Judge puts an end to lawsuit between industry giants

A decision by a state district judge in Travis County on Monday put an end, at least for now, to the bitter dispute between former partners the Lower Colorado River Authority and the San Antonio Water System, who joined forces after the 2002 Legislature agreed they should explore together if enough water existed in the Colorado River basin to share with the thirsty city to the southwest.
It appears SAWS may not have understood they were entering into a contract with an entity that could always play the governmental agency card in the case of a lawsuit. LCRA now seems to sit in the catbird seat, untouchable due to its quasi-state agency status after Judge Stephen Yelonosky ruled that LCRA was protected by sovereign immunity rules, which limit lawsuits against governmental agencies.
“Contracts and agreements between local governments throughout the state have been called into question by LCRA’s claim that they can’t be sued,” a press release issued by SAWS stated. “Any governmental agency that currently has an agreement with LCRA should be highly concerned that it could fall victim to LCRA backing out of the agreement without any recourse.”
In the lawsuit, SAWS asked LCRA to pay $1.23 billion, the amount SAWS claims it needs to desalinate enough seawater to make up for the water it would have received if LCRA had stuck to the bargain. But LCRA has repeatedly said it never promised to provide any water – only to study the issue to see if it was feasible. The studies, which cost nearly $38 million, showed last year that no water was available from the Colorado River basin for San Antonio.
“Our job is to protect the Colorado River basin,” said LCRA spokesperson Robert Cullick in an August interview. “Our job is not to make the project work. It is to do the science.”
According to the terms of the agreement between the two, if SAWS cancels the contract, LCRA will be responsible for half the costs of the study, or $18 million.
A spokesperson for LCRA said the entity feels the $18 million was well spent.
“We have learned a lot about our environment and the needs in the basin,” said Emlea Chanslor. “That is beneficial to LCRA and its customers.”
Chanslor said LCRA feels confident it has complied with the terms of the contract and she agreed that the ball is now in SAWS’ court.
To this point, LCRA has spent more than $800,000 in costs related to the lawsuit.
“LCRA is pleased that it no longer has to spend public ratepayer dollars defending itself in such a wasteful lawsuit,” said General Manager Tom Mason. “We all would be much better off spending our time and money planning for future water needs.”
SAWS board of directors were still in talks about what their next step will be, according to spokesperson Sara Gatewood.