Sec. 5.556. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CONTESTED CASE HEARING. (a) A person may request that the commission reconsider the executive director's decision or hold a contested case hearing. A request must be filed with the commission during the period provided by commission rule.
(b) The commission shall act on a request during the period provided by commission rule.
(c) The commission may not grant a request for a contested case hearing unless the commission determines that the request was filed by an affected person as defined by Section 5.115.
(d) The commission may not refer an issue to the State Office of Administrative Hearings for a hearing unless the commission determines that the issue:
(1) involves a disputed question of fact;
(2) was raised during the public comment period; and
(3) is relevant and material to the decision on the application.
(e) If the commission grants a request for a contested case hearing it shall:
(1) limit the number and scope of the issues to be referred to the State Office of Administrative Hearings for a hearing; and
(2) consistent with the nature and number of the issues to be considered at the hearing, specify the maximum expected duration of the hearing.
(f) This section does not preclude the commission from holding a hearing if it determines that the public interest warrants doing so.
Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1350, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
Notes of Decisions
City of Waco v. Texas Comm'n on Env't Quality, 346 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. App. 2011).
· cites it 6× “211(c)(1) (West 2011), or, in certain circumstances, if made by a third party who is an “affected person,” see Tex. Water Code Ann. § 5.556 (a)-(e); 30 Tex.”
Texas Comm'n on Env't Quality v. City of Waco, 413 S.W.3d 409 (Tex. 2013).
· cites it 2× “The court, however, rejected the Commission’s thesis that the City could not show any concrete or imminent adverse effect or injury if the amended permit were approved simply because the amended permit was designed to be more protective of the North Bosque’s water quality than…”
City of Waco v. Texas Comm'n on Env't Quality (Tex. App. 2011).
· cites it 6× “211(c)(1) (West 2011), or, in certain circumstances, if made by a third party who is an "affected person," see Tex. Water Code Ann. § 5.556 (a)-(e); 30 Tex.”
City of Waco v. Texas Comm'n on Env't Quality (Tex. App. 2011).
· cites it 5× “211(c)(1) (West 2011), or, in certain circumstances, if made by a third party who is an “affected person,” see Tex. Water Code Ann. § 5.556 (a)-(e); 30 Tex.”
— Tex. Water Code § 5.556(a) — 1 case
— Tex. Water Code § 5.556(c) — 7 cases
Texas Comm'n on Env't Quality v. City of Waco, 413 S.W.3d 409 (Tex. 2013).
“The court, however, rejected the Commission’s thesis that the City could not show any concrete or imminent adverse effect or injury if the amended permit were approved simply because the amended permit was designed to be more protective of the North Bosque’s water quality than…”
— Tex. Water Code § 5.556(d) — 3 cases
Texas Comm'n on Env't Quality v. City of Waco, 413 S.W.3d 409 (Tex. 2013).
“The court, however, rejected the Commission’s thesis that the City could not show any concrete or imminent adverse effect or injury if the amended permit were approved simply because the amended permit was designed to be more protective of the North Bosque’s water quality than…”
— Tex. Water Code § 5.556(e) — 2 cases
— Tex. Water Code § 5.556(f) — 1 case
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.