"Under these facts and circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that defendants are not entitled to any severance damages. "In view of the holding of the Appellate Court in the cases of State of Louisiana through the Sabine River Authority vs. Miller, 184 So.2d 780, State of Louisiana through the Sabine River Authority vs. Salter, 184 So.2d 783, Orleans Parish School Board vs. Bond, 200 So.2d 411, the Judgments rendered herein will include legal interest from judicial demand." Counsel for plaintiff have criticized the allowance of legal interest from date of judicial demand and the citations of the cases supporting that allowance at the end of the trial court's reasons above.

On June 29, 2011 plaintiffs submitted a post-hearing brief citing to nine Louisiana State Court suits where they contend that SRA has been recognized as an arm of the state. Doc. 30 (citing State Through Sabine River Authority v. Phares, 245 La. 534, 159 So.2d 144 (1964); State Through Sabine River Authority v. Miller, 184 So.2d 780 (La.App.Ct.1966); State Through Sabine River Authority v. Salter, 184 So.2d 783 (La.App.Ct.1966); State Through Sabine River Authority v. Woodard, 250 La. 679, 198 So.2d 401 (1967); State Through Sabine River Authority v. Pilcher, 228 So.2d 667 (La.App.Ct.

Plaintiffs cite and rely on cases, interpreting the various acts cited above, such as United States v. Nebo Oil Co., 90 F. Supp. 73 (W.D.La. 1950); Whitney Nat. Bank of New Orleans v. Little Creek Oil Co., 212 La. 949, 33 So.2d 693 (1947); Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. California Co., 241 La. 915, 132 So.2d 845 (1961); Anadarko Production v. Caddo Parish Sch. Bd., 455 So.2d 699 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1984), writ den., 460 So.2d 610 (La. 1984); Franks Petroleum v. Martin, 234 So.2d 268 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1970); writ not considered, 236 So.2d 36 (La. 1970); Humble Oil Refining Company v. Freeland, 216 So.2d 689 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1968); State, Sabine River Authority v. Miller, 184 So.2d 780 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1966). A review of the cases cited by plaintiffs reveals that in none of these cases has there ever been a retroactive application of any of these acts where liberative prescription had already accrued before the act in question became effective.

Improvement in economic conditions in general and the demand for land, in particular, are time adjustments frequently required to be made to sales which occur prior to takings. State, Sabine River Authority v. Miller, 184 So.2d 780 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1966); State, Department of Highways v. Munson, 174 So.2d 923 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1965), writ refused, 247 La. 1091, 176 So.2d 146; Greater Baton Rouge Consolidated Sewer District v. Nelson, 144 So.2d 186 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1962). Defendant's appraiser, Mr. Patecek, used all the commercial sales transacted in the subdivision during the years 1969 and 1970 and determined that an adjustment of a one percent increase per month was reasonable.

See also, State Through Dept. of Highways v. Hart, 249 So.2d 310 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1971); State Through Sabine River Authority v. Miller, 184 So.2d 780 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1966); Nichols on Eminent Domain (Revised 3rd ed.) 1962, Vol. 4, Section 13.22 p. 408 et seq.; 29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 174, pp. 736, 737; Am.Jur.2d Vol. 27, section 290, pp. 91, 92. The excluded evidence is properly before us in a proffer of proof.

Defendant contends that the amount awarded for severance damages should be increased. This issue was presented to and was considered by us in State, Sabine River Authority v. Miller, La. App. 3 Cir., 184 So.2d 780, and in State, Sabine River Authority v. Salter, La. App. 3 Cir., 184 So.2d 783. It also was an issue in the case of State, Sabine River Authority v. Woodard, La. App. 3 Cir., 189 So.2d 601, which is being decided by us on this date.

This same argument was made to this court when the Miller case (upon which the trial court relied) and a companion case relying upon essentially the same evidence as in the Miller and the instant case were before us on appeal. See State Through Sabine River Authority v. Miller, La. App. 3 Cir., 184 So.2d 780; State Through Sabine River Authority v. Salter, supra. For reasons stated in said cases, we are of the opinion that the defendant landowners in the instant case are entitled to severance damages to the mineral rights reserved to them.

CULPEPPER, Judge. This is a companion case to State of Louisiana, Through the Sabine River Authority v. Miller, 184 So.2d 780. These expropriation cases were tried separately but consolidated for argument on appeal, because of a similarity of issues. Plaintiff is the Sabine River Authority, State of Louisiana, an agency created under LSA-Const. Art. 14, Sec. 45 for the purpose of controlling and utilizing the waters of the Sabine River and its tributaries for recreation, irrigation, industry, etc.