Water, water, everywhere, but not a drop to drink. For residents of Morovis, a town of about 30,000 located in central Puerto Rico, receiving even non-potable water has become a never-ending issue over the past eight years. Despite almost daily entreaties to the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA), the water supply continues to be missing in action. A ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeals may help things start flowing again for the municipality.
On October 24, 2025, a panel of First Circuit judges vacated and remanded a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The district court ruling held that the plaintiffs, Mayor Carmen Maldonado González (Maldonado) and the municipality of Morovis, had no substantive due process claim regarding the apparent disregard PRASA had for getting the city a functioning water supply. The First Circuit sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether the continued lack of water and PRASA's apparent deliberate indifference to Morovis’ ongoing plight are a constitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Alleged Intentional Withholding of Water
The water supply has been an issue in Morovis since 2017, when Hurricane Maria ravaged the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. However, the suit alleges that the water service issues are politically motivated and that the disruptions and power outages causing the ongoing water crisis in Morovis are part of a plan of intentional and punitive deprivation.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has an odd status. As an unincorporated territory, it is neither a U.S. state nor a sovereign territory. PRASA is an instrumentality of the Puerto Rico government and is the only source of water supply available in the commonwealth. A PRASA intake facility on the Rio Grande de Amati serves the water service subscribers in Morovis, pumping the raw water to a treatment plant in the town. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
According to the lawsuit, the water system intended to supply Morovis suffers from frequent and suspicious interruptions, with one instance leaving residents of the town without drinking water for 42 days. Morovis has spent over $1 million using alternative methods to procure emergency water, resorting to water tanks in the city filled from outside sources. This is despite the residents of Morovis continuing to pay their unchanged water bills to PRASA.
The plaintiffs claimed they had cause of action because some mechanical failures and other issues that PRASA claimed were responsible for the interruptions to the water supply were solved through incredibly simple means: by having a PRASA employee turn on power generators that had no reason to be turned off. The lawsuit alleges that PRASA’s executive director is violating Puerto Rico law and Morovis’ due process rights because Mayor Maldonado belongs to a different political party than those in control of Puerto Rico’s government. The New Progressive Party is currently in power, while the mayor of Morovis is a member of the Popular Democratic Party.
Denying a City Water for Eight Years Seems Pretty Shocking
The lower court dismissed all of Morovis’ claims before discovery could occur, holding that the residents of Morovis did not allege conduct that “shocks the conscience,” the legal standard in a substantive due process allegation against a government executive. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing PRASA’s alleged misbehavior over the past eight years would be considered a violation of due process that shocks the conscience of any reasonable person. The case hinges on whether water service constitutes a property right, and whether intentional disregard of that right constitutes a substantive due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The First Circuit remanded the case, explaining that the court needed to re-examine whether “deliberate indifference” can qualify as conscience-shocking behavior. Because the district court never determined whether water service constitutes a property right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Circuit has deferred this question for now.
The case is treading into some rarely traveled legal territory, although the Sixth Circuit ventured into a somewhat similar harbor regarding the water supply in Flint, Michigan. Also at question will be whether qualified immunity applies to PRASA’s executive director.
Related Resources
- Puerto Rico Loses Case Over Sovereignity, With More Losses Likely (FindLaw’s U.S. Supreme Court)
- Injury Claims Against the Government (FindLaw’s Learn About the Law)
- Appeals, Appellate Court, and Costs (FindLaw’s Criminal Law)
