Background
In March two thousand sixteen, the Sabine River Authority of Texas and the Sabine River Authority of Louisiana opened nine spillways at the Toledo Bend Dam to prevent dam failure during a record-breaking storm. Seven hundred downriver landowners sued under Section nineteen eighty-three, alleging a Fifth Amendment taking of their property due to the resulting flooding. The district court granted summary judgment for the authorities, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove causation and that the necessity doctrine barred the claims.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the exclusion of expert affidavits for abuse of discretion and found none, noting the plaintiffs violated court orders by resubmitting stricken evidence without seeking permission. On the takings claim, the court determined that causation is a necessary prerequisite under the Supreme Court’s guidance in Arkansas Game and Fish Commission versus United States. The plaintiffs’ expert report relied on an excluded portion of a master’s thesis and historical data that did not rationally support the conclusion that flooding would have been less severe without the dam. The court concluded the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of establishing that the government action caused the injury.
The Plaintiffs have failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact as to causation, an essential element of their takings claim.
Bonin v. Sabine River Auth., No. 25-40410, slip op. at 14 (5th Cir. May 7, 2026)
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that plaintiffs in government-induced flooding cases must provide admissible, non-speculative evidence directly linking the government action to the specific injury to survive summary judgment.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download