Brazos River Authority and the State of Texas v. City of Houston And Sylvester Turner, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Houston ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •        TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-20-00076-CV
    Brazos River Authority and The State of Texas, Appellants
    v.
    City of Houston; and Sylvester Turner, in his Official Capacity as
    Mayor of The City of Houston, Appellees
    FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
    NO. D-1-GN-19-004189, THE HONORABLE KARIN CRUMP, JUDGE PRESIDING
    DISSENTING OPINION
    In 2019, the Legislature enacted H.B. 2846, directing the City of Houston to
    contract with the Brazos River Authority (BRA) to transfer “all of the city’s ownership interests
    in the Allens Creek Reservoir project, including all required water right permits, along with the
    responsibility to construct the project,” in exchange for “an amount not to exceed $23 million.”
    Act of May 16, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 380, § 1, 
    2019 Tex. Gen. Laws 688
    , 688. The City
    challenged H.B. 2846’s constitutionality as a retroactive law, see Tex. Const. art. I, § 16; a local
    law, see id. art. III, § 56; and as a forced sale, see id. art. XI, § 9. The trial court granted
    summary judgment in the City’s favor. Today, the Court affirms on the ground that H.B. 2846 is
    an unconstitutional retroactive law without addressing the other constitutional grounds.
    People may differ in their views on the wisdom of enacting H.B. 2846 and may
    choose to hold their legislatures accountable by expressing their approval or disapproval at the
    ballot box. But “[o]ur role is much more limited”: judicial review does not license “second-
    guessing the political branches’ policy choices” or “substituting the wisdom of [] judges for that
    of [] lawmakers.” Morath v. The Tex. Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coal., 
    490 S.W.3d 826
    , 833
    (Tex. 2016). A judge’s conclusion that a law “passes the threshold of constitutionality” is “not
    an endorsement” of that law because “[c]onstitutionality is a minimum standard—a guarantee.”
    Id. at 887, 892 (Guzman, J., concurring). “The power of the courts is not unbounded,” and quite
    simply, “we can only grade pass or fail, yes or no.” Id. at 887 (Guzman, J., concurring).
    A statute is presumed constitutional, and the party challenging the statute
    bears the burden to demonstrate its unconstitutionality.     Union Carbide Corp. v. Synatzske,
    
    438 S.W.3d 39
    , 55 (Tex. 2014). For the following reasons, I conclude that the City did not meet
    its burden to overcome this presumption as to the retroactivity ground. In my opinion, the Court
    should sustain the State’s and BRA’s appellate issue that H.B. 2846 is not unconstitutionally
    retroactive and should then consider their other appellate issues and address the City’s “forced
    sale” and “local law” constitutional challenges. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
    RETROACTIVITY
    The Texas Constitution prohibits retroactive laws. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 16.
    But “[m]ere retroactivity is not sufficient to invalidate a statute”; “[m]ost statutes operate to
    change existing conditions, and it is not every retroactive law that is unconstitutional.” Robinson
    v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 
    335 S.W.3d 126
    , 139 (Tex. 2010) (quoting Texas Water Rights
    Comm’n v. Wright, 
    464 S.W.2d 642
    , 648 (Tex. 1971)). Although courts must “be careful to
    enforce the constitutional prohibition to safeguard its objectives,” “courts must be mindful that
    statutes are not to be set aside lightly,” id. at 146, and the Texas Supreme Court has noted that it
    2
    has “only upheld constitutional retroactivity challenges four times,” Tenet Hosps. Ltd. v. Rivera,
    
    445 S.W.3d 698
    , 708 (Tex. 2014) (collecting cases). Nevertheless, a retroactivity analysis is
    “‘not always a simple or mechanical test’”; one Justice has noted that “the question is a complex
    one.” Synatzske, 438 S.W.3d at 61 (Lehrmann, J., dissenting) (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film
    Prods., 
    511 U.S. 244
    , 268 (1994)). Here, not only is the question complex but also the facts
    render it a particularly close call, as illustrated by this Court’s considered opinion. But given the
    presumption of constitutionality and when confronted with these facts as interpreted in light of
    case precedent, it is my opinion that H.B. 2846 passes the “minimum standard” of
    constitutionality as to the retroactivity prohibition.
    Traditionally, courts concluded that a law is unconstitutionally retroactive when
    its retroactive operation impairs vested rights. Robinson, 335 S.W.3d at 139. In 2010, the
    Robinson Court abandoned this test, concluding that “[w]hat constitutes an impairment of vested
    rights is too much in the eye of the beholder to serve as a test for unconstitutional retroactivity.”
    Id. at 143.    Instead, “courts must consider three factors in light of the prohibition’s dual
    objectives” of “protect[ing] settled expectations that rules are to govern the play and not simply
    the score, and prevent[ing] the abuses of legislative power that arise when individuals or groups
    are singled out for special reward or punishment.” Id. at 145. These three factors are: (1) “the
    nature and strength of the public interest served by the statute,” (2) “the nature of the prior right
    impaired by the statute,” and (3) “the extent of the impairment.” Id.
    Robinson, however, does not vitiate the need to evaluate whether the prior right is
    vested. Indeed, this analysis may play an important role in evaluating the second factor: the
    nature of the prior right. See id. at 148 (concluding under second factor that Robinsons’ right to
    assert their tort claims “was real and important, and it was firmly vested in the Robinsons”
    3
    (emphasis added)); see also City of Austin v. Whittington, 
    384 S.W.3d 766
    , 790 (Tex. 2012)
    (noting post-Robinson that “applying procedural, remedial, or jurisdictional statutes retroactively
    does not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on retroactive laws” because “procedural and
    remedial laws generally do not affect vested rights, which are property rights that the
    Constitution protects like any other property”). Rather, Robinson stands for the proposition that
    determining that the prior right is vested is generally not dispositive of the retroactivity issue.
    See 335 S.W.3d at 145 (“We think our cases establish that the constitutional prohibition against
    retroactive laws does not insulate every vested right from impairment[.]”).1
    Nevertheless, the Texas Supreme Court has concluded that determining that a
    right is not vested in some circumstances may be dispositive for overcoming a retroactivity
    challenge.   For example, in Honors Academy, Inc. v. Texas Education Agency, the Texas
    1
    In other constitutional contexts, Texas courts still determine whether rights are vested.
    See, e.g., Klumb v. Houston Mun. Emps. Pension Sys., 
    458 S.W.3d 1
    , 15 (Tex. 2015)
    (considering constitutional due process challenge and noting that “[a] constitutionally protected
    right must be a vested right, which is ‘something more than a mere expectancy based
    upon an anticipated continuance of an existing law’” (quoting City of Dallas v. Trammell,
    
    101 S.W.2d 1009
    , 1014 (Tex. 1937))). Thus, Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co. does not call
    into question the entire framework of “vested rights.” See generally 
    335 S.W.3d 126
    , 136–47
    (Tex. 2010). Rather, Robinson appears to question the “impairs vested rights” test in the
    retroactivity context because the case law has inconsistently labeled rights as vested for
    retroactivity when the real rationale driving the retroactivity holdings is something other than a
    concern for protecting vested rights. 
    Id.
     at 141–42 (noting that “[i]n each of these cases,
    significant interests were adversely impacted by changes in the law, yet the Court held that
    vested rights were not impaired”; that “while due process and antiretroactivity may protect
    vested rights differently, Mellinger [v. City of Houston, 
    3 S.W. 249
    , 254–55 (Tex. 1887)] did not
    explain why a limitations bar is a vested right in one context but not in the other,” and “a law that
    is prohibitively retroactive might not also offend due process, but not because a vested right for
    one is not a vested right for the other”; and that results of past “cases seem entirely reasonable in
    a very general sense . . . but it is not clear how they were driven by a concern for protecting
    vested rights”); see Union Carbide Corp. v. Synatzske, 
    438 S.W.3d 39
    , 56 (Tex. 2014) (“We
    determined [in Robinson] that classifying a right or interest as ‘vested’ in order to determine
    whether it has been retroactively diminished or impaired in violation of the constitution has not
    yielded an efficient and predictable framework.” (emphasis added)).
    4
    Supreme Court considered whether the decision to revoke an open-enrollment charter school’s
    charter based on the retroactive use of past financial ratings was unconstitutionally retroactive.
    
    555 S.W.3d 54
    , 57, 60 (Tex. 2018). The Court noted that the issue was the charter school’s
    “right to continue operating its open-enrollment charter school, an entity owing its powers and
    existence to the Legislature.” Id. at 66. Citing long-standing law that “‘Municipal Corporations
    do not acquire vested rights against the State,’” the Court held that “a charter school’s charter is
    not a vested property right to which the due course of law or prohibition on retrospective laws
    apply.” Id. at 67–68 (quoting Deacon v. City of Euless, 
    405 S.W.2d 59
    , 62 (Tex. 1966)). Thus,
    whether a charter school’s charter was a vested property right to which the retroactivity
    prohibition applied was dispositive of the issue without a Robinson analysis.
    Accordingly, Honors Academy instructs that although Robinson may have
    changed the general analytical framework for evaluating whether a retroactive law is
    unconstitutional from an “impairs vested rights” test to a factor test, the nature of the prior right
    may, in some circumstances, categorically prevent the application of the retroactivity
    prohibition.2 This bar is especially pertinent when a governmental entity or political subdivision,
    2
    This categorical bar does not necessarily implicate standing, however. See Wilson
    v. Andrews, 
    10 S.W.3d 663
    , 669 (Tex. 1999) (noting that “we overstated our position” in Proctor
    v. Andrews, 
    972 S.W.2d 729
    , 734 (Tex. 1998), when Proctor Court in dicta agreed with court of
    appeals that city lacked standing to raise due process and equal protection challenges because
    municipalities do not enjoy due process rights); Stop the Ordinances Please v. City of New
    Braunfels, 
    306 S.W.3d 919
    , 929 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, no pet.) (noting that “plaintiff is not
    required to allege the deprivation of a ‘vested right’ constituting a due-process violation to
    demonstrate the requisite infringement of a ‘legally protected interest’”). But see El Paso
    County v. El Paso Cnty. Emergency Servs. Dist. No. 1, 
    622 S.W.3d 25
    , 41 (Tex. App.—El Paso
    2020, no pet.) (concluding El Paso County Emergency Services Districts do not have standing to
    raise due process and equal protection challenges because “Texas law is well-settled that
    municipal corporations and other units of government are not vested with constitutional rights
    under the Texas or United States Constitutions”); City of Irving v. Dallas/Fort Worth Int’l
    Airport Bd., 
    894 S.W.2d 456
    , 465 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, writ denied) (“[A] municipal
    5
    like a municipal corporation, asserts a retroactivity challenge, as evidenced by Honors
    Academy’s reliance on Deacon. See 
    id.
     at 67 (citing Deacon, 405 S.W.2d at 62). In Deacon,
    landowners challenged a city’s annexation ordinances as void, relying on a statute made
    applicable to annexation proceedings pending on March 15, 1963, notwithstanding the statute’s
    effective date of August 23. 405 S.W.2d at 60–61. The city argued that to give retroactive effect
    to the statute violated the constitutional prohibition against retroactive laws. Id. at 62. The
    Deacon Court held:
    Section 16, Art. 1, prohibits the making of retroactive laws in so far as they
    destroy or impair vested rights. The Legislature cannot by retroactive legislation
    applicable to municipal corporations destroy or impair vested rights which
    persons have acquired in their relationships with the municipal corporations, but
    Municipal Corporations do not acquire vested rights against the State.
    ...
    We hold that Section 16, Art. 1 of the Constitution did not prohibit the Legislature
    from making the relevant provisions of Art. 970a retroactive to annexation
    proceedings pending on March 15, 1963. It is immaterial that the City may have
    begun proceedings for annexation of the territory in controversy when there was
    no general law limitation on the size of areas which could be annexed; it acquired
    no vested right against the State to complete them.
    Id. (internal citations omitted). And this Court has held that municipal corporations cannot rely
    on Article I provisions to invalidate laws governing them, stating:
    Municipal corporations and other government subdivisions derive their existence
    and powers from legislative enactments and are subject to legislative control and
    supremacy. Consequently, they cannot use the sword of the due-process-of-law
    and other provisions of Article I to invalidate the laws that govern them. . . .
    [But] the legislature’s supremacy and control over municipalities and other
    agencies of the state do not extend so far as to permit the legislature to infringe
    corporation which exists under the authority of a state has no standing to raise a challenge under
    the Contract Clause of either the Federal or State Constitution,” and “a municipality’s
    sovereignty is dependent upon that of the state.”).
    6
    upon rights given municipalities and other subdivisions or agencies of the State,
    as such, in some express constitutional provision outside Article I.
    Texas Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. City of Bridge City, 
    900 S.W.2d 411
    , 414 (Tex. App.—Austin
    1995, writ denied); see Honors Acad., 555 S.W.3d at 68 (citing City of Bridge City, 900 S.W.2d
    at 414, with approval and noting in citation parenthetical City of Bridge City’s conclusion “that
    governmental entities cannot use Article I rights to invalidate the laws that govern them”);
    Proctor v. Andrews, 
    972 S.W.2d 729
    , 734 (Tex. 1998) (“Courts have recognized that a municipal
    corporation or other government subdivision can bring a constitutional challenge based on a
    provision outside the bill of rights and its guarantees to ‘persons’ and ‘citizens.’” (citing City
    of Bridge City, 900 S.W.2d at 414)); El Paso County v. El Paso Cnty. Emergency Servs. Dist.
    No. 1, 
    622 S.W.3d 25
    , 41 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2020, no pet.) (“A unit of government may assert
    constitutional violations outside of the bill of rights where it is ‘charged with implementing a
    statute’ that it believes violates the Texas or United States Constitution.” (quoting Proctor,
    972 S.W.2d at 734)).3
    3
    Other authorities have addressed related issues. See, e.g., Tooke v. City of Mexia,
    
    197 S.W.3d 325
    , 345 (Tex. 2006) (“A governmental entity cannot complain of a retroactive
    waiver of immunity, since all governmental immunity derives from the State, and a
    governmental entity acquires no vested rights against the State.” (citing Deacon v. City of Euless,
    
    405 S.W.2d 59
    , 62 (Tex. 1966))); City of Fort Worth v. Zimlich, 
    29 S.W.3d 62
    , 72 (Tex. 2000)
    (“The City, however, derives its existence and powers from legislative enactments and is subject
    to legislative control. Consequently, the Legislature has the power to require the City to submit
    to inconvenient venue, and the City’s due process challenge of this application of the venue
    statute fails.”); Proctor, 972 S.W.2d at 734 (agreeing with court of appeals that “municipalities
    do not enjoy due process rights”); White Deer Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Martin, 
    596 S.W.3d 855
    , 864
    (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2019, pet. denied) (“Because statutes are unconstitutional only when they
    operate retroactively to ‘destroy or impair’ vested rights, and the District, as a governmental
    entity, has no vested rights against the State, we conclude that the District’s interest in tax
    revenues is not a vested right to which the prohibition on retroactive laws applies.” (citing
    Deacon, 405 S.W.2d at 62)); see also Toledo City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. State Bd. of Educ.,
    
    56 N.E.3d 950
    , 960 (Oh. 2016) (collecting and comparing decisions by “our sister
    7
    These authorities, however, do not prevent municipal corporations from relying
    on the retroactivity prohibition in all situations; it depends on the nature of the prior right
    asserted by the municipal corporation. In Milam County v. Bateman—which addressed counties
    as political subdivisions—the Texas Supreme Court held that although “the political rights and
    privileges delegated to counties are not within the constitutional prohibitions against retroactive
    laws and those which impair vested rights,” a “different principle, however, obtains as regards
    the rights of counties to property which they may acquire” and “[s]uch rights, as a general rule,
    are protected by the same constitutional guarantees which shield the property of individuals.”
    
    54 Tex. 153
    , 165–66 (1880); see Texas Antiquities Comm. v. Dallas Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist.,
    
    554 S.W.2d 924
    , 930 (Tex. 1977) (plurality op.) (noting that in Milam County “[t]he legislature’s
    extensive control over its subdivisions’ political rights was recognized, but it was held that a
    subdivision’s property rights, ‘are protected by the same constitutional guarantees which shield
    the property of individuals’” (quoting Milam County, 
    54 Tex. at 166
    )). The rationale underlying
    this distinction appears to rest on the fact that when a political subdivision of the State acquires
    and holds property devoted to public use,4 it is generally acting as trustee for the local public:
    The corporate entity is a legislative creation, and its powers may be restrained, its
    functions changed, or its existence destroyed at the will of the legislature; but, in
    supreme courts” “examin[ing] whether the prohibition on retroactive laws extends to
    political subdivisions”).
    4
    The City specifically asserts that its alleged prior right impacted by H.B. 2846 will be
    devoted to public use, stating that “H.B. 2846 requires an unconstitutional forced sale of specific
    municipal assets Houston owns and will devote to exclusive public use” and that “[t]here is no
    dispute that, as a regional WWP, Houston’s[] intended use of the Reservoir was as a municipal
    and regional water supply” and citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.0215(11), (19), (32)
    (identifying as governmental functions “waterworks,” “dams and reservoirs,” and “water and
    sewer service”); Long Island Water-Supply Co. v. City of Brooklyn, 
    166 U.S. 685
    , 689 (1897)
    (“[T]hat the supply of water to a city is a public purpose cannot be doubted[.]”).
    8
    so far as it has acquired and holds property, it is but a trustee for the local public;
    and, although its powers be withdrawn or its existence ended, the property which
    survives it belongs to the same public, and must be, in some way, applied to its
    use. It has no contract right to exist as a corporation, but the public that it
    represents has a vested right in the municipal property acquired for its benefit, and
    is entitled to demand that such property be applied to its uses.
    Love v. City of Dallas, 
    40 S.W.2d 20
    , 27 (Tex. 1931) (quoting Pearson v. State, 
    19 S.W. 499
    ,
    500 (Ark. 1892), and noting that Pearson “correctly stated the rule as to legislative power over
    . . . other municipal properties” and “[n]ot only is this a correct statement of the rule, but it is the
    one accepted by the best writers and courts of the country”);5 see Texas Antiquities Comm.,
    554 S.W.2d at 930–31 (discussing Milam County and Love). Thus, consistent with the rationale
    enunciated in Love, when a municipal corporation acquires and holds property for the benefit of
    the local public, the local public has acquired a vested right in that property by virtue of its
    relationship with the municipal corporation, and challenged legislation impairing that right
    would be subject to the Robinson factor test to determine whether the law is unconstitutionally
    retroactive. See Deacon, 405 S.W.2d at 62 (“The Legislature cannot by retroactive legislation
    applicable to municipal corporations destroy or impair vested rights which persons have acquired
    in their relationships with the municipal corporations[.]”); see also Robinson, 335 S.W.3d at
    145–46 (replacing “impairs vested rights” test with factor test).
    5
    Love v. City of Dallas concerned school districts’ property rights. 
    40 S.W.2d 20
    , 26
    (Tex. 1931). However, the Love Court noted, “School districts are local public corporations of
    the same general character as municipal corporations” and “are defined as quasi-municipal
    corporations”; “[c]ities and towns and municipal corporations are of the same general nature as
    quasi-municipal corporations, in so far as here involved, and the right of the Legislature to
    create, abolish, enlarge, or restrict them in their territory or powers is, unless restrained by
    special constitutional provisions, similar to the authority of the Legislature over quasi-municipal
    corporations”; and “[t]his opinion necessarily deals with both types of public corporations, and it
    is not believed that the rules of law as to school property rights are different.” 
    Id.
     at 26–27.
    9
    From this case law, I derive the following principles. For individuals and private
    entities, the Texas Constitution’s prohibition against retroactive laws “broadly protects rights,
    although they may not be rights in property.”         Wright, 464 S.W.2d at 648.       For political
    subdivisions like municipal corporations, on the other hand, the constitutional prohibition against
    retroactive laws protects a narrower class of rights against the State.6 Reading Honors Academy,
    6
    Although the cited cases concern different types of political subdivisions—e.g., cities
    in Deacon or counties in Milam County—in my opinion the principles that I derive from the case
    law generally cover these entities for the purpose of a retroactivity analysis, although the specific
    application of the principles may have different nuances depending on what type of entity is
    asserting the constitutional challenge. Here, it is undisputed that the City is a home-rule
    municipality. “Municipalities are creatures of law that are ‘created as political subdivisions of
    the state . . . for the exercise of such powers as are conferred upon them. . . . They represent no
    sovereignty distinct from the state and possess only such powers and privileges as have
    been expressly or impliedly conferred upon them.’” Town of Lakewood Village v. Bizios,
    
    493 S.W.3d 527
    , 530 (Tex. 2016) (quoting Payne v. Massey, 
    196 S.W.2d 493
    , 495 (Tex. 1946)).
    “Home-rule municipalities ‘derive their powers from the Texas Constitution’ and ‘possess the
    full power of self government and look to the Legislature not for grants of power, but only for
    limitations on their power.’” Id. at 531 (quoting In re Sanchez, 
    81 S.W.3d 794
    , 796 (Tex. 2002)
    (orig. proceeding)); see also Tex. Const. art. XI, § 5. Although some authorities I cite refer to
    political subdivisions as legislative creations, see, e.g., Love, 40 S.W.2d at 27; Texas Workers’
    Comp. Comm’n v. City of Bridge City, 
    900 S.W.2d 411
    , 414 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, writ
    denied), this does not accurately refer to “home-rule municipalities.” Nevertheless, I see no
    reason that these general principles would not also apply to home-rule municipalities as political
    subdivisions. See, e.g., City of Galveston v. State, 
    217 S.W.3d 466
    , 469 (Tex. 2007) (describing
    home-rule cities as political subdivisions by noting that “[p]olitical subdivisions in Texas have
    long enjoyed immunity from suit when performing governmental functions” and that “high
    standard” for waiver of immunity “is especially true for home-rule cities” because “[s]uch cities
    derive their power from the Texas Constitution, not the Legislature”); Guaranty Petrol. Corp.
    v. Armstrong, 
    609 S.W.2d 529
    , 531 (Tex. 1980) (“A political subdivision has jurisdiction over a
    portion of the State; a department, board or agency of the State exercises its jurisdiction
    throughout the State. Members of the governing body of a political subdivision are elected in
    local elections or are appointed by locally elected officials; those who govern departments,
    boards or agencies of the State are elected in statewide elections or are appointed by State
    officials. Political subdivisions have the power to assess and collect taxes; departments, boards
    and agencies do not have that power.”); Willis v. Potts, 
    377 S.W.2d 622
    , 625 (Tex. 1964) (“The
    Legislature from time to time has passed laws controlling such Home Rule Cities. Such Home
    Rule Cities exist solely by virtue of the State Constitution and legislative enactments. These
    cities are therefore political and governmental subdivisions under this state.”); City of Goose
    Creek v. Hunnicutt, 
    39 S.W.2d 617
    , 618 (Tex. [Comm’n App.] 1931) (“It is true that legislative
    10
    Deacon, Milam County, Love, and the other related cases discussed above together, I conclude
    that when a municipal corporation asserts a prior right against the State to challenge a retroactive
    law as unconstitutional, the municipal corporation generally needs to demonstrate that the nature
    of its prior right against the State is a vested property right as a threshold requirement to trigger
    the Robinson factor test.
    With this framework in mind, I turn to the nature of the prior right asserted by the
    City.7 The City argues that “appropriated water rights are ordinarily considered to be vested
    rights” and that “the ‘prior right’ impaired by [H.B. 2846] is Houston’s right to 70% of water
    from the Reservoir.” The State, on the other hand, argues that “[t]he most Houston can claim is
    an unperfected right to use water that it has never exercised,” see Tex. Water Code § 11.026
    (“No right to appropriate water is perfected unless the water has been beneficially used . . . .”);
    that “[t]he power that authorizes or proposes to give may always revoke before an interest is
    perfected in the done” (quoting De Cordova v. City of Galveston, 
    4 Tex. 470
    , 479 (1849)
    (Hemphill, C.J.)); and thus that “the State is free to take away Houston’s unperfected, or
    unvested, water rights.”
    power to incorporate a home rule city is, by constitutional provision, delegated to the inhabitants
    of the territory affected; nevertheless a city so incorporated is a political subdivision of the state
    for governmental purposes.”), overruled on other grounds by De Shazo v. Webb, 
    113 S.W.2d 519
    (Tex. 1938).
    7
    BRA and the State raise the appellate issue of whether the City had a vested right and
    challenge the City’s assertions to possessing a vested property right against the State. Although
    they do not expressly address what rights the City, as a municipal corporation, can acquire as
    vested rights against the State for the purpose of a retroactivity analysis, a court performing a
    Robinson analysis must consider “the nature of the prior right impaired,” including whether the
    City met its burden to overcome the presumption of constitutionality by demonstrating that the
    prior right it asserts is a vested property right against the State.
    11
    The water use permit at issue here, Permit 2925B, is a “grant[] to the permittees
    of usufructuary rights to the State’s water upon the implied condition subsequent that the waters
    would be beneficially used.”       See Wright, 464 S.W.2d at 649; see also Tex. Water Code
    § 11.0235(a) (“The waters of the state are held in trust for the public, and the right to use state
    water may be appropriated only as expressly authorized by law.”); In re Adjudication of the
    Water Rights of Upper Guadalupe Segment of Guadalupe River Basin, 
    642 S.W.2d 438
    , 444
    (Tex. 1982) (noting that “[a] usufruct has been defined as the right to use, enjoy and receive the
    profits of property that belongs to another”); Ware v. Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality,
    No. 03-14-00416-CV, 
    2017 WL 875307
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 3, 2017, no pet.) (mem.
    op.) (“Under Chapter 11, the waters of Texas rivers, streams, and lakes (among other sources)
    are declared to be the property of the State (i.e., ‘state water’) held in trust for the public, but the
    right to use state water (as opposed to corporeal ownership) may be acquired by appropriation in
    the manner and for the purposes the chapter prescribes.” (internal footnotes and citations
    omitted)). No doubt, “a water right, when acquired and perfected, constituted a vested right to
    the use of the water appropriated.” Wright, 464 S.W.2d at 647 (collecting cases); see In re
    Adjudication, 642 S.W.2d at 445 (“Appropriated water rights, like riparian rights, are vested.”);
    Clark v. Briscoe Irrigation Co., 
    200 S.W.2d 674
    , 679 (Tex. App.—Austin 1947, writ dism’d)
    (“Nor is there any question but that a water right, when acquired and perfected either under the
    posting or permit system, constitutes a vested interest in or title to the use of the water thereby
    appropriated.”). But here, the water has not been beneficially used or appropriated, and the
    City’s right to appropriate water has not been perfected in the almost 20 years since the permit
    had been initially issued. See Tex. Water Code § 11.026.
    12
    In Motl v. Boyd, the Texas Supreme Court explained and described the nature of a
    permit right prior to appropriation. 
    286 S.W. 458
    , 475 (Tex. 1926), disapproved of on other
    grounds by Valmont Plantations v. State, 
    355 S.W.2d 502
     (Tex. 1962). The Motl Court stated:
    “The instrument issued by the board is called by the statute in various sections a permit; that is, a
    permit to appropriate water. Permit is synonymous with leave or license, and means no more
    than that the party has the license of the state to become an appropriator of water upon statutory
    conditions.” 
    Id.
     (emphasis added). Referencing a predecessor statute of Section 11.026 that
    similarly required beneficial use before appropriation rights are considered perfected, the Motl
    Court continued: “The right to appropriate does not mature until the permit holder actually
    appropriates it in the manner and form prescribed by the statute. . . . On the whole, we think the
    permit is just what the name signifies—merely a license to become an appropriator of public
    water.” 
    Id.
     This Court, following and expounding on Motl, explained: “Thus, a permit is no
    more than evidence of a right to acquire another right, the right to use whatever quantity of water
    the holder may require for a beneficial use.” Lower Colo. River Auth. v. Texas Dep’t of Water
    Res., 
    638 S.W.2d 557
    , 563 (Tex. App.—Austin 1982) (citing Motl, 286 S.W. at 475), rev’d on
    other grounds, 
    689 S.W.2d 873
     (Tex. 1984); see 73 Tex. Jur. 3d Water § 113 (“A permit is,
    however, merely a license to become an appropriator of public water on statutory conditions.
    The right to appropriate does not mature until the permit holder actually appropriates water in the
    manner and form prescribed by the statute.” (citing Motl, 286 S.W. at 475)). Accordingly, not
    only has the City not perfected the usufructuary water right described in Permit 2925B, but also
    it has not even acquired that right. See Tex. Water Code §§ 11.002(5) (defining “[w]ater right”
    to mean “a right acquired under the laws of this state to impound, divert, or use state water”),
    .022 (“The right to the use of state water may be acquired by appropriation in the manner and for
    13
    the purposes provided in this chapter.” (emphasis added)). By acquiring the permit to use the
    water, the City has acquired only the “right to acquire [the usufructuary] right” in the future
    through beneficial use. See Lower Colo. River Auth., 
    638 S.W.2d at 563
    .
    Consistent with these authorities, I cannot conclude that the City’s right to acquire
    in the future a water use right upon appropriation constitutes a vested property right that would
    satisfy the threshold requirement to trigger a Robinson analysis for a municipal corporation. The
    City does not cite any case authorities that would support its position that an unperfected water
    right granted in a permit is a vested property right, and general principles of Texas law indicate
    the contrary. See, e.g., De Cordova, 4 Tex. at 479 (Hemphill, C.J.) (“The power that authorizes
    or proposes to give may always revoke before an interest is perfected in the done.”).
    The City argues that Permit 2925B is exempt from permit cancellation under
    Section 11.173(b), presumably implying that this statutory protection from cancellation changes
    the nature of the right granted in the permit to a vested right. See Tex. Water Code § 11.173(b).
    But Section 11.173(b) exempts a permit “from cancellation under Subsection (a).” Id. And
    Section 11.173(a) merely authorizes the cancellation of a permit based on 10 years of nonuse
    “during the 10-year period immediately preceding the cancellation proceedings authorized by
    this subchapter.”   Id. § 11.173(a).   If the condition is satisfied, the permit “is subject to
    cancellation in whole or in part, as provided by this subchapter, to the extent of the 10 years
    nonuse.” Id.; see id. § 11.172 (“A permit . . . is subject to cancellation in whole or part for
    10 years nonuse as provided by this subchapter.”). But Subchapter E provides the procedural
    mechanism for cancelling a permit for nonuse and is limited to authorizing the cancellation for
    nonuse; it does not generally protect an unperfected water right from cancellation. See generally
    id. §§ 11.171–.186 (“Subchapter E. Cancellation of Permits, Certified Filings, and Certificates of
    14
    Adjudication for Nonuse”).      In other words, Section 11.173(b) does not create a settled
    expectation that a specified type of permit will not be cancelled at all such that the right granted
    in the permit is vested; rather, to the extent Section 11.173(b) creates settled expectations, the
    expectation is that the permit will not be cancelled for nonuse under Subchapter E.
    The City may be correct that Chapter 11 does not authorize the Commission to
    cancel its permit on the ground that the right has not been perfected. See id. § 11.177(a)
    (authorizing commission to cancel permit after hearing and nonuse finding).                But the
    Legislature’s power to enact, amend, or repeal state laws is “generally limited only by federal or
    state constitutional provisions or federal law”—not other legislative acts—and “as a general rule,
    one ‘legislature cannot prevent future legislatures from amending or repealing a statute.’”8
    Graphic Packaging Corp. v. Hegar, 
    538 S.W.3d 89
    , 104 (Tex. 2017) (quoting Central Power
    & Light Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n, 
    649 S.W.2d 287
    , 289 (Tex. 1983)). Thus, the lack of an
    express statutory provision authorizing the Commission to cancel a permit granting unperfected
    water rights does not prevent the Legislature from enacting a law that effectively cancels the
    City’s rights under the permit by requiring them to be contractually transferred to BRA, so long
    as the law satisfies constitutional and federal law. And the City is presumed to know this law.
    Philadelphia Indem. Ins. v. White, 
    490 S.W.3d 468
    , 483 (Tex. 2016) (“[P]arties are presumed to
    know the law[.]” (quoting Texas Emp’rs Ins. Ass’n v. Tabor, 
    283 S.W. 779
    , 780 (Tex. Comm’n
    App. 1926))). Especially given the unique circumstances of the Legislature’s involvement with
    the Allens Creek Reservoir project for over 20 years, I cannot conclude that the City had a
    8
    H.B. 2846 amended S.B. 1593 by adding an additional section directing the
    City to contract with BRA. See Act of May 22, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1291, § 1.01,
    
    1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4426
    , amended by Act of May 16, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 380, § 1,
    
    2019 Tex. Gen. Laws 688
    , 688.
    15
    legitimate claim of entitlement that rose to the level of a vested property right against the State.
    Accordingly, I would hold that the City’s asserted prior right is “not a vested property right to
    which the . . . prohibition on retrospective laws appl[ies].” Cf. Honors Academy, 555 S.W.3d
    at 68.
    CONCLUSION
    H.B. 2846 and the circumstances leading up to it are, no doubt, novel exercises of
    legislative authority, and the Legislature’s policy of enacting H.B. 2846 may be reasonably
    questioned. But our role as judges is to evaluate the constitutionality of a law, not its policy. It
    is my opinion that, as written and interpreted by precedential authorities, the retroactivity
    prohibition relied on by the City does not prohibit H.B. 2846. I therefore respectfully dissent.
    __________________________________________
    Melissa Goodwin, Justice
    Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Smith
    Filed: June 30, 2021
    16