Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day
Texas Supreme Court
369 S.W.3d 814 (2012)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
R. Burrell Day and Joel McDaniel (plaintiffs) bought land with a partially collapsed well above Edwards Aquifer. Water still flowed from the well into a lake, but reusing or replacing the well required a permit. Texas’s Edwards Aquifer Authority Act (EAAA) restricted amounts users could pump from the aquifer based on prior beneficial use, with a two-acre-feet minimum per acre historically irrigated. Day applied for a permit for 700 acre-feet based on previous owners’ having irrigated 300 acres plus the 50-acre lake. The Edwards Aquifer Authority (Authority) (defendant) preliminarily found historic use for 300 acres, and Day spent $95,000 drilling a new well before the Authority denied the permit. Day appealed, but prior owners had used lake water to irrigate only 150 acres, and only seven acres directly from the well, resulting in a permit for only 14 acre-feet. Day brought takings claims against the Authority and Texas (defendants). The court granted summary judgment finding the lake water remained groundwater, entitling Day to a permit for 300 acre-feet, but denied the takings claims. The appellate court reversed as to both the permit and the takings claims. After remand, the Authority and Texas appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hecht, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.