Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

April 8, 1971
Judge 0. F. Dent Opinion No. M-834
Chairman
Texas Water Rights Re: Status of claims under
Commission - Section 4 of Article
Austin, Texas 78711 7542a V.C.S. (Sec. 5.303,
Water Code) where there
has been judicial adjudi-
Dear Judge Dent: cation thereof.
By letter of March 30, 1971, Texas Water Rights Commis-
sion has requested our opinion as follows:
"Since the enactment of the Water Rights Adjudi-
cation Act of 1967 (Arficle 7542a, V.A.C.S.), num-
erous claims have been received from parties as-
serting the right to use water from the Rio Grande
in the four southern most counties, Starr, Hidalgo,
Cameron and Willacy, comprising the Lower Rio
Grande Valley.
"Specifically, 394 such claims have been received.
Three Hundred Eighty-Nine of the claims were re-
ceived on or before September 1, 1969: Of that
number, 12 of the claims were received and filed
as directed by Section 4 of. the Adjudication Act.
The remaining 5 claims were received after Sep-
tember I, 1969.
"With the exception of the 12 claims filed, ~the
claims have not been acted upon in any manner
other than a letter acknowledging receipt and ad-
vising the claimant that his materials would not
be processed due to the Court Adjudication of
water rights in this area.
"One Hundred Fourteen of the claimants were not
found water rights of any kind by either the
Trial Court or the Corpus Christi Court of Civil
Appeals. Not reflected as being a specifically
named party-defendant in the Lower Rio Grande
Litigation were 44 of the claimants.
-4038-
. *
Judge 0. F. Dent, page 2 (M-834)
"In view of your opinion of August 28, 1970,
M-674, requiring Commission adjudication of
all claims, we request your opinion as to the
correct disposition of the Section 4 Claims
from the area of the Lower Rio Grande Valley."
We first note that the Water Rights Adjudication Act
is now being considered by the Legislature as Subchapter
G (Sections 5.301 through 5.341) of the Proposed Water Code.
Section 4 of Article 7542a, Vernon's Civil Statutes, ap-
pears as Sec. 5.303, pages 51 and 52 of the new Proposed
Water Code.
It appears to us that all of the foregoing claims in
the Lower Rio Grande Valley were the subject of a lawsuit
which has been finally terminated by a final judgment.
State of Texas v. Hidalgo W.C.I.D. No. 18, 443 S.W.2d 728
(Tex.Civ.App. 1969, error ref. n.r.e.). Other chases of
this Court-adjudication reflect that there was a thorough
consideration given to all water claimants. Hidalgo County
W.I.D. v. Cameron County W.C.&I.D., 250 S.W.Zd 941 (Tex.
Civ.App. 1952, no writ); Hidalgo W.I.D. No. 2 v. Cameron
County W.C.&I.D. No. 5, 253 S.W.2d 294 (Tex.Civ.App. 1952,
no writ); Hidalyo W.I.D. No. 2 v. Blalock, Jud ge, 157 Tex.
206, 301 S.W.2d 593 (1957); State v. Valmo nt, 346 S.W.Zd
853 (Tex.Civ.App. 1961) affirmed in lmont v. State, 163
Tex . 381, 355 S.W.2d 502 (1962); Maverick W.C.I.D. No. 1
v. City of Laredo, 346 S.W.2d 886 (Tex.Civ.App. 1961, error
ref. n.r.e.); Hidalgo County W.C.I.D. No. 1 v. Boysen Dis-
trict Clerk, 354 S.W.2d 420 (Tex.Civ.App. 1962, error ref.);
Hidalgo and Cameron W.C.I.D. No. 9 v. Starley, Special Judge,
373 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.Sup. 1964); and State v. Starley, 443
S.W.2d 451 (Tex.Civ.App. 1967, no writ).
In the final judgment rendered in State v. Hidalgo
W.C.I.D. No. 18; supra, the Court of Civil Appeals made the
following decree:
"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED
by the Court that any and all relief sought
by any party hereto which is not specifically
granted herein be, and the same is hereby
denied."
-4039-
Judge 0. F. Dent, page 3 (M-834)
The purpose of the suit in this judicial adjudication
was also noted by the Court of Civil Appeals in State v.
Hidalqo W.C.I.D. No. 18, supra at page 730, wherein this
Court states:
"In Hidalgo & Cameron Counties Water Con-
trol & Improvement District No. Nine v.
J. H. Starley, Special Judge, 373 S.W.2d
731 (Tex.Sup. 1964), the Supreme Court
pointed out that this suit (No. B-20,576)
'was filed by the State in 1956 to obtain
an adjudication of the water rights to the
American share of the waters of the Rio
Grande.' ***the judgment from which this
appeal is prosecuted adjudicates the water
wrights on that segment of the river system
lying immediately below the Falcon Dam and
extending to the mouth of the Rio Grande."
It is apparent from the above cases that all persons
along the Lower Rio Grande have had their rights adjudicated
by final judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction. This
Court indicates on page 760 of its opinion that the "...pre-
sent suit possesses many characteristics of a class action..."
so as to bind all claimants in the area which was covered by
this final judicial adjudication.
You have also informed us that claims to water asserted
by the Federal Government, and which now pend in the 93rd
District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, as Cause No. B-20,576-A,
are not the subject of your request for this opinion. The
status of these federal claims is not passed upon and these
cases must remain in Court for judicial evaluation on trial
thereof.
With reference to all other claims for water from the Rio
Grande below Falcon Dam, such as those now presented under Sec-
tion 4 of Article 7542a, Vernon's Civil Statutes (Sec. 5.303,
et seq. of the Proposed Water Code), it is our opinion that
the Texas Water Rights Commission should enter its order re-
jecting such claims for the reason that judicial adjudications
thereof have already become final and are conclusive and bind-
ing on the parties therein in any further proceeding on the
same issues. See Bennett v. Commissioner, (5th Cir. 1940),
113 F2d 837, 130 A.L.R. 369, and George H. Lee Co. v. Federal
Trade Corn. 18th Cir. 1940), 113 F2d 583.
,-4043-
._ 4
Judge 0. F. Dent, page 4 (M-834)
SUMMARY
-------
The Texas Water Rights Commission should order
summary rejection of claims made under Article
7542a, V.C.S., where the claims arise in a
segment of the Rio Grande in which the water
rights have been finally adjudicated in the
Courts. Such adjudication is binding and con-
clusive on the parties to it in any further
proceeding on the same issues.
Very truly yours,
CRAWFORD C. MARTIN
Attorney General of Texas
by:
NOLA WHITE
First Assistant
Prepared by Roger Tyler
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Kerns Taylor, Chairman
W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
V. F. Taylor
.John Reeves
Jack Goodman
John Reese
MEADE F. GRIFFIN
Staff Legal Assistant
ALFRED WALKER
Executive Assistant
-4041-