NO. 07-07 -018 3-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C JU LY2, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ TEXAS D ISPO SAL S Y STEMS LAN DF ILL, IN C. , Appel lan t
v. T EXA S CO MMI SS IO N ON ENV IR ON ME NT AL QUA L IT Y

and I ESI TX LAN DF ILL, L.P. , Appel lee s

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 35 3 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF T RAVI S CO UNT Y; RD NO. D-1-GN-05-000 606 ; HON. LORA LIV INGST ON, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. If pig s h ad w ings, t h e y c oul d fly

. Al l maybe p oss ibl e i n thi s e v er ch ang ing wor ld, but w hat i s p ro babl e i s t he th eme under ly ing the ca se before us
. W e are as ked to d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r a n e n t it y o p e ra t in g a g a r b a g e d is p o s a l c o m p a n y in T ra vis Co u n ty,2

i. e. Te x as Disposa l S ys t e m s L and f ill, Inc. (Texas Disposal), ha s stand ing to comp lain
a b o u t a n ad m in ist ra ti ve d e c isi o n pe rt a in in g to th e op e ra ti o n of an o th e r gar b a ge company , i. e. IES I Tex as Landfil l, L.P . ( IESI ), so me 20 0 m ile s a w ay from t he area
serv iced by Texas Disposal. T he trial cou rt said no an d granted the m o tions to dismiss
o f I E S I a n d t h e T e x a s C o m m i s s i o n o n E n v i ro n m e n t a l Q u a l i ty ( t h e C o m m i s s i o n )

. W e ag re e w it h the tr ial co urt. Back gr ound IESI operates a l andfil l that itac q uired from t he C ity of W e a th e rford i n 2003. Aft e r a cqu iri ng the busi ness , i t s oug ht a per mit modific ati on from t he C ommis si on. The
ex e cu ti v e di re cto r of the C ommis si on g ra nted the modi ficat ion on O cto ber 27, 2004. Yet, Te x as Disposa l had a p ro b lem w ith the adm inistrative procedu res culmin ating in the d irect or ’s dec is ion

. Thoug h i t ope rated a lan dfill near Aus ti n and some 2 00 mi les f rom W eat herford, it no net hele ss moved to ov erturn t he d irector’s ruling. Af ter a pu blic hear ing , t he C ommis si on i tse lf i ss ued an order on J anuar

y 28, 2005, upholdi n g the
ex ecut or direct or ’s dete rmi nati on. Thereafter , Tex as Di spos al filed i n Tra v is C ounty seek ing j udi ci al re v iew

of the C ommis si on’ s J anuar y 28 o rd er
. The Co mmiss ion and IESI , w hic h i nter v ened i n the Trav is C ounty l aw sui t, filed ple as to t he j ur is dicti on of the tr ial co urt. They al leg ed, a mong othe r thi ng s, that Tex as Di spos al lac ked st a n d ing to compl ain si nce itw as not a di re ct compet it or of IESI w it h
re s p e c t t o t h e W e a t h e r fo rd l a n d fi l l

. Aft e r a h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u rt g ra n t e d t h o s e pl eas findi ng thatTex as Di spos al lack e d st andi ng
. And, as prev iou sl y menti oned, the t ri al
cour t found t hei r cont enti ons cor re ct.T exas Di sposal doe s cont end i t i s an econom i c com pet i t or i n t he sa m e r egul at ed se ct ori n whi ch 1 t her e ar e on l y app r oxi m at el y sev en co r por at i ons t hat ei t herope r at e orown si gni f i cant l andf i l l s. 3 Law on Standi

ng Sta ndin g, a comp one nt of subjectmat ter jurisdiction, is esse ntial to a court’s pow er to hear a c ase. Tex

as Ass ’ n of Busi ness v. Texas

Air Contr ol Boar d, 852 S. W .2d 4 4 0 , 444 -4 5 ( Tex . 199 3)

. As old ti mers sa y , t he c omplai nant must hav e a “ dog i n the hunt. ” And, i f he has no s uch dog , t hen he canno t obj ectto th ing s o cc ur ri ng i n the “h unt.” Next, to be come a m e m ber of a “ hunt” enc ompass ing dec is ion s o f the Commi ss i o n ’ s e x e c u t i v e d i re c t o r , o n e mu s t b e p e rs o n a l l y a g g r i e v e d o r a ffe c t e d b ythe deci si on. Noo tsi

e, Ltd. v . Wil li am son Cou nty

Appr ais al Di st. , 9 2 5 S

. W

. 2 d 6 5 9 , 6 6 1 (T e x. 1996)

. Th o s e tw o t e r ms a re s y n o n y mo u s fo r p u r p o s e s o f s t a n d i n g a n d re l a t e t o the
ne ed for a c om pl ai na nt to s ho w a “ j us ti c i ab l e i nt eres t. ” Ho o ksv. T exas D ep’ t of Water Re sourc es, 6 1 1 S

. W

. 2 d 4 1 7 , 4 1 9 ( Te x . 1 9 8 1 )

. A n d , t o h a v e s u c h a n i n ter est , t he compl ain ant mus t s how thata c oncrete, parti cu la ri z ed, a ctu al or i mminenti nju ry

faces h i m d u e t o t h e d e c i s i o n ; a h y p o t h e t i c a l o r s p e c u l a t i v e i n j u r y i s n o t eno ug h. Dai m ler Chr ysler C or p. v . Inm an, No. 03- 1189, 2008 Tex . L EX I S 91 a t *13 (T ex. February 1, 20 08) a cc o rd

, Bo n hamSta te B ank v. Beadle, 907 S. W .2d 4 65, 4 67 ( Tex . 199 5) (stating thata justiciable co n t ro ve rs y ex ists w hen there is a real an d sub stan tial conf lict of tang ibl e i nterest s a nd notmerely a t heoreti cal di sput e)

. Appl ic at ion o f La w That the W eather

ford la n d f ill i s n ot a directco mpeti tor of the d ump operated by Tex as Di spos al in Trav is Co u n ty is bey ond q uest ion

. N onethel ess , Tex as Di spos al 1I nt er est i ngl y , at l east t wo com m i ssi oner s acknowl edged at t he hear i ng on t he m ot i on t o ov er t ur n t hat 2 t he p ro c e d u re us ed i n a dd res s i ng I E S I ’ s m od i fi c ati on requ es t w ou l d h ave no prec ed en t i al val ue i n fu t ure r equest s. 4 bel iev es that itca n c ontes t t he re gul a to ry deci si on bec ause the mann er i n w hic h the perm it w as mo dif ied “pote ntially” jeopa rdiz es the trust relation ship th at exists between it
an d i t s n e i g h b o rs i n A u s t i n , a n d t h a t , i n t u r n , “ p o t e n t i a l l y ” i n t e r fe re s w i t h t h e nor mal operati ons of its l andfil l. I n oth er w ords, i t “ may ” no l ong er be a ble t o c o m p e te w it h other landfil ls if they

too re cei v e permi t modifica ti ons v ia the procedu re uti li z ed by IES I. As can be s een, Tex as Di spos al’ s i nju ry i s c o u ched in ter ms of pote nti ali ti es or events tha t “may” hap pen . All i s dep end e n tu p o n wh e the r 1) some en tity w ith a pe rmit to op erate a l andfil l w ith in a n a re a s er v ic ed by Tex as Di spos al, 2) att empts to modi fy it s p e rm it , 3) in a way th a t expo se s Te xas Dis p o sa l to e co n o m ic or ot h e r lo ss , 4 ) th ro u gh
use of the procedu re s a ppl ied to the I ESI per mit modific ati on. Atl eastthes e four, i f not 2 more, co ndi ti ons must ar is e before there i s a n y ch ance that the I ESI ru li ng and proce dure could im pactTe x as Disposa l or i ts ope ratio n s i n o r arou nd Au stin. More imp orta n tly , w e are cited to neith er allegation n or evi den ce tha t even begins to suggest tha t any of

the four a p p e a r a n ywh e re on th e ho riz on. So, like the cha nce o f a pig g ro w i n g w i n g s , t h e p u r p o rt e d i n j u r y t h a tm a y

b e fa l l T e x a s D i s p o s a l i s m e re s p ecul ati on,
a n d a s su c h , itfa ll s sh o rto f e s t a b li s h in g a ju s t ic ia b le in t e re s ta n d st a n d in g. Fi n a ll y,
w it hout a s uff ic ien t i nterestof it s o w n to ass e rt , itca nnot inv oke the p ubl ic ’s i nterestto fill the v oid

. See E

l PasoC om m unity Par

tner s v . B& G/Su nr

is e Join t Ve ntur

e, 24 S. W .3d 620, 625- 27 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2000, no p et.)

.5

Our hol din g w it h respect t o the i ss ue of st andi ng reli ev es us from hav ing to address the other

arg uments of Tex as Di spos a l. W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er of dis mis sal

.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice