In Schaefer v. City of San Antonio, 838 S.W.2d 688 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1992, no writ), the plaintiff's home was damaged by a water leak from a broken water pipe across the street. At trial, a claims adjuster with the San Antonio Water Board testified that electric motor-driven pumps propel water through the city's water mains, thus maintaining a constant water pressure throughout the city's water system. The plaintiff claimed that these pumps qualified as "motor-driven equipment" under the Texas Tort Claims Act, but the trial court found that the water leak did not arise from the use of motor-driven equipment as contemplated by the Act. Schaefer, 838 S.W.2d at 690. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that "controlling water pressure by use of the electric motor-driven water pumps is not operating or using motor-driven equipment within the meaning of the Act . . . ." Id. at 693. Thus, the court's holding was based on the pump's "operation or use" rather than its status as "motor-driven equipment." Id. The court went on to question the propriety of considering any stationary electric pump to be motor-driven equipment, noting: "The status of stationary electric motor-driven pumps as 'motor-driven equipment' is questionable at best . . . ." Id. But the court was sure that water pressure control, generally, was not an activity for which the Act waived immunity, and concluded that "the water pump in question is not 'motor-driven equipment' for purposes of the Act." Id. The Court of appeals held that a stationary electric motor-driven pump was not "motor-driven equipment" under the Tort Claims Act. Id. at 693. White counters that no conflict exists because the court of appeals' conclusion that such a pump was not "motor-driven equipment" is not a holding but merely dicta. Noting that the scope of "motor-driven equipment" "must be understood to be fairly broad," the court of appeals in this case concluded that, in alleging injury caused by a stationary electric motor-driven pump, "White . . . alleged sufficient facts to establish that TNRCC's pump was 'motor-driven equipment' as that term is used in the act." 13 S.W.3d at 825-26.