AIRW 2017-7, L.P.; 600 Westinghouse Investments, LLC; 800 Westinghouse Investments, LLC; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; And Jonah Water Special Utility District v. City of Georgetown, Texas, 15-24-00132-CV

Intervenor Jonah Water SUD appeals TCEQ’s issuance of a wastewater permit to AIRW for a Georgetown-area development.
District Court reversed and remanded, focusing on regionalization and annexation issues.
Consent from Jonah under Texas Water Code §13.244(c) was not obtained by Georgetown, blocking service by the City.
AirW’s facility lies within Jonah’s district and water CCN; City lacks authority to provide service without consent.
TCEQ’s regionalization policy is discretionary and includes exceptions; lack of City consent undermines City’s claim to service rights.
AirW’s permit issuance is challenged on two unresolved issues not addressed by the District Court: regionalization compliance and consent-related prerequisites.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court properly reversed and remanded	District Court misapplied substantial-evidence standard	Court correctly found no prejudicial error requiring remand	Reversed; remand improper
Whether the District Court properly analyzed regionalization policy	Policy allowed consideration of costs and denial of service	Policy is discretionary with exceptions; denial not mandatory	Error to remand; policy discretionary
Whether consent from Jonah is a prerequisite for service	City could provide service with consent	Consent is required; without it service cannot be provided	Consent required; lack bar to City providing service
Whether diminution of property value is a valid cost factor	Cost factor supports regionalization and permit approval	Cost considerations are legitimate under policy	Valid cost factor supporting permit under policy

Dyer v. Tex. Comm’n on Env’t Quality, 646 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. 2022) (prejudice to substantial rights required for reversal)
Pub. Util. Comm’n v. Gulf States Utils. Co., 809 S.W.2d 201 (Tex. 1991) (substantial-evidence standard governs agency review)
Tex. Health Facilities Comm’n v. Charter Med.-Dallas, Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. 1984) (harmful error requires prejudice to substantial rights)
Save Our Springs All., Inc. v. Texas Comm’n on Env’t Quality, 713 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2025) (harmless error not reversible without prejudice to substantial rights)
Nobles v. Employees Ret. Sys. of Tex., 53 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001) (injury to claimant required for reversal; harmless error not reversible)