{"id":13506,"date":"2024-12-23T01:03:38","date_gmt":"2024-12-23T07:03:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?p=13506"},"modified":"2026-04-17T15:09:50","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T20:09:50","slug":"2024-year-in-review-texas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2024\/12\/23\/2024-year-in-review-texas\/","title":{"rendered":"2024 Year in Review – Texas"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last week, we published our national 2024 Ag Law Year in Review<\/a>.\u00a0 Today, we will focus a little closer to home on the biggest agricultural law related stories here in Texas.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Photo by Perry Merrity II<\/a>\u00a0<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

Ownership of produced water pending before Texas Supreme Court.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In my mind, the most important legal issue for Texans in 2024 involves the ownership of produced water.\u00a0 This issue was raised in\u00a0Cactus Water Services, LLC v. COG Operating, LLC<\/em> and this case has important implications for Texas landowners.\u00a0 Produced water is the water that is extracted along with oil or gas operations.\u00a0 This water has to be separated from the oil or gas and, historically, has been disposed of by the oil and gas operator, often in underground disposal wells.\u00a0 Recently, treatment has been created that allows this produced water to be reused in oil and gas operations.\u00a0 This led to an important question of who owns the produced water–the landowner or the mineral lessee?\u00a0 The lower courts held that produced water is owned by the mineral owner, with the El Paso Appellate Court deciding this based upon classifying produced water as “oil and gas waste.”\u00a0 To read more about this decision, click here<\/a>. This decision was appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.\u00a0 Briefing is set to be complete on January 6, 2025.\u00a0 After that, the Court will decide on whether to hear the case.<\/p>\n

Ownership of underground salt caverns before Texas Supreme Court.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The question of who owns salt caverns beneath the surface is also currently before the Texas Supreme Court.\u00a0 In\u00a0Myers-Woodward, LLC v. Underground Services Markham, LLC<\/em>, the issue is whether an underground salt cavern is owned by the surface owner or mineral owner.\u00a0 The only Texas case ever deciding this issue was\u00a0Mapco v. Carter<\/em>, a 1991 decision from the Beaumont Court of Appeals, which sided with the mineral owner.\u00a0 However, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals declined to follow that approach and sided with the surface owner in\u00a0Myers-Woodward,\u00a0<\/em>ruling that such caverns are owned by the surface owner.\u00a0 \u00a0The parties appealed, and the Texas Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.\u00a0 Oral argument before the Texas Supreme Court was held in October, and a decision is expected next year. You can read a summary of this case here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Farms file lawsuits alleging PFAS contamination.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

A group of Texas farmers from Grandview filed lawsuits related to alleged PFAS contamination of their land.\u00a0 The plaintiffs claim that their land, water, and livestock were contaminated by fertilizer made from biosolids that was spread on neighboring land.\u00a0 They allege that the fertilizer contained highly hazardous chemicals known as PFAS.\u00a0Two lawsuits have been filed thus far.\u00a0 The first, Farmer v. Synagro Tech., Inc., <\/em>was filed against the company that manufactured and sold the fertilizer.\u00a0 [Read Complaint here<\/a> and summary here<\/a>.]\u00a0 The second,\u00a0 Farmer v. EPA, <\/em>involves claims that the EPA failed to identify PFAS as toxic pollutants in sewage sludge and failed to regulate PFAS.\u00a0 [Read summary here.<\/a>]\u00a0 \u00a0 The Texas Tribune did an in depth story on this situation here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Two lawsuits related to Endangered Species Act Listings.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

There were two lawsuits filed in Texas involving the listing of certain animals under the Endangered Species Act.\u00a0 Texas v. US Department of the Interior<\/em> involves a challenge to the listing of the dunes sagebrush lizard.\u00a0 Texas claims the listing violates the ESA and EPA by failing to rely on the best scientific and commercial data when making the listing decision and failed to account for voluntary conservation efforts already in place. [Read Complaint\u00a0<\/span>here<\/span><\/a>\u00a0and article\u00a0<\/span>here<\/span><\/a>.]<\/span>\u00a0<\/span> \u00a0In the other Texas v. US Department of the Interior, <\/em>the State of Texas challenges the listing of the freshwater mussel as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, arguing that the listing violates the ESA, APA, and the National Environmental Policy Act.\u00a0 [Read Complaint here<\/a> and article here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

There are several other issues to watch in 2025.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In addition to the issues discussed above, there are a number of new and interesting legal issues to keep an eye on in 2025.<\/p>\n