The Mundy Firm

Because the State owns the riverbeds and the minerals underneath the riverbeds in Texas, the boundary of the riverbed is critical in determining the rights of the State, riparian mineral interest owners, and riparian surface owners. See TEX. PARKS & WILD. CODE § 1.011(c); see also TEX. NAT. RES. CODE §§ 11.041(a)(1), 51.011 (providing that the Permanent School Fund includes the mineral estate in riverbeds).

A vested rights permit insulates pending development from most future ordinance changes. But certain floodplain regulation changes apply retroactively even against vested rights holders. See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE §§ 245.002, 245.004(9).

A ranch road in existence and used by the public for many decades is a county road impliedly dedicated to public use.

The Texas Constitution prohibits the State from taking, damaging, or destroying an individual's property, for public use, without adequate compensation. See TEX. CONST. art. I, § 17. Inverse condemnation occurs when the government takes property for public use without proper condemnation proceedings, and the property owner attempts to recover some type of compensation for that taking. Park v. City of San Antonio, 230 S.W.3d 860, 867 (Tex. App. -- El Paso 2007, pet. denied). To establish an inverse condemnation claim, the property owner must show: (1) an intentional governmental act; (2) that resulted in the taking, damaging, or destroying of the owner's property; (3) for public use. Id. Accordingly, to assert a valid Article I takings claim, the claimant must first prove an ownership in the property taken. See TEX. CONST. art. I, § 17; State v. Fiesta Mart, Inc., 233 S.W.3d 50, 54 (Tex. App. -- Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied).

Homeowners and landowners may bring an action for decreased property value when noxious odors blow over their land and homes creating a permanent nuisance.

However, they must exercise diligence in bringing their claims in a timely fashion. 

In proving damages, they must offer some objective evidence of the decrease in market value of their property.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that conduct of the government which causes flooding of property could constitute a "taking" of the property requiring the United States' government to compensate the land owner.

A land owner may bring an action against a neighbor who pollutes the groundwater.

Whether an easement on ranch land property allowed for placement of cattle guards and gates is a question of the parties original intentions in granting the easement, which must be determined by a jury.