its free exercise of its governmental powers, nor could it abdicate its governmental functions, even for a “reasonable time.” Clear Lake, 549 S.W.2d at 391. When discharging its governmental functions, MUD 24, as an agent of the State, is exercising the State’s police power, which is a grant of authority from the people to the government for the protection of the health, safety, comfort, and welfare of the public. Galveston County MUD No. 3 v. League City, 960 S.W.2d 875, 877 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ) (operation of sewer system by municipality is exercise of governmental function). Therefore, we hold that MUD 24’s functions are governmental functions mandated by Texas law. See Hydrocarbon Prod. Co. v. Valley Acres Water Dist., 204 F.2d 212, 217 (5th Cir.1953) (<HOLDING>). Because we find that MUD 24’s functions are
holding wjhere an appeal is taken the terms of probation do not commence until the mandate of this court is issued and citing former section 8 of article 4212 texas code of criminal procedure holding that refusal to proceed to trial by arbitrarily abating case violates article i section 13 of the texas constitution holding that texas legislature has no police power to violate article i section 16 of the texas constitution because section 29 emphatically and unambiguously excepts this power from the powers of the government of the state of texas holding texass substantive law should apply rather than the law of the state where the accident occurred because texas has a particularly strong interest when the defective product in question was manufactured and placed in the stream of commerce in texas holding that provisions of texas constitution article 16 section 59 are a mandate declaring the texass policy regarding drainage and irrigation