Full opinion text
EN BANC OPINION JANE BLAND, Justice. In this condemnation action between two corporate landowners and the Port of Houston Authority, the City of Seabrook appeals the trial court’s interlocutory order denying its plea to the jurisdiction, a plea it asserted upon intervening in the suit. We hold that the issue raised in the City’s jurisdictional plea does not implicate the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The trial court therefore properly denied the plea, and we dismiss the City’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Background The Port of Houston Authority is a political subdivision and a navigation district. The Legislature created the Port in 1927 under the authority of article III, section 52 of the Texas Constitution. See Tex. Const, art. Ill, § 52; Act of 1927, 40th Leg., R.S., ch. 97, § 1, 1927 Tex. Gen. Laws 256, 256-57, amended by Act of Apr. 11, 1957, 55th Leg., R.S., ch. 117, § 2, 1957 Tex. Gen. Laws 241, 247. In 1957, the Legislature converted the Port into a navigation district under article XVI, section 59 of the Texas Constitution. See Tex. Const, art. XVI, § 59; Act of Apr. 11, 1957, 55th Leg., R.S., ch. 117, § 2, 1957 Tex. Gen. Laws 241, 247, amended by Act of May 25, 1987, 70th Leg., R.S., ch. 1042, § 1, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 3506, 3506-07. Generally, upon its conversion to a navigation district, the Port retained all powers conferred upon it under article III, section 52. See Act of Apr. 11, 1957, 55th Leg., R.S., ch. 117, § 2, 1957 Tex. Gen. Laws 241, 247 (providing that Port would operate under article XVI, section 59 while also retaining “all powers conferred upon said District by the law or laws under which it was organized”). In June 2002, the Port sued two private landowners, American Acryl NA, L.L.C. and American Acryl L.P. (together, “American”), neither of which are parties to this appeal. The Port seeks to condemn about forty-nine acres of property owned by American, and to acquire fee simple title — excluding the mineral estate and a drainage easement to be reserved to American. See Tex. PROp.Code Ann. § 21.012(a) (Vernon 2004) (providing for political subdivision and other governmental entities seeking to acquire real property for public use to instigate condemnation proceeding). The Port seeks to condemn the property in connection with its development of a voter-approved significant expansion to the Port, commonly known as the Bayport Terminal Project. The American property lies entirely within the limits of the City of Seabrook. According to the record, this is not the only lawsuit arising from the proposed expansion, nor is this the only parcel of commercial property that the Port seeks to condemn (or already has condemned). Pursuant to statute, the trial court appointed special commissioners, who appraised the damages for the property’s taking at $627,397.00. See id. § 21.014(a) (Vernon 2004) (providing for appointment of special commissioners to assess damages owed to property owner for property’s condemnation). In August 2002, the special commissioners filed their award with the trial court. See id. American objected to the special commissioners’ award, asserting, among other things, that the Port “lack[ed] the power to condemn” its property because it had failed to obtain the City’s consent. See id. § 21.018(a) (Vernon 2004) (providing that party to condemnation proceeding may object to special commissioners’ award by filing objections and grounds in court having jurisdiction). The City then intervened in this lawsuit in February 2003. The City alleged that (1) it had standing to intervene based on an applicable Water Code provision that requires the City’s consent to right-of-way condemnations within its boundaries; and (2) it had not given its consent to the condemnation. The City farther requested that the trial court declare that the Port had violated the Water Code by having failed to obtain the City’s consent and that the Port thus “lack[ed] the statutory power to condemn the Property.” The Port moved to strike the City’s intervention on the ground (among others) that the City had not been a party to the administrative portion of the condemnation proceeding and the Water Code provision on which the City relies is inapplicable. The trial court overruled the Port’s motion. American and the City then jointly filed a plea to the trial court’s jurisdiction. The jurisdictional plea asserted that the Water Code provision on which the City relies for its intervention requires the City’s consent to the condemnation; that the City had not consented; and thus, that the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Port’s condemnation proceeding. The City also filed a separate plea to the jurisdiction raising the same argument. The trial court denied both pleas after an evidentia-ry hearing. The City appeals to this Court from the adverse ruling on its jurisdictional pleas. A majority of this Court voted to submit the case for en banc consideration and disposition. See Tex.R.App. P. 41.2(c). Standard of Review A jurisdictional plea contests the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex.1999). In reviewing the ruling on a jurisdictional plea, “ ‘we consider the facts alleged by the plaintiff and, to the extent it is relevant to the jurisdictional issue, the evidence submitted by the parties.’” Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley, 104 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex.2003) (quoting Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. White, 46 S.W.3d 864, 868 (Tex. 2001)). “[I]f the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction, then a plea to the jurisdiction may be granted without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend.” County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex.2002). We construe the pleadings in the plaintiffs favor and look to the pleader’s intent. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex.2004). Whether the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate subject-matter jurisdiction is a legal question that we review de novo. Id. We consider, as a preliminary matter, whether the City’s consent to condemnation is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction, because the answer to that inquiry determines whether we in turn have subject-matter jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice v. Simons, 140 S.W.3d 338, 349 (Tex. 2004) (holding that “an interlocutory appeal cannot be taken from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction that does not raise an issue that can be jurisdictional” and that appellate court must dismiss interlocutory appeal “when the issue raised [in the jurisdictional plea] cannot implicate subject matter jurisdiction”); accord Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351, 366 (Tex.2004). Here, our jurisdictional determination turns on the interpretation of a provision of the Water Code. Statutory interpretation is a question of law. In re Canales, 52 S.W.3d 698, 701 (Tex.2001). Our primary goal in interpreting a statute is to ascertain and to effectuate the Legislature’s intent. Id. at 702. In doing so, we examine the statute’s plain language. Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486, 493 (Tex.2001); Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864, 865 (Tex.1999). We assume that the Legislature tried to say what it meant; therefore, the statute’s words should be the surest guide to the Legislature’s intent. Fitzgerald, 996 S.W.2d at 866. In ascertaining legislative intent, we do not confíne our review to isolated statutory words, phrases, or clauses; rather, we examine the entire act. Meritor Auto., Inc. v. Ruan Leasing Co., 44 S.W.3d 86, 90 (Tex.2001); see Tex. Gov’t Code ANN. § 311.011(a) (Vernon 2005) (instructing courts to construe words and phrases in context). The Code Construction Act lists factors that may be considered in construing a statute, whether or not the statute is ambiguous on its face. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.023 (Vernon 2005). These factors include, among other things, (1) the statute’s objectives; (2) the circumstances under which the statute was enacted; (3) the statute’s legislative history; (4) common law, former law, and similar provisions; and (5) the consequences of the statutory construction. Id. § 311.023(1)-(5); Canales, 52 S.W.3d at 702. We presume that the Legislature intended a just and reasonable result. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.021(3) (Vernon 2005); Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d at 493. Discussion A. The Statute Water Code chapter 62 contains the following provision: Section 62.106. Condemnation Proceedings (a) The district may exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn and acquire the right-of-way over and through any and all public and private land necessary: (1) for the improvement of any river, bay, creek, or stream; (2) for the construction and maintenance of any canal or waterway; and (3) for any and all purposes authorized by this chapter. (d) No right-of-way may be condemned through any part of an incorporated city or town without the consent of the lawful authorities of that city or town. Tex. Water Code ÁNN. § 62.106(a), (d) (Vernon 2004). The merit of the City’s position on interlocutory appeal rests on the proposition that section 62.106(d), which provides that “no right-of-way may be condemned” without the consent of a city through which the right-of-way runs, is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the Port’s filing suit against a private landowner. See id. § 62.106(d). The City contends that the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit unless and until the Port obtains the City’s consent. In contrast, the Port contends, even assuming that the consent provision applies, it does not operate to deprive the trial court of its subject-matter jurisdiction. It further contends that section 62.106(d) is inapplicable to its acquisition of a fee simple interest — because such an interest is different in character from a right-of-way easement — and that the Legislature has narrowed the applicability of section 62.106(d) by later passing statutes that allow the Port to condemn without the consent of the City. See, e.g., id. § 62.107 (Vernon 2004) (“Acquisition of Land”) & (a) (“Any district created under this chapter may acquire by gift, purchase, or condemnation and may own land adjacent or accessible to the navigable water and ports developed by it which may be necessary or required for any and all purposes incident to or necessary for the development and operation of navigable water or ports within the district, or may be necessary or required for or in aid of the development of industries on the land”). Thus, as to the merits, the parties disagree about whether Water Code section 62.106(d) applies and controls, ie., whether the phrase “no right-of-way may be condemned” without the City’s consent applies to fee simple title interests, and whether this section should apply, given later-enacted section 62.107, which poses no municipal consent restriction. Id. §§ 62.106(d), 62.107(a) (emphasis added). For reasons that we discuss, we conclude that the jurisdictional principles espoused by the Texas Supreme Court in Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex.2000) and Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., 141 S.W.3d 172 (Tex.2004) (“Hubenak, III”), govern this case, and thus we conclude that the statute at issue is not jurisdictional. Whatever the merit of the parties’ substantive arguments, to use a jurisdictional analysis to resolve the fray is unsupported by the statute. B. The Texas Supreme Court’s Decision in Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi In Kazi, the Texas Supreme Court overruled earlier precedent to hold that a failure to meet a statutory prerequisite will not deprive a trial court of its subject-matter jurisdiction unless the statute evinces an intent that it do so. 12 S.W.3d at 76. In so holding, the court expressed a strong preference for the finality of judgments. Id. To the court, allowing statutory prerequisites to be synonymous with jurisdictional limitations presents a fundamental problem: “a judgment will never be considered final if the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction” because “‘[t]he classification of a matter as one of [subject-matter] jurisdiction ... opens the way to making judgments vulnerable to delayed attack for a variety of irregularities that perhaps better ought to be sealed in a judgment.’ ” Id. (quoting RestatemeNt (Second) of Judgments § 12 cmt. b at 118 (1982)). The court relied upon “ ‘the modern direction ... to reduce the vulnerability of final judgments to attack on the ground that the tribunal lacked subject matter jurisdiction.’ ” Id. (quoting Restatement (Seoond) of Judgments § 11 cmt. e at 113 (1982)); accord Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 358-59. Since Kazi, the Texas Supreme Court has reinforced its view that a statutory requirement is jurisdictional, as opposed to substantive, only when the Legislature’s intent so indicates. See Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 359. To determine whether such an intent exists, a reviewing court should examine the statutory language, including whether any consequences for non-compliance are specified. Id. In addition, the reviewing court may look to the statute’s purpose. See id. at 360; Harris County Emergency Servs. Dist. # 1 v. Miller, 122 S.W.3d 218, 223 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). C. Under Kazi and Its Progeny, Section 62.106(d) Is Not Jurisdictional In Water Code section 62.106(d), the term “may not” (here, “no right-of-way may be condemned” without consent) indicates a prohibition. Tex. WateR Code Ann. § 62.106(d) (emphasis added); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.016(5) (Vernon 2005) (“ ‘May not’ imposes a prohibition and is synonymous with ‘shall not.’”). Nothing about the mandatory nature of the section’s statutory language, however, suggests that it is also a jurisdictional limitation. See Essenburg v. Dallas County, 988 S.W.2d 188, 188-89 (Tex.1998) (holding that statutory notice requirement, employing term “may not,” was not jurisdictional). Several things suggest that it is not. First, the Legislature expressed no consequence for failure to comply with this section — such as limiting the right to file a condemnation action until such consent is obtained, or requiring a process to settle the dispute between the two competing governmental interests. The statutory framework for a condemnation under the Property Code defines a specific administrative process before filing suit between the condemning governmental authority and the private landowner. The statute upon which the City relies is not a part of that framework. Section 62.106 neither binds a trial court with administrative findings, nor defines or limits its judicial review, nor establishes any grievance process to resolve the dispute between these two governmental authorities outside the trial court’s milieu. See Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 361 (quoting Essenburg, 988 S.W.2d at 189). Hence, the statute imposes no express jurisdictional constraints, thus leaving resolution of disputes concerning the statute to the courts. Moreover, section 62.106 provides no independent cause of action to a city that is not afforded its opportunity to consent, nor any affirmative relief — administrative or otherwise. Yet, using a jurisdictional plea as a sword (for the City intervened in this suit), the City seeks to fashion both an independent claim under the Water Code and obtain the relief it seeks (a halt to the Port’s condemnation suit) without any adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties, and without any participation by it in the adjudicative process. The City’s rights under the statute instead should be a matter for interpretation by the courts, not a basis for depriving the courts of jurisdiction in the first instance. Second, although the plain language of the statute is paramount, nothing in its history evidences a jurisdictional emphasis. The requirement first appeared in 1925, but the parties point to no legislative history that clarifies that the provision is jurisdictional in nature. If anything, Water Code section 62.107, later-enacted in 1947, confers condemnation power upon the Port with no local consent requirement, and could suggest that the consent requirement does not apply. See Tex. WateR Code ANN. § 62.107 (Vernon 2004). “Subject-matter jurisdiction exists when the nature of the case falls within the general category of cases the court is empowered, under applicable statutory and constitutional provisions, to adjudicate.” Cervantes v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 130 S.W.3d 152, 156 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2003, pet. denied). Applying Kazi, if a statutory requirement “defines, enlarges, [or] restricts the class of causes the court may decide or the relief the court may award,” then the requirement is jurisdictional. Sierra Club v. Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n, 26 S.W.3d 684, 688 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000), aff'd on other grounds, 70 S.W.3d 809 (Tex.2002). If the requirement does none of these things, it is not jurisdictional, but is only a condition on which the plaintiffs right to relief may depend. See id. The requirement to obtain a city’s consent for a right-of-way condemnation does not “define[ ], enlarge[], [or] restricts the class of causes the [county court at law] may decide or the relief the court may award.” See id. In fact, the Legislature has enacted a particular statute conferring jurisdiction over eminent-domain cases upon the Harris County Courts at Law. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 25.0003(a), 25.1032(a), (c) (Vernon 2004 & Supp.2005); Tex. PROp.Code Ann. § 21.001 (Vernon 2004). It is here that the Legislature established the class of causes that these trial courts can decide and the kind of relief that they can award. See id.; cf. In re Bullock, 146 S.W.3d 783, 789-90 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2004, orig. proceeding) (holding that failure to meet statutory limitations requirement did not deprive county court at law of jurisdiction over bill-of-review proceeding, when statute gave county court at law plenary jurisdiction over subject matter of case). Finally, reading the statute to withhold trial court jurisdiction is unnecessary to protect the interests of local government. Here, the affected city has intervened. It is hard to imagine that the Legislature intended to render an entire class of condemnation judgments void for failure to obtain consent when a timely intervention would do — assuming for the moment that Water Code section 62.106 affords independent relief to an aggrieved local government. A simpler interpretation is that the provision confers standing upon a city to be heard, or that any municipal interest can be represented by the private landowner in a timely fashion, who if successful, will keep its land or command an above fair-market-value premium for its sale. In this case, for example, the landowner has moved in the trial court to dismiss the proceeding on the very ground that the City urges here. If the City cannot preclude a landowner’s sale of private property to another governmental entity, it should not have status to contest trial court jurisdiction and to subject the court’s adjudication to future collateral attack in a condemnation proceeding, even if it may have standing to intervene to enforce a statutorily conferred right of consent. In contrast with statutes that courts have construed as jurisdictional — in part because they require administrative proceedings before a government can be haled into court as a defendant — here, the City seeks to use a statute offensively rather than defensively, by intervening to urge the dismissal of claims not brought against it. For these reasons, Water Code section 62.106(d)’s consent requirement, even assuming that it applies and controls in this case, is not jurisdictional and is not the proper subject of a jurisdictional plea. See Kazi, 12 S.W.3d at 76-77 (“ ‘The right of a plaintiff to maintain a suit, while frequently treated as going to the question of jurisdiction, has been said to go in reality to the right of the plaintiff to relief rather than to the jurisdiction of the court to afford it.’ ”) (quoting 21 C.J.S. Courts § 16, at 23 (1990)); see also Hubenak III, 141 S.W.3d at 183 (holding that following requirement from section 21.012(a) of Property Code’s condemnation provisions is not jurisdictional: “If [one of certain entities exercising eminent-domain power] wants to acquire real property for public use but is unable to agree with the owner of the property on the amount of damages, the condemning entity may begin a condemnation proceeding _”) (emphasis added). In Hubenak III, in a group of eleven consolidated appeals, the Texas Supreme Court held that, in condemnation actions brought by utilities, the utilities’ failure to satisfy a statutory pleading requirement that the parties were “unable to agree” on damages did not deprive courts of subject-matter jurisdiction. Hubenak III, 141 S.W.3d at 183. The dissent distinguishes Hubenak III because that case involved a dispute between the condemning authority (a utility) and private landowners, whereas •here, the dispute on appeal is between two governmental authorities. But the holdings in Kazi and Hubenak do not focus on the status of the parties as private litigants; rather, both represent an effort to “reduce the vulnerability of final judgments to attack on the ground that the tribunal lacked subject matter jurisdiction.” Hubenak III, 141 S.W.3d at 183; Kazi, 12 S.W.3d at 76 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments 11 cmt. e (1982)). And, in particular with regard to the requirements relating to the condemnation actions, the court recognized that “ ‘jurisdiction’ has proven to be a “word of elastic, diverse, and disparate meanings.’ ” Hubenak III, 141 S.W.3d at 183 (quoting Minto v. Lambert, 870 P.2d 572, 575 (Colo. Ct.App.1994, cert.denied)). In addition, the dissent distinguishes Hubenak III on the basis that the statute here does not provide any express remedy for a violation of the consent provision. However, we note that the statute in Hubenak III did not either — if the parties were unable to agree, then resolution was to be determined in a court. See id. Regardless, whether a statutory remedy be express, implied, or non-existent, a court of competent jurisdiction remains as the constant decision-maker. D. The Prospect of Collateral Attack Destabilizes Settled Real Property Interests Water Code section 62.106(d)’s plain language does not indicate that it is jurisdictional for good reason: we deal here with real property interests, an area of the law that — perhaps more than some others — relies upon the finality of the determination of those interests. Given the nature of a condemnation action — the judicial transfer of real property — we cannot conclude that the Legislature intended for the consent requirement of section 62.106(d) to be jurisdictional, so as to open condemnation judgments to collateral attack at any time. See Hubenak III, 141 S.W.3d at 182 (“If the unable-to-agree requirement [contained in section 21.012(a) of the Property Code’s condemnation provisions] were necessary to confer subject matter jurisdiction, then judgments in condemnation proceedings would be subject to collateral attack.”); see also Mapco, Inc. v. Carter, 817 S.W.2d 686, 687 (Tex.1991) (holding that lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is fundamental error that may be raised for first time at appellate level). The Texas Supreme Court’s reasoning in Hubenak III with regard to the importance of finality in the condemnation proceeding involved in that case is equally applicable in this case, and we apply its reasoning here. See 141 S.W.3d at 183. If section 62.106(d)’s consent requirement is jurisdictional, then a stranger to a property title — the aggrieved local government — can challenge the ownership of the condemned land even after the private landowner has been compensated, public funds have been fully expended, and government improvements to the property have been entirely completed. Real property is fixed and permanent, and American law promotes stability in the transfer of real property interests. Collateral attacks based upon subject-matter jurisdiction undermine this stability, creating potential defects in title stemming from a long-forgotten condemnation proceeding. The City’s contention that the Port’s failure to obtain the City’s consent deprives a trial court of its subject-matter jurisdiction in a condemnation action thus imposes harsh consequences to settled interests. Absent express statutory language, we should not conclude that one local government keeps the keys to the courthouse — and the validity of a judgment — over the head of another local governmental entity. Rather, the Port and the City have concomitant rights to seek a judicial determination to resolve the applicability and the merit of their positions, in a court. E. Because Section 62.106(d) Is Not Jurisdictional, We Lack Jurisdiction to Hear the Appeal. The Texas Supreme Court has determined that “an interlocutory appeal cannot be taken from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction that does not raise an issue that can be jurisdictional.” Simons, 140 S.W.3d at 349; Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 365. An appellate court thus should dismiss an interlocutory appeal “when the issue raised [in the jurisdictional plea] cannot implicate subject matter jurisdiction.” Simons, 140 S.W.3d at 349. For the reasons discussed, the issue raised in the City’s jurisdictional plea — the Port’s failure to obtain the City’s consent to the condemnation under Water Code section 62.106(d) — is not jurisdictional. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction and do not determine the merit of the City’s claim in intervention. See Simons, 140 S.W.3d at 343; Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 365-366. Conclusion The trial court has jurisdiction to hear the subject matter of this suit. In such an instance, we lack jurisdiction to decide the issues presented here via an interlocutory appeal. Conferring jurisdictional status upon the statute at issue would open settled real property rights to collateral attack by local government, and halt another government project by jurisdictional fiat, even for already adjudicated real property interests. We hold that Water Code section 62.106(d)’s consent prerequisite, assuming that it applies and controls in this case, is not jurisdictional and thus is not the proper subject of a jurisdictional plea. We therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal and dismiss the case. En banc consideration was requested. A majority of the justices of the Court voted to grant en banc consideration. The en banc Court consists of Justices TAFT, NUCHIA, JENNINGS, KEYES, ALCALA, HANKS, HIGLEY, and BLAND. Justice KEYES, joined by Justice HANKS, dissenting. Chief Justice RADACK, recused. . See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8) (Vernon Supp.2005). . See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. §§ 37.001-011 (Vernon 1997 & Supp.2005). . A condemnation proceeding may properly be characterized as both an administrative proceeding and a trial-court cause. See Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., 141 S.W.3d 172, 179 (Tex.2004). The filing of the condemnation petition in the trial court, followed by the court’s appointment of the special commissioners, who hold a hearing and determine the property’s value, is the administrative aspect. Id.; see Tex. Prop.Code Ann. §§21.012, 21.014 (Vernon 2004). If a party objects to the special commissioners' award by filing an objection in the trial court, the cause converts from an administrative matter to a normal trial-court proceeding. Hubenak, 141 S.W.3d at 179; see Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 21.018 (Vernon 2004). . Within Water Code chapter 62, " ‘[district' means a navigation district operating under the provisions of Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution.” Tex. Water Code Ann. § 62.001(1) (Vernon 2004). The Port is such a district. See Act of Apr. 11, 1957, 55th Leg., R.S., ch. 117, § 2, 1957 Tex. Gen. Laws 241, 247, amended by Act of May 25, 1987, 70th Leg., R.S., ch. 1042, § 1, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 3506, 3506-07. . Kazi overruled Mingus v. Wadley, 115 Tex. 551, 558, 285 S.W. 1084, 1087 (1926) (holding that “where the cause of action and remedy for its enforcement are derived not from the common law but from the statute, the statutory provisions are mandatory and exclusive, and must be complied with in all respects or the action is not maintainable”), overruled, by Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71, 76 (Tex.2000). . Specifically, the Kazi court held that foreign-citizen plaintiffs’ statutory burden to prove that India and the United States had equal treaty rights was not a jurisdictional prerequisite, but was instead a condition upon which the plaintiffs’ right to relief depended. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d at 76-77. . By legislation effective September 1, 2005, the Legislature has made "[statutory prerequisites to a suit, including the provision of notice, ... jurisdictional requirements in all suits against a governmental entity.” Tex Gov't Code Ann. § 311.034 (Vernon Supp. 2005); Act of May 25, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 1150, § 1, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3783, 3783 (establishing effective date). This change in the law does not apply to this suit, not only because of its effective date, but because this condemnation proceeding is not a "suit[] against a governmental entity.” See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.022 (Vernon 2005) ("A statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation unless expressly made retrospective.”). Although Loutzenhiser’s holding that "the failure to give notice of a claim as required by [Civil Practice and Remedies Code] section 101.101 does not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction over an action on the claim” may have been legislatively overruled in future cases by this amendment, the general propositions for which we cite Lout-zenhiser are valid. See Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351, 364 (Tex.2004). . See Act of February 19, 1925, 39th Leg., R.S., ch. 5, § 34, 1925 Tex. Gen. Laws 7, 19. . The Legislature enacted the predecessor to section 62.107 in 1947. See Act of April 16, 1947, 50th Leg., R.S., ch. 125, § 1, 1947 Tex. Gen. Laws 218, 218. . Accord Helton v. R.R. Comm’n of Tex., 126 S.W.3d 111, 118 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied); Harris County Emergency Servs. Dist. # 1 v. Miller, 122 S.W.3d 218, 223 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.); Heart Hosp. IV, L.P. v. King, 116 S.W.3d 831, 834 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, pet. filed); Kshatr-ya v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n, 97 S.W.3d 825, 830-31 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.); Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Hafley, 96 S.W.3d 469, 473 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, no pet.); Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Beckner, 74 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, no pet.). . In Banta v. Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District, 445 S.W.2d 61, 62 (Tex. Civ.App.-Beaumont 1969), rev’d, 453 S.W.2d 134 (Tex.1970), the court of appeals held that a landowner had no standing to raise the issue of a city’s consent to a port condemnation project. Importantly, the Texas Supreme Court reversed this decision in Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District v. Banta, 453 S.W.2d 134, 137-38 (Tex.1970), and held that the affected city had passed a resolution that supported a finding of consent. The Texas Supreme Court reached the merits of the consent issue in that case, thereby implicitly recognizing that an affected landowner has standing to raise it. See id. Moreover, contrary to the dissent’s position in this case, in the court of appeals’s decision in Banta, that court did not suggest that a city lacked standing to contest the action — rather, it suggested the opposite. See Banta, 445 S.W.2d at 62 (holding that matter of consent is not one of legal concern to "these defendants” because consent provision was for benefit of city). If section 62.106(d) fails to confer standing upon a city to intervene and contest a condemnation action, then it likewise would not confer any standing to contest the trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter in a case between the landowner and the Port. . The dissent contends that condemnation judgments should be subject to collateral attack if the condemning authority fails to obtain consent, theorizing that proceeding without consent is an ultra vires act that should render the judgment void. For this proposition, the dissent relies upon City of Galveston v. Mann, 135 Tex. 319, 143 S.W.2d 1028 (Tex. 1940). In that case, however, the Texas Supreme Court denied a request by the city that it issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Attorney General to issue two series of bonds of the city. Id. at 1035. The case did not involve subject-matter jurisdiction, the condemnation power of a navigation district, or a consent requirement. See id. None of the court’s holdings in that case are incon-gruent with our holding in this case that the consent requirement is not jurisdictional. Moreover, the Mann court decided the case long before Kazi and Hubenak III, in which the court weighed the risks of categorizing all statutory mandates as jurisdictional against the competing concern of finality of judgments, and opted to adopt the prevailing modem view that statutory mandates are not to be presumed to be jurisdictional. . The dissent contends that the City’s right to require consent is illusory if it is not jurisdictional because the City will not know of the existence of a condemnation proceeding by an authority that has failed to seek its consent. This assumes that a City will not have at least constructive notice of such proceedings, but because a condemnation action must be filed in the county in which the property is located, this cannot be the case. See Tex Crv. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 15.011 (Vernon 2002) (“Actions for recovery of real property or an estate or interest in real property, for partition of real property, to remove encumbrances from the title to real property, for recovery of damages to real property, or to quiet title to real property shall be brought in the county in which all or a part of the property is located.”). More important, in this case, the City has actual notice of the proceedings and has intervened — thus, the argument that the consent provision must be jurisdictional to have any teeth to it is not borne out by the facts in this case. . In contrast, if "the issue raised [in the jurisdictional plea] could defeat the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, even if it did not do so in a particular case,” then the appellate court may not dismiss the appeal. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice v. Simons, 140 S.W.3d 338, 349 (Tex.2004) (emphasis in original). . The rule in Loutzenhiser and Simons requires that we dismiss this appeal because "the issue raised [in the City's jurisdictional pleas] cannot implicate subject matter jurisdiction.” Simons, 140 S.W.3d at 349; accord Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 365. We note, however, that the Texas Legislature has provided that "[a] person may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court at law, or county court that: ... grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit....” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8) (Vernon Supp.2004-2005). The language of section 51.014(a)(8) suggests that an appellate court has interlocutory jurisdiction based on the type of ruling made below (i.e., one granting or denying a governmental unit’s jurisdictional plea), rather than on the substance of the plea. Under the statute, if the party asserting the jurisdictional plea has not raised a truly jurisdictional issue within the plea, that defect is a reason to deny the plea; however, the trial court’s ruling is still an order ruling on the plea, for which the statute authorizes an appeal. In contrast, the rule in Loutzenhiser and Simons requires, in circumstances in which there is a disagreement as to the jurisdictional nature of the statute on which the plea is based, that the appellate court, in effect, determine the merit of the jurisdictional plea in order to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the first place. We follow the rule in Loutzenhiser and Simons as binding authority.
EVELYN V. KEYES, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the order denying the plea to the jurisdiction of appellant, the City of Seabrook (“the City”), and render judgment that the City’s jurisdictional plea be granted and that the underlying condemnation proceedings brought by the Port of Houston Authority (“the Port”) against American Acryl NA, L.L.C. and American Acryl L.P. (together, “American”) be dismissed. Construction of Water Code in Section 62.106(d) A. The Issue This case turns on whether a navigation district’s compliance with Water Code section 62.106(d) — which provides that “[n]o right of way may be condemned” by a navigation district without the prior consent of a city through which the right-of-way runs — is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a district court’s adjudication of condemnation proceedings brought by the navigation district against a landowner whose property lies within a city. Section 62.106, “Condemnation Proceedings,” provides: (a) The district may exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn and acquire the right-of-way over and through any and all public and private land necessary: (1) for the improvement of any river, bay, creek, or stream; (2) for the construction and maintenance of any canal or waterway; and (3) for any and all purposes authorized by this chapter. (d) No right-of-way may be condemned through any part of an incorporated city or town without the consent of the lawful authorities of that city or town. Tex. WateR Code Ann. § 62.106(a), (d) (Vernon 2004) (emphasis added). The City views section 62.106(d)’s consent prerequisite as jurisdictional. Consequently, it argues that the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Port’s condemnation action unless and until the Port obtains the City’s consent. In contrast, the Port argues that the section’s consent prerequisite is not jurisdictional, assuming that section 62.106(d) applies and controls (a position that the Port also contests and that the majority opinion does not reach). As the majority recognizes, whether the City’s consent to condemnation is a jurisdictional prerequisite determines, in turn, whether we have subject-matter jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice v. Simons, 140 S.W.3d 338, 349 (Tex.2004) (holding that “an interlocutory appeal cannot be taken from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction that does not raise an issue that can be jurisdictional” and that appellate court must dismiss interlocutory appeal “when the issue raised [in the jurisdictional plea] cannot implicate subject matter jurisdiction”); accord Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351, 365 (Tex.2004). Because I agree with the City that the consent provision in section 62.106(d) is jurisdictional and that, therefore, the trial court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the underlying condemnation proceedings against American, I would grant the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and render judgment that the trial court dismiss the proceedings. B. Jurisdictional Nature of Consent Provision in Section 62.106(d) To prevail in condemnation proceedings, the condemning entity must prove that it has satisfied the various formal prerequisites necessary to proceed in the trial court. Whittington v. City of Austin, 174 S.W.3d 889, 896 (Tex.App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied); see also Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co. (Hubenak III), 141 S.W.3d 172, 182 (Tex.2004). The courts are constrained to give effect to each of these requirements in construing the lawful powers conferred upon condemning entities, such as navigation districts, proceeding under section 62.106 of the Texas Water Code. See Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864, 865-66 (Tex.1999); Wood v. Bird, 32 S.W.2d 271, 273 (Tex.Civ.App.— El Paso 1930, no writ.). Moreover, these requirements are mandatory. See Hubenak III, 141 S.W.3d at 180 (construing similar statutory provisions in section 21.012(b) of Texas Property Code as mandatory requirements upon commencement of condemnation proceeding); Brazos River Conservation & Reclamation Dist. v. Costello, 135 Tex. 307, 143 S.W.2d 577, 580 (Tex.1940) (holding that statute vested district court with jurisdiction to determine that every prerequisite of Constitution was fully complied with before property could be put to public use, i.e., that requirements were all mandatory). Although all prerequisites to a condemnation suit are mandatory, not all are jurisdictional. See Hubenak III, 141 S.W.3d at 180 (construing “unable-to-agree” provision in Property Code as mandatory, but not jurisdictional); see also Whittington, 174 S.W.3d at 896 (observing that at least some prerequisites to exercise of eminent-domain power are mandatory, but not jurisdictional). As the supreme court has pointed out, “The failure of a non-jurisdictional requirement mandated by statute may result in the loss of a claim, but that failure must be timely asserted and compliance can be waived.” Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 359. By contrast, “the failure of a jurisdictional requirement deprives the court of the power to act (other than to determine that it has no jurisdiction), and ever to have acted, as a matter of law.” Id. If a petition does not allege jurisdictional facts, the plaintiffs suit is subject to dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on a plea to the jurisdiction unless it is possible to amend the pleadings to confer jurisdiction. Martinez v. City of El Paso, 169 S.W.3d 488, 492 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2005, pet. denied). I agree with the majority that, after Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, the failure to comply with a non-jurisdictional statutory requirement — even a mandatory one— may result in the loss of a claim, but that such non-compliance does not deprive the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction over that claim. See Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71, 76-77 (Tex.2000); accord Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 359. The issue here, however, is not the City’s loss of a claim against the Port. The issue is the City’s loss of its sovereign right to consent to the Port’s exercise of the power of eminent domain within the City’s boundaries — a right conferred upon it (and upon all incorporated cities and towns) by the Legislature as a restriction on navigation districts’ exercise of the power of eminent domain under section 62.106 of the Water Code. The essential distinction between this ease and Hubenak III is that condemnation proceedings adjudicate the rights of landowners vis a vis governmental authorities exercising the power of eminent domain. They do not adjudicate the rights of sovereign entities vis a vis each other. Whether the City is entitled both to notice of the Port’s intent to condemn property within its boundaries and the opportunity to refuse its consent to those condemnation proceedings is a question of law that goes to the scope of the power of eminent domain granted the Port by the Legislature, not to the propriety of the Port’s exercise of that power against a landowner. Because I agree with the City that its consent is a jurisdictional condition precedent to the Port’s exercise of the power of eminent domain, and because the Port failed to comply with that condition precedent, I would hold that the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Port’s condemnation proceedings against American and that the proceeding must, therefore, be dismissed. Since Kazi, the Supreme Court of Texas has indicated that whether a statutory requirement is a jurisdictional or substantive bar depends on the Legislature’s intent. See Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 359; see also Kazi, 12 S.W.3d at 76. Indeed, the dominant rule controlling the construction of a statute is to ascertain the intention of the Legislature expressed in the statute. Costello, 143 S.W.2d at 580 (construing statute authorizing condemnation of property by eminent domain). The inquiry begins with the statutory language, including whether any consequences for noncompliance are specified. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 359; see also Fitzgerald, 996 S.W.2d at 865-66 (holding that court’s primary goal in interpreting statute is to ascertain and to effectuate Legislature’s intent and that, in ascertaining legislative intent, courts begin with statute’s plain language). Another indicator of the Legislature’s intent, which our Court has found particularly pertinent when the statute is silent on the consequences of non-compliance, is the statute’s purpose. See Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d. at 360; Harris County Emergency Servs. Dist. No. 1 v. Miller, 122 S.W.3d 218, 223 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). The statute may be read in connection with the constitutional provisions authorizing its enactment, and those constitutional provisions may be read into and considered a part of the statute. Costello, 143 S.W.2d at 580. The power of eminent domain is a constitutional power essential to state governments and “inseparable from sovereignty,” but its sphere is limited. United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 236-38, 67 S.Ct. 252, 254-55, 91 L.Ed. 209 (1946); see U.S. Const. amend. V; Tex. Const, art. I, § 17. The power of eminent domain must be conferred either expressly or by necessary implication by the Legislature. Coastal States Gas Prod. Co. v. Pate, 158 Tex. 171, 309 S.W.2d 828, 831 (Tex.1958); Saunders v. Titus County Fresh Water Supply Dist. No. 1, 847 S.W.2d 424, 427 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1993, no writ); Wood, 32 S.W.2d at 273 (holding that right of eminent domain may not be exercised unless plain letter of law permits it). “[T]he legal requirements governing condemnation proceedings ‘must be strictly followed.’” Whittington, 174 S.W.3d at 899 (quoting Horton v. Mills County, 468 S.W.2d 876, 878 (Tex.App.—Austin 1971, no writ)). Condemnation statutes need not, however, be given the narrowest meaning of which they are susceptible. Pate, 309 S.W.2d at 831. Rather, “[t]he language used by the Legislature may be accorded a full meaning that will carry out its manifest purpose and intention in enacting the statute, but the operation of the law will then be confined to cases which plainly fall within its terms as well as it spirit and purpose.” Id. The constitutional and statutory limitations on a state entity’s exercise of the power of eminent domain impliedly prohibit takings outside those limitations. See Whittington, 174 S.W.3d at 896 (“By requiring takings to be solely for public purposes, these limitations impliedly prohibit takings for private purposes or benefit.”). The City contends that the Port condemned American’s land pursuant to section 62.106 of the Water Code. The purpose of section 62.106 is to provide for the exercise of the power of eminent domain by a navigation district operating under the provisions of article XVI, section 59 of the Texas Constitution, but within the confines of the power conferred on the district by section 62.106. Specifically, in section 62.106, the Texas Legislature has conferred the power on navigational districts “to condemn and acquire the right-of-way over and through any and all public and private land necessary” for the improvement of a “any river, bay, creek, or stream for the construction and maintenance of any canal or waterway,” and for any other purpose authorized by Chapter 62 of the Water Code, “instituted under the direction of the [navigation and canal] commission and in the name of the district,” subject to the condition that no right-of-way may be condemned under section 62.106 “through any part of an incorporated city or town without the consent of the lawful authorities of that city or town.” Tex. WateR Code Ann. §§ 62.001(defini-tions), 62.106(a),(b). The limits of that power are set out as prerequisites to the maintenance of condemnation proceedings. Under the plain language of section 62.106, no property within an incorporated city or town may be condemned by a navigation district except as necessary to effectuate the purposes set out in that section — and then only with the consent of the lawful authorities of the incorporated city or town within whose boundaries the land the district seeks to condemn lies. See id. § 62.106(d). A navigation district operating under article XVI, section 59 simply has no statutorily-conferred authority to condemn land under section 62.106(d) without obtaining such consent. Here, the Port did not obtain the City’s consent to the condemnation proceedings against American. Therefore, if the consent prerequisite is jurisdictional, the proper remedy is to dismiss the Port’s futile eminent-domain proceedings against American. If the City’s consent is not jurisdictional, however, the Port can continue with its condemnation proceedings, and the City simply loses its chance to object to the Port’s failure to obtain its consent because the statute provides no remedy for such a failure — unless, that is, the City learns of the proceedings, successfully intervenes and persuades the trial court that the proceedings should not go forward. In the latter case, the Port’s failure to obtain the City’s consent is a trivial matter without consequences; in the former, it is a matter of jurisdictional consequence. The fact that the Legislature did not expressly provide a mechanism for cities to assert a right intended to protect their sovereignty within their borders confirms the conclusion that 62.106(d)’s consent prerequisite is jurisdictional, not that it is trivial. Cf. City of Laredo v. Almazan, 179 S.W.3d 132, 135 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (concluding that statute was not jurisdictional because, among other things, it provided non-compliance penalty within statutory scheme). For example, in no case does either the Water Code or the Property Code provide an express means for cities to assert the right to consent to right-of-way condemnation through their territory. Generally speaking, the law contemplates that water districts seeking to condemn a right-of-way file a petition against the private property owner, not the non-owner city through whose territory the right-of-way will run. There is no express provision in the Water Code’s or Property Code’s condemnation provisions for making the affected, non-owner city a party to the condemnation proceeding. Although this Court has no jurisdiction in this interlocutory appeal to determine whether the City had the right to intervene in this condemnation suit, and I do not purport to make such a determination, I observe that there is no mechanism in the Water Code or Property Code that provides for such intervention, or otherwise ensures that a condemning authority must give a municipality notice of its intentions, or provides any avenue for a city to protest a condemnation proceeding by another governmental entity intruding upon its sovereignty. It is significant that the sole court that expressly considered the purpose of section 62.106(d)’s predecessor in the context of condemnation proceedings has concluded that the statute was enacted “for the benefit of the municipality[,]” so that there would “be no conflict in the use to which land in a city could be put, as between a navigation district and a city.” Banta v. Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation Dist. (Banta I), 445 S.W.2d 61, 62 (Tex. Civ.App.—Beaumont 1969), rev’d on other grounds, (Banta II), 453 S.W.2d 134 (Tex. 1970). If, indeed, section 62.106(d) was enacted for the benefit of municipalities like the City, but that provision’s consent prerequisite is not jurisdictional, then a municipality’s right to consent is entirely illusory because the municipality itself is not made a necessary party to the proceedings by the terms of the statute, the statute provides no means for the municipality to assert the violation of its right, and no statutory remedy is provided for a district’s violation of the right to consent. It is perverse to interpret section 62.106 as providing an illusory right without a remedy. It is equally perverse to interpret section 62.106 as requiring that a municipality that is not a necessary party to condemnation proceedings, that has no statutory right or duty to assert its “claim” under the statute, and that has no statutory remedy for a violation of its rights, nevertheless loses its statutorily mandated veto power over a navigation district’s assertion of the power of eminent domain within the municipality’s boundaries if the district chooses not to seek that consent and the municipality does not find out before the land is condemned, find a vehicle to protest the violation of its right to consent, and timely assert that right. Either way, the result is absurd. Courts should not read a statute to create an absurd result. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 356 (quoting Barskop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618, 629 (Tex.1996)). Rather, “[i]n enacting a statute, it is presumed that ... (3) a just and reasonable result is intended.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.021(3) (Vernon 2005). “[W]ords, no matter how plain, will not be construed to cause a result the Legislature almost certainly could not have intended.” Bridgstone/Firestone, Inc. v. Glyn-Jones, 878 S.W.2d 132, 135 (Tex.1994) (Hecht, J., concurring) (quoted in Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d at 356 n. 20). Furthermore, I disagree that the Hube-nak III holding has the broad sweep that the majority attributes to it and that it automatically renders all the mandatory requirements for the condemnation of land non-jurisdictional, regardless of the purpose of a requirement, the person or entity at whom it is directed (i.e., a party or non-party, sovereign entity or landowner), or the existence or non-existence of a statutory means for protesting a violation of the statute or a statutory remedy for the violation. First, the Hubenak III court held only that the “unable-to-agree” requirement — which applies to the relationship between the condemning authority and the landowner — was non-jurisdictional. See Hubenak III, 141 S.W.3d at 180. The court did not summarily declare all statutory condemnation requirements to be non-jurisdictional. See id.; see also Whittington, 174 S.W.3d at 896. Second, the unable-to-agree requirement requires the condemning authority to show, as a prerequisite to maintaining a condemnation suit, that it and the landowner could not agree on condemnation damages. See Tex. PROp.Code Ann. § 21.012(a) (Vernon 2004). The condemning authority and the landowner are both necessary parties to the condemnation proceeding. See id. § 21.012. Under both Water Code chapter 62 and the Property Code, in contrast, a city that has the right to give or to withhold its consent to right-of-way condemnation within its territory is not contemplated, within the applicable statutes, as a party to the condemnation proceeding. See Tex. WateR Code Ann. §§ 62.106, 62.107 (Vernon 2004); Tex. PROp.Code Ann. §§ 21.011, 21.012. Third, the purpose of the unable-to-agree requirement is “to ‘forestall litigation and to prevent needless appeals to the courts when the matter may have been settled by negotiations between the parties.’ ” Hubenak III, 141 S.W.3d at 184. Protesting the failure of a district to comply with this requirement within the context of condemnation proceedings does not create more litigation. Rather, the condemnation proceedings provide both a means for a landowner to protest that the condemning authority has not satisfied the unable-to-agree requirement and a statutory remedy for a wrongful taking. By contrast, the purpose of Water Code section 62.106(d)’s consent provisions is to assure that there is “no conflict in the use to which land in a city could be put, as between a navigation district and a city.” Banta I, 445 S.W.2d at 62. Because condemnation proceedings provide neither a means for a city to protest that it did not consent to a navigation district’s condemnation of land within its boundaries nor a remedy for the district’s violation of the consent provisions, the purpose of the consent provision cannot be satisfied within the context of condemnation proceedings and continuing the proceedings does not resolve the legal issues raised by non-consent. Given these critical differences between the parties and the statutory provisions involved, I would hold that Hube-nak Ill’s cited holding does not apply to section 62.106(d)’s consent prerequisite. It is vital that courts distinguish between the positions of landowners whose property a sovereign seeks to condemn in valid condemnation proceedings and the positions of governmental entities, like the City, whose sovereign rights are infringed by constitutionally and statutorily invalid condemnation proceedings. At least eight times the Water Code, along with other codes’ provisions regulating various specialized districts, requires a city’s consent before a district may perform various acts, condemnations, or services within the city’s territorial or extraterritorial jurisdiction. Although these laws sometimes provide for an alternative means for the district’s act, condemnation, or service to be accomplished within a city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction when the city fails to consent, no Water Code provision provides such an alternative means to authorize the district’s act, condemnation, or service within a city’s territory. Rather, the Water Code and the related codes mentioned above consistently require a city’s consent to these acts — including certain right-of-way condemnations — when they are conducted within the city’s territory, and they do not provide for an alternative means to act if consent is withheld. These statutes make it clear that the Legislature intended to require the consent of cities to certain invasive acts, including condemnation proceedings by another sovereign entity, within their own territory, and so to protect them in that situation. The only way to carry out this clear intent satisfactorily is to construe section 62.106’s consent prerequisite to be jurisdictional. For all the foregoing reasons, I would hold that the consent of an incorporated city or town to a taking by a navigation district within its boundaries is a condition precedent to the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over condemnation proceedings brought by the navigation district against a landowner and that proceedings brought without such consent must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Nor am I persuaded to the contrary by the majority’s arguments, which I address below. Objections to Majority’s Reasoning In addition to drawing the conclusion that the consent provision in section 62.106(d) is jurisdictional, rather than non-jurisdictional, as the majority holds, I disagree with the majority’s reasoning in support of its judgment on a number of important points. A. Interference with “Settled” Property Rights I disagree with the majority’s reasoning that the potential instability to “settled” property interests that might arise from finding the consent prerequisite jurisdictional necessarily requires the conclusion that the prerequisite is not jurisdictional. The Port raises a related argument, that the purpose of its rights to exercise the power of eminent domain will be thwarted by finding section 62.106(d)’s consent prerequisite to be jurisdictional. I fully recognize the concern expressed by the supreme court in Hubenak III that “[i]f the ‘unable to agree’ requirement [