Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. City of Waco
413 S.W.3d 409
Tex.2013Background
- CAFOs near Lake Waco require water-quality permits from the TCEQ to control waste and protect water quality.
- North Bosque River supplies Lake Waco, the City’s municipal water source for ~160,000 people.
- The North Bosque watershed has nutrient-related impairment; TCEQ established a TMDL for soluble phosphorus.
- Legislation and rules require that certain CAFO permit amendments be processed under thresholds that may foreclose contested hearings.
- O-Kee Dairy applied to amend its permit to increase herd size and waste-acreage; City sought a contested case hearing as an “affected person.”
- Courts below split on whether the City’s request should be granted; the Texas Supreme Court reviews the hearing-right framework and statutory exemptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether city qualifies as an affected person for a contested hearing | City has a concrete, particularized interest in Lake Waco water quality | City's interest is not sufficiently concrete to be affected | Yes; City qualifies as an affected person |
| Whether 26.028(d) exempts amending permits from contested hearings | Amendment maintains/ improves quality and should allow hearing exemption | Exemption applies to amendments meeting criteria, permitting denial of hearing | Yes; exemption applies, allowing denial of hearing |
| Whether Commission properly exercised discretion to deny hearing on major amendment | More protective features should trigger hearing due to disputes on standing | Discretion to deny hearing when amendment does not significantly increase discharge | Commission did not abuse discretion; no required contested case hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n, 94 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App.–Austin 2002) (hearing requests may be decided in less formal proceedings; standing not automatic)
- Heat Energy Advanced Tech., Inc. v. West Dallas Coal. for Envtl. Justice, 962 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. App.–Austin 1998) (standing based on “affected person” and limited hearing rights)
- United Copper Indus., Inc. v. Grissom, 17 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. App.–Austin 2000) (standing focus; not on merits of permit)
- Texas Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (statutory-interpretation approach to agency hearing rights)