Rolling Plains Groundwater Conservation District v. City of Aspermont, 353 S.W.3d 756

Rolling Plains Groundwater Conservation District sues City of Aspermont for export fees and a declaratory judgment that Aspermont must comply with the District’s rules and the Water Code provisions.
City wells outside Aspermont but within the District supply roughly two-thirds of the City’s water, which the City transports into Stonewall County.
Legislation in 2003 authorized the District to assess limited export/production fees for water transported outside District boundaries, prompting the District to amend its rules.
District sued after Aspermont refused to pay export fees; also sought late fees, civil penalties, fees, costs, and a declaration of compliance with Chapter 36 and the District’s rules.
Trial court denied City’s plea to the jurisdiction; Court of Appeals held immunity barred past due fees but not the declaratory judgment action; Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Water Code waives governmental immunity for past due fees	Rolling Plains contends §36.102(a) allows enforcement against a political subdivision.	Aspermont argues the waiver is not clear and unambiguous.	Immunity not waived; Water Code §36.102(a) does not clearly authorize suit against a subdivision.
Whether retroactive monetary relief for past due amounts is permissible	Rolling Plains seeks retroactive payments and penalties.	City argues retroactive relief is not allowed under sovereign/ governmental immunity.	Retroactive monetary relief is barred; damages for past due amounts must be declined.
Whether the declaratory judgment action to enforce compliance was properly before the court given immunity	Rollings Plains seeks declaration of statutory compliance by Aspermont.	Immunity bars enforcement actions seeking money; declaratory relief may be separate.	Declaratory relief regarding compliance remains not reached on appeal; issue not before the Court for ruling.

City of Houston v. Williams, 216 S.W.3d 827 (Tex. 2007) (sovereign immunity/retroactive relief considerations in enforcement actions)
Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (prospective relief generally allowed; retroactive relief limited)
Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2003) (immunity framework; statutory waivers require clear language)
City of Midlothian v. Black, 271 S.W.3d 791 (Tex.App.-Waco 2008) (construing Water Code against implied waivers of immunity)
Turtle Healthcare Group, L.L.C. v. Linan, 337 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. 2011) (procedural note on appellate posture and severability of issues)