Sec. 36.066. SUITS. (a) A district may sue and be sued in the courts of this state in the name of the district by and through its board. A district board member is immune from suit and immune from liability for official votes and official actions. To the extent an official vote or official action conforms to laws relating to conflicts of interest, abuse of office, or constitutional obligations, this subsection provides immunity for those actions. All courts shall take judicial notice of the creation of the district and of its boundaries.
(b) Any court in the state rendering judgment for debt against a district may order the board to levy, assess, and collect taxes or assessments to pay the judgment.
(c) The president or the general manager of any district shall be the agent of the district on whom process, notice, or demand required or permitted by law to be served upon a district may be served.
(d) Except as provided in Subsection (e), no suit may be instituted in any court of this state contesting:
(1) the validity of the creation and boundaries of a district;
(2) any bonds or other obligations issued by a district; or
(3) the validity or the authorization of a contract with the United States by a district.
(e) The matters listed in Subsection (d) may be judicially inquired into at any time and determined in any suit brought by the State of Texas through the attorney general. The action shall be brought on good cause shown, except where otherwise provided by other provisions of this code or by the Texas Constitution. It is specifically provided, however, that no such proceeding shall affect the validity of or security for any bonds or other obligations theretofore issued by a district if such bonds or other obligations have been approved by the attorney general.
(f) A district shall not be required to give bond for appeal, injunction, or costs in any suit to which it is a party and shall not be required to deposit more than the amount of any award in any eminent domain proceeding.
(g) If the district prevails in any suit other than a suit in which it voluntarily intervenes, the district may seek and the court shall grant, in the interests of justice and as provided by Subsection (h), in the same action, recovery for attorney's fees, costs for expert witnesses, and other costs incurred by the district before the court. The amount of the attorney's fees shall be fixed by the court.
(h) If the district prevails on some, but not all, of the issues in the suit, the court shall award attorney's fees and costs only for those issues on which the district prevails. The district has the burden of segregating the attorney's fees and costs in order for the court to make an award.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 933, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 966, Sec. 2.43, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Amended by:
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 464 (H.B. 3163), Sec. 2, eff. June 15, 2015.
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 993 (H.B. 200), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case:
Lone Star Groundwater Conservation Dist., Richard J. Tramm, Sam W. Baker, M. Scott Weisinger, Jim Stinson, John D. Bleyl, Jace Houston, Roy McCoy Jr., Rick Moffatt, & W. B. Wood v. City of Conroe, Texas, Quadvest, L.P., Woodland Oaks Util., L.P., Crystal Springs Water Co., Inc., Everett Square, Inc., E.S. Water Consolidators, Inc., Utils. Inv. Co., Inc., & T&W Water Serv. Co., 515 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App. 2017).
Lone Star Groundwater Conservation Dist., Richard J. Tramm, Sam W. Baker, M. Scott Weisinger, Jim Stinson, John D. Bleyl, Jace Houston, Roy McCoy Jr., Rick Moffatt, & W. B. Wood v. City of Conroe, Texas, Quadvest, L.P., Woodland Oaks Util., L.P., Crystal Springs Water Co., Inc., Everett Square, Inc., E.S. Water Consolidators, Inc., Utils. Inv. Co., Inc., & T&W Water Serv. Co., 515 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App. 2017).
· cites it 10× “See Tex. Water Code Ann. § 36.066 (a) (West Supp.”
Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006).
“Laws 4673 , 4686 (current version at TEX. WATER CODE § 36.066(a)) (groundwater conservation districts).”
Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Chem. Lime, Ltd., 291 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. 2009).
· cites it 2× “[72] TEX. WATER CODE § 36.066(g) ("If the district prevails in any suit other than a suit in which it voluntarily intervenes, the district may seek and the court shall grant, in the same action, recovery for attorney's fees, costs for expert witnesses, and other costs incurred…”
David Stratta v. Billy Harris, 961 F.3d 340 (5th Cir. 2020).
“” TEX. WATER CODE § 36.066(b). No parallel provision references the state treasury.”
The Edwards Aquifer Auth. & the State of Texas v. Burrell Day & Joel McDaniel, 369 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. 2012).
“Tex. Water Code § 36.066(g) (“If the district prevails in any suit other than a suit in which it voluntarily intervenes, the district may seek and the court shall grant, in the same action, recovery for attorney's fees, costs for expert witnesses, and other costs incurred by the…”
Edwards Aquifer Auth. Gregory M. Ellis, Gen. Manager of the Auth., in His Off. Capacity & Carol Patterson, Michael Beldon, Levi Jackson, Rafael Zendejas, Susan Hughes, Doug Miller, Ken Barnes, in Their Off. Capacities v. Chem. Lime, Ltd. (Tex. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “See Tex. Water Code Ann. § 36.066 (g) (West Supp.”
Prototype Mach. Co. v. Toledo P. Boulware, Individually & as Tr. Jewel F. Robinson 4-S Ranch Shaver Bandera Ranch, LLC as Successor-In-Interest to Dos Angeles, LP. Zach & Kayla Davis D.M.C. Partners, Ltd. Willie Jo Dooley, L.P. Hayden G. Haby & Doris Y. Haby Hayden G. Haby, Jr., & Denette Haby Coates Melanie & John Jones in Their Capacity as Jt. Representatives of the Ben Jones Sr. Est. & Ben Jones Jr. Est. McDaniel Farms, Inc. Justin Burk D/B/A Burk Farms Robert E. Condry John Boerschig (Tex. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “See TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 36.066(g) (granting district, as prevailing party, its “attorney’s fees, costs for expert witnesses, and other costs”); TEX.”
Schindel v. Edwards Aquifer Auth. (W.D. Tex. 2024).
· cites it 2× “” Tex. Water Code Ann. §36.066 (g). The EAA argues these state-law provisions mandate its recovery of attorney fees in this action because §36.”
— Tex. Water Code § 36.066(a) — 1 case
Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006).
“Laws 4673 , 4686 (current version at TEX. WATER CODE § 36.066(a)) (groundwater conservation districts).”
— Tex. Water Code § 36.066(b) — 1 case
David Stratta v. Billy Harris, 961 F.3d 340 (5th Cir. 2020).
“” TEX. WATER CODE § 36.066(b). No parallel provision references the state treasury.”
— Tex. Water Code § 36.066(g) — 7 cases
Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Chem. Lime, Ltd., 291 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. 2009).
“[72] TEX. WATER CODE § 36.066(g) ("If the district prevails in any suit other than a suit in which it voluntarily intervenes, the district may seek and the court shall grant, in the same action, recovery for attorney's fees, costs for expert witnesses, and other costs incurred…”
The Edwards Aquifer Auth. & the State of Texas v. Burrell Day & Joel McDaniel, 369 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. 2012).
“Tex. Water Code § 36.066(g) (“If the district prevails in any suit other than a suit in which it voluntarily intervenes, the district may seek and the court shall grant, in the same action, recovery for attorney's fees, costs for expert witnesses, and other costs incurred by the…”
— Tex. Water Code § 36.066(h) — 1 case
Prototype Mach. Co. v. Toledo P. Boulware, Individually & as Tr. Jewel F. Robinson 4-S Ranch Shaver Bandera Ranch, LLC as Successor-In-Interest to Dos Angeles, LP. Zach & Kayla Davis D.M.C. Partners, Ltd. Willie Jo Dooley, L.P. Hayden G. Haby & Doris Y. Haby Hayden G. Haby, Jr., & Denette Haby Coates Melanie & John Jones in Their Capacity as Jt. Representatives of the Ben Jones Sr. Est. & Ben Jones Jr. Est. McDaniel Farms, Inc. Justin Burk D/B/A Burk Farms Robert E. Condry John Boerschig (Tex. App. 2021).
“See TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 36.066(g) (granting district, as prevailing party, its “attorney’s fees, costs for expert witnesses, and other costs”); TEX.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.