City of San Antonio v. Headwaters Coalition, Inc.
381 S.W.3d 543
Tex. App.2012Background
- City enacted 2007 bond ordinance to issue $152,051,818 for drainage improvements, including Broadway Corridor, Phase III A (Carnahan to 150 ft north of Davis Road).
- Ballot and informational materials described drainage project; voters approved Proposition No. 2 for bond funds.
- Pre-election City staff anticipated drains under Broadway; later engineering showed Alternative I moving outfall to Hildebrand.
- Plaintiffs Headwaters and River Road challenged the project location and sought a temporary injunction preventing use of bond funds.
- Trial court granted a temporary injunction; on appeal, standing was reviewed and damages were argued under a contract-with-voters theory; court reverses.
- Court concludes appellees have standing, but the bond-ordinance interpretation shows the City had discretion, thus no probable right to relief and reverses the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing: did Headwaters and River Road have standing at filing? | Headwaters and River Road had particularized injury. | City contends lack of standing based on property-tax status. | Appellees had standing. |
| Temporary injunction standard: did appellees show probable right to relief? | Bond language binds location (Broadway to Carnahan to 150 ft north of Davis). | Bond proceeds permit flood-relief use without specifying exact location. | No probable right to recovery; injunction reversed. |
| Bond ordinance interpretation: does Proposition No. 2 fix the Broadway location or grant discretion to choose Alternative I? | Location fixed in Proposition No. 2 binds the City. | City retains discretion to implement flood-relief using bond funds. | Bond language does not fix a location; City has discretion; no probable right to relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing and jurisdiction principles; petition-based standing)
- Prize Energy Res., L.P. v. Cliff Hoskins, Inc., 345 S.W.3d 537 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2011) (standing when not conferred by statute; require particularized injury)
- Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (standing requires particularized injury; injury may be environmental or economic)
- Putnam v. City of Irving, 331 S.W.3d 869 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2011) (contract-with-voters interpretation; city discretion in bond proceeds)
- Moore v. Coffman, 200 S.W. 874 (Tex. 1918) (location information relevant to voter understanding of expenditures)
- In re Estate of Nash, 220 S.W.3d 914 (Tex. 2007) (ambiguous statutory language; extrinsic aids used sparingly)
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (temporary injunction standards; probable right required)