Mailing address:
P.O. Box 224626
Dallas, Texas 75222

Physical address:
2223 W. Jefferson Blvd.
Dallas, Texas 75208

214.946.8000 phone
214.946.8433 fax



Jessica Foster, Associate

= read publication
Publications & Presentations

Survey of Legal Mechanisms Relating to Groundwater Along the Texas-Mexico Border

Texas A&M University School of Law (April 2018)

Governing Ground Water along the Texas-Mexico Border: Legal Mechanisms & Their Transboundary Implications

World Water Congress, Cancun, Mexico (May 31, 2017)

Water Acquisition and Management for Oil & Gas Development: Legal and Regulatory Requirements

co-author(s): and Professor Gabriel Eckstein, Texas A&M School of Law

Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation (CAIL-IEL 2016)

= read opinion
Significant Cases

Aquifer Science, LLC v. Verhines, et al., Cause No. D-202-CV-2014-07209 (2nd Jud. D. N.M. Jan. 29, 2019).

The Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico applied the “conservation” element of the state’s ground water permit statute, NMSA 72-12-3, to uphold the Office of the State Engineer’s denial of a major developer’s (Aquifer Science) application to withdraw ground water in the East Mountains near Albuquerque. In reviewing the application de novo, Judge Shannon Bacon not only agreed with the local landowners who protested the permit that withdrawing the proposed amount of water would significantly impair existing water rights with no feasible mitigation plan, but also concluded that the developer’s application was “contrary to conservation of water within the state,” in violation of NMSA 72-12-3’s requirements. In denying the application, the court rejected Aquifer Science’s claim that that its plan achieved “conservation” by building golf courses as a place to reuse wastewater and determined that Aquifer Science’s other plans to conserve water through efficient appliances, fixtures, and landscaping were “speculative.”  The court also concluded that the developer’s failure to consider the impact of climate change on the supply of surface water—and, thus, ground water—when calculating water demand “suggests a lack of long-term planning regarding conservation.”

Mancilla v. TaxFree Shopping, Ltd., No. 05-18-00136, 2018 WL 6850951 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 16, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.)

Successfully defending trial court’s denial of an untimely motion to dismiss pursuant to the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (the anti-SLAPP statute), finding the 60-day deadline to file the motion was not reset by an amended pleading that “d[id] not alter the essential nature” of the trade secret claim, “of which appellants had notice in the original petition.”

In the Interest of C.E.C., a minor child, No. 05-17-01482-CV, 2018 WL 3062454 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 21, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.)

Successfully upholding judgment, under a clear and convincing evidence standard, terminating parental rights and imposing permanent injunction against a father convicted of child pornography, and placing the child with her grandparents.