How a community was sacrificed to save Houston

2,326 Views | 53 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by tford12
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How a community was sacrificed to save Houston

I know this isn't really R&P related, but this is a very interesting video from the NY Times. We lived in Cinco Ranch up until a few years ago. I had no idea the area is designated as a "flood pool" and was designed to be flooded in order to save Houston in case of area flooding. Since it's not a "flood zone", developers were never required to inform people of this.
“Conquer men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of justice to shame by your compassion."
--St Isaac the Syrian
wbt5845
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I must admit I always wondered how it was allowed to build houses in the retention basin of the Barker and Addicks Reservoirs. I do not understand the disclosure laws that govern this situation.

But if I were looking at property here, I would have reviewed elevation maps and seen it was within the retention pond. It's not that hard - the elevation of the dam is X feet. If you're house isn't above X feet, you're in the pool. I thus would have either looked elsewhere or bought flood insurance.

Ultimate case of "buyer beware", I suppose. Being an engineer, I look at these kinds of things - I guess most people don't.

I know when I bought the house I'm in now, I purposefully bought a house right on the ridge line between two major watersheds of the Trinity. If my house floods, the promise to Noah has been broken.

Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

I guess most people don't.
Any Houston native looks for it. Show me FEMA maps, contours, elevations, etc. before I buy a house in Houston. If you don't understand it, hire a civil engineer.

Anything "could" happen. The dams could break and flood everyone downstream. Should they be notified of the "risk"?
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:


Quote:

I guess most people don't.
Any Houston native looks for it. Show me FEMA maps, contours, elevations, etc. before I buy a house in Houston. If you don't understand it, hire a civil engineer.

Anything "could" happen. The dams could break and flood everyone downstream. Should they be notified of the "risk"?


I think if you are in an area that has been purposefully engineered to flood in certain scenarios, you should be informed before you buy.

Sometimes **** happens that no one expects. In this case the **** that happened was exactly as planned. That should be printed somewhere in the paperwork when you buy the house. Most people would ignore it anyway, but then it's on them.
Win At Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How is it that the area specifically designed to collect flood water doesn't register as being in a flood plain while every little swale in a front yard does?
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This belongs on the politics board, or Houston.
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chuckd said:

This belongs on the politics board, or Houston.


Ethics is part of philosophy
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
they should definitely be required to tell people that they are buying property in what is designed to be a water retention area for flooding.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Required to notify by whom? The government? Politics board.

The government should have never permitted the development. Again, a discussion for the politics board.

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
Clear legally? Sure. Clear ethically? No. Ethics aren't determined by government, so this seems to be the appropriate board.
“Conquer men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of justice to shame by your compassion."
--St Isaac the Syrian
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chuckd said:

Required to notify by whom? The government? Politics board.

The government should have never permitted the development. Again, a discussion for the politics board.

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
the entity that is selling the property should be required to disclose such. and if they don't, they should be open to lawsuit.

agreed, if disclosures aren't required to be made.

sure they can develop the land, but they should tell people the risks.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:

Quote:

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
Clear legally? Sure. Clear ethically? No. Ethics aren't determined by government, so this seems to be the appropriate board.
Disclosure requirements are determined by the government. A developer has no interest in disclosing any and all possible acts of God that may occur on the land he is developing, legally or ethically.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

Quote:

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
Clear legally? Sure. Clear ethically? No. Ethics aren't determined by government, so this seems to be the appropriate board.
Disclosure requirements are determined by the government. A developer has no interest in disclosing any and all possible acts of God that may occur on the land he is developing, legally or ethically.
an act of god that is designed by humans to happen?
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
schmendeler said:

chuckd said:

Required to notify by whom? The government? Politics board.

The government should have never permitted the development. Again, a discussion for the politics board.

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
the entity that is selling the property should be required to disclose such. and if they don't, they should be open to lawsuit.

agreed, if disclosures aren't required to be made.

sure they can develop the land, but they should tell people the risks.
What risks? This approached the maximum probable flood limit. I have land that I'm selling in which the entire area would be destroyed by a maximum probable flood. Must I disclose that to the buyer? Ethically or legally? Have you had a civil engineer determine that for any house you have sold? I doubt it. Nobody does that.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
schmendeler said:

chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

Quote:

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
Clear legally? Sure. Clear ethically? No. Ethics aren't determined by government, so this seems to be the appropriate board.
Disclosure requirements are determined by the government. A developer has no interest in disclosing any and all possible acts of God that may occur on the land he is developing, legally or ethically.
an act of god that is designed by humans to happen?
I just had to quote this.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chuckd said:

schmendeler said:

chuckd said:

Required to notify by whom? The government? Politics board.

The government should have never permitted the development. Again, a discussion for the politics board.

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
the entity that is selling the property should be required to disclose such. and if they don't, they should be open to lawsuit.

agreed, if disclosures aren't required to be made.

sure they can develop the land, but they should tell people the risks.
What risks? This approached the maximum probable flood limit. I have land that I'm selling in which the entire area would be destroyed by a maximum probable flood. Must I disclose that to the buyer? Ethically or legally? Have you had a civil engineer determine that for any house you have sold? I doubt it. Nobody does that.
was it within the limit or outside it?
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
schmendeler said:

chuckd said:

schmendeler said:

chuckd said:

Required to notify by whom? The government? Politics board.

The government should have never permitted the development. Again, a discussion for the politics board.

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
the entity that is selling the property should be required to disclose such. and if they don't, they should be open to lawsuit.

agreed, if disclosures aren't required to be made.

sure they can develop the land, but they should tell people the risks.
What risks? This approached the maximum probable flood limit. I have land that I'm selling in which the entire area would be destroyed by a maximum probable flood. Must I disclose that to the buyer? Ethically or legally? Have you had a civil engineer determine that for any house you have sold? I doubt it. Nobody does that.
was it within the limit or outside it?
Was what within what limit?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

Quote:

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
Clear legally? Sure. Clear ethically? No. Ethics aren't determined by government, so this seems to be the appropriate board.
Disclosure requirements are determined by the government. A developer has no interest in disclosing any and all possible acts of God that may occur on the land he is developing, legally or ethically.
I'm not talking about forcing them to disclose. I believe the developer has an ethical obligation to disclose that these homes are built in a flood pool. The developer has an ethical obligation to tell them that these homes were built in an area that was specifically designed to be flooded in a catastrophic enough rain. The government is irrelevant to that discussion.
“Conquer men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of justice to shame by your compassion."
--St Isaac the Syrian
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:

chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

Quote:

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
Clear legally? Sure. Clear ethically? No. Ethics aren't determined by government, so this seems to be the appropriate board.
Disclosure requirements are determined by the government. A developer has no interest in disclosing any and all possible acts of God that may occur on the land he is developing, legally or ethically.
I'm not talking about forcing them to disclose. I believe the developer has an ethical obligation to disclose that these homes are built in a flood pool. The government is irrelevant to that discussion.
Good luck getting them to do that. If the Army Corps of Engineers, Texas, County, City, Feds, mortgage lenders all do not notify homeowners, why would a developer notify?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

Quote:

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
Clear legally? Sure. Clear ethically? No. Ethics aren't determined by government, so this seems to be the appropriate board.
Disclosure requirements are determined by the government. A developer has no interest in disclosing any and all possible acts of God that may occur on the land he is developing, legally or ethically.
I'm not talking about forcing them to disclose. I believe the developer has an ethical obligation to disclose that these homes are built in a flood pool. The government is irrelevant to that discussion.
Good luck getting them to do that. If the Army Corps of Engineers, Texas, County, City, Feds, mortgage lenders all do not notify homeowners, why would a developer (who has the only financial interest in the land) notify?
Why? Because it's the ethically right thing to do. I get that it's not likely to happen. That might cut into their profits, but doing the right thing is more important than doing the profitable thing.

The point, though, is that your initial claim was wrong. This board seems like a fine place to discuss ethics.
“Conquer men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of justice to shame by your compassion."
--St Isaac the Syrian
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:

chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

chuckd said:

RetiredAg said:

Quote:

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
Clear legally? Sure. Clear ethically? No. Ethics aren't determined by government, so this seems to be the appropriate board.
Disclosure requirements are determined by the government. A developer has no interest in disclosing any and all possible acts of God that may occur on the land he is developing, legally or ethically.
I'm not talking about forcing them to disclose. I believe the developer has an ethical obligation to disclose that these homes are built in a flood pool. The government is irrelevant to that discussion.
Good luck getting them to do that. If the Army Corps of Engineers, Texas, County, City, Feds, mortgage lenders all do not notify homeowners, why would a developer (who has the only financial interest in the land) notify?
Why? Because it's the ethically right thing to do. I get that it's not likely to happen. That might cut into their profits, but doing the right thing is more important than doing the profitable thing.
A "flood pool" is not defined by metes and bounds. It cannot be surveyed. So during what storm event must they notify homeowners in order to do the right thing? 100-year? 500-year? 1000-year?

You said you sold a home in Cinco Ranch. Did you spend $50k on a civil engineer to do a study in order to determine the maximum probably precipitation for your property in order to notify the future buyer? Is it required of you ethically?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

A "flood pool" is not defined by metes and bounds. It cannot be surveyed. So during what storm event must they notify homeowners in order to do the right thing? 100-year? 500-year? 1000-year?
How about a simple, "hey guys, this area is in or around a designated "flood pool", and if the reservoir ever needs to be opened due to catastrophic flooding, you're likely to have this area be under water"?


Quote:

You said you sold a home in Cinco Ranch. Did you spend $50k on a civil engineer to do a study in order to determine the maximum probably precipitation for your property in order to notify the future buyer? Is it required of you ethically?
Well, I guess you're playing this game now. First, "maximum probable precipitation" would not likely include an estimation on a 1,000-year flood. Second, I had an ethical obligation to notify the buyers of any possible issues of which I was aware. Did the developers know this area was a flood pool? I'm assuming "yes". If so, they have an ethical obligation to make purchasers aware.
“Conquer men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of justice to shame by your compassion."
--St Isaac the Syrian
Win At Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Even today, I don't think the county flood plain map shows what the limits of the reservoir will fill to at capacity. That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps the home buyers did look at the flood maps. But those maps show no flood potential even in the 500 year plain for some areas that flooded within the reservoir flood pool. WTF?
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:


Quote:

A "flood pool" is not defined by metes and bounds. It cannot be surveyed. So during what storm event must they notify homeowners in order to do the right thing? 100-year? 500-year? 1000-year?
How about a simple, "hey guys, this area is in or around a designated "flood pool", and if the reservoir ever needs to be opened due to catastrophic flooding, you're likely to have this area be under water"?


Quote:

You said you sold a home in Cinco Ranch. Did you spend $50k on a civil engineer to do a study in order to determine the maximum probably precipitation for your property in order to notify the future buyer? Is it required of you ethically?
Well, I guess you're playing this game now. First, "maximum probable precipitation" would not likely include an estimation on a 1,000-year flood. Second, I had an ethical obligation to notify the buyers of any possible issues of which I was aware. Did the developers know this area was a flood pool? I'm assuming "yes". If so, they have an ethical obligation to make purchasers aware.

Show me on a map where the flood pool is. Where are the boundaries? Where should you notify ethically? (without relying on hindsight data from Harvey of where we know what flooded)
JJxvi
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The problem is that just being within the flood pool of a dam doesn't necessarily increase the probability that you will flood. Probability that you will flood is what determines the flood maps.

Imagine that the addicks or barker dam was built like 500 ft higher to encompass 1000 square miles or something ridiculous, a house 10 feet below the level of that dam would be technically be in the flood pool, but the dam wouldn't cause an increase in the flood probability for that property 10 ft below the lip at all, because it would basically be impossible to ever get close to filling up the reservoir in any circumstance other than biblical flood.

So, basically if a 500 (0.2%) year flood won't even fill up reservoir, then even those houses that are high enough within the pool arent in the 500 year flood plain. The problem is the residents still need to be told they are within the flood pool. There needs to be a mechanism for that. This isnt just a normal actively draining flood plain, but a reservoir that detains flood water, so it would seem to me that basically the development and impact on drainage over a wide area is going to be focused and magnified at the reservoir since thats where water from a huge area is being detaine. So what is a 500 year flood now within the reservoir, may be wildly different than a 500 year flood 10 years from now, even moreso than even in other drainage areas which also change.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Win At Life said:

Even today, I don't think the county flood plain map shows what the limits of the reservoir will fill to at capacity. That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps the home buyers did look at the flood maps. But those maps show no flood potential even in the 500 year plain for some areas that flooded within the reservoir flood pool. WTF?
Yes, maps produced by FEMA. The county should not permit development. Or there should be a designation on the maps of "flood pool" that mortgage lenders (and home buyers) may use as a tool. I don't see this as an ethical problem for developers though.

Sellers (or developers) simply don't have the resources or time/money to take on such a study. Nor the authority to say by what storm event an area may not be developed.
dds08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chuckd said:

Required to notify by whom? The government? Politics board.

The government should have never permitted the development. Again, a discussion for the politics board.

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you always should.

The developers that profited from the homes in question should feel some guilt of the people that were affected by Harvey. If they don't, I suspect their moral compass is twisted or backward.

People died in that storm.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dds08 said:

chuckd said:

Required to notify by whom? The government? Politics board.

The government should have never permitted the development. Again, a discussion for the politics board.

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you always should.

The developers that profited from the homes in question should feel some guilt of the people that were affected by Harvey. If they don't, I suspect their moral compass is twisted or backward.

People died in that storm.
Hindsight is 20/20.
dds08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chuckd said:

dds08 said:

chuckd said:

Required to notify by whom? The government? Politics board.

The government should have never permitted the development. Again, a discussion for the politics board.

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you always should.

The developers that profited from the homes in question should feel some guilt of the people that were affected by Harvey. If they don't, I suspect their moral compass is twisted or backward.

People died in that storm.
Hindsight is 20/20.
How easily could some of those deaths have been avoided, had they been more prudent in the initial planning phase of the project?

People are in such a hurry to make a profit, that they don't see the forest for the trees.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dds08 said:

chuckd said:

dds08 said:

chuckd said:

Required to notify by whom? The government? Politics board.

The government should have never permitted the development. Again, a discussion for the politics board.

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you always should.

The developers that profited from the homes in question should feel some guilt of the people that were affected by Harvey. If they don't, I suspect their moral compass is twisted or backward.

People died in that storm.
Hindsight is 20/20.
How easily could some of those deaths have been avoided, had they been more prudent in the initial planning phase of the project?

People are in such a hurry to make a profit, that they don't see the forest for the trees.
What planning? It's a cost/risk analysis. You live upstream of a dam and below the spillway elevation of the dam, you have a risk of flooding. You live downstream of a dam, you have a risk of flooding if the dam is breached. Should all houses downstream of Barker be put on alert? All development ceased in order to not be in such a hurry to make a profit?

How many houses have flooded or people died in Meyerland? That area floods during a light drizzle. The entire area is in the 100-year flood plain. Who do we hold responsible? City of Houston for permitting? FEMA? Meyer family for developing? Buyers? Lenders?
dds08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chuckd said:

dds08 said:

chuckd said:

dds08 said:

chuckd said:

Required to notify by whom? The government? Politics board.

The government should have never permitted the development. Again, a discussion for the politics board.

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you always should.

The developers that profited from the homes in question should feel some guilt of the people that were affected by Harvey. If they don't, I suspect their moral compass is twisted or backward.

People died in that storm.
Hindsight is 20/20.
How easily could some of those deaths have been avoided, had they been more prudent in the initial planning phase of the project?

People are in such a hurry to make a profit, that they don't see the forest for the trees.
What planning? It's a cost/risk analysis. You live upstream of a dam and below the spillway elevation of the dam, you have a risk of flooding. You live downstream of a dam, you have a risk of flooding if the dam is breached. Should all houses downstream of Barker be put on alert? All development ceased in order to not be in such a hurry to make a profit?

How many houses have flooded or people died in Meyerland? That area floods during a light drizzle. The entire area is in the 100-year flood plain. Who do we hold responsible? City of Houston for permitting? FEMA? Meyer family for developing? Buyers? Lenders?
Every professional, serious, project, has a planning phase (especially those backed by money/funds).

This was an utter disservice done, in part by, developers to the general public. There's plenty of blame to go all away around. (The politicians in Houston/Texas, the Texas legislators, the developers, the consumers).

The people who were duped into buying homes in areas destined to fail need to reach out to their local US senators and US representative in Congress.
JJxvi
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The politicians and the developers are by and large the same people in this city.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dds08 said:

chuckd said:

dds08 said:

chuckd said:

dds08 said:

chuckd said:

Required to notify by whom? The government? Politics board.

The government should have never permitted the development. Again, a discussion for the politics board.

Developers are in the business of developing. If the government permits it, then they are clear to develop the land. It was (and still is) outside Zone AE floodplain.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you always should.

The developers that profited from the homes in question should feel some guilt of the people that were affected by Harvey. If they don't, I suspect their moral compass is twisted or backward.

People died in that storm.
Hindsight is 20/20.
How easily could some of those deaths have been avoided, had they been more prudent in the initial planning phase of the project?

People are in such a hurry to make a profit, that they don't see the forest for the trees.
What planning? It's a cost/risk analysis. You live upstream of a dam and below the spillway elevation of the dam, you have a risk of flooding. You live downstream of a dam, you have a risk of flooding if the dam is breached. Should all houses downstream of Barker be put on alert? All development ceased in order to not be in such a hurry to make a profit?

How many houses have flooded or people died in Meyerland? That area floods during a light drizzle. The entire area is in the 100-year flood plain. Who do we hold responsible? City of Houston for permitting? FEMA? Meyer family for developing? Buyers? Lenders?
Every professional, serious, project, has a planning phase (especially those backed by money/funds).

This was an utter disservice done, in part by, developers to the general public. There's plenty of blame to go all away around. (The politicians in Houston/Texas, the Texas legislators, the developers, the consumers).

The people who were duped into buying homes in areas destined to fail need to reach out to their local US senators and US representative in Congress.
If I'm going to develop land, my first question is flood plain. Check a FEMA map. After that, go to the planning and zoning entity who has jurisdiction over the land. Show them drainage plans, retention ponds, etc. If they bless it, I wouldn't go searching for reasons not to develop it. When it comes to development and engineering, it's a balance of cost and risk. In hindsight, it shouldn't have happened. It's easy to point fingers at those greedy developers, but we're armchair quarter backing. We could all elevate our houses 100 feet off the ground, but at what cost?
dds08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Are you a developer or have some kind of stake in the housing development industry?

You seem awfully predisposed to defend their position.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No. And I'm not defending a position other than that this was an act of God that could not have been planned for. I can go searching for other dams across Texas in the same situation. But I don't blame developers because it's not their job to set the boundaries for what is considered acceptable risk. That is on the county floodplain administrators, the entities that control the dams, FEMA, etc. to set those boundaries and permit development. In general, that risk should be below 1% likelihood every year. In some areas, the precipitation from Harvey was a 0.0025% likelihood.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.