The Texas Supreme Court has ended part of a long-running inter-governmental battle over a coastal navigation district’s exclusive lease with an oyster-farming business. The rest of it continues.
In a 29-page decision on the interlocutory appeal of two consolidated lawsuits, the court ruled: that the district couldn’t be sued for overstepping its authority; that the commissioners of the district could be; that the state could not collect “restitution” from the district, and that the company that held the lease had no standing to participate in the current appeal.
Friday’s decision involved a controversial lease that was initiated in 2014 when commissioners of the Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District conveyed 23,000 acres of submerged land to Sustainable Texas Oyster Resource Management, or STORM. In doing so, the district supported the company in its effort to obtain a federal permit to construct oyster beds, as well as the right to protect its oyster beds from trespassers.
But when STORM sent “No Trespass” notices to other holders of oyster harvesting permits already issued by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the state agency took notice. In 2015 the state sued the district, its commissioners in their official capacity and STORM, arguing that the district and commissioners had exceeded their legal authority by leasing the submerged lands. The state sought invalidation of the lease and restitution for each oyster harvested.
In turn, the navigation district moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that its governmental immunity was not waived by statute. The trial court denied the dismissal motion by the district, a ruling overruled in 2018 by the Third Court of Appeals in Austin. And in January, the appeal of that decision was consolidated with STORM’s related mandamus petition for oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
The unanimous decision, written for the court by Justice Jimmy Blacklock, said the same legislative exception required to overcome sovereign immunity claims also applies to state claims for money damages sought from other governmental entities. And although there are some exceptions (for example, state statutory money damages against cities that apply unauthorized restrictions on firearms), there is no such exception in the state statutes that govern oyster harvesting.
The attorney general’s office has maintained that the submerged acreage in the Galveston and Trinity Bays was conveyed to the navigation district in 1957 and 1967 for the purposes of navigation; under those terms, the district had no authority to lease that property to a private business for any purpose.
The lawsuit against STORM and the district commissioners can now proceed at the trial court.
Conservation groups have weighed in on the dispute. In a post-submission amicus brief, The Texas Chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association said the lease violated state law by allowing STORM to exclude competing businesses and recreational harvesters from fishing.
The case is No. 17-0365 Chambers-Liberty Ctys. Nav. Dist., et al. v. State.