Edwards Aquifer Authority V Dewe Summary

Annotated Bibliography

Topic Selection/Case Study: Edwards v. Day and McDaniel and Underground Water Rights in Texas.
Thesis Statement: The recent ruling of Edwards Aquifer Authority V. Day and McDaniel is an encouraging step in Texan property owners’ just fight for more control over their underground water.

Sources

Johnson, R., & Ellis, G. (2013). Commentary: A New Day? Two Interpretations of the Texas Supreme Court’s Ruling in Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day and McDaniel. Texas Water Journal, 4(1), 35-54. Retrieved from https://journals.tdl.org/twj/index.php/twj/article/view/6990

This article, by Russel S. Johnson and Gregory M. Ellis, focuses on the recent ruling on the Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day and McDaniel. Interestingly, …show more content…
Kulander, generally gives an overview of how two cases, Edwards Aquifer Authority V. Day and Edwards Aquifer Authority V. Bragg (a similar case), will affect property-owners’ use of takings claims (suing the government for compensation for its alleged impounding/taking of the property-owner’s resource, in this case groundwater) for groundwater used in the oil and gas industry. The overview includes detailed background information of Edwards Aquifer Authority V. Day and, most notably, states that GCDs (Groundwater Conservation Districts, like the Edwards Aquifer Authority) will most likely grant permits instead of rejecting them in the future (at least for the oil and gas industry). According to the author, GCDs generally do not want to have to pay compensation to the landowner and, to get it, have to go through even more costly litigation fees in court. Thus, they will be much more inclined to allow more permits to be given. This paper relates to my thesis and topic because it gives extensive background information on Edwards Aquifer Authority V. Day and Edwards Aquifer Authority V. Braggs and states that, in the future, the GCDs will most likely not deny most …show more content…
Wurbs mainly describes a general background of both surface water rights and groundwater rights. Notably, the vast majority of information given is about the Edwards aquifer, among which are the crucial facts that San Antonio, one of the biggest cities of Texas, solely relies on it for water, and that most Texans do not want the government to interfere with the groundwater they own. In general, this attitude toward groundwater rights is probably related to the dominance in Texas of the limited-government political party, the Republicans. Additionally, some important precedents to Edwards Aquifer Authority V. Day are given, like Sierra Club v. Babbitt. In it, the Sierra Club accused the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for not sufficiently protecting the San Marcos and Comal aquifers’ (both Texan) endangered species. (The final opinion of the case, decided in the federal court, was in favor of the Sierra Club.) Though the 1995 article does not mention the 2010-2012 Edwards Aquifer Authority V. Day case, the detailed information about the Edwards Aquifer (including the link to the Republican party) and the precedents to Edwards Aquifer Authority V. Day are still likely valid and is why this article relates to my thesis statement and topic.

Buchele, M. (2012, February 24). What the State Supreme Court Ruling on Water Rights Means For Texas. Retrieved February 13, 2017, from