Tex. Codes » Water Code · TITLE 4. GENERAL LAW DISTRICTS · CHAPTER 49. PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL DISTRICTS
Texas Codes

Tex. Water Code § 49.235 (2026)

District Act Or Proceeding Presumed Valid

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

Sec. 49.235. DISTRICT ACT OR PROCEEDING PRESUMED VALID. (a) A governmental act or proceeding of a district is conclusively presumed, as of the date it occurred, valid and to have occurred in accordance with all applicable statutes and rules if:

(1) the third anniversary of the effective date of the act or proceeding has expired; and

(2) a lawsuit to annul or invalidate the act or proceeding has not been filed on or before that third anniversary.

(b) This section does not apply to:

(1) an act or proceeding that was void at the time it occurred;

(2) an act or proceeding that, under a statute of this state or the United States, was a misdemeanor or felony at the time the act or proceeding occurred;

(3) a rule that, at the time it was passed, was preempted by a statute of this state or the United States, including Section 1.06 or 109.57, Alcoholic Beverage Code; or

(4) a matter that on the effective date of this section:

(A) is involved in litigation if the litigation ultimately results in the matter being held invalid by a final judgment of a court; or

(B) has been held invalid by a final judgment of a court.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 389, Sec. 2, eff. May 28, 2001. Renumbered from Water Code Sec. 49.234 by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1275, Sec. 2(148), eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2019–2019 · leading case: Integ Corp. & Godfrey Garza Jr. v. Hidalgo Cnty. Drainage Dist. No. 1 (Tex. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Integ Corp. & Godfrey Garza Jr. v. Hidalgo Cnty. Drainage Dist. No. 1 (Tex. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “HCDD contends that Integ/Garza hid the payments by placing them on the consent agenda and avoiding the auditors by putting pressure on Garza’s subordinates at HCDD. Indeed, Briones testified that she went to the County Treasurer who thought the county had to pay the invoices.”
— Tex. Water Code § 49.235(a) — 1 case
Integ Corp. & Godfrey Garza Jr. v. Hidalgo Cnty. Drainage Dist. No. 1 (Tex. App. 2019). “HCDD contends that Integ/Garza hid the payments by placing them on the consent agenda and avoiding the auditors by putting pressure on Garza’s subordinates at HCDD. Indeed, Briones testified that she went to the County Treasurer who thought the county had to pay the invoices.”
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.