F or e a se of re fe re nc e , w e wi ll r e fe r t o th e Ap pe lle e s a s “ Ap pe lle e s” or a s “ the pr op e rt

y 1 owner s” throug hout this opi nion. C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS THE CI TY OF EL

PASO, Ap pe lla nt,
v. GU AD AL

UPE RA MI REZ , N ORMA RA MI REZ , RA MI REZ PEC ANF ARMS, L. L. C , W ILLIA M H B O U T W E LL, J ACKI E BO UTWEL L , RAUL Z AMORANO, JR., AMY K. Z AMORANO, GE ORGE WYNN, P ATR I CI A W YNN , L AR RY R. W EBB, MARI A L . WEBB , J AMES R. RAL EY, YARI ELA G. RAL EY, RUSSEL LT. STURGEON, KERRY L . STURGEON, K E NN E T H A
. J O HN S O N , A N D J U LIE R. J OHNSON, Ap pe lle e s. § § § § § § § § § § § No . 0 8- 10 -0 01 74 -C V

Appea l from the County Court at L aw No. 5 of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 2007-2568)

O P I N I O N This is an interlocutory

appea l where the City

of El Paso cha lleng es the trial c ourt’s partial de nial of its plea to the jurisdiction, and conte nds the underly ing c ase should be dismissed i ni t s e n t i r e ty un d e r

th e d o c tr i n e o f

s o v e r e i g ni m mun i ty. Appellee s are proper

ty owner s who reside and oper ate a g ricultural businesse s located within one mile of the southwester n boundary

of the Clint L andfill. The City of El Paso (“the 1 City” ) h a s o pe rate d th e Clint L and fi ll a s a so lid wa ste dis po sa l si te sin c e it p ur c ha se d th e fa c ili ty in the ear ly

1980’s. The la

nd betwee n the landfill and the pr operties at issue consist primarily of-2-

unimproved, open de sert. Running throug h the open de sert to the landf ill’s southwestern boarde r, and le adingto the Appellee s’ prope rties, ar e natur al dra inag e wa y s – arr oy os – which have be en desig nated by

FEMA a s arr oy os Nine, Ten, a nd Eleven. In late Jul y

and ea rly August 2006, the City

experience d a ser ies of extraordinar y rainstorms, re sulting in extensive flooding in the City and surr ounding a

rea s. The landf

ill’s rete ntion ponds overflowe d causinghug e amounts of water, silt, trash, and other waste to flow down throug h the ar

royos and onto Appellee s’ prope rties destroy ing struc tures and r

uining c rops. Appellee s filed suit ag ainst the City in J une 2007, ra ising c laims for inverse condemnation, nuisance , trespass, violations of the Te x as Water Code, a nd seekinga per

manent injunction. Ea c h p ro pe rt

y owne r a lle g e d th at th e fl oo din gc a us e d o ne mil lio n d oll ars in p ro pe rt y dama g e s, inc lud ingpa st a

nd futur e re pa ir

and re sto ra tio n c os ts, los s o f f

a ir mark e t va lue , lo st p ro fi ts,
m en t al an gu i s h , an d

i ns o m e c as es , p ai nan d

s u ff er i n g. Th e City fi le d a ple a to t he jur isd ic tio n c onte nd ingthat th e Ap pe lle e s’ ple a din g s f a ile d to state fa ct suffic ient to support their inverse condemnation and related claims, and that the proper ty owner s failed to identify an applica

ble waive r of sove reig n immunit y . The trial c ourt g rante d the City ’s plea w ith reg ard to the A ppellees’ claim that the City violated the Te x as Water Cod e , a nd de nie d th e ple a

a s to a ll o the r c a

us e s o f a c tio n. On

int e rl oc uto ry

a pp e a l, t he City raises thre e issues ra ising g ener al cha lleng es the trial c ourt’s ruling
. SeeT EX .C IV .P R AC .& R EM .C ODE ANN . § 51 .0 14 (b )( Wes t 20 08 ). In I ssu e On e , th e City a dd re sse s th e pr op e rt

y owne rs ’
c la im f or inv e rs e c on de mna

tio n, and pr e se nts ba sis fo r i ts a

rgume nt t hat th e Ap pe lle e s f

a ile d to plead suff icient fa cts to support the ca use of a ction. In I ssue Two, the City contends that the proper ty owner s failed to plea d a valid nuisanc e cla im. I n I ssue Thre e, the City argues that the-3-

proper ty owner s’ claims for

damag es, includingtheir re quest for injunctive r elief, a re ba rre d by
s o v e r e i g ni m mun i ty. To pr oc e e d w itha

su it a g a ins t a

g ov e rnme nta l un it, su c h a s th e City of El Pa so , a

pa rt y must establish that the L eg islature has c onsented to the suit. SeeT EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § § 1 01 .0 01 (3 )( A) & (B ), 10 1. 02 5( Wes t 20 11 ); Texas De p’t of Trans. v. Jones , 8 S.W .3d 63 6, 63 8 ( Te x. 19 99 ). Ab se nt s uc h c on se nt, so ve re ig n immun ity de pr ive s th e c ourt

of su bje c tmatter jurisdiction over the case . Jones , 8 S.W .3d at 638. A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea whic h may

be used to c halleng e the c ourt’s subject- matter jurisdiction. Id . Whether a c ourt has subject- matter jurisdiction is a question of law, subje ct to de novo revie w. Texas De p’t of Parks &W

ildlif e v. M iranda , 133 S.W .3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). The scope of re view re g ardinga plea to the jurisdiction is dependant on the pa rticular challeng e asse rted in the plea , and the pr esenc e or la ck of disputed jurisdictional fa cts. See Miranda , 133 S.W .3d at 226-27. When a ple a cha lleng es the suff iciency of the plea dings, the
re vie wi ngc ourt

mus t de te rm ine wh e the r t he ple a de r a lle g e d f

a c ts t hat a ff ir mativ e ly de mon str ate the cour t’s jurisdiction over the c ase. Id . at 226. We will construe the plea dings in fa vor of the non-movant, and look to the plea der’ s intent. Id . I f t he ple a din g s d o n ot a lle g e su ff ic ie nt f a c ts t o aff irmatively

demonstrate the trial court’ s jurisdiction, but also fall short of demonstrating incura ble def ects, the pr oper r emedy

is to allow the pleade r an oppor tunity to amend. Miranda , 133 S.W .3d at 226-27. In th e c a se of

a ple a c ha lle ng ingthe e xiste nc e of jur isd ic tio na l f

a c ts, our r e vie w w ill include re levant evide nce to the e x tent nece ssary to resolve the jur isdictional question. Id . at 227. I f the re levant evide nce r aises at lea st a fac t question reg ardingthe jurisdictional issue, then-4-

the plea must be de nied, and the f act issue lef

t for dete rmination by

the fa ct finder
. Id . at 227-28. I f the re levant evide nce is undisputed, or f ails to raise a

fac t issue, the proper

action is to rule on the plea a s a matter of

law. Id . at 228. In such a r eview, a ll evidence favor able to the nonmovant will be taken a s true, and w e will indulge ever y rea sonable infe renc e in favor of the nonmovant. Id
. In the ca se bef

ore us, the City ’s plea c halleng ed the suff iciency of the prope rty

owner ’s pleading s. First, the City asser ted that the prope rty

owner s failed to plea d any claim that demonstrates a

waiver of immunity

for tort liability

pursuant to the Te x as Tort Claims Act. Se c on d, the City

argue d th at th e pr op e rt

y owne rs fa ile d to ple a d a

va lid c la im f or inv e rs e condemnation, by

pleadingonly

alleg ations of inaction or ne g lige nce. F inally , reg ardingthe proper ty owner s’ nuisance and tre spass claims, the City also asser

ted that the plea dings w ere incura bly defe ctive bec ause the fac tual alleg ations raised in the pe tition are limited to neg lige nce,
and fa il t o r ise to t

he le ve l of

an inte nti on a l to rt . B e c a us e the City ’s ple a

pr e se nte d a

c ha lle ng e to the suffic iency

of the plea dings, w e will focus our revie w on the prope rty

owner s’ Third Amended Petition, the live pleadingat the time of the tria l court’s ruling
. See M iranda , 133 S.W .3d at 226-27. Followingan extensive rec itation facts re g ardingthe 2006 flood, the history of the landfill and its operation, and the damag e done to e ach individual’s pr operty , the following alleg ations are included under the hea ding, “ CAUSES OF ACTI ON.” 42. The a lleg ations in the Statement of Fa cts are incorporated her ein. The City of El Paso has take n, damag ed, or de stroy ed the Plaintiff’s pr operties and ther eby

inversely condemne d then in violation of Article I , Section 17 of the Te xas C on sti tut ion

by its c on str uc tio n o f t

he Clint L and fi ll o r i ts subsequent oper ation and maintena nce. T he City

of El Paso has, on a r e--5- oc c ur ri ngba sis , c a

us e d d ama g e s to the Pla int if f’ s p ro pe rt ie s in

or de r t o benef it the public who use and be nefit fr om the landfill. The City of El Paso knows that its specific a cts wer e ca using ide ntifiable har

m to the Pla int if fs or the City of El Pa so kn ow s th at th e sp e c if ic Pla int if fs ’ p ro pe rt

y dama g e s are su

bs tanti a lly

c e rt a in t o r e su lt f

ro m a uth or ize d Ci ty

of El Pa so actions- that is, the Plaintiff’s damag es ar e nec essar ily an incident to, or nece ssarily

a conse quential re sult of the City of El Paso’s ac tions. The land fi ll i s a

larg e , le ss- pe rm e a

ble str uc tur e pla c e d o ve r d e se rt

and arr oyos , uphill from the Plaintiff’s proper ties. The landf

ill increase s the runoff from the lands it is built upon. I t increa ses the silt and trash that c omes with those water s. The City of El Paso did not even a bide by its own permit for the landfill. I t did not buil d and maintain prote ctive or sufficie ntly

protec tive berms on top. I t did not li ne its drainag e cha nnels. The City of El Paso knew the re w as the potential for substantial runoff a

nd e ro sio n f ro m th e land fi ll. In f

a c t th e law o f T e xas d oe s n ot p e rm it the City of El Pa so to a llo w i ts s oli d w a ste fr om t he land fi ll t o e sc a

pe int o do wn str e am arr oyos and

on to P la int if

fs ’ p ro pe rt ie s. Th e City

of El Pa so knows it is to bui ld drainag e cha nnels and de tention ponds for this older site to handle at lea st a 24 hour- 25 year storm and to contain and c ontrol the runoff

. Newe r re g ulations call for the landfill to handle a 100 year storm. I g noringnewe r re g ulations, the City contends it ca

n do nothing beca use the older

site is gr and-f

ather ed in. The City

of El Paso did not proper ly preve nt erosions from the la ndfill. I t did not maintain a run-off manag ement sy stem that would collect a nd control at lea st the water volume from a 24 hour -25 y ear storm. The er osion and surg ing r ainwate r ru no ff ha s d ama g e d Pl a int if

fs ’ p ro pe rt ie s o n a

re oc c ur ri ngba sis . T he City of El Paso has re ceive d sever al citations of violations and wa rning s by the Te xas C omm iss ion

of Envir onme nta l Q ua lity

and , in e a c h in sta

nc e , it s intentionally

limit ed re medial measur es did not preve nt a re occur renc e. Th e City of El Pa so int e nti on a lly

did no t put in

lin ing s to pr ote c t a g a ins t erosion or suf

ficient pumpingcapa city

to drain the de tention ponds in a timely manner . No over flow protec tions were taken, lea ding to f ailures of the detention ponds. The City ignor ed its own expert repor t, all TCEQ war nings a nd the lessons reve aled by the re -occ urre nces. It subjected Pla int if fs to t he ri sk s. 43
. Th e City

ha s c re ate d a

nd is c on tin uin gan inte nti on a l nu isa

nc e that is a proxi mate ca

use of da mag es to Plaintiffs. The intentional nuisance allows Plaintiffs to also recove r fr om the City under Article I , Section 17 of the Constit ution. The alleg ations in the Statement of Fa cts and pa ragraph 42 are incorpora

ted her ein. 44
. Th e City

ha s c re ate d a

nd is c on tin uin ga tr e sp a ss a g a ins t Pla int if

fs that is-6- [an] approximate cause of dama g es to them. The tre spass allows Plaintiffs to rec over f

rom the City

under Article I , Section 17 of the Te x as Constit ution. The alleg ations in the Statement of Fa cts and pa ragraph 42 are incorpora

ted her ein.

. . . 47. The Plaintiffs see k a per manent injunction requiringthe City to abate the nuisance and tre spass, to permane ntly fix the Clint L andfill so that it does not have ponds that fa il, so that itdoes not divert and c oncentr ate surg ing surfa ce w ater s onto or near Plaintiffs’ proper

ties, and so that it does not e ro de and re le a se tr a shand

mud and toxic mate ri a ls o n o r n e ar P la int if fs ’ pr op e rt ie s. In I ssu e On e , th e City

a dd re sse s th e tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin gre g ard ingthe Ap pe lle e s’ inv e rs e
c o n d e m n at i o nc l a i man d

th e r e l at e d

c l a i m s f o r nu i s an c e an d

tr e s p a s s . T h e C i ty ar g u e s p r i m ar i l y, that the Appellee s failed to state a claim for inve rse c ondemnation bec ause the alleg ations are insufficient to support the intent ele ment of the c ause of action as a

matter of la

w. The Te x as Constitut ion prohibits the St ate f rom taking , damag ing, or destroying a

n individual’s property , for public use , without adequate compensation. SeeT EX .C O N ST . art
. I, § 1 7. Con de mna

tio n o f p ro pe rt

y by the State , o c c ur s w he n th e g ov e rnme nt e xer c ise s it s r ig ht t o take pr ivate prope rty

for public use , but impli es that the State ha s proper ly compensated the proper ty owner for the ta king. Se e City

of H ou so n v . B oy le , 148 S.W .3d 171, 178 (Tex.App.-- Houston [1s t Dist.] 2004, no pet.). Inverse condemnation, on the other hand, oc curs whe n the g overnme nt takes prope rty without compensation, and the pr operty owner seeks to re cover

the resultingdamag es. W

estg ate , Lt d. v . S tate , 843 S.W .2d 448, 452 (Tex. 1992). To establish a
c la im f or inv e rs e c on de mna

tio n, the pr op e rt

y owne r m us t pr ov e : ( 1) the State a c te d inte nti on a lly in the exercise of

its lawful authority ; (2) the a ct re sulted in the taking , damag ing, or destroying of prope rty ; (3) for

public use. Gen. Se rvs. Comm’n v . Litt le-Tex Insulation Co., Inc. , 39 S.W .3d-7-

591, 598 (Tex. 2001). In th is i ns tanc e , th e City ’s ple a wa s f oc us e d in larg e pa rt in t he su ff ic ie nc y of the pr op e rt

y
owner s’ pleading s reg ardingthe intent element. In City of Dallas v. Jennings , the Texas Sup re me Court

he ld t hat a g ov e rnme nta l e nti ty ’s lia bil ity fo r a takin gthr ou g h p hy sic a l da ma g e to p r o p e rty i f

th e e n t i ty: (1) knows that a spec ific ac t is causingidentifiable ha rm; or (2 ) kn ow s th at th e sp e c if ic pr op e rt y dama g e is s ub sta

nti a lly c e rt a in t o r e su lt fr om a n a uth or ize d g ov e rnme nt a c tio n - - t hat is , th at th e dama g e is nece ssarily

an incident to, or ne cessa rily a conse quential re sult of the g o v e r n me n t’ s a c ti o n . [In te r

n a l q u o tati o n s o mi tt e d ]. 142 S.W .3d 310, 314 (Tex. 2004). Intent, even in these terms, howeve r is not sufficient a s it fails to account for the State’s g ener al immunity

from liability

for ne g lige nce, a

nd risks public pay

ment for damag e for

which the public re ceive d no benef it. See Tarrant Reg. W

ater Dist. v. Gragg , 151 S.W .3d 546, 554-55 (T e x. 20 04 ). As the Court ha s e xpla ine d, “ [pub lic us e ] is th e fa c tor wh ic h d ist inguis he s a neg lige nce a ction from one unde r the c onstitut ion for destruc tion.” Gragg , 151 S.W .3d at 555. I t follows that a g overnme ntal entity ’s alleg ed fa ilure to ac t cannot rise to the le vel of a taking
. AN Coll ision Cent. of Addison, Inc. v . Town of Addison , 310 S.W .3d 191, 196 (Tex.App.--Da llas 2010, no pet). A g overnme ntal entity ’s fa ilure to ac t, even in the f ace of evide nce that curative
measure s are nece ssary

to preve nt future damag e, rise only to the level of a

neg lige nce c laim, and acts of me re ne g lige nce w ill not s upport a takingclaim. See A N Coll ision Cent. of Addison, Inc. , 310 S.W .3d at 196, citing Gragg , 151 S.W .3d at 554, Jennings , 142 S.W .3d at 313, City of T yler v. Likes , 9 62 S.W. 2d

48 9, 50 5 ( Te x. 19 97 ); see also City of Anson v. Harper , 216 S.W .3d 384,-8-

3 9 3 (T ex . Ap p . -- E as t l an d

2 0 0 6 , n o p et )( h o l d i n g p l ea d i n gs we re s u ff i ci en tt o s u

p p o rta t ak i n gs claim for c ity ’s ac tual development of proper ty as landfill, but limit ing suc h a cla im to “actions phy sically

taken on the pr operty

. . . .”). The plea dings in the c ase be fore us alleg e prope rty damag e due to numer ous omissi ons by the City . Even c onstrued libera lly and in the Appe llees’ f

avor, a lleg ations that the City was
awa re of the potential for ove rflow f rom the landfill’s re tention ponds, and its subsequent failure to t ake me a sure s to pr e ve nt s uc h o ve rf low , f a il t o r ise to t

he le ve l of

a c la im f or inv e rs e condemnation. See Gragg , 151 S.W .3d at 554, Jennings , 1 42 S.W. 3d at 31 3. I ssu e On e is sustained. A s th e r e m a i n d e r

o f Ap p e l l e e s ’ s ur

v i v i n gc l a i m s w e r e a l s o a s s e rt e d p ur s u an tt o A rt i c l e I, Section 17, they

are simil arly

barr ed by

sovere ign immunity . Acc ording ly , we sustain I ssues Two and Thr ee. The only question remainingis whether the Appellee s’ pleading s demonstrate a n incura ble def ect, or whether they should be g iven the opportunity to amend their ple ading s. See Miranda , 133 S.W .3d at 226-27. B ased on the arguments prese nted, there is no indication that the def ects discussed a

bove ar e incur able. Se e id . As such, we will remand the c ase to the tria l court so the Appe llees’ may have the opportunity

to amend their ple ading s. Se e id
. Ha vin gsu sta ine d A

pp e lla nt’ s is su e s, we re ve rs e the tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r d e nyingthe ple a to the jurisdiction. The ca se will be re manded f or proc eeding s consistent with this opi nion.
August 24, 2011 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice-9-

B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.