Court Opinion

ID: 9762092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:10:08.109894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:29.938415
License: Public Domain

ENOCH, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the Court’s opinion and judgment. The Clean Air Act confers on the Texas Air Control Board the authority to regulate air contaminants “produced by processes other than natural.” Tex. Health & Safety Code § 382.003(2). Thus, the Board has jurisdiction over contaminants produced by unnatural processes and not over those produced by natural processes. As in this case, a question arises over whether a process is natural or unnatural when humans become involved in an otherwise natural activity. The majority holds that, in determining whether a typically natural process is made unnatural due to human activity, the trial court should consider whether the activity is normal and usual in the location involved. 866 S.W.2d at 201.
While I agree with the majority’s ultimate conclusion, I would articulate more clearly the issue at the center of this dispute. The threshold issue in this case is simply who decides in any particular case whether the involvement of humans makes an otherwise natural process unnatural.1 It is the province of the trial court to determine whether an otherwise natural activity that involves humans is still natural or has become unnatural for purposes of the Act.

. I agree with the dissent that the issue in this case involves the determination of the Board’s jurisdiction. I disagree with the dissent’s contention that, in the context of agricultural business, location should not be considered as a factor when determining whether the involvement of humans makes an otherwise natural process unnatural.