Opinion ID: 13808
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Original Judgment

Text: On December 15, 1994, the district court entered final judgment (Original Judgment) in favor of the Utility and against 4 Tex. Water Code Ann. § 13.254 (“The commissioner at any time after notice and hearing may revoke or amend any certification of public convenience and necessity . . . if it finds that the certificate holder has never provided, is no longer providing, or has failed to provide continuous and adequate service in the area, or part of the area, covered by the certificate.”). 5 Id. § 13.255 (addressing single certification in an annexed or incorporated area). 6 This preliminary injunction has not been challenged in this appeal. 4 the City. After noting that under Texas law the Utility had a legal duty to provide continuous and adequate service to residents in the Certificated Area, the district court held that the Utility had, as a matter of law, “made service available” as required by § 1926(b). In the alternative, the district court held that because the Utility had water service lines adjacent to the disputed areas, it had, as a factual matter, “made service available” as required by § 1926(b). The district court concluded that the City had encroached on the service area of a federally indebted water association and thus violated § 1926(b). The district court found that the Utility’s annual net revenue attributable to the disputed areas was approximately $365,000. Accordingly, it permanently enjoined the City from (1) pursuing the Applications; (2) offering to provide or providing service to the disputed areas; and (3) offering to provide or providing water service to areas that lie within the Certified Area but are not currently served by the City, except as agreed to by the Utility. Finally, the court also instructed that the transition of service from the City to the Utility within the disputed areas be accomplished so as to minimize interruption in water service.