Tex. Codes » Water Code · TITLE 2. WATER ADMINISTRATION · SUBTITLE E. GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT · CHAPTER 36. GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Texas Codes

Tex. Water Code § 36.251 (2026)

Suit Against District

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 36.251. SUIT AGAINST DISTRICT. (a) A person, firm, corporation, or association of persons affected by and dissatisfied with any rule or order made by a district, including an appeal of a decision on a permit application, is entitled to file a suit against the district or its directors to challenge the validity of the law, rule, or order.

(b) Only the district, the applicant, and parties to a contested case hearing may participate in an appeal of a decision on the application that was the subject of that contested case hearing. An appeal of a decision on a permit application must include the applicant as a necessary party.

(c) The suit shall be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction in any county in which the district or any part of the district is located. The suit may only be filed after all administrative appeals to the district are final.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 933, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 415 (H.B. 2767), Sec. 15, eff. June 10, 2015.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Lone Star Groundwater Conservation Dist., Richard J. Tramm, Sam W. Baker, M. Scott Weisinger, Jim Stinson, John D. Bleyl, Jace Houston, Roy McCoy Jr., Rick Moffatt, & W. B. Wood v. City of Conroe, Texas, Quadvest, L.P., Woodland Oaks Util., L.P., Crystal Springs Water Co., Inc., Everett Square, Inc., E.S. Water Consolidators, Inc., Utils. Inv. Co., Inc., & T&W Water Serv. Co., 515 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lone Star Groundwater Conservation Dist., Richard J. Tramm, Sam W. Baker, M. Scott Weisinger, Jim Stinson, John D. Bleyl, Jace Houston, Roy McCoy Jr., Rick Moffatt, & W. B. Wood v. City of Conroe, Texas, Quadvest, L.P., Woodland Oaks Util., L.P., Crystal Springs Water Co., Inc., Everett Square, Inc., E.S. Water Consolidators, Inc., Utils. Inv. Co., Inc., & T&W Water Serv. Co., 515 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App. 2017). · cites it 9× “See Tex. Water Code Ann. § 36.251 (West Supp.”
David Stratta v. Billy Harris, 961 F.3d 340 (5th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “See TEX. WATER CODE §§ 36.251, 36.105. On balance, five of the six Clark factors weigh against finding BVGCD is an arm of the state of Texas for which Eleventh Amendment immunity is appropriate.”
Kinney Cnty. Groundwater Conservation Dist. v. Boulware, 238 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “” Tex. WateR Code Ann. § 36.251 . It further provides that “[t]he suit may only be filed after all administrative appeals to the district are final.”
Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Chem. Lime, Ltd., 212 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. App. 2006). “In its fourth issue, the Authority presents two arguments challenging the district court’s award of attorney’s fees.”
Guitar Holding Co. v. Hudspeth Cnty. Underground Water Conservation Dist. No. 1, 209 S.W.3d 146 (Tex. App. 2006). “TEX.WATER CODE ANN. § 36.251. 14 . Guitar L.”
Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Bragg, 421 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App. 2013). “” Tex. Water Code Ann. § 36.251 (West 2008).”
Save Our Springs All., Inc. v. City of Kyle, 382 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. App. 2012). “See Tex. Water. Code Ann. § 36.251 (West 2008) (person affected by or dissatisfied with order made by conservation district may file suit against district or its directors to challenge validity of order).”
Pecos Cnty. v. Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P., 457 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. App. 2014). “” Tex.Water Code Ann. § 36.251. . Subsection (c) prohibits judicial review if the applicant or party to a contested hearing did not timely file a request for rehearing.”
Cockrell Inv. Partners, L.P. v. Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist. & Its Bd. President Jerry McGuairt, Repub. Water Co. of Texas, LLC & Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P. (Tex. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 36.251. Pursuant to this provision, any person, firm, corporation, or association of persons, “affected by and dissatisfied with” a district’s rule or order, is entitled to file suit against the district or its director to challenge the validity of the…”
Cockrell Inv. Partners, L.P. v. Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist. & Its Bd. President Jerry McGuairt; Repub. Water Co. of Texas, LLC; & Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P. (Tex. 2026). · cites it 4× “” Tex. Water Code § 36.251(a). Second, if the administrative hearing was contested, Cockrell must have been either an “applicant” or a “part[y]” to the hearing, or else Cockrell must be appealing a rule or order other than the “decision on the application.”
Kinney Cnty. Groundwater Cons. Dist. v. Boulware, 238 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “" TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 36.251. It further provides that "[t]he suit may only be filed after all administrative appeals to the district are final.”
Cockrell Inv. Partners, L.P. v. Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist., Ty Edwards, in His Capacity as Gen. Manager of the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist., Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P. (Tex. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “See TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 36.251(a). This language broadly permits an appeal to be taken by any person “affected by and dissatisfied with” a decision by a district, which would include a challenge to a decision on a request for party status on a permit application.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Tex. Water Code § 36.251(a) — 4 cases
Cockrell Inv. Partners, L.P. v. Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist. & Its Bd. President Jerry McGuairt; Repub. Water Co. of Texas, LLC; & Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P. (Tex. 2026). “” Tex. Water Code § 36.251(a). Second, if the administrative hearing was contested, Cockrell must have been either an “applicant” or a “part[y]” to the hearing, or else Cockrell must be appealing a rule or order other than the “decision on the application.”
Cockrell Inv. Partners, L.P. v. Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist., Ty Edwards, in His Capacity as Gen. Manager of the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist., Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P. (Tex. App. 2023). “See TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 36.251(a). This language broadly permits an appeal to be taken by any person “affected by and dissatisfied with” a decision by a district, which would include a challenge to a decision on a request for party status on a permit application.”
Cockrell Inv. Partners, L.P. v. Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist., Ty Edwards, in His Capacity as Gen. Manager of the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist., Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P. (Tex. App. 2023).
GateHouse Water LLC v. Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation Dist. (W.D. Tex. 2022).
— Tex. Water Code § 36.251(b) — 4 cases
End Op, L.P. & Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation Dist. v. Andrew Meyer, Bette Brown, Darwyn Hanna, & Env't Stewardship (Tex. App. 2018).
Cockrell Inv. Partners, L.P. v. Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist., Ty Edwards, in His Capacity as Gen. Manager of the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist., Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P. (Tex. App. 2023). “See TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 36.251(a). This language broadly permits an appeal to be taken by any person “affected by and dissatisfied with” a decision by a district, which would include a challenge to a decision on a request for party status on a permit application.”
Cockrell Inv. Partners, L.P. v. Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist., Ty Edwards, in His Capacity as Gen. Manager of the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist., Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P. (Tex. App. 2023).
Cockrell Inv. Partners, L.P. v. Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist. & Its Bd. President Jerry McGuairt; Repub. Water Co. of Texas, LLC; & Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P. (Tex. 2026). “” Tex. Water Code § 36.251(a). Second, if the administrative hearing was contested, Cockrell must have been either an “applicant” or a “part[y]” to the hearing, or else Cockrell must be appealing a rule or order other than the “decision on the application.”
— Tex. Water Code § 36.251(c) — 4 cases
Cockrell Inv. Partners, L.P. v. Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist. & Its Bd. President Jerry McGuairt, Repub. Water Co. of Texas, LLC & Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P. (Tex. App. 2023). “TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 36.251. Pursuant to this provision, any person, firm, corporation, or association of persons, “affected by and dissatisfied with” a district’s rule or order, is entitled to file suit against the district or its director to challenge the validity of the…”
Cockrell Inv. Partners, L.P. v. Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist., Ty Edwards, in His Capacity as Gen. Manager of the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist., Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P. (Tex. App. 2023). “See TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 36.251(a). This language broadly permits an appeal to be taken by any person “affected by and dissatisfied with” a decision by a district, which would include a challenge to a decision on a request for party status on a permit application.”
Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation Dist. Aqua Water Supply Corp. City of Elgin Env't Stewardship Recharge Water, LP & Andy Wier v. Lower Colorado River Auth. (Tex. App. 2024).
Cockrell Inv. Partners, L.P. v. Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation Dist. & Its Bd. President Jerry McGuairt; Repub. Water Co. of Texas, LLC; & Fort Stockton Holdings, L.P. (Tex. 2026). “” Tex. Water Code § 36.251(a). Second, if the administrative hearing was contested, Cockrell must have been either an “applicant” or a “part[y]” to the hearing, or else Cockrell must be appealing a rule or order other than the “decision on the application.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.