This article seems to clarify things a bit.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/02...xons.html?rh=1
The landowners' lawyer (including Tillerson) included one sentence in the filing that discussed the possibility of the water being used for drilling purposes. He says this is not the main concern of the suit.
The company's representative agrees that it is not about fracking. They claim the tower is needed to serve local residential and commercial demand. While selling to energy companies is possible in the future, they have not done so since 2009.
The main complaint of the lawsuit is that the tower will be a nuisance to the surrounding landowners. The plaintiffs claim that the company previously provided assurances that they would only build small structures in the area, but then started building this 160 foot tall tower. Some of the plaintiffs are worried that if the water is sold to energy companies, truck traffic in the area could increase (which is the sentence in the suit everyone is focused on), but Tillerson testified that he wasn't concerned about this particular issue. According to the article, his only concern is that the tall structure immediately adjacent to his property will devalue it.
So, if this article is accurate, the other posters seem to be right, that this is NIMBYism with respect to the tower, but not about fracking.
Also, the article notes that there are currently about 12 gas wells within a mile of his ranch.