I wonder why anyone thinks it is okay for the government to build a structure that will cause damage to private property (even if, at the time it was built, that private property was rural farmland/undeveloped land) when it operates as designed. If I change my property and those changes cause my neighbor to flood, I am liable. They should be required to buy the entire area of the designed flood pool... or compensate you if you are damaged as a result of their structure operating precisely as intended.

I live north of the Addicks reservoir... I can walk right into it in less than a mile if I follow a "creek" (a glorified drainage ditch). My home sits at 112.5 ft above sea level. The "top of dam" is 119.6 feet. The top of the "emergency spillway crest elevation" is 108.9 feet. My husband and I are extremely careful not to buy in floodplains. Even if we don't need it, we buy flood insurance. But you'd better bet we were worried in the days after Harvey... as the water within the flood pool rose. Water came up through the storm drains in the street in front of our home but stopped just above the edge of the curb. However, we did not flood. None of the homes in our subdivision flooded, but a lot of people had to leave their homes by boat.

I still don't know with 100% certainty that we are NOT in the flood pool, as designed. On the maps in this article, we are outside of the "edge of reservoir". Everyone knew Houston's reservoirs would flood - except for the people who bought homes inside them.

We have never flooded and we built our home.

Location and Pool Elevations of Houston Area Reservoirs, Addicks and Barker

Body By Fisher said:

---

Quote:

---

If they weren't informed, which apparently they were not, there may be some recourse, but it should be limited given the information we have available to us and the COMMON SENSE that should have been used when looking at purchasing, developing, etc. As I stated earlier - at some point you as the purchaser/owner have to assume some risk, and considering the geography of coastal Texas

---

Let's think about what you just said for a second. How many home lots within 2 hours of the Texas coast would not be at some risk of flooding with that much rain? Take a look at the damage maps for different flood events over just the last decade - common sense isn't going to guarantee anyone safety by pinpointing a spot that has not flooded in the previous 20-30 years. Development is constantly changing the landscape, which is independent of predicting unprecedented rainfall.

Humans build on or near flood control structures all over the world and have since the dawn of civilization.

---

I've stated multiple times that anything south of I-10 should be considered a zone where potential flooding is possible. And you should, as a responsible human being and home owner, do your due diligence as a result.

The Brazos river is 7 miles from where I live. Oyster Creek is about 5 miles from where I live. My house isn't in a 100 year flood plain. My slab elevation is raised to be 18" above the 100 year flood plain. And I still buy flood insurance - because it's cheap and because I live on the Texas gulf coast and it's frankly stupid not to.

There are no guarantees for anything. Which is why lawsuits that are essentially lawsuits that are filed because people thought there were guarantees should be tossed IMO. Throw in a literally once in a lifetime storm that broke every record known to man along this coast and you further erode any "guarantees".

Throw in "building inside the levees of a man made reservoir created specifically to hold water in a flood event to hopefully protect the downstream assets (City of Houston)" and I just don't have the feels that somehow the government (read: taxpayers) should be on the hook. I truly empathize with those that were flooded out - I really do. It sucks, and I can't imagine how bad it sucks. But that also doesn't mean that the rest of us should subsidize the cost of what I view to be poor decisions or lack of research prior to making said decisions.

schmellba99 said:

---

Body By Fisher said:

---

Throw in "building inside the levees of a man made reservoir created specifically to hold water in a flood event to hopefully protect the downstream assets (City of Houston)" and I just don't have the feels that somehow the government (read: taxpayers) should be on the hook. I truly empathize with those that were flooded out - I really do. It sucks, and I can't imagine how bad it sucks. But that also doesn't mean that the rest of us should subsidize the cost of what I view to be poor decisions or lack of research prior to making said decisions

---

---

The issue is that the ultimate poor decision making skills are actually on the side of USACE here (on behalf of the taxpayers), not the homeowners...

Let's simplify and pretend the original pre-dam owner(s) still owned it all and had a ranching operation there as expected by USACE. Hundreds of cows died due to the water being impounded on the land without them be able to get them out in time...

Is that person owed any compensation?

Nobody ever answered my hypothetical of whether they think the owners should be owed compensation if the flooding was caused by an impoundment structure built and owned by a private company or utility either.

JJxvi said:

---

Nobody ever answered my hypothetical of whether they think the owners should be owed compensation if the flooding was caused by an impoundment structure built and owned by a private company or utility either.

---

When was the structure built?

https://texags.com/forums/38/topics/3083601/replies/55644231

JJxvi said:

---

https://texags.com/forums/38/topics/3083601/replies/55644231

---

I would not. That was a known risk at the time.

If you want to say Harris County should not have issued a building permit and kept it as agricultural lands I would not argue with you. Developers saw cheap land and little risk and built $30,0000 homes in the 70's and 80's and are now long gone.

Lol. And so what about Brad's hypothetical where it killed cows on the original owner's lands. Would those original owners have any recourse? What is your time limit before their personal survey squads (which obviously any prudent person seems to need, in order to be continuously aware of any risks that might be cropping up) who are out policing all property changes for miles around their property, have to notice the problem and bring it up?

What about if they try to sell their land and all the sharp guys like you refuse to buy it, do they have any recourse against the dam owner then?

The real world answer to what happens in all these questions is "The affected land owner will be awarded compensation and/or relief"

Brad06ag said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

If it was never disclosed to them I'd argue the government should pay.

---

I fully agree with the idea that it should have been disclosed to them. The responsible parties in that case are the developers, realtors, and title companies.

However, current rules did not require it, which sucks. That is why homeowners need to do some of the work themselves.

Quote:

---

If it was never disclosed to them I'd argue the government developers, realtors, and title companies should pay.

---

If anyone should pay, it should be them for not disclosing, but unfortunately, as someone previously pointed out, many of them are long gone; especially the developers.

---

This is all caused by the government not buying land they intended to flood. The height of the damn constructed is indicative of what they intended to flood.

Not allowing development would be a taking by the government as well. Do you think its OK for the government to step in and not allow use of your land with no compensation?

Everyone just decided to kick the can down the road instead of ever dealing with it. They just hoped to pass the bag around and not be the one left holding it when it did eventually flood.

USACE should have purchased all the land that could have been flooded or built a smaller dam if "they never though it could possibly flood". They knew it flood that bad or else their design case would have been different.

---

TANGENT - this is exactly the same thing happening with the Social Security program. Consider yourself warned amd save on your own.

Downstream case dismissed today. Flooding via Act of God.

Fascinating...

Sort of a "No ****" moment. Upstream still has a case, so that'll be interesting for those within the pool zone.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Hurricane-Harvey-lawsuit-upstream-downstream-win-15071315.php

Appeals court reversed and remanded the downstream case's lower court ruling.

They live to see another day.

https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001NDglquaDFyKXBFHm1le2ykk__PbOTGqwBNtXamYsmo62zhJb5hPo6JbQfRqB9F1McVJtLt3ecFhurxuPYOn5a-GsTZU_XweqtV6mNLz-zdyOCF9pjsrqgF5looIrIMx4kKGgmjg90LQKRzOH3xov8TxYPyP_0zZ2xbglqv_lU5OUN9YR2bBRHgxu7e3_pd6yFfTc_zgSQ-XkYGdM8qW6V_WF8wPRDtIw&c=stX3MmvMi1mVT7Ffrwcywi6xNBEBL42m4HHXpf6Mab8a6uHimOQ3BA==&ch=g0XQmPGZzyCdgBgw503L208K4yu7x_pHdDlTxbqR1iRYypA1iXUkRQ==

Whoa. I haven't read through yet but I agreed with the logic of the original opinion. I don't see how downstream beats the affirmative defenses.

I'm not a lawyer, but it appears to be more of a formality. It seems the lower court granted summary judgement on an aspect of the case that the appeals court thinks they shouldn't have. It doesn't mean the appeals court disagrees with the ultimate finding, but how the lower court arrived at that finding wasn't acceptable.

One of our resident legal eagles can feel free to correct me.

You are mostly correct, but I wouldn't say it was a mere formality. The lower court ruled that there was no "cognizable property interest," which is one prong of finding a taking occurred. It didn't reach the second prong of the analysis because it was moot once the first prong wasn't satisfied. The appeals court found that decision to be incorrect and that the homeowners did have a cognizable property interest. It did not go any further than that in the analysis of whether a taking occurred, instead, it remanded the case back to the lower court to rule on whether the second prong was satisfied - whether a taking actually occurred.

Thanks for the clarification. I read the part about the second prong not being satisfied but missed where they didn't even in look into that prong because they determined the first wasn't met, and therefore considered the second moot.

People impacted upstream of the dam are entitled to compensation from the federal government.
Federal judge awards compensation for Hurricane Harvey victims upstream from Addicks, Barker dams (click2houston.com)