Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Bragg

OPINION

Opinion by:

In an opinion and judgment dated August 28, 2013, we reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. On September 26, 2013, appellees filed a motion for rehearing. We deny the motion; however, we withdraw our opinion and judgment of August 28, 2013, and issue this opinion and judgment in their place.

This appeal presents numerous issues regarding the regulation and permitting of the limited water resources within the Edwards Aquifer region of South Texas. Appellants Glenn and JoLynn Bragg are commercial pecan growers who were denied a water permit for one of their pecan orchards and granted a limited permit for another of their pecan orchards. The Braggs successfully sued Edwards Aquifer Authority (“the Authority”) and Roland Ruiz in his official capacity as General Manager of the Authority for an alleged taking of their property and obtained a judgment awarding them damages.

The Authority and Ruiz now appeal asserting: (1) the Braggs sued the wrong party because the State’s mandate of the Authority’s actions precludes a takings claim against the Authority; (2) the Braggs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations; (3) no compensation is owed *124for any taking of the Braggs’ Home Place Orchard; (4) the trial court incorrectly determined the amount of compensation owed for any taking of the Braggs’ D’Han-is Orchard; (5) the Authority’s permitting decision did not cause a taking of the Home Place Orchard or the D’Hanis Orchard; and (6) if it prevails, it is entitled to attorney’s fees. In their cross-appeal, the Braggs contend the trial court erred (1) in calculating the compensation owed to them on both takings claims and (2) by concluding the Authority’s denial of their permit applications did not amount to per se or categorical taking. We conclude the trial court properly determined the implementation of the Act resulted in a takings of the Braggs’ property. However, because the trial court erred in quantifying the compensation owed to the Braggs, we reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

The Braggs own two properties that are located over the Edwards Aquifer. In 1979, the Braggs purchased the sixty-acre Home Place Orchard, which is their homestead and a commercial pecan orchard. Soon after purchasing the property, the Braggs cleared the land and planted 1,820 pecan seedlings. In 1980, the Braggs drilled an Edwards Aquifer well and installed an irrigation system on the Home Place property. In 1983, the Braggs purchased the forty-two-acre D’Hanis Orchard, which since 1979 had been planted with 1,500 pecan trees and is a commercial pecan orchard. Initially, the D’Hanis trees were adequately irrigated from shallow, non-Edwards Aquifer wells on neighboring property. Eventually this water source became inadequate and the Braggs obtained a permit to drill an Edwards Aquifer well from the only regulatory authority in existence at the time, the Medina County Groundwater Conservation District. The Braggs completed this well on the D’Hanis property in 1995.

In 1993, the Texas Legislature enacted the Edwards Aquifer Act (the “Act”) to manage the aquifer and to sustain the diverse economic and social interests dependent on the aquifer. Act §§ 1.01, 1.06;1 Barshop v. Medina Cnty. Underground Water Conservation Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618, 623-24 (Tex.1996). To carry out its conservation mandate in the face of anticipated increases in withdrawal of water from the aquifer and the potentially devastating effects of a drought, the Legislature created the Edwards Aquifer Authority. See Act § 1.02; Barshop, 925 S.W.2d at 623-24; see also Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Chemical Lime, Ltd., 291 S.W.3d 392, 394 (Tex.2009). The Authority is a conservation and reclamation district authorized by Texas Constitution arti-*125ele XVI, section 59, and is “a governmental agency and a body politic and corporate,” and a “conservation and reclamation” district and a political subdivision of the State of Texas. Barshop, 925 S.W.2d at 624; see Act § 1.02. The Act empowers the Authority to implement a comprehensive regulatory scheme to control and manage the use of the Edwards Aquifer, and regulate groundwater withdrawals from the aquifer. See Act §§ 1.11, 1.14; Barshop, 925 S.W.2d at 624. The Legislature also directed the Authority to manage groundwater withdrawals from the aquifer by a permit system.2 Act § 1.15. The Authority is responsible not only for permitting groundwater use but for “protect[ing] terrestrial and aquatic life,” specifically, “species that are designated as threatened or endangered under applicable federal or state law.” Id. §§ 1.01, 1.14(a)(7).

In the Act, the Legislature established an aquifer-wide cap on water withdrawals by nonexempt wells of 450,000 acre-feet of water per year through 2007 and 400,000 acre-feet per year thereafter. Id. § 1.14(b), (c). It authorized the Authority to review and increase the cap if after appropriate study, implementation of water management and drought planning strategies, and consultation with state and federal agencies, the Authority determines that additional water is safely available from the aquifer. Id. § 1.14(d); see Barshop, 925 S.W.2d at 624. The permit system established by the Legislature gives preference to “existing users,” which the Act defines as people who have withdrawn and beneficially used underground water from the aquifer on or before June 1,1993. Act § 1.03(10); Barshop, 925 S.W.2d at 624. Under the Act, the Authority may grant initial regular permits (“IRPs”) only to existing users who properly file a “declaration of historical use,” and who can establish, by “convincing evidence,” beneficial use of underground water withdrawn between June 1, 1972, and May 31, 1993. Act §§ 1.16(a), (b), (d).

The Act entitles an existing user to a permit allowing the user to withdraw an amount of water equal to the user’s maximum beneficial use of water without waste during any one calendar year of the historical period, unless the aggregate total of such use throughout the aquifer exceeds the 450,000 acre-foot cap.3 Id. § 1.16(e). If this occurs, the Legislature has directed that the Authority proportionately adjust the amount of water authorized for withdrawal under the permits to meet the cap. Id. This downward adjustment is limited in two circumstances: (1) an existing irrigation user must receive a permit of not less than two acre-feet a year for each acre of land the user actually irrigated in any one calendar year during the historical period; and (2) an existing user who operated a well for three or more years during the historical period must receive a permit for at least the average amount of water withdrawn annually during the historical period. Id. Subject to certain restrictions, permitted water rights may also be sold or leased. Id. §§ 1.22,1.34.

*126Although legislatively decreed to become effective on September 1, 1993, due to several lawsuits, the Act did not become effective until 1996. See Chemical Lime, Ltd., 291 S.W.3d at 393 (“As it happened, the Authority began operations the day we issued our opinion [in Barshop ] and thus became effective.”). The Act allows existing users to “apply for an initial regular permit by filing a declaration of historical use of underground water withdrawn from the aquifer during the historical period from June 1, 1972, through May 31, 1993.” See Act § 1.16(a). The application requires applicants to “[s]tate the amount of Edwards Aquifer water that you claim as your maximum beneficial use without waste during any one calendar year of the historical period (June 1, 1972 through May 31, 1993) in acre-feet....” The Braggs applied for IRPs for their Home Place and D’Hanis orchards in which they specified their use of groundwater for 1996; a period well after the end of the historical period. For the Home Place Orchard, the Braggs claimed as their maximum beneficial use 228.85 acre-feet of water, and they stated in the application the following: “Well also supplies water for house use. Irrigation water is used to water the pecan orchard and the Historical Use should not be applicable because trees require more water each year as they reach maturity.” For the D’Hanis Orchard, the Braggs claimed as their maximum beneficial use 193.12 acre-feet of water.

As a result of their use of water during the historical period of 1972 through 1993 on the Home Place Orchard, the Braggs were granted a permit for 120.2-acre feet of Edwards Aquifer water per year. Because the Braggs had no historical use on the D’Hanis Orchard, that permit application was denied. On November 21, 2006, the Braggs sued the Authority for an alleged taking of their property and for violation of their federal civil rights. The suit was removed to federal court, where the federal court dismissed the Braggs’ civil rights claims and remanded the takings claims back to state court.

In state court, the Braggs moved for a partial summary judgment on liability for the takings claims. The Authority also moved for a partial summary judgment on various legal issues. The trial court denied the Authority’s motion and granted the Braggs’ motion, concluding the Authority’s actions resulted in a regulatory taking. A bench trial was then held on the issue of compensation due to the Braggs, which involved a determination of the amount of water they were entitled to and the value of that water. In its final judgment, the trial court ruled that (1) the Braggs did not suffer a physical, or a per se or categorical taking of their property and the property still had value; (2) the Authority’s denial of the permit application for the D’Hanis Orchard amounted to a regulatory taking for which they are entitled to $134,918.40 in compensation; (3) the Authority’s granting of the permit application on the Home Place Orchard for an amount less than requested by the Braggs amounted to a regulatory taking for which they are entitled to $597,575.00 in compensation; and (4) limitations did not bar the Braggs’ claims. Both parties filed notices of appeal.

IS THE STATE OF TEXAS, RATHER THAN THE AUTHORITY, THE PARTY LIABLE FOR ANY TAKINGS RESULTING FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY ACT

In its conclusions of law, the trial court concluded the Authority “acted solely as mandated by the Act and without discretion in denying the D’Hanis Application and in granting a permit on the Home *127Place Property for 120.2 acre-feet of annual Edwards Aquifer water withdrawals.” In its first issue on appeal, the Authority argues that as a result of this conclusion, any liability for a taking resulting from the Authority’s non-discretionary implementation of the Act lies with the State of Texas and not with the Authority. Therefore, according to the Authority, the Braggs should have sued the State on their takings claims. The Braggs counter that the Authority was the governmental actor whose actions resulted in a taking of their rights in their groundwater, and, regardless of whether the State might also be a proper defendant, the Authority bears liability for justly compensating them. This issue appears to be a case of first impression in Texas.4

The Texas Constitution expressly provides that “[n]o person’s property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made....” Tex. Const, art. I, § 17. Here, the Act expressly provides that the Legislature “intends that just compensation be paid if implementation of [the Act] causes a taking of private property or the impairment of a contract in contravention of the Texas or federal constitution.” Act § 1.07. “Based on this provision in the Act, we must assume that the Legislature intends to compensate Plaintiffs for any taking that occurs.” Barshop, 925 S.W.2d at 681.

The Authority relies on Barshop, in part, for its argument that the State is the governmental actor with regard to Edwards Aquifer regulation and should provide compensation if a takings results from the Act’s application. We believe the Authority reads Barshop too broadly. The Supreme Court stated “the State still can take the property for a public use as long as adequate compensation is provided.” Id. at 680. And, as stated above, the Court noted “the Legislature” intended compensation for any taking that occurs. Id. at 631. However, the Court also noted “the Authority may constitutionally take property as long as it provides adequate compensation.” Id. at 628 (emphasis added). We do not believe any language in the opinion should be read as a recognition by the Supreme Court that only the State or only the Authority is liable for any takings under the Act. Neither liability nor what entity pays if liable was an issue considered by the Barshop Court and could not have been the issue because, as that Court noted, the Authority at the time was not yet operating due to delays arising from litigation. Therefore, we believe the issue of which entity must provide compensation for a takings claim — the State or the Authority — was not decided by the Barshop Court.

The Authority also relies on various cases for the proposition that where a subordinate level of government merely enforces a state statute and, in doing so, violates the constitution, the state and not the subordinate level of government is the liable party.

In Echols v. Parker, Echols and four other plaintiffs participated in the peaceful boycott and picketing of a Sunflower, Mississippi pharmacy. 909 F.2d 795, 797 (5th Cir.1990). The owner of the pharmacy, *128Parker, was Sunflower’s mayor. Parker contacted the county attorney for Sunflower County, Ben Saucier, to ask if the picketers could be prosecuted for their activities. Saucier discussed the problem with the district attorney, Frank Carlton, and then instituted criminal proceedings against Echols in Sunflower County Justice Court under Mississippi’s anti-boycott statute. The plaintiffs were arrested, and subsequently brought a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Parker, Carlton, Saucier, the Justice Court Judge, and Sunflower County seeking a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional. The district court determined the statute was unconstitutional and awarded attorney’s fees. The court also directed the State of Mississippi, although not a named party to the suit, to pay the plaintiffs their attorney’s fees because the local officials involved had been sued in their official capacity for enforcing an unconstitutional State policy. The district court reserved determination of the amount of attorney’s fees. No appeal was taken from this judgment. Eleven months later, the district court entered an order awarding plaintiffs their attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,773.36 to be paid by the State. The State appealed contending the district court erred in ordering it to pay Echols’ attorney’s fees. The State did not argue Echols was not entitled to attorney’s fees; instead, the State asserted it was not liable for those fees. Id. at 799.

The Fifth Circuit concluded the officials involved were acting as State agents when they enforced the Mississippi anti-boycott statute. Id. at 800. The court noted that “[t]he actions taken by the county officials in Echols’ case are more comparable to ‘the duty of a county sheriff in enforcing a state law’ than to any county administrative decision or policy implementation.” Id. The court held as follows:

Thus, the State cannot dissociate itself from actions taken under its laws by labeling those it commands to act as local officials. A county official pursues his duties as a state agent when he is enforcing state law or policy. He acts as a county agent when he is enforcing county law or policy. It may be possible for the officer to wear both state and county hats at the same time, ... but when a state statute directs the actions of an official, as here, the officer, be he state or local, is acting as a state official. Thus, the district court correctly ordered the State of Mississippi to pay Echols’ ... attorney’s fees.

Id. at 801.

In reaching its decision, the Echols court relied on its reasoning in Familias Unidas v. Briscoe, 619 F.2d 391 (5th Cir.1980), where a local Texas school board petitioned a Medina County judge to order a citizen’s group to disclose its membership list. Texas Education Code section 4.28 granted the judge this authority. The judge granted the petition, whereupon the citizens group sued the judge and the school board for injunctive and declaratory relief. The Fifth Circuit ruled the statute violated the First Amendment and one of the plaintiffs was entitled to attorney’s fees. Id. at 402. The court then turned to the question of who should pay the fees.

As to the claims against the defendants in their official capacity, the court stated that “[ajctions for damages against a party in his official capacity are, in essence, actions against the governmental entity of which the officer is an agent.” Id. “Thus, damages may be awarded against a defendant in his official capacity if they would be available against the governmental entity, itself.” Id. The court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services, which held that school districts and local governments *129are “persons” subject to suit under section 1983, “where, as here, the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a ... decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.” 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). The Fifth Circuit concluded that the request for implementation of section 4.28, voted by the Board of Trustees, represented the official policy of the Hondo Independent School District, and, therefore, the district was liable to one of the plaintiffs for nominal damages based on the implementation of that policy. Briscoe, 619 F.2d at 404.

The court, however, did not believe the county judge’s compliance with the school board request, by his issuance of the statutory disclosure demands, similarly represented the official policy of Medina County, stating:

... Because of the unique structure of county government in Texas, the judge like other elected county officials, such as the sheriff and treasurer holds virtually absolute sway over the particular tasks or areas of responsibility entrusted to him by state statute and is accountable to no one other than the voters for his conduct therein. Thus, at least in those areas in which he, alone, is the final authority or ultimate repository of county power, his official conduct and decisions must necessarily be considered those of one “whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy” for which the county may be held responsible under section 1983. The narrow authority delegated to the county judge in section 4.28, however, bears no relation to his traditional role in the administration of county government or to the discretionary powers delegated to him by state statute in aid of that role. Instead, his duty in implementing section 4.28, much like that of a county sheriff in enforcing a state law, may more fairly be characterized as the ef-fectuation of the policy of the State of Texas embodied in that statute, for which the citizens of a particular county should not bear singular responsibility. Accordingly, under the standards set forth in Monell we hold that Medina County is not susceptible to liability under section 1983 for [the judge’s] issuance of the disclosure demands.

Id. (citations omitted). The court also stated: “the [State] statute obviously represents the official policy of the State.” Id. As to the award of attorney’s fees, the court concluded that “the Hondo Independent School District and the State of Texas will actually be responsible for plaintiffs attorney’s fees. However, because the court held Medina County was not susceptible to this section 1983 suit under Monell because [the judge’s] actions did not implement or constitute an official county policy the county would share no responsibility for plaintiffs’ fees and costs.” Id.

Finally, in Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. State, Hearts Bluff sued the State and the United States Army Corps of Engineers after the Corps denied its application for a permit based on the State’s designating Hearts Bluffs land as part of a potential reservoir. The Texas Supreme Court concluded Hearts Bluff did not have a takings claim because the State did not have any authority to issue a federal permit. The Court held as follows:

Causation is intrinsic to a takings claim. The governmental entity sued must have taken direct governmental action, or have been the proximate cause, of the harm. Here, neither [the Texas Water Development Board] nor the State of Texas satisfied that requirement. Instead, that characterization fits the Corps, as the only body with regulatory *130authority to grant or deny [the] ... permits.

381 S.W.3d 468, 484 (Tex.2012).

These cases appear to support the Authority’s argument that when an actor has no discretion but to enforce a state law that may be characterized as the effectuation of the policy of the State of Texas embodied in that statute, it is the State that is liable for any injury proximately caused by the implementation of the state law. Here, there is no dispute the Authority’s actions were dictated by the Act. But, even if the Authority may have had no discretion to rule other than it did on the Braggs’ applications, there is a distinction between the cases relied on by the Authority and this case. In those cases, the issue was whether a county or county employee should be held liable for the enforcement of a state law. Here, we have a State of Texas actor (the Authority) enforcing a State of Texas law. See Act §§ 1.02, 1.14, 1.15 (Authority is “a governmental agency and a body politic and corporate” charged with regulating groundwater withdrawals from the aquifer by a permit system).

Also, neither party cites to the Texas Water Code under this argument, but we believe it is relevant that the Water Code specifically allows for suits against water districts. “A person, firm, corporation, or association of persons affected by and dissatisfied with any provision or with any rule or order made by a district is entitled to file a suit against the district or its directors to challenge the validity of the law, rule, or order. The suit shall be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction in any county in which the district or any part of the district is located. The suit may only be filed after all administrative appeals to the district are final.” Tex. Water Code Ann. § 36.251 (West 2008). “A district may sue and be sued in the courts of this state in the name of the district by and through its board. All courts shall take judicial notice of the creation of the district and of its boundaries.” Id. § 36.066(a). “Any court in the state rendering judgment for debt against a district may order the board to levy, assess, and collect taxes or assessments to pay the judgment.” Id. § 36.066(b). The word “district” includes an authority created under section 59, Article XVI, of the Texas Constitution. Id. § 36.001(1). The Authority was created under section 59. Act § 1.02(b).

The Authority also argues whose “purse” will be used to pay for any taking is important in determining who is liable for the taking. The Authority contends the State acts for all the people of Texas and derives its revenue from everyone in the state. On the other hand, the Authority has jurisdiction only within its boundaries, and its funds come from fees paid by permit holders. Therefore, the Authority argues that if the State mandates a taking, liability for that taking should fall on the State, and not just on permit holders. The issue of the sufficiency of funds to compensate claimants who successfully establish a takings claim has been raised twice in the Texas Supreme Court, but not resolved. In Barshop, the claimants asserted the Authority would not possess sufficient funds to compensate them for the taking of their property. 925 S.W.2d at 631. The Supreme Court considered this argument “entirely speculative.” Id. “If an individual landowner’s property is taken and no compensation is provided, that landowner may then bring a challenge to the Act as it is applied or pursue other possible remedies.” Id. “It will be the landowner’s burden to establish a vested property right in the underground water which the Authority eviscerated. The landowner will also have to prove damages and the failure to receive adequate compensation from the State.” Id. “If a landowner establishes *131such a case, then the Act may be held unconstitutional ‘as applied.’ ”

In Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day, the Authority asserted that if its groundwater regulation could result in a compen-sable taking, the consequences would “be nothing short of disastrous.” 369 S.W.3d 814, 843 (Tex.2012). The Authority contended a great majority of landowners in its area could not show the historical use necessary for a permit, and therefore the potential number of takings claims was enormous. Id. “The Authority worrie[d] that the financial burden of such claims could make regulation impossible, or at least call into question the validity of existing permits. Regulatory takings litigation is especially burdensome, the Authority note[d], because of the uncertainties in applying the law that increase the expense and risk of liability.” Id. The Authority argued “the uncertainties are worse with groundwater regulation ... because there is no sure basis for determining permit amounts other than historical use.” Id. The Day Court noted that the Authority had identified only three takings claims filed in the more than fifteen years that it had been in operation. Id. Although the Court acknowledged it could not know the extent to which the Authority’s fears might materialize in the future, the Court stated, “the expense of such litigation cannot be denied,” and “the burden of the Takings Clause on government is no reason to excuse its applicability.” Id. at 843^44.

We believe the Legislature understood the potential financial impact involved when it expressly provided in the Act that “just compensation be paid if implementation of [the Act] causes a taking of private property....” Act § 1.07. But, the answer to the question of who must pay is not determinative of whether the Authority is a proper defendant in takings cases brought pursuant to the Act. Although the Authority’s actions in this case may not have been discretionary and even if the State might be a proper party, we conclude the Authority also is a proper party to a takings lawsuit instituted under the Act.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

One of the issues on which the Authority moved for summary judgment was whether the Braggs’ claims were barred by the ten-year statute of limitations. In its order ruling on the parties’ motions for summary judgment, the trial court stated (1) there was no dispute that the D’Hanis permit application was denied on September 21, 2004 and the Home Place permit application was partially denied on February 8, 2005; (2) the Braggs filed suit on November 21, 2006; and (3) the filing date was more than ten years after the original effective date of the Act (June 28, 1996) but within ten years of the date of the action on the permit applications. The court concluded the Authority’s regulatory scheme tolled the ten-year limitations period and, thus, the Braggs’ takings claims were not time-barred.

On appeal, the Authority asserts it was the enactment of the Act, and not its application, that injured the Braggs’ property values or usefulness and started the running of the statute of limitations. Therefore, the Authority argues the Braggs’ takings claims are time-barred because their claims accrued in June 1996 and the ten-year statute of limitations had expired by the time they filed suit in November 2006. The Braggs counter that (1) because the Authority previously argued in federal court that their claims accrued when the IRP applications were denied, thereby securing dismissal of their related due-process claims, the Authority is judicially es-topped from now asserting that their claims accrued on a different date; and (2) *132their cause of action did not accrue until their permit applications were denied in 2004 and 2005, well within the limitations period.

A. Judicial Estoppel

The Braggs contend the Authority successfully argued in the federal court proceeding that their claims accrued when the Authority denied the IRP applications; therefore, the Authority is estopped from taking a contrary position in this proceeding. The doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a party who successfully maintains a position in one proceeding from after-wards adopting a clearly inconsistent position in another proceeding to obtain an unfair advantage. Ferguson v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 295 S.W.3d 642, 643 (Tex.2009).

On appeal, the parties do not raise the issue of whether Texas judicial estop-pel or federal judicial estoppel applies. However, Texas courts tend to apply federal judicial estoppel law when the prior proceeding was in federal court. Several factors are typically considered when deciding whether to apply the doctrine in a particular case. Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 504, 126 S.Ct. 1976, 164 L.Ed.2d 749 (2006). “First a party’s later position must be clearly inconsistent with its earlier position.” Id. “Second, courts regularly inquire whether the party has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party’s earlier position.” Id. Third, a court may consider “whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped.” Id. “Additional considerations may inform the doctrine’s application in specific factual contexts.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 751, 121 S.Ct. 1808, 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001).

On November 21, 2006, the Braggs filed suit against the Authority, pleading takings claims under the Texas Constitution and equal protection and due process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the Authority removed the case to federal court on the grounds of federal question jurisdiction, the Braggs filed an amended complaint raising additional section 1983 claims.

In their federal complaint, the Braggs stated the Authority denied its D’Hanis application on September 21, 2004, and partially granted its Home Place application on February 8, 2005. The Braggs contended that the denials, in whole or in part, of their IRP applications violated their due process and equal protection rights.5 In its motion to dismiss the Braggs’ section 1983 claims associated with the D’Hanis Orchard, the Authority stated “from the face of the [complaint], it is clear that by September 21, 2004 (the date of the Authority’s decision on the D’Hanis Application), at the very latest, [the Braggs’] cause of action for the alleged injury to their property interests related to the D’Hanis Decision began to accrue — an injury the [Braggs] now claim entitled them to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” [Emphasis added.] The Authority alleged a two-year statute of limitations applied. The Authority then argued, “[The Braggs] initiated this lawsuit on November 21, 2006 — two months after the latest possible date that their D’Hanis Decision due process and equal protection *133claims became time-barred.” [Emphasis added.].

In its order, the federal court held “current law requires § 1983 claims to be brought within the two year statute of limitations window.” Bragg v. Edwards Aquifer Auth., No. Civ.A.SA-06-CV1129XR, 2007 WL 2491834, at *3 (W.D.Tex. Aug. 31, 2007), aff'd, 342 Fed.Appx. 43 (5th Cir.2009). The court also held that for purposes of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12b(6) motion to dismiss, the court “must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe the allegations in the light most favorable to the” Braggs. Id. at *2. The court held that, because the standard governing the accrual of a cause of action under section 1983 is determined by federal law and that standard provides that the time for accrual is when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action, the two-year statute of limitations applied. Id. at *4. The court then considered the issue of when the claim accrued. The court held the claim on the D’Hanis Orchard began to accrue on September 21, 2004 because this was the date on which the Authority gave the Braggs notice of its final order completely denying the D’Hanis permit; therefore, the Braggs knew or had reason to know of their due process and equal protection injuries on that date. Id.

We conclude the Authority’s argument in federal court on the Braggs’ section 1983 claims does not preclude the Authority from asserting a different accrual date in the underlying lawsuit on the takings claims. The Authority’s position in federal court that the Braggs’ section 1983 claim for the D’Hanis Orchard accrued at the latest on September 21, 2004 for the purpose of a two-year statute of limitations period is not “clearly inconsistent” with its position here that the claims accrued at an earlier date. Although the Authority succeeded in persuading the federal court to accept its position that a two-year statute of limitations applied, its position was taken in the context of a section 1983 claim and through the procedural device of a federal 12b(6) motion to dismiss. We do not believe the Authority derives an unfair advantage or imposes an unfair detriment on the Braggs if not estopped because, again, the dispute here is a takings claim and not a section 1983 claim, and here the limitations issue was raised in the context of a traditional summary judgment proceeding. Finally, as an additional consideration, we note that in federal court the Authority did not unequivocally state the Braggs’ 1983 claim accrued on September 21, 2004. Instead, the Authority merely asserted — for the purpose of a two-year statute of limitations period — that the claim accrued “at the latest” on that date. Therefore, we conclude the Authority is not estopped from taking the position that the Braggs’ takings claims accrued in June 1996.

B. Limitations Period

On appeal, both the Authority and the Braggs base their limitations arguments on the application of the ten-year statute of limitations. In an amicus brief filed by the City of San Antonio By and Through the San Antonio Water System (“SAWS”), SAWS argues that because the restrictions on the use of groundwater are not a physical taking, either the four-year residual limitations period should apply or, alternatively, where the claim is for injury to property, the two-year limitations period should apply. We disagree and, as explained below, conclude the ten-year statute of limitations applies.

The Texas Supreme Court has yet to decide which limitations period applies to a regulatory takings claim. See Hallco Tex. *134Inc. v. McMullen Cnty.,