Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS: Appellants, Chocolate Bayou Water Company and Sand Supply, appeal a district-court grant of a plea to the jurisdiction, and in the alternative, summary judgment, dismissing their suit against appellees, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, the City of Houston, the Brazos River Authority, and the Texas Water Development Board (“TWDB”) (collectively “TCEQ”). The first Allens Creek permit was issued to Houston Lighting & Power in 1974 for the purpose of providing a cooling reservoir for a proposed power plant. The power plant was never built, and the permit was canceled ten years later at the request of Houston Lighting & Power. In 1999, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1593, a comprehensive water plan that contained a provision that specifically required TCEQ, the state agency charged with managing water permitting, to reissue the Allens Creek permit to TWDB for the purpose of supplying Houston with municipal water. Because the reissued permit retained all the provisions of the first permit but was intended for a different purpose, the bill also provided that the reissued permit could be amended and that the amendment application would have to meet the notice and hearing requirements of the water code. Further, S.B. 1593 allowed TWDB to transfer the Allens Creek permit to another political subdivision. TWDB has since shared its permit with the Brazos River Authority and the City of Houston. TWDB filed an application to amend the Allens Creek permit in June 2000. Senior water-rights holders, those that hold permits predating the Allens Creek reissued permit, were mailed a notice of the application. Both Chocolate Bayou and Sand Supply hold water rights senior to TWDB’s Allens Creek permit; both were duly given notice of the amendment application. The notice met the sparse statutory requirements of the water code and further indicated that the amended Allens Creek permit would contain stream flow restrictions measured at the Richmond gage that would safeguard downstream water rights. Stream flow restrictions are one method that TCEQ uses to protect senior water rights. TCEQ may assign a permitee a stream flow restriction. When the river flows below that specified number, the permitee can no longer divert water from the river. Thus, a low stream flow restriction allows the permitee to divert more water than a high restriction. Allens Creek is located upstream from Chocolate Bayou and Sand Supply on the Brazos River. Chocolate Bayou was sent a copy of the application for amendment along with the notice. Sand Supply stated at oral argument that they did not get a copy of the application until much later. Because the application is a sparse and highly technical document, TCEQ requested, and TWDB filed, more detailed supporting materials along with its application. Both the application and supporting materials were on file and open to review by the public. Once the application for amendment was filed, the Brazos River Authority, co-holder of the Allens Creek permit, conducted a series of “road shows” wherein they discussed the amendment they were seeking with senior water-right holders. Appellants contend that during these meetings, the Brazos River Authority described the Allens Creek permit as a “scalping operation” that would only divert water from the Brazos River during high-water periods. In March 2001, appellants obtained copies of the draft amended permit. At that time the permit had not yet been formally adopted. The amended permit contained stream flow restrictions measured at a gage over thirty miles upstream from the Richmond gage, a location much closer to the actual diversion point of the Allens Creek permit. It also specified stream flow restrictions that both appellants now claim impair their senior water rights. After receiving its copy of the draft amended permit, Chocolate Bayou filed a request for an evidentiary hearing with TCEQ. In May 2001, Sand Supply requested a formal contested-case hearing regarding the amended permit. However, neither appellant could request a contested-case hearing at that time because the timetable for contested-case filings had elapsed. Both appellants filed several requests for rehearing over the following months. Each request was denied by the Commission. On Jan. 16, 2002, TCEQ formally granted the amended Allens Creek permit. The appellants filed suit for judicial review in district court. The appellants’ main complaint is that the notice of amendment TCEQ issued to senior water-rights holders was defective because it differed materially from the amended permit that TCEQ ultimately granted, and appellants’ reliance on the defective notice prevented them from filing for a contested-case proceeding regarding the Allens Creek permit amendment thereby depriving them of due process. In their district court lawsuit, appellants complained for the first time that the original permit issued pursuant to S.B. 1593 was unconstitutional because S.B. 1593 is an impermissible “local law” and because the legislature required TCEQ to issue the Allens Creek permit without notice or hearing. Appellants also claimed that TCEQ had acted unlawfully by issuing the amended Allens Creek permit in the face of appellants’ protests. The district court dismissed appellants’ claims pursuant to TCEQ’s plea to the jurisdiction and in the alternative granted TCEQ summary judgment. HOLDING: Affirmed. Appellants’ main issue in this appeal is that TCEQ issued a defective notice of application that prevented them from filing for a contested-case hearing. They have also raised the following issues: 1. S.B. 1593 is unconstitutional as a “local law” and therefore, the original and amended Allens Creek permit, issued pursuant to S.B. 1593, are void; 2. S.B. 1593 violates appellants’ due process rights by commanding the TCEQ to issue a permit without a notice or hearing; 3. contested-case filing deadlines are tolled until a proper notice is issued; 4. appellants have in fact exhausted their post-contested-case administrative remedies; and thus, TCEQ improperly refused appellants’ requests for a hearing after the amended permit had been issued; 5. the executive director of the TCEQ did not have authority to issue the amendment to the Allens Creek permit because the amendment was not “uncontested;” 6. the Allens Creek amended permit violates provisions set out in S.B. 1593; and 7. based on a substantial-evidence review, the TCEQ issued the Allens Creek permit amendment in violation of the water code due to the fact that the amendment impermissibly injures senior water-right holders. The court overrules all appellants’ issues. OPINION: Law, C.J.; Law, C.J., Kidd and Puryear, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.