And the judge ruled the gov't is liable for flooding upstream property owners.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/homeowners-behind-addicks-barker-dams-190000166.html

I figured V&B thought they were going to get a favorable ruling as they've amped up their advertising for these cases over the last few weeks/months.

nm, comment was for downstream

^
^
I doubt the developers, which are typically partnerships that are dissolved soon after development is done, are even still around to be sued. But this was a unique case in which the developers where following development regulations. The land that was developed is not in the 100-year floodplain, even though it is in the flood pool of the reservoirs. (In more modern parlance, it is not within the floodplain that has a 1% chance of happening any given year). So if the County tried to stop the development from happening because of the flood pool issue, that could have been a taking by the County. And they weren't willing to do that, because it was a problem caused by the COE, not the County or the developers.

And in Fort Bend County the residents were notified (versus being truly informed) by a note on the recorded plats. That was the method to give the County and out and to officially notify the homeowners. But it doesn't change the fact that the COE used private property to store floodwaters without an easement allowing them to do that.

aggiedent said:

---

Since I'm not a lawyer, I'm wondering about something.

Since the developers were aware of the flood pool and chose not to inform home buyers of that fact, shouldn't the developers have some liability as well?

---

If I recall, isn't there a small, single-sentence note on the survey plats that states that the parcel sits within the flood pool of the reservoir? I seem to recall that the County considered that to be a solution that warned potential buyers but didn't piss off the developers (too much) that fund their campaigns.

Sasappis said:

---

They could buy out the land today under eminent domain or pay for the "taking". They will also appeal the ruling.

---

I hadn't thought of that unintended consequence of this lawsuit. The government may view this as if they have already paid for, lets say, 80% of the home's worth then they might as well go for the last 20% and never have this problem again.



So a lot of people might win this battle but end up having to move. There's a lot residential homes that would be impacted. It'll cost a lot more than when it was farmland, but it won't be the full value of the land. I don't think it's too common for people to be happy about the amount of money they get from a eminent domain seizure.

Sasappis said:

---

agnerd said:

---

So next time it rains, Corps is just going to fling those flood gates wide open to avoid another lawsuit. T&P to everyone downstream! Next Harvey is going to take out most of downtown, and most of the ship channel. But that's not important as long as people that built in the flood pool don't get any water in their houses.

---

You do realize that the entire region is built on flood prone prairie land, right?

And for the record, they eventually opened the gates to maintain the integrity of the dam and that is what caused the downstream flooding. Did that take out most of downtown?

---

Nope...but USACE is busy preparing plans to essentially channelize Buffalo Bayou from the dams to downtown to make the water flow faster. Combine that with no plan to get rid of the downtown choke point, and you can bet that downtown will get it worse next time.

What about the taxing jurisdictions that have received compensation based on property values within the flood plain? Do they have to give their money back?

A lot of hands got paid because this land was developed.

Yes, but did the county need to try and stop them? All it would have taken was for the county to say, if you develop there, we'll announce in all forms of media that you'll be developing in a flood pool.

As the land buyer for Cinco Ranch said in a Chronicle interview, "if we had told prospective buyers, nobody would have bought."

In Fort Bend county, it was in small print, so obscure, no home buyer ever saw it.

In Harris county, there was nothing.

txags92 said:

---

However, they are making no plans to fix the choke point in downtown where White Oak Bayou joins Buffalo Bayou.

---

FEMA approves initial funding for long-sought North Canal flood project

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

txags92 said:

---

However, they are making no plans to fix the choke point in downtown where White Oak Bayou joins Buffalo Bayou.

---

FEMA approves initial funding for long-sought North Canal flood project

---

Interesting. I had not seen that. I have seen the USACE plans for Buffalo Bayou west of downtown and their proposed actions stopped just before downtown. I wonder if the FEMA design plans account for the extra water that USACE wants to send them?

If the Corps would have purchased all that land in excess of the worst case scenario, given how much the Houston area has expanded, I'd say there's a chance a developer (s) at some point would have reached out to the Corps to attempt to buy that land to build subdivisions. Or better yet, may have even *****ed to the county, etc. About not being allowed the opportunity.

It would have been very interesting if that's how all this had played out, and a developer would finally be on the hook for their ****ty development in this part of the state.

agnerd said:

---

I live behind the dam.
I had to drive over the dam when I was looking at houses.
After driving over the dam, I checked the elevation of the dam.
I then decided not to look at any houses below the top of the dam.
I didn't flood during Harvey.
I didn't need a note on a plat to figure out whether or not I should buy a house behind a dam. Seems like completely basic common sense to me.

---

This. Elevation of home slab needs to be above any water blocking major improvement. Dam, road, rr tracks, irrigation canal bank, bayou bank, all these improvements were built way up so they wouldn't flood. Many roads like I-10 were originally built on piers crossing major drains back when common sense was used. Then the old roads were upgraded and enlarged and box culverts replaced the piers, greatly reducing the drainage.

Everything built out on that former prairie impedes drainage of the flood plain where numerous creeks and bayous drain. It was just a matter of time and would have happened again this year if they would have gotten the 40 inches of rain in two days the area 50 miles east of Katy got with Imelda.

From what I heard on the news it comes down to being an immenant domain case.

Basically when they didn't open the dam and the land flooded that constituted the govt using it and they were using it without compensating the owners FMV.

Now they're being ordered to pay the residents for using their land.

agnerd said:

---

I live behind the dam.
I had to drive over the dam when I was looking at houses.
After driving over the dam, I checked the elevation of the dam.
I then decided not to look at any houses below the top of the dam.
I didn't flood during Harvey.
I didn't need a note on a plat to figure out whether or not I should buy a house behind a dam. Seems like completely basic common sense to me.

---

My home was 10 feet above a dam, and it flooded anyway.

txags92 said:

---

Sasappis said:

---

agnerd said:

---

So next time it rains, Corps is just going to fling those flood gates wide open to avoid another lawsuit. T&P to everyone downstream! Next Harvey is going to take out most of downtown, and most of the ship channel. But that's not important as long as people that built in the flood pool don't get any water in their houses.

---

You do realize that the entire region is built on flood prone prairie land, right?

And for the record, they eventually opened the gates to maintain the integrity of the dam and that is what caused the downstream flooding. Did that take out most of downtown?

---

Nope...but USACE is busy preparing plans to essentially channelize Buffalo Bayou from the dams to downtown to make the water flow faster. Combine that with no plan to get rid of the downtown choke point, and you can bet that downtown will get it worse next time.

---

I'm no expert but this 'make the water flow faster' idea seems like a real bad idea.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Sasappis said:

---

agnerd said:

---

So next time it rains, Corps is just going to fling those flood gates wide open to avoid another lawsuit. T&P to everyone downstream! Next Harvey is going to take out most of downtown, and most of the ship channel. But that's not important as long as people that built in the flood pool don't get any water in their houses.

---

You do realize that the entire region is built on flood prone prairie land, right?

And for the record, they eventually opened the gates to maintain the integrity of the dam and that is what caused the downstream flooding. Did that take out most of downtown?

---

Nope...but USACE is busy preparing plans to essentially channelize Buffalo Bayou from the dams to downtown to make the water flow faster. Combine that with no plan to get rid of the downtown choke point, and you can bet that downtown will get it worse next time.

---

I'm no expert but this 'make the water flow faster' idea seems like a real bad idea.

---

The money for this project is coming through the "dam safety" group at USACE. Their goal is to protect the dam and not have to fill up the reservoir and flood houses again. So we are now at the point of destroying green space and wildlife habitat so that we can get water downstream and into downtown faster. Once upon a time we built reservoirs to slow water down and prevent it from flooding the city. But we let people build houses within the flood pool. So instead of buying out those houses, we are going to spend a billion dollars moving the water elsewhere faster where it can be somebody else's problem to protect the dam and the houses built behind it. I will hand it to USACE though, they never pass up an opportunity to spend a crapload of money to protect structures that never should have been built somewhere from being flooded.

Like I've been saying since this happened. Upstream has a case for compensation, downstream none.