Skip to Main Content
Practices & Industries

Water Utilities

Print Version

Baker Donelson's Water Utilities Team brings together a diverse and cross-disciplinary group of attorneys to effectively serve investor-owned water and wastewater utility clients nationally.

Overview


Key Contacts

Baker Donelson's Water Utilities Team brings together a diverse and cross-disciplinary group of attorneys to effectively serve investor-owned water and wastewater utility clients nationally. Our team's integrated perspective enables us to deliver practical, business minded solutions that reflect how utilities operate – helping clients manage risk, advance projects, and meet regulatory expectations while continuing to provide reliable service to the communities they serve. We represent utility clients in high-stakes litigation, including eminent domain actions and environmental litigation, as well as regulatory matters.

As a full-service law firm, we offer water utility clients the benefit of working with one team, regardless of jurisdiction or legal issue. In addition to regulatory and litigation services, our attorneys counsel clients across a variety of matters, including acquisitions, labor and employment, environmental and crisis response, data privacy and cybersecurity, and government contracts.

Regulatory

We advise water and wastewater utilities operating in highly regulated environments, helping clients navigate the complex and evolving regulatory frameworks that govern rates, service obligations, infrastructure investment, and system expansion. Our attorneys regularly work alongside utility leadership and technical teams to address regulatory strategy, compliance obligations, and agency engagement at the state and local levels.

We understand the practical realities utilities face when balancing regulatory requirements with operational needs, capital planning, and long-term system reliability. This experience allows us to provide guidance that is not only legally sound but also aligned with how utilities operate and make decisions in a regulated marketplace.

Our regulatory work is further strengthened by our attorneys' longstanding professional relationships with utility commissions and public service commissions across our footprint. These relationships provide insight into regulatory expectations, priorities, and processes, enabling us to help clients engage more effectively with regulators and anticipate issues before they arise. We also provide government relations support to assist utilities as they address legislative, policy, and stakeholder considerations that affect their operations and strategic objectives.

Eminent Domain and Condemnation Litigation

In addition to our regulatory experience, our extensive condemnation and eminent domain litigation work provides a perspective that goes beyond traditional regulatory representation. Through this work, we gain direct insight into utility operations, asset planning, infrastructure constraints, valuation, and the business considerations that drive real-world decision-making. Over the past two decades, Baker Donelson has helped utility companies retain and/or secure truly fair compensation for utility systems valued in excess of $2 billion.

Condemnation matters place us at the intersection of engineering, finance, operations, and public service obligations. As a result, we develop a granular understanding of how utilities actually and technically operate, plan and prioritize projects, evaluate alternatives, and justify investments – knowledge that cannot be gained through regulatory proceedings alone.

This combination of regulatory capability and hands-on condemnation litigation experience allows us to advise utilities with a more complete understanding of their operational and business realities. Clients benefit from counsel who appreciate not only what the regulations require, but how those requirements play out in the development, expansion, and protection of critical water infrastructure.

Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

  • Advising a private, investor‑owned water utility on community‑relations and regulatory strategy related to a large‑scale lead service line replacement initiative, including coordination with state and local governmental stakeholders.

  • Advised a private, investor-owned water utility in navigating new "Fair Market Value" legislation and regulations to achieve favorable results in negotiated acquisitions.

  • Represented a large, privately owned water utility company in Montana in an eleven day "right-to-take" condemnation trial, and subsequent six day "valuation" trial. Obtained judgment of $88.6 million plus attorney's fees, nearly double the condemnor's proof at trial of a $45 million value.

  • Obtained a $20.3 million verdict on behalf of a privately owned water utility company in a five-day jury trial in Indiana, in which a municipality sought to take the water utility through eminent domain. This verdict was over 200 percent of the $9.5 million valuation advocated by the municipality at trial.

  • Represented a New Hampshire water utility in a condemnation action filed by the City of Nashua, New Hampshire. The New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission valued the 25,000-customer water system at $203 million (approximately $8,000 per customer) and awarded an additional $40 million in severance damages. In March 2010, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the entire valuation award.

  • Represented one of the largest U.S. water utilities in an eminent domain action filed by the City of Pekin, Illinois. Takeover found not to be in the public interest and the complaint was dismissed.

  • Represented a California water utility in a condemnation action filed by the San Lorenzo Valley Water District. The utility's Felton water system fair market value was set at $13.4 million (approximately $10,300 per customer).

  • Represented an Illinois water utility in a takeover action instituted by City of Peoria, Illinois, under a franchise buyout option. The city placed the value at $95 million. The issue of fair market value was arbitrated before a panel of three appraisers in January 2005. The company was valued at $220 million and the city then ended its efforts to buy the IAW assets in Peoria District after voters rejected the takeover by a margin of 82-18 percent.

  • Obtained verdict of $7.25 million plus $1.1 million interest on behalf of a privately owned wastewater utility company in a two-week jury trial in Lexington, South Carolina. The condemnor, a municipality, urged the jury to award the company less than $1 million in compensation.

  • Represented the state court appointed receiver of the Jefferson County, Alabama wastewater system, the largest municipal wastewater utility in Alabama with 144,000 customers.

  • Obtained a settlement of $100 million on behalf of an Arizona water utility in a condemnation case in which a municipality took immediate possession of the utility before fair market value was established. This amount was almost twice the condemnor's proof of value.

  • Represented a water company in a declaratory judgment action filed by the town of Hingham, Massachusetts, over the interpretation of a water system pricing formula. Obtained judgment resulting in system price of $88.6 million, far above the town's $50 million proof at trial. Successfully briefed and won two appeals filed by the town.

  • Testified before the Illinois Legislature (House Public Utilities Committee) against proposed legislation that would require a referendum before a municipal utility system could be sold to an investor-owned public utility.

  • Advised utility companies in regulatory compliance on a host of issues, such as inclusion of third-party service fees on bills, federal reporting obligations, maintenance of public inspection files, and other compliance issues.

  • Represented a water utility following a natural disaster to obtain emergency rate relief before a utility commission, including immediate rate increases and development of regulatory assets to allow for future recovery of costs in rates.

Email Disclaimer

NOTICE: The mailing of this email is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Anything that you send to anyone at our Firm will not be confidential or privileged unless we have agreed to represent you. If you send this email, you confirm that you have read and understand this notice.
Cancel Accept