Mexico’s Supreme Court put the Aguakan concession case on its Thursday agenda, a procedural step that could decide who controls water in Cancún and Isla Mujeres. After years of court fights, suspensions, and a 2023 state decree to end the contract, the company continues to operate its service while litigation drags on. If ministers vote to take the case, they could break the logjam. If they don’t, residents likely face more limbo. Here’s what’s actually on the table—and why this session matters now.

What the Court will actually decide

Mexico’s Supreme Court (SCJN) scheduled an October 16 session that includes a vote on whether to attract (take up) the long-running dispute over ending Aguakan’s water concession in northern Quintana Roo. Local outlets reported the listing on Wednesday, noting the case would test whether the high court resumes jurisdiction after earlier refusals.

That matters because a 2023 decree by the state congress (Decree 195) terminated the concession early—an action Aguakan challenged. While a federal district judge ruled in April 2025 that the early termination was lawful, a separate, later suspension has kept the decree from being executed as appeals proceed. In short, the decree exists on paper; a court-ordered pause keeps it from taking effect.

The company—formally Desarrollos Hidráulicos de Cancún (Aguakan)—has operated the whole water cycle in the region for decades, covering Cancún (Benito Juárez), Isla Mujeres, Puerto Morelos, and Playa del Carmen (Solidaridad). Both the firm and government documents acknowledge that footprint.

The Aguakan concession case hits a pivot point

If ministers vote to appeal the case on Thursday, they would take control of the final review, potentially clarifying whether Quintana Roo can execute its 2023 decree and hand operations to the state water commission (CAPA). If they decline, the dispute will continue to move through lower-court lanes, and the suspension will remain in place, meaning residents will continue under the current operator for now. Multiple outlets have described the decision as a hinge moment after the Court had previously declined to intervene earlier this month.

Political context looms large. A 2021 local consultation signaled support for ending the contract; lawmakers later acted via Decree 195 in 2023. Aguakan has argued that any early termination requires due process and a fair indemnification; the firm publicly says it would accept an early end if compensated. CAPA, for its part, insists it is ready to assume service should the legal path clear.

Residents’ frustrations—over service quality, tariffs, and accountability—have fueled years of pressure, but rates are set by the state, not the company, a point Aguakan emphasizes. Regardless, the immediate legal question before the justices isn’t tariffs; it’s whether to take the file and, if so, how to resolve the clash between the 2023 decree and the later suspension.

What changes for Cancún and Isla Mujeres if the Court steps in

Short term, don’t expect faucets to change hands overnight—even with an SCJN attraction vote. An appeal only moves the case onto the Court’s merits track. A merits ruling could eventually determine whether the state’s termination stands and whether a transition to CAPA proceeds, including what compensation—if any—is owed to Aguakan. Until then, the current suspension prevents the decree’s enforcement, and Aguakan keeps operating.

Medium term, an SCJN merits decision could set a national marker on how far local governments can go to unwind long concessions in essential services—and under what standards of compensation and continuity. Given the company’s 1993 origins and subsequent contract changes (including an attempted extension to 2053, later questioned in court), any ruling would likely parse contract history, due-process claims, and public-interest obligations in utility concessions.

For everyday users, the practical questions remain constant: reliability, price stability, and accountability during hurricane season and rapid growth. Those are policy debates that will outlast this week’s procedural vote—but the justices’ move on Thursday could finally put a timeline on answers.