The Texas Court of Appeals recently ruled that a private environmental group cannot intervene in a state enforcement action to address alleged violations of the Water Code. The decision affects how private parties can engage in environmental enforcement and clarifies the limits of their legal standing in such cases.
The court's ruling came in the case of In Re Dow Hydrocarbons and Resources, LLC and Union Carbide Corporation v. the State of Texas, docket number 15-26-00119-CV. The court granted a petition for mandamus, which is a court order directing a lower court to take a specific action. This ruling emphasizes that only designated government officials can prosecute violations of the Water Code.
Background
The case centers around Dow Hydrocarbons and Resources, LLC, and Union Carbide Corporation, which operate the Seadrift Operations Facility in Calhoun County, Texas. This facility produces various plastic materials, including polypropylene and polyethylene. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) issued a permit allowing the facility to discharge wastewater under specific conditions.
However, the TCEQ found evidence of violations, including large quantities of plastic pellets near the facility's discharge points. Following unsuccessful administrative resolutions, the Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit in February 2026 against the companies, seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties. Shortly after, the environmental group San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper intervened, claiming it had the right to pursue its own enforcement action.
Dow Hydrocarbons and Union Carbide contested this intervention, arguing that the Water Code does not provide a private right of action for such claims. The trial court initially denied their motion to dismiss the intervention, prompting the companies to seek a mandamus order from the appeals court.
The Ruling
The Texas Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Dow Hydrocarbons and Union Carbide, stating that the trial court had abused its discretion by allowing the intervention. The court emphasized that the Water Code clearly limits enforcement actions to designated government entities, stating, "The basic concept of democratic rule under a republican form of government is compromised when public powers are abandoned to those who are neither elected by the people, appointed by a public official or entity, nor employed by the government."
The court's opinion clarified that while environmental groups can report violations and provide evidence, they do not have the legal authority to prosecute such cases. The ruling noted that allowing private parties to intervene could complicate enforcement processes and undermine the state's regulatory framework.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for environmental enforcement in Texas. It reinforces the principle that only government officials, such as the Attorney General and TCEQ, can initiate legal actions to enforce the Water Code. This decision limits the ability of private organizations to intervene in state enforcement actions, which could affect how environmental violations are addressed in the future.
The ruling also highlights the importance of maintaining a clear separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. By restricting private enforcement actions, the court aims to ensure that the enforcement of environmental laws remains within the purview of elected and appointed officials who are accountable to the public.
What's Next
Following this ruling, it is unlikely that Waterkeeper can appeal the decision, as the court granted the mandamus petition, effectively instructing the trial court to dismiss the intervention. There are no related cases pending that could alter this ruling at this time. The decision may prompt environmental groups to reconsider their strategies for addressing environmental violations in Texas.
