Court Opinion

ID: 9643464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:29:43.304045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:00.688196
License: Public Domain

DAVID GAULTNEY, Justice
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
We should not affirm the trial court’s judgment without regard to whether the TCEQ permit is granted. There remains the possibility Far Hills’ permit will be denied by TCEQ because of the state re-gionalization policy to encourage area-wide wastewater disposal systems. While I concur with the Court’s other rulings concerning the issues presented on appeal, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s judgment, because Far Hills has not obtained a TCEQ permit for the wastewater treatment plant. As the Court explains, the district’s power of eminent domain, as delegated by statute, is subject to the state regionalization policy implemented by TCEQ.
I agree with the Court’s statement that if Far Hills is denied a permit by TCEQ, the declared public purpose for the exercise of eminent domain will be lost. I would hold the property may be taken by *933the district through the exercise of its delegated eminent domain power only if the required TCEQ permit for the intended use of the property is obtained. The cause should be remanded to the trial court with instructions for that court to stay the condemnation proceeding until the permit is finally either granted or denied. See generally Tex.R.App. P. 43.6. (“The court of appeals may make any other appropriate order that the law and the nature of the case require.”). If the permit is granted by TCEQ, the condemnation of the property may then be approved by the trial court. If the permit is finally denied, however, the district’s condemnation petition should be dismissed.