Opinion ID: 1376983
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Sufficiency of Legislative Standards to Guide Delegates

Text: This last factor weighs neither for nor against the delegation. Section 26.179 provides fairly detailed statutory standards to guide landowners in formulating their initial water quality plans. Landowners are given two broad standards for their water quality plansmaintain background levels of water quality or retain the first 1.5 inches of rainfall from developed areas. See TEX. WATER CODE § 26.179(a). Retaining the first 1.5 inches of rainfall from developed areas is adequately specific, and the standards on determining and maintaining background levels are fairly specific. See TEX. WATER CODE § 26.179(a), (b). Further, the statute requires that development in the zones comply with all existing state and TNRCC water quality regulations and additional state regulations designed to comply with mandatory federal water quality standards. See TEX. WATER CODE § 26.179(k). But section 26.179 provides little guidance on what to do if background water quality levels are not maintained. The statute simply directs the landowner to modify the plan for future phases of development and current operational and maintenance practices to the extent reasonably feasible and practical. TEX. WATER CODE § 26.179(b). There is no time limit for submitting proposed modifications to the TNRCC, and for landowners with 1,000 acres or more, the modifications apply to zone activities during TNRCC review and even during the appeal of a TNRCC denial of a modification. See TEX. WATER CODE § 26.179(g). Further, as more development occurs, needed modifications become less feasible and practical. This standard is thus insufficient to guide landowners in modifying their plans to comply with section 26.179's requirements or the TNRCC in reviewing modifications to plans. In Proctor, this Court held that a delegation of authority to private entities to select qualified neutral arbitrators to hear civil service commission appeals provided adequate guidance. Proctor, 972 S.W.2d at 738. In that case, however, the assessment of qualifications was uniquely within the delegate's expertise, and the term neutral was sufficiently specific to reflect legislative intent. Moreover, in Proctor, the authority delegated was narrowto forward names of potential arbitrators for selection. The criteria qualified and neutral were well-suited for this narrow purpose. This contrasts starkly with the delegation here, in which the elastic standards reasonably feasible and practical provide little guidance to the landowners in exercising their relatively broad authority. Similarly, section 26.179 does not provide sufficient standards to guide the landowners in deciding which municipal regulations can be enforced on their property. Landowners can craft a land use or water quality plan without regard to municipal regulations. Those regulations that are inconsistent with the land use plan and the water quality plan or which in any way limit, modify, or impair the ability to implement and operate the water quality plan and the land use plan within the zone as filed, are then not enforceable on the landowner's property. TEX. WATER CODE § 26.179(i) (emphasis added). This seems to allow the landowners to exempt themselves from the enforcement of municipal laws for any reason as long as it is somehow related to their water quality and land use plans. This last factor weighs neither for nor against the delegation. But the Boll Weevil factors as a whole weigh against the constitutionality of delegation. Therefore, we conclude that section 26.179 of the Water Code is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to private landowners. We need not consider the additional grounds in the cross-motions for summary judgment. See Doe, 915 S.W.2d at 473.