Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 3 v. Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 1, 669 S.W.3d 178

Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 3 (Improvement District) sought a subsurface easement to extend an underground irrigation pipeline that would cross under an open canal owned/operated by Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 1 (Irrigation District).
The Improvement District’s purchase offer was rejected; it filed a condemnation action under the Water Code to obtain the easement.
Special commissioners awarded the Irrigation District $1,900; the Irrigation District objected, invoking the paramount-public-importance doctrine to challenge the proposed taking.
Before the trial court resolved the objection, the Irrigation District filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity from suit; the trial court granted the plea and dismissed the condemnation action.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding governmental immunity barred the suit; the Improvement District appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.
The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding governmental immunity does not bar eminent-domain (condemnation) proceedings between political subdivisions and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether governmental immunity bars a condemnation suit by one political subdivision against another	Immunity does not apply to eminent-domain suits; condemnation is an in rem proceeding that does not expose the public fisc	Immunity should bar the suit to prevent judicial intrusion on governmental policy and protect the public fisc	Immunity does not apply; condemnation suits are in rem and do not implicate the justifications for immunity in this context
Whether Water Code §49.222 waives the condemnee’s immunity (if immunity applied)	§49.222, which grants condemnation authority to water districts, clearly and unambiguously waives immunity	The statute does not clearly waive a governmental entity’s immunity from suit	Court did not need to resolve waiver because it held immunity inapplicable; the Improvement District’s alternative waiver argument was unnecessary to decide
Whether eminent-domain disputes between governmental entities should be decided under immunity/waiver framework or the paramount-public-importance doctrine	Use the paramount-public-importance doctrine to balance competing public uses rather than treating immunity as a jurisdictional bar	Insists immunity must be decided first and that paramount-public-importance only applies after waiver	Court reaffirmed the paramount-public-importance doctrine as the appropriate substantive framework and rejected substituting blanket immunity for that doctrinal balancing

City of Conroe v. San Jacinto River Auth., 602 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. 2020) (EDJA in rem suits not barred by immunity; in rem nature limits exposure to public fisc)
Reata Constr. Co. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006) (governmental entity that sues may be subject to related counterclaims germane to its suit)
Sabine & E.T. Ry. Co. v. Gulf & Interstate Ry. Co., 46 S.W. 784 (Tex. 1898) (formulation of the paramount-public-importance doctrine for condemning public-use land)
Brazos River Auth. v. City of Graham, 354 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. 1961) (governmental entities subject to inverse-condemnation claims)
Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 369 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2012) (assumed immunity may apply but held waiver existed; illustrates interaction of immunity and condemnation)
Brown & Gay Eng’g, Inc. v. Olivares, 461 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. 2015) (caution against speculative harms as justification for immunity expansion)
Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. Sawyer Tr., 354 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. 2011) (distinguishes suits barred by immunity from ultra vires remedies against officials)
KMS Retail Rowlett, LP v. City of Rowlett, 593 S.W.3d 175 (Tex. 2019) (discusses consequences and remedies tied to successful condemnation)