Harris County Flood Control Dist. v. Shell Pipe Line Corp.
| Decision Date | 07 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. B-8428,B-8428 |
| Citation | 591 S.W.2d 798 |
| Parties | HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. SHELL PIPE LINE CORPORATION, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Joe Resweber, County Atty., Edward J. Landry, Asst. County Atty., Houston, for petitioner.
Vinson & Elkins, W. Allyn Hoaglund, Houston, for respondent.
This is an appeal by Harris County Flood Control District from a judgment of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, 578 S.W.2d 495, requiring the District to pay the cost of lowering Shell's pipelines located in a public road. Shell, pursuant to an agreed injunction, lowered the pipeline so that a flood control drainage ditch could be enlarged but reserved the right to seek payment for its costs. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals.
South Acres Drive, a public road in Harris County, was dedicated for "road and street" purposes on August 4, 1928. The following January, Shell obtained a pipeline easement within the roadway from the fee owner. This easement was subject only to the dedication of South Acres Drive for road and street purposes. Shell maintained pipelines within the roadway without disturbance until 1975. In that year it was required to lower the lines several feet so that the District could increase the width and depth of a flood control drainage ditch.
Shell concedes that it is not entitled to payment if the drainage ditch is for road and street purposes. The District contends (1) That construction of the borrow (bar) ditch for drainage for the immediate and general vicinity of Sims Bayou was a road and street purpose. (2) That the drainage of floodwaters from the immediate and general vicinity of South Acres Drive is a public purpose for which the road was dedicated. (3) The District's right to cross the roadway is dominant to Shell's easement to maintain the pipelines in the bar ditch.
South Acres Drive runs east and west. The drainage ditch runs north and south with drainage to the north. Shell's pipelines are parallel to the road in the north side bar ditches.
Mr. Langford, Flood Control Engineer for the District, testified that this project, Sims Bayou, was a part of a county-wide flood control project authorized by bond election in 1969. The plan of the Sims Bayou project was to improve the laterals or channels that run into Sims Bayou with some work on the main channel. This particular channel (C-124) was to be made wider and deeper to increase its capacity to carry floodwaters from some 300-400 acres. Most of this area was south of South Acres Drive. Floodwaters from several subdivisions and streets will be served by the channel.
Mr. Couch, Chief Engineer for the District, testified that no work for this project was done on the bar ditches on South Acres Drive. Outfall pipes were placed from the flow line of the bar ditches into the channel to prevent erosion. The channel is over 6,000 feet in length and serves six or seven subdivisions and some undeveloped land.
The trial court, in a nonjury trial, found that the work performed on the drainage ditch was not a use of South Acres Drive's right-of-way for "road and street" purposes. There is evidence to support the trial court's finding of fact and it is controlling on this Court. Commercial Union Assurance Company v. Foster, 379 S.W.2d 320 (Tex.1964).
We hold that enlarging a drainage ditch to accommodate a drainage district is not a public purpose for which the road was dedicated. Easements for road and street purposes have been held to include the laying of sewer, gas and water pipes, City of San Antonio v. United Gas Pipeline Co., 388 S.W.2d 231 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.), telegraph and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
.39 Acres v. State
...on the merits cannot be set aside on appeal if the findings are supported by sufficient evidence. Harris County Flood Control Dist. v. Shell Pipe Line Corp., 591 S.W.2d 798, 799 (Tex. 1979). A court of appeals should consider whether disputed evidence is such that a reasonable fact-finder c......
-
State v. Nico–WF1, L.L.C.
...but a public street may also be used as a passageway for utilities and other public purposes. Harris Cnty. Flood Control Dist. v. Shell Pipe Line Corp., 591 S.W.2d 798, 799 (Tex.1979). In short, a street includes the whole width of the public right of way. Joseph v. City of Austin, 101 S.W.......
-
.39 Acres v. State, No. 06-07-00101-CV (Tex. App. 1/16/2008), 06-07-00101-CV.
...on the merits cannot be set aside on appeal if the findings are supported by sufficient evidence. Harris County Flood Control Dist. v. Shell Pipeline Corp., 591 S.W.2d 798, 799 (Tex. 1979). A court of appeals should consider whether disputed evidence is such that a reasonable fact-finder co......
-
Robles v. Christopher Mann, Gwenda Mann, & Mann's Mach., Inc., NUMBER 13-14-00211-CV
...ref. n.r.e.). 3. Analysis Numerous Texas courts have described easement holders as "owners." See Harris County Flood Control Dist., v. Shell Pipe Line Corp., 591 S.W.2d 798, 800 (Tex. 1979); Sun Pipe Line Co., v. Kirkpatrick, 514 S.W.2d 789, 792 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1974, writ ref. n.r.......