Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Co. v. Tarrant County Water Control

123 Tex. 432
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMay 30, 1934
DocketNo. 6384
StatusPublished

This text of 123 Tex. 432 (Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Co. v. Tarrant County Water Control) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Co. v. Tarrant County Water Control, 123 Tex. 432 (Tex. 1934).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice CURETON

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case here on certified question. The suit arose out of [436]*436a statutory effort on the part of appellee to condemn for its corporate purposes certain lands upon which the appellant had constructed, and for some twenty-five years has maintained, its roadbed, tracks, etc. The appellant, Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Company, a railroad corporation,‘ chartered under the laws of Texas, owns and operates a line of railroad which runs through Wise, Tarrant, and other counties, in the former of which, on a branch line running from Bridgeport in Wise County to Graham in Young County, is located the locus of this controversy. The Appellee is a water control and improvement district, a governmental agency, body corporate and politic, organized under the Constitution and laws of this State, and is entitled to condemn the property in controversy. The statutes relative to the organization of the District, its purposes and operations, are elaborate ones, designed to accomplish the objects specified in the Conservation Amendment to the Constitution, compliance with which is here admitted. Vernon’s Complete Texas Statutes, Title 128, Chap. 3A; Acts 39th Leg., Chap. 25; Acts 41st Leg., Chap. 280.

The constitutional provision referred to, Section 59a, Article 16, adopted by a vote of the people on August 21, 1917, in part read as follows:

“Sec. 59a. The conservation and development of all of the natural resources of this State, including the control, storing, preservation and distribution of its storm and flood waters, the waters of its rivers and streams, for irrigation, power and all other useful purposes, the reclamation and irrigation of its arid, semi-arid, and other lands needing irrigation, the reclamation and drainage of its over-flowed lands, and other lands needing drainage, the conservation and development of its forests, water and hydro-electric power, the navigation of its in-land and costal waters, and the preservation and conservation of all such natural resources of the State are each and all hereby declared public rights and duties; and the Legislature shall pass all such laws as may be appropriate thereto.

“(b) There may be created within the State of Texas, or the State may be divided into, such number of conservation and reclamation districts as may be determined to be essential to the accomplishment of the purposes of this amendment to the constitution, which districts shall be governmental agencies and bodies politic and corporate with such powers of government and with the authority to exercise such rights, privileges and functions concerning the subject matter of this amendment as may be conferred by law.”

The appellee in its brief summarizes the objects sought to be [437]*437accomplished by it, in aid of which the improvements here involved were being constructed, as follows:

“(a) To abate the deposit of silt in Lake Worth which forms the present source of supply of water for the City of Fort Worth and to protect the Dam which stores water in Lake Worth from destruction by excessive flood.

“(b) To release water to Lake Worth in order to form an adequate source of supply of water for the City of Fort Worth.

“(c) To furnish water for the irrigation of approximately 28,000 acres of land situated in the Valley of the West Fork of the Trinity River in Wise County, Texas, lying between the Bridgeport Dam and the South Line of Wise County, in a position contiguous and approximately parallel to the mainline railroad of the defendant.

“(d) To minimize the floods which in a state of nature would overflow the valley land of the Trinity River situated between the Bridgeport Dam and the South Line of Wise County, which is an area contiguous to the main line tracks of the defendant, and which tracks in places are subject to inundation by extreme flood, which result from water to be controlled by the Bridgeport Dam. Also, by means of the combined effect of the Bridgeport flood control works and the Eagle Mountain flood control works to afford protection against flood for an industrial area of approximately 3,000 acres, situated in and near the City of Fort Worth, and in which area there are situated among other houses, plants and industries, extensive yard and terminal facilities of the defendant, all of which by means of the plaintiff’s works will be protected against flood.

“(e) To furnish water for the operation of locks to provide for the navigation upon the Trinity River from the Gulf to Mexico to the City of Fort Worth, at such time as the Federal Government may decide to improve said stream for navigation. Plaintiff alleged that each and all of the objects sought to be accomplished are objects recognized by the laws of Texas to be governmental in character.”

The extent and magnitude of appellee’s activities are shown in the testimony of its engineer, Nichols, from which we quote as follows:

“The Tarrant County Water Control and Improvement District Number One is making improvements aggregating $6,500,-000. The principal structures are

(1) Main Bridgeport Dam
(2) Berkshire Levee
(3) Eagle Mountain Main Dam
[438]*438(4) Burgess Levee
(5) Improvements to present levee system in Fort Worth.

“The Bridgeport Lake is formed by the construction of the Main Bridgeport dam and Berkshire levee. The main dam is constructed across West Fork of Trinity River just below confluence of Hunt’s and Jasper Creeks with West Fork of Trinity River.

“Berkshire Levee is constructed across a saddle or gap in the hills on east side of Bridgeport Lake. Its construction is made necessary by the low elevation at this point and provides a ‘side dam’ for retention of flood waters. This levee is as essential to the project as is the main dam.

“Approximately $2,150,000 has been spent on the Bridgeport Lake.

“The works being constructed by Tarrant County Water Control and Improvement District Number One have a two-fold purpose (1) storage for beneficial uses, and (2) storage for flood protection to lands and properties below the Bridgeport Dam.

“Water stored for beneficial uses will be used for (1) water supply for Fort Worth, Texas, and other communities along and near the Trinity River; (2) ultimate irrigation of twenty-six thousand acres of land in Wise County below Bridgeport dam.”

The constructions giving rise to this controversy are on the West Fork of the Trinity River, in Wise County, and consist of a large dam across the river about four miles west from the town of Bridgeport, and a levee, known as the Berkshire Levee, in the same area, but approximately five miles southwest of the town, — the purpose of the structures being to impound and hold the waters of the river and its attendant tributaries in a large reservoir designated on the map as Bridgeport Lake. See Exhibits “A” and “B” from the record, shown here in reduced scale.

By referring to these exhibits the precise question here involved may be readily understood. Bridgeport Lake, which will be made by the constructions of appellee, is the shaded area on Exhibit “B” and will submerge 3.9791 miles of appellant’s railway, of an agreed value of $128,538.00.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gibson v. United States
166 U.S. 269 (Supreme Court, 1897)
Union Bridge Co. v. United States
204 U.S. 364 (Supreme Court, 1907)
Dallas County v. Barr
231 S.W. 453 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Hoefs v. Short
273 S.W. 785 (Texas Supreme Court, 1925)
Manry v. Robison
56 S.W.2d 438 (Texas Supreme Court, 1932)
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Milam County
38 S.W. 747 (Texas Supreme Court, 1897)
Stacy v. Delery
122 S.W. 300 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1909)
Fort Worth Improvement District No. 1 v. City of Fort Worth
158 S.W. 164 (Texas Supreme Court, 1913)
Houston & Texas Central Railroad v. City of Dallas
84 S.W. 648 (Texas Supreme Court, 1905)
Cooper v. City of Dallas
18 S.W. 565 (Texas Supreme Court, 1892)
Motl v. Boyd
286 S.W. 458 (Texas Supreme Court, 1926)
International & Great Northern Railroad v. Reagan
49 S.W.2d 414 (Texas Supreme Court, 1932)
Hart Bros. v. Dallas County
279 S.W. 1111 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
123 Tex. 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicago-rock-island-gulf-railway-co-v-tarrant-county-water-control-tex-1934.