Case Name: The ARANSAS PROJECT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryan SHAW, in his Official Capacity as Chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Buddy Garcia, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Carlos Rubinstein, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Mark Vickery, in his Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Al Segovia, in his Official Capacity as South Texas Watermaster, Defendants-Appellants, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority; Texas Chemical Council; San Antonio River Authority, Intervenors Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-15
Citations: 774 F.3d 324
Docket Number: No. 13-40317
Parties: The ARANSAS PROJECT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryan SHAW, in his Official Capacity as Chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Buddy Garcia, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Carlos Rubinstein, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Mark Vickery, in his Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Al Segovia, in his Official Capacity as South Texas Watermaster, Defendants-Appellants, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority; Texas Chemical Council; San Antonio River Authority, Intervenors Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before JONES, SMITH, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 774
Pages: 324–331

Head Matter:
The ARANSAS PROJECT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryan SHAW, in his Official Capacity as Chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Buddy Garcia, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Carlos Rubinstein, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Mark Vickery, in his Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Al Segovia, in his Official Capacity as South Texas Watermaster, Defendants-Appellants, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority; Texas Chemical Council; San Antonio River Authority, Intervenors Defendants-Appellants.
No. 13-40317.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 2014.
James B. Blackburn, Jr., Blackburn Carter, P.C., Mary B. Conner, Attorney, Charles William Irvine, Attorney, Irvine & Conner, P.L.L.C., David Alfred Kahne, Law Office of David A. Kahne, Charles Patrick Waites, Johnson, Deluca, Kurisky & Gould, P.C., Houston, TX, John Jeffery Mundy, Mundy Firm, P.L.L.C., Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Solicitor General, Office of the Solicitor General for the State of Texas, Evan Scott Greene, Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Solicitor General, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.
Aaron Michael Streett, Michelle Sham-blin Stratton, Baker Botts, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Molly Jan Cagle, Esq., Carlos Ricardo Romo, Esq., Evan A. Young, Attorney, Baker Botts, L.L.P., Edward F. Fernandes, Attorney, Hunton & Williams, L.L.P., Kenneth R. Ramirez, Counsel, Law Offices of Ken Ramirez, Amy L. Saberian, Enoch Kever, P.L.L.C., Edmond Robert McCarthy, Jr., Esq., Jackson, Sjoberg, McCarthy & Townsend, L.L.P., Austin, TX, Kathy E.B. Robb, Attorney, Hunton & Williams, L.L.P., New York, NY, Kathryn Smyth Snapka, Esq., Trial Attorney, Snap-ka Law Firm, Corpus Christi, TX, Bruce Wasinger, Seguin, TX, David Wesley Ross, Esq., Law Offices of David Ross, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Intervenors Defendants-Appellants.
Before JONES, SMITH, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion June 30, 2014, 756 F.3d 801)
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:
The court having been polled on the modified opinion attached hereto at the request of one of its members, and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor (Fed. R.App. P. 35 and 5th Cir. R. 35), the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
In the en banc poll, 4 judges voted in favor of rehearing (Judges Dennis, Prado, Graves and Costa) and 11 judges voted against rehearing (Chief Judge Stewart and Judges Jolly, Davis, Jones, Smith, Clement, Owen, Elrod, Southwiek, Haynes, and Higginson).
The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. Judge Prado, joined by Judges Dennis and Graves, dissents from the court's denial of rehearing en banc and his dissent is attached.'