It was nice to see a 9-0 Supreme Court case go in favor of the "little guy." The Institute for Justice is doing a great job fighting local and state governments to protect our property rights. Ken Paxton should make a donation.
Where are you going to direct the water? He should of had flood insurance. It is only logical you direct the water to the cheapest loss. His ranch was the cheapest and in the zone.
@@smokingjoe9864 his land has never ever ever flooded. The redesigned interstate blocked all drainage. If the highway blocks drainage you tell me where the water goes? I would've designed the redesign to include elevated areas to not block natural drainage.
@@kbrown5218There is over 3,000 miles of Freeway in Texas. For a 6 lane interstate highway, you're looking at $7 million for ONE rural mile of road. Last August Texas approved 100 billion dollars for I 45 and I 10 Improvements. Your going to have every Texan with his hand out. They voted for road improvements. When the science community warns people of habitat problems, the conservatives call the scientists "indoctrinated, Left wing scientists".
@@kbrown5218 There are over 3,000 miles of Freeways in Texas. A new Freeway mile is 30 million, and 7 million a mile for expansion. How much was Ritchie's farm worth. And yes, his insurance would of covered the loss. We have eminent domain. You can not let one man stand in the way of progress. Richie DeVillier will just have to move. In my home town. I 94 went through the city. Knock down a church or the union gospel mission? That is why there is a 45 mph curve on the Freeway in St Paul, MN. Now you know the rest of the story!
@@smokingjoe9864 you might need to read about this case. It's not just the highway it was the dam the highway dept engineering designed. All this blocked drainage and held water turning hundreds and hundreds of acres into a lake. There were over 125 property owners that got hit. Look at a Texas map find Winnie Texas. Texas has a law for new development. You can't flood out your neighbor. You like beef? Cattle drowned and crops were destroyed. It wasn't just a home it was farmers and ranchers.
The problem with this, is states that have a high chances of flood damage. Like any state that has a high chances of a hurricane hitting them. Or properties by rivers or lakes that constantly floods annually or more. Then those states will run out of money or they will take money out of other important things, like schools and roads, to pay for flood damages. Especially since, hurricanes are supposedly getting stronger every year and dams that originally worked just fine, are now breaking because those areas are getting too much rain, in a short amount of time.
@@spottedtime Funny how the "trickle down" effect only applies to those they want it to apply to and yet is considered unthinkable when it is applied to common people. If one guy is given large amounts of money by the state to fix his property, he's gonna be pouring that money into the economy to actually fix his property and otherwise recover his losses. The state taxes EVERYTHING you get. Income tax, sales tax, property tax, and on and on and on it goes. They have 10 hands in your pocket for your every action you take. They'll get their money back.
The issue isn't that natural events will be on the state, it's that if they flood your land through state action, you can sue. Before they couldn't. @spottedtime
@@spottedtimeNah, this man has a legitimate case. They have historical records of the land and development over the years. It can be calculated for global shifts, larger populations, and geographical changes that occur naturally. What is spotted immediately is developer and specialists document how they diverted water onto the victim. You cannot hide that sort of malicious behavior. So thus they have evidence that’s occurring on the property and then the malicious actors are told to fork over their information.
This only worked because the rancher had enough money to endure 4 years of legal battles, with no guarantee he'd ever get it back. Now he still has to go to court and win his case, so he's still spending money on it!
THIS is a beautiful ruling for the fine folks of TX!! Of course the State should have to compensate people after screwing them over and causing them loss and damage, Come On Now!! I’m sorry he had to take it to the SC but I’m glad he did! Great job, Guy!
This is huge! Much of Harvey flooding was due to reservoirs being released and into homes where the state allowed developers to pave and build, knowing the potential repercussions.
that was already settled way before this and I'm wary of your idea of "much" seeing as it was such a small portion of the overall damage the flood caused.
Ken Paxton is a crook and doesn't deserve any credit for this outcome! We all know he fought against helping any of us "little people"! 😐 Kudos to the rancher and his lawyer for their victory! 👏😊
First, the supreme court just ruled the rancher can sue the state, doesn't mean he will win. To be honest this could backfire. Think about it if states can't protect public infrastructure (like dams and reservoirs) without being sued they will have to come up with alternate options. Best options with this court is to privatize all MUD districts (cuz this court always sides with big money) which will skyrocket costs to everyday Texans. Not to mention the state can't go bankrupt so if greedy ranchers start a ton of lawsuits and win, all other Texans will be paying that bill. A ton of these issues in the suburbs are caused by horrible development regulations or lack there of and we all know the supreme court sides with businesses almost every time so I really don't think people are fully understanding the complexity of this situation.
I look at some of the new developments in my area and see properties sold to home owners without any drainage work on the property. The home owners only find out after a heavy rain that their property is a water collecting nightmare. There more to developing a home site than leveling the pad for the slab. Unfortunately in many cases the builders ignore potential problem areas to save money on dirt work .
Its not just a victory for a person against texas. Its a victory for anyone on the us if a state or loacl government goes out of their way to infringe on ones rights
Good day for us here in Texas! Our politicians are so corrupt. With our current AG, I'm not surprised they tried to fight this, even though they were clearly in the wrong. And then he tries to spin it? loooool. I can't stand our leaders here.
Texas Gov't immunity is (was) as big as the immunity Trump thinks he deserves. No government entity or president or governor can have total freedom to stomp on citizens with no repercussions.
Because it opens the doors to many other lawsuits, and forces the state to spend billions of dollars to re-engineer poorly designed projects. The state knew they would lose, just kicking the can down the road. Looks like the Rainy Day fund is about to used.
They believed governmental immunity applied which in many circumstances, it would. However, it can be circumvented if the government is just ridiculously negligent, as they were here. It would have been much cheaper for Texas to have addressed it upfront with a drainage plan or compensation for the known issue.
It's honestly in some ways a loss for Texas citizens that this had to go all the way to the Supreme Court for it to be decided that yes, if the state of Texas damages a landowner, that landowner can sue the state.
Many in gov't will stay that taxpayers will foot the bill as this doesn't mean the person in gov't making that mistake will be held responsible. Paxton relies heavily on that.
@@jimmyaber5920 Taxpayers were already footing the bill regardless, just more of the little guys were paying versus the rich guys that use loopholes to avoid paying. What this hopefully will do though, is cause the state to stop deferring to the rich guys and screwing over the little guys going forward.
You do have it now. The Supreme Court has ruled. Now property owners anywhere can sue on this same issue and win. No lower court will overturn a SC decision.
How about developers who put up levees around cheaper flood lands to create massive subdivisions which forces the water onto previously non-flood lands?
You could always sue private individuals, this was about suing the state and not having it immediately dismissed due to sovereign immunity. SCOTUS said the takings clause is in effect here
I remember that. The state of Texas put a road over a natural drainage that had saved several properties from flooding for decades, some people say since the state was inhabited. They did not work to see the impact of the water flow or the neighbors. They replaced a miles wide plain with a narrow underpass, saying they had a right to do it and the property owners had no say in it, OOPS
Err, not so much... they turned me down with a generic e-mail and then took the case of some guy who's pickup truck paint was scratched by a K9 drug dog in Texas instead which was completely insulting to me! This shitty state illegally seized and refuses to return some 1/4 million dollars worth of animals I had spent my life custom breeding, after I had complained about the Colony Ridge problems here in Liberty County TX (you may be familiar with them, but not the terrific flooding and sewage overflows they have caused to run thru City of Plum Grove neighborhoods and MY HOUSE there)! TP&WD has been in full CYA mode ever since they illegally took my animals and admitted in a conference phone call with me (that I recorded mind you!) that they didn't even know the gender's of my animals much less anything else about them! I have demanded my animals be returned to deaf ears, they have refused to respond to subpoenas refused to show up for depositions and refused to fulfill FOIA and TPIA Requests made of them! I am beside myself here, and Institute for Justice thinks scratched pickup truck paint is FAR more important than living breathing creatures that mean everything to me! SMH! 😐
@@michaelshrader5139 I am pretty sure they do things on a case-by-case basis and that have a wider impact on citizens and or the public than just what is essentially a personal issue. Your case doesn't affect virtually anyone besides you, unlike this Texas rancher's case with the water and other cases.
I'm so sorry. Where are your animals? Do you know of if they're alive? The whole fed up situation out there in Colony Ridge and Plum Grove for sure. Don't get me started on the plight of abandoned animals in these areas. @@michaelshrader5139
So can someone clarify please. The road upgrade was to add an extra lane, going from two lanes to three. During the upgrade they did not fill-in or remove any existing culverts or flood mitigation devices. What I'm getting at is 2 lanes or three, that road would have blocked those flood waters exactly the same pre upgrade as post.
I want to sue Louisiana for flood damage to my property during the August 2016 flood, caused by the I-12 rerouting waters from the Tickfaw river to a smaller river where the I-12 barriers were not completed. I’m sure there are a multitude of people in the Denham Springs area the would sue also.
don't forget about the people in office in who live in the woodlands and how they influenced the river authority to flood new caney, kingwood, crosby, and lower san jacinto rivers in order to preserve their own property!!
The minute I saw the flooding, I knew the state had changed something to suddenly cause it and in this case it was I-10. Congratulations to the property owners.
@BIGJdairyGoats duh because it's your right and a lot of times the only way to force a company or state to do the right thing. But did you know you can't sue the federal government? Now, why would you think you can't do that.
@@BIGJdairyGoatsthey've caused immeasurable loss of animals lives, property, livelihood, and caused so much emotional and financial distress. I hope everyone who sirs over this wins.
Hey right now, the folks down stream from Houston’s water supply in Lake Conroe,, who came they can’t lower water levels before Harvey,, then released Al at one time, causing flooding down stream.
What about all the cloud seeding? A lady in California is suing for that. Tennessee has made cloud seeding illegal and Missouri is trying to go that route also.
The Supreme Court returned the case to state court where the land owner originally filed the case. It only made Paxton look stupid but that isn't hard to do.
This and all issues a state may cause should give grounds to sue. The problem with today's climate is that there are too many states and politicians doing whatever they want to do without ramifications. You break it you bought it.
That's a fantastic ruling, it probably is going to force necessary infrastructure upgrades and hardening of systems, because the state becomes liable to be hit repeatedly with flood damage lawsuits, it can be cheaper in the long run to just maintain high quality of infrastructure and flood control systems. It also will a be a way in to kick start climate adaption and regulation because of the increased risk of much more severe flooding in the future. It literally puts the ball in the governments court, they can stop the flood damage suits by not kicking yet another can down the road.
The guy has a goldmine of water in a dry climate. The state needs to make the water sequester into the soil while his livestock aren't trapped by rising water. They need to open up the soil so that it recharges the aquifer. That would be a win-win for downstream users as well as the rancher.
@@heathercontois4501 Most water evaporates off or flows away across the surface instead of recharging the aquifer. The big problem here is the state left impermable caliche soils in place instead of working with the rancher to enhance feeding capacity as well as increase the water table for those downstream. This created the fatal conditions that killed prized animals...
@@b_uppy Okay, so you are saying, the builder left behind insoluble soils that will not feed the water down into the local water table, which would help to feed crops locally, and instead run the water off so badly that it is causing the flooding? Am I understanding that properly?
@@heathercontois4501 The construction contractors left insoluble soils as well as a dam in an untenable situation for the rancher. They could add detention ponds, appropriate plantings to handle volume while allowing livestock a place to escape to/from instead of being trapped...
Just ranchers (cause they tend to own acres upon acres of land) or are regular homeowners included as well (you know normal folks with just a home not acreage)?
There were 120 other lawsuits from landowners along this stretch of I-10, all 121 were consolidated into one for the purpose of the supreme court ruling on whether they could sue Texas for this.
don't any large projects have an environmental impact report made during the planning? or is that only for animals and plants and it would need a separate one to determine what impact it would have on existing properties (which seems like a good idea anyway)
Does this apply to other States or Counties? They change the Drainage along the road, now my front yard floods during rains. Killing the Grass and Shrubs. BTW, I’m not allowed to discharge water from my property on to the road or the shallow ditch.
Especially in Harris County here, where they opened up the attics down because they let people build on the backside, which they were not Supposed to bill cause it was an extension of the retention because they wanted the tax revenue.I knew 30 families that lost their properties out there.They could not get Is federal loans or anything
@@getplaning That makes more sense, thanks for the clarification. Now, the developer that subdivided all that flood retention land and sold lots should be the one being sued though! Developers should be taken to task and made legally responsible for their *hit! It should also be completely illegal to ever build ANYTHING in a river's floodway... yet that seems to be going on all over the place (because floodway land is cheap and hasn't been built on before so NOW people are building on it which is just asking to be flooded repeatedly!).
Congrats to the team of the Institute For Justice and the rancher who fought this and won
Texas, land of the free to screw anyone who isn’t rich
It was nice to see a 9-0 Supreme Court case go in favor of the "little guy." The Institute for Justice is doing a great job fighting local and state governments to protect our property rights. Ken Paxton should make a donation.
Recently there’s also a 9-0 ruling that made EPA lose a lot of power over water in the US
@@rr-yw1onnot really, existing law was vague
That's a rare thing in Texas
So your saying that had Texas been it's own country as most Texans want, this guy would be s.o.l.?
its funny how you think that people who own substantial land are the little guys
Good decision! This rancher lost more than most because of incompetent engineering.
Glad to see he won in court at the highest level.
Where are you going to direct the water? He should of had flood insurance. It is only logical you direct the water to the cheapest loss. His ranch was the cheapest and in the zone.
@@smokingjoe9864 his land has never ever ever flooded. The redesigned interstate blocked all drainage. If the highway blocks drainage you tell me where the water goes? I would've designed the redesign to include elevated areas to not block natural drainage.
@@kbrown5218There is over 3,000 miles of Freeway in Texas. For a 6 lane interstate highway, you're looking at $7 million for ONE rural mile of road. Last August Texas approved 100 billion dollars for I 45 and I 10 Improvements.
Your going to have every Texan with his hand out.
They voted for road improvements. When the science community warns people of habitat problems, the conservatives call the scientists "indoctrinated, Left wing scientists".
@@kbrown5218 There are over 3,000 miles of Freeways in Texas. A new Freeway mile is 30 million, and 7 million a mile for expansion. How much was Ritchie's farm worth. And yes, his insurance would of covered the loss. We have eminent domain. You can not let one man stand in the way of progress. Richie DeVillier will just have to move.
In my home town. I 94 went through the city. Knock down a church or the union gospel mission? That is why there is a 45 mph curve on the Freeway in St Paul, MN. Now you know the rest of the story!
@@smokingjoe9864 you might need to read about this case. It's not just the highway it was the dam the highway dept engineering designed. All this blocked drainage and held water turning hundreds and hundreds of acres into a lake. There were over 125 property owners that got hit. Look at a Texas map find Winnie Texas. Texas has a law for new development. You can't flood out your neighbor. You like beef? Cattle drowned and crops were destroyed. It wasn't just a home it was farmers and ranchers.
This should be the case in every state.
The problem with this, is states that have a high chances of flood damage. Like any state that has a high chances of a hurricane hitting them. Or properties by rivers or lakes that constantly floods annually or more. Then those states will run out of money or they will take money out of other important things, like schools and roads, to pay for flood damages.
Especially since, hurricanes are supposedly getting stronger every year and dams that originally worked just fine, are now breaking because those areas are getting too much rain, in a short amount of time.
@@spottedtime Funny how the "trickle down" effect only applies to those they want it to apply to and yet is considered unthinkable when it is applied to common people.
If one guy is given large amounts of money by the state to fix his property, he's gonna be pouring that money into the economy to actually fix his property and otherwise recover his losses. The state taxes EVERYTHING you get. Income tax, sales tax, property tax, and on and on and on it goes. They have 10 hands in your pocket for your every action you take. They'll get their money back.
The issue isn't that natural events will be on the state, it's that if they flood your land through state action, you can sue. Before they couldn't. @spottedtime
It is by this ruling. To be clear many states already had legal protections for this behavior already
@@spottedtimeNah, this man has a legitimate case. They have historical records of the land and development over the years. It can be calculated for global shifts, larger populations, and geographical changes that occur naturally.
What is spotted immediately is developer and specialists document how they diverted water onto the victim. You cannot hide that sort of malicious behavior.
So thus they have evidence that’s occurring on the property and then the malicious actors are told to fork over their information.
WHAAAT?! That corrupt court isn’t siding with developers and The State!!???😳
For real, big shocker 👀
I'm still in disbelief.
The Supreme Court isn’t corrupt. Democrats are corrupt.
Right!
Yeah, clearance must have burst into flames on this one.
This only worked because the rancher had enough money to endure 4 years of legal battles, with no guarantee he'd ever get it back. Now he still has to go to court and win his case, so he's still spending money on it!
He fought for all Texans…..now pay the man!
Wealthy libertarian donors paid for most everything
He was represented by non-profit firm. He didn’t pay a dime.
Who are the wealthy libertarian non-profit donors? I feel there is more to this story.
Sadly, he'll probably have judges from Texas that are sympathetic to the state unless he can get the trial moved to a different jurisdiction.
THIS is a beautiful ruling for the fine folks of TX!! Of course the State should have to compensate people after screwing them over and causing them loss and damage, Come On Now!! I’m sorry he had to take it to the SC but I’m glad he did! Great job, Guy!
Great! Now you get to sue the representation that you ardently supported for office. Texans are leading the ignorant American maga stupidity race.
Makes me think of New Orleans
This is huge! Much of Harvey flooding was due to reservoirs being released and into homes where the state allowed developers to pave and build, knowing the potential repercussions.
that was already settled way before this and I'm wary of your idea of "much" seeing as it was such a small portion of the overall damage the flood caused.
Ken Paxton is a crook and doesn't deserve any credit for this outcome! We all know he fought against helping any of us "little people"! 😐
Kudos to the rancher and his lawyer for their victory! 👏😊
Doesn't matter he is a crook but wait till they find out about his transsexual girlfriend. Then they will be up in arms.
At least he can celebrate his victories while he's in prison.
First, the supreme court just ruled the rancher can sue the state, doesn't mean he will win. To be honest this could backfire. Think about it if states can't protect public infrastructure (like dams and reservoirs) without being sued they will have to come up with alternate options. Best options with this court is to privatize all MUD districts (cuz this court always sides with big money) which will skyrocket costs to everyday Texans. Not to mention the state can't go bankrupt so if greedy ranchers start a ton of lawsuits and win, all other Texans will be paying that bill.
A ton of these issues in the suburbs are caused by horrible development regulations or lack there of and we all know the supreme court sides with businesses almost every time so I really don't think people are fully understanding the complexity of this situation.
I look at some of the new developments in my area and see properties sold to home owners without any drainage work on the property. The home owners only find out after a heavy rain that their property is a water collecting nightmare. There more to developing a home site than leveling the pad for the slab. Unfortunately in many cases the builders ignore potential problem areas to save money on dirt work .
AG strategy is typical when losing , “declare victory and move on “ no matter the facts.
"We meant to do that"...
Yeah, they can't admit wrong, ever.
Learned it from Trump most likely.
@@adb888
Trump was a Leftist for most of his life. Bad habits die hard...
@@adb888
If Trump is doing it, it's because it's from his being a Democrat for so long...
Its not just a victory for a person against texas. Its a victory for anyone on the us if a state or loacl government goes out of their way to infringe on ones rights
Good day for us here in Texas! Our politicians are so corrupt. With our current AG, I'm not surprised they tried to fight this, even though they were clearly in the wrong. And then he tries to spin it? loooool. I can't stand our leaders here.
So, vote them out!! I lived in Austin for almost 3 years, attending UT. Things were great back then.
Why wouldn’t they have to take care of the property damage?!
Because it's Texas! Every man, woman, and child is on their own!
Texas Gov't immunity is (was) as big as the immunity Trump thinks he deserves. No government entity or president or governor can have total freedom to stomp on citizens with no repercussions.
Because it opens the doors to many other lawsuits, and forces the state to spend billions of dollars to re-engineer poorly designed projects. The state knew they would lose, just kicking the can down the road. Looks like the Rainy Day fund is about to used.
Because they hoped the flood water would *Take Care* of the people affected.
They believed governmental immunity applied which in many circumstances, it would. However, it can be circumvented if the government is just ridiculously negligent, as they were here. It would have been much cheaper for Texas to have addressed it upfront with a drainage plan or compensation for the known issue.
The kind dumb dishonesty I expect from the current Texas AG.
he is crook
Along with the governor and Lt. governor.
These ranchers need to remember attorney general Ken Paxton is fighting for big companies and state before Texans get rid of him .
Trump made sure Paxton kept his job by influencing whether Paxton was punished with removal.
It's honestly in some ways a loss for Texas citizens that this had to go all the way to the Supreme Court for it to be decided that yes, if the state of Texas damages a landowner, that landowner can sue the state.
Many in gov't will stay that taxpayers will foot the bill as this doesn't mean the person in gov't making that mistake will be held responsible. Paxton relies heavily on that.
@@jimmyaber5920 Taxpayers were already footing the bill regardless, just more of the little guys were paying versus the rich guys that use loopholes to avoid paying. What this hopefully will do though, is cause the state to stop deferring to the rich guys and screwing over the little guys going forward.
All of west Houston will be lining up for this one!
Taxes are going up in Texas
@@eric1302they have been up and will go up anyway, why not just get paid and let the people win
@@eric1302don't care, exempt next year
@@eric1302we dont have a state tax here idiot
They added a highway wall along his property line that turns his property into a dam every time it rains lol.
Wish we had that in NJ when they filled in the swamps for rich housing and now we flood multiple times a year
You really got to fight hard and NEVER give up no matter what, is all I can say! The corrupt are extremely good at covering up their *sses!
You do have it now. The Supreme Court has ruled. Now property owners anywhere can sue on this same issue and win. No lower court will overturn a SC decision.
Lower courts ignore Supreme court decisions all the time! Our law system is fuc***.
It doesn't help that they do cloud seeding here. 😒
Wouldn't be surprised if thats what happened in Louisiana too, building over swamps doesn't help either.
No one knows 'spin' like our AG Paxton
Them small government folks relying on a national court is beautiful
How about developers who put up levees around cheaper flood lands to create massive subdivisions which forces the water onto previously non-flood lands?
You could always sue private individuals, this was about suing the state and not having it immediately dismissed due to sovereign immunity. SCOTUS said the takings clause is in effect here
Hey, I thought Texas was all about individual rights, private ownership and the Virtues of ranchers and farmers!
Only if you are wealthy. If you are poor in thus state you are ****ed.
Unless they lose money. Then they want socialism.
@@wyganterYou aren’t clever and you aren’t fooling anyone. Suing the state is nowhere near the same thing as socialism.
Since when does the state of Texas comply with federal law?
We lost, but we won - that's a new one.
I remember that. The state of Texas put a road over a natural drainage that had saved several properties from flooding for decades, some people say since the state was inhabited. They did not work to see the impact of the water flow or the neighbors. They replaced a miles wide plain with a narrow underpass, saying they had a right to do it and the property owners had no say in it, OOPS
BTW, this litigated by the IJC. They do a fantastic job of advocating for the little guy so i encourage you to support them if possible.
Err, not so much... they turned me down with a generic e-mail and then took the case of some guy who's pickup truck paint was scratched by a K9 drug dog in Texas instead which was completely insulting to me! This shitty state illegally seized and refuses to return some 1/4 million dollars worth of animals I had spent my life custom breeding, after I had complained about the Colony Ridge problems here in Liberty County TX (you may be familiar with them, but not the terrific flooding and sewage overflows they have caused to run thru City of Plum Grove neighborhoods and MY HOUSE there)! TP&WD has been in full CYA mode ever since they illegally took my animals and admitted in a conference phone call with me (that I recorded mind you!) that they didn't even know the gender's of my animals much less anything else about them! I have demanded my animals be returned to deaf ears, they have refused to respond to subpoenas refused to show up for depositions and refused to fulfill FOIA and TPIA Requests made of them! I am beside myself here, and Institute for Justice thinks scratched pickup truck paint is FAR more important than living breathing creatures that mean everything to me! SMH! 😐
@@michaelshrader5139 I am pretty sure they do things on a case-by-case basis and that have a wider impact on citizens and or the public than just what is essentially a personal issue. Your case doesn't affect virtually anyone besides you, unlike this Texas rancher's case with the water and other cases.
I'm so sorry. Where are your animals? Do you know of if they're alive? The whole fed up situation out there in Colony Ridge and Plum Grove for sure. Don't get me started on the plight of abandoned animals in these areas. @@michaelshrader5139
The project never should have happened in the first place. It’s almost like some regulations are actually good.
Congrats to the Rancher! This SHOULD have been decided YEARS AGO.
I asked the Texas AG if the Cowboys won the Superbowl last year and he said yes.
So I guess it must be true.
So can someone clarify please.
The road upgrade was to add an extra lane, going from two lanes to three.
During the upgrade they did not fill-in or remove any existing culverts or flood mitigation devices.
What I'm getting at is 2 lanes or three, that road would have blocked those flood waters exactly the same pre upgrade as post.
They added a concrete barrier that basically dams the property
Hoooorah. I’m not even from Texas and I love this
it's a shame something so simple became this complicated...........government, pfffft
Louisiana needs this!!!!!!
Why's he looking up and at me?
I want to sue Louisiana for flood damage to my property during the August 2016 flood, caused by the I-12 rerouting waters from the Tickfaw river to a smaller river where the I-12 barriers were not completed. I’m sure there are a multitude of people in the Denham Springs area the would sue also.
Good luck spending 200K on lawyers with the chance of still losing the case.
Congratulations to the Institute for Justice, a great organization doing great work!
Congratulations to the rancher!! Thats awesome news
👏🏻 congrats Great job arguing and winning.
don't forget about the people in office in who live in the woodlands and how they influenced the river authority to flood new caney, kingwood, crosby, and lower san jacinto rivers in order to preserve their own property!!
Congratulations, you fought the good fight.
I await this precedent to spread across the nation.
This applies theoretically to all states and municipalities.
The minute I saw the flooding, I knew the state had changed something to suddenly cause it and in this case it was I-10. Congratulations to the property owners.
A win for all Americans 🎉
Now let’s sue the counties for unjust taxation
Hopefully he wins, if so this will open up a lot of lawsuits for South East Texas.
@PeterSramka he won the right to sue, not the lawsuit. There's a difference.
Everyone is so quick to sue ,
@BIGJdairyGoats duh because it's your right and a lot of times the only way to force a company or state to do the right thing. But did you know you can't sue the federal government? Now, why would you think you can't do that.
@@BIGJdairyGoatsthey've caused immeasurable loss of animals lives, property, livelihood, and caused so much emotional and financial distress. I hope everyone who sirs over this wins.
@@EdwardM919 duh! I didnt think you coudnt do it , just didnt know the cause exactly
Hey right now, the folks down stream from Houston’s water supply in Lake Conroe,, who came they can’t lower water levels before Harvey,, then released Al at one time, causing flooding down stream.
GOOD! How was that ever even a question!!! It's so obvious!!!
What about all the cloud seeding? A lady in California is suing for that. Tennessee has made cloud seeding illegal and Missouri is trying to go that route also.
Kind of world are we living in giving power to the voters....It's not the Texas WE GREW UP IN!!!
What about counties and cities that are allowing building permits for new development that in turn leads to flooding into existing properties?
What about it? Texas is inundated by swarthy hordes and they need to live somewhere.
We see a lot of graft. Building houses in and against reservoirs for example.
The Supreme Court returned the case to state court where the land owner originally filed the case. It only made Paxton look stupid but that isn't hard to do.
Bravo Texas ranchers 👌
Supreme Court follows the U.S. Constitution, hopefully they continue to do so.
This is great news! But developers need to stop building in known flooding zones!!!!!! Its insanity!!!
Way to go texas.
Way to go Ranchers👍🏾
That's, heartwarmingly, a really Texas kind of story to tell actually
So when I can’t breathe because of the smog, can I sue the US Government?
Great to hear
How will insurance companies react to this?
Take a wild guess. 😢
Too bad stupid isn't illegal.
This and all issues a state may cause should give grounds to sue. The problem with today's climate is that there are too many states and politicians doing whatever they want to do without ramifications. You break it you bought it.
That's a fantastic ruling, it probably is going to force necessary infrastructure upgrades and hardening of systems, because the state becomes liable to be hit repeatedly with flood damage lawsuits, it can be cheaper in the long run to just maintain high quality of infrastructure and flood control systems. It also will a be a way in to kick start climate adaption and regulation because of the increased risk of much more severe flooding in the future. It literally puts the ball in the governments court, they can stop the flood damage suits by not kicking yet another can down the road.
they altered the drainage or something and never did an impact study?
yup, sounds like a southern thing for sure
Wow. That's great news.
Good for the people!
The guy has a goldmine of water in a dry climate.
The state needs to make the water sequester into the soil while his livestock aren't trapped by rising water. They need to open up the soil so that it recharges the aquifer. That would be a win-win for downstream users as well as the rancher.
Huh?
@@heathercontois4501
Most water evaporates off or flows away across the surface instead of recharging the aquifer.
The big problem here is the state left impermable caliche soils in place instead of working with the rancher to enhance feeding capacity as well as increase the water table for those downstream. This created the fatal conditions that killed prized animals...
@@b_uppy Okay, so you are saying, the builder left behind insoluble soils that will not feed the water down into the local water table, which would help to feed crops locally, and instead run the water off so badly that it is causing the flooding? Am I understanding that properly?
@@heathercontois4501
The construction contractors left insoluble soils as well as a dam in an untenable situation for the rancher. They could add detention ponds, appropriate plantings to handle volume while allowing livestock a place to escape to/from instead of being trapped...
@@b_uppyunless by contractor you mean God it wasn’t contractors who made the soil into a caliche mess.
Houston is about in the same boat as coastal Florida. It’s simply not going to be insurable.
This is the institute for justice case, sounds like. Good for them.
As a Texan I am very pleased with this!
Is this not for every state now?
A win for the people. Not above the law!
Texas AG lied? Whaaaaaa??????
Everyone should have the ability to sue the state. It is simply "another corporate entity".
Texas AG clearly playing the no U card.
Just ranchers (cause they tend to own acres upon acres of land) or are regular homeowners included as well (you know normal folks with just a home not acreage)?
There were 120 other lawsuits from landowners along this stretch of I-10, all 121 were consolidated into one for the purpose of the supreme court ruling on whether they could sue Texas for this.
That’s the most American thing ever
We have crappy drainage systems in most cities. A few inches could flood some areas.
There goes eminent domain laws nationwide..
don't any large projects have an environmental impact report made during the planning? or is that only for animals and plants and it would need a separate one to determine what impact it would have on existing properties (which seems like a good idea anyway)
@@matthewmoore7447you really need to scape the sand out your bussy dork.
I love this its time for yall to actually give back
Wow. Incredible. ❤ W for the little guy.
The property owner’s property was negatively affected by a government project…the state owes the property owner compensation.
Damn my taxes are going to go up
Texas needs to ro be sued repeatedly.
What an awful state.
Whatch your mouth
Do you live in Texas ?? If so then move ,if not how would you know 🤔
@@elizabethezell8749
I feel bad for the women in your state.
You guys still locking people in cages for possessing a plant?
I would think it’s a wine for all of us in the US!
Taxes are going up in Texas
Does this apply to other States or Counties? They change the Drainage along the road, now my front yard floods during rains. Killing the Grass and Shrubs. BTW, I’m not allowed to discharge water from my property on to the road or the shallow ditch.
The city of Houston is about to get sued
Get em...
Welcome to TexaSTAN.
Thank you…AG PACTON…NO RESPECT FOR THAT MAN.
It says Texas can now condemn a bunch of affected properties.
Holy Cow! This is a God send.
Especially in Harris County here, where they opened up the attics down because they let people build on the backside, which they were not Supposed to bill cause it was an extension of the retention because they wanted the tax revenue.I knew 30 families that lost their properties out there.They could not get Is federal loans or anything
Addicks dam.
On 45 near Blue Bell, those people need to sue, that whole area is flood prone, but the city let them build knowing it was a hazard.
@@getplaning That makes more sense, thanks for the clarification. Now, the developer that subdivided all that flood retention land and sold lots should be the one being sued though! Developers should be taken to task and made legally responsible for their *hit! It should also be completely illegal to ever build ANYTHING in a river's floodway... yet that seems to be going on all over the place (because floodway land is cheap and hasn't been built on before so NOW people are building on it which is just asking to be flooded repeatedly!).
@@michaelshrader5139if there is a flaw in development, you already can sue.
Set out jars, and have the water tested for silver iodide , or any other weather modification chemicals.
Negligent emergency management.
Not negligent. It all worked exactly as intended… keeping the rich dry
Good!