Opinion ID: 35386
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the use of explosives for any

Text: commercial or industrial activity or for any other reason except the use of fireworks in connection with celebrations as may be allowed by law from time to time. Tehuacana, Tex., Ordinance 12898 (Dec. 8, 1998). 6 [T]he activities the 1998 Ordinance seeks to regulate constitute a nuisance under Texas law. The 1998 Ordinance therefore restricts no legitimately owned property right. Even if the Court were to assume that the 1998 Ordinance did somehow restrict a recognized property right, a taking under Texas law would not occur because Vulcan has not been deprived of all economically viable use of its property. Only a small portion of its property is affected by the Ordinance, and the property still has an economically viable use. Although Vulcan argues that high explosives and heavy equipment are required to extract the limestone from the ground, the Court notes that neither were required to extract the stone used to build the pyramids. Obviously, while extraction of the limestone without explosives and heavy equipment may be more expensive and labor intensive, it is not impossible to operate such a quarry without violating the 1998 Ordinance. Accordingly, judgment will be entered to the effect that the 1981 Ordinance does not prohibit quarrying, and that the 1998 Ordinance is not an unconstitutional taking or an inverse condemnation under Texas law. Mem. Opin., p. 20. Vulcan appeals. We vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City and remand.