449 S.W.3d 130
Tex. App.2014Background
- Crystal Clear Water Supply Corp. (Crystal Clear) held a certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) for a service area that included ~1,984 acres owned by the Texas General Land Office (GLO).
- GLO petitioned under Tex. Water Code §13.254(a-5) for expedited release (decertification) of ~1,842 acres composed of five contiguous tracts (each >25 acres); it excluded ~151 adjacent acres (the Excluded Property).
- GLO supported its petition with an affidavit stating the Decertified Property was not receiving water service; Crystal Clear opposed, claiming (1) the GLO could not carve out part of its contiguous holdings and (2) the Decertified Property was "receiving water service" because Crystal Clear had facilities, lines, and water supply commitments that served or were committed to the area.
- The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality approved the GLO’s expedited-release petition; Crystal Clear sought judicial review and also sought declaratory relief (statutory construction and constitutional due-process claims).
- The district court granted the Commission’s plea to the jurisdiction as to Crystal Clear’s declaratory-judgment claims but reversed the Commission’s decertification order; the Commission and GLO appealed and Crystal Clear cross-appealed.
- The court of appeals reversed the district court as to the decertification (affirming the Commission’s order) and affirmed dismissal of Crystal Clear’s declaratory claims for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GLO was required to include all its contiguous property in one decertification petition | Crystal Clear: GLO impermissibly "carved out" portions (gerrymandered) — must decertify all contiguous holdings | Commission/GLO: statute allows petition for each qualifying tract (no all-or-nothing rule) | Held: No statutory requirement to include all contiguous holdings; issue moot as Excluded Property later removed by statute; Commission acted within authority |
| Whether Decertified Property was "receiving water service" under §13.254(a-5) | Crystal Clear: facilities, lines, water rights/commitments and past connections show the property is "receiving service" | GLO/Commission: no active delivery, no facilities/lines committed or used to serve the specific tracts; affidavits showed lack of service | Held: Substantial evidence supports Commission finding the property was not receiving water service; expedited release proper |
| Whether declaratory relief (UDJA/APA) was available alongside judicial review | Crystal Clear: declarations needed to clarify statutory construction and constitutional rights | Commission: declaratory claims are redundant of judicial-review remedy and barred by sovereign immunity/ultra vires limits | Held: Declaratory requests duplicative of judicial-review remedy and, for constitutional due-process claims, plaintiff failed to plead a vested property interest; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed |
| Whether Crystal Clear pleaded a vested property interest entitling it to due-process declaration | Crystal Clear: CCN and facilities constitute vested property/right to provide service | Commission: CCN is not a vested property right; no title affected and Water Code provides compensation procedures | Held: CCN not a vested property right; Crystal Clear did not plead vested interest; constitutional declaratory claims barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs v. Sizemore, 759 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. 1988) (defines substantial-evidence standard for agency decisions)
- Texas Health Facilities Comm’n v. Charter Med.-Dallas, Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. 1984) (agency decision may stand despite evidence preponderating against it if reasonable basis exists)
- Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (plea to jurisdiction standards; plaintiff’s burden to plead facts showing jurisdiction)
- Young Chevrolet, Inc. v. Texas Motor Vehicle Bd., 974 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998) (declaratory relief not available as redundant remedy where statute provides review of agency order)
- SWEPI LP v. Railroad Comm’n, 314 S.W.3d 253 (Tex.App.-Austin 2010) (redundant-remedies doctrine in administrative-review context)
- Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corp. v. Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 307 S.W.3d 505 (Tex.App.-Austin 2010) (CCN does not create a vested property right entitled to due-process protection)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (waiver principles for suits seeking to compel officials to comply with statutory/constitutional provisions)
- Texas Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity)