Background and Business Context

This case involves a dispute between wastewater disposal operators and oil and gas producers in the Delaware Basin. Appellees Stateline Operating, LLC and Stateline Royalties, LP are oil and gas developers whose predecessors acquired mineral interests in Eddy County, New Mexico in 2018. Appellants—including Aris Water Solutions, Inc., Solaris Water Midstream entities, and Devon Energy entities—drill and operate wastewater disposal wells. Stateline alleges that defendants injected wastewater into reservoirs from which Stateline was producing oil and gas, causing permanent damage to Stateline's wells and production, and irrevocably lost oil and gas in place.

The Limitations Dispute

The central issue concerns when Stateline's claims accrued for purposes of the statute of limitations. In 2019, Stateline's predecessor Flat Creek began preparing its drilling program and investigated potential effects of wastewater on the property. In 2021, Flat Creek learned from neighboring operator Tap Rock that wastewater had affected Tap Rock's drilling operations, prompting Flat Creek to adjust its plans and use heavier drilling mud. However, when Stateline drilled four wells in 2021, none experienced interference from pressurized zones.

In 2021, Aris substantially increased its injection activities, including a facility upgrade that more than doubled one operator's capacity and an expansion from one to four disposal wells. The problems materialized in 2022: Stateline encountered a pressurized water flow in February 2022 while drilling a second set of wells, and by June 2022, one well began experiencing abnormal water production that spread to additional wells and reserves by October 2022.

Aris moved for summary judgment arguing that Stateline's claims accrued no later than 2021, when Flat Creek discovered a concrete risk of harm from injected wastewater. Stateline countered that its claims did not accrue until 2022, when wastewater actually interfered with its drilling operations, and further asserted that Aris's limitations defense was barred by fraudulent concealment, the discovery rule, and the continuing tort doctrine.

The Trial Court's Ruling and Procedural Posture

After conducting substantial discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on Aris's statute of limitations affirmative defense. The trial court denied both motions but granted Aris permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal as to whether Stateline's claims had accrued based on a "concrete risk of harm."

The Court of Appeals' Decision

The El Paso Court of Appeals denied the petition for permissive interlocutory appeal. The court explained that it would deny the petition because there are unresolved questions of material fact. The opinion notes that Stateline opposed Aris's petition for interlocutory appeal for multiple reasons, and the court ultimately concluded that the factual disputes precluded the type of purely legal determination appropriate for interlocutory review.