City of Houston v. Downstream Environmental, L.L.C., 444 S.W.3d 24

Downstream Environmental, LLC operates a nonhazardous liquid waste facility in Houston under City-issued industrial wastewater permit.
In May 2010, a GI Environmental Vacuum Service truck delivered nonconforming waste; Downstream accepted limited nonconforming waste but rejected portions after odor/appearance issues.
That evening the City Health Department investigated an offensive odor; the Beltway plant’s biological treatment microorganisms were killed, creating an emergency for the City.
On May 26, 2010 the City plugged the discharge line between Downstream and the City sewer system; the site remained closed for 21 days as the City investigated.
Downstream sought damages and equitable relief for the 2010 discharge-line closure, later alleging rate increases and sampling/ testing disputes that followed.
The City moved for a jurisdictional plea, asserting governmental immunity; the trial court denied, and the City appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Governmental immunity for monetary claims	Downstream argues City actions were proprietary, not governmental.	City contends actions arose from governmental sanitary sewer function and are immune.	The City is immune from contract and tort monetary claims.
Propriety of waivers and functional classification	Downstream asserts waivers via contracts, DJA, or proprietary functions.	City argues no waiver applies; actions are governmental under 101.0215(a).	Actions arise from governmental function (sanitary sewer), with no waiver.
Constitutional claims and injunctive relief	Downstream seeks injunctive relief for due process and equal protection violations.	City argues no jurisdiction over constitutional injunctive relief; claims fail on immunity.	Constitutional injunctive claims survive to the extent not barred by immunity; remand for injunctive relief consistent with immunity rulings.
Monetary damages for due course of law	Downstream seeks money damages for due-process violations.	Due-course claims do not authorize money damages against a municipality.	Monetary damages for due-course-of-law are barred; no implied right to damages.

Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (governmental-proprietary function dichotomy in immunity analysis)
Ethio Express Shuttle Svc. v. City of Houston, 164 S.W.3d 751 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (regulation of transportation systems as governmental function)
Temple v. City of Houston, 189 S.W.3d 816 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (service-within-a-service concept rejected in immunity context)
City of Houston v. Petroleum Traders Corp., 261 S.W.3d 350 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (governmental functions encompass activities closely related to designated governmental functions)
City of Corpus Christi v. Absolute Indus., 120 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001) (proprietary-function analysis limited when governmental function is present)