# Lower Colorado River Auth. v. Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation Dist.

Supreme Court of Texas, No. 24-0958

**Lower Colorado River Auth. v. Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation Dist., No. 24-0958, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: Does the Water Code or the Administrative Procedure Act set the deadline for suing over a groundwater district's permitting decision?**

Practice areas: water law, administrative law, civil procedure

## Key issues

- Does the Water Code or the Administrative Procedure Act set the deadline for suing over a groundwater district's permitting decision?
- Did the court of appeals even have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal in the first place?

## Factual History
LCRA, a regional water supplier serving a 35-county area, bought groundwater rights from a large landowner in Bastrop County and applied to the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District in February 2018 for eight operating permits to produce up to 25,000 acre-feet of groundwater per year (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 17, 19). The District regulates groundwater use in Bastrop and Lee Counties, and anyone who wants to operate a well there or transport groundwater out of those counties needs its permit (Brief on the Merits (Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District), PDF p. 7). The respondent-intervenors (Andrew Wier, Aqua Water Supply Corporation, the City of Elgin, Environmental Stewardship, and Recharge Water, LP) filed objections to the applications and participated in the administrative proceedings (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 18). The District referred the contested case hearing to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), where two administrative law judges heard the case over six days and issued a 79-page proposal for decision recommending permits for up to 25,000 acre-feet per year with conditions (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 25-26). The District's board voted in October 2021 to grant permits in reduced amounts and issued a written order on November 15, 2021, capping production at 8,000 acre-feet per year (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 26).

## Procedural History
LCRA moved for rehearing on November 22, 2021, the District granted that motion on February 16, 2022, and on May 18, 2022, it adopted a revised order with findings and conclusions (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 27). LCRA filed a second motion for rehearing on June 7, 2022, and while that motion was still pending before the District, it sued for judicial review in Bastrop County on July 8, 2022, saying in its petition that it expected to file a second suit once the motion was resolved (Brief on the Merits (Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District), PDF pp. 8, 14, 20). LCRA says that if a second motion was required, it was overruled by operation of law on September 6, 2022, and that it then amended its petition to challenge that overruling (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 28). The District and the intervenors filed pleas to the jurisdiction arguing the suit was untimely, or alternatively premature, and the trial court denied the District's plea on May 2, 2023 (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 30, 32). LCRA says the trial court never ruled on the intervenors' own pleas (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 32). The District and the intervenors took interlocutory appeals, and the Third Court of Appeals (Austin), following its earlier decision in *End Op, L.P. v. Meyer*, held that the APA's 55-day rehearing deadline governs, that LCRA's first motion for rehearing was therefore overruled by operation of law before the District granted it, and that LCRA's suit was filed too late, and it rendered judgment dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdiction (Brief on the Merits (Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District), PDF p. 9). Chief Justice Byrne, joined by Justice Smith, concurred, writing that *End Op* controlled but was wrongly decided and should be reconsidered en banc, and the court denied en banc reconsideration (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 32). The vehicle in this Court is a petition for review filed by LCRA, which the Court granted on September 4, 2026, setting argument for October 6, 2026, when it was argued. No decision has issued.

## Issues Presented
LCRA presents three issues: whether it exhausted administrative remedies and timely sued by following the Water Code procedures rather than the APA procedures in the post-SOAH proceedings before the District; if the Water Code governed, whether its suit was timely or its amended petition cured any defect; and whether the court of appeals had appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal by parties appealing the denial of another party's plea to the jurisdiction (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 14). The District asks whether the suit was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Brief on the Merits (Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District), PDF p. 7). Recharge Water asks whether the court of appeals erred in holding that under Water Code Section 36.416 the APA's 55-day period for a rehearing motion to be overruled by operation of law applies (Response to Petition (Recharge Water, LP), PDF p. 11).

## Legal Arguments
**Whether the Water Code or the APA governs rehearing and finality after the SOAH hearing.**

**LCRA (Petitioner):** The APA applies only to state agencies, and a local groundwater district is not one, so the APA reaches the District only where the Water Code says so, and Section 36.416(a) says so only for the hearing conducted by SOAH, leaving the District's final hearing, decision, and rehearing to the Water Code (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 36-37). To apply the APA's 55-day rehearing deadline to the District, the statute would have to be rewritten so that "state agency" reads "groundwater conservation district," and "hearing" in Section 36.416(a) means a discrete session, not the whole administrative process (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 48-50). LCRA adds that this Court's recent decision in *Cockrell Investment Partners v. Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District* undermines *End Op* (Reply Brief (Petitioner), PDF p. 9).

**The District and intervenors (Respondents):** Section 36.416(a) requires that the hearing be "conducted as provided by Subchapters C, D, and F" of the APA, and because Subchapter F addresses only the final decision, finality, and rehearing, LCRA's narrow reading would make that incorporation meaningless (Brief on the Merits (Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District), PDF pp. 15-17). The District says "hearing" means "the entire permit hearing process," and that by giving the board authority to make the final decision on a proposal for decision, the Legislature put it in the shoes of a state agency under Subchapter F (Brief on the Merits (Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District), PDF pp. 17, 19-20). Recharge Water adds that *End Op* is the Third Court's settled construction of the statute and that the concurring justices made analytical errors (Brief on the Merits (Recharge Water, LP), PDF p. 17). Aqua and Elgin stress that the District's immunity is waived only on strict compliance with the statutory prerequisites, and Wier and Environmental Stewardship argue that LCRA's first rehearing motion was overruled by operation of law in January 2022 (Brief on the Merits (Aqua Water Supply Corporation and City of Elgin), PDF p. 25; Brief on the Merits (Andrew Wier and Environmental Stewardship), PDF p. 11).

**Whether the suit was too late or too early, and whether amendment cured any defect.**

**LCRA (Petitioner):** Under the Water Code, the District's May 18, 2022 order was final as a "written decision after rehearing," and LCRA sued within 60 days of it, so its suit was not late (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 28, 62). The Water Code does not require a second rehearing motion, and LCRA's precautionary second motion cannot undo finality that already existed, just as a motion for new trial cannot convert a final judgment into an interlocutory one (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 62-63). Alternatively, any prematurity was cured when LCRA amended its petition after the second motion was overruled by operation of law (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 64).

**The District and intervenors (Respondents):** If the APA's 55-day deadline applies, LCRA's first rehearing motion was overruled on January 9, 2022, making its July 2022 suit too late (Brief on the Merits (Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District), PDF p. 14). If the Water Code applies, LCRA sued while its second motion was pending and so failed to exhaust remedies, because the Water Code does not limit a party to one rehearing request and, unlike the APA, has no savings clause for prematurely filed petitions (Brief on the Merits (Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District), PDF pp. 21-24). The District also argues that an amended petition is not a new suit, so it could not cure the defect, and that LCRA's own petition expressed an intent to file a second suit that it never filed (Brief on the Merits (Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District), PDF pp. 24, 27). Recharge Water makes the same alternative argument, that LCRA's second motion was not overruled until September 6, 2022 (Brief on the Merits (Recharge Water, LP), PDF p. 17).

**Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction over the intervenors' appeals.**

**LCRA (Petitioner):** Only the District properly invoked appellate jurisdiction under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 51.014(a)(8), because the intervenors never obtained rulings on their own pleas and four of them are not governmental units (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 69-71).

**Aqua and Elgin (Respondents):** The intervenors were restored to the case when the District's plea was denied and all of them filed pleas to the jurisdiction based on the District's immunity, so LCRA's authorities are distinguishable (Brief on the Merits (Aqua Water Supply Corporation and City of Elgin), PDF pp. 61-62).

## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case
LCRA argued that this is an important jurisdictional question of first impression that split the justices below, that a groundwater owner who guesses wrong forfeits judicial review, and that parties cannot hedge without filing multiple parallel suits (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 15-16). The District argued that review is unnecessary because the courts of appeals do not conflict and the result is the same whichever statute applies (Brief on the Merits (Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District), PDF p. 10).

## Practice Area Tags
water-law, administrative-law, civil-procedure

## Procedural Posture/Vehicle
Petition for review from the Third Court of Appeals (Austin) in an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction; granted September 4, 2026, and argued October 6, 2026. Not yet decided.

## Amicus Involvement
- [Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority](https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=88457617-b384-4ae1-b0fb-5b125c99591a&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=4cd23e8e-096c-4137-b9ea-e883828e67e4) urges the Court to grant review and set a uniform statewide deadline for challenging district permit decisions, taking no position on the merits (see also its [supplemental letter](https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=f7ea5aa9-2526-4eb3-8b6e-51dc29b8ef53&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=660e1d6b-23fb-43dd-8892-f6f7deed6d00)).


---
Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/24-0958. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.