North Alamo Water Supply Corp. v. Texas Dept. of Health
| Decision Date | 26 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-91-534-CV,3-91-534-CV |
| Citation | 839 S.W.2d 455 |
| Parties | NORTH ALAMO WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION, Appellant, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and Browning-Ferris, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
J.W. Dyer, The Law Office of J.W. Dyer, McAllen, for appellant.
Dan Morales, Atty. Gen., Cynthia Woelk, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, for Texas Dept. of Health.
Bruce A. Morris, Fulbright & Jaworski, Austin, for Browning-Ferris, Inc.
Before CARROLL, C.J., and ABOUSSIE and SMITH, JJ.
Today, we revisit the controversy surrounding the construction and operation of a solid-waste disposal facility in Hidalgo County. In an earlier action, the North Alamo Water Supply Corporation (North Alamo) sought judicial review of the decision of the Texas Department of Health (the Department) to permit Browning-Ferris, Inc. to construct this landfill; we subsequently affirmed the district court's judgment upholding the agency order. See North Alamo Water Supply Corp. v. Texas Dep't of Health and Browning-Ferris, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 448 (Tex.App.--Austin 1992, writ requested) (North Alamo I ). In the instant cause, North Alamo challenges the Department's actions taken after the permit's issuance. The district court dismissed the cause; we will affirm that order of dismissal.
On September 19, 1988, the Department granted Browning-Ferris a permit to operate a solid-waste disposal facility in Hidalgo County, subject to several special provisions. The trial court severed North Alamo's claim for judicial review of the permit pursuant to the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (APTRA). See Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. Art 6252-13a (Pamph.1992). In that portion of the cause, the district court affirmed the Department's issuance of the permit and we subsequently affirmed the court's judgment. See North Alamo I.
In the remaining cause, brought pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. §§ 37.001-.011 (1986 & Supp.1992), North Alamo asked the court to interpret Special Provision E of the permit and to declare certain of the Department's acts taken pursuant to the provision as ultra vires. North Alamo claimed that the Department in effect amended the permit without affording North Alamo a public hearing.
Browning-Ferris filed a motion for summary judgment contesting North Alamo's right to any declaratory judgment on four The district court entered a final order dismissing the cause. North Alamo appeals this order, arguing that the revisions made pursuant to Special Provision E impermissibly amended the permit and the trial court erred by not examining whether the Department's actions exceeded the scope of its authority.
grounds: (1) the permit, including Special Provision E, was lawful; (2) the Department did not amend the permit; (3) North Alamo's request for declaratory judgment was barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel; and (4) the Department retained original jurisdiction to enforce the disputed permit.
Browning-Ferris' motion for summary judgment presented a jurisdictional argument, along with other grounds for summary judgment. The trial court's final order of dismissal reads:
On the 19th day of July, 1991, came on to be considered Intervenor Defendant Browning-Ferris, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court, after having considered the motion, arguments of counsel, and the other papers and pleadings on file in this cause is of the opinion that the motion should be granted and this cause should be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Intervenor Defendant Browning-Ferris, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted and this cause is hereby dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that all other relief not specifically granted herein is denied. Nothing herein shall prejudice the right of any party to request further action from the Texas Department of Health.
Nothing in this order suggests that the district court adjudicated the merits of this cause. Because a judgment of dismissal is neither an adjudication of the rights of the parties, Crofts v. Court of Civil Appeals, 362 S.W.2d 101, 104 (Tex.1962), nor an adjudication of the merits of the dismissed cause, Matter of J.A.L., 608 S.W.2d 819, 821 (Tex.Civ.App.1980, no writ), we construe this order as an order of dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Consequently, we limit our review solely to the jurisdictional issue.
The heart of North Alamo's complaint is that Special Provision E resulted in the Department's amending Browning-Ferris' permit without a public hearing, in violation of the Department's statutory authority. The legal issue presented is whether North Alamo may raise this complaint in district court before the Department addresses the question. North Alamo bypassed the Department and proceeded directly to the district court to seek judicial scrutiny of Special Provision E and the Department's actions. Browning-Ferris and the Department maintain that North Alamo cannot leapfrog the Department and seek direct intervention by the district court in the administrative process.
North Alamo responds that its request for a post-permit hearing before the Department was denied, but a review of the transcript reveals that what North Alamo requested was a rehearing on the Department's decision to grant the permit. The record reveals no request for a hearing on the post-permit revisions complained of in this severed cause of action. We therefore treat this complaint as one presented to the district court before it was addressed to the agency. North Alamo argued unsuccessfully that the district court had inherent jurisdiction to review the Department's ultra vires actions, by which the agency allegedly exceeded its authority by amending Browning-Ferris' permit without a public hearing.
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear these complaints before they were presented to the Department is a question of law. Qwest Microwave, Inc. v. Bedard, 756 S.W.2d 426, 436 (Tex.App.1988, no writ). In reviewing an order of dismissal for want of jurisdiction, we construe the pleadings in favor of the pleader. Huston v. FDIC, 663 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex.App.1984 writ ref'd n.r.e.); Paradissis v. Royal Indem. Co., 496 S.W.2d 146, 148 (Tex.Civ.App.1973), aff'd, 507 S.W.2d 526 (Tex.1974).
Judicial review is generally available after final agency decisions, but not before. See APTRA § 19; Solid Waste Disposal Act, Tex.Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.321 (1992). This complaint focuses only upon agency action taken after the permit was issued. There is no evidence that North Alamo ever asked the Department to consider these post-permit complaints. APTRA provides that "a person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review under this Act." APTRA, § 19(a). Here, the Department has made no decision of any kind regarding the alleged amendments to the permit.
North Alamo's pleadings request judgment pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act. But that Act does not itself bestow jurisdiction upon the district court. In Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utility Commission, 735 S.W.2d 663 (Tex.App.1987, no writ), we noted that the Declaratory Judgments Act
creates a remedy that would not otherwise be available for a cause of action that already falls within the court's jurisdiction; it does not itself confer jurisdiction.... Ordinarily, in the context of administrative proceedings, the court's jurisdiction under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act has derived from its inherent power to hear and determine whether the agency action in controversy was ultra vires or unconstitutional.
Id. 735 S.W.2d at 667 (citations omitted).
In North Alamo I, we reviewed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale
...waived and may be raised for the first time on appeal by the parties or by the court); North Alamo Water Supply Corp. v. Texas Dep't of Health, 839 S.W.2d 455, 457 (Tex.App.--Austin 1992, writ denied)(issue of court's jurisdiction presented a question of law). See also Reahard v. Lee County......
-
CREEDMOOR-MAHA WATER SUPPLY v. TCEQ.
...delegated authority, not facts that would demonstrate TCEQ exceeded that authority. See North Alamo Water Supply Corp. v. Texas Dep't of Health, 839 S.W.2d 455, 459 (Tex. App.-Austin 1992, writ denied) ("The fact that the agency might decide `wrongly' in the eyes of an opposing party does n......
-
Williams v. Houston Firemen's Relief
...v. Model Search Am., Inc., 953 S.W.2d 289, 292 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997, no writ);16 N. Alamo Water Supply Corp. v. Tex. Dep't of Health, 839 S.W.2d 455, 458-59 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, writ denied). We hold that Williams's summary judgment motion neither alleged nor proved a true ultra vires gr......
-
Tex. Dept. of Ins. v. Reconveyance Services
...has delegated the agency exclusive jurisdiction to decide that issue, e.g., North Alamo Water Supply Corp. v. Texas Dep't of Health, 839 S.W.2d 455, 458-59 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, writ denied),12 agencies do not have general authority to misapply the law when asserting their regulatory power......