The Superiority of Surface-Water Rights for  Domestic & Livestock Users in Texas 

By Griffith “Hunter” Thomas II

Overview 

The objective of this paper is to address the legal scope Texas law grants to domestic and  livestock users with regards to surface-water rights. The first section of this paper will cover a  brief history of surface-water rights for domestic and livestock users and explain relevant  concepts of law. The second section will address recent and current issues involving domestic  and livestock user rights and how the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has reacted  to the issues the Commission has faced. 

The definitions for the uses of “domestic” and “livestock” as provided in the Texas  Administrative Code1 are as follows: 

Domestic use is defined as: The use of water by an individual or a household to support  domestic activity. Such use may include water for drinking, washing or culinary  purposes; for irrigation of lawns, or of a family garden and/or orchard; for watering of  domestic animals; and for water recreation including aquatic and wildlife enjoyment, If  the water is diverted it must be diverted solely through the efforts of the user. Domestic  use does not include water used to support activities for which consideration is given or  received or for which the product of the activity is sold.2 

Livestock use is defined as: The use of water for open-range watering of livestock, exotic  livestock, game animals or fur-bearing animals. For purposes of this definition, the terms  livestock and exotic livestock are to be used as defined in §142.001 of the Agricultural  Code, and the terms game animals and fur-bearing animals are to be used as defined in  §63.001 and 71.001, respectively, of the Parks and Wildlife Code.3 

1. The History of Surface-Water Rights in Texas 

Texas, with regards to surface-water rights, is a dual-doctrine state that recognizes both  riparian and prior-appropriation doctrines. Texas water law has evolved over time and is still  evolving as cultural, political, population, agricultural, and economic changes take place. The  recent record droughts in Texas, along with the population boom the State has and is still  experiencing, have intensely increased the amount and importance of water law issues in a  western state that historically has already had numerous issues regarding water rights. To 

2 

properly understand surface-water rights in Texas, a historical explanation of how water laws in  the state were created and have evolved is essential. 

Texas law generally categorizes surface water by two types: diffuse surface and water in  a watercourse. Diffuse surface water is property of the owner of the land it is on until it enters a  watercourse.4 When rainwater falls directly on wooded acreage or features such as a granite or  concrete slab, it is diffused surface water. But when that water is concentrated and flows in a  natural gully, that extends sixty feet or more up into a wooded area (there are many exceptions to  this in light of different terrains), the water is under the control of a watercourse.5 Water in a  watercourse is the property of the sovereign, and the right to use it is granted by the sovereign.6 Thus, water in a natural watercourse that is in a body of water within the State of Texas is the  State’s water. This paper will primarily relate to issues regarding rights to use surface water that  has reached a watercourse.  

Before Mexico (and Texas) gained independence from Spain, under Spanish law, the  water in a natural watercourse belonged to the King of Spain and a landowner did not have the  right to use surface water unless his land grant specifically provided the right or the King decided  to open up the body of water for public use, which was usually done for rivers.7 Thus, under  Spanish Law, ownership of land was treated entirely different from ownership of any right to use  water.8 After Mexico gained independence from Spain, Mexican law was similar to Spain’s but a  land grant did have an implied right to use both public and private waters for domestic and  livestock purposes.9 However, regarding irrigation rights, in 1923 the Texas Supreme Court  found, in Motl v. Boyd, that land grants from the Mexican Government that adjoined a  watercourse included the right to use the water for domestic, household, and irrigation  purposes.10 In 1962, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the Motl ruling regarding irrigation 

3 

rights, holding that the Mexican land grants did not include a right to use water for irrigation  purposes and that this right, under Mexican law, required an express grant.11 A. Doctrine of Riparian Rights 

After Texas gained independence, the Republic of Texas adopted the English common  law doctrine of riparian rights and maintained the system from January 20, 1840 until July 1,  1895.12 Riparian doctrine is based on English common law. The basis of the court-made rules is  that private water rights are tied to the ownership of land bordering a natural river or stream.  Riparian owners have a right to use the water under the reasonable use doctrine, which follows  that use of the water is permitted as long as the use is reasonable in relation to the needs of other  riparian owners of that body of water.13 In many areas of Texas, irrigation was necessary for  successful agriculture. Strict application of riparian doctrine prevents the diminution and  alteration of stream flow and the use of water on nonriparian lands.14 Therefore, the diversion of  water for irrigation was prohibited under riparian doctrine. Texas judges struggled with this issue  and encouraged the Texas Legislature to adopt legislation concerning the use of water in areas of  Texas in which irrigation was needed to produce crops.15 

1. The Doctrine of Appropriation & The Dual System 

The 1889 and 1895 Irrigation Acts added the doctrine of appropriation (also known as the  prior appropriation doctrine) to the Spanish and riparian water law that had been in effect.16 Prior  appropriation may be summarized by the statement often used to define it: “First in time is first  in right.”17 Originally developed by miners in California and popular in the western states, the  prior appropriation doctrine provides that the first person to divert a specific quantity of water  from a source of supply and put it to beneficial use at a definite place has the right to use that  water when it is available as against all others.18 Water users who are the first to obtain 

4 

appropriative rights hold senior rights to the use of the water of a particular watercourse. If  senior appropriators cannot use all the water they are entitled to, the unused water flows to the  next in line according to priority. A way to view this doctrine during Texas droughts is that when senior appropriators (water right holders) are not able to get the water they are permitted, they  may have the junior appropriators’ water rights suspended. This means that when there is not  enough water for all water rights holders, the right to divert is suspended starting with the  newest, most junior water right and ending with the oldest, most senior water right.  

Water rights under prior appropriation law are limited by the doctrine of beneficial use,  where no one has an enforceable property interest in the unreasonable use of water. This doctrine  is very similar to the riparian rights doctrine of reasonable use, which it is commonly called.19 Commonly considered beneficial uses of water include just about any uses of water that involve domestic, agricultural, or industrial activity that is not adverse to the public good. This includes  sewage treatment, crop production, stock watering, hydroelectric power generation, and  mining.20 Adding this doctrine solved many of the problems associated with irrigation and water  rights, both for farmers and judges.21 Permitting diversion of large quantities of water began if  used for beneficial purposes, such as farming or industrial uses. 

The 1889 and 1895 Irrigation Acts authorized the appropriation of water in arid regions  of Texas for beneficial purposes and provided procedures to acquire those rights, respecting prior  riparian rights.22 Therefore, from the start of the dual system (the addition of the appropriation  system) in Texas, riparian rights for domestic and livestock uses were protected.23 The  legislation reserves to the State the ordinary flow and underflow of natural rivers and streams,  however, certain sections state how the historical riparian rights attached to lands will be  respected.24 Section 3 of the 1895 Act states that appropriation of the ordinary flow and 

5 

underflow of a river will not be diverted “to the prejudice of the rights of the riparian owner  without his consent.”25 Additionally, Section Ten provides that the landowner whose property is  adjacent to a running stream “may use such water therefrom as may be necessary for drinking  purposes for himself, family and employe[e]s, and for drinking purposes for his and their  livestock.”26 

The Irrigation Acts of 1913 and 1917 replaced the prior legislative acts, increasing the  geographic scope to include the entire state and broadening classifications of state water,  entitling all watercourses for which the State had not passed title as property of the State.27 Continuing the dual system, the 1913 Act honored prior riparian rights, codifying that: 1) the  ordinary flow of watercourses could not be diverted to the prejudice of any riparian owner  without his consent; 2) riparian rights should be considered as a prerequisite for an application to  appropriate water; 3) nothing in the Act should be construed to alter a prior vested right at the  time when the Act went into effect; and 4) nothing in the act should impair a riparian’s right as  recognized under the laws of the state as decided by the Texas Supreme Court.28 

Subsequently, the 1917 Act, like its predecessors, safeguarded the existence of riparian  domestic and livestock rights, stating that “[n]othing in this Act . . . shall be construed to alter,  affect impair, increase, destroy . . . any existing or vested right of property existing at the date  when this Act shall go into effect.”29 The 1917 Act also added a provision that the Texas Board  of Water Engineers (now encompassed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality)  could make final determinations through administrative hearings for both appropriation and  riparian water rights, however, these provisions were ruled unconstitutional for violation of the  separation of powers because an executive agency was making final judicial decisions.30 The 

6 

power to adjudicate private property rights is a judicial function, whereas the Texas Board of  Water Engineers was an executive agency.31 

In 1967, the Texas Legislature adopted the Water Rights Adjudication Act, currently  codified as sections 11.301-11.341 of the Texas Water Code.32 The legislative intent of the Act  was not to make substantive changes in law, but to make the dual-water rights system more  efficient and into a more unified system.33 Irrigation riparian rights holders now needed a  certificate of adjudication,34 however, domestic and livestock users were exempt from this  process.35 Since the Adjudication Act, both statutes and case law have recognized riparian rights  for domestic and livestock use, with these rights continuing to hold superior status over other  water rights holders.36 

The Texas Water Code does not specifically identify or describe riparian rights.37 Although not by the use of the word “riparian,” the Texas Water Code still recognizes that  riparian rights still exist and must be protected.38 Unlike irrigation users, the Adjudication Act  provides that domestic and livestock users do not have to file a claim to adjudicate their water  rights.39 This statute implies that a landowner may take water from a watercourse for domestic  and livestock use without a water right because, if these rights do not necessitate adjudication, no  paper water right is required.40 Additionally, under section 11.142(a) of the Code, a person may  construct a dam or reservoir on his own property to impound an average of two hundred acre-feet  of water for domestic and livestock purposes.41 

1. TCEQ & Current Issues 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is the environmental agency  for the State of Texas and was formed in 2002.42 Many state commissions have been  consolidated to form what is now the TCEQ.43 With regards to water rights, the TCEQ’s 

7 

predecessors are the Texas Board of Water Engineers (1913), Texas Water Development Board  (1957), Texas Water Commission (1962), Texas Water Rights Commission (1965), Texas  Department of Water Resources (1977), Texas Water Commission (1985), Texas Water  Development Board (1985), and Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (1993).44 For simplicity, I will refer to all of TCEQ’s predecessors in the Commission’s current name. 

Many issues facing Texas domestic and livestock users revolve around the Texas  Commission on Environmental Quality and what the Commission may or must enforce. Public  records reflect that many issues at the TCEQ have been related to whether domestic and  livestock water users must obtain a permit or are exempt as domestic and livestock users,45 usually involving the impoundment or diversion of water. Many issues involve disputes between  domestic and livestock users and water rights holders who irrigate for farming. A. TCEQ & Riparian Rights 

In section 297.21(a) of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality rules discuss  the nature of a domestic and livestock right and states: “In accordance with Texas Water Code  (TWC), §11.303(1), a person may directly divert and use water from a stream or watercourse for  domestic and livestock purposes on land owned by the person and that is adjacent to the stream  without obtaining a permit. Manner of diversion may be by pumping or by gravity flow. Such  riparian domestic and livestock use is a vested right that predates the prior appropriation system  in Texas and is superior to appropriative rights. A vested riparian right is only to the normal flow  in the stream, not to the storm water, floodwater, or authorized releases from storage for  downstream use.”46 

The Texas Water Code contains provisions for agency and court appointed  watermasters.47 Watermasters are Texas’s only dedicated enforcers of surface-water rights.48 In 

8 

2000, the TCEQ amended section 304.21(d), which are watermaster rules for all watermaster  areas other than the Rio Grande Basin, to recognize the rights of domestic and livestock users.49 These rules state what a watermaster may do when available flow is not sufficient to meet the  demands of existing declarations of intent for downstream senior rights, and “demands for  domestic and livestock purposes that are not included under any water right.”50 A watermaster  may order persons with reservoirs (or dams) under a water right, or other domestic livestock  users’ reservoirs to allow inflows to pass through such reservoirs as “necessary to honor . . .  demands for domestic and livestock purposes.”51 A watermaster may also order any diverters to  limit or cease diversion in order to honor “demands for domestic and livestock purposes,” and  take any other action necessary to ensure that “demands for domestic and livestock purposes…are  administered in accordance with the laws of Texas.”52 These rules do not specifically state that a  domestic and livestock user with a reservoir should be protected as a senior or superior right. However, because these rules require permitted water right holders to pass flows for domestic  and livestock users, it implies that the Commission’s rules consider domestic and livestock rights  to be riparian, or at least superior to appropriative rights.53 

Likewise, for many years the Commission and its predecessors have placed a provision at  the end of its permits and Certificates of Adjudication stating that the permit or certificate is  “subject to all superior and senior water rights.”54 The use of the word “superior” was likely  added to include riparian rights.55 

In 1999, under Texas Water Code Section 11.451, several holders of permits and  Certificates of Adjudication, along with domestic and livestock users, filed a petition for a  watermaster on the Concho River.56 Section 11.451 provides that twenty-five or more “holders  of water rights” in a river basin (or segment of a river basin), may petition the TCEQ to order the 

9 

Executive Director to appoint a watermaster for that river basin or river segment.57 “Persons who  hold water rights” in the river basin or segment may testify at the mandatory hearing.58 TCEQ  shall appoint a watermaster if it finds a “threat exists to the rights of senior water rights holders”  in the river basin.59 The Commission had to consider whether domestic and livestock users were  water rights holders under these statutes.60 

The petitioners, along with allied petitioners on the San Saba River watermaster petition,  and the adverse parties, the City of San Angelo and the Lower Colorado River Authority  (LCRA), filed extensive briefing on the question.61 The City of San Angelo and the LCRA  argued that riparian rights no longer exist in Texas and that domestic and livestock use was a  privilege, not a right.62 LCRA argued that Section 11.142 is an exemption from the permitting  requirements and does not contain any of the requirements of a riparian right such as passing  through normal flows, reasonable use, or superiority to appropriative rights.63 The Executive  Director took the position that domestic and livestock users had riparian rights.64 Among an  abundance of points made, the Executive Director referred to Lower Colorado River Authority v.  Texas Department of Water Resources, where the Texas Supreme Court held that “[t]he common  law doctrine of riparian rights doctrine has been severely circumscribed by statute.”65 

Another issue the Concho Watermaster Petition brought up was whether the right to store  water for domestic and livestock purposes in Texas Water Code section 11.142 is a riparian  right.66 The City of San Angelo argued that it was only a statutory right while the Executive  Director argued that it was both a riparian right and a statutory right.67 Additionally, the  Executive Director argued that the laws of Texas recognize that domestic and livestock users  have vested riparian rights in their water, whether they divert the water directly from the river or  impound it under section 11.142 of the Texas Water Code.68 The right of the user who impounds 

10 

water under section 11.142 to divert and use state water for domestic and livestock purposes does  not depend on the permitting exemption.69 Thus, these are riparian rights and should be treated as  such.70 Impoundments of water for domestic and livestock uses were recognized in the common  law and this is recognized in Section 11.142, however, there is a statutory limit on this right.71 It  provides that “a person may construct on the person’s own property a dam or reservoir with  normal storage of not more than two hundred acre-feet of water for domestic and livestock  purposes.”72 Section 11.303(l) exempts domestic and livestock users from having to file a claim  to adjudicate their water rights.73 The Executive Director’s conclusion was that neither of these  statutes independently creates a water right but that the statutes both recognize a type of  domestic and livestock right.74 This right is a riparian right under common law that does not  require permitting or adjudication and applies to landowners who impound water taken from a  stream on their property or divert and use water directly from a stream on or next to their  property.75 Section 11.142 also clarifies that riparian landowners do not need permits to store this  water.76 Despite the Executive Director’s argument, the right to impound with regard to the  reasonable use doctrine and the statute permitting a two-hundred acre damn will likely continue  to be an argumentative issue. The recent droughts and the population boom in Texas have made  water more scarce. “Reasonable use” will likely be contested often and the two-hundred acre  rule only has statutory basis with regards to size. Attempts to change the rule, the acreage of the  rule, or the enforcement of the rule would be an easier target for change over most other  domestic and livestock rights issues. 

1. Domestic & Livestock Users in a Contested Proceeding 

Despite all the Commission’s answers to the Concho River Watermaster disputes, the  Commission did not rule on the issue of whether a domestic and livestock user shall be treated as 

11 

a water-right holder with regard to the watermaster petitions.77 The Concho River Watermaster  Petition had been signed by twenty-five holders of permits or Certificates of Adjudication, so the  TCEQ sent the application to an evidentiary hearing at the State Office of Administrative  Hearings under section 11.452.78 The San Saba Watermaster Petition had twenty-five signatures  if domestic and livestock users were included, and did not have the required signatures if limited  to holders of permits or Certificates of Adjudication.79 TCEQ referred the San Saba Watermaster  Petition to the State Office of Administrative Hearings “on its own motion,” however, the issue  was not discussed further in the proceedings.80 Whether a domestic and livestock user has the  right under current Texas Law to petition the TCEQ for the appointment of a watermaster remains an unanswered question. 

During the tragic drought of 2011, after the San Saba River had run dry, the TCEQ  responded to priority calls from landowners (domestic and livestock users) on the River by  suspending all permit holders that dated later than 1900.81 The San Saba River ran dry again in  the summer of 2012 and in response domestic and livestock users again made priority calls.82 However, this time TCEQ did not act on the priority calls. This issue, closely related to the  watermaster issue, has quickly garnered attention as the San Saba River was named the third  most endangered river in the United States by American Rivers,83 was mentioned in National  Geographic and many other national publications,84 was the topic of a bill filed by a state  representative in the 2013 legislature for the appointment of watermaster on the River (that was  never voted on), and landowners and other citizens have formed a nonprofit organization named  Friends of the San Saba, Inc.85 While TCEQ has not ignored the issue, The Commission has  acted more as a mediator in its enforcement, perhaps due to the politically sensitive nature of the  issue.86

12 

In 2000, the Commission also amended section 297.21(c) of its rules, removing language  which provided that: (1) a person’s domestic and livestock use cannot unreasonably interfere  with another person’s domestic and livestock use; and (2) any domestic and livestock dam  exempt from permitting under § 297.21(b) must allow sufficient inflows to pass through for the  benefit of domestic and livestock users downstream.87 The Commission stated in the preamble to  the section 297.21(b) changes: “[S]taff working in some of the regional offices have found  administrative enforcement [of section 297.21] problematic, due to the subjective nature of the  finds required . . . The commission has not received statutory guidance on these issues . . . When  facilitation by the commission is unsuccessful, the appropriate venue for formal action is a  private action in court between the disputing domestic and livestock users.”88 

Additionally, while the requirement that a domestic and livestock user must not  unreasonably interfere with the use of other domestic and livestock users is established in  common law, the [Texas Water Code] does not explicitly require or authorize the commission to  enforce this requirement, unless a watermaster has been appointed for that particular  watercourse.89 These amendments take the language in § 297.21(c) that states a domestic and  livestock reservoir shall pass sufficient inflows to downstream domestic and livestock users out  of Section 297 which contains general substantive water rights requirements, and amends  Section 304, Watermaster Operations, § 304.21(d)(3) to include this requirement.90 Section 304  is an appropriate place in which to insert the requirement that domestic and livestock reservoir  owners pass inflows when necessary to protect others.91 From the preamble language it seems that the Commission considered section 11.142 impoundments to be riparian rights, which are  governed by the reasonable use standard.92 

Most contested proceedings that TCEQ or the Texas courts do not resolve result in agreed 

13 

orders or by other resolutions that are usually temporary fixes at most. Most of these issues will  inevitably be brought up again in the near future or result in another issue. C. Domestic & Livestock Users & Permits 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality commonly receives complaints  concerning when landowners must obtain a permit under section 11.121 of the Texas Water  Code.93 The question often revolves around whether proper domestic and livestock use is being  exercised by the landowner. Typically, when landowners attempt to use impounded or diverted  water for business use (other than livestock), a permit is required since the water is no longer  being used for domestic and livestock purposes.  

In 1998, a landowner had ponds from a creek on his land that had cattle but also a  conference center.94 TCEQ maintained that the landowner would not have to obtain a permit for  the ponds if they were used solely for livestock and his own domestic purposes, but that he  would have to obtain a permit if any use went to the conference center.95 

In 1997, landowners that had their business on the same property were building a dam  and a lake on their property.96 The Commission told the landowners that a permit would not be  required as long as the lake would not be used for their business.97 For purposes of personal  recreation, the lake and dam would not require permits.98 

TCEQ received a complaint in 2000 where a landowner, owning land in common with  other landowners that abutted the Llano River, was taking water and using it for domestic and  livestock uses on other land owned that did not abut the River.99 The Executive Director  determined that the landowner would have to obtain a permit to use the water on the non abutting land, however, no formal Commission decision was made.100 In a similar case in 2003,  the South Texas Watermaster enforced riparian principles when a Notice of Violation was sent to 

14 

a landowner, whose property was divided by a county road, and was diverting water on land  abutting the Frio River and using it on the property not abutting the River.101 III. The Outlook on Domestic and Livestock Rights 

Though the scarcity of water in Texas will continually bring up issues for domestic and  livestock rights, the laws will likely remain consistent and in some cases may even become more  favorable for domestic and livestock rights. Domestic and livestock use typically does not  require large amounts of water and it supports natural water use for humans as well as for  wildlife. In cases such as the San Saba River, domestic and livestock rights are not only favored  by legal precedents, but also by environmental issues.102 As a major political topic in Texas and  throughout most of the world, water issues will continue to arise for domestic and livestock  users. In the near future, most domestic and livestock issues will likely be relative to the  measurement or restriction of the impoundment or diversion of surface water. In conclusion, the  right to take water from a watercourse for domestic and livestock use continues to be recognized  today as the superior surface-water right in Texas under current statutes, case law, and  commission rules.  

                                                        

1 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 297.1 (West 2005). 

2 Id. 

3 Id. 

4 Turner v. Big Lake Oil Co., 128 Tex. 155, 96 S.W.2d 221, 228 (1936). 5 Dietrich v. Goodman, 123 S.W.3d 413, 419-20 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]  2003, no pet.). 

6 Robin Melvin, Latest Developments and Hot Topics in Water Rights 1 (Civil Justice  Conference, 2014). 

7 Id. at 1. 

8 State v. Valmont Plantations, 346 S.W.2d 853, 859 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio  1961), aff’d, 355 S.W.2d 502 (Tex. 1962). 

9 Id. 

10 Motl v. Boyd, 116 Tex. 82, 105, 286 S.W. 458, 466 (1923). 

11 Valmont Plantations at 503.

15 

                                                                                                                                                                                   12 David Klein, Robin Smith, Exploring the Scope of Landowner Water Rights for Domestic and Livestock Purposes, 7 Tex. Tech Admin. L.J. 119, 120 (2006). 

13 In re Adjudication of Upper Guadalupe River Segment of Guadalupe River Basin, 625  S.W.2d 353, 358 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981). 

14 Id. 

15 Melvin at 2. 

16 Id. 

17 Id. 

18 Id. 

19 Colorado v. New Mexico, 459 U.S. 176, 103 S. Ct. 539, 74 L. Ed. 2d 348 (1982). 20 Sandra Zellmer, The Anti-Speculation Doctrine and Its Implications for Collaborative  Water Management, 8 Nev. L.J. 994 (2008). 

21 Melvin at 2. 

22 In re Adjudication of Upper Guadalupe River Segment of Guadalupe River Basin, 642  S.W.2d 438, 440 (Tex.1982). 

23 Id. 

24 Hans W. Baade, The Historical Background of Texas Water Law-A Tribute to Jack  Pope, 18 St. Mary’s L.J. 1, 7 (1986). 

25 § 3, 1895 Tex. Gen. Laws at 22. 

26 § 10, 1895 Tex. Gen. Laws at 23. 

27 Burges-Glasscock Act, 33d Leg., R.S., ch. 171, § 1, 1913 Tex. Gen. Laws 358. 28 § 3, 1913 Tex. Gen. Laws at 359. 

29 §§ 136-37, 1917 Tex. Gen. Laws at 241. 

30 Bd. Of Water Eng’rs v. McKnight, 111 Tex. 82, 97, 229 S.W. 301, 307 (1921). 31 Id. 

32 Tex. Water Code Ann. §§ 11.301-.341 (Vernon 2000). 

33 Frank F. Skillern, Texas Water Law 35 (Sterling Press 1988). 

34 Melvin at 3. 

35 Klein at 5. 

36 Klein at 5. 

37 Tex. Water Code Ann. (Vernon 2000). 

38 Id. 

39 Tex. Water Code Ann. at § 11. 303(1). 

40 Id. 

41 Id. at § 11.142(a). 

42 Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, History of the TCEQ and its Predecessor Agencies,  http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/about/tceqhistory.html. 

43 Id. 

44 Id. 

45 Klein at 7. 

46 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 297.21(a)(West 2005)(Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality). 47 Tex. Water Code Ann.

16 

                                                                                                                                                                                   48 Campbell, Augustus L., Texas Watermasters: A Legal History and Analysis of Surface Water  Rights Enforcement, 7 Tex. Tech Admin. L.J. 143, 144 (2006). 

49 25 Tex. Reg. 8972 (2000) (Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality). 

50 30 Tex. Admin. Code at § 304.21(d). 

51 Id. at § 304.21(d)(2). 

52 Id. at § 304.21(d)(4-5).   

53 Id. at § 304.21. 

54 Klein at 7. 

55 Id. 

56 City of San Angelo v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Com’n, 92 S.W.3d 624  (2002). 

57 Tex. Water Code Ann. at § 11.451. 

58 Id. at § 11.452(b). 

59 Id. at § 11.452(c). 

60 City of San Angelo at 627. 

61 City of San Angelo. 

62 Klein at 8. 

63 Id at 8. 

64 Id at 8. 

65 Id. at 8. 

66 Tex. Water Code Ann. at § 11.142. 

67 Klein at 8. 

68 Id. 

69 Id. 

70 Klein at 8. 

71 Tex. Water Code Ann. at § 11.142. 

72 Id. 

73 Id. at § 11.303(1) 

74 Klein 8. 

75 Id. 

76 Tex. Water Code Ann. at § 11.142. 

77 Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, Petitions Requesting a Watermaster on the Concho  River and the San Saba River, TNRCC Docket Nos. 2000-0344-WR, 2001-0991-WR  (Dec. 10, 2001). 

78 Klein 9; see Tex. Water Code Ann. § 11.142(a)(Vernon 2000). 

79 Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, Petitions Requesting a Watermaster on the Concho  River and the San Saba River. 

80 Klein 9. 

81 Friends of the San Saba, Community, Facebook,  

https://www.facebook.com/FriendsOfTheSanSaba/timeline. 

82 Id.

17 

                                                                                                                                                                                   83 American Rivers, Most Endangered Rivers for 2013,  

http://www.americanrivers.org/endangered-rivers/2013-report/ 

84 Friends of the San Saba, Community, Facebook,  

https://www.facebook.com/FriendsOfTheSanSaba/timeline. 

85 Id. 

86 Id. 

87 25 Tex. Reg. 8969 (2000) (codified as 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 304.21). 88 Id. 

89 Klein at 7. 

90 Id. 

91 Id. 

92 Id. 

93 Tex. Water Code Ann. at § 11.121. 

94 Klein at 9. 

95 Id. 

96 Klein at 9. 

97 Id. 

98 Id. 

99 Klein at 9-10. 

100 Klein at 10. 

101 Id. 

102 American Rivers, Most Endangered Rivers for 2013,  

http://www.americanrivers.org/endangered-rivers/2013-report/

18