1/2/2018 4:38 PM

Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
No. _________________________
D-1-GN-18-000020 D-1-GN-18-000020
Carrisa Escalante

e
CITY OF MARBLE FALLS, TEXAS, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

ic
MARBLE FALLS 300, L.P., §

Pr
GRANT DEAN, and §
PAUL KING, §

L.
Plaintiffs, §
§

a
vs. § FOR TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

lv
§
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL §

Ve
QUALITY, §
BRYAN W. SHAW, TOBY BAKER, and §

k
JON NIERMANN, in their official §

er
capacities as Commissioners of the §
Texas Commission on Environmental §

Cl
Quality, and §
RICHARD A. HYDE, in his official §
capacity as Executive Director of the § ct
tri
Texas Commission on Environmental §
Quality, §
is

Defendants. § ______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

261ST
.D
Co

ORIGINAL PETITION

Nature of suit
is
av

1. This is: (a) a suit authorized by TEX. WATER CODE § 5.351(a) to review, set aside,
Tr

modify, or suspend an action of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

y

(“TCEQ”); and (b) an appeal of the same TCEQ action authorized by TEX. HEALTH &
op

SAFETY CODE § 382.032(a). The plaintiffs also seek declaratory and temporary and per-
lc

manent injunctive relief.

ia
fic

2. The standard of judicial review for this suit is whether the challenged action or
of

actions of the agency are invalid, arbitrary, or unreasonable.

Un
 3. The challenged TCEQ action is the November 30, 2017, formal authorization by

e
the Director of TCEQ’s Air Permits Division issued to Asphalt Inc., LLC (“Asphalt

ic
Pr
Inc.”), for it to construct and operate a permanent rock crushing plant in Burnet County

L.
at a site lying partially inside the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Marble Falls.

a
(This TCEQ action will sometimes be referred to in this petition as “November 30 agen-

lv
cy action.”) The November 30 agency action determined that Asphalt Inc.’s application

Ve
for its Marble Falls rock crushing plant met the requirements of TCEQ’s Air Quality

k
er
Standard Permit for Permanent Rock and Concrete Crushers (referred to herein as “rock

Cl
crusher standard permit”), which issued nearly a decade earlier.

Parties ct
tri
Plaintiffs
is
.D

4. The plaintiffs are:

Co

a. The CITY OF MARBLE FALLS, TEXAS (“Marble Falls” or “the City”),

which is a Texas home rule city in Burnet County with a current popula-
tion of approximately 7,154 persons according to census estimates. At the
is

time the Asphalt Inc. plans for a Burnet County rock crushing facility pub-
av

licly surfaced, part of Marble Falls’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (“ETJ”)

encompassed the site of the proposed facility and the area was targeted for
Tr

full annexation and was in the growth corridor planned by the City through
its comprehensive plan for long-range development. Since then, the City
y

has annexed part of the site into the City. A majority of the site is in the
op

City limits and its ETJ. The siting of the Asphalt Inc. plant has disrupted
the City’s plans for growth, undermined anticipated tax value to the tune
lc

of millions of dollars over the next few years, and left the residents of Mar-
ble Falls faced with increased environmental and health risks due to the air
ia

contaminants that will be emitted from the Asphalt Inc. facility.

fic

b. MARBLE FALLS 300, L.P. (“Marble Falls 300”) which is a residential

of

property developer in Burnet County. Marble Falls 300 owns a 300-acre

tract of land, known as the Gregg Ranch, south of Marble Falls about 3,700
Un

feet west of the Asphalt Inc. site. Marble Falls 300 purchased this tract
with the intent to develop it as a planned residential community. It is con-

2
 cerned about the adverse health impacts of the Asphalt Inc. plant, especial-
ly with regard to emissions of PM2.5 and silica that will potentially exceed

e
state and federal limits. The nearby Asphalt Inc. plant will lead to signifi-

ic
cant harm to Marble Falls’ 300-acre tract and the company’s investment-

Pr
backed expectations for its development and use.

L.
c. GRANT DEAN whose home is just over 3,000 linear feet from the north
end of the site for the Asphalt Inc. plant, which is where most of the rock is

a
located. Mr. Dean is concerned about the adverse health impacts of the

lv
Asphalt Inc. plant, especially with regard to emissions of PM2.5 and silica
that will potentially exceed state and federal limits. Mr. Dean is also con-

Ve
cerned that Asphalt Inc.’s operation will result in significant harm to his
land, which he frequently uses as a workplace, including using his resi-

k
dence as a model home and raising bees for retail honey, as well as con-

er
cerns regarding harm to the wildlife on his property (Mr. Dean has a wild-
life exemption that requires him to feed deer, migratory birds, quail, and

Cl
turkey) and the potential loss of his wildlife exemption. Additionally, Mr.
Dean has raised garden beds from which he donates a majority of the pro-
ct
duce to Mission Marble Falls. Mr. Dean’s ability to enjoy his property and
tri
to realize his investment-backed expectations associated with the use of his
land is jeopardized by the proposed permit.
is
.D

d. PAUL KING owns a 58-acre tract of land south of the City, near the Asphalt
Inc. plant and directly across Highway 281 from the Marble Falls 300 tract.
Co

He purchased the property in 2014 with the intent of developing the prop-
erty and is currently operating under a development agreement with Mar-
ble Falls and Harvard Investments to bring utilities to the project for his
is

site, called Live Oak Village (“LOV”). LOV is in the city limits of Marble
av

Falls, having recently been annexed. The rock crusher site is only 4,000
feet west of LOV, and concerns about air quality, noise, and traffic as a re-
Tr

sult of the plant have arisen with potential contractors for LOV-related
work. Mr. King is concerned about the adverse health impacts of the As-
y

phalt Inc. plant, especially with regard to emissions of PM2.5 and silica
op

that will potentially exceed state and federal limits. Operation of Asphalt
Inc.’s plant will adversely affect the LOV project in significant ways and
lc

either delay or forestall completely the residential development.

ia

Defendants
fic

5. The agency defendant is the TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALI-

of

TY. TCEQ is the principal state agency dealing with environmental matters in this state
Un

and is specifically charged with responsibilities for permits and authorizations concerning

3
 rock crusher plants and the pollutants they emit. TCEQ undertook the permitting and

e
authorization actions concerning Asphalt Inc.’s Marble Falls rock crusher that are chal-

ic
Pr
lenged in this case. The challenged actions were undertaken in their official capacities by

L.
the TCEQ Commissioners (currently, Chairman Bryan W. Shaw and Commissioners

a
Toby Baker and Jon Niermann) and its Executive Director (currently, Richard A. Hyde)

lv
and his delegated staff. As instructed in TEX. WATER CODE § 5.357, the lawsuit challeng-

Ve
ing these actions is brought against TCEQ itself, and citation will be effectuated by ser-

k
er
vice on TCEQ’s Executive Director at his offices in Travis County, Texas, Building F,

Cl
Suite 4208, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

6. ct
BRYAN W. SHAW, TOBY BAKER, JON NIERMANN, and RICHARD A. HYDE are
tri
defendants in their official capacities, as stated in ¶ 5, above.
is
.D

Venue
Co

7. Venue in Travis County is proper under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§

15.001(b)(1) & (2), 15.002(a)(1), 15.002(a)(3), and 15.016, TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
is
av

§ 382.032(a), and TEX. WATER CODE § 5.354.

Tr

Discovery track
y

8. A Level 3 discovery control plan under TEX. R. CIV. PROC. 190.4 is appropriate for
op

this case.
lc

Factual background to claims

ia
fic

9. The Texas legislature has authorized TCEQ to develop and issue types of pre-
of

packaged, standardized permits—commonly termed “standard permits”—which, at the

Un

time of issuance, are not linked to any specific facility, entity, or location. Rather, through

4
 the Texas Clean Air Act, TCEQ is authorized to develop such standard permits for

e
“new” facilities if they are “similar.” See TEX. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE §§

ic
Pr
382.051(b)(3), 382.05195(a).* Under § 382.05195(i), TCEQ’s Commissioners have dele-

L.
gated to the Executive Director and his staff the authority to issue authorizations to appli-

a
cants to construct and operate facilities under standard permits.

lv
10. The Texas legislature did not give TCEQ carte blanche authority to issue standard

Ve
permits for similar new facilities; instead, its enactment of § 382.05195 specifically condi-

k
er
tioned the permission given TCEQ. TCEQ must first make three specific findings in con-

Cl
nection with issuing a standard permit:

a. that the standard permit is enforceable; ct

tri
b. that TCEQ can adequately monitor compliance with the terms of
is

the standard permit; and

.D

c. that, for permit applications filed after August 31, 2001, all facilities
Co

permitted under this section will use control technology at least as

effective as that described in Section 382.0518(b).
is

§ 382.05195(a)(1)-(3).
av

11. This conditional authorization to TCEQ for standard permits was accompanied by
Tr

removal of the procedural protections afforded the public by the Texas Administrative
y
op

Procedure Act (“APA”), see § 382.05195(g), including APA protections associated with
lc

“public participation in the rulemaking process,” Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.001(2).

ia

12. Against this statutory backdrop, TCEQ determined to undertake development of

fic

a standard permit for rock crusher plants. In doing so, TCEQ also chose to avail itself of
of

the opportunity provided by the legislature to opt out of using the full APA processes for
Un

*
All statutory citations are to the Texas Health and Safety Code unless otherwise specified.

5
 public involvement and for rulemaking in development of the standard permit for rock

e
crusher plants (“rock crusher standard permit”). For standard permits of statewide im-

ic
Pr
pact such as the one at issue in this case, under § 382.05915(b), TCEQ is obligated to pub-

L.
lish notice of a proposed standard permit in the Texas Register and in “one or more

a
statewide newspapers” in order to “provide reasonable notice throughout the state.”

lv
TCEQ published its notice about a proposed standard permit for permanent rock crush-

Ve
ing facilities on February 15, 2008, in the Texas Register (at 33 Tex.Reg. 1413) and the

k
er
Houston Chronicle, Austin American-Statesman, and Dallas Morning News, allowing for a

Cl
30-day public comment period and a public meeting in Austin.

13. ct
TCEQ then proceeded on July 9, 2008, to adopt the standard permit for perma-
tri
nent rock crushing facilities, effective July 31, 2008. It is officially termed the “TCEQ Air
is
.D

Quality Standard Permit for Permanent Rock and Concrete Crushers.”

Co

14. The Asphalt Inc. rock crusher was not on the drawing boards and not a publicized

proposal during the timeframe of development and adoption of the rock crusher standard
is
av

permit. So the City and the other plaintiffs in this case had no objective reason, personal
Tr

and concrete as to them, to be concerned with and to comment on development of such a

y

standard permit.
op

15. Asphalt Inc. filed its permit application for the Marble Falls rock crusher facility
lc

with the TCEQ on August 14, 2017. The application did not bear the signature and seal of
ia
fic

a Registered Texas Professional Engineer.

of

16. The facility would be on a 500-acre site on the west side of U.S. Highway 281,
Un

about ninety feet west of U.S. 281’s intersection with Flat Rock Road, partially in Marble

6
 Falls and directly across the road to the south from the Baylor Scott & White hospital.

e
Operations at the rock crushing facility—both the rock crushing itself and the stockpiling

ic
Pr
of rocks—would include emission of air contaminants, including silica-laden dust (be-

L.
cause the local rocks have unusually high concentrations of this carcinogen), that will be

a
injurious to the health of nearby residents, including many residents of Marble Falls.

lv
These harms will be exacerbated by the fact that Burnet County already is home to seven-

Ve
teen rock crusher facilities, each one of which emits its own air contaminants.

k
er
17. On August 21, 2017, a week after Asphalt Inc. filed its application, TCEQ de-

Cl
clared the application technically complete. Notice of the application was published in

ct
English in The Highlander newspaper on September 1, 2017, and in Spanish in La Prensa
tri
Comunidad on August 31, 2017. TCEQ subsequently held an “informational public meet-
is
.D

ing” in Marble Falls on October 26, 2017. The public comment period ended on October
Co

31, 2017. The City, Marble Falls 300, Grant Dean, and Paul King were among those sub-

mitting written comment during this comment period. Their comments opposed the re-
is
av

quested TCEQ authorization and provided the factual and legal bases for their opposition.
Tr

18. Of special pertinence are the comments submitted by the City. Asphalt Inc.’s
y

Marble Falls plant site is in the City’s ETJ and, as a result, the City’s comments were au-
op

thorized by § 382.112, which allows a city in Marble Falls’s situation to “make recom-
lc

mendations to the commission” in connection with an agency determination that affects

ia
fic

an area with its “territorial jurisdiction.” This statutory provision mandates—using the
of

directive word “shall”—the commission to give “maximum consideration” to the City’s

Un

recommendations about Asphalt Inc.’s plant.

7
 19. In disregard of § 382.112’s mandate, TCEQ failed to give “maximum considera-

e
tion” to the City’s recommendations of October 31, 2017, concerning Asphalt Inc.’s

ic
Pr
plant. In fact, the commission gave the same consideration to the City’s comments as it

L.
gave to all the other comments from the public—which boils down to no consideration at

a
all. TCEQ’s November 30, 2017, response to comments acknowledges the comments and

lv
summarizes what they were, but its “consideration” of the comments amounted to little

Ve
more than a simple recitation of the way the standard permitting process works. TCEQ

k
er
treated the City no differently than any other public commenter in this regard.

Cl
20. The same day that it released its response to comments—November 30, 2017—

ct
TCEQ issued its authorization to Asphalt Inc. to construct and operate its Marble Falls
tri
rock crushing plant under the 2008 permanent rock crusher plant standard permit.
is
.D

TCEQ assigned Registration No. 148112 to the Asphalt Inc. application and authoriza-
Co

tion.

21. TCEQ’s authorization to Asphalt Inc. was not based on facts and circumstances
is
av

demonstrated by Asphalt Inc. during the application review process. Instead, the authori-
Tr

zation was based on passive acceptance of Asphalt Inc.’s representations in forms it filled
y

out (TCEQ Form 20335 and TCEQ Form 20463) and submitted to TCEQ. Among these
op

representations is Asphalt Inc.’s untested recitation that the capital costs for its Marble
lc

Falls plant would not be more than $2,000,000.00. The record made thus far fails to re-
ia
fic

flect any fact-based demonstration by Asphalt Inc. to support its capital cost assertion.
of

TCEQ’s failure to require Asphalt Inc. to demonstrate its capital costs, and thus allow
Un

Asphalt Inc. to avoid having its application sealed by a professional engineer, is but one of

8
 many examples of how TCEQ has violated its own rules at 30 Tex. Admin. Code §

e
116.610(a)(3) by failing to require the applicant to demonstrate that the project will com-

ic
Pr
ply with relevant air quality statutes and regulations.

L.
22. The same failing also stands out with regard to TCEQ’s evaluation of the actual

a
environmental impacts of Asphalt Inc.’s operation.

lv
23. The legal process ensuing from TCEQ’s November 30 authorization is not laid

Ve
out precisely or clearly in pertinent legislation, although the better reading of the govern-

k
er
ing provisions is that those opposing the initial staff authorization, especially including

Cl
municipalities such as the City, are entitled to seek review by the TCEQ Commissioners

ct
themselves through the timely filing of motions for such review. Nonetheless, inasmuch
tri
as subject matter jurisdiction issues could be implicated, Plaintiffs have opted for a two-
is
.D

pronged precautionary approach. First, they have timely filed this lawsuit. Second, and in
Co

addition, both the City (on the one hand) and Marble Falls 300, Grant Dean, and Paul

King (on the other) have timely filed motions with the TCEQ Commission itself. On De-
is
av

cember 22, 2017, the City filed a Motion to Overturn the November 30 authorization to
Tr

Asphalt Inc. and the other three plaintiffs here filed a Motion for Reconsideration or Re-
y

hearing and to Overturn or, Alternatively, a Variance. Both filings were with the TCEQ
op

Commissioners, with the Motion for Reconsideration or Rehearing and to Overturn or,
lc

Alternatively, a Variance also being filed with the Executive Director. The Commission-
ia
fic

ers have taken no action on these filings as of the date of the filing of this original petition.
of

24. TCEQ is unable to establish, either generally or specifically as applied to the As-
Un

phalt Inc. Marble Falls rock crushing plant, that its standard permit for permanent rock

9
 crushing facilities is enforceable, that TCEQ can adequately monitor compliance with the

e
terms of the standard permit, or that its standard permit for permanent rock crushing fa-

ic
Pr
cilities as applied to the Asphalt Inc. Marble Falls plant in particular requires the control

L.
technology used there to be at least as effective as described in § 382.0518(b).

a
25. One problem is TCEQhas failed to properly address particulate emissions. For a

lv
long time, there was no methodology for evaluating PM2.5 emissions. Instead, the United

Ve
States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) temporarily allowed the evaluation

k
er
methodology for PM10 emissions, modified, to serve as a surrogate for PM2.5 evaluation.

Cl
26. However, the use of that surrogate methodology should have been discontinued

ct
long before Asphalt Inc.’s application ever arrived at the TCEQ. A 2011 change in federal
tri
regulations and subsequent guidance by the EPA made clear that the methodology used
is
.D

by TCEQ in its 2008 adoption of its standard permit for permanent rock crushing facili-
Co

ties is no longer allowed. Thus, TCEQ’s standard permit for permanent rock crushing

facilities violates the Texas Clean Air Act, including § 382.051(d).

is
av

27. Nothing in the TCEQ Response to Comments indicates that TCEQ is complying
Tr

with the current procedure for evaluating PM2.5 emissions in this matter, even though
y

the issue was identified in a comment. Independent air emissions modeling performed by
op

Plaintiffs of the proposed Asphalt Inc. facility indicate that the lawful PM2.5 standard will
lc

likely be exceeded, as will other standards, including without limitation the allowable
ia
fic

emissions for silica.

of

28. The allegations of harm to Plaintiffs set forth in ¶ 4, above, are repeated here by
Un

incorporation.

10
 Claims

e
Count 1 – statutory violation

ic
Pr
29. By failing to respond to all comments submitted regarding the application of As-

L.
phalt Inc. LLC, TCEQ acted ultra vires, beyond its statutory authority, and has violated §

a
382.05195(d). Thus, the standard permit for permanent rock crushing plants, effective

lv
July 31, 2008, is illegal as applied to Plaintiffs through the authorization of November 30,

Ve
2017, for the Asphalt Inc. Marble Falls rock crushing plant to be constructed and operated

k
er
under the standard permit for permanent rock crusher plants, because it violates §

Cl
382.05195 and basic principles of administrative law.

Count 2 – rule and statutory violation ct

tri
30. By failing to require an affirmative demonstration, as opposed to mere recitation,
is
.D

by Asphalt Inc. that its Marble Falls plant meets the requirements of the standard permit
Co

for rock crushers, TCEQ has violated 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 116.610(a), which imposes

a state law requirement that incorporates federal Clean Air Act requirements that facili-
is
av

ties such as Asphalt Inc.’s “demonstrate” the facts necessary to be authorized to operate
Tr

under a standard permit. Neither the subject application, nor the TCEQ evaluation of
y

that application, properly addresses the question of PM2.5 emissions from the proposed
op

rock crusher operation. This, in turn, violates the Texas Clean Air Act, including §§
lc

382.018(b), 382.051(d), and 382.05195(a)(3).

ia
fic

Count 3 – constitutional violation (improper delegation of legislative authority)

of

31. Alternatively, if the standard permit for rock crushing plants, effective July 31,
Un

2008, is not illegal as applied to Plaintiffs through the authorization of November 30,

11
 2017, for the Asphalt Inc. Marble Falls rock crushing plant as alleged in ¶ 29, above, then-

e
the statutory scheme in § 382.05195 for issuance of standard permits is unconstitutional

ic
Pr
under Article I, § 2, and Article III, § 1, of the Texas Constitution because it is a standard-

L.
less delegation of legislative authority. In the absence findings that Asphalt, Inc. LLC has

a
affirmatively demonstrated that it meets the requirements of 30 Tex. Admin. Code §

lv
116.610(a)(3), which should, but, nonetheless, do not, accompany TCEQ’s order on

Ve
standard permits for permanent rock crushing plants or its authorization to Asphalt, Inc.,

k
er
and in the absence of any statutory or administrative law requirement that TCEQ make

Cl
such findings, the legislature has failed in § 382.01595 to provide the constitutional mini-

ct
mum of reasonable standards to TCEQ to exercise the authority delegated to it by the leg-
tri
islature.
is
.D

Count 4 – constitutional violation (open courts)

Co

32. The legislative and administrative procedure governing consideration, issuance,

and judicial review of the TCEQ Air Quality Standard Permit for Permanent Rock and
is
av

Concrete Crushers, and TCEQ’s authorization of November 30, 2017, for the Asphalt
Tr

Inc. Marble Falls rock crushing plant violates the open courts provision of the Texas Con-
y

stitution, TEX. CONST. Art. I, § 13.

op

Count 5 – constitutional violation (due process)

lc

33. The standard permit application process utilized by TCEQ for permanent rock
ia
fic

crushers, both in terms of its insufficient notice to the public and its failure to require a
of

permit applicant to actually demonstrate that a facility will achieve compliance with all
Un

relevant standards and criteria under the Texas Clean Air Act and TCEQ rules, violates

12
 the due process rights of Plaintiffs in violation of the due process clause of the Texas

e
Constitution, TEX. CONST. Art. I, § 19.

ic
Pr
Count 6 – statutory violation (City of Marble Falls only)

L.
34. If TCEQ refuses to recognize a procedural right for the City to file a motion with

a
the TCEQ Commissioners seeking review of the staff approval of Asphalt Inc.’s standard

lv
permit application and providing the City’s comments and recommendations to the

Ve
Commissioners for review and consideration, the procedure followed for the standard

k
er
permit and authorization at issue in this case violates § 382.112’s requirement that the

Cl
Commissioners must give “maximum consideration” to the recommendations of a local

government in Marble Falls’s situation. ct

tri
Relief requested
is
.D

35. Based upon the foregoing matters, facts, and claims, Plaintiffs pray for:
Co

a. a declaratory judgment under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 37.004(a)
that TCEQ’s authorization of November 30, 2017, for the Asphalt Inc.
Marble Falls rock crushing plant to be constructed and operated under the
is

standard permit for permanent rock crusher plants effective July 31, 2008,
av

violates § 382.05195(a)(1)-(3) and underlying principles of administrative

law;
Tr

b. alternatively to ¶ 35.a, a declaratory judgment under TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

y

REM. CODE § 37.004(a) that TCEQ’s authorization of November 30, 2017,

op

for the Asphalt Inc. Marble Falls rock crushing plant to be constructed and
operated under the standard permit for permanent rock crusher plants ef-
lc

fective July 31, 2008, is illegal because § 382.05195 violates Article I, § 2,

and Article III, § 1, of the Texas Constitution;
ia
fic

c. a declaratory judgment under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 37.004(a)
that the judicial review provisions governing TCEQ’s issuance of the
of

standard permit for permanent rock crushing plants, effective July 31,
2008, and TCEQ’s authorization of November 30, 2017, for Asphalt Inc.’s
Un

Marble Falls rock crushing plant to be constructed and operated under the
standard permit for permanent rock crushing plants, are illegal because

13
 such provisions and actions violate Article I, § 13, of the Texas Constitu-
tion;

e
ic
d. a declaratory judgment under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 37.004(a)

Pr
that TCEQ’s issuance of the standard permit for permanent rock crushing
plants, effective July 31, 2008, and TCEQ’s authorization of November

L.
30, 2017, for Asphalt Inc.’s Marble Falls rock crushing plant to be con-
structed and operated under the standard permit for permanent rock

a
crushing plants, are illegal because such provisions and actions violate Ar-

lv
ticle I, § 19, of the Texas Constitution;

Ve
e. a declaratory judgment under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 37.004(a)
that TCEQ’s issuance of its standard permit for permanent rock crushing

k
plants effective July 31, 2008, and TCEQ’s authorization of November 30,

er
2017, for the Asphalt Inc. Marble Falls rock crushing plant to be con-
structed and operated under that standard permit, are illegal because they

Cl
violate the Texas Clean Air Act and relevant TCEQ rules, including with-
out limitation §§ 382.051 and 382.05195 and 30 Tex. Admin. Code §
116.610(a); ct
tri
e. a declaratory judgment under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §
is

37.004(a) that TCEQ’s authorization of November 30, 2017, for the As-
.D

phalt Inc. Marble Falls rock crushing plant to be constructed and operated
under the standard permit for permanent rock crusher plants effective July
Co

31, 2008, is illegal because, insofar as it precludes review and maximum

consideration by the TCEQ Commissioners, it violates the rights of the
City under § 382.112;
is
av

f. an order vacating both TCEQ’s authorization of November 30, 2017, for

Asphalt Inc.’s Marble Falls rock crushing plant to be constructed and op-
Tr

erated under the standard permit for permanent rock crushing plants and
TCEQ’s order approving the standard permit for permanent rock crushing
y

plants that became effective on July 31, 2008;

op

e. an injunction against TCEQ, barring it from issuing any further authoriza-

lc

tions or revisions to authorizations for Asphalt Inc.’s Marble Falls rock

crushing plant to be constructed and operated under the standard permit
ia

for permanent rock crushing plants until and unless TCEQ has developed
fic

a new standard permit for permanent rock crushing plants consistent with
§§ 382.05195(a)(1)-(3) and 382.051(d);
of

f. a temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting TCEQ’s November 30

Un

action with respect to Asphalt Inc.’s Marble Falls rock crushing plant from

14
 having any further force or effect from the date of entry of such injunctive
relief;

e
ic
g. such reasonable and necessary attorney fees as may be equitable and just

Pr
under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 37.009; and

L.
h. such other and further relief as may be appropriate.

a
Respectfully submitted,

lv
Ve
__/s/ Renea Hicks_________________
Renea Hicks

k
Attorney at Law

er
State Bar No. 09580400

Cl
LAW OFFICE OF MAX RENEA HICKS
P.O. Box 303187
ct
Austin, Texas 78703-0504
tri
(512) 480-8231
rhicks@renea-hicks.com
is
.D

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

Co

SLEDGELAW GROUP, PLLC

919 CONGRESS AVENUE, SUITE 460
is

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701

av

(512) 579-3600
(512) 579-3611 FAX
Tr
y

BY: _/s/ Brian L. Sledge_________

op

Brian L. Sledge
State Bar No. 00719675
lc

bsledge@sledgelaw.com
Jennifer L. Smith
ia

State Bar No. 04947600

fic

jsmith@sledgelaw.com
of

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Un

15
 Patricia L. Akers, City Attorney
Marble Falls, Texas

e
State Bar No. 11795470

ic
AKERS & AKERS, LLP

Pr
13625 Pond Springs Rd., Ste. 204
Austin, Texas 78729

L.
Phone: 512-600-2305
Fax: 512-233-0801

a
Pakers@txcityattorney.com

lv
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

Ve
k
er
Cl
ct
tri
is
.D
Co
is
av
Tr
y
op
lc
ia
fic
of
Un

16