Bradley B. Ware v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 17, 2015·No. 03-14-00416-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-14-00416-CV 4941122 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/17/2015 4:32:14 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK

No. 03-14-00416-CV FILED IN IN THE C OURT OF A PPEALS 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS F OR THE T HIRD JUDICIAL D ISTRICT OF T EXAS 4/17/2015 4:32:14 PM AT A USTIN JEFFREY D. KYLE ______________________________________ Clerk

B RADLEY B. W ARE , Appellant, v.

T EXAS C OMMISSION ON E NVIRONMENTAL Q UALITY , Appellee. ______________________________________

Appeal from the 53rd Judicial District Court Travis County, Texas Cause No. D-1-GN-10-002342 ______________________________________

B RIEF OF A PPELLEE T EXAS C OMMISSION ON E NVIRONMENTAL Q UALITY ______________________________________

KEN PAXTON JON NIERMANN Attorney General of Texas Chief, Environmental Protection Div.

CHARLES E. ROY LINDA B. SECORD First Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General State Bar No. 17973400 JAMES E. DAVIS Linda.Secord@texasattorneygeneral.gov Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation

April 17, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

STANDARD OF REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

I. REPLY POINT PERTAINING TO ALL OF WARE’S POINTS OF ERROR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Ware’s case is tainted by false assumptions. His permit is limited to a term of years, but he complains about priority dates as if it were a perpetual right. He diverts water from a single point far upriver, but he complains about return flows as if he should have water that is only fully available where the Brazos meets the Gulf of Mexico. Resting on these false premises, his entire argument is fatally flawed... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

A. Term permits are not permanent water rights.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

B. A term permit is based on marginal water supplies not in use or contemplated for near-term use by permanent water rights holders.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

C. No one has a vested right to the issuance of a term permit or a renewal of a term permit.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

D. The priority dates for term permits are different from those for permanent water rights... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

E. Given his circumstances, the BRA return flows are just not available to Ware.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

ii F. Ware’s interpretation of §§ 11.1381 and 11.134 is incorrect.. . . . . . 16

G. Ware’s false premises are fatal.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

II. REPLY TO WARE’S POINT OF ERROR NO. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

A. There is no merit to Ware’s argument that he is entitled to return flows... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

B. There is more than ample support for TCEQ’s analysis in this case... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

C. Agency experts did not provide contrary or improper evidence... . . 23

III. REPLY TO WARE’S POINTS OF ERROR NOS. 2 AND 5. . . . . . . . . . . 25

A. In attacking TCEQ’s findings, Ware misconstrues Tex. Water Code § 11.046(c).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

B. The broader statutory scheme confirms that Ware’s interpretation of Water Code § 11.046(c) is incorrect.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

C. Ware has misinterpreted the Water Code, but even if he were right, the proper interpretation of § 11.1046(c) is not dispositive here. Ware’s renewal was denied based on his location; the order can and should be affirmed on that basis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

IV. REPLY TO WARE'S POINT OF ERROR NO. 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

A. BRA withdrew its protest of Ware’s renewal application, but that did not make water available for Ware.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

B. Even if Ware were right that he should have been given a 1997 priority date, it would not matter.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

C. Ware’s cancellation theory is wrong.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

iii V. REPLY TO WARE’S POINT OF ERROR NO. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

VI. REPLY TO WARE’S POINT OF ERROR NO. 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

VII. CONCLUSION: NOT ONLY ARE WARE’S LEGAL THEORIES WRONG, THE EQUITIES DO NOT FAVOR HIM EITHER.. . . . . . . . . . 38

PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

iv INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page

Central Power & Light Co. v. PUC, 36 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. App.–Austin 2000, pet. denied). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

City of Corpus Christi v. Nueces Co. Water Control. & Imp. Dist. No. 3, 540 S.W.2d 357 (Tex. Civ. App.–Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d., n.r.e.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Consumers Water, Inc. v. PUC, 774 S.W.2d 719 (Tex. App.–Austin 1989, no writ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

H.G. Sledge, Inc. v. Prospective Investment and Trading Co., Ltd., 36 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. App.–Austin 2000, pet. denied). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Lower Colorado River Auth. v. Tex. Dep’t of Water Res., 638 S.W.2d 557 (Tex. App.–Austin 1982, rev’d. on other grounds, 689 S.W. 873 (Tex. 1984)). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 10, 11, 12, 27, passim

Meier Infiniti Co. v. Motor Vehicle Board, 918 S.W.2d 95 (Tex. App.–Austin 1996, writ denied).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Smith Motor Sales, Inc. v. Texas Motor Vehicle Comm’n, 809 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. App.–Austin 1991, writ denied).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Tex. Water Rights Comm’n v. Wright,

Bradley B. Ware v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Bradley B. Ware v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Bradley B. Ware v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Central Power & Light Co./Cities of Alice v. Public Utility Commission
36 S.W.3d 547 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
H.G. Sledge, Inc. v. Prospective Investment & Trading Co.
36 S.W.3d 597 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Geters v. Eagle Insurance Co.
834 S.W.2d 49 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner
953 S.W.2d 706 (Texas Supreme Court, 1997)
EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Robinson
923 S.W.2d 549 (Texas Supreme Court, 1996)
Consumers Water, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission
774 S.W.2d 719 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Meier Infiniti Co. v. Motor Vehicle Board
918 S.W.2d 95 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Smith Motor Sales, Inc. v. Texas Motor Vehicle Commission
809 S.W.2d 268 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Lower Colorado River Authority v. Texas Department of Water Resources
638 S.W.2d 557 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Texas Water Rights Commission v. Wright
464 S.W.2d 642 (Texas Supreme Court, 1971)
Reeves v. State
4 S.W.2d 49 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1928)