Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Exxon Mobil Corporation ExxonMobil Oil Corporation Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Shell Oil Company

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Exxon Mobil Corporation ExxonMobil Oil Corporation Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Shell Oil Company. Read the opinion of the Court — 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11766
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 2, 2015·No. 03-14-00667-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-14-00667-CV 4324209 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/2/2015 8:23:31 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK No. 03-14-00667-CV

FILED IN IN THE 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/2/2015 8:23:31 AM THIRD COURT OF APPEALS JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk

AT AUSTIN

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Appellant, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION, PENNZOIL-QUAKER STATE COMPANY AND SHELL OIL COMPANY, Appellees.

Appealed from the 345th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas

APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF

KEN PAXTON JON NIERMANN Attorney General of Texas Chief, Environmental CHARLES E. ROY Protection Division First Assistant Attorney THOMAS H. EDWARDS General Lead Counsel JAMES E. DAVIS Assistant Attorney General Deputy Attorney General for Tex. Bar No. 06461800 Civil Litigation Thomas.Edwards@TexasAttorney General.gov (cont’d)

APPELLANT REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENT CRAIG J. PRITZLAFF Assistant Attorney General Tex. Bar No. 24046658 Craig.Pritzlaff@TexasAttorney General.gov

LINDA SECORD Assistant Attorney General Tex. Bar No. 17973400 Linda.Secord@TexasAttorney General.gov

Office of the Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Tel: (512) 463-2012 Fax: (512) 320-0911

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT, TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

-ii- TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -vi-

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I. STATEMENTS OF FACTS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Appellant’s Statement of Facts is not Controverted. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. Appellees’ Statement of Facts Focuses on Irrelevancies. . . . . . . . . . 1

II. REPLY TO APPELLEES’ SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . 3

III. REPLY TO APPELLEES’ STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. . . . . . . . . 3

IV. REPLY CONCERNING ISSUE ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A. The plain language of § 361.322 limits that section to appeals of § 361.272 orders.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 B. The language and structure of the SWDA create separate orders and separate appeals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. The current language of the statute correctly reflects the intent of the Legislature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. The pre-codification statutory history shows separate orders and separate appeals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 C. Cross-references between subchapters do not merge the ordering sections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Section 361.188(b) merely incorporates provisions from other subchapters into § 361.188 orders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2. Section 361.322(e) does not merge the orders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 D. The term “person affected” does not limit § 361.321 to permit appeals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1. The definition of “person affected” is broad enough to cover persons named in Superfund orders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

-iii- 2. Under Appellees’ interpretation, there might be no appeal for § 361.188 orders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3. Under Appellees’ interpretation, only permit matters and § 361.272 orders could be appealed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 E. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

V. REPLY CONCERNING ISSUE TWO.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A. The content of the Order shows that it was issued under Subchapter F.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 B. Contrary statements did not change the essential nature of the Order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 C. The State’s prior pleadings did not waive, agree to, or confer jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1. The State’s pleadings did not create waivers of sovereign immunity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2. Prior judgments and motions did not create waivers of sovereign immunity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3. The State did not seek to obtain the advantages of a § 361.272 order by saying that it issued the Order under both sections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 D. Section 361.322(e) does not merge § 361.188 and § 361.272 orders.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 E. Reviewing this Order under § 361.322 would make Subchapter F redundant.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 F. The Order was properly issued under § 361.188. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 G. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

VI. REPLY CONCERNING ISSUE THREE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 A. The constitutionality of § 361.322 is not at issue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1. Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174 restates existing law. . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

-iv- 2. The Legislature’s decision to allow the review of this § 361.188 order under the “invalid, arbitrary or unreasonable” standard is consistent with the emerging law in this area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 B. The Texas Supreme Court’s decision in City of Waco is pertinent to this SWDA appeal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 1. City of Waco did not merely make a “threshhold determination”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 C. The “invalid, arbitrary or unreasonable” standard of § 361.321(e) equates to the standard of Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 1. Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174 was intended to be a restatement of the law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2. Review under the substantial evidence standard does not require a contested case hearing.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

VII. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

VIII. PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

-v- INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Berry v. Tex. Democratic Party, 449 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, no pet. h.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 33

City of Waco v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 346 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011), rev’d, 413 S.W.3d 409 (Tex. 2013).. . . . . . . 19, 34, 40

Commercial Life Ins. Co. v. Tex. State Bd. of Ins., 808 S.W.2d 552 (Tex. App.—Austin 1991, writ denied). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Comptroller v.

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

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Exxon Mobil Corporation ExxonMobil Oil Corporation Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Shell Oil Company, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Exxon Mobil Corporation ExxonMobil Oil Corporation Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Shell Oil Company (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Exxon Mobil Corporation ExxonMobil Oil Corporation Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Shell Oil Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Van Independent School District v. McCarty
165 S.W.3d 351 (Texas Supreme Court, 2005)
United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Brite
215 S.W.3d 400 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
74 S.W.3d 849 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)
Tooke v. City of Mexia
197 S.W.3d 325 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
Saudi v. Brieven
176 S.W.3d 108 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Gerst v. Nixon
411 S.W.2d 350 (Texas Supreme Court, 1966)
Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Board
852 S.W.2d 440 (Texas Supreme Court, 1993)
United Copper Industries, Inc. v. Grissom
17 S.W.3d 797 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Tourneau Houston, Inc. v. Harris County Appraisal District
24 S.W.3d 907 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Ramirez v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners
927 S.W.2d 770 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Gilder v. Meno
926 S.W.2d 357 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
McLane Co., Inc. v. Strayhorn
148 S.W.3d 644 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Texas Department of Insurance v. State Farm Lloyds
260 S.W.3d 233 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Federal Sign v. Texas Southern University
951 S.W.2d 401 (Texas Supreme Court, 1997)
Smith v. Houston Chemical Services, Inc.
872 S.W.2d 252 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
G.E. American Communication v. Galveston Central Appraisal District
979 S.W.2d 761 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Mid-Century Insurance Co. of Texas v. Kidd
997 S.W.2d 265 (Texas Supreme Court, 1999)
Southern Canal Co. v. State Board of Water Engineers
318 S.W.2d 619 (Texas Supreme Court, 1958)
MacIas v. Rylander
995 S.W.2d 829 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Comptroller v. LANDSFELD
352 S.W.3d 171 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011)