515 S.W.3d 406
Tex. App.2017Background
- Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District ("District") adopted rules imposing per-producer annual groundwater production limits; a group of large water producers ("Large Water Producers") sued seeking to invalidate those rules.
- Plaintiffs invoked Tex. Water Code §36.251 (challenge to district rules) and the Declaratory Judgments Act, including a claim for attorney’s fees under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §37.009.
- District filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing immunity: (1) the Declaratory Judgments Act does not waive immunity for challenges to rules or for attorney’s fees; and (2) §36.251 and the Water Code control remedies.
- District directors ("Directors") separately pleaded immunity under Tex. Water Code §36.066(a), claiming immunity for official votes and actions.
- Trial court denied both pleas; District and Directors brought interlocutory appeals.
- Court of Appeals: affirmed denial of District’s plea as to merits of rule-validity challenges (courts may hear challenges under §36.251), reversed as to plaintiffs’ claim for attorney’s fees (no waiver supporting recovery), and reversed and rendered dismissal with prejudice of the Directors (official-vote immunity under §36.066(a)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges to groundwater district rules | Plaintiffs: Water Code §36.251 authorizes suits; Declaratory Judgments Act may apply | District: Declaratory Judgments Act doesn’t waive immunity for challenges to rules | Held: §36.251 gives courts authority to hear rule-validity challenges; plea denied as to those claims |
| Whether plaintiffs can recover attorney’s fees under the Declaratory Judgments Act for challenging district rules | Plaintiffs: §37.009 allows recovery of fees; Water Code is cumulative so fees should be available | District: No express waiver in Water Code or Declaratory Judgments Act for fees; specific Water Code scheme disallows challenger fees | Held: Recovery of attorney’s fees not authorized; claim for fees dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Directors are immune from suit for votes adopting the challenged rules | Plaintiffs: §36.066(a) should not bar suits seeking to enjoin ultra vires official acts | Directors: §36.066(a) grants immunity for official votes/actions absent conflict/abuse/constitutional violation | Held: Directors immune for their official votes/actions; claims against them dismissed with prejudice |
| Scope of §36.066(a) immunity when rules are alleged ultra vires | Plaintiffs: immunity limited; ultra vires votes are not protected | Directors: immunity covers official votes unless exceptions apply | Held: §36.066(a) provides broad—but limited—immunity; since no exceptions were pleaded, immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for reviewing jurisdictional facts and pleas to the jurisdiction)
- Federal Sign v. Texas Southmost Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. 1997) (sovereign immunity generally bars suit absent waiver)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (Declaratory Judgments Act does not independently waive governmental immunity)
- MBM Fin. Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., L.P., 292 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2009) (limits on using Declaratory Judgments Act to obtain otherwise impermissible attorney’s fees)
- Lubbock County Water Control & Improvement Dist. v. Church & Akin, L.L.C., 442 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. 2014) (governmental entities have immunity unless waived)
- Patel v. Texas Dep’t of Licensing & Regulation, 469 S.W.3d 69 (Tex. 2015) (redundant remedies doctrine and statutory interpretation principles)
- Tex. A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2007) (interlocutory appeal allowed from denial of plea to the jurisdiction by state official)