(Update 2/21/20: The PUC signaled this week that it will hear this case at its next meeting, which is Feb. 27.)

I’ve spent so many days immersed in North Texas water rate research that maybe I should consider a second career in the utility business.

For now I’m still here, sorting out a water controversy that too few residents are even aware of — even though it could hit them hard in the wallet. It’s the rate case brought by Garland, Mesquite, Plano and Richardson against the North Texas Municipal Water District, litigation pending since May in the Public Utility Commission.

This case matters not just to residents of those four granddaddy suburbs but to ratepayers in the district’s other member cities: Allen, Farmersville, Forney, Frisco, McKinney, Princeton, Rockwall, Royse City and Wylie.

The legal proceedings have twisted and turned in Austin for more than three years. Back here at home, the 13 cities have failed for even longer to resolve the rate issue among themselves.

The more I’ve learned, the more certain I am that enough questions — and peculiarities — exist to warrant the PUC putting this case on its docket as soon as possible.

The disagreement centers on the cost-sharing “take or pay” methodology that the 13 cities agreed to for water purchases in a 1988 contract: Each pays an amount based on its highest year of usage; that wholesale charge matters a lot because it’s passed along to residents as part of their monthly bill.

The four granddaddy cities want the rate structure changed because — especially as a result of conservation — they no longer need nearly as much water as they’re contractually obligated to buy. But any change in that rate calculation requires a unanimous vote by all the cities — a tall order when you consider that if the big four pay less, the up-and-comers would have to pay more.

In a 126-page analysis, the State Office of Administrative Hearings recommended the case last March for PUC consideration. The PUC followed up with a May hearing, which ended with commissioners promising to determine whether the case meets the standard of review.

The PUC has never before reviewed a wholesale water rate case; this one seems like the perfect place to start. The administrative law judges’ analysis offered multiple bullet points backing up its contention that the water district is abusing its monopoly position.

The water district’s executive director, Tom Kula, adamantly disagrees with the judges’ characterization. This is “four cities trying to break from an agreement with the other nine,” he told me Thursday.

Likewise, lawyer Jim Matthews, who represented Frisco and Forney at the PUC hearing, made the case I’ve heard from many of the small-but-booming suburbs: “A deal is a deal is a deal.”

Matthews blamed the four granddaddy suburbs for poor planning and for failing to put conservation efforts into effect as early as Frisco and McKinney did. His challenge to the commissioners: “Do you want to reward imprudence?”

That’s not how I see it. The PUC would benefit all residents of the 13 cities by determining whether the rate structure is fair. It’s also a good opportunity to look at transparency and accountability in a district that casts itself as a partnership among member cities, but that controls a massive amount of assets.

Construction crews work on upgrades to the Plant 1 settling basins at the North Texas Municipal Water District complex in Wylie last month. (Ryan Michalesko / Staff Photographer)

Republican state Rep. Jeff Leach, whose district includes Plano, Allen and parts of Richardson, is one of the lawmakers who called on the PUC in May to take action on behalf of what he described as “constituents who ultimately must pay the NTMWD’s monopolistic rates.”

Leach understands the conundrum of the water rate contract. When he met with representatives of the cities about 18 months ago, “It became very clear to me and my staff that there was not going to be any resolution short of the PUC taking action.”

He told me Thursday that he’s more committed than ever to the PUC putting the case on its docket.

What most jumped out at me in the administrative law judges’ analysis is that the contract offers no opportunity to renew or reset it. I have found no evidence of any other “into perpetuity” water supply contract in the state, one that has no end date.

Another troublesome piece of the analysis is the judges’ contention that the district overcharged Mesquite for a pipeline project.

Under a 1972 rule known as Policy 8, if a city requests district help for a capital improvement project, the cost is rolled into its wholesale water rate. In 2002, Mesquite was granted district funding for a new water transmission line to its southeast pump station.

Mesquite city manager Cliff Keheley told me that when his city made the deal, it understood that the debt would be paid off in about 10 years and the rate returned to its lower amount.

But when Mesquite contacted the district about five years ago, staff learned that, due to a water board amendment to Policy 8, the city would never escape the higher rate.

As of today, Keheley said, Mesquite has paid more than $10.5 million to the district for that $3 million water line — and the charges continue.

Although Mesquite originally was told the project would be financed with bonds — meaning a higher debt-service cost — the district actually paid for the pipeline with part of its huge cash reserve.

The water district’s Kula disagreed with Kelehey’s entire scenario. Kula told me that Mesquite “wanted an exception to Policy 8 because they didn’t realize the growth of the city.” He also said the method of funding made no difference in what Mesquite owed.

Construction crews at work at the North Texas Municipal Water District complex. (Ryan Michalesko / Staff Photographer)

Keheley said he doesn’t believe the district had malicious motives, but he maintains a rate correction should have been made. “I think it would have weighed heavily on our decision to pursue a rate case if we saw that the district was willing to pursue resolution of this,” he said.

The district’s water rate has gone from about $1 per 1,000 gallons in 2006 to the current cost of $3 per 1,000 gallons; it is projected to grow to $3.79 per 1,000 gallons five years from now. The costs reflect booming growth, infrastructure maintenance and operations plus new regulatory requirements.

Higher water bills, of which the wholesale cost is just one piece, are understandably a sore subject among North Texas residents. That’s why it seems so unlikely that city managers, each representing a different set of constituents, will ever come up with a solution.

Even before the PUC hearing began in May, chairwoman DeAnn Walker made clear that the three commissioners wouldn’t decide that day on whether to take the case. After hearing from both sides, she expressed skepticism about the cities themselves ever reaching a decision.

Noting that any solution will leave some cities better off and some not so much, Walker said, “people are digging in their heels on whether they are winners or losers and not what the best overall policy is.”

The PUC has a lot on its plate right now — and no deadline by which to consider the North Texas water rate case. But this dispute already has dragged on way too long, so what a relief it would be to see it on the next PUC agenda.

The commissioners may find the rates are just and reasonable, so what’s the harm in them taking a look?