City of Socorro, Texas v. Samuel Campos, Manuel Cobos, Leticia Duran, Gloria Elmore, Isela Encerrado, Arturo Galindo, Patricia Gardea, Dario Garduno, Obed Gonzalez, Gabriel Gutierrez, Rene Hernandez, Concepcion Jimenez, Manuel Juarez, Lorenzo Lara, Eriqueta Lopez, 510 S.W.3d 121

In 2006 heavy rains revealed flood risks in Socorro, Texas; developers built Valley Ridge Subdivision in the Sparks Arroyo flow path and it flooded in 2006.
Patti Jo Neighborhood residents (Appellees) had lived decades without prior flooding and were denied flood insurance as not flood-prone.
In 2009 the City of Socorro built a diversion channel to redirect Sparks Arroyo flows around Valley Ridge toward land east of Thunder Road.
In September 2013, after extreme rain, Socorro closed Thunder Road and erected two ~4-foot sand embankments to protect Valley Ridge, allegedly funneling water, mud, and debris into the Patti Jo Neighborhood, damaging homes.
Appellees sued under the Texas Constitution takings clause (art. I, §17) and for nuisance, alleging the City intentionally diverted water and was "substantially certain" its actions would damage their properties; the City filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing pleadings lacked required intent and causation.
The trial court denied the plea; on appeal the court reviewed only the face of the Second Amended Petition (no jurisdictional evidence) and held the pleadings sufficiently alleged a takings claim and related nuisance claim to waive governmental immunity and proceed to discovery/trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Valid takings claim from 2009 diversion ditch	2009 ditch (together with later acts) intentionally diverted arroyo toward Plaintiffs; City was substantially certain damage would result	2009 ditch only created a possibility of future flooding; no actual invasion or required intent alleged	Pleading sufficient when read as whole (2009 diversion + 2013 actions); Appellees alleged an invasion as of Sept. 2013 and alleged intent adequately for pleading stage
2. Valid takings claim from 2013 temporary embankments	2013 embankments funneled waters onto Plaintiffs’ homes; intent and public-use allegations pleaded	Single flood event insufficient; temporary measures cannot support a taking without recurrent floods or permanence	Multiple floods not a pleading-stage requirement; single event can support a pleaded takings claim if intent and causation sufficiently alleged
3. Nuisance claim tied to takings claim	Nuisance arises from same intentional diversion and funneling conduct	If takings claim fails, nuisance fails	Because takings pleading is sufficient, nuisance claim survives plea to jurisdiction

Ehler v. LVDVD, L.C., 319 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010) (defines arroyo and discusses flood context)
City of Dallas v. Jennings, 142 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2004) (governmental immunity does not bar takings claims)
Gen. Servs. Comm’n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., Inc., 39 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. 2001) (takings claim elements and immunity waiver)
Tarrant Reg’l Water Dist. v. Gragg, 151 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2004) (intent standard: government must know harm is substantially certain; discussion of recurring floods as probative)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (intent requirement for constitutional takings)
City of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2009) (awareness of mere possibility is insufficient for intent)
Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (pleading must invoke immunity waiver)
City of El Paso v. Mazie’s, L.P., 408 S.W.3d 13 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012) (takings pleadings: consider petition as whole; recurrence is a merits issue)
Miranda v. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (pleading sufficiency and plurality discussion on pleading intent/gross negligence)
Brazos River Authority v. City of Graham, 354 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. 1962) (single flood may limit damages to that event; recurrence relevant to proof)