Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. v. Texas Ass'n of Bass Clubs

Decision Date04 September 1981
Docket NumberNo. 13393,13393
PartiesTEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, et al., Appellants, v. TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF BASS CLUBS, et al., Appellees.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Mark White, Atty. Gen., Leslie M. MacRae, Nancy N. Lynch, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, for appellants.

Leland P. McKeeman, Rinehart & Nugent, Austin, for appellees.

SHANNON, Justice.

Pursuant to its Rule 127.30.08.001-.007, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department issued a permit to Texas A & M University and others which granted the permittees the right to transport 240,000 grass carp fish into Texas to be placed in Lake Conroe, effective October 1, 1980. Appellees, Texas Association of Bass Clubs and Edward I. Parten, filed a declaratory judgment suit in Travis County pursuant to § 12 of the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6252-13a, seeking a declaration that the rule and the permit issued pursuant thereto were invalid. As basis for invalidation of the rule and the resultant permit, appellees claim that the Department's rule was promulgated in violation of § 5 of the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act. After hearing, the district court agreed, and rendered judgment declaring the rule and the permit void. This Court will set aside the judgment, and dismiss the cause.

The rule and the permit stem from efforts to rid Lake Conroe of an aquatic weed, hydrilla. Lake Conroe has become infested with hydrilla which has interfered with its recreational and scenic use and has adversely affected property values about the lake.

Control of the weed has been attempted by massive use of chemicals. Although great sums have been expended to destroy it, the weed has flourished. Experts estimated that within a few years seventy-five or eighty percent of Lake Conroe will be taken up by the weed, a veritable lagoon of hydrilla.

Interested persons learned that other states had used the fish, grass carp, to control hydrilla and other aquatic weeds. The assistance of the Department and A & M University was sought concerning the use of grass carp for vegetation control at Lake Conroe.

Before grass carp could be placed in Lake Conroe, it was necessary for the Department to amend its rule that restricted grass carp to public aquaria. Public hearings concerning the proposal began in the autumn and continued until the rule was amended on April 26, 1979. About a year later, the Department issued the permit to A & M authorizing the transportation of the grass carp into Texas for stocking in Lake Conroe during the period from October 1, 1980 to April 1, 1981.

After the permit was issued, the intervenor Lake Conroe Association entered into a contract to purchase the 240,000 fish at a cost of $408,000.00 to stock Lake Conroe.

Appellees filed suit for declaratory judgment to prevent the stocking of grass carp in Lake Conroe fearing that the quality of bass fishing would be harmed. The basis for suit was an alleged irregularity in the Department's hearing which culminated in the adoption of the rule.

The case was submitted on April 8, 1981. After inquiry by this Court, the parties informed the Court that H.B. 556 passed by the 67th Legislature, Regular Session, 1981 and signed by the Governor on June 18, 1981, treated the subject of this appeal. Specifically, H.B. 556 provides that grass carp may be imported, possessed, and released by Texas A & M University into the waters of Lake Conroe in Montgomery and Walker Counties for research purposes. H.B. 556 provides further that the provisions of the Act prevail over any contrary regulation of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

House Bill 556 moots this appeal. By force of the bill, the University now has specific legislative sanction to release grass carp into the waters of Lake Conroe. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • University Interscholastic League v. Buchanan
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 3, 1993
    ...dismiss the cause when an appeal is moot. Texas Educ. Agency, 797 S.W.2d at 369; Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep't v. Texas Ass'n of Bass Clubs, 622 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex.App.--Austin 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). no longer exists. The school districts respond by urging that such action on our part w......
  • McLane v. Thomas
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 6, 2020
    ...Texas Food Indus. Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 81 F.3d 578, 579 (5th Cir. 1996); Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep't v. Texas Ass'n of Bass Clubs, 622 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex. App.—Austin 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). With respect to the third complaint—that the Office uses an unpromulgated rule to sys......
  • General Land Office of State of Tex. v. OXY U.S.A., Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • May 16, 1990
    ...the agency, is not sufficient impetus for this court to render an advisory opinion. Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. v. Texas Assoc. of Bass Clubs, 622 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Tex.App.--Austin 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Although we appreciate the GLO's desire to have a definite answer from this court o......
  • Camarena v. Texas Employment Com'n
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1988
    ...City of West University Place v. Martin, 132 Tex. 354, 123 S.W.2d 638 (1939); Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. v. Texas Assoc. of Bass Clubs, 622 S.W.2d 594 (Tex.App.--Austin 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Generally, a case is determined to be moot "when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT