Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

19 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
East case 1904
Mr. East dug a well that was supplying him water. In 1904 the railroad came through and needed a source of water for their steam engines. They dug a new well and pumped way more water than Mr. East could. His well went dry and he sued the railroad. He won in the appeals courts but lost when he got to the Supreme court. The supreme court ruled that groundwater and the way it works was mysterious and occult so they didn't want to deal with how it worked. More importantly, they didn't want to hamper the Railroad or businesses coming through to Texas.
Corpus Christ vs Pleasanton 1955
During the severe drought of the 1950's, the river that flowed by Corpus Christi was running very very low. The city dug some wells to pump water into the channel to help it flow. The city of Pleasanton took notice and sued claiming it was wasteful. The courts ruled that it wasn't wasteful as the water was being put to some use.
1977 Beckendorf and 1978 Friendswood.
While the Houston/Galveston land subsidence districts were created in the area to help combat land subsidence. They had the authority to regulate groundwater and to tax people that were pumping groundwater. In the Beckendorf case they sued claiming it was unconstitutional saying they had a right. They lost the case because under legislation, the districts had the authority to do whatever they could. The Friendswood case was about withdrawing large amounts of water to the point it was causing land subsidence and hurting other property owners. Courts ruled that if only it was for malicious or hurtful intent would there have been damages.
1998 Dennis vs Kickapoo
Dennis decided to drill a well to pump groundwater that happened to be next to a water course. It was severely draining the water that Kickapoo was depending on and had a permit for. They sued claiming the water was subterranean and not groundwater. Courts ruled that anything underneath the ground was groundwater and they weren't liable if the spring went dry.
1996 Medina vs Barshop
EAA Created because of litigation from the Sierra Club case which abolished the previous Edwards Underground Water District. Two challenges to this, the first issuing permits for an amount less than historically used. The second being takings for denied claims. Courts ruled that limitations were appropriate and there were no takings.
1999 Sipriano
Ozarka bought some land and placed a new bottling plant there draining the groundwater in the area. Mr. Sipriano noticed his well was going dry and sued the company. Court said that Ozarka was in their right to use the water under Rule of Capture.
2002 Bragg vs EAA
Bragg suing the EAA because he claimed they failed to do a takings analysis. Court said there wasn't a need to do an analysis and the EAA was doing everything right by the legislature.
2008 Del Rio vs Hamlton Trust
Del Rio bought a bunch of land from the Hamilton Trust but they withheld the water rights. The city put a bunch of pumps out on the land and the trust found out and sued. Del Rio claimed they had no water rights since no use had been made but the Court found the trust had a vested right in the groundwater rights at the time.
2008 Day and McDaniel vs EAA
Day had an artesian spring on his property and was diverting the groundwater to a holding pond and asked the EAA for a permit. EAA said that the water was surface water and subject to state laws. He sued claiming he had a vested property right. The case is still in litigation.
1917 Conservation Amendment
All natural resources belonged to the state and would pass legislation as necessary.
1949 Texas Water Conservation Act
Allowed for the creation of GCD's
1951 High Plains Underground Water Conservation District
1st Water Conservation District in Texas in In Lubbock above the Ogallala aquifer.
1959 Edwards Underground Water District
1st hybrid district that didn't have any rule making authority
1997 Senate Bill 1
Made GCD's much easier to create, 60% of all GCD's were created after this passed. Required a groundwater management plan to be created and must be compatible with regional water plan. All interbasin transfers would be jr. to surface water rights holders.
1002 Senate Bill 2
Call for the creation of Groundwater Management Areas
2005 HB 1763
Requires Desired Future Conditions and Managed Available Groundwater to be created for the Regional Water Planning Groups.
Groundwater Conservation Districts
Make/enforce rules
Develop management plans
Regulate spacing and production
Require permits for drilling, equipping and completing wells.
Require permits for transporting water out of the district.
Declines in sw Kansas
Hugoton gas fields
Primary attractions for groundwater use
Available anywhere and any time
More efficient
Consistent quality
Little to no regulation