District." The county moved for summary judgment, agreeing with Dement's "claim that the county committed legal error when it annexed [Weyerhaeuser's land] into the existing Curry County Livestock District" because "[t]he text, context and legislative history show that the use of the word annexation [in ORS chapter 607] requires contiguity or adjacency of parcels."

The trial court noted there was no factual dispute that Weyerhaeuser's land was not contiguous with the existing livestock district and agreed with the county's and Dement's statutory construction arguments. The trial court concluded that, under ORS chapter 607, "the legislature intended that annexation of land into a livestock district would be limited to contiguous land," and that "the annexation in this instance was contrary to an implied contiguity requirement within the statutory scheme applicable to annexation into a livestock district." Accordingly, the trial court vacated and annulled Curry County Order No. 20479, dismissed the remaining claims in the consolidated proceedings with prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of Dement.

On appeal, Weyerhaeuser contends that "[t]he trial court erred in granting the County's motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that ORS 607.005 et seq. imposes a contiguity requirement" to annex land into an existing livestock district. Dement and the county argue that Oregon's Livestock District statutes require contiguity when annexing to an existing livestock district. The trial court's ruling that "the legislature intended that annexation of land into a livestock district would be limited to contiguous land," and that "the annexation in this instance was contrary to an implied contiguity requirement within the statutory scheme applicable to annexation into a livestock district," presents a question of statutory interpretation, which we review for legal error. See State v. Thompson , 328 Or. 248, 256, 971 P.2d 879, cert. den. , 527 U.S. 1042, 119 S.Ct. 2407, 144 L.Ed.2d 805 (1999) ("A trial court's interpretation of a statute is reviewed for legal error."); Drake v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. , 167 Or. App. 475, 478, 1 P.3d 1065 (2000) ("Because the material facts are not in dispute, we review the trial court's grant of summary judgment to determine whether [the moving party] was entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (Citing ORCP 47 C.)). When we interpret a statute, "[w]e ascertain the legislature's intentions by examining the text of the statute in its context, along with any relevant legislative history, and, if necessary, canons of construction." State v. Cloutier , 351 Or. 68, 75, 261 P.3d 1234 (2011) (citing State v. Gaines , 346 Or. 160, 171-73, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009) ).

We pause briefly to provide some background on livestock districts. The Supreme Court summarized the significance of livestock districts in Dunlap v. Dickson :

"In a livestock district, cows and other ‘livestock’ may not ‘run at large.’ ORS 607.005. In effect, this means that a livestock owner at all times must retain control over livestock within a livestock district. Livestock districts are to be distinguished from ‘open range.’ On ‘open range,’ livestock may run at large. ORS 607.005(6)."

307 Or. 175, 177, 765 P.2d 203 (1988) (footnote omitted). To create a livestock district, ORS 607.010 to 607.015 provides a process for: (1) petitioning for creation of a new livestock district that is over 2,000 acres, ORS 607.010 ; (2) drawing boundaries for a proposed district, ORS 607.012 ; (3) counties holding a hearing on a proposed district, ORS 607.013 ; and, (4) an election to create the district, ORS 607.015. ORS 607.020(5) to (7) govern annexations of land to an existing livestock district.

With that background in mind, we turn to the text of ORS 607.020(5) to (7) because it is "the best evidence of the legislature's intent" on annexations into a livestock district. PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries , 317 Or. 606, 610, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993). ORS 607.020(5)(a) provides that "[a]ny area may be annexed to an existing livestock district in the same manner as creation of a livestock district as provided in ORS 607.005 to 607.045, except that" the "area may be less than 2,000 acres." Annexations under ORS 607.020(5) generally require an election to be "carried out in the area proposed to be annexed." ORS 607.020(5)(c). However, ORS 607.020(6) and (7) establish a process for annexation that does not require an election when all owners of the lands proposed to be annexed sign the petition. Those subsections provide:

"(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5) of this section and ORS 607.015, when a petition for annexation is signed by all the owners of all the land in the area proposed to be annexed or is signed by a majority of the electors registered in the area proposed to be annexed and by the owners of more than half of the land in the area, an election on the proposed annexation shall not be held in either the district or the area proposed to be annexed.

"(7) When an annexation election is dispensed with under subsection (6) of this section, the county governing body, after the hearing on the petition for annexation, shall enter an order describing the boundaries of the area and declaring it annexed to the district. The annexation shall be effective on the date of entry of the order by the county governing body."

ORS 607.020(6), (7). In this case, Weyerhaeuser petitioned for annexation pursuant to ORS 607.020(5) to (7). Notably, ORS 607.020(5) expressly permits the annexation of "any area" into an existing livestock district, including any area that is "less than 2,000 acres." (Emphasis added). "Ordinarily, courts assume that the legislature's use of the word ‘any’ indicates deliberately comprehensive application." Preble v. Centennial School Dist. No. 287 , 298 Or. App. 357, 367, 447 P.3d 42 (2019) (citing State v. Hamilton , 348 Or. 371, 378, 233 P.3d 432 (2010) (statutory reference to "any" person "demonstrates that the legislature deliberately chose not to limit the reach" of the statute); Crocker and Crocker , 332 Or. 42, 51, 22 P.3d 759 (2001) ("The word ‘any’ ordinarily would have a very broad sweep."); Dickinson v. Leer , 255 Or. 274, 276, 465 P.2d 885 (1970) (statutory reference to "any" business in Oregon suggests the statute applies in "an unrestricted and comprehensive sense to include every legitimate business transaction, regardless of its nature")). Presumably, then, the legislature's use of the phrase "any area" in ORS 607.020(5) demonstrates the legislature's intention for "any area" to encompass both contiguous and noncontiguous lands. See State v. Serrano , 346 Or. 311, 328, 210 P.3d 892 (2009) (the "legislature's use of the word ‘any’ to modify the phrase ‘confidential communication’ demonstrates that * * * the legislature intended to include within the protection of OEC 505(2) all confidential communications between spouses" (emphasis in original)).

Had the legislature intended to restrict the "areas" eligible for annexation to those contiguous to an existing livestock district, it would not have modified the word "areas" with the word "any" and it could have included an express contiguity requirement. ORS 607.020(5). We must be mindful when we construe statutes to not "insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted." ORS 174.010 ; see Donaldson v. Lane County Local Govt. Bdry. Comm. , 99 Or. App. 430, 434, 782 P.2d 449 (1989) (observing that "[t]he legislature's inclusion of an express contiguity requirement in chapter 222 demonstrates its ability to require contiguity if, in fact, that is what it intends," and concluding that "the absence of an explicit contiguity requirement in ORS 199.490(1) is a deliberate legislative choice"). There is nothing in the text of ORS 607.020(5) from which we could imply a contiguity requirement. Dement and the county focus heavily on ORS 607.012 as context to support their argument that there is an implied contiguity requirement in ORS 607.020(5). We disagree. ORS 607.012 provides:

"The boundaries of the proposed livestock district shall follow subdivision lines of sections, section lines, township lines, donation land claim boundaries or lines, lakes, rivers, the boundary line of this state, public roads or county boundary lines, except that the boundary of an established livestock district may be used as a boundary for the proposed livestock district if the districts are adjacent to each other and will have a common boundary line."

(Emphases added). The legislature used the mandatory term "shall" to describe what boundaries a proposed livestock district must follow, and the permissive term "may" to allow for the boundary of an established livestock district to be used as a boundary for a proposed livestock district if the districts are adjacent. See Associated Oregon Veterans v. DVA , 70 Or. App. 70, 74, 688 P.2d 431 (1984), rev. den. , 298 Or. 470, 693 P.2d 49 (1985) ("may" is generally a permissive term, whereas "shall" is generally construed as a mandatory term). Thus, the legislature did not require contiguity for a proposed livestock district's boundary, although it is permitted. Again, had the legislature intended to restrict the areas eligible for annexation to those contiguous to an existing livestock district it could have included a mandatory contiguity requirement for a proposed district's boundaries, but it did not. In sum, the legislature required the boundaries of the proposed district to follow certain lines, but it did not require that they be contiguous with an existing district.

Moreover, ORS 607.043 pertains to "Land entirely enclosed by federal land." ORS 607.043 provides that "[t]he creation or dissolution of a livestock district shall not affect land entirely enclosed by federal land, unless the enclosed land is accurately and completely described in the petition." Additionally, certain federal lands are not subject to livestock districting under Oregon law. See ORS 607.005(3) (defining the phrase "federal land" to mean "a tract of land containing 25,000 acres or more owned or administered by, or under the jurisdiction of, the United States and not subject to the laws of this state"). Accordingly, a parcel of non-federal land that is "entirely enclosed" by federal lands could not be contiguous with other non-federal lands included within a livestock district, but it nonetheless could be part of a livestock district if "the enclosed land is accurately and completely described in the petition." Thus, the legislature recognized the possibility that noncontiguous parcels could be part of a livestock district.

Based on the foregoing analysis of the statutory text in context, we conclude that ORS chapter 607 does not require contiguity for annexations of land into an existing livestock district. We therefore reverse and remand. Reversed and remanded.