In Re Adjudication of the Water Rights, Etc.
26 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 116, 642 S.W.2d 438, 1982 Tex. LEXIS 386 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may constitutionally limit a riparian owner's vested but unused usufructory water right to the quantity of water actually put to beneficial use during a reasonable test period. The termination of a continuous non-use of water is a valid exercise of the state's police power to prevent waste and does not constitute a taking of property requiring compensation.
Facts:
- Historically, Texas water law recognized two conflicting systems: riparian rights, based on owning land adjoining a stream, and appropriative rights, granted by the state.
- This dual system led to chaos, uncertainty, and claims to water that far exceeded the available supply in many Texas rivers.
- Previous legislative attempts to create a unified system for adjudicating water rights had been struck down by the courts.
- Severe and prolonged droughts, particularly from 1950 to 1957, highlighted the critical need for a comprehensive system to manage the state's dwindling water resources.
- In response, the Texas Legislature enacted the Water Rights Adjudication Act in 1967 to create a single, unified procedure for determining all claims to surface water.
- The Act required claimants to file for their rights and limited the recognition of riparian rights for uses like irrigation to the maximum amount of water actually applied to a beneficial use during any calendar year between 1963 and 1967.
- Riparian landowners along the Upper Guadalupe River possessed vested rights to use water, some of which had not been exercised prior to or during this statutory test period.
- The Act's limitation meant that these landowners would lose their legal right to use water in the future if they had not actually used it during the 1963-1967 inventory period.
Procedural Posture:
- The Texas Water Rights Commission initiated proceedings under the Water Adjudication Act and determined the water rights for landowners along the Upper Guadalupe River.
- Nineteen parties, primarily riparian landowners, filed exceptions to the Commission's final determination in the 57th District Court of Texas (a trial court).
- After hearing additional evidence, the district court entered a final judgment that largely affirmed the Commission's adjudication, limiting riparian rights based on historical use.
- The riparian landowners appealed the district court's judgment to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
- The riparian landowners (petitioners) then successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas (the state's highest court) for a writ of error to review the decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Texas Water Rights Adjudication Act, which limits a riparian owner's vested water right to the maximum amount beneficially used during a statutory five-year test period, constitute an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation?
Opinions:
Majority - Pope, J.
No, the Texas Water Rights Adjudication Act's limitation on unused riparian rights does not constitute an unconstitutional taking of property. The termination of a riparian owner's continuous non-use of water, after notice and on reasonable terms, is a valid exercise of the state's police powers and is not a compensable taking. The court reasoned that a riparian right is usufructory—it is a right to use the water, not to own the water itself, which is held in trust by the state for the public. The state has a constitutional duty under the Conservation Amendment to prevent the waste of public resources. The court held that the non-use of water is a form of waste, similar to how non-use of an appropriated water right can lead to its cancellation, as established in Texas Water Rights Commission v. Wright. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Texaco, Inc. v. Short, the court concluded that it is the owner's failure to make use of the property, not the action of the state, that causes the lapse of the right. The court also held that the Act's two-step adjudication process, involving an administrative determination followed by an independent judicial review, does not violate the separation of powers doctrine.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally reshaped Texas water law by validating the state's authority to curtail dormant riparian rights in favor of a unified, use-based permit system. It empowered the state to quantify and manage its water resources comprehensively, treating non-use as waste that could be eliminated to serve the public good. The ruling subordinated the common law riparian doctrine to the state's regulatory police power, establishing a precedent that allows for the reallocation of unused water to more productive, beneficial uses. This case is foundational for modern water management, enabling states to address scarcity and create certainty in water rights administration by moving away from unquantified and unpredictable claims.
