Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50505/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50505-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of San Antonio
Appellee
Eakin Ranches, Limited
Appellant
Edwards Aquifer Authority
Appellee
GG Ranch, Limited
Appellant
Horton Ranches, Incorporated
Appellant
Rolando Ruiz
Appellee
Dancy Tschirhart
Appellant
Lloyd Tschirhart
Appellant
Rusty Ulbrich
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50505

GG RANCH, LIMITED; HORTON RANCHES, INCORPORATED; LLOYD 

TSCHIRHART; DANCY TSCHIRHART; EAKIN RANCHES, LIMITED; 

RUSTY ULBRICH, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY; ROLANDO RUIZ, in his official 

capacity as general manager; CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Acting by and 

through the San Antonio Water System (SAWS), 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CV-848

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants, owners of certain real property located above the Edwards 

Aquifer in Medina and Uvalde Counties, Texas, sued the state regulatory 

agency in charge of the Aquifer, the Edwards Aquifer Authority, alleging 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50505 Document: 00513494308 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2016
No. 15-50505

2

violations under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 

Constitution and Article 1, § 17 of the Texas Constitution. Appellants’ suit 

followed the Authority’s denial of their untimely applications for withdrawal 

permits for their properties. The district court, pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissed all claims with prejudice.

We have considered this appeal on the basis of the briefs, the pertinent 

portions of the record, and the applicable law. Having done so, the judgment is 

affirmed, essentially for the reasons stated in the Order of the district court. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50505 Document: 00513494308 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2016