MEMORANDUM OPINION

KEM THOMPSON FROST, Justice.

This case arises from a contract dispute between a water authority and a development company. When the development company brought suit asserting breach of contract, the water authority asserted governmental immunity from suit. The trial court denied the water authority's plea to the jurisdiction, and this court affirmed the trial court's ruling in an interlocutory appeal. In the instant appeal the water authority challenges the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the development company. Concluding that this case is governed by a recent decision of another panel of this court, we reverse the trial court's judgment and render judgment that the development company take nothing.

The factual and procedural background of this case is set forth in this court's opinion in the prior interlocutory appeal by appellant Clear Lake Water Authority (the "Authority"). See Clear Lake City Water Auth. v. Friendswood Dev. Co., Ltd., 256 S.W.3d 735, 738-40 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. filed). In its second issue, the Authority asserts that governmental immunity deprives the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction in this suit. Appellee Friendswood Development Company, Ltd. ("Friendswood Development") asserted in its motion for summary judgment that governmental immunity had been waived by two statutes, incorporating the same arguments that it made in opposition to the Authority's plea to the jurisdiction. The Authority responded with arguments substantially similar to those it had made in its plea to the jurisdiction. The issues regarding governmental immunity are the same as those in the prior interlocutory appeal in this case. See id. at 740-51. Absent (1) a decision from a higher court or this court sitting en banc that is on point and contrary to the prior panel decision or (2) an intervening and material change in the statutory law, this court is bound by the prior holding of another panel of this court. See D'Arcy v. Mead, No. 14-04-01220-CV, 2006 WL 2165733, at *3 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 1, 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.); City of Webster v. City of Houston, No. 14-04-00353-CV, 2005 WL 913813, at *1 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 19, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.); United States v. Treft, 447 F.3d 421, 425 (5th Cir. 2006). Because there is no such decision or intervening change in the statutory law, this court is bound by the decision in the prior interlocutory appeal. See Clear Lake City Water Auth., 256 S.W.3d at 740-51. Consistent with this court's prior decision, we overrule the Authority's second issue.

In its third issue, the Authority asserts that, as a matter of law, the "Sales Agreement and Lease of Facilities" (the "Agreement") did not obligate the Authority to submit Friendswood Development's reimbursement proposition to the voters in more than one bond election. Though the developers were different, the terms of the Agreement are in all material respects the same as the terms of the Authority's agreements with the three developers in Clear Lake City Water Authority v. Kirby Lake Dev., Ltd. See — S.W.3d —, —, No. 14-08-00013-CV, 2008 WL 3062234, at *1-2 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 7, 2008, no pet. h.) (hereinafter " Kirby Lake case"). This court's holding in the Kirby Lake case is on point, and there are no court decisions or intervening changes in the statutory law that would change the analysis. See D'Arcy, 2006 WL 2165733, at *3; City of Webster, 2005 WL 913813, at *1; Treft, 447 F.3d at 425. Therefore, this court is bound to follow the holding in the Kirby Lake case. See Kirby Lake Dev., Ltd., 2008 WL 3062234, at *3-4 (holding that, as a matter of law, the agreements with the Authority obligated the Authority to place the measure only on the next ballot after the effective date of the agreements). Consistent with this holding, we sustain the Authority's third issue, reverse the trial court's judgment, and render judgment that Friendswood Development take nothing against the Authority.