140 S.W.3d 351, 358 (Tex.2004) (stating that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or waiver). 18 . Tex. Prop.Code § 21.012(a). 19 . Id. § 21.001. 20 . Id. § 21.012(b). A fifth requirement, not applicable to the pending case, now mandates that the petition must "if applicable, state that the entity provided the property owner with the landowner’s bill of rights statement in accordance with Section 21.0112.” Act of May 25, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 1201, § 4, sec. 21.012(b)(5), 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 4072, 4073. 21 . 141 S.W.3d 172, 183-84, 191 (Tex.2004). 22 . State v. Nelson, 160 Tex. 515, 334 S.W.2d 788, 790 (1960). 23 . Id. at 792. 24 . Tex Prop.Code §21.012(b)(2). 25 . See Coastal Indus. Water Auth. v. Celanese Corp. of Am., 592 S.W.2d 597, 600 (Tex.1979) (<HOLDING>); Ex Parte Edmonds, 383 S.W.2d 579, 581
holding that condemning authoritys statement in petition that purpose of condemned easement was for the transportation of water and other facilities and uses incidental thereto or in connection therewith for trinity water conveyance system was adequate and that further allegations of purpose were unnecessary holding substantial completion had occurred because water district took possession of all the lines filled them with water and began using them to serve the customers of the water district recognizing that water retained within a watershed is susceptible to multiple use because all water uses are not consumptive uses holding that article x  2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially holding that village could not condition provision of water services on annexation where prospective customer was within a rural water associations service area and the water association was federally indebted