the court noted that “the pleadings state a justiciable controversy that may be fully resolved by declaratory judgment.” Id. at 737. The issue here is not, as it was in Continental Airlines, whether the mandatory venue provision for injunctions applies in light of the relief sought in the pleadings is purely or primarily injunctive. Rather, the issue here is whether a justiciable controversy exists between a non-party to a lease agreement and the two parties to the lease who “agree on the validity of their contract” but take issue with the conduct of the non-party. Appellees have failed to show that Sierra Club had a justiciable interest concerning the interpretation of the lease between the County and WCS. See S. Tex. Water Auth. v. Lomas, 223 5.W.3d 304, 307 (Tex.2007) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). The controversy here centers on the actions
recognizing associational standing when members would have standing in own right holding that persons not parties to a contract did not have standing to seek declaratory judgment on contracts validity holding that plaintiffs did not have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in either a thirdparty beneficiary individual or associational capacity because there was nothing in the contract between a conservation district and a city concerning rates charged to the city that conferred donee  or creditorbeneficiary standing upon the plaintiffs to challenge the contracts terms recognizing that the plaintiffs did not argue that the city made the ivrong decision they argued that the city had no right to even make a decision and noting that such a challenge is precisely the type of question appropriately considered by a declaratory judgment action holding that standing to sue under a contract requires plaintiff to be in privity or be an intended thirdparty beneficiary