http://www.kbtx.com/content/news/Bryan-council-postpones-action-on-flood-mitigation-386563461.html

Why is Bryan looking at spending any money to help out residents that bought a home in the floodplain? I looked up one lady quoted in the story and she bought her house in 2008. There is no way she was unaware that her house was in the floodplain when she bought it. She would have been required to buy flood insurance to even get a mortgage.

Was this area along Willow Bend previously not in the floodplain? I would be a lot more sympathetic if that were the case.

I am sympathetic with a young couple in our neighborhood who bought a house that was not and is not in the floodplain. We moved here in 2003 and that house never flooded while we've been here. It sold to this couple a few years ago and flooded very shortly after they moved in and again soon after. It has now flooded a total of 3 times in roughly 2 years.

Here's the thing about flood insurance though. It's REALLY cheap if you aren't in the floodplain. Like $15 a month. If you aren't willing to repair your house every time it floods, you should have flood insurance.

Edit: just checked my house since it's been 8 years since my last quote. It's at $30.33 a month now outside the floodplain. If I hadn't done my own personal drainage analysis on my lot and know that it takes a 700 year storm to flood me, I would definitely have flood insurance. But a 0.14% chance of flooding each year is a risk I'm willing to accept.

quote:

---

My house is not in the flood plain, I tried to get flood insurance, and it was prohibitively expensive,

---

This is not true. Either someone used the wrong house or made a mistake when giving you the quote. Go to fema.gov, search for your address, print out the map showing it outside the floodplain, take it back to your insurer and ask for an accurate quote.

Edit: actually go to floodsmart.gov. It's easier to navigate.

Thank you for your post K2T2.
I have a home in the Oaks and also have to deal with the BAD drainage in the neighborhood. I'm doing my best to let the City of Bryan know about the issues that we are dealing with. Hopefully if we continue to unite, they will listen to us.
Our issues are relatively easy to fix as compared to the Willow Bend area which will take some thought and planning to make their area more livable.
My thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by this flooding!

quote:

---

I have not looked at this particular proposal but I do know that often times flooding is caused by drainage issues that are caused by development.

---

When it is development, it's almost always caused by development before a city or county issued a no-rise requirement. In my experience:
#1 cause of flooding is building in the floodplain where it already floods.
#2 cause is getting more rain than the drainage system was designed for.
#3 cause is old development before detention was required
#4 is clogged storm sewers and improper maintenace
#5 cause is subsidence
I've never seen a case where completed new development caused flooding in a no-rise county. I saw flooding once caused by a development that hadn't finished building its detention pond, but that's the closest I've seen.

agnerd, in your opinion, who is responsible and who should pay to fix it in each of your causes of flooding?

I agree with this post. I feel bad for those impacted, but I don't see why people should be taxed to cover it. Maybe I am not understanding the issue and cause?

There were various degrees and areas of flooding that were presented at the council meeting. There were areas that had never seen flooding before that are repetitively flooding now. The Oaks has a lack of storm drains. Willow Bend is a flood zone. People on Cherry Creek flooded. People in Austin's Colony flooded. People in Castle Heights repeatedly flood. I am sure I am leaving out some neighborhoods. I don't really think that any of them were asking for handouts. It sounded like they were asking for help regarding flooding issues or the ability to help themselves protect their homes. A common question was why the city does not maintain the creeks. Several people stated that they had requested this but never saw any action on the city's part. I am happy that the city wants to have a meeting specifically for this issue. FEMA's presence there will also be welcome, but as stated by many of the citizens last night, it is not FEMA's problem. The city has to identify the issues and move on them as expediently as possible.

quote:

---

People in Austin's Colony flooded.

---

What part flooded, old or a newer phase? The stylecraft phase looks pretty low and that creek runs over the road there, I'm surprised if they haven't flooded yet.

and a lot more houses are going in along Thornberry. Thornberry floods in multiple spots now, they're going to have to really improve drainage under the street if they want to add 100+ more houses.

We live in a new phase of Austin's Colony and while we didn't flood, all the new construction nearby has me a little concerned...time to look into flood insurance!

quote:

---

I don't really think that any of them were asking for handouts.

---

I would call the following "handouts":

• Allocating $1.5 million to repay flood damages not covered by insurance
• Allocating $1 million for housing buyouts for those with severe / repeat flood damage

Willow Bend and Cherry Creek are both completely in the floodplain. Austin's Colony and Castle Heights have areas in the floodplain.

The Oaks seems to be the one unique area since none of it appears to be in the 100 year floodplain and only one street is in the 500 year floodplain. If there are multiple streets that have flooded multiple times in the Oaks then you definitely have a fair complaint in my opinion.

Were these homes built in the floodplain or did the floodplain change that much over the years? Does Bryan allow homes to be built in the floodplain?

quote:

---

Here's the thing about flood insurance though. It's REALLY cheap if you aren't in the floodplain. Like $15 a month. If you aren't willing to repair your house every time it floods, you should have flood insurance.

Edit: just checked my house since it's been 8 years since my last quote. It's at $30.33 a month now outside the floodplain. If I hadn't done my own personal drainage analysis on my lot and know that it takes a 700 year storm to flood me, I would definitely have flood insurance. But a 0.14% chance of flooding each year is a risk I'm willing to accept.

---

I'll look into this again this week...$15-30 a month is a pittance compared to losing anything. It was like $150 a month (just the flood portion) that was quoted when I called last year, and others in the neighborhood report similarly crazy high rates and one guy said his company wouldn't even let him buy it at all. It all seemed very, very weird.

For someone else, regarding the streets the flooded, it was like..the ENTIRE Oaks subdivision. Not just Valley Oaks, which is the most low-lying street. It's because there are so few storm drains and the runoff from up the hill goes directly into the houses down hill.

And for the person that seemed to be misunderstanding the tax - the tax they're proposing be added is to be used for that backlog of maintenance and necessary projects and improvements they've been been holding off on, either because there wasn't enough money or it got allocated elsewhere (because no on brought to their attention how bad this stuff had gotten). This is all stuff that should have been done a decade or more ago. I'm far more concerned with that going through because it would be super helpful for our city in the long run as opposed to a relief check that's more of a band-aid.

quote:

---

agnerd, in your opinion, who is responsible and who should pay to fix it in each of your causes of flooding?

---

Now THAT is a very tough question.

#1 cause of flooding is building in the floodplain where it already floods.
I'd like to say the city or county where this is allowed to occur, but most of the time this occurs in very small population counties where the County commissioner is also the police chief, the fire chief and the public works director and he's also only part time. When you don't have the resources to regulate flooding, I think the responsibility falls to the landowner/homeowner because they're usually having a house built on their land as opposed to a developer building a bunch of houses in a subdivision.

#2 cause is getting more rain than the drainage system was designed for.
This one's God's fault. Tax the churches to pay for it? (kidding) Honestly, this one is based on an economic analysis of how much it costs to fix flood damage vs how much it costs to prevent flood damage. People have voted with their dollars that they are less willing to spend an extra $50k on a house to pay for the extra infrastructure to reduce their flood risk with a more robust drainage system. So developers build what the people want. Since I think homeowners are responsible for setting the design criteria with consumer sentiment, I believe they should pay for it. (Only places i've seen higher standards used had $250k lots and Million dollar houses)

#3 cause is old development before detention was required
Hardest one of all. Nothing they did before was illegal, so it's hard to ask owners of old homes to pay for the flood damage their houses cause. Anyone that's owned a house older than 30 years is responsible. When an old house floods, I think it should be the homeowner's responsibility to pay for the damages to their house.

#4 is clogged storm sewers and improper maintenace
Clogs should be the responsibility of the person causing it. If you can trace that trash can blocking the inlet back to an individual house, they should be responsible. As far as inproper maintenance, the city or county should be responsible, but they usually claim immunity...

#5 cause is subsidence
I guess the state legislature is responsible for allowing it to happen. Good luck getting them to pay for the problem though. They are taking steps to convert to surface water, so at least its a step in the right direction.

The one thing I want to warn the Bryan residents about is usually when you pass funding for flooding improvements, they go the place that needs it most, and that's often not the place that just flooded. Willowbend is a continuing problem, but the Oaks just got a lot of rain in the last event. Put that same amount of rain over other parts of the city and flooding would've been worse. Bryan does have problems that need to be addressed, but I just want to make sure that the voters understand what they're asking their reps to endorse and that the money might not end up in your neighborhood.

Willow Bend is a pretty special case locally, but with some very typical history. For those interested, it's here: https://goo.gl/maps/anmWKrNUZsr That creek behind it is Burton Creek - the same one that runs through Tanglewood, underneath 29th St near the KBTX studio, and then underneath Highway 6 just slightly north of University. It's a 100% urban watershed, and has been since the late 60's or early 70's. The homes along Willow Bend flood anytime we get more than 5 inches in less than 12 hours. The first floodplain mapping effort in Brazos County was in 1978, and it showed Willow Bend to be in the floodplain. Every home on Willow Bend is classified FEMA as "repetitive loss structure", meaning that FEMA has paid a flood insurance claim on it multiple times. The home discussed in the meeting has probably flooded at least every 5 years since it was built.

Not to delve too deep into the FEMA cost-benefit metrics and flood insurance minutia, but one factor in how much your flood insurance costs is how many repetitive loss structures are in your community. If there are more houses that flood every 5 years, then FEMA raises the insurance premiums for everyone in that community. So if the City buys out enough repetitive loss structures, FEMA will lower everyone's rates. When you multiply the tiny premium reduction times 1000s of homeowners in the city, it almost always exceeds the cost of the buyout. Factor in that a buyout will "stop the bleeding" of repeatedly repairing a house, and a buyouts a good option. This is the program that the City is looking into: FEMA Voluntary Buyout Program

I personally hope the city will buy her house from her, bulldoze it, and put in a tiny 1/4 acre park. As a taxpayer in Bryan, it's a good use of my tax dollars.

quote:

---

For someone else, regarding the streets the flooded, it was like..the ENTIRE Oaks subdivision. Not just Valley Oaks, which is the most low-lying street. It's because there are so few storm drains and the runoff from up the hill goes directly into the houses down hill.

---

That's definitely a City of Bryan issue an not a FEMA issue. Most of the time, your streets are only designed to carry a 2-year storm underground if there's storm sewer and maybe a 10-year storm in the streets. If you get more than a 10-year storm, or even a very intense and very short rainfall, houses can flood with just a few inches of rain. FEMA's floodplains are set based on creek flooding only. Theoretically an entire subdivision street system could drain to your house and flood you once a month, but if you're not next to a studied creek and in the floodplain, your flood insurance is still ~$30 a month.

Lot of people assume that because they're not in the mapped floodplain that they're low-risk, and that's just not the case.

quote:

---

quote:

---

People in Austin's Colony flooded.

---

What part flooded, old or a newer phase? The stylecraft phase looks pretty low and that creek runs over the road there, I'm surprised if they haven't flooded yet.

---

I think your referring to the Stylecraft phase in Greenbrier. The creek that runs between it and the RNL section is only gonna get worse as more is developed.

I know there was flooding near the creek by the school and on Colony Village.

quote:

---

This is the program that the City is looking into: FEMA Voluntary Buyout Program

I personally hope the city will buy her house from her, bulldoze it, and put in a tiny 1/4 acre park. As a taxpayer in Bryan, it's a good use of my tax dollars.

---

I thought the FEMA program is paid for by FEMA, not the city. And, FEMA only does it if it is "cost beneficial" for them. In other words, FEMA predicts it would cost less to purchase the home than it would to continue to pay for flood insurance claims in the future.

I would support this program because FEMA is paying for it but why would Bryan need to buy her out? Bryan does not pay for flood insurance claims so there is no cost benefit for the city to buy her out.

BREwmaster, there was flooding on Phase 10A and 10B of Austin's colony. We are not in a flood plain.

No amount of drainage improvements/ projects could prevent the flooding we saw in May. That was probably a "200 year" event. I doubt there is anyone on here that can say they have ever seen FM 1179 & 158 under 3' of water.

For those of you in the Oaks, we're looking at a house on Oak Ridge. We know the home has had water in it 3 times but this has never been disclosed by the seller. A new french drain was just installed and the inspector thinks this will do the trick along with some landscaping changes. I'm not convinced and am extremely nervous about this whole deal.

If you feel comfortable would you email me and let me know just how bad it is? It's a gmail addr: barbwired11

If it wasn't disclosed and you have proof it flooded your recourse is seller and agent.

quote:

---

If it wasn't disclosed and you have proof it flooded your recourse is seller and agent.

---

Working on it. Just very disappointed I had to find out about it through social media. I asked for the seller to pay for a mold inspection, about $450, but that hasn't materialized for various reasons.

quote:

---

Don't spend my tax dollars on your mistake. I don't live on a creek. I don't live on a drainage structure. I don't live in the flood plain or flood way. I buy insurance to handle flooding from above but not from rising waters. I live on a hill on purpose. Why should I pay for your decision??

---

I think a lot of people would agree when it comes to the homes that are actually in the flood plain. But, a couple of these areas are not. I looked at Oak Ridge drive that barb mentioned and it is no where close to the flood plain. If homes on this street have flooded multiple times then I would 100% agree the city needs to look at the drainage issue.

Because it is likely you had kids. 2. You don't have to pay for underinsured motorist. That's your choice. Kinda like flood insurance. 3. What does any of that have to do with flooding? 9 of 10 know what they are purchasing. Many were inherited and never required flood insurance because there was no mortgage. When we have a 100 year event, lots of water has to move through areas where there were no building requirements. Then it moves through areas where the requirement was for a 20 year event. Then 50 and so on. Now developers are required to build to a 100 year event. None of those areas flooded.

quote:

---

Because it is likely you had kids. 2. You don't have to pay for underinsured motorist. That's your choice. Kinda like flood insurance. 3. What does any of that have to do with flooding? 9 of 10 know what they are purchasing. Many were inherited and never required flood insurance because there was no mortgage. When we have a 100 year event, lots of water has to move through areas where there were no building requirements. Then it moves through areas where the requirement was for a 20 year event. Then 50 and so on. Now developers are required to build to a 100 year event. None of those areas flooded.

---

Nope, no kids at all. My reply was geared toward the fact that as a whole we as a community/society wind up paying for things that don't directly affect us or suffer the effect of people not being responsible for their liabilities (like not carrying car insurance therefore I have to carry uninsured/underinsured to protect myself). I have no kids but I pay school taxes bc a good school system will affect my property value to some degree. I pay for roads I don't use bc a good road system affects my community and thus my property values. The city needs to ensure they are taking care of their part in providing adequate drainage in some of these neighborhoods. And yes, I understand how building requirements have changed over the years, how that impacts drainage issues over time along with the historic rainfall amounts in the past year or two.

I do get what you're saying though and agree with you for the most part. I don't want my taxes to increase to either to pay for someone else's problem but sometimes it has to be done. And that's when I have to trust that the city is making competent decisions and spending our tax dollars wisely to fix community problems.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because it is likely you had kids. 2. You don't have to pay for underinsured motorist. That's your choice. Kinda like flood insurance. 3. What does any of that have to do with flooding? 9 of 10 know what they are purchasing. Many were inherited and never required flood insurance because there was no mortgage. When we have a 100 year event, lots of water has to move through areas where there were no building requirements. Then it moves through areas where the requirement was for a 20 year event. Then 50 and so on. Now developers are required to build to a 100 year event. None of those areas flooded.

---

Nope, no kids at all. My reply was geared toward the fact that as a whole we as a community/society wind up paying for things that don't directly affect us or suffer the effect of people not being responsible for their liabilities (like not carrying car insurance therefore I have to carry uninsured/underinsured to protect myself). I have no kids but I pay school taxes bc a good school system will affect my property value to some degree. I pay for roads I don't use bc a good road system affects my community and thus my property values. The city needs to ensure they are taking care of their part in providing adequate drainage in some of these neighborhoods. And yes, I understand how building requirements have changed over the years, how that impacts drainage issues over time along with the historic rainfall amounts in the past year or two.

I do get what you're saying though and agree with you for the most part. I don't want my taxes to increase to either to pay for someone else's problem but sometimes it has to be done. And that's when I have to trust that the city is making competent decisions and spending our tax dollars wisely to fix community problems.

---

...And that's when I have to trust that the city is making competent decisions and spending our tax dollars wisely to fix community problems.


Lot's of luck going there.



My opinion is that if a person purchases a house in the FEMA designated flood plain and/or a house that has previously flooded and they knew that it had at the time of purchase, the taxpayers should not pay for any help.

If a house is flooded that is not in the flood plain per FEMA designation perhaps the taxpayers should assist to some degree. The flooding may have been caused by something the city/county did was up stream in the watershed of the creek. If you are downstream from major commercial or residential developments you could be affected by what the city or the developers have done by redirection water drainage from their sites or by laying a tremendous amount of concrete that prohibits rainfall percolation into the ground.

Each assistance case needs to be evaluated on its own merits.