Hudspeth County Herald and Dell Valley Review (Dell City, Tex.), Vol. 43, No. 29, Ed. 1 Friday, March 24, 2000 Page: 1 of 12
twelve pages : ill. ; page 16 x 13 in. Scanned from physical pages.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF DELL VALLEY
& HUDSPETH COUNTY
Publication No. 800-140
NUMBER 29
40 CENTS A COPY
FRIDAY, MARCH 24, 2000, DELL CITY, TEXAS 79837
12 PAGES
VOLUME 43
DCISD STUDENTS & TEACHER OF THE MONTH
MARCH 2000
Guest Editorial
THE RULE OF CAPTURE
ANNUAL DELL TELEPHONE MEETING MARCH 27,2000
BARBECUE 6:00 PM - BUSINESS MEETING 7:30 PM
(Top) Junior and Senior High School Students: (I. to r.) Sergio Garcia, Junior; Ricky Juarez Soptomore;
Misty Duran, Freshman; Angie Kelley, Senior; Roman Gomez, 8th Grade; Mana Hernandez8th G a ,
Taylene Lewis, 7th Grade, (back) Teacher of the Month, Corey Stevens, Ag. teacher and FFA Adviso .
(Bottom) Elementary Students: (I. to r. front) Reid Layton, 2nd Grade; Matthew S_ Lichty 1st Grade;
Shannon Rakes, Kindergarten, (back) Yvette Romero, 3rd Grade Tate N'cho., ’
Bichardson, 6th Grade; Adriana Campos, 4th Grade. Teacher of the Month, Dee Mustam, 3rd Grade
teacher.
dell telephone main building
BY TOM BEARD
Do vou believe that underground water is so secret, occult, and
concealed that any attempt to define a set of rules regarding its
presence and use would result in hopeless uncertainty an ,
therefore, be practically impossible? The Texas Supreme Court
does That question, silly as it sounds when you read it, is taken
straight from the Supreme court’s opinion
The trouble is this: That case was decided in 1904. In the y^r 2000,
the law of 1904, which was based on the science of 1904 still
applies in Texas. This is the Rule of Capture, and,
illogical as it is, it is still the law in Texas. And it is about to kill
3^rToday ?he science of hydrology—which did not exist in 1904--
has advanced to the point where hydrologists can ^ate
underground water with some degree of certainty^and estimat e with
some degree of precision how much is there, where it comes from,
tndhowtong it will last. Water witches, wielding aforked stick, are
no longer the cat’s meow on water. Now, we can do better. So why
d°n\Afehavea problem in modernizing the Rule of Capture: Many of
us in Texas decided long ago that the Rule of Capture was really the
Eleventh Commandment, and that Moses must have lost the tablet
coming down from the mountain. It has been, over the years, an
emotional private property rights issue that „ganSra!esd
reactions and brooks little rational analysis. By God, dont mess
witti the Rule of Capture,” is the litany, bringing God-and maybe
even Moses-right back into the debate. A private property rights
fesue itfe^hereis no doubt about that. But the Rule of Capture is
not a God-given right, and, if we do not start looking at the Rule of
Capture logically and objectively, as landowners we will lose all
"’ESldSS ^o"watT-ntas never been the tew
in Texas that you own the water under your land. What you do own is
the right to capture the water under your land. But so does your
M‘, andffithe Bute of can capture
nil of "vour water if vou don t capture his first. The Rule or capture
I really the Rule of the Biggest Straw or the Rule of thes Big[Pump.
That is whv agriculture and rural Texas now have a problem with the
Rule of Capture. It is also why we in agriculture and rural Texas, as
nrivate property rights advocates, need to reassess our position.
P in its mSt basic form, private property rights mean that I have
the right to do whatever I want to do on, with, or to my land. Most
landowners would agree with that in principal today. Right or wrong,
though fortunately or unfortunately, that really has not been the law
fo? several hundred years. Think about the law of nuisance, for
eX3As)the common law of England was evolving, the Courts soon
decided that you should not be allowed to do something on your land-
-or to your land-that damaged your neighbor’s land or[ his right touse
and eniov his land If you build a diversion on your land (or if your
arSit mcie thirty generations removed did), and if the diversion
causes your neighbor’s house to wash away, that is one limitation on
Shat vou can (toon your land. Another might be a hog. rendering plant
next to your neighbor’s luxury resort. Or a rifle and pistol range next
t0 aftepo?ntof Saw oFnuisance soon came to limit the ^solute
rioht to use private property entirely as the owner wants. In short,
have rightsjout I have rights, too. Not to degenerate into legal
gobbledegook, but the legal term is “correlative rights.” You exercise
vour rights subject to the duty you have not to injure me or my rights.
It works with hog plants, but it does not work yet with water in Texas.
That is because of the rule of the Rule of Capture, and that is why
hog rendering plant next to
mv luxury resort because it not only renders hogs but also renders
mv resort worthless, why do we say that it is OK to suck all the water
out from under my land so that my resort collapses because there is
nothing1holding the dirt up anymore? What is the difference? In both
PAGE 5
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Lynch, Mary Louise. Hudspeth County Herald and Dell Valley Review (Dell City, Tex.), Vol. 43, No. 29, Ed. 1 Friday, March 24, 2000, newspaper, March 24, 2000; Dell City, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1179009/m1/1/: accessed August 15, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; .