I’m going to go out on a limb and say…… Blame might come down to, would it have happened had the state not acted as it did. Intent probably doesn’t matter. Having very little knowledge of the case except reading some court statements and legal websites, it seems that the state put up the concrete barriers with the intent for a to act like a dam and to keep the water on the south side of the highway. In other words, it worked as designed and flooded that land. In doing so however it protected the north side as an evacuation route. Of course, it might go to an arbitrator or a referee or I guess it could legally go to a trial but I’m not sure. The question that I come up with is, would it have flooded anyway? For example let’s say the guy got 4 feet of water on his land but meteorologists and other experts in flood plains might agree that he still would have gotten two feet of water without the barrier.  So did the state seize his land? Can the plaintiff show that had the barrier not been there, his land would not have flooded? If so he probably gets some kind of compensation. If not…….

lol, don't waste your time, guys.

Who is in control of the US military?

Trotter signed a baseball scholarship and is only playing baseball from what I was told Tom Brady Barrier  moved back his mom got the elementary principal job and we are glad to have him back 🙌 we should be pretty solid  we also got another stud linebacker to go along side Tyler Kelly that moved in from  Crosby 

Who decides if the border needs to be protected?