### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 455 -CV

Wa lt e r We st , P .E. , A ppe lla nt

v. Te xa s C om m iss ion on En vir onm e nt al Q ual it y a nd Abitibi -Consolidated Corp. , Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 201S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-06- 0002 01 , HO NORAB LE W. JEANNE MEURER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG & NO. 03-07-00456- CV

Walter West, P .E., and The Lon e Star C hapter of Th e Sierr a Club, Ap pellants

v. Te xa s C om m iss ion on En vir onm e nt al Q ual it y a nd Abitibi Consolid ated Cor p., App ellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 353RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-06- 0005 98, H ONO RAB LE W. JEANNE MEURER, JUDGE P RESIDING

O P I N I O N

These a ppeals a rise fr om two lawsuits broug ht by appellants Walter West, P.E., and the L one Star Chapter

of the Sierr a Club seeking judicial revie w of a n unconte s t ed decision byWe gr anted the pa rties’ motion to consol i d at e t h es e appe als for the limit ed purpose s of 1 briefingand submission on a joint admini strative re cord a nd a joint reporte r’s re cord. 2 the executive dire cto r o f t he Te x as Commissi on on Environmental Qua lity g ranting a wa stewate r discharg e per

mit to Ab i t ibi Consol idated Corp. F ind inga pp e lla nts ’ l aws uit s unti me ly

be c a us e 1 they wer e filed more than thirty day s after the effec tive date of the ex ecutive director’ s decision, see Tex. W ater

Code Ann. § 5.351 (West 2000), the district cour t g rante d the Commiss ion’s pleas to the jurisdiction and dismiss ed both s uits for lack of jurisdiction. Bec ause w e conc lude there was no

e rr or in t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of a pp e lla nts ’ s uit s, we a ff

ir m th e or de rs of

dis mis sa l.

BACK GR OUND Abitibi and its predece ssor Donohue I ndustries, I nc. (collec tively “Abitibi”) own a

nd operate a pape r mill in L ufkin, Texas. The pape r mill has been manuf actur ing pa

per since 1940. As

a re su lt o f i ts o pe ratio ns , th e mil l ha s bee n d isc ha rg ingwa ste wate r p ur su ant t o a state wate r q

ua lity permit since 1961. In November 2000, Ab i t i b i fi l ed an application with the Commiss ion for the

rene wal and amendment of its permit, TPDES Permit No. 00368. Following a tec hnical re view of the pe rm it a

pp lic a tio n, the e xec uti ve dir e c tor iss ue d a pre lim ina ry de c isi on

that th e re qu e ste d p e rm it met the require ments of applicable law. The executive direc tor’s preliminary decision trig g ere d a period of public notice and comment o n the Abitibi application. After the close of

the notice a

ndSection 5.115 of the water c ode def ines the term “ aff

ecte d person.” Tex. W ater Code Ann. 2 § 5 .1 15 (a ) ( Wes t 20 00 ). Th e statut e pr ov ide s: For the purpose of

an administrative he aringheld by or for the c ommissi on involving a co ntested ca se, “a ffe cted pe rson,” or “per son aff

ecte d,” or “ person who ma y be aff ecte d” mea

ns a person who has a

persona l justi ciable inter est related to a leg al rig ht, duty , privileg e, powe r, o r ec o n omic interest af fec ted by the administrative hear ing. A n interest common to member s of the g ener al public does not qualify as a per sonal justiciable intere st. The commission shall adopt rules specify ing f actor s wh ic h mu st b e c on sid e re d in de te rm ini ng wh e the r a pe rs on is a n a ff e c te d p e rs on

in any contested c ase a

rising unde r the a ir, waste, or wa t er p ro grams withi n the commission’s jurisdiction and whether a n aff ecte d association is entitled to standing in c on te ste d c a se he ari ng s. Id. Act of May 30, 1999, 76th L eg ., R.S., ch. 1350, § 2, 1999 Tex. Gen. L aws 4570, 4570-72.

3 I n its order, the Commission denied all motions for rec onsideration. 4 3 c omm e nt pe ri od , “a ff

e c te d p e rs on s” we re en t i t l ed t o s u b m i t a re qu es t fo r a co n t es t edca s e h ea ri n g. 2 See id. § 5.115 (West 2000).

Th e Com mis sio n c on sid e re d a l l o f t h e re qu e sts fo r a

c on te ste d c a se he ari nga t a pu bli c meeting on J une 15, 2005. After the meeting , the Commi ssion issued an order g ranting on l y t he h ea ri n g re qu es tfr o m J o E l l en At k i n s o n . T h e C o m m i s s i o n d en i ed al l o t h er re qu es t s fo r a h ea ri n g, including those submitt ed by West and the S ierra Club. The Com mission deter mined that West and the Sierra Club we re not “ aff ecte d persons” within the meaningof the water c ode. See id. §§ 5.115 (def ining “ aff ecte d person” ), 5.556 (prohibiting he aring unless re quested by aff ecte d person a s 3 define d in section 5.115) (West 2000). 4

After the Commiss ion refe rre d Abitibi’s application to the State Offic e of Admi n is tr a ti v e H e ar in g s f o r a c o n te s te d c a s e h e ar in g , M s . A tk in s o n w it h dr e w h e r r e qu est for aThe district c ourt also g rante d Abitibi’s motion for pa rtial summary

judgme nt for lac k of 5 jurisdiction. 4 h ea ri n g. Up o nt h e w i t h dra wa l o f M s . At k i n s o n ’s h e a r i n g r e q u es t , t h e a d m i n i s t ra t i v e l aw j u d ge

canc elled the pr eliminary hear ing a

nd g rante d Abitibi’s moti on to remand the application to the executive direc to r for

further proce eding s. See 30 Tex. Admin. C ode § 80.101 (2007) . Once the Abitibi application was remanded to the C ommissi on, it was dee med an unc ontested matter pur suant to the Commi ssion’s rules. See id.

On re mand, the exec u t ive direc tor g rante d the unconteste d permit application as authorized by

law. See Tex. Water C ode Ann. § 5.122 (West 2000) (dele g ating uncontested matters to the executive di rec tor); 30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 50.133 (2007) (a uthorizi ng executive direc tor to act on unconte sted matters), 80.101 ( 200 7 ) (re manding uncontested a pplications to ex ecutive d ir e c to r )

. T h e e xe c u ti v e d ir e c to r s ig n e d th e p e r mi t o n D e c e mb e r 9 , 2 0 0 5 , an d h is d e c is io nwas eff ective that same day

. See 30 Tex. Admin. C ode § 50.135 (2007) . I t is undisput ed that West and the Sierra Club rece ived notice of

the executive dire ctor’s de cision. Section 5.351 of the w at er code a llows a person to see k judicial revie w of a Commi ssion’s decision by filing a petition for judicial re view within thirty day s after

the ef fec tive date of the dec ision. Tex . Water Code Ann. § 5.351. West filed his petition for judicial review on Janu ary 18 , 2 00 6, and

the Sie rr a

Clu b fil e d a

se pa rate pe tit ion

fo r j ud ic ia l r e vie w, joi ne d b y Wes t filing f or a second time, on F ebrua ry 17, 2006. The district cour t determined that both petitions wer e

u n ti me ly , g r an te d

th e Co mm is s io n ’ s p le a s to th e ju r is d ic tion, and dismissed appellants’ suits for

5 want of jurisdiction. These appea ls followed.5 DI SCU SSIO N I n two issues, appellan t s contend that the district court err ed in g ranting the Com mis sio n’ s p le a s to the jur isd ic tio n a nd Ab iti bi’ s mo tio n for su mma ry jud g me nt. Ap pe lla

nts claim that the district cour t erre d in determining that judicial revie w of the Commission’s decision and the pr ocee dings le ad i n g up to that decision wer e g overne d by the wate r code and not the Administrative Procedur e Ac t (“APA” ) and that the district court e rre d in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to consider appe llants’ petitions for judicial revie w.

Stan dard of rev iew

Wheth er the d istri c t c ourt ha d s ub je c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n o ve r a pp e lla nts ’ c la ims prese nts a question of law that we re view de novo

. Ma y he w v . To wn o

f Su nn y v ale , 964 S.W .2d 922, 92 8 ( Te x. 19 98 ). Whe n re vie wi ng a dis tr ic t court ’s ru lin g on a ple a to t he jur isd ic tio n, we be g in w ith the pleading s and we look to the pleader ’s intent. Texas De p’t of Par ks & W

i l dlife v. Miranda , 133 S.W .3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004 ). The ple ader has the initial burden to alleg e fa cts that aff irmatively

demonstrate th e district cour t’s jurisdiction to hear the c ause. Id. We construe the pleading s liberally i n fa v o r of jurisdiction and, unless the pleading s aff irmatively

neg ate the exis tence of jurisdiction, the plaintiff should be g iven an oppor tunity to amend. Id. at 226-27. Judicial review of the exe cutive direc tor’s decision

I n th e ir fi rs t is su e , a

pp e lla nts argue that th e APApr ov id es an in de pe nd e nt r ig ht t o judicial revie w of c ontested ca se dec isions and that the district court’s dism issal of their suits was in error . We disag ree .Se c tio n 5 .3 51 state s: 6 (a) A per son aff

ecte d by a ruling , order , decision, or other act of the commission may file a pe tition t o revie w, set aside, modify , o r s u s p end the act of the commission. (b ) A p e rs on

a ff e c te d b y a ru lin g , o rd e r, or

de c isi on of the c omm iss ion mus t f ile his petition wit hin 30 day s after the ef fec tive date of t h e ru ling, or der, or decision. A pe rson a ff

ecte d by an ac t other than a

ruling , order , or dec ision must file his petiti on within 30 day s afte r the date the commission perfor med the a c t. Tex. W ater

Code Ann. § 5.351 (West 2000). 6 The su p re m e cour

t held in Texas Natural Resource Conserv ation Commissi on v. Sierra Club that “[a]n age n cy ’s ena bling leg islation determines the prope r proc edure s for

o b t ai n i n g j u d i ci al re v i ew o f an age n cy d ec i s i o n . ” 7 0 S

. W

. 3 d 8 0 9 , 8 1 1 (T ex . 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g Grounds

v . To lar In de p. Sc h. Di

st. , 707 S.W .2d 88 9 , 8 9 1 (Tex . 1986), overruled in part on other grounds , Du ba i P e tr ol eum Co. v . Ka zi , 12 S.W .3d 71, 76 (Tex. 2001)). We there fore look to the Commi ssion’s e nabling leg islation to deter mine the proper proce dures for judicial revie w. See id. Section 5.351 of t h e wa t er code e stablishes the proper proce dures f

or obtaining judicial revie w of the Commission’s decision in this case. See Tex. Water Code Ann. § 5.351. That 6 section requires a person af fec ted by the Commiss ion’s decision to file a pe tition for judicial review “within 30 day s after

the ef fec tive date” o f t h e decision. See id. Subject to constituti onal and statutory limit ations, administrative ag encie s have discr etion to set eff ective dates for the ir dec isions and orde rs. See R ailroad Comm’n v. Lone Star Gas Co. , 656 S.W .2d 421, 425-26 (Te x . 1983); Heat Ene rgy Advanc ed Tech. v . W est Dallas Coalition for Envtl. Justice , 962 S.W .2d 288, 292-93 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, pet. denied) (her einaf ter “ H. E. A. T. ” ); Y

oung Trucking, Inc. v . Railroad7

Comm’n , 781 S.W .2d 719, 720-21 (Tex. A pp.—Austin 1989, no writ). By rule, the Commi ssion has established that, unless otherwise stated there in, a permit is e ffe ctive when signe d by the executive direc tor. See 30 Tex. Admin. C ode § 50.135. B eca use it was not ot herw ise stated i n the per mit, the Abitibi per

mit wa s eff

ective the day it wa s signe d by the executive direc tor—Dec ember 9 , 2005. See id. By statute then West a nd the Sierra Club we re require d to f ile their petitions fo r j u dicial revie w within thirty

day s—or no later

than J anuar

y 8, 2006. See Tex. W ater Code Ann. § 5.351. Appellants counte r that sec tion 5.351 doe s not gove rn judicial re view in this instance beca use the Abitibi application wa s a contested case and the APA provides an independe nt r ight of judicial re view in contested cases; therefor e, the judicial r eview pr ovisions of the APA, not the

wate r co de , ap ply

. I n sup po rt of thi s a rgume nt, a

pp e lla nts re ly on the su pr e me c ourt ’s de c isi on

in Texas De partment of Protective and Regulatory Serv ices v . Mega Chil d Care, Inc. , 145 S.W .3d 170 (Tex. 2004)

. Appellants’ relianc e on Me ga Chi ld C

ar e is mispl ace d. The supre me cour t, in Mega Chi ld C ar e , held that “sec tion 2001.171 of the APA provides an independe nt rig ht to judicial review when a n ag ency enablingstatute neither spe cifica lly authorizes nor prohibits judicial review .” Id. at 197. I n other words, the APA provides a n independe nt rig ht to judicial review w hen the a g ency ’s enablingact is silent. See id. But the w ater code is not silent. The water c ode expressly provides a rig ht to judicial revie w of Commi ssion decisions. See Te x. Wat e r C od e Ann. § 5 .3 51 . B e c a us e the wate r code expressly p ro v i d es a r ight to judicial re view, the supre me cour t’s holding in Mega Chi ld C ar e is inapposite. Ap pe lla nts fu rt he r argue that the APA a

pp lie s be c a

us e the Ab iti bi a

pp lic a tio n w a s a contested case , but this argument is w ithout mer it. Although we ag ree with a ppellants ’ ge nera l8

asser tion that the APA provides for judicia l reviewof an a g ency ’s final de cision in a contested c ase, the Com mis sio n’ s a

pp ro va l of

the Ab it ib i app licatio n w a s n ot a fi na l de c isi on

in a c on te ste d c a se within the meaning of the APA. F or this r eason, w e conc lude the water c ode, not the APA, g overns judicial revie w of the Commission’s decision here

.

Se c tio n 2 00 1. 17 1 o f t

he APApr ov ide s: A p e rs on wh o h a s e xha

us te d a ll a dmi nis tr a tiv e re me die s avai lab le with in a state a g e n c y an d w h o is a g g r ie v e d

b y a f in a l d e c is ion in a con tested c as e is e nti tle d to judicial revie w under

this chapter. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 2001.171 (West 2000) (e mphasis added) . By its plain langua g e, sec tion 2001.171 provides a rig ht to judicial revie w of final age ncy decisions onl y in contested c ases. Id. The pl a in la

n g u a g e o f th e w a te r c o d e , h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t li mi t th e r ig h t to ju d ic ia l revie w of Commi ssion decisions only to contest ed cases. See Te x. Wat e r C od e Ann. § 5 .3 51 . T he APA define s “conte sted ca se” a s “a pr ocee ding, inc luding a rate making or l icensing proce eding , in which the leg al rig hts, duties, or privileg es of a part y ar e to be determined by a state a g ency

afte r an opportunity

for a djudicative hea

ring .” See Tex

. Go v ’t Code Ann. § 2001.003(1) (West 2000). The APA a lso defines “ party” as “ a per son or state a g ency n am ed or admitted as a party .” Id. § 2001.003(4) ( West 2000).

Appellants ar g ue that once the Commiss ion gr anted Ms. Atkinson’s re quest for a hear ing a nd ref err ed the Abitibi application to SOAH, there wa s an opportunity for a n adjudicative hear ing a nd, there fore , the judicial re view provisions in the APA attache d. Havingonce attached, appellants contend that the proc eedingalway s remaine d subject to judicial revie w under the APA.9

Appellants’ a

rg ument misses the mark beca use it f ails to c onsider the withdra wal of Ms. Atkinson’s he ari ngre qu e st a

nd the Com mis sio n’ s r

ule pr ov idi ngfo r r e mand

of un c on te ste d matte rs . The Commission gra

nted only one hea ring request—the reque st submit ted by Ms. Atkinson. W hen the Commission refer red the Abitibi application to S OAH, Ms. Atkinson and Abitibi were the only

parties to the pr ocee ding w ithin the meaning of the APA. See id. Al t h o u gh allowed by

the C ommissi on’s rules, see 30 Tex. Admin. C ode § 80.109 (2007) (desig nation of p ar t i es ), n ei t h er

W es tn o r t h e S i erra C l u

b s o u gh t t o b e ad m i t t ed as a p ar t y t o t h e S OA H p ro ce ed i n g. U n d e r t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’ s r

u l e s t h e n , o n c e M s . A t k i n s o n w i t h dr e w h e r r e qu e s tf o r a h e ar i n g , t h e A LJ

was re qu ired to g rant Abitibi’s reque st to cance l the hear ing a nd rema nd the application to the executive direc tor, see id. § 80.101 (allowing for remand to executive di rec tor). Be cause the hea ring had bee n canc elled, the Abitibi application no long er satisfied the APA def initio n o f a “contested

case .” See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 2001.003(1).

The leg islature has r equire d administrative a gen ci es to adopt rules of prac tice and proce dure statingthe nature and require ments of all available formal a nd informal proc edure s. Id. § 2 00 1. 00 4( 1) (We st 2 00 0) . In s e c tio n 8 0. 10 1 of it s ru le s, the Com mis sio n h a s p ro vid e d th a t, i f all timely hear ing r equests ar e withdra wn or de nied or if a ll named par ties rea ch a se t tlement and no fac ts or issues remain c ontroverte d, the AL J shall g rant a n applica n t ’s re q u es t to remand an application to the ex ecutive dir ector and, after remand, the application shall be uncontested. See 30 Tex. Admin. C ode § 80.101. The Commi ssion gr anted only one re quest for a

hear ing, w hich was l a t e r w i t h dr aw n , an d

n o o t h e r p art i e s h a d

b e e nn a m e d

i nt h e S O A H p r o c e e d i n g . A s a r e s u l t , t h e A LJ

was re quired to g rant Ab i t i b i ’s m otion to remand the a pplication to the executive direc tor as anAlthough the notice of the executive direc tor’s dec ision sets forth the proce dures f or filing 7 a “motion to overturn” and re questing the Commiss ion to review the executive direc tor’s dec ision, it doe s not inf

orm the rec ipient that, unde r the Commi ssion’s r ules, filing a

motion to overturn does not affe ct the executive dire ctor’s a pproval of the Abi t i b i ap p l i ca tion. See 30 Tex. Admin. C ode

10 uncontested matter. See id. I n light of the Commi ssion’s rules, we r ejec t appellants’ a rg ument that

on c e the Com mis sio n r e fe rs a ma tte r t o SO AH fo r a

he ari ng , it

re ta ins the status of

a c on te ste d c a se wi thi n th e me anin g of

the APAsim

ply by vir tue of the Com mis sio n’ s o ri g ina l r e fe rr a l. The Commission has compli ed with the l eg islature’s directive to adopt rule s stating t h e n at ure a

nd require ments of all forma l and informal pr ocedur es. See T e x. G o v ’ t C o d e Ann. § 2001.004(1). The rec ord demonstrates that the C o m m i s sion followed its rules. Be cause the Commi ssion’s decision approvingthe Abitibi application was not “a final dec i s i o n i n a contested

case ,” we conclude that the APA provisions f or judicial revie w in contested c ases do not apply

. See id. § 2 00 1. 17 1 ( pr ov idi ng“ a pe rs on . . . w ho is a g g ri e ve d b y a fi na l de c isi on in a c on te ste d c a se is entitled to judicial reviewunder this cha pter.” )

Tim eliness of petitions for ju dicial review

Havingconclude d that the wate r code , not the APA, g overns judicial r eview of the Commi ssion’s decision in th e s e c ir c umstances, we consider w hether appellants prope rly

invoked the jurisdiction of the district court under the wate r code

. See Tex. Water Code Ann. § 5.351. Section 5.351 require d appellants to f ile their petitions for judicial revie w within thirty day s of the ef

fec tive date of the Commiss ion’s decision. S e e id. Be cause the Commiss ion’s decision wa s eff ective Dec ember

9, 2005, appellants’ pe titions wer e due on or befor e J anuar y 8, 2006. Although West and the S ierra Club rec eived notice of the e x ecutive dir ector ’s dec ision, neither West nor the Sierr a Club 7§ 50.139(d) ( 2007). Nor doe s the notice e x plain that i n o rd er to appea l the executive direc tor’s

decision a pe rson must file a petition for r eview in d i s t ri ct cour t as requir ed under

the wate r code— i.e. , within thirty

day s of the eff

ective date of the executive direc tor’s decision. West and the Si e r r a Cl u b d o n o t a r g u e o n a

p p e a l th a t th e Co mm is s io n ’ s n o ti c e w a s d e f e c ti v e , an d

w e r e c o g n iz e that both West and the Sierra Club are r epre sented by counsel. We obser

ve, howe ver, that the Com mis sio n’ s n oti c e do e s n ot f ull y e xpla in t he ra nge of op tio ns a va ila

ble to a pe rs on tr y ingto pr ote st a n a pp lic a tion pe nd ingbe fo re the Com mis sio n, muc h le ss t he imp a c t of

e a c h ava ila

ble option. The rec ord re flec ts that W est and the Sierr a Club filed motions to overturn with the Commi ssion but did not file their p et i t i o n s fo r j udicial re view until after the motions to overturn we re o v erru l edb y

o p er at i o n o f l aw . Ha d W es t an d t h e S i erra C l u b b ee n fu l l y ap p ri s ed o f t h e r an ge of options available t o them and the e ffe cts of ea ch option, they may have de cided to for eg o the filing of a motion to overturn in favor of a timely petition for judicial revie w. As a pra ctical matter , appellants c ould have done both. See, e .g. , Heat Energy Advanced Tec h. v. W est Dallas Coali tion for Envtl. Justice , 962 S.W .2d 288, 293 (Tex. App.—Austin 1 9 98, pet. denied) (conc luding that petition for judicial re view filed w ithin section 5.351’ s thirty -day time period prope rly

invoked district court’s jurisdiction eve n if motion for rehe aringwas re quired unde r the APA). To the e xten t a

pp e lla nts ’ b ri e f c an b e c on st rued to c la im that th e fi lin g of a mot ion to 8 overturn e x tended a

ppellants’ dea dline to file their petitions for j u d icial re view, we reje ct that argument. Appellants we re r equire d to file their petitions for judicial revie w within thirty day s after t he ef fec tive date of

the Commiss ion’s decision. See T e x. W a t e r C o d e A n n . § 5

. 3 5 1

. N o t h i n g in the wate r code allows this de adline to be extended, and the plain lang uag e of the Commi ssion’s rules provides that, unless expressly order ed by the Commiss ion, a motion to overturn does not af fec t the executive direc tor’s ac tion. See 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 50.139(d). Appellants do not c ontend, and n o t h i n g i nt h e r e c o r d

s h o w s , t h a tt h e C o m m i s s i o ne n t e r e d ane x p r e s s o r d e r

t o t h e c o n t r ar

y. 11 filed a timely

petition for judicial re view. W es t fi led his initi al petition for judicial re view on J anuar y 18, 2006—ten day s afte r the deadline specifie d in the water code—a nd the Sierra Club filed its petiti on for judicial revie w, j oined by West, on Fe bruar y 17, 2006—more than one month after the dea dline specifie d in the water code. We c onclude that both pe titions for judicial revie w wer e untimely beca use they wer e not f iled within the thirty -day

deadline spe cified in sec tion 5.351 of the wate r code

. We l ike wi se 8 conclude that appellants’ f ailure to comply

with this st atutory

prer equisite deprive d the trial cour t of jurisdiction to consider a ppellants’ petitions for judicial re view. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann.12

§ 3 11 .0 34 (s ta tut or

y pr e re qu isi te s in

a su it against g ov e rnme nta l e nti ty are jur isd ic tio na l) ; Sie rra Club , 70 S.W .3d at 811 (ag ency ’s enabling act establishes proper proce dure f

or obtaining judicial

re vie w) ; S

u c h yv . Te x a s Na t. R es . Co n s e r v a ti o n Comm’n , No. 03-97-00714- CV, 1998 Tex. App. L EXI S 7984, at *7-8 (Tex. A pp.—Austin 1998, no pet.) (not de signated for publication) (holding failure to comply

with 30- day filing deadline in w ater code se ction 5.351 deprive d the district court of jur isd ic tio n to c on sider su it for judic ia l r e vie w) ; see also Schroe der v. Tex as Iron W orks, Inc

. , 843 S.W .2d 48 3 , 4 8 6 (T ex . 1991) (holding filing de adline in the Te x as Commissi on on Human Rig hts Ac t, now c ha

pte r 21 of the la

bo r c od e , is ma

nd a tor y and jur isd ic tio na l) ; Texas Mun. League v. Burns , 209 S.W .3d 806, 811-12 & n.9 (Tex. App.—For t Wo rt h 2 0 0 6 , n o pet.) (holdingfiling deadline in labor

code se ction 410.252(a) is mandatory an d j urisdictional). The district c ourt proper ly g rante d the Commiss ion’s pleas to the jurisdiction.

Err or in the pr oc e e din

gs be fo re the Commissio n and

SOA H To the e xten t a

pp e lla nts c omp la in t

hat th e Com mis sio n e r

r e d i n d e ny i n g t h e i r r e q u e s ts for a contested c ase he aring , that the AL J improperly rema nded the Abit i b i ap p l ication to the executive direc tor as an unc ontested matter, or that the AL J ’s rema nd order deprive d appellants of the op po rt

un ity to se e k a dmi ssi on a s a pa rt y in the SOA H pr oc e e din g s, no ne of th ese a rgum ents addre ss appellants’ f

ailure to timely

file their pe titions for judicial r eview a s require d in section 5.351 of the wate r c od e . We c on c lud e a pp e lla nts ’ a rgume nts are wi tho ut m e ri t. The Com mission’s denial of appellants’ reque sts for a contested case hear ing a nd the AL J ’s orde r re manding the Abitibi application to the execut i ve dire ctor we re inter im orders notEven were we to hold that these int erim orders wer e subjec t to judicial review unde r the 9 wate r c od e , a

pp e lla nts do no t argue that the ir pe tit ion s fo r jud ic ia l re vie w c ha lle ng e d e a c h o f t he se order s in a timely

manner or ot herw ise satisfied the r equire ments in section 5.351 of the water c ode.

13 subject to appe al or judicial re view. See City of Corpus Chris ti v. Public Util. Comm’n , 572 S.W .2d 9 290, 299-300 (Te x . 1978) (op. on r eh’g ) (r ecog nizi ng “[c]oncern for eff icient administrative proce dure r equires co n s i d er ati on of the va lidity of interim orde rs only

upon appea l from final

or de r s ” )

. E a c h o f t h e s e i n t e r i m o r d e r s w a s s u b s u m e d w i t h i n th e C o m m i s s i o n ’ s f i n a l d e c isi on to approve the permit application and subject t o judicial revie w on appe al there from. See id. To ob ta in judicial revie w of these interim o rd er s , ap p ell ants wer e re quired to see k judicial revie w of the Commi ssion’s f

inal decision in compliance with section 5.351 of the water c ode. See id. ; se e als o Te x. Wat e r Cod e Ann. § 5 .3 51 ; Sierra Club , 70 S.W .3d at 811. B eca use appe llants failed to see k timely revie w of the Comm ission’s final decision, we c onclude that the district c ourt lacke d jurisdiction to review these interim order s. Se e City of Co rp us Chr ist i , 572 S.W .2d at 299-300 (r e vie w of a n a g e nc y ’s int e ri m or de rs oc c ur s up on re vie w of its fi na l de c isi on ). We overru le appellants’ f

irst issue.

Abi tib i’ s motio n f

or pa rti al s umm ar

y jud gment I n their sec ond issue, appellants argu e t h at the district cour t improperly

g rante d Abitibi’s moti on for pa

rtial s u m mary

judgme nt based on lac k of jurisdiction. I n light of our

c on c lus ion

that th e re wa s n o e rr or in t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra

nt o f t he Com mis si on ’s pl eas to the jur isd ic tio n d ism iss inga pp e lla nts ’ s uit s f

or la c k o f j ur isd ic tio n, we ne e d n ot rea c h a pp e lla nts ’ second issue.14 CO NC LU SION B e c a us e a pp e lla nts did no t file the ir

pe tit ion s f

or jud ic ia l r e vie w w ith in t

he tim e period re quired in sec tion 5.351 of the wate r code , we c onclude the district court prope rly g rante d the Commiss ion’s pleas to the jurisdictio n , an d we a ffirm the district c ourt’s orde rs dismissi ng appellants’ suits for la ck of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: May

29, 2008