O P I N I O N Homeowners, whose properties allegedly flooded when water was released from Lake Conroe in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, sued the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) and the Texas Water Development Board in a Harris County district court. The homeowners asserted inverse condemnation claims under the Texas and United States constitutions, as well as claims for violations of procedural and substantive due process rights. SJRA filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a and a plea to the jurisdiction, principally asserting governmental immunity. The trial court denied the motion and the plea. The Texas Water Board filed a Rule 91a motion also asserting governmental immunity. The trial court granted that motion. In these interlocutory cross-appeals, SJRA challenges the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, while the homeowners challenge the dismissal of their claims against the Texas Water Board.[1] For the first time on appeal, SJRA and the Texas Water Board additionally argue that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this case because the county civil courts at law have exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional inverse condemnation claims filed in Harris County, citing Texas Government Code section 25.1032(c). Related to this argument, the homeowners have moved this court to either (1) lift the stay under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 51.014(b) to allow the homeowners to add statutory takings claims under Government Code Chapter 2007 to their petition in the trial court or (2) upon final adjudication of this appeal, remand this case to the trial court so that the homeowners can plead and prosecute these statutory taking claims. This motion has been taken with the case. Concluding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the homeowners’ constitutional inverse condemnation and due process claims and that the homeowners were not entitled to amend their pleadings, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing the claims against the Texas Water Board for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reverse the district court’s order denying SJRA’s plea to the jurisdiction, and render judgment dismissing the homeowners’ claims against SJRA for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Background Hurricane Harvey moved through the Houston area in late August 2017, bringing record-setting rains and causing widespread flooding. The homeowners allege that their properties, which are all near either the West Fork or the East Fork of the San Jacinto River, did not flood during Hurricane Harvey but flooded only after the rains associated with the hurricane had dissipated and a large volume of water was released from the Lake Conroe Dam into the West Fork. SJRA built the Lake Conroe Dam in 1973—with assistance from the Texas Water Board—and has operated the dam ever since. The homeowners assert that SJRA intentionally caused the flooding of their properties to protect the integrity of the dam as well as other properties, while the Texas Water Board retained a certain amount of supervision or control over SJRA’s actions. The homeowners further allege that this was not the first time that a release of water from the dam had caused flooding on their properties. In their second amended petition—the live petition at the time of the relevant trial court rulings and when this appeal was filed—the homeowners raised inverse condemnation claims under both the Texas and United States constitutions based on the alleged physical and regulatory taking of their property. The homeowners additionally raised procedural and substantive due process claims, asserting that SJRA failed to produce responsive documents while moving to dismiss the lawsuit and that SJRA and the Texas Water Board violated the homeowners’ right to live on their properties without government-induced flooding. As stated above, the Texas Water Board filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, which the trial court granted, and SJRA filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. During the pendency of this appeal and while the mandatory appellate stay was in place, see Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 51.014(b), the homeowners filed a third amended petition and a fourth amended petition adding claims against SJRA for statutory takings under Chapter 2007 of Texas Government Code. The homeowners thereafter withdrew those amended petitions, apparently after SJRA objected in an email. In this appeal, as mentioned above, the homeowners request that we either lift the mandatory appellate stay to permit them add Chapter 2007 claims to their petition or, upon final adjudication of this appeal, remand this case to the trial court so that the homeowners can pursue their Chapter 2007 claims. Standards of Review All of the issues in this appeal concern the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is essential to the authority of a court to decide a case; it therefore cannot be waived and can be raised for the first time on appeal, even sua sponte. See Clint I.S.D. v. Marquez, 487 S.W.3d 538, 558 (Tex. 2016); Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993). The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, reviewed de novo. See Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control, Inc. v. City of San Antonio, 489 S.W.3d 448, 451 (Tex. 2016). In assessing whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction over particular claims, we construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the pleader, look to the pleader’s intent, and accept as true the factual allegations in the pleadings except to the extent negated by evidence. Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226-27 (Tex. 2004). If the pleadings are insufficient to establish jurisdiction but do not affirmatively establish an incurable defect, the plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to replead. State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 643 (Tex. 2007); Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226-27. However, if the pleadings affirmatively negate the trial court’s jurisdiction, the case may be dismissed without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227. Discussion We will begin by considering whether, as SJRA and the Water Board argue on appeal, the Harris County civil courts at law have exclusive jurisdiction over the homeowners’ constitutional inverse condemnation claims. Concluding that they do and the district court therefore lacked jurisdiction over the homeowners’ inverse condemnation claims, we will then consider whether the district court retained jurisdiction over the homeowners’ due process claims. Concluding that it did not, we will address the proper disposition of these appeals and whether the homeowners are entitled to a remand to amend their pleadings. I. Constitutional Inverse Condemnation Claims As stated, in their live pleading (the second amended petition), the homeowners raised inverse condemnation claims under both the Texas and United States constitutions based on the alleged physical and regulatory taking of their property.[2] SJRA and the Texas Water Board contend on appeal that Texas Government Code section 25.1032(c) imbues the county civil courts at law with exclusive jurisdiction over all inverse condemnation claims filed in Harris County. That provision states in full:
