Policies and resources for developers – consultants to manage the process of providing water and/or sanitation services. The failure of the Code to initiate a claims settlement procedure where the TCEQ can resolve contractual rights between a supply company and a private party, as well as the TCEQ`s inability to award damages to the money, support our conclusion that the water code cannot give the TCEQ exclusive jurisdiction to terminate BSR`s contractual right. See Subaru, 84 S.W. 3 at 226 (The Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicle Board applies to DTPA and bad faith claims of the dealer based on the code, since the Texas Motor Vehicle Commission code provides a hybrid damage repair process); Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 206-07 (Tex. 2002) (Code of the Automobile Commission, which could not provide a procedure for the board to assert that a manufacturer would have illegitimately refused to accept a transfer request from a dealer, in connection with the Inability of the House to award damages to the money, could be the subject of an informed claim). The Tribunal was therefore responsible for the BSR`s contractual rights. See BCY Water Supply, 170 S.W.3d to 601 (with the complaint that common law claims do not fall within TCEQ`s exclusive jurisdiction for negligent misrepresentation and desolator`s estoppel); See also City of Donna v. Victoria Palms Resort, Inc., No. 13-03-375-CV, 2005 WL 1831593, 5 (Tex). App. Corpus Christi 04, 2005, fart.
filed) (assuming that the TCEQ is not competent to deal with fraudulent business practices and a breach of contract). In 1998, SAWS applied to the TCEQ for a NCC covering several thousand hectares west of Highway 281 in Bexar County to the north. BSR owns 412 hectares west of Highway 281. BSR has the CCSR to provide a retail water service in its 412 hectares, although it has never provided such a service to a customer. The BSR wanted to expand the area covered by the NCC by 800 hectares of land adjacent to the surrounding area (extension zone). BSR`s expansion zone fell within the country covered by the SAWS application for an NCC. BSR also protested SAWS` application to TCEQ because BSR wanted to extend its NCC to the extension area. The Bexar County Metropolitan Water District (Bexar Met) filed a similar complaint with TCEQ. Utility service rules set out guidelines for service extension for SAWS water, sanitation and recycling customers. To achieve the goal of the water code, water supply or sewerage, including water or pipeline services, cannot be provided directly or indirectly by a distribution company or a water or sanitation company, unless the supply or service company first receives a certificate from the TCEQ requiring the current or future public comfort and necessity of this facility, operation or extension.
. Id. 13.242 (a). The TCEQ is therefore in favour of granting an NCC, id. 13.246 (b), c) and allows all parties involved in an NCC application to intervene in the application during an oral proceeding. See p. 13.246 (a). However, bSR is a violation of the common law of contractual rights against SAWS. Chapter 13 does not provide for a procedure for resolving such disputes. Although the TCEQ has the power to impose sanctions, it does not have the power to award damages. On February 15, 2000, representatives of BSR and SAWS conducted contract negotiations to resolve their disputes and finally concluded a water supply contract and agreement on the colonization of service areas.
Commitments made by the parties under the agreement include: (1) The RSB has agreed to withdraw its request for a contentious hearing because of its opposition to SAWS` application for the NCC and has agreed to submit a letter supporting SAWS` request to extend its NCC in the areas relating to BSR s-CCN; (2) SAWS expressed its willingness not to oppose and to support any attempt by the SRO to expand the scope of its NCC, provided such an enlargement falls within the boundaries of the extension area; (3) SAWS has agreed not to refuse