ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

SPRING 2008

Bexar Metropolitan Water District v. City of San Antonio, 228 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007)

Water District Did Not Have Authority to Expand Its Jurisdictional Boundaries: This opinion relates to an ongoing controversy between the BexarMet Water District (“BexarMet”) and the City of San Antonio Water System (“SAWS”). When BexarMet attempted to expand its boundaries to offer water services to areas SAWS sought to cover via requests for Texas Commission on Environmental Quality authorization, SAWS filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that BexarMet could not expand the boundaries set for it by a 2003 Senate Bill (which itself effectuated in part a federal court order related to BexarMet settling a voting rights suit). Held: The Court affirmed the district court’s determination that the 2003 bill limited BexarMet’s expansion. Specifically, the Court rejected BexarMet’s jurisdictional, constitutional, and statutory construction arguments.

Bexar Metropolitan Water Dist. v. City of Belverde, 234 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007)

Water District May Not Provide Services Outside Its Statutory Boundaries: In additional litigation involving BexarMet, the appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the City of Belverde and the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority which resulted in a declaratory judgment that BexarMet could not provide services beyond its statutory boundaries. The court rejected BexarMet’s mootness arguments and relied on statutory construction principles in its conclusion, including the specific provisions of BexarMet’s enabling act, as amended, which limited its powers to water distribution within the districts boundaries set by such act. The court rejected BexarMet’s arguments that more expansive provisions for water districts set forth generally in Chapter 49 of the Texas Water Code should control.

Kinney Cty. Groundwater Cons. Dist. v. Boulware, 238 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007)

District Court Had Jurisdiction to Hear Well Permit Dispute: The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the Kinney County Groundwater Conservation District’s (“District’s”) plea to the jurisdiction. The plaintiffs in the district court were groundwater well permit applicants whose applications had been granted by the District for less than the requested amounts. The opinion described the administrative steps from application for permits until filing of suit under Chapter 36 of the Texas Water Code and the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act. Further, the opinion outlined the substantive allegations of the plaintiffs against the District, including entitlement to the permits and opposition to certain fees and expenses imposed by the District. The appellate court denied the District’s jurisdictional plea, finding that the District’s orders (before actual permit issuance for the reduced withdrawal amounts) were final orders reviewable under § 36.251 of the Texas Water Code and that the plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative remedies by filing three petitions with the District for rehearing, all of which were overruled by operation of law.