Maverick County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1 Leadership Fight Leads to Lawsuit and Temporary Restraining Order
By Jose G. Landa, Copyright 2026 Eagle Pass Business Journal, Inc.
A leadership fight within the Maverick County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1 Board of Directors has reached state district court as appointed board member Randal Edwards and elected board member Henry Moses have filed a lawsuit against three fellow board of directors and have obtained a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of disputed board actions while they try to resolve their differences and issues.
The lawsuit names elected board of directors Trinidad Flores, Luis Valderrama and Juan Perez Jr. in their official capacities. The three constitute a majority of the five-member board and have faced locked gates while attempting to conduct district business.
The dispute involves competing claims over board governance and management authority, access to public facilities, legal representation, bank accounts, and whether the board president can control which matters reach meeting agendas.
The lawsuit emanates from a dispute with appointed Board President and Interim General Manager Randal Edwards when he rehired District General Manager Brenda McCalip on September 9, 2026 as Assistant General Manager after having previously been terminated a day earlier, September 8, by a board majority. The District is in a dire financial crisis after having lost more than two million dollars the past two years and its money-generating hydroelectric power plant had been shut down due to the drought afflicting the western United States.
Board members Flores, Perez and Valderrama have sought to place agenda items at their board meetings to rectify the financial crisis at the District, but Board President Edwards has thwarted their agenda items from having them placed for discussion and possible action. Under the Texas Water Code, the board of directors are responsible for the management and decisions of the District, not just the Board President.
Judge Maribel Flores of the 293rd Judicial District Court issued the temporary restraining order November 6, 2026 without notice and a hearing to board members Flores, Perez, and Valderrama. A temporary injunction hearing is scheduled for November 20 at 8 a.m. at the Maverick County Courthouse in Eagle Pass, Texas.
Valderrama contends Edwards blocked requested agenda items and removed meeting notices. The three board of directors called for and posted a special meeting for October 20, 2026 since Board President Edwards declined to place their agenda items on the board meeting. They allege that Edwards tore down, removed and filed notices of cancellation of their posted notices of meetings.
Edwards posted a notice of special meeting for October 20, 2026 at 10 A.M. for the board to discuss and take possible action on the sale of 5,000 acres of water, but declined to place Flores, Perez or Valderrama’s items on the agenda. Consequently, the three board of directors signed and posted a notice of a special meeting for October 20 at 12 Noon. At the 10 A.M. October 20 special meeting, the board approved the sale of 5,000 acres of water to raise funds to stave off the financial crisis for at least few more months. However, a buyer for the asking price for these 5,000 acres of water has not been found yet.
Also on October 20 at the 12 Noon special meeting posted by the board majority, Edwards and Moses did not attend and left the meeting room. Edwards sent general counsel Jakob Weissler to advise the board majority that their 12 Noon special meeting was not authorized. The board majority proceeded to hold the meeting and approved to remove Edwards as Interim General Manager and appoint Homero Galindo as Interim General Manager and rescind all previous agreements and decisions made by Edwards while Interim General Manager that had not been board approved. They also terminated Sanchez & Wilson as general counsel and approved hiring Langley & Banack as new general counsel.
The three elected board of directors met again outside locked district gates on November 4, 2026. Valderrama described it as their second lockout. Attorney Eddie Morales with Langley and Banack, appearing as new general counsel for the District, maintained that the meeting notices met posting requirements under state law.
At the November 4 special meeting, the board majority elected Valderrama as president and Flores as vice president, ratified Homero Galindo’s appointment as interim general manager and pursued changes to bank signers and agenda procedures. Directors also sought forensic audit proposals amid financial concerns. Valderrama cited an approximately $1 million financial shortfall in 2025, while Flores questioned how long available funds could sustain operations.
Valderrama alleges the District only has approximately $900,000 in the bank, but its monthly expenses are an estimated $200.000 to $250,000 per month. Valderrama contends at this rate, the District only has a few months left before depleting its financial reserves, requiring that it shut down for lack of funds. Those estimates require verification through financial records, which Valderrama notes the District’s audits for 2025 and 2024 confirm his concerns and allegations.
Edwards and Moses challenge the legal foundation of the board majority’s actions. Their lawsuit argues that the October 20 and November 4 meetings did not follow the district’s bylaws governing meeting calls and agenda preparation.
The petition challenges October 20 votes removing Edwards as interim general manager, terminating McCalip for the second time, dismissing Sanchez & Wilson as district general counsel and retaining Langley and Banack as new general counsel. It also contests Galindo’s appointment as Interim General Manager.
Edwards maintains that the disputed actions do not legally remove him as president or interim general manager. Moses identifies himself in the lawsuit as vice president.
The competing positions place a central question before the court. The three elected board of directors maintain they are exercising majority authority to oversee district operations as mandated by state law, while Edwards and Moses contend that a majority must still follow legally required agenda and meeting procedures set in the bylaws. The question is going to be whether a board bylaw may override state law.
In granting emergency relief without prior notice to the defendants and based on the verified petition filed by Edwards and Moses, Judge Flores found a possible threat of irreparable harm involving control of public funds, records and personnel, along with the plaintiffs’ participation rights and the public’s right to lawful decision-making.
The restraining order prohibits implementation of November 4 actions involving changes to bank signers, recognition of officers elected at that meeting, and seating or paying an interim general manager on that basis. It also restricts reliance on that meeting to approve October 20 minutes or amend district bylaws.
The court directs preservation of the last peaceable, uncontested status preceding the October 20 noon meeting, subject to subsequent board action permitted under the order.
Edwards and Moses seek to invalidate the challenged actions and obtain permanent injunctive relief. Attorney Rogelio M. Muñoz of Uvalde, Texas represents them.
It is unknown as of press time if Board of directors Flores, Perez and Valderrama have legal counsel other than Langley and Banack.
The restraining order provides temporary relief rather than a final resolution. The November 20 hearing will address whether a temporary injunction should be issued while the lawsuit proceeds.
While the board of directors are disputing board authority and governance and fighting in state district court, the clock is ticking on the District’s dire financial crisis with another estimated $200,000 gross expenses to be paid for the month of October 2026, decreasing the financial reserves of the District.
