JJxvi said:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

The Addicks Reservoir and Addicks Dam in conjunction with the Barker Reservoir prevent downstream flooding of Buffalo Bayou in the City of Houston. Both reservoirs were authorized under the Rivers and Harbors Act of June 20, 1938, which was modified by the Flood Control Acts of August 11, 1938; September 3, 1954; and October 27, 1965. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed construction of Addicks Dam and the outlet facility in 1948.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addicks_Reservoir#cite_note-1][1][/url]

---

Like I said. If you bought a house in that area prior to 1948 you have a case.

CDUB98 said:

---

The upstream has a case for buying a home inside a reservoir?

---

The property they bought was impaired by the government and the government never paid compensation for it (as required by the Constitution). Who should get compensated, if not the current land owner that saw the effects occur and actually for the first time sees not only actual damages but also must deal with the long term effect on the market value of their property? It certainly should not be the original land owner who got market price to develop neighborhoods.

Also just because I say they "have a case" doesn't mean I think all their positions are 100% correct or think I know what the outcome will end up being. Its literal "they have a case"

Its especially a contrast with downstream, who own property that actually receive 100% of the benefit of the dams existing in the first place. What is their case? That the government should have built a bigger better dam to protect their property from all rain storms in perpetuity? That the government should ignore safety procedures on some kind of infinitesimal chance that would have saved their property at risk of the facility? The downstream "case" is looney tunes.

JJxvi said:

---

Also just because I say they "have a case" doesn't mean I think all their positions are 100% correct or think I know what the outcome will end up being. Its literal "they have a case"

Its especially a contrast with downstream, who own property that actually receive 100% of the benefit of the dams existing in the first place. What is their case? That the government should have built a bigger better dam to protect their property from all rain storms in perpetuity? That the government should ignore safety procedures on some kind of infinitesimal chance that would have saved their property at risk of the facility? The downstream "case" is looney tunes.

---

There are reports dating back to the 70s and again when I-10 was expanded saying there should be a bigger and better dam and that box culverts should be installed under the new freeway to divert from Buffalo Bayou.

IMO it is fairly unreasonable to expect that all homebuyer be 100% an expert in the type of flood control, the developers likely were actually experts, but I'm guessing not really fully forthcoming about the existence of impairments on land they were deveeloping since their goal was to sell it for the most possible total profit.

The reality is the government created this problem. They should have purchased the property in their flood pool from day 1, and they didnt, they ignored it until finally the day of reckoning came.

JJxvi said:

---

IMO it is fairly unreasonable to expect that all homebuyer be 100% an expert in the type of flood control, the developers likely were actually experts, but I'm guessing not really fully forthcoming about the existence of impairments on land they were deveeloping since their goal was to sell it for the most possible total profit.

The reality is the government created this problem. They should have purchased the property in their flood pool from day 1, and they didnt, they ignored it until finally the day of reckoning came.

---

they likely didn't ignore it. There are a lot of entities that get paid in perpetuity because the land was developed. I don't think that can be understated.

Ignoring the problem was beneficial for multiple influential people, companies, and governmental entities.

JJxvi said:

---

IMO it is fairly unreasonable to expect that all homebuyer be 100% an expert in the type of flood control, the developers likely were actually experts, but I'm guessing not really fully forthcoming about the existence of impairments on land they were deveeloping since their goal was to sell it for the most possible total profit.

The reality is the government created this problem. They should have purchased the property in their flood pool from day 1, and they didnt, they ignored it until finally the day of reckoning came.

---

Edited because I assumed houses in the flood pool had to be listed as in a floodplain. Apparently not.

Sasappis said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

I simply disagree with the notion that I am owed by the gov't for purchasing a risky asset.

When inflation hits thanks to fiscal policy, should I then be compensated for the real loss in value of my assets?

I mean, this line of thinking can go on forever.

The homeowners should have known the risk before purchasing. It is their fault if they did not.

The gov't owes them nothing.

---

If you buy a house near a road way and the government then destroys your house when they make the roadway wider without any right to do so, should the government have to pay you for the destruction of your house?

Should they not have to pay you because you took a risk buying property near a road?

---

apples : oranges

AgLA06 said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

IMO it is fairly unreasonable to expect that all homebuyer be 100% an expert in the type of flood control, the developers likely were actually experts, but I'm guessing not really fully forthcoming about the existence of impairments on land they were deveeloping since their goal was to sell it for the most possible total profit.

The reality is the government created this problem. They should have purchased the property in their flood pool from day 1, and they didnt, they ignored it until finally the day of reckoning came.

---

The floodplains are widely know, communicated, and published. Homes in the floodplains require flood insurance because they are in the floodplain in order to have a mortgage. When notified of the requirement for flood insurance they are issued information on the elevation of their house and that of the surrounding floodplain. To say it is unreasonable for a home owner to be an expert in flood control is asinine.

Home owner, were you notified that your home was in a floodplain that is prone to flooding and required flood insurance in order to take out a mortgage? Yes.

---

The flood pool created by the height of the dam and topography of the land behind the structure is not synonymous with flood plains at all. There are homes in the flood pool that were not in the 100 year flood plain, or even 500 year flood pain. I believe that the the government purposefully only purchased land within the new pools that were in the 100 year flood plain. So anybody below the dam height that was only 500 year or higher was just ignored. They built a structure that would flood all the land in its flood pool but made a calculated decision to only buy out the riskiest properties, and just sit back and see what all would happen afterwards, is my basic understanding of what they did.

Correct. The homes within the reservoir walls are not listed as being in the 100-year flood plain. No flood insurance was required to buy any of these properties. My parents luckily had flood insurance as they were concerned that the bayou that their property backs up to may have come out of its banks someday and slightly flood the house. No one expected 4 ft of water to sit in the house for over a week.

cajunaggie08 said:

---

Correct. The homes within the reservoir walls are not listed as being in the 100-year flood plain. No flood insurance was required to buy any of these properties. My parents luckily had flood insurance as they were concerned that the bayou that their property backs up to may have come out of its banks someday and slightly flood the house. No one expected 4 ft of water to sit in the house for over a week.

---

We'll, that changes everything. Considering how overzealous the corps is with the floodplains, it makes no sense for homes in the flood pool, not to be in a floodplain.

You've changed my mind on the lawsuits.

Flood plain is merely a measure of how often property is expected to flood at that elevation based on pure probability.

If you built a dam in a hypothetical desert where it only rained hard once every 1000 years, then all of the land in the flood pool you created would be outside of the 100 year or 500 year flood plains, because it would never flood except once every 1000 years. However, when that 1000 year comes up, and your dam floods everybody else's property behind your dam, you cant claim that you aren't ultimately responsible for the impact your property made to everyone else's property behind you, and if you are the federal government, the Constitution says that you cant take rights away from property owners without paying them compensation for those rights. I also think its possibly unreasonable for your defense to be to try and claim, "you all saw that dam I built 50 years ago, shouldve spoken up back then, I aint responsible now that its rained!"

AgLA06 said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

Correct. The homes within the reservoir walls are not listed as being in the 100-year flood plain. No flood insurance was required to buy any of these properties. My parents luckily had flood insurance as they were concerned that the bayou that their property backs up to may have come out of its banks someday and slightly flood the house. No one expected 4 ft of water to sit in the house for over a week.

---

We'll, that changes everything. Considering how overzealous the corps is with the floodplains, it makes no sense for homes in the flood pool, not to be in a floodplain.

You've changed my mind on the lawsuits.

---

The homes in the reservoir flood pool are in the 500-year flood plain. The ACOE built the reservoir walls but no one in the 40's thought anyone would ever see them actually fill up to 100% capacity nor did anyone think the cow pastures and rice fields would be impacted to badly should it fill completely up. The land sold to the developers in the flood walls was not government owned land. In theory, the ACOE could have bought it up in the 80s and 90s as it was apparent that houston's suburban sprawl put more people on the back side of the reservoirs. I dont fault the ACOE for trying to hold back as much water as possible so that the reservoirs could do their intended job. If they would have thrown open the flood gates at 75% full then everyone downstream would claim the ACOE let their home get washed out. Its just unfortunate that the decisions in the 40's allowed 2 reservoirs to be built without having the govt buy up all the land that could be flooded by the reservoirs going to full capacity.

JJxvi said:

---

Flood plain is merely a measure of how often property is expected to flood at that elevation based on pure probability.

If you built a dam in a hypothetical desert where it only rained hard once every 1000 years, then all of the land in the flood pool you created would be outside of the 100 year or 500 year flood plains, because it would never flood except once every 1000 years. However, when that 1000 year comes up, and your dam floods everybody else's property behind your dam, you cant claim that you aren't ultimately responsible for the impact your property made to everyone else's property behind you, and if you are the federal government, the Constitution says that you cant take rights away from property owners without paying them compensation for those rights. I also think its possibly unreasonable for your defense to be to try and claim, "you all saw that dam I built 50 years ago, shouldve spoken up back then, I aint responsible now that its rained!"

---

Have you not been paying attention to what I have been writing?

The homeowners CHOSE to purchase a home in the flood pool of a damn. They took a risk, and now they want the gov't to pay for their own riskiness.

There is no inherent risk in your other scenario.

But, you only see victims that must get paid for their own choices, so we need not go further.

CDUB98 said:

---

Have you not been paying attention to what I have been writing?

The homeowners CHOSE to purchase a home in the flood pool of a damn. They took a risk, and now they want the gov't to pay for their own riskiness.

There is no inherent risk in your other scenario.

But, you only see victims that must get paid for their own choices, so we need not go further.

---

Did they know they were in the flood pool? I legitimately don't know but I seem to recall it being said that many buyers didn't know because it was never disclosed to them and 99% of home buyers aren't going to be informed enough to know or even ask.

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

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.

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.

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.

---

I'll throw in that I agree in concept. It should have been better disclosed and there is a responsibility as a homeowner to know the risks in buying your house. If I buy oceanfront in Galveston, I know I am assuming the risk that a hurricane could wipe my home from the map. But you don't have to remove the personal responsibility argument to say that the government also initiated a taking of private land. Whether the taking happened when they built the dam or when they flooded the land with said dam could be up for debate, but either way you look at it, there was a government taking without compensation. And the ACOE is on record as making a calculated decision to not pay for the taking at the time of construction on the assumption that it was unlikely the additional land would ever flood and if it did little monetary damage would be done due to the nature of the land. They were wrong. So it seems that since they consciously chose to defer the actual taking to a later date, they are now obligated to pay for that deferral since the taking has now actually happened. I don't want to get rid of personal responsibility and surely there is liability to be shared here, but none of those are actually at question in this suit. And while i like conservative fiscal policy I also value private property and think the gov needs to be held to pretty strict account when it comes to takings and compensation for said takings.

We will have to agree to disagree. Yes, I knew there was a reservoir ~0.65 miles east of where I live but there are also several neighborhoods between my house and the reservoir itself. Common sense indicates that one does not build in the flood pool, why would houses be built below the level of the dam? If there is a line of demarcation between houses and the reservoir wouldn't one normally assume that that magic line is based on the level the reservoir would fill when full? If not then what is the means to generate this magic line?

IMO - we conducted proper due diligence by reviewing the FEMA maps which didn't show the flood pool and instead showed we were NOT in the flood plain. I am not sure what more we should have done other than surveying the elevation of our property and then going to the Barker reservoir bypass and comparing the elevations. Are you telling me you would have done this?