the levee district, and residents of the counties elected the commissioners. This was an important factor in the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that the Levee Board did not enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity. McDonald, 832 F.2d at 907. Local versus Statewide Interests: Water and soil conservation is undeniably a statewide concern. See Bennett v. Brown Cty. Water Improv. Dist., 153 Tex. 599, 272 S.W.2d 498, 502-03 (1954). While CWA is primarily concerned with protecting the water supply within its district, this is part of a larger statewide concern. The fact that the state has divided itself into districts for the purpose of addressing its concerns does not make the need for water and soil conservation any less a statewide issue. See Clark v. Tarrant Cty., 798 F.2d 736, 745 (5th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). The statewide nature of CWA’s interests is
holding that the university of colorado is an arm of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity holding that the puc is not an arm of the state and rejecting claim of immunity holding that the fsba was an arm of the state for diversity purposes holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding that probation department was arm of the state and that dividing the responsibilities into  districts is merely an administrative tool for handling a statewide state program