The Cross Section, Volume 22, Number 11, November 1976 Page: 3
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.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
November, 1976 THE CROSS SECTION Page 3
COURT . . . continued from page 2
join the District from enforcing its
order of December 17th. After a hear-
ing on March 1, 1975, Judge John T.
Boyd presiding, Judge Boyd ruled on
May 13, 1975, that Lewis Cox and
Son, Incorporated was not entitled to
the injunctive relief sought in the Cox
Corporation suit.
After the failure of the negotiation,
between the attorneys for the Cox
Corporation, Mr. Lyle, and the Dis-
trict's attorneys, Don Graf and Mack
Swindle of the firm of Nelson, Mc-
Cleskey, Harriger and Brazill, Lub-
bock, Texas, to arrive at a reasonable
time frame for the reequipping or
closing of the Cox Corporation well,
the District, on September 22, 1975j
filed a motion with the Hale County
District Court for a summary judg-
ment against Lewis Cox and Son, In-
corporated. After hearing on October
22, 1975, Judge Boyd, on January 14,
1976, granted the District's petition
for summary judgment.
When renewed negotiation between
legal counsel representing the Cox
Corporation and the District did not
result in agreement as to the proce-
dures for the Cox Corporation's com-
pliance with the Court's orders, the
Cox Corporation appealed Judge
Boyd's decision to the Court of Civil
Appeals, Seventh Supreme Judicial
District, on February 22, 1976.
The appeal before the Court of Civil
Appeals was heard on June 8, 1976,
and the Civil Appeals Court entered
their opinion, finding for the District,
on June 21, 1976.
Opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals
In their suit the Cox Corporation
contended that since more than seven
years had passed from the time the
irrigation well on the Cox Corpora-
tion, Floyd County farm had been
drilled and the time the Districtordered the well closed, the District's
action was barred by: (1) statutes of
limitation, (2) laches, and (3) estoppel.
Statutes of limitation refer to statutes
that bar or preclude the asserting of a
right or claim because a specified
number of years have elapsed. Laches
refers to an unreasonably long delay
in the assertion of a right, the conse-
quence of which is the sufferance of
damage or injury by the party seeking
to invoke the doctrine of laches.Estoppel refers to a situation in which
one party is precluded from asserting
a right because of previous inconsis-
tent conduct or actions. The appellant,
Cox Corporation, contended that the
District should be precluded from
ordering the irrigation well closed be-
cause of these three legal theories.
The Court of Civil Appeals noted
that the District was created pursuant
to Article 16, Section 59 of the Texas
Constitution and was ratified, con-
firmed and validated by a 1953 act of
the Texas Legislature and that the
District was given rule-making powers
by Chapter 52.101, Vernon's Texas
Civil Statutes, and declared that any
rules, order or act of the District shall
be prima facie (first view) valid (Chap-
ter 52.303). The Court held there-
fore, that the District, like the State of
Texas, cannot lose the right to protect
the underground waters because of the
three legal theories advanced by the
Appellant. In short, the Court held
that neither statutes of limitation,
laches, nor estoppel can apply against
the Water District to preclude it from
enforcing its orders.
The Court of Civil Appeals con-
cluded their opinion by stating:
"Because underground water con-
servation districts are govern-
mental agencies or instrumentali-
ties exercising state powers and
stand upon the same footing as
counties, and because govern-
mental actions by counties are not
subject to the general limitation
statutes, the equitable doctrine of
laches, or estoppel; it logically
follows that the exercise of dele-
gated state powers by under-
ground water conservation dis-
tricts is immune from these de-
fenses. We hold, therefore, that
neither the four years statute of
limitation, nor the equitable doc-
trine of laches, nor estoppel isavailable to bar or estop the
enforcement of the December,
1974, order of the High Plains
Underground Water Conserva-
tion District."
Mr. Lyle, representing the Cox
Corporation, petitioned the Court of
Civil Appeals for a rehearing on July
6, 1976. The Court denied the appeal
for rehearing on July 19, 1976, and
Mr. Lyle filed application for writ of
error before the Texas Supreme Court'I
/4d
I
V
C
Mrs. Bob (Pat) Anthony and Mrs. Glenn (Beth) Odom visit with Mr. Garnett
Holland, the Secretary to the Castro County Commitee, at the Castro County
Committee Meeting in Dimmitt, on November 22nd. Also attending the November
22nd meeting but not pictured on this page was Mr. Webb Gober, Vice President
of the District's Board of Directors, Mrs. Garrett (Polly) Holland, Mr. and Mrs.
Kenneth (Debbie) Stratton, Mrs. Pat Nickell, Mrs. Norma Fite, and Messers.
Kenneth Carver, Clifford Thompson, and Frank Rayner.on August 18, 1976. The Texas Su-
preme Court refused to accept the ap-
peal for writ of error, noting, on No-
vember 3, 1976, that they could find
no grounds for reversal of the Court
of Civil Appeals opinion of June 21,
1976.
District's Appeal to Well Applicants
Several Members of the District's
Board of Directors have expresses
regret that it has been necessary to
order several wells closed over the past
several years, and they have repeated-
ly appealed to landowners to make
sure that their applications for water
well permits are accurately and timely
filed with the District, and that their
water well drillers and pump suppliers
comply with all provisions (location
of well and pumping capacity of the
equipment placed therein) of such well
permits.
The District's immunity to--or
capability to voluntarily adopt statutes
of limitations, laches or estoppel-
places a considerable burden upon the
landowner and the District to make
all reasonable efforts to comply withthe District's well spacing and well
capacity rules.
Although the prime, landowner-
perferred locations for water wells are
becoming increasingly unavailable with
the notable historical, and continued,
pace of water well development with-
in the District, there are nevertheless
nearly an unlimited number of alter-
native well sites still available to the
landowners. Therefore it is a tragic
economic burden, both upon the land-
owner and the District, to have to re-
sort to court decreed arbitration of
well location and well capacity suits,
when such conflicts can be avoided
by closer landowner-District coopera-
tion before the drilling of water wells,
where well spacing is so obviously a
problem.
There is little reason for a land-
owner to risk losing the multi-thou-
sands of dollars invested in a water
well, without first making the nominal
and very inexpensive efforts neces-
sary to guarantee him a legitimate and
protectable water well under the Dis-
trict's rules.Wil
4
a
.
W 2
'p
I
Pictured left to right are Bob Anthony, Glenn Odom, Louise Nelson, Joe Nelson,
Sandra Clark and Jackie Clark. Messers. Anthony, Odom, Nelson and Clark areIW
I
1
itMEOW-
Members of the Castro County Committee. All were in attendance at the Castro
County Committee Meeting, in Dimmitt, on November 22nd.) r
hi
'U11
Page 3
November, 1976
T HE CR O SS S EC T IO N
0
t .
A.
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/m1/3/?q=%22~1~1%22~1: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.