Who decides a boundary dispute between two Texas groundwater conservation districts?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2021. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Senator Charles Perry, chairing the Senate Committee on Water & Rural Affairs, asked the Attorney General to settle a boundary dispute. Two groundwater districts, the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District and the Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District, share a boundary that runs through Potter County. The contested stretch follows the "meanders of the caprock," a terrain feature described in the High Plains District's 1953 enabling legislation. By 2018 there were three competing versions of where the line actually sat: one used by the High Plains District (recently redrawn with GIS mapping), one used by the Panhandle District (from its 2000 annexation election), and one used by the Potter-Randall County Appraisal District. The senator asked the AG to say which one is correct.
The AG would not pick a line. It made two points. The first is a clean legal rule: an appraisal district has no authority to determine or correct the boundaries of a taxing unit, a point the office had already made in opinion KP-0175 (2017). So the Appraisal District's line carries no legal weight on the boundary question, whatever its mapping purpose. The second point is why the AG stopped there. Choosing between the High Plains line and the Panhandle line requires resolving disputed facts about where the boundary actually runs on the ground, and the AG does not resolve fact questions in the opinion process. Where a boundary sits is a question of fact, not law.
The AG did offer general guidance about how a court would approach the dispute. Texas courts in boundary cases look first for the lines as originally run by the surveyors, trying to "follow the footsteps of the original surveyor." When survey calls cannot be found or conflict, courts weigh the evidence under settled rules, giving more certain calls (a natural object like a river or an identifiable terrain feature) priority over course-and-distance calls. For a stream boundary, the meander line is not itself the boundary; it follows the general course of the stream, which is the real boundary. None of these rules are rigid. They exist to carry out the original intent for the location of the line, read from the grant in light of the surrounding facts. So the AG concluded only that a court, recreating the initial meander line, would likely look for the original intent behind "meanders of the caprock" and set the line to match that intent.
What this means for you
This describes what the 2021 opinion holds about who resolves a water-district boundary dispute. The opinion is now several years old, and boundary law and the underlying statutes can change, so confirm current law and consult a lawyer before relying on this.
Water conservation districts
The opinion holds that the AG will not declare which of two competing district boundary lines is correct when the answer depends on disputed facts about where the line runs. That determination belongs to a court. The opinion also notes, without deciding, that the Panhandle District's 2000 annexation election did not indicate whether the High Plains District's voters participated, which would matter to whether that election could change the High Plains District's boundary.
Appraisal districts
The opinion restates, citing KP-0175, that an appraisal district has no authority to determine or correct the boundaries of a taxing unit. An appraisal district mapping a line for its own records does not fix the legal boundary between two water districts.
Surveyors and landowners near the line
The opinion summarizes the framework a Texas court uses in a boundary dispute: follow the original surveyor's footsteps where possible, let more certain calls (natural objects, terrain features) control over course and distance, and read the calls in light of the original intent. It does not resolve who owns the roughly 1,336 acres that shift depending on which line prevails.
Common questions
Q: Can the Texas Attorney General settle a boundary dispute between two water districts?
A: Not when the answer turns on disputed facts. The AG said the exact boundary line here involves the resolution of fact issues, which is outside the purview of an attorney general opinion. A court resolves it.
Q: Can an appraisal district set or correct the boundary of a water district?
A: No. The opinion holds that an appraisal district has no authority to determine or correct the boundaries of a taxing unit, so its line cannot govern.
Q: How would a court figure out where the boundary actually is?
A: It would look for the line as originally run by the surveyor and try to follow the original surveyor's footsteps. Where calls are missing or conflict, it weighs the evidence under settled rules, giving more certain calls (like a natural terrain feature) priority, all to carry out the original intent.
Q: What does "meanders of the caprock" mean for the boundary?
A: It is the terrain feature the 1953 legislation used to describe the line. A meander line is not the boundary itself; it follows the general course of the feature, which is the real boundary. The AG said a court would establish the meander line consistent with the original intent behind that phrase.
Background and statutory framework
The High Plains Underground Water Conservation District was created by enabling legislation in 1953, which incorporated a metes-and-bounds description tracking the Ogallala Aquifer and ran the Potter County boundary "west along the meanders of the caprock to the Potter-Oldham County line." The Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District was created shortly afterward and later extended its boundaries through elections, most recently in 2000, to include Potter County land not within the High Plains District. The dispute arose in 2018 when the Appraisal District sought to confirm the boundary and the High Plains District submitted a GIS-mapped line that differed both from its existing line and from the Panhandle District's election description.
The legal framework has two parts. On district authority, the office's earlier opinion KP-0175 establishes that an appraisal district cannot determine or correct a taxing unit's boundaries, and Water Code § 36.325(c) requires an annexation petition to describe the land by legal description, metes and bounds, or lot and block. On boundary location, Texas courts treat the position of a disputed line as a question of fact, following the original surveyor's footsteps and, where calls fail, weighing the evidence to find the original intent. The opinion cites a line of cases for these rules, from Stafford v. King and Luckett v. Scruggs through Stover v. Gilbert and Thomas Jordan, Inc., on the meander-line and original-intent principles.
Citations and references
Statutory provisions:
- Tex. Water Code § 36.325(c) (annexation petition land description)
- Act of Feb. 11, 1953, 53d Leg., R.S., ch. 10, 1953 Tex. Gen. Laws 17–20 (High Plains District enabling legislation)
Key cases:
- Stafford v. King, 30 Tex. 257 (Tex. 1867) (rules for weighing evidence to establish true boundaries)
- Newsom v. Pryor's Lessee, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 10 (1822) (a call for a natural object controls course and distance)
- Luckett v. Scruggs, 73 Tex. 519 (Tex. 1889) (look for lines as originally run by the surveyors)
- Stover v. Gilbert, 247 S.W. 841 (Tex. 1923) (meander lines follow the stream, which is the real boundary)
- Thomas Jordan, Inc. v. Skelly Oil Co., 296 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1956, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (follow the footsteps of the original surveyor; original intent)
- State v. Brazos River Harbor Nav. Dist., 831 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 1992, writ denied) (describing the surveyor's meander-line process)
- Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co. v. Burton, 87 S.W.2d 338 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1935, writ dism'd by agr.) (location of a disputed boundary is a fact question)
- Farley v. Deslonde, 58 Tex. 588 (Tex. 1883) (where boundaries are on the ground is a question of fact)
- Silver Oil & Gas, Inc. v. EOG Res., Inc., 246 S.W.3d 197 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, no pet.) (consider surrounding facts to find the surveyor's intent)
Related AG opinions:
- Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. KP-0175 (2017) (appraisal district cannot determine or correct taxing-unit boundaries)
- Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. KP-0057 (2016) (AG opinions do not resolve disputed fact questions)
Source
- Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/ken-paxton/kp-0356
- Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2021/kp-0356.pdf
Original opinion text
KEN PAXTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
February 22, 2021
The Honorable Charles Perry
Chair, Committee on Water & Rural Affairs
Texas State Senate
Post Office Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711-2068
Opinion No. KP-0356
Re: Boundary line between the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District and the Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District (RQ-0375-KP)
Dear Senator Perry:
You ask us to determine the boundary line between the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District and the Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District.1 You tell us about three potential boundary lines between these two water districts: one used by the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District ("High Plains District"); one used by the Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District ("Panhandle District"); and one used by the Potter-Randall County Appraisal District ("Appraisal District"). Request Letter at 1–3; Exhibit F (map showing three boundary lines). At issue is the portion of the boundary in Potter County involving the "meanders of the caprock." Request Letter at 3.
You tell us the Legislature passed enabling legislation for the High Plains District in 1953. See id. at 1–2. You state that the legislation incorporated a previous metes and bounds description corresponding to the underlying Ogallala Aquifer that described the boundary in Potter County to fall "west along the meanders of the caprock to the Potter-Oldham County line." Id. at 2 (citing Tex. S.B. 30, 53d Leg., R.S. (1953)).2 You also tell us that shortly thereafter the Legislature created the Panhandle District to operate in several counties, including Potter County. Id. You explain that the Panhandle District subsequently extended its boundaries several times through elections, with the most recent election occurring in 2000. Id. That election extended the Panhandle District's Potter County boundary to include all the land in Potter County that was "not currently within the bounds of" the High Plains District. Id.; see also id. at 2 n.7 (citing Exhibit E, Panhandle District 2000 annexation petition).
In describing the origin of the current dispute, which arose in 2018, and the three potential boundary lines, you indicate that the Appraisal District sought to confirm the location of the boundary. Id. at 3. You explain that the High Plains District responded by providing a boundary line that precisely maps the meanders of the caprock3 using the latest Geographic Information Systems ("GIS") mapping technology. See id. You state that the line the High Plains District submitted differs from its current boundary line and it differs from the "the description in [the Panhandle District's] election petition." Id.; see also infra note 4. You describe the GIS mapping technology as "the most accurate method to track the 'meanders of the caprock' boundary that is required to be followed by statute." Request Letter at 3. You note that "[a]s technology has continued to progress, [High Plains District] believes so should the boundaries in order to most accurately follow statute using the best available science. At the time the boundaries were drawn, the current level of GIS mapping technology was not available."4 Id. However, the Panhandle District asserts that the statutorily required legal description of the boundary in its annexation order should govern.5 Panhandle Brief at 2. The Appraisal District uses a boundary line that does not follow either the meanders of the caprock or the boundary used by the Panhandle District but that "follows along section boundaries of tracts of land that has not been utilized by either . . . district." Request Letter at 3.
As an initial matter, this office previously concluded that an appraisal district has no authority to determine or correct the boundaries of a taxing unit. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. KP-0175 (2017) at 3. Thus, the Appraisal District is not authorized to proffer its own boundary line. But see Request Letter at 3 (stating that the Appraisal District "is not attempting to change the boundary, but updat[ing] its records with new technology 'to reflect the original boundary as stated in the original documentation'"). With respect to the potential boundaries presented by the two water districts, the determination of the exact boundary line will involve the resolution of fact issues and is outside the purview of an attorney general opinion.6 See Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co. v. Burton, 87 S.W.2d 338, 340 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1935, writ dism'd by agr.) (recognizing the location of disputed boundary line is a fact question); Farley v. Deslonde, 58 Tex. 588, 591 (Tex. 1883) (stating that "as to where the boundaries are upon the ground, is a question of fact"); Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. KP-0057 (2016) at 3, n.12 (noting that attorney general opinions do not resolve disputed fact questions). Thus, we cannot determine as a matter of law which line is the proper boundary.
We can, however, advise that in disputed boundary matters, the Texas Supreme Court has previously looked for the lines as originally run by the surveyors. Luckett v. Scruggs, 73 Tex. 519, 520–21 (Tex. 1889); see Thomas Jordan, Inc. v. Skelly Oil Co., 296 S.W.2d 279, 290 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1956, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (stating that "in relocating old grants the important thing is to follow the footsteps of the original surveyor"). But when survey calls cannot be found or are inconsistent, the Court looks to its established rules of law to consider the "character and weight of the evidence to be considered . . . in . . . establishing the true boundaries of the survey." Stafford v. King, 30 Tex. 257, 271 (Tex. 1867); see also Newsom v. Pryor's Lessee, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 10 (1822) ("[T]he most material and most certain calls shall control those which are less material, and less certain. A call for a natural object, as a river, a known stream, a spring, or even a marked tree, shall control both course and distance."). In the context of a river or stream as a boundary, Texas law is clear that "meander lines . . . adjacent to or bounding upon a stream are not to be considered as boundaries, but they are to follow the general course of the stream, which in itself constitutes the real boundary." Stover v. Gilbert, 247 S.W. 841, 843 (Tex. 1923); Brazos River Harbor Nav. Dist., 831 S.W.2d at 542. Yet, these rules are not rigid and are designed to determine and carry out the original intent for the location of the boundary, "which intention is to be ascertained upon the face of the grant, read in the light of the surrounding facts and circumstances." Thomas Jordan, Inc., 296 S.W.2d at 291; see also Silver Oil & Gas, Inc. v. EOG Res., Inc., 246 S.W.3d 197, 204 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, no pet.) ("However, if the location of the actual footsteps of the surveyor cannot be established with reasonable certainty, all the surrounding facts and circumstances should be considered in order to arrive at the purpose and intent of the surveyor who made the original survey."). Thus, we can only generally advise that in recreating the initial meander line in order to determine its location and to consider all subsequent events to determine the current boundary, a court would likely look for the original intent with respect to the meaning of "meanders of the caprock" and establish the meander line consistent with that intent.
1 See Letter & Exhibits from Honorable Charles Perry, Chair, Senate Comm. on Water & Rural Affairs, to Honorable Ken Paxton, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 1 (Aug. 20, 2020), https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/51paxton/rq/2020/pdf/RQ0375KP.pdf ("Request Letter" and "Exhibits") (Exhibits on file with the Op. Comm.).
2 You attach a copy of Senate Bill 30 from 1953 showing the ratification of the High Plains District, but the Legislative Reference Library shows it was the companion bill, House Bill 56, that ultimately advanced. See Act of Feb. 11, 1953, 53d Leg., R.S., ch. 10, 1953 Tex. Gen. Laws 17–20.
3 A surveyor's process for a meander line has been described as follows: A surveyor usually cannot go into a stream to make a corner, so he makes a corner on the bank in order to identify the place where he stopped—the rule being an exception to the one which requires following the footsteps of the surveyor. From this corner, the surveyor may run a meander line, a series of course and distance calls which follow the river or other natural object or monument as closely as is practically possible for purposes of calculating the amount of land conveyed. When a meander line is used, however, the natural object or monument (e.g., a river, the seashore, or an identifiable terrain feature) will control over the specific calls for course and distance. State v. Brazos River Harbor Nav. Dist., 831 S.W.2d 539, 542 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 1992, writ denied) (citations omitted).
4 The Panhandle District informs us that the shifting of the boundary line would transfer 1336.73 acres from one district to the other. See Letter & Brief from C.E. Williams, Gen. Mgr., Panhandle Groundwater Conservation Dist. & Monique M. Norman, Att'y at Law, to Honorable Ken Paxton, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 3 (Sept. 21, 2020) ("Panhandle Brief") (on file with the Op. Comm.).
5 The Panhandle District submits that it "clarified the legal description of the . . . boundary in its 2000 election . . . by converting [High Plains District's] own map to the statutorily required modern legal description." Panhandle Brief at 2 (citing TEX. WATER CODE § 36.325(c) requiring an annexation petition to "describe the land by legal description or by metes and bounds or by lot and block number if there is a recorded plat of the area to be included in the district").
6 The Panhandle District argues its 2000 annexation election changed the common boundary. Panhandle Brief at 2–3. Yet the Panhandle District does not indicate whether the voters of the High Plains District participated in that election to effectuate a boundary change of the High Plains District. See id.
S U M M A R Y
An appraisal district may not determine or correct the boundaries of a taxing unit.
With respect to the potential boundaries presented by the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District and the Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District, the determination of the exact boundary line between them in Potter County will involve the resolution of fact issues and is outside the purview of an attorney general opinion. We can only generally advise that in recreating the initial meander line in order to determine its location and to consider all subsequent events to determine the current boundary, a court would likely look for the original intent with respect to the meaning of "meanders of the caprock" and establish the meander line consistent with that intent.
Very truly yours,
KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas
BRENT E. WEBSTER
First Assistant Attorney General
LESLEY FRENCH
Chief of Staff
MURTAZA SUTARWALLA
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee
CHARLOTTE M. HARPER
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2021 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.