TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Parker v. San Jacinto County Water Control & Improvement District No. 1

R. C. Parker v. San Jacinto County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1

Parker v. San Jacinto Cnty. Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. 1, 273 S.W.2d 586 (Tex. 1954)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1954
Docket
No. A-4782
Judges
Wilson
Citations
273 S.W.2d 586154 Tex. 151954 Tex. LEXIS 524

Opinion of the Court — Wilson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The sole question presented in this direct appeal is the constitutionality of a portion of Art. 7880-3a, R.C.S. This statute delegates to a water control and improvement district the power to install a sanitary and storm sewer disposal system financed by tax supported bonds. This delegation of power is claimed to be unauthorized by the Constitution.

*16 The defendant district has sold $50,000 worth of bonds and proposes to use the money in the construction of a sewer disposal system.

Plaintiffs (appellants here), tax-paying real property owners within the district, seek an injunction to prevent the expenditure of this money. They contend that the sewer powers conferred by Art. 7880-3a, R.C.S., are not authorized by either Sec. 52, Art. 3, or Sec. 59a, Art. 16, of the Texas Constitution, and for that reason the act is unconstitutional, citing Tri-City Fresh Water Supply District No. 2 v. Mann, 135 Texas 280 , 142 S.W. 2d 945 ; Deason v. Orange County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1, 151 Texas 29 , 244 S.W. 2d 981 ; and Harris County Water Control and Improvement District No. 39 v. Albright, 153 Texas 94 , 263 S.W. 2d 944 .

Plaintiffs’ attack upon the statute fails because the power to erect and operate a sewerage disposal plant is clearly within Sec. 59a, Art. 16, Texas Constitution. The water brought into the area by the district is not destroyed by use but must be returned to the hydrological cycle. The Conservation Amendment to our State Constitution would certainly permit the purification of water before it returns to the groundwater table and the river system. The protection of the purity of the waters of this state is a public right and duty under the Conservation Amendment. Arts. 698b and 1362, Vernon’s Penal Code, and Art. 4444, R.C.S., plainly declare the pollution of public waters to be against the public policy of the state and provide appropriate sanctions to implement this policy.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs are taxed against plaintiffs below.

Opinion delivered December 15, 1954.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1955: 11965: 21967: 21970: 11974: 11975: 11980: 11996: 11997: 119552026peak 1965 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Atlas Chemical Industries, Inc. v. Anderson514 S.W.2d 309 (Tex. App. 1974)
  2. Opinion No.(Tex. Att'y Gen. Nov. 5, 1996)
  3. Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionNo. H-491 (Tex. Att'y Gen. July 2, 1975)
  4. Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc. v. Lewellen952 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1997)
  5. Harris County Water Control & Improvement District No. 110 v. Texas Water Rights Commission593 S.W.2d 852 (Tex. App. 1980)
  6. City of San Antonio v. Texas Water Commission392 S.W.2d 200 (Tex. App. 1965)

Most recent

  1. Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc. v. Lewellen952 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1997)
  2. Opinion No.(Tex. Att'y Gen. Nov. 5, 1996)
  3. Harris County Water Control & Improvement District No. 110 v. Texas Water Rights Commission593 S.W.2d 852 (Tex. App. 1980)
  4. Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionNo. H-491 (Tex. Att'y Gen. July 2, 1975)
  5. Atlas Chemical Industries, Inc. v. Anderson514 S.W.2d 309 (Tex. App. 1974)
  6. Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionNo. M-716 (Tex. Att'y Gen. July 2, 1970)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Tri-City Fresh Water Supply Dist. No. 2 v. Mann, 142 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. 1940) 152
Deason v. Orange Cnty. Water Control & Improvement No. One, 244 S.W.2d 981 (Tex. 1952) 32
Harris Cnty. Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. 39 v. Albright, 263 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. 1954) 22

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list