In the wake of the Independence Day flooding that left more than 130 dead, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has called the state Legislature back to Austin to address flooding and flood alert systems. Those may be necessary improvements, but if Texas wants to avoid disasters in the future, it must do more than install sirens. Texas must accept accountability and hold itself liable for future catastrophes.

In the early hours of a Hill Country summer evening, the smell of cedar and dwindling campfires likely wafted through the light breeze that blew down the Guadalupe River valley. Perhaps a screen door creaked, or a frog croaked. Maybe no one noticed a herd of cows that had gathered at the top of a hill or that not a single bird stirred in the sky. Nature’s final warnings, along with urgent messages from the National Weather Service, went unheeded by thousands of sleeping tourists and campers — not to mention sleeping local politicians — who flocked to the river to escape the Texas heat and celebrate the Fourth of July holiday.

In just minutes, the Guadalupe grew from a trickle to a raging rapid hellbent on destroying everything it touched. State and local officials were aware that danger was possible given that the region experienced two similar floods in the last century. For decades, officials ignored warnings, studies, models, and blueprints for sirens and sensors.

Perhaps they prayed that they’d done enough. God answered: “You didn’t.”

In 2016, Kerr County — where the majority of the flooding occurred — spent $50,000 studying the problem and the feasibility of a robust siren system. Yet, the proposed $1 million project never won final approval. Now, it’s a top priority of a special session of the Texas Legislature. Governments rarely act on foresight. Instead, they react at the speed of shame. And shame always takes the silver to disaster’s gold.
The state, cities, camps and counties all benefited from a booming river economy. Summer camps filled beds. Local hotels filled rooms. The government collected sales and property taxes. A 2008 regional study found that Hill Country tourism accounted for approximately $5 billion per year.

The river generated revenue, but no one paid for the warning systems. Why? Because under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the government can’t be sued unless it allows itself to be sued. So politicians spent money on other projects, knowing that someone would come and pay for it when the big one did come.

The Texas Tort Claims Act creates a few narrow exceptions where citizens can sue the government, mostly involving government vehicles getting into crashes or injuries that happen in government buildings. Even then, there are strict caps on damages to protect taxpayers from runaway juries. But the law doesn’t allow lawsuits for broader failures. You can sue for how a job was done, not for failing to do the job at all. If a city never installed warning sirens to protect campers from a flash flood, there’s no legal recourse. That legal shield protects the government when it matters most.

That should change.

Lawsuits wouldn’t target individual politicians, nor should they. What they would do is shift the incentive structure for governments — and by extension, the people who run them. When voters know their county or district could be held liable, they’re more likely to pressure officials to act before the next disaster.

If we want to prevent total devastation from the next flood, fire or storm surge, and encourage adequate prevention and warning, we need fewer bailouts and more consequences.

Texas showed it can take that step in June when it opened public schools to liability in child abuse cases. The law capped damages at $500,000 per victim, striking a balance between accountability and taxpayer protection. The same principle applies here: When the government fails so spectacularly, so blatantly, it should be answerable to the victims of its negligence.

Many school districts, following the implementation of the new child abuse liability law, are opting into insurance coverage that reduces their risk. Jurisdictions with better planning, safety features and foresight will get better rates — and better outcomes. They’ll prevent disasters instead of reacting to them.

Critics may argue that removing these protections only burdens taxpayers. But it is those very taxpayers who benefit from spending on other priorities before a disaster occurs. Without the risk of a lawsuit, why would a Kerr County commissioner spend $1 million on a siren system for tourists when the youth center needs a $3.9 million renovation?

If the government owns the river and claims stewardship of public waters, it must also assume the associated risks. If the government profits from the river at rest, it should spend some of that profit on making the area safer.

Statewide, Texas has identified over $54 billion in unmet flood infrastructure needs. So far, it has only allocated $669 million. That’s not a leaky faucet — it’s a dam about to burst.

Lawsuits place financial responsibility squarely on the entities that profit from the river when it’s calm. If they won’t build levees when it’s dry, then the courts should flood them when it rains.

That’s not overreach. That’s accountability. The kind that might’ve bought sirens before the storm instead of waiting until after.

Garrett W. Fulce of Sugar Land, Texas, is a Young Voices Contributor, host of “Seeing Red,” a Texas politics podcast, and owns Fulce Consulting LLC, a Texas-based public relations and public affairs firm. He has a track record of helping Republicans secure victories at the local, state and national levels.