Opinion

City of San Antonio v. Board of Water Engineers of Texas

  • 334 S.W.2d 325
  • 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2124
Court
Court of Appeals of Texas
Filed
Mar 23, 1960
Status
Published
On the bench
Gray
Cited by
1 cases

The opinion

On Appellees’ Motions for Rehearing

In their motions for rehearing appellees say we were in error in saying that “the contract with GBRA was made subsequent to the City’s appeal from the Board’s orders.” We acknowledge that the above was not an accurate statement. We correct the statement and now say that the contract was made subsequent to the Board’s order denying the City’s appropriation and therefore it was made while the right of the City to prosecute its appeal from the Board’s order was pending.

Appellees also say that our statement that:

“The authority of the Board is limited to the regulation and use of water committed to its jurisdiction by the United States * * * ”

is contrary to Art. 7467, Vernon’s Ann.Civ. St.

We are not here concerned with “The water of the ordinary flow and underflow and tides of,” flowing rivers or lakes etc. but rather our consideration is limited to the diversion, regulation and use of water authorized to be stored in the Canyon Dam Reservoir and which is committed to regulation by the Board. It is this water and only this water and its use as authorized by the Board that is in dispute between the parties.

Our opinion is corrected as above stated. To this extent appellees’ motions for rehearing are granted and in all other respects they are overruled.

Motions granted in part and in part overruled.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.