From the Texas Court of Appeals in Sloan Creek II, LLC v. North Texas Tollway Authority, No. 0-5-14-1456-01456 (Aug. 28, 2015):
This is an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s orders granting two pleas to the jurisdiction challenging an inverse condemnation counterclaim under article I, section 17 of the Texas Constitution. In its counterclaim, Sloan Creek II, L.L.C. alleged the increased amount and rate of erosion of creek banks on its property due to increased rainwater runoff from highway improvements was an inverse condemnation in violation of the Texas Constitution. Because we conclude Sloan Creek II failed to create a fact issue on whether the governmental entities involved knew the highway improvements were substantially certain to increase the amount and rate of erosion, we affirm the trial court’s orders dismissing the article I, section 17 counterclaim.
Slip op. at 1.
We don’t have much more to add, except to point out what we think is the interesting bit of the opinion: the court’s conclusion that the property owner’s claim that the erosion of the creek which resulted in the flooding of its land was “clearly foreseeable” was not enough to show the intent required for inverse condemnation under Texas law. See slip op. at 12.
Sloan Creek II, LLC v. North Texas Tollway Authority, No. 05-14-01456-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 28, 2015)