court observed firsthand the overall quality and extent of the change in plaintiffs work. Two facts were immediately apparent: First, the quality of plaintiffs work improved dramatically midway through the project, when plaintiff was subjected to vigorous enforcement of tolerances and specifications that theretofore had been relaxed. This extra work formed the basis for plaintiffs claim for damages based on overzealous inspection. Second, however, the extra work was not as extensive as plaintiff claimed. The court found that plaintiff bore responsibility for some of the problems encountered during construction. As the court noted in its bench ruling, plaintiff was only entitled to the portion of overrun costs that specifically was attributable to overzealous enforcement. See Tr. at 928 (<HOLDING>). From the costs attributable to this period,
holding that because the removal proceeding began after april 1 1997 iirira governed holding that an improper traffic control device may create a dangerous condition for which the governments immunity from liability is waived holding that limitations began to run when the defendant began wrongfully discharging water containing harmful chemicals on the plaintiffs land and not on the date when the extent of the damages to the land were fully ascertainable holding that governments liability began on june 5 1997 holding that iiriras effective date is april 1 1997