Bingo, the only thing TxDOT over designs for is the ROW they want to take at platting. They are constantly undersized and under designed compared to what local municipalities require, but be sure if you are doing work in their ROW it's going to be a much higher standard than they themselves design for.

Twisted Helix said:

---

That's out around Winnie, ranch and rice land. TxDOT put in culverts under the freeway but never maintained them and they failed under the circumstances they placed there to work in.
I hope he wins.

---

I could also be because that entire area is one heavy rainstorm away from a swamp to start with...

This kind of thing is an issue out in Odessa as well. TxDOT renovated a new highway with new culverts and raised the road, and now every time it rains, it floods an entire neighborhood. Residents were furious.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

That volume of rain was an extreme, possibly unprecedented outlier. To design based upon that would be ridiculous.

---

Many engineering designs are simply based on a cost/benefit analysis. It could be cost prohibitive (ie. ridiculous) to design for the largest conceivable event so you take a calculated risk to reduce your construction cost. The trade-off is that in saving construction cost, you put others at risk. The lesser your design, the greater their risk.

In those occasions that the design is never exceeded, you win. If your design is exceeded and others are damaged, you lose.

It appears the state owes damages because they lost this particular gamble.

DamnGood86 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

That volume of rain was an extreme, possibly unprecedented outlier. To design based upon that would be ridiculous.

---

Many engineering designs are simply based on a cost/benefit analysis. It could be cost prohibitive (ie. ridiculous) to design for the largest conceivable event so you take a calculated risk to reduce your construction cost. The trade-off is that in saving construction cost, you put others at risk. The lesser your design, the greater their risk.

In those occasions that the design is never exceeded, you win. If your design is exceeded and others are damaged, you lose.

It appears the state owes damages because they lost this particular gamble.

---

That's not the way it works. If the state could be held liable for negligence, then the state would be a party to a lot of car wreck cases for negligent design of intersections. The cost of eliminating sovereign immunity would be crushing for taxpayers. The only folks who would benefit would be lawyers, so perhaps I should shut up.

Was the gamble reasonable?

Quote:

---

The cost of eliminating sovereign immunity would be crushing for taxpayers.

---

Absolutely false. Other states have reduced or eliminated sovereign immunity with minimal effect on taxpayers. The major effect is to force highway departments to be better in their designs and construction. It is a wonder to me that Texas taxpayers have put up with such strong sovereign immunity for so long. It is contrary to basic concepts of freedom and limited government.

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

This parallels, to some degree, the issues behind Addicks and Barkers dams. Man-made barrier that changed the natural flow of water.

Personally I hope he wins.

---

Except there were development built in a known flood zone... . Developers ignored the flowage easements (perpetual rights to flood private property) . BIG difference

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

The cost of eliminating sovereign immunity would be crushing for taxpayers.

---

Absolutely false. Other states have reduced or eliminated sovereign immunity with minimal effect on taxpayers. The major effect is to force highway departments to be better in their designs and construction. It is a wonder to me that Texas taxpayers have put up with such strong sovereign immunity for so long. It is contrary to basic concepts of freedom and limited government.

---

Name them.

A complete list of all states:

STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND TORT LIABILITY CHART (00177645).DOC (mwl-law.com)

Your link is just a chart of sovereign immunity statutes. It doesn't show any changes at all, much less what impact these alleged changes have on taxpayers.

As to New Mexico, they appear to be only slightly more generous than Texas in allowing claims against public employees for negligence within the scope of their duties in the operation or maintenance of any building, public park, machinery, equipment or furnishings, so that doesn't cover the situation involved here. Furthermore, their tort claims act has a limit of $200,000 for damages to property, which, although twice what Texas allows, is still not going to help someone in the situation described in the OP.

Your missing the point of the chart entirely.

The chart lists the states' rules of sovereign immunity. The vast majority of the states have much more gracious waivers of sovereign immunity than does Texas, yet those states do not have a significantly higher (or no higher or even lower) total tax burden on the taxpayers than does Texas. In other words, there is no evidence that waiving sovereign immunity will be bad for taxpayers.

On the other hand, there is significant reason to believe that states act more reasonably in the design and maintenance of state projects, including highways, when they do waive sovereign immunity.

And, finally, why shouldn't states waive sovereign immunity? Why should a state entity not be subject to the same responsibilities as its taxpayers are?

(Those NM limits were established in 1996, I believe, and have not been adjusted upward for inflation. They did not cause catastrophic harm to taxpayers back in 1996. Also, that's just one of many states, most of which do not have such limits. And the NM limits would be better than the nothing that Tx provides.)

His land, his water. Txdot is a beaver, beavers have sovereign immunity until shot.

More sweeping assertions not backed up with any facts

twk said:

---

More sweeping assertions not backed up with any facts

---

That's rich. Face, see mirror.

I don't claim to know how immunity works here. I will say that I drove from Beaumont to Orange in a lifted F250 to rescue a friends' elderly mother. It was dry on the eastbound lanes. On the way back, the water was up to the top of the barriers. Lots of flooded cars I had to go around. So why did they not provide some breaks to allow the water through?

The solution seems so simple. A Jackhammer and 30 minutes would have solved much of the problem.

Rabid Cougar said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

This parallels, to some degree, the issues behind Addicks and Barkers dams. Man-made barrier that changed the natural flow of water.

Personally I hope he wins.

---

Except there were development built in a known flood zone... . Developers ignored the flowage easements (perpetual rights to flood private property) . BIG difference

---

And that's why I said parallels. The county or city that issued building permits in the pool zone should 100% be on the hook for damages. Even if the Corps didn't purchase the land they should have. The county knew the design but chose to issue permits. That should have been the last line of defense and the land should have been only used for agricultural.

When TXDOT built the road in an area known to flood, they should have realized it will impound flood water and made better design changes. In this case there could have been lower cost changes that probably would have averted the worst.

And the argument you can't plan and build for 10,000 year events is true. If Harvey were to happen again today the outcome would largely be the same, even with billions spent in changing designs and improvements. The home buyouts of removing the homes from the areas known to repeatedly flood. But it's an expensive and slow process.

SCOTUS finds in favor of the DeVillier family. The nuts and bolts of what this means I'm not certain.

If you saw his place you would agree with him. They turned his ranch into a lake. His deer were hung up in fences and died. The State did that with their poor planning not the hurricane. They essentially built a damn in front of his ranch.

It sounds like his suit against Texas is allowed to move forward, but he still has a long way to go to win the actual case against the state.

Texas A&M said:

---

It sounds like his suit against Texas is allowed to move forward, but he still has a long way to go to win the actual case against the state.

---

Calling twk.

Can you come back and further explain how this is not the way it works and that the state cannot be held liable for negligence.

I skimmed through the opinion. The Court held that the property owners could not bring a federal claim without a showing that they had no way to make a claim under state law. So, the case will go to a state court case where it will be tried as an inverse condemnation case, with the usual rules applying, meaning that they will have to show that an intentional act (not negligence) resulted in their land being appropriated for public use. There are a few flooding inverse condemnation cases out there, with mixed results. If the land in question only floods when you get 40 or 60 inches of rain, the cases are not going to be as favorable. If the flooding happens regularly, then they will have a better case for a taking.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Twisted Helix said:

---

That's out around Winnie, ranch and rice land. TxDOT put in culverts under the freeway but never maintained them and they failed under the circumstances they placed there to work in.
I hope he wins.

---

So pretty much his entire area got 5' of rain in coastal plain and he is blaming the government. 5' rain isn't a 1000 year event. It is 10,000yr+. No way the infrastructure could or should be designed to meet it.

---

Tell that to the south side of the road that was dry.

Ken, you lost this case. @IJ won it.

You can tell because you asked the Supreme Court to affirm the 5th Cir. ruling below, but the Supreme Court *vacated* the 5th Cir. ruling.

Compare your brief to the Supreme Court’s decision:https://t.co/2Xb69VvMwF pic.twitter.com/yaXBHTj6nW

— Patrick Jaicomo (@pjaicomo) April 16, 2024

In other news, our Attorney General is a ****ing moron.

In other news, water is wet. The only one dumber in Austin is Dan the potty man.

The case stems from the concrete barriers on I 10 acting as a damn during Harvey. The north side was level with the top of of the barrier while the south lanes across from Mr. Devilliers home were only inches deep. No structure on either side of I10 escaped extensive flooding in that area. I have pictures taken on I10 during Harvey next to Mr. Devilliers home but haven't figured out how to post them.

My question is if Mr Devillier wins his suit does that open up an entire can of worms and allows everyone north of I 10 between Orange and Houston to seek compensation for damages due to flooding from Harvey or Imelda? It's true that during a massive rainfall event (20+ inches) I10 impedes drainage in SETX, but do we hold the state accountable for record events of that nature? Will the same premise apply to local authorities that maintain drainage during a similar event?

Waist deep vs neck deep. Nothing was "Dry"

South vs North within 1/4 mile of the property in question. Gotta Remember I-10 is built higher than the surrounding area, so once you step off the ROW you would be in waist/chest deep water on the south and neck deep on the north side.

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

Nowhere got 53" of rain in 24hrs. Not even in 48hrs.

Totals were over 4-5 days. I'm looking at rainfall maps and I don't see that intensity,

---

I was in Beaumont at the time. It was like having a bucket of water poured out one's property all day long. 50+ inches