{"id":456,"date":"2013-08-29T15:30:21","date_gmt":"2013-08-29T20:30:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?p=456"},"modified":"2026-04-17T15:36:06","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T20:36:06","slug":"decisions-decisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/","title":{"rendered":"Decisions, Decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"

**This article is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney.**<\/span><\/p>\n

This week brought forth several major Texas\u00a0court decisions that are related to agriculture.\u00a0 Here are brief (at least in lawyer terms) summaries of those cases.<\/p>\n

\u00a01.\u00a0 On Wednesday, the\u00a0San Antonio Court of Appeals\u00a0issued its decision in Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Bragg<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Braggs own property that sits above the Edwards Aquifer on which they have two pecan orchards:\u00a0 The Home Place orchard and the D’Hanis orchard.\u00a0 Beginning in the late 1970’s, the Braggs irrigated the Home Place orchard from a well drawing from the Edwards Aquifer.\u00a0 The D’Hanis Orchard was irrigated through other means.\u00a0 In 1993, the Legislature passed the Edwards Aquifer Act\u00a0(“the Act”)\u00a0that\u00a0created the Edwards Aquifer Authority (“EAA”).\u00a0 The Act charged the EAA\u00a0with permitting and regulation groundwater withdrawals in the area where the Bragg orchards are located.\u00a0 The Act creating the EAA requires that\u00a0the EAA create a permitting system for groundwater use that gives preference to historic and existing users.\u00a0 Generally, the Act allows a historic user to withdraw the maximum amount of water that was previously put to beneficial use during any one-year period.<\/p>\n

The Braggs applied for water permits for both of their orchards.\u00a0 The EAA denied the permit for the D’Hanis orchard because there was no evidence of historical use of water, and granted a permit of only 120 acre feet\/year for the Home Place orchard (about half of the amount sought by their permit application)\u00a0based on historic water use.\u00a0 The Braggs filed a takings claim.\u00a0 The trial court found that the permit denials constituted regulatory takings for both orchards, and awarded damages of $134,918.40 for the D’Hanis orchard and $597,575.00 for the Home Place orchard.\u00a0 Both parties appealed to the San Antonio Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n

\"orchard\"<\/a>

Photo via Jennifer Blackburn Photography, Lubbock, Texas<\/p><\/div>\n

In its 50 page opinion, the Court of Appeals addressed several issues.\u00a0 [Read opinion here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

First, the EAA argued that because the permitting system that the Braggs complained of in the Act\u00a0was created by\u00a0Legislature, the Braggs should have sued the State of Texas, rather than the EAA.\u00a0 The court rejected this argument, finding that while the State of Texas may also have been a proper party, the EAA was a proper defendant as well since it was a state agency enforcing the Act.<\/p>\n

Second, the court held that a claim\u00a0for a regulatory taking results in\u00a0inverse condemnation (a claim like the one here filed by the Braggs alleging that the regulations constituted a taking without just compensation) is governed by a 10-year statute of limitations.\u00a0 In this case, where the Braggs brought an as-applied challenge to the denials of the permit, the statute of limitations began running in 2004 and 2005 when the permit applications were acted upon by the board, rather than when the Act was passed in 1993.\u00a0 Thus, the Braggs’ claim was timely filed.<\/p>\n

Third, the court found that the denial of the D’Hanis permit and limitation of the Home Place\u00a0permit constituted regulatory takings.\u00a0 The court applied the Penn Central<\/em> factors (set forth\u00a0by the United States Supreme Court Penn Central<\/em> case)\u00a0and found that the economic impact of the denial\/limitation of the permits\u00a0and\u00a0the investment-backed expectations of the Braggs both\u00a0weighed in favor of finding that a taking occurred.\u00a0 On the other hand, the nature of the regulation weighed in favor of the EAA given the need for water planning and conservation.\u00a0 The court also considered “other factors” including the fact that pecan farming requires the\u00a0use of water and that given the ongoing drought in Texas, irrigation was the only real option for the Braggs.\u00a0 In light of these factors, the court found that a regulatory\u00a0taking occurred when the permits were denied and limited.<\/p>\n

Next, the court turned to the issue of adequate compensation.\u00a0 Under both the Texas and federal constitutions, private property may not be taken for a public use without adequate compensation being made to the private property owner.\u00a0 The court made two rulings that address the issue of adequate compensation.<\/p>\n

First, the court found that the value of the property for adequate compensation purposes in an inverse condemnation suit\u00a0should be its value at the time of the taking.\u00a0 This differs from the rule for a condemnation proceeding filed by the State, for which the property is valued at the time of the condemnation hearing.\u00a0\u00a0 Thus, the Braggs’ property should be valued from the time of the regulatory taking, which occurred when the permits were denied\/limited.<\/p>\n

Second, the court determined how adequate compensation should be calculated.\u00a0 The trial court calculated compensation differently for each of the orchards.\u00a0 For the Home Place, the trial\u00a0court calculated compensation by looking at the water limitation imposed.\u00a0 The trial court reasoned that because the Braggs requested\u00a0228.85 acre feet, but were granted a permit for\u00a0only 120.2, the measure of compensation should be the number of acre feet of water withheld\u00a0(228.85 minus 120.2)\u00a0multiplied by a market value for water ($5,500\/AF).\u00a0 For the D’Hanis Orchard, however, the court looked at the impact on the value of the land, comparing the market value per acre of land with no water rights and the value per acre of land with water rights and awarding the difference as just compensation.\u00a0 The Court of Appeals held that because the highest and best use of the property was for pecan orchards, the proper valuation method in this case was to compare the value of the pecan orchards before and after the permit denial\/limitation.\u00a0 Thus, the court remanded the case back to the trial court to calculate the applicable damages by comparing the value of the orchards before and after the permit denial\/limitation and to award the difference in value to the Braggs.<\/p>\n

Please note that I\u00a0claimed these summaries\u00a0would\u00a0be brief in lawyer terms<\/em><\/span> only.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0Texarkana Court\u00a0of Appeals affirmed Crawford Family Farm Partnership v. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0On Tuesday, the\u00a0Texarkana Court of Appeals\u00a0upheld the trial court’s decision that TransCanada is a common carrier and may use the power of eminent domain to obtain land to build the Keystone XL Pipeline.\u00a0 Julia Trigg-Crawford challenged TransCanada’s use of eminent domain to obtain land for the Keystone XL pipeline, which will transport gas from Canada to the Gulf Coast.\u00a0 TransCanada filed a condemnation petition to obtain an easement across Crawford’s farmland in order to place the\u00a0underground 36” diameter pipeline.\u00a0 Crawford argued that the statute granting eminent domain power to common carrier pipelines applies only to intrastate lines, and not to lines crossing state boundaries.\u00a0 The lower court sided with TransCanada.\u00a0 The Court of Appeals\u00a0agreed and specifically found that TransCanada\u00a0is a common carrier and, therefore,\u00a0has eminent domain power\u00a0under Texas law.\u00a0 The court also expressly found that land condemned for the Keystone XL Pipeline\u00a0is taken for a “public use” as required for condemnation to occur.\u00a0 Trigg-Crawford issued a statement\u00a0that she intends to appeal the ruling.\u00a0 [Read opinion here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

Also important in this opinion is the fact that the Court of Appeals applied the Denbury<\/em> test to determine common carrier status.\u00a0 In the\u00a0March 2012\u00a0Denbury <\/em>decision, the Texas Supreme Court found that a CO2 pipeline company claiming common carrier status was required to “demonstrate a reasonable probability that third-party customers will use the pipeline.”\u00a0 This created a higher legal standard for a pipeline to meet in order to condemn property.\u00a0\u00a0In a footnote, however, the\u00a0Denbury<\/em> opinion, limited\u00a0the test to the one at issue in the case, which carried CO2.\u00a0 Courts have since struggled to determine whether this test should apply to crude pipelines, and\u00a0various opinions have taken differing views.\u00a0 The Crawford opinion makes the\u00a0Sixth Circuit’s position clear–that the Denbury<\/em> test is not limited only to CO2 pipelines and should be applied to crude oil\u00a0pipelines as well.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

3.\u00a0 The Texas Supreme Court decided TCEQ v. City of Waco.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u00a0ruled that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality did not abuse its discretion in granting a water quality permit to a dairy without granting the City of Waco’s request for a contested hearing on the issue.\u00a0 The Court found that the amendment sought by the dairy–to increase the number of cows from 690 to 999 and to increase the waste-application acreage from 261 to 285–did not constitute a “significant increase” or “material change” to the authorized discharge of waste that would require a contested hearing.\u00a0 In light of t his, the TCEQ was not required to hold the contested hearing as was requested by the City of Waco.<\/p>\n

\"dairy\"<\/a>

Photo via Jaimie Van Dam, Route 77 Dairy, Texico, New Mexico<\/p><\/div>\n

Despite what I read in some other articles, the Court did not<\/span><\/b> decide whether the City of Waco qualified as an \u201caffected party\u201d who could request a contested hearing.\u00a0 The Court simply\u00a0did not have to make that\u00a0decision in this case because\u00a0contested hearing was necessary\u2014whether Waco was an affected party or not\u2014because the amended permit sought did not\u00a0require a contested hearing to be held.\u00a0 Thus, even an affected party\u00a0would not have been entitled to a hearing on the permit. \u00a0[Read opinion here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0 Austin Court of Appeals upholds transmission line\u00a0route.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Malone v. Public Utility Commission of Texas<\/em>, the AustinCourt of Appeals upheld the PUC’s selection of a route for placing transmission lines.\u00a0 After a contested case hearing, the PUC selected one of thirteen possible routes for transmission lines to be built by Electric Transmission Texas, LLC.\u00a0 Mr. Malone filed suit claiming that the\u00a0PUC’s routing selection was improper.<\/p>\n

Electric Transmission Texas, LLC was selected by the PUC to build a transmission line across north central Texas, known as the Riley-to-Edith Clark line.\u00a0 As required by law, ETT filed several proposed routing options for the transmission lines with the PUC.\u00a0 After the potential routes were filed, several landowners, including Mr. Malone, intervened in the process and became parties to the contested hearing before the State Office of Administrative Hearings.\u00a0 The SOAH administrative law judges recommended that the PUC select proposed route REC12, which did not cross Mr. Malone’s property.\u00a0 The PUC, however, did not select REC12, but instead chose a modified version of REC1, in which the transmission lines cross Mr. Malone’s property.\u00a0 Mr. Malone sought judicial review of the PUC’s decision and the district court agreed with the PUC.\u00a0 Mr. Malone then appealed the decision.<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court and upheld the PUC’s route selection.\u00a0 The court found that the PUC adequately explained their reasoning for selecting a route other than the one suggested by the administrative law judges.\u00a0 Additionally, the court found that while the PUC must consider the impact on affected landowners when selecting a route, it is not required to adopt a route that would not impact any landowner.\u00a0 Because the PUC considered impacts of proposed routes on landowners, as well as considering numerous other factors including cost, environmental integrity, paralleling of existing lines, it did not err in selecting the route.\u00a0 [Read opinion here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

**This article is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney.** This week brought forth several major Texas\u00a0court decisions that are related to agriculture.\u00a0 Here are brief (at least in lawyer terms) summaries of those cases. \u00a01.\u00a0 On Wednesday, the\u00a0San Antonio Court of Appeals\u00a0issued its decision in Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Bragg. The Braggs own property that sits above the Edwards Aquifer on which they have two pecan orchards:\u00a0 The Home Place orchard and the D’Hanis orchard.\u00a0 Beginning in the late 1970’s, the Braggs irrigated the Home… Read More →<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2443,"featured_media":485,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-456","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-eminent-domain","category-water-law"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nDecisions, Decisions - Texas Agriculture Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Decisions, Decisions - Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"**This article is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney.** This week brought forth several major Texas\u00a0court decisions that are related to agriculture.\u00a0 Here are brief (at least in lawyer terms) summaries of those cases. \u00a01.\u00a0 On Wednesday, the\u00a0San Antonio Court of Appeals\u00a0issued its decision in Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Bragg. The Braggs own property that sits above the Edwards Aquifer on which they have two pecan orchards:\u00a0 The Home Place orchard and the D’Hanis orchard.\u00a0 Beginning in the late 1970’s, the Braggs irrigated the Home... Read More →\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2013-08-29T20:30:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-17T20:36:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2013\/08\/dairy.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"960\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":[\"Article\",\"BlogPosting\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2013\\\/08\\\/29\\\/decisions-decisions\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2013\\\/08\\\/29\\\/decisions-decisions\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626\"},\"headline\":\"Decisions, Decisions\",\"datePublished\":\"2013-08-29T20:30:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:36:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2013\\\/08\\\/29\\\/decisions-decisions\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1864,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2013\\\/08\\\/29\\\/decisions-decisions\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2013\\\/08\\\/dairy.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Eminent Domain\",\"Water Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2013\\\/08\\\/29\\\/decisions-decisions\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2013\\\/08\\\/29\\\/decisions-decisions\\\/\",\"name\":\"Decisions, Decisions - Texas Agriculture Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2013\\\/08\\\/29\\\/decisions-decisions\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2013\\\/08\\\/29\\\/decisions-decisions\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2013\\\/08\\\/dairy.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2013-08-29T20:30:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:36:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2013\\\/08\\\/29\\\/decisions-decisions\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2013\\\/08\\\/29\\\/decisions-decisions\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2013\\\/08\\\/29\\\/decisions-decisions\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2013\\\/08\\\/dairy.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2013\\\/08\\\/dairy.jpg\",\"width\":960,\"height\":640},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2013\\\/08\\\/29\\\/decisions-decisions\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Decisions, Decisions\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"description\":\"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"width\":400,\"height\":400,\"caption\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/texasaglaw\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/tiffdowell\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626\",\"name\":\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/author\\\/tiffany-dowelllashmet\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Decisions, Decisions - Texas Agriculture Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Decisions, Decisions - Texas Agriculture Law","og_description":"**This article is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney.** This week brought forth several major Texas\u00a0court decisions that are related to agriculture.\u00a0 Here are brief (at least in lawyer terms) summaries of those cases. \u00a01.\u00a0 On Wednesday, the\u00a0San Antonio Court of Appeals\u00a0issued its decision in Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Bragg. The Braggs own property that sits above the Edwards Aquifer on which they have two pecan orchards:\u00a0 The Home Place orchard and the D’Hanis orchard.\u00a0 Beginning in the late 1970’s, the Braggs irrigated the Home... Read More →","og_url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/","og_site_name":"Texas Agriculture Law","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","article_published_time":"2013-08-29T20:30:21+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-17T20:36:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":960,"height":640,"url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2013\/08\/dairy.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@tiffdowell","twitter_site":"@tiffdowell","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":["Article","BlogPosting"],"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/"},"author":{"name":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626"},"headline":"Decisions, Decisions","datePublished":"2013-08-29T20:30:21+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:36:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/"},"wordCount":1864,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2013\/08\/dairy.jpg","articleSection":["Eminent Domain","Water Law"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/","name":"Decisions, Decisions - Texas Agriculture Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2013\/08\/dairy.jpg","datePublished":"2013-08-29T20:30:21+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:36:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2013\/08\/dairy.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2013\/08\/dairy.jpg","width":960,"height":640},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2013\/08\/29\/decisions-decisions\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Decisions, Decisions"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","description":"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","width":400,"height":400,"caption":"Texas Agriculture Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","https:\/\/x.com\/tiffdowell","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626","name":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/author\/tiffany-dowelllashmet\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/456","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2443"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=456"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/456\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16102,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/456\/revisions\/16102"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/485"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}