South Plains Lamesa Railroad v. High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1

Court of Appeals of Texas

South Plains Lamesa Railroad v. High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1

52 S.W.3d 770, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 2497, 2001 WL 387386

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 17, 2001·No. 07-00-0089-CV·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinions

QUINN, Justice,

concurring.

I join in the judgment rendered by the majority and concur in that portion of the opinion discussing the Conservation District’s deviation from Rule 8. So too do I write to say that the actions of an administrative body must be reasonable to survive judicial review. Implicit in this standard of reasonableness lies the concept of prior notice or what some would call fundamental fairness.

Admittedly, administrative bodies may regulate on an ad hoc or case-by-case basis. Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 202, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1580, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947); Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Public Utility Comm’n, 745 S.W.2d 918, 926 (Tex.App.—Austin 1988, writ denied); Madden v. Texas Bd. Chiropractic Examiners, 663 S.W.2d 622, 626 (Tex.App.—Austin 1983, writ refd n.r.e.). Despite that power, however, those appearing before the administrative body must be afforded prior notice of the issues of fact and law which will control the result to be reached by the body. Madden v. Texas Bd. Chiropractic Examiners, 663 S.W.2d at 626 (imposing, ad hoc, a requirement restricting the practice of chiropractic medicine to those who have graduated from an accredited institution). Violating the latter principle contravenes fundamental fairness and renders the agency decision arbitrary and unreasonable. Id. at 626-27. In short, an administrative body cannot say that factors A, B, and C determine a particular result and then interject factor D once the proceeding has begun.

As expressed in the majority opinion at bar, Rule 8 said nothing about a minimum number of acres needed to obtain particular well permits. So, to use that factor as a basis to revoke a permit already issued and deny another application pending issuance constitutes a deprivation of fundamental fairness. That is, the Kitten Family Living Trust and South Plains Lamesa Railroad, Ltd. were entitled to prior notice of the facts and law which would control the Conservation District’s ultimate decision. Those two entities being denied that entitlement by the District, the latter’s decision cannot stand. Madden v. Texas Bd. Chiropractic Examiners, supra.

For the foregoing reason, I concur in the judgment of the majority.

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

QUINN, Justice,

concurring.

I join in the judgment rendered by the majority and concur in that portion of the opinion discussing the Conservation District’s deviation from Rule 8. So too do I write to say that the actions of an administrative body must be reasonable to survive judicial review. Implicit in this standard of reasonableness lies the concept of prior notice or what some would call fundamental fairness.

Admittedly, administrative bodies may regulate on an ad hoc or case-by-case basis. Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 202, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1580, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947); Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Public Utility Comm’n, 745 S.W.2d 918, 926 (Tex.App.—Austin 1988, writ denied); Madden v. Texas Bd. Chiropractic Examiners, 663 S.W.2d 622, 626 (Tex.App.—Austin 1983, writ refd n.r.e.). Despite that power, however, those appearing before the administrative body must be afforded prior notice of the issues of fact and law which will control the result to be reached by the body. Madden v. Texas Bd. Chiropractic Examiners, 663 S.W.2d at 626 (imposing, ad hoc, a requirement restricting the practice of chiropractic medicine to those who have graduated from an accredited institution). Violating the latter principle contravenes fundamental fairness and renders the agency decision arbitrary and unreasonable. Id. at 626-27. In short, an administrative body cannot say that factors A, B, and C determine a particular result and then interject factor D once the proceeding has begun.

As expressed in the majority opinion at bar, Rule 8 said nothing about a minimum number of acres needed to obtain particular well permits. So, to use that factor as a basis to revoke a permit already issued and deny another application pending issuance constitutes a deprivation of fundamental fairness. That is, the Kitten Family Living Trust and South Plains Lamesa Railroad, Ltd. were entitled to prior notice of the facts and law which would control the Conservation District’s ultimate decision. Those two entities being denied that entitlement by the District, the latter’s decision cannot stand. Madden v. Texas Bd. Chiropractic Examiners, supra.

For the foregoing reason, I concur in the judgment of the majority.

South Plains Lamesa Railroad v. High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1, 52 S.W.3d 770, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 2497, 2001 WL 387386 (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

52 S.W.3d 770 (South Plains Lamesa Railroad v. High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related