Opinion ID: 4537908
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Scope of Activity

Text: The fourth factor “properly centers on ‘whether the entity acts for the benefit and welfare of the state as a whole or for the special advantage of local inhabitants.’” Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 242 F.3d at 321 (quoting Pendergrass, 144 F.3d at 347). “Limited territorial boundaries suggest that an agency is not an arm of the state,” and “most entities that are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity have statewide jurisdiction.” Vogt, 294 F.3d at 695. This inquiry is largely geographic. In Vogt, the court held that even though flooding is a statewide problem, the levee board acted for the “special advantage of local inhabitants,” and its powers “may be exercised only within clearly defined territorial limits.” Id. And in Hudson, the court “found it highly useful to examine the geographic reach of the [entity’s] powers.” 174 F.3d at 690. In Celanese, however, it was an indication of statewide interest that the CWA was authorized to take significant actions inside and outside its territorial limits. 475 F.Supp.2d at 634. 18 Case: 18-50994 Document: 00515433679 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/29/2020 No. 18-50994 BVGCD’s legal boundaries are coextensive with the boundaries of Robertson and Brazos Counties. TEX. SPECIAL DIST. LOC’L LAWS CODE § 8835.004. Groundwater conservation districts are authorized to exercise their authority only within their territorial boundaries. True, GCDs are expected to coordinate with each other and the Texas Water Development Board, Day, 369 S.W.3d at 834, but there is no evidence that these entities operate in conjunction for the “benefit and welfare of the state as a whole.” Vogt, 294 F.3d at 695. Appellees’ contention that water conservation is “undeniably a statewide concern” is unavailing because the scope of authority rather than the scope of concern is controlling. The fourth factor cuts against BVGCD’s entitlement to Eleventh Amendment immunity.