City of San Antonio v. Lower Colorado River Authority
369 S.W.3d 231
Tex. App.2011Background
- SAWS sued LCRA for breach of contract related to a plan to increase Colorado River usable water output and allow SAWS to buy up to 150,000 acre-feet annually.
- SAWS financed over 43 million dollars for Study Period analyses; LCRA retained exclusive ownership of the studies.
- The contract provided remedies for default, with SAWS able to terminate the Study Period at any time and LCRA able to terminate only if capital costs increased and SAWS refused.
- In 2008, LCRA changed project parameters, concluding the updated plan would not yield water for SAWS under the new scheme.
- SAWS alleged damages exceeding one billion dollars or restitution damages for SAWS’s study costs and other expenditures.
- LCRA asserted governmental immunity, first via the Local Government Code sections 271.152 and 271.158, and the trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction which SAWS appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the contract fall within 271.152’s waiver of immunity? | SAWS contends the contract is subject to the subchapter and thus immunity is waived. | LCRA contends the contract is not for goods/services to LCRA, so it is not within 271.152. | Yes; contract satisfies 271.152, waiving immunity. |
| Is 271.153 a proper basis to defeat immunity at the pleading stage? | 271.153 limits liability but does not address immunity from suit; it cannot defeat jurisdiction. | SAWS seeks consequential damages precluded by 271.153, so immunity should attach. | 271.153 is not a proper basis to grant a plea to the jurisdiction; immunity remains waived. |
| Does 271.158 nullify any waiver under 271.152 when addressing immunity from suit? | Silence or inconsistency in 271.158 does not negate a waiver under 271.152. | 271.158 implies no grant of immunity from suit, potentially supporting continued immunity. | 271.158 does not negate the waiver under 271.152; immunity remains waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (immunity from suit vs liability; damages limitations do not decide immunity)
- Kirby Lake Development, Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Authority, 320 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2010) (271.153 limits liability, not the existence of liability; two-step approach)
- City of Mesquite v. PKG Contracting, Inc., 263 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008) (immunity and liability separate; liability limitations do not defeat immunity at pleading)
- City of North Richland Hills v. Home Town Urban Partners, Ltd., 340 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2011) (section 271.153 at merits-stage, not jurisdiction; balance due goes to merits)
- Clear Lake City Water Authority v. M.C.R. Corp., 2010 WL 1053057 (Tex. App.-Hou. [1st Dist.] 2010) (statutory limitations on recoverable damages do not deprive jurisdiction; merits focus)
- City of Houston v. Southern Electric Services, Inc., 273 S.W.3d 739 (Tex. App.-Hou. 2008) (liability limitations addressed on merits, not jurisdiction)