Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Bosque River Coalition, 413 S.W.3d 403

Leyendekker applied to amend an existing Texas water-quality permit for a CAFO dairy in the North Bosque River watershed.
The proposed amendment increased herd size from 700 to 999 and extended waste-application fields toward Gilmore Creek, with new water-quality protections added.
Bosque River Coalition sought a contested-case hearing as an affected person under Water Code § 26.028(c).
Executive Director denied standing, concluding Coalition lacked an affected-person member; Coalition pursued rehearing and then judicial review.
The district court upheld the Commission; the court of appeals reversed, holding the Commission abused its discretion by denying a hearing based on irrelevancies.
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding there is no right to a contested case hearing under these circumstances and affirmed the Commission’s denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to hearing on amendment as affected person	Coalition argues affected status entitles a hearing for a major amendment.	Leyendekker/Commission contends that not all major amendments create a right to a hearing and that exemptions apply.	No right to a contested case hearing; exemption governs, and denial affirmed.
Major vs minor amendment affects hearing rights	Amendment labeled major should trigger hearing due to increased protections and impact on water quality.	Classification can be dual; major does not automatically grant a hearing, and minor amendments may also involve comprehensive review.	Classification alone does not confer a right to contested hearing; the court did not require a hearing.
Exemption framework under Water Code § 26.028	Public hearing required unless expressly exempted; the amended permit should be considered with a hearing.	Exemption applies where discharge is not significantly increased and quality is maintained or improved, with proper notice and response to comments.	Amendment falls within exemption; Commission did not abuse discretion in denying a hearing.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. City of Waco, 346 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. App.–Austin 2011) (reversed agency’s denial of contested hearing; application of amendment/standing principles)
Collins v. Texas Natural Resources Conservation Comm’n, 94 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App.–Austin 2002) (contested-case hearing procedures; form of inquiry in public-interest challenges)