Williamson v. Guadalupe County Groundwater

• Decision Date: 28 July 2004
• Docket Number: Civil No. SA-03-CA-1119-OG.
• Citation: 343 F.Supp.2d 580
• Parties: Howard C. WILLIAMSON, III, Janice S. Williamson, Lawrence A. Norman, Kelli Jo Norman, and Bexar Metropolitan Water District, Plaintiffs, v. GUADALUPE COUNTY GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

343 F.Supp.2d 580

Howard C. WILLIAMSON, III, Janice S. Williamson, Lawrence A. Norman, Kelli Jo Norman, and Bexar Metropolitan Water District, Plaintiffs, v. GUADALUPE COUNTY GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, Defendant.

Civil No. SA-03-CA-1119-OG.

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division.

July 28, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Thomas K. Robinson, Miller & Robinson, Gonzales, TX, Louis T. Rosenberg Robert L. Wilson, III, Law Offices of Louis T. Rosenberg, et al., North Ottis West, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiffs.

Robin V. Dwyer, Moore, Pape & Dwyer, L.L.P., Seguin, TX, R. Gaines Griffin, Davidson & Troilo, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Defendant.

ORDER

ORLANDO L. GARCIA, District Judge.

On this date came on to be considered the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Pamela A. Mathy (Dkt. #16), and partial objections thereto (Dkt. #22). When a party objects to a report and recommendation, the Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, 22 F.3d 634, 646 (5th Cir.1994); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The Court has conducted an independent review of the entire record, a de novo review of the matters raised by the objections, and has reviewed the applicable law. The Court concludes that the objections lack merit, and they should be overruled. The Court further concludes that the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions are correct in all respects, and should be accepted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Bexar Met's partial objections are OVERRULED, and the report and recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b). It is further ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #5) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART for the reasons stated in the recommendation. Specifically, all claims for equitable or discretionary relief are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943) and its progeny, and all claims for money damages are STAYED for a period of at least sixty (60) days.¹ Upon the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date below, the parties shall file a written advisory regarding the status of any proceedings at the state level or on appeal. The Court will then determine whether the stay should be extended or lifted. No status conference or hearing is necessary at this time.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAMELA A. MATHY, Magistrate Judge.

TO: Honorable Orlando L. Garcia, United States District Judge

Pursuant to the Order of referral in the above-styled and numbered cause of action to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge¹ and consistent with the authority vested in United States Magistrate Judges under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(i)(B) and rule 1(d) of the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges in the Western District of Texas, the following report is submitted for your review and consideration.

I. JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case was initiated on November 7, 2003, when plaintiffs Howard C. Williamson, III, Janice S. Williamson, Lawrence A. Norman, Kelli Jo Norman (at times referred to as "individual plaintiffs") and Bexar Metropolitan Water District ("BexarMet") (collectively referred to as "plaintiffs") filed a complaint against defendant Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District's ("GCGCD") concerning, in general, GCGCD's denial of certain groundwater withdrawal permit applications which would have allowed the Williamsons and the Normans, who own a 4,511.24 acre tract of land known as the "Wells Ranch," to withdraw percolating groundwater from the Carrizo and Wilcox aquifers.² More specifically, plaintiffs allege that (a) on February 13, 2003, plaintiff filed an application for groundwater withdrawal with GCGCD, later supplemented, which was denied initially on May 8, 2003 and on rehearing on August 25, 2003; and (b) on April 8, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second set of nine applications for groundwater withdrawal with GCGCD, later supplemented, which GCGCD denied initially on July 28, 2003, and on rehearing on October 9, 2003.

Plaintiffs' complaint alleges six causes of action based on GCGCD's alleged wrongful denial of their applications. The first cause of action seeks a de novo review of GCGCD's denial of plaintiffs' second set of nine applications.³ The second cause of action is described as an "appeal of administrative denial" of the second set of nine applications.⁴ The third cause of action alleges violations of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution based on an uncompensated taking when each of plaintiffs' ten applications were denied.⁵ The fourth cause of action alleges violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section III of the Texas Constitution based on a denial of equal protection when each of plaintiffs' ten applications were denied.⁶ The fifth cause of action alleges a violation of substantive due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when each of plaintiffs' ten applications were denied.⁷ The sixth cause of action alleges a violation of Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983 concerning each of plaintiffs' ten applications, alleging a violation of the individual plaintiffs' previously alleged rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution under color of state law.⁸ Plaintiffs request the issuance of a declaratory judgment to declare: "the administrative denial of Plaintiffs' well permit applications null and void;" "a violation of Plaintiffs' rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Art. I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution;" "a violation of Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Art. I, Section III of the Texas Constitution;" "a violation of Plaintiffs' rights to substantive due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution;" and "the rights of the parties by Final Decree."⁹ Plaintiffs also ask for a decision to "[r]everse the administrative denial of Plaintiffs' well permit applications and remand with instructions" and to "[f]ind a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, acting under color of law."¹⁰ Plaintiffs request an "award of damages, attorneys' fees and costs of courts to Plaintiffs."¹¹ Further, plaintiffs request "any further remedies and relief at law or in equity, to which Plaintiffs may show themselves entitled."¹² Finally, plaintiffs request expedited consideration pursuant to Texas Water Code § 36.252 and demand a trial by jury.¹³

On December 1, 2003, defendant GCGCD filed a motion to dismiss all claims against it.¹⁴

In brief, GCGCD argues that plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed on the following grounds: the Burford abstention doctrine applies; plaintiffs'"taking" claim is unripe; plaintiffs have not been denied equal protection of the laws; plaintiffs have not been deprived of property without due process of law; plaintiffs have failed to state a section 1983 claim; upon the dismissal of plaintiffs' other claims, plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and upon the dismissal of plaintiffs' federal claims, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims.¹⁵

On December 12, 2003, BexarMet filed its response to defendant's motion to dismiss.¹⁶ On December 16, 2003, the individual plaintiffs filed their combined response to defendant's motion to dismiss.¹⁷ In brief, the individual plaintiffs and BexarMet, who incorporate each other's responses, argue that: the Burford abstention doctrine is a rarely invoked and does not apply; any doctrine of equitable abstention is inapplicable to common law actions for monetary damages; the federal takings claims are ripe because Texas law prohibits condemnation of groundwater, the ripeness doctrine does not apply to takings for private use, and the ripeness doctrine does not apply to a "facial" claim for taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment.¹⁸ Further, plaintiffs re-assert that: they have been denied equal protection and due process; they have validly stated a claim under section 1983; a declaratory judgment should issue; and exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state claims is appropriate.¹⁹ On February 2, 2004, the case was referred to the undersigned.²⁰

III. STATEMENTS OF FACTS

When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court is required to consider plaintiffs' factual allegations as if they were true and to construe all inferences in favor of non-movant plaintiffs. A summary of those facts is as follows:

As noted, this lawsuit was precipitated by GCGCD's denial of plaintiffs' groundwater withdrawal permit applications which would have allowed plaintiffs to withdraw percolating groundwater from the Carrizo and Wilcox aquifers flowing below the surface of the Wells Ranch.²¹ More specifically, plaintiffs allege that in 1999, the individual plaintiffs entered into a contract with BexarMet through which, in sum, BexarMet obtained a surface and subsurface estate lease for drilling and producing groundwater from the Wells Ranch and exclusive title to all groundwater produced and, in exchange, the Williamsons received royalties and other consideration.²² During the later portions of 1999, the plaintiffs developed infrastructure on the Wells Ranch for this purpose.

Defendant GCGCD was created on or about November 2000 and became operational in January 2001. At that time, GCGCD adopted...