Texas Attorney Blog

As an attorney, I have represented rural water companies in Texas for years. I have prepared their corporate documents, assisted with government grant and loan applications, and negotiated non-standard and subdivision service contracts, among other things. I have also served as an officer and as a director on the board of a rural water company. Based on my experiences, I believe that many of Texas rural water utilities are struggling, and in some cases, may be headed for a crisis.

Rural water companies (also called community water systems) are, along with rural electric co-operatives, the backbone of American rural life. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimates that nationally, as of 1999, roughly 54,000 publicly or privately owned community drinking water systems provided drinking water to some 250 million people. Here in Texas, water companies are regulated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the "TCEQ"), and through the TCEQ, the Environmental Protection Agency, under the authority of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The problem begins with the fact that many of the rural water companies in Texas are so small. In many cases, the board of directors consists of a small group of farmers or ranchers or local residents, who are almost always great people, but who do not always have the tools or the background to deal with the increasingly complex technological and regulatory requirements imposed on all water companies, regardless of size.

Here in Texas, rural water companies get tremendous technical and legal assistance from our state association, the nonprofit Texas Rural Water Association ("TRWA"). Notwithstanding this help, the diseconomies of scale and the increasing cost and complexity of complying with all the state and federal regulations are taking their toll on rural water companies.

The answer, I believe, is going to be in smaller companies banding together to create county-wide or even regional co-operatives. Initially, these co-operatives could use their buying power to save their members money on chemicals and other supplies. Ultimately, the co-operatives would jointly invest in treatment plants and other infrastructure needed to produce water.

This approach is not without controversy. Many of the small water companies in Texas prize their independence and local control above all else. They will find, however, that their independence comes with an increasingly higher price tag, as the cost of producing potable water and the cost of compliance with ever increasing numbers of federal and state regulations continues to grow. They will reach a point, in the not-too-distant-future, where the fees they must charge to break even exceeds what their communities can afford to pay for water. That time is not far off.

As I indicated in a previous post, a recent decision by the Texas Supreme Court contains an important lesson for Texas attorneys who represent Texas real estate owners, general contractors or subcontractors. Texas attorneys who practice construction law should be aware that, because of this decision, claims by a temporary labor service are covered by the Texas mechanic's lien statutes, and that service can file a mechanic's lien claim, just as an individual laborer can. As a result, when using a contractor who uses workers from a temporary labor service, an owner and/or general contractor must comply with the mechanic's lien statutes, including the portions of those statutes regarding the timing of payment and the withholding of payment to a contractor who has been using temporary workers. The Texas mechanic's lien statutes are complex, and not for the faint of heart. If you are a property owner or contractor, you would be well served by retaining an attorney who is experienced in construction law to review your contracts and explain the time limits in the statutes to you. This is one area where an ounce of preventive legal advice can save you a lot of money later!

It might seem obvious that workers from a temporary labor service should be considered as "labor" under the Texas mechanic's lien statutes. However, this issue does not seem to have been decided until recently by the Texas Supreme Court. In Reliance National Indemnity Co., L&T Joint Venture and Lamar Construction Inc. v. Advance'd Temporaries, Inc. the Texas Supreme Court decided that a temporary staffing agency could, indeed, file a mechanic's lien for unpaid labor services.

The case arose from the construction of an apartment building in Corpus Christi, Texas. L&T Joint Venture, the general contractor, hired Gonzalez, an individual, to do the framing, drywall and roofing at the project. Gonzalez supplemented his crew with additional workers from Advance'd. A written agreement between Gonzalez and Advance'd specified that the workers were employees of Advance'd, not Gonzalez. Reliance was the surety on the job.

At some point, L&T terminated Gonzalez, and paid him through the date of termination. Unfortunately, Gonzalez did not pay Advance'd. Advance'd gave a statutory mechanic's lien notice that it had not been paid to the owner, the general contractor and the surety .

The relevant Texas statute, Texas Property Code Section 53.021, recognizes a mechanic's lien for a person who "furnishes labor" for the construction of improvements on real estate. Being entitled to a mechanic's lien is extremely important, because it allows the claimant to place a lien on the real estate and to foreclose, if necessary, if a claim is not paid.

The general contractor and the surety argued that Advance'd did not actually furnish the labor to the apartment construction, because, in their view, the workers were really employees of Gonzalez, and not Advance'd. The Supreme Court looked to the written contract signed by Gonzalez and Advance'd, noted that the parties had agreed in the contract that the workers were employees of Advance'd, even though Gonzalez directed their work, and decided that the Advance'd claim really was a claim for the furnishing of labor under the mechanic's lien statutes.

A recent decision by the Texas Supreme Court contains some very specific lessons for attorneys who represent temporary labor services who supply workers for Texas construction projects.

Temporary staffing agencies or temporary labor services have become a popular and often cost effective way for a property owner or contractor to supplement a work crew or even to staff an entire construction job. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2005 there were 5.7 million temporary workers, or approximately 4% of the labor force in the United States, with the construction industry accounting for about 13% of that number. Such an arrangement has many advantages for the owner or contractor: the labor service recruits the workers, and is responsible for workers' compensation and liability insurance, payroll and payroll taxes. The labor service simply presents an invoice for the use of the workers to the owner or contractor on a periodic (usually weekly) basis.

It might seem obvious that workers from a temporary labor service should be considered as "labor" under the Texas mechanic's lien statutes. Interestingly, however, this issue does not seem to have been decided by the Texas Supreme Court until recently. In Reliance National Indemnity Co., L&T Joint Venture and Lamar Construction Inc. v. Advance'd Temporaries, Inc., the Texas Supreme Court decided that a temporary staffing agency could indeed file a mechanic's lien for unpaid labor invoices.

In this case, the general contractor and the surety on an apartment construction project in Corpus Christi, Texas, refused to pay the claim of a temporary labor agency (Advance'd) that had supplied labor to one of the subcontractors. The general contractor and surety argued that Advance'd did not actually furnish the labor to the apartment project because, in their view, the workers were really employees of the subcontractor, and not Advance'd. The Texas Supreme Court looked to the written contract signed by the subcontractor and Advance'd, noted that the parties had agreed in the contract that the workers were employees of Advance'd, even though the subcontractor directed their work, and decided that the Advance'd claim really was a claim for the furnishing of labor under the mechanic's lien statutes.

What appeared to be important to the Supreme Court was not simply that the contract stated that the workers were employees of Advance'd, but that the contract contained a number of other terms that clearly showed that Advance'd retained control over the workers:

1. Advance'd was obligated to maintain workers' compensation and liability insurance on the workers.
2. Advance'd offered a limited guarantee on the workers' performance.
3. The contract prohibited the workers from operating any machinery, automotive equipment or working on ladders or      scaffolds without prior written consent of Advance'd.
4. Advance recruited the workers, qualified the legal status of each worker and did all related paperwork.
5. The subcontractor had to pay a fee of $2500.00 to Advance'd if the subcontractor hired any worker within three months      of the agreement.

A simple sentence in the contract between the temporary labor agency and the contractor that the workers are the agency's employees may not be enough. A careful lawyer will spell out the areas of control, and therefore help insure that his or her client will be entitled to claim a mechanic's lien if they don't get paid.