Our view: distinguish three different problems
A campus owner says it has a CCN problem. That may mean a disputed service boundary, an incumbent without timely capacity, or an alternative supplier that lacks authority to deliver retail service at the site. Those lead to different solutions. Treating all three as a provider-removal exercise can add a regulatory dispute without bringing water any closer. Start with a parcel-specific service and asset map, then establish which constraint actually blocks the date.
Texas framework: an agreement may need a regulatory decision
Water Code 13.242 establishes retail water and sewer certification requirements and restrictions, subject to its exceptions. Section 13.248 provides a route for service-area and customer allocation contracts between retail public utilities to become enforceable and incorporated into certificates following PUCT approval after the required process. An informal agreement to cooperate is not that approval. Water and electric CCNs belong to different statutory frameworks; a water-service solution cannot resolve an electric territory issue.
Texas Water Code Chapter 13: sections 13.242, 13.248 and 13.250
Separate supply from the right to serve
Buying wholesale water from a regional source is not the same transaction as becoming the retail provider. Our proposed route may leave the incumbent serving the campus while another entity supplies water or builds an extension. Alternatively, a provider agreement may require approved service-area changes. The engineering route, retail arrangement and regulatory path must be consistent before the owner commits to a delivery date.
Keep wholesale supply, retail rights and funding separate
An alternative water source can support the incumbent without changing the retail provider. Conversely, an approved territory change cannot fund the missing treatment or extension. Compare provider-supported routes with an asset and contribution schedule, rather than assuming the largest nearby utility can simply take over. Electricity follows a separate legal framework; do not infer its customer-choice rules from water certification.
The owner’s situation
An illustrative campus lies within an incumbent water provider’s mapped area. That provider needs an off-site upgrade to meet the tenant’s demand. Another utility has infrastructure nearer to the property and is interested in a regional arrangement. The developer wants to start trenching to the nearer main. No one has yet agreed who will own the extension, bill the campus, operate the system or obtain the required approvals.
What we need to establish
Confirm certificate boundaries and orders against a survey, not a broker screenshot. Identify current customers, applicable service rules, capacity reservations and the documented supply constraint. Obtain both utilities’ written positions and the proposed physical interconnection. Have counsel classify the proposed retail, wholesale, transfer or boundary arrangement, including the correct approval route and affected-party process. Investigate easements separately from service rights.
The options we would test
What owners should do
Our proposed execution sequence for this assignment:
Locate the blockage precisely
Reconcile the land, service boundaries, proposed works and phase demand. Produce one factual basis that the parties can discuss without arguing from different maps.
Put a deliverable proposal to the providers
Compare incumbent-led and agreed alternative routes. Allocate the extension cost, stranded-asset exposure, long-term operation and public-system benefits.
Carry the regulatory and asset work together
Coordinate counsel’s filings with the appointed engineers’ design and the owner’s land rights. Separate reversible investigation from works that cannot proceed before approvals.
Close service, not just territory
After the relevant decisions, advance the funded infrastructure and accepted service arrangement. Confirm that the phase can receive the required flow, pressure and quality under documented operating conditions.
How we protect the decision
A partnership is valuable when each provider has a lawful role and a supportable benefit. It is not a backdoor around a certificate. A water district, regional authority or municipality may be a public counterpart; a private utility or member-owned cooperative does not become a governmental entity merely because the project calls the deal a PPP.
What completion looks like
The owner receives an approved service route where required, acquired delivery rights, a funded infrastructure package and provider acceptance of the relevant conditions. A revised boundary without physical service is not resolution. Nor is a completed pipe without authority to operate the proposed arrangement.
What we would track
- Regulatory decisions outstanding
- Unacquired route rights
- Unfunded off-site works
- Date and conditions of accepted phase service
Solve the service arrangement and the physical route together. Winning a map argument does not open a campus.