feet higher than on the protected side. In addition, as defendant’s witnesses testified, the poor permeability of the soil in the area adds to the difficulty in leaching the salts out of the top layer of soil. Based on the above evidence, the court finds that Bailey’s property is subject to inevitably recurring inundation, and that Mosqueda’s land is subject to inevitably recurring subsurface flooding that has rendered portions of his land unsuitable for agriculture. B. Benefits Analysis Even though there exists a direct connection between defendant’s actions and a taking of plaintiffs’ property, no liability attaches if the dams involved conferred benefits on these particular plaintiffs greater than the damage they inflicted. See Sponenbarger, 308 U.S. at 266-67, 60 S.Ct. at 229 (<HOLDING>). The burden of proof is on defendant to
holding a defendant is liable as a control person if the defendant had the power to control the general affairs of the entity primarily liable at the time the entity violated the securities laws but declining to decide whether power to control means simply abstract power to control or actual exercise of the power to control internal quotations omitted holding authority to control limits duty to control holding that a general contractors right to forbid the work from being performed in a dangerous manner and the fact that he would have stopped the work and required protective equipment had he seen the employee of the independent contractor not using such equipment merely showed the possibility of control not actual control holding that a defendant who accepts the benefits of control release waives any argument that application of the control release program in the form of the forfeiture of gain time was an ex post violation because control release was enacted after the date of his or her offenses holding that the farreaching benefits from a flood control program outweighed the possibility of future floods