The Cross Section, Volume 22, Number 11, November 1976 Page: 1
This periodical is part of the collection entitled: Texas State Publications and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
__ _A GR/CULTURA4
-. /M~~~IDUSTRIAL /W/\\\\
A _w _ _ _ _w r ~ ~ .r.. . w. .+ I ... .wwy .
....-w . . . ...
_. S . .. w . r. ... _ ... r w ...... . . ~rt. . r .r~. ........ .r.A Monthly Publication of the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. I
Volume 22-No. 11 "THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR WATER"
Texas Supreme Court Rules]
November, 1976
For District
On November 3, 1976, the Texas
Supreme Court found that there was
no reversible error in the Court of
Civil Appeals, Seventh Supreme Judi-
cial District, Amarillo, Texas, decision
of June 21, 1976, finding for the Dis-
trict in the suit styled Lewis Cox and
Son, Incorporated vs. High Plains
Underground Water Conservation Dis-
trict No. 1 (No. 8687).
The Cox case involved the District's
ordering of the closing of an irrigation
well on the Lewis Cox and Son, In-corporated (hereinafter referred to as
the Cox Corporation), Floyd County
farm. The acquiescence of the Texas
Supreme Court in the opinion of the
Court of Civil Appeals established
some very far reaching and notable
court case law that affects the govern-
ing structure of water districts, and
other units of government throughout
Texas, by its affirmation of such
governmental units immunity to the
statutes of limitations, laches, and
estoppel.History of Cox Case
On January 25, 1968, Mr. Cecil
Cox, tenant for J. B. Cox, then the
owner of the Cox Corporation farm
(Mr. Cecil Cox and J. B. Cox are
brothers to Mr. Lewis Cox) applied to
the District (Application for Water
Well Permit No. 3183) to drill, equip
and operate a 6-inch (390 to 560 gal-
lons per minute) well in the northwest
corner of the now Cox Corporation
property. Application 3183 stated that
there was only one well within 440
yards of the proposed well location,
that being a well (here identified as
Application for Water Well Permit No.
1608, applied for on March 4, 1959,
by Cecil and Lewis Cox) on the now
Douglas Cox (a brother to Lewis Cox)
property immediately west of the pres-
ent Cox Corporation farm. The 1968
J. B. Cox application stated the well
applied for under Application 3183
was located 440 measured yards west
of the proposed location of the well
applied for under Application 1608.
On March 15, 1968, a Registration
and Log of Well report for the well
reportedly drilled under Application
3183 was filed with the District.
On June 19, 1971, Mr. J. B. Cox
amended Application 3183 to Appli-
cation 3183-A, amending slightly thereportedly measured distance specify-
ing the location of the well, and
specifying that the now Douglas Cox
well (Application 1608) was 446
measured yards from the well being
applied for. Testimony at a later trial
showed that the amendment to Appli-
cation 3183 was requested by the
lending agency reportedly financially
involved in the ownership transfer of
the property whereon the subject well
was located.
County Surveys
As a part of the District's continu-
ing groundwater studies, a survey of
the location of all water wells in Floyd
County was completed in January of
1974. This survey revealed that the
Cox Corporation well (Application
3183 or 3183-A) was located only
149 yards from the well (Application
1608) now owned by Douglas Cox.
County Committee Hearing
A public hearing before the Dis-
trict's Floyd County Committee, with
the Floyd County Member to the Dis-
trict's Board of Directors, staff person-
nel, and Mr. Lewis and Douglas Cox
present, was held in Floydada on De-
cember 3, 1974, to try to resolve the
Cox Corporation and Douglas Cox
well spacing conflict. At the conclu-
continued on page 2 . . . COURTi1.
~i1t
I' 11.1!
I
tillVOTERS REJECT WATER BONDING
u-A
- 11As was predicted in the September
issue of The Cross Section, West Tex-
ans continued their traditional sup-
port of water development projects in
the State, by voting quite favorably on
the proposed water bonding amend-
ments (1 and 2) at the general elec-
tion on November 2nd.
Proposition I was defeated state-
wide 1,190,583 to 908,642, but Prop-
osition 2 passed with a fairly slim
margin.
Proposition 2, by Constitutional
amendment, will authorize an addi-
tional $100 million in bonds (for a
total of $200 million) for water qual-
ity improvement. Such bonds are
authorized for grants and loans to
local governments to improve or de-
velop sewage treatment systems.
Proposition 1 would have amended
the State Constitution to authorize an
additional $400 million for water de-
velopment bonds.
An analysis of voting records show
that many voters simply ignored the
water bond issues, and did not vote on
them at all. There was a general feel-
ing among water authorities that most
voters did not understand the bond
issue (Proposition 1), or that they
were frightened by the $400 million
figure and automatically voted no.
General James M. Rose of Austin,
Executive Director, and A. L. Black
of Friona, Chairman of the Texas
Water Development Board, both ex-
pressed the opinion that Amendment
1 failed because of lack of voter un-
derstanding, and that the well-organ-
ized effort against Proposition 1 was
certainly detrimental to a favorable
vote.
In the 33-county area of West Tex-
as, including the High Plains, voters
accepted Proposition 1 with a count of
89,704 for and 54,268 against. Prop-
osition 2, the one which passed state-wide, had a count of 92,938 for and
48,699 against in the 33-county area.
One of the questions facing the
West Texas voter was why he should
approve State loans to entities outside
his particular area under a program
with such restrictions as to prevent his
area from ever receiving any water
developed thereby. Considering that
Proposition 1 would have clearly pro-
hibited any of the funds from being
used to import Mississippi River water,
Amendment 1 could have been logic-
ally questioned by West Texans, or
anyone who sees a need to import
water to West Texas.
Of the 15 counties in the High
Plains Underground Water Conserva-
tion District No. 1, all except Arm-
strong County favored the Amend-
ment strongly. Most of the county
totals in the District favored Proposi-
tion 1 by margins as high as 75 per-
cent. The vote in Armstrong County
was almost evenly divided with 49
percent for the bonds and 51 percent
against. In 1969, Armstrong County
vote on the proposed Texas Water
Plan Bonding was exactly tied, the
only County in Texas to have such
a distinction.
Although a complete analysis on
the bonding issues has not been pre-
pared by the water agencies, it is
evident that the long-term history of
West Texans' interest in water matters
is influential to them in any water
bonding issue and they overwhelm-
ingly support water development issues
even though the water development is
outside their areas, but of benefit to
all Texas. The particularly overwhelm-
ing vote for water issues in the Dis-
trict counties is probably an indication
of the long-time water conservation
educational programs of the District
and other entities in this area.~
-4
N i IM
Am
T 5r3]IVFrank Rayner (left) accepts an oil painting from Irene and Webb Gober. The land-
scape, painted by Mrs. Irene Gober, was given to the District by the artist and her
husband. Webb is the Member to the District's Board of Director representing
Bailey, Castro and Parmer Counties.MUNICIPAL
-_ err L
TL a Lt;=-WEENN 1 oil
.11406-. - - -- -
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 Periodical.
High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1 (Tex.). The Cross Section, Volume 22, Number 11, November 1976, periodical, November 1976; Lubbock, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1533020/m1/1/?q=%22~1~1%22~1&rotate=270: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.