_____________________________________________________________________

AND MICHAEL D. DUNCAN

CALHOUN COUNTY NAVIGATION

DISTRICT

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

LOUIS FOESTER, III AND WIFE,

SHIRLEY FOESTER, Appellants,

CALHOUN COUNTY NAVIGATION

DISTRICT, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

JOSEPHINE FOESTER BISHOP

INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP,

LTD., AND LOUIS FOESTER, III, Appellants,

CALHOUN COUNTY NAVIGATION

DISTRICT, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

WAYNE HENDERSON AND WIFE,

HATTIE HENDERSON, Appellants,

CALHOUN COUNTY NAVIGATION

DISTRICT, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

JAMES E. SHANNON, JR. AND

CAROLYN C. SHANNON, Appellants,

CALHOUN COUNTY NAVIGATION

DISTRICT, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

OPINION

Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and Yañez

Opinion

In their motion for rehearing, the landowners contend that this court improperly reversed the trial court's severance of a particular issue involved in the summary judgment proceeding. That issue is whether the Navigation District's actions in taking the land were void because it failed to file a "takings impact assessment" report. The Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act requires that governmental entities file such a report in certain situations. See Tex. Govt. Code Ann. §§ 2007 (Vernon 2000). However, the Act does not apply to "a formal exercise of the power of eminent domain." Id. at § 2007.003(b)(8).

In our original opinion, we held that the issues of right to take and just compensation may not be severed in a condemnation proceeding. In this case, the Navigation District's compliance with the Act bears directly on the issue of whether its taking of the easement was legally sound. If the Act was applicable, the failure to file the takings impact assessment would render the Navigation District's taking void. Id. at § 2007.044(a). Accordingly, because this issue is so interwoven with the other right to take issues in the condemnation proceeding, we held that the severance was improper. We acknowledge that an action to declare a governmental taking void under the Act may be brought as an independent suit. Id. However, in this case, we hold the appropriate course is to leave all the right to take issues consolidated with the condemnation proceeding.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

______________________________

J. BONNER DORSEY,

Justice

Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 28th day of September 2000.