transport, treat and purify, distribute, sell and deliver water, ...” and it may “purchase, construct or lease all property, works and facilities ... necessary for such purposes.” Act of May 17, 1967, 60th Leg., R.S., ch. 601, § 3, 1967 Tex. Gen. Laws 1381. The Legislature expressly declared in the enabling legislation that creation of the CWA was “essential to the accomplishment of the purposes of Article XVI Section 59 of the Texas Constitution.” Id. § 8. Source of Funding: CWA is funded by its ratepayers (not the state) and is financially self-sufficient. This factor is of considerable importance, but is not disposi-tive. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 243 F.3d 936, 938 (5th Cir.2001); McDonald v. Board of Miss. Levee Comm’rs, 832 F.2d 901, 907-08 (5th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Celanese’s citation of Hess v. Port Auth.
recognizing that among other factors the location and level of the precedent as well as its age are important factors in a qualified immunity analysis holding that the degree of local autonomy is another important factor and weighing all factors in reaching its decision to deny immunity recognizing that the third factor permanence is the most important holding a local government sued under  1983 has no immunity even if its employee is entitled to qualified immunity and the court of appeals does not have jurisdiction over the local governments interlocutory appeal holding that the most important factor in the preservation hierarchy is whether the relevant issue was raised in the trial court and the least important factor is whether the appellant alerted the trial court to the specific argument raised on appeal