X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The city of Bulverde and the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority sought declaratory judgments in the Comal County District Court. They asked the trial court to determine Bexar Metropolitan Water District’s boundaries, to determine if BexarMet can provide water-utility services outside its boundaries, and to determine whether BexarMet has the authority to expand its territory outside of the boundaries defined in BexarMet’s enabling act. In response, BexarMet filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing that the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the controversy in question. The district court denied BexarMet’s plea to the jurisdiction, and BexarMet appeals that decision. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court does not interpret Texas Water Code 49.066 to prohibit all third-party suits involving a water district’s boundaries. The third-party prohibition only applies to claims attacking the validity of a legislative act creating a water district’s boundaries. The third-party prohibition does not apply in this case because Bulverde and GBRA are not attacking the validity of BexarMet’s boundaries as defined by the legislature. Here, Bulverde and GBRA are asking the district court to determine what BexarMet’s boundaries are after Senate Bill 1494 amended BexarMet’s enabling statute. In addition, Bulverde and GBRA are seeking a court declaration determining whether BexarMet has the power to both expand its boundaries through a certificates of convenience and necessity (CCN) and provide water-utility services outside its boundaries under BexarMet’s amended enabling act. Requesting a declaration regarding the location of a district’s boundaries and the district’s authority to provide service and expand its boundaries is not the same as challenging the validity of those boundaries. Such determinations are not prohibited by 49.066. Bulverde and GBRA have standing under the UDJA and have the right to have the courts interpret BexarMet’s amended enabling act to determine what BexarMet’s boundaries are, whether BexarMet can expand its territory through CCNs, and whether BexarMet has the authority to provide water-utility service outside its boundaries. Statutory interpretation or construction is not something that needs to be left to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to decide. The Commission has no expertise that is greater than the courts in determining what a statute means. The Commission has neither exclusive jurisdiction nor primary jurisdiction over the issues raised in this case. The definition of a person under the UDJA includes a “corporation of any character.” Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Annnotated 37.0011. GBRA’s enabling act declares that GBRA is “a governmental agency and body politic and corporate.” Act of Oct. 12, 1933, 43d Leg., 1st C.S., Ch. 75, 1, 1933 Tex. Gen. Laws 198, 198. Because GBRA is a corporation, it qualifies as a person under the UDJA. Therefore, GBRA has a cause of action under the UDJA. OPINION:Kidd, J.; Kidd, Patterson and Puryear, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* 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?

 
 

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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.