Court Opinion

ID: 9829700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:32:33.452273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:04.434168
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In their motion for rehearing, appel-' lees earnestly insist that there was evidence to show permanent injuries to their lands, though such injuries may not be perpetual; that the diversion levees were permanent; that the narrowed channel for the outlet from Cedar creek was permanent; and that the change of the course of the Trinity river was permanent. Conceding these contentions to be true, and that injuries were caused to their lands in so far as the turf and timber thereon are concerned, the extent and continuation of such injuries depend upon the conditions prevailing upon the completion of the improvement project. If, when completed, the flood waters are carried off as rapidly and at as low level as they were before such project was started, appellees’ lands, except as to injuries *203caused meantime, would be as usable as ever. Nor does it necessarily follow that confining the flood waters of Cedar creek to a channel from 800 to 1,200 feet wide between levees, when they formerly spread out over a valley some 10,000 feet wide, would retard their flow. That would depend entirely upon the depth of the channel. The record clearly shows that part, if not much, of the continued flooding of appellees’ lands was due to backwater from the Trinity river, occasioned by the fact that the diversion channel of that river lacked some 12 to 15 feet of being as deep as the old channel. That condition was to be eliminated before the completion of the project. It is obvious that a straight channel 5 miles long would carry off water more rapidly than a winding channel 7 miles long between the same points with the same fall. When the project is completed, the Trinity river flood level should therefore be reduced below what it was before such construction, all of which would inure to the benefit of appellees. As stated in our original opinion, the trial court obviously based his damages on the high-water stage reached by the flood waters of October, 1927, before the completion of the project, and assessed damages on the basis of a total loss of most of the lands then overflowed. Neither of these hypotheses can be sustained by the evidence. Permanent injuries may have resulted to said lands by reason of the conditions complained of, but certainly not a total loss; and the extent and duration of such injuries must be based upon the conditions prevailing after the completion of said project.
Motion overruled.
Overruled.