San Antonio Water System v. Robert Overby and Teresa Overby, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 2992

Overbys sued SAWS and other defendants for flooding that damaged their yard and home.
SAWS asserted governmental immunity via plea to the jurisdiction; the trial court denied in part.
SAWS maintains the alleged takings and nuisance claims are not waived by immunity.
Overbys claim SAWS knew grading choices would cause flooding and debris issues.
Court analyzes whether immunity was waived under takings clause or Tort Claims Act and whether nexus exists between motor-driven equipment and injuries.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SAWS’s immunity was waived by the takings clause.	Overbys rely on takings clause to recover damage to property.	SAWS argues no intentional taking or damage for public use; no waiver.	Immunity not waived; no evidence of required intent.
Whether SAWS’s immunity was waived under the Tort Claims Act for nuisance.	Overbys rely on statutory waivers under sections 101.021 or 101.0215.	No nexus between motor-driven equipment use and injuries; no waiver.	Immunity not waived; nexus deficient.
Whether evidence shows a nexus between SAWS’s use of equipment and property damage.	Maintenance of alley caused flooding via equipment.	Damage stems from condition, not active equipment use.	No nexus; immunity remains.

City of Galveston v. State, 217 S.W.3d 466 (Tex. 2007) (immunity standards; common-law framework)
Ben Bolt–Palito Blanco Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tex. Political Subdivisions Prop./Cas. Joint Self–Ins. Fund, 212 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. 2006) (immunity waiver standards)
Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. E.E. Lowrey Realty, Ltd., 235 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2007) (waiver scope under §101.021; nexus concept)
Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley, 104 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. 2003) (nexus requirement for motor-driven equipment waivers)
City of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2009) (takings analysis; awareness of possible damage not enough)