My wife and I are starting to look for a new (to us) house. We're currently in 079 and love the area, so we've been looking to stay around here.

The house I grew up in (outside of Houston) flooded twice (Oct. '98 and Harvey), and after helping my dad muck out the house for the 2nd time, my wife and I both swore that we would never buy a house that had a possibility of flooding. However, doing so takes a large number of homes south of Memorial out of the running. I've started to question myself as to whether or not my stance is reasonable, especially considering the area in question flooded from the dam release, not a "regular" rain event.

Homes are obviously still selling in the area, so at least some people don't have an issue with taking on the risk. Would you buy in the area that flooded from the dam release? Or if you were flooded by the dam release, have you had any concerns with rebuilding and staying put?

My house flooded in Harvey so I'm biased but I'd do it again as long as flood insurance isn't too expensive. Flooding every 20 years doesn't seem too bad and you'll get a new kitchen, floors and all new furniture out of it.

We knew as the water was coming that we were going to demo & rebuild up so it was a bit of a blessing for us but I would buy again in the 500 year but possibly not 100 year as the required NFIP insurance could possibly increase the premiums like almost happened a few years ago. Those Memorial area houses only flooded cause they let water out of Addicks and I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

I would buy one that had flooded, but NOT on Buffalo Bayou. Homeowners upstream of the dam won their Harvey lawsuit against the Corps of Engineers and downstream homeowners lost. In the future, you can expect the flood gates to be opened early and often to protect the upstream properties that the corps is liable for.

agnerd said:

---

I would buy one that had flooded, but NOT on Buffalo Bayou. Homeowners upstream of the dam won their Harvey lawsuit against the Corps of Engineers and downstream homeowners lost. In the future, you can expect the flood gates to be opened early and often to protect the upstream properties that the corps is liable for.

---

WTF? The damn is there to protect downstream and people bought houses in the upstream area knowing they are in a reservoir.

I hadn't heard this was resolved. Do you have any links?

It's an interesting question. I was looking at the Briargrove Park area not so long ago but some of the better parts of the neighborhood flooded pretty badly it seems.

The new flood maps are predicting the existing 500yr to become the 100yr. It several years out and the prelim maps aren't even released yet. So be wary of the 500yr if you think insurance rates in the 100yr are too high.

The upstream homes only included those with in the dam flood pool area, correct? They had won, but I'm sure it'll remain in court for years. I know someone who's home is within the Barker flood pool area and she hasn't been paid out. I think the case was allowed to advance but not that it was settled. Corps will also point fingers at the county for issuing permits within the pool area, so I would think this is going to take decades to sort out.

The corps also has to monitor for structural integrity of the dams so releases would like be inevitable even without the upstream flood pool issue. Also many homes upstream flooded that were not in the flood pool. It's a real tough spot because the reality outside of lawsuits is that flooding the scale of Harvey whether its upstream or downstream isn't sustainable because of the need of properties in both directions.

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

The new flood maps are predicting the existing 500yr to become the 100yr. It several years out and the prelim maps aren't even released yet. So be wary of the 500yr if you think insurance rates in the 100yr are too high.

---

Those in the 500 yr will be grandfathered.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

The new flood maps are predicting the existing 500yr to become the 100yr. It several years out and the prelim maps aren't even released yet. So be wary of the 500yr if you think insurance rates in the 100yr are too high.

---

Those in the 500 yr will be grandfathered.

---

I doubt it, you'll have to link something for me to believe that. It completely defeats the purpose of expanding the 100yr based on the latest data.

After cleaning out my mom's house after Harvey, HELL NO

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

The new flood maps are predicting the existing 500yr to become the 100yr. It several years out and the prelim maps aren't even released yet. So be wary of the 500yr if you think insurance rates in the 100yr are too high.

---

Those in the 500 yr will be grandfathered.

---

I doubt it, you'll have to link something for me to believe that. It completely defeats the purpose of expanding the 100yr based on the latest data.

---

I think he means current owners of the property would be grandfathered. Future owners would be in the 100yr.

I'll be dammed if my 500yr flood plain becomes 100yr plain after not near flooding during harvey.

Bondag said:

---

agnerd said:

---

I would buy one that had flooded, but NOT on Buffalo Bayou. Homeowners upstream of the dam won their Harvey lawsuit against the Corps of Engineers and downstream homeowners lost. In the future, you can expect the flood gates to be opened early and often to protect the upstream properties that the corps is liable for.

---

WTF? The damn is there to protect downstream and people bought houses in the upstream area knowing they are in a reservoir.

---

Pretty sure the thought is that the downstream homes would have flooded without the dam there, so the CoE and the dam didn't change what happened there. The upstream homes would not have flooded if the dam didn't exist, so the CoE or someone at the government level should be liable for damages.

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

The new flood maps are predicting the existing 500yr to become the 100yr. It several years out and the prelim maps aren't even released yet. So be wary of the 500yr if you think insurance rates in the 100yr are too high.

---

Those in the 500 yr will be grandfathered.

---

I doubt it, you'll have to link something for me to believe that. It completely defeats the purpose of expanding the 100yr based on the latest data.

---

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1810-25045-1191/flood_insurance_and_the_grandfathering_rule.pdf

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1488482596393-dcc52e6c120c9327dcd75f1c08e802e4/GrandfatheringForAgents_03_2016.pdf

DL04 said:

---

Bondag said:

---

agnerd said:

---

I would buy one that had flooded, but NOT on Buffalo Bayou. Homeowners upstream of the dam won their Harvey lawsuit against the Corps of Engineers and downstream homeowners lost. In the future, you can expect the flood gates to be opened early and often to protect the upstream properties that the corps is liable for.

---

WTF? The damn is there to protect downstream and people bought houses in the upstream area knowing they are in a reservoir.

---

Pretty sure the thought is that the downstream homes would have flooded without the dam there, so the CoE and the dam didn't change what happened there. The upstream homes would not have flooded if the dam didn't exist, so the CoE or someone at the government level should be liable for damages.

---

The idea is that when the dams were built, any land that was going to be in the 100-year flood plain of the reservoir was ordered to be bought by the Corps of Engineers. Any land beyond that could be retained by the original property owners despite it sitting within the reservoir walls. Back then it was mostly ranches and rice fields so even in the freak chance flooding would go past the 100-year mark. No real loss there, right? Fast forward to Harvey, and there is now much more runoff on the land upstream of the dam due to development so the reservoirs reached a level no one ever comprehended during original construction. The data shows that the COE of engineers kept the dams closed to try to protect those downstream which is the purpose of the structures. However, in doing so, they were knowingly "using" private land upstream to store water which is being deemed as seizing private land. Would the land upstream of the reservoir flooded if the dams would have opened sooner? Probably. But thats a hypothetical at this point. As a result of these lawsuits, I am guessing should another storm push the reservioirs to the 100-year flood level, they will be opening up the gates much sooner.

Yes, some people knew they were buying in a reservoir. Some people, especially those who are miles away from the dam walls like near fry and westheimer pkwy may not have known.

Bought a home in 079 in 2018 that only flooded due to the dam release. I bought flood insurance for the peace of mind.
Love the neighborhood we're in and betting another Harvey doesn't happen again.

Here's my standard response anytime my wife asks me a question like that.

"I'll buy any property for the right price."


That being said, I doubt anybody would be willing to sell with enough of a discount for me to buy in a flood prone area.

Diggity said:

---

I hadn't heard this was resolved. Do you have any links?

---

Liable for upstream flooding:

https://www.courthousenews.com/army-corps-found-liable-for-upstream-houston-floods/

Not liable for downstream flooding:

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/02/19/federal-judge-dismisses-against-army-corps-post-harvey-flooding/

I would in 079 if it is not in the flood plain. Harvey was a freak deal many of the homes that flooded will not again in my lifetime.

My neighborhood closer to the Galleria is prone to flooding and not in the flood plain, but would not advise buying a flood prone house in my neighborhood.

Might not be a popular opinion, but the 079 flooding was a one time deal outside of the flood plain and if keep flood insurance you should be able to sleep easy at night.

We flooded and it was a pain in the rear, but came out on top and have nice new stuff. Hoping we might sell as a tear down anyway given how the market is moving in my neighborhood (many years from now), so the flooding history won't matter because the new build will built up.

Thanks for the info. Not sure how I missed that.

Has anyone gotten paid anything?

I live in 079 in a neighborhood where about 2/3 flooded after they released the dams. I think about 20 homes flooded before. My house did not.

I would absolutely still buy in our neighborhood in a flooded house, especially the ones furthest from the bayou.

This thread does make me more comfortable being 5 1/2 feet higher than my old house though. Garage would still flood.

No. Life is too short to live in a house that previously flooded.

For me to ever buy a known flooded house it would have to be directly on a body of water. At least the waterway provides tons of utility outside of a potential re-flooding event.

Too many SFH in Houston that didn't flood to buy a SFH that did.

After having my childhood home flooded in '88 and '94, and then helping my mom with her house that flooded during Harvey (first time) and again during Imelda (fixed from Harvey and on the market), I wouldn't. Just not worth it, IMO. Too many memories tossed in a dumpster.

I wouldn't

Think of it this way...Would you buy a car that flooded?

Regardless if you bought flood insurance I wouldn't trust that all the issues from Harvey were addressed and properly mitigated.

the folks saying it was a "one-time" deal...

everything is a one-time deal...until it happens again

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

The new flood maps are predicting the existing 500yr to become the 100yr. It several years out and the prelim maps aren't even released yet. So be wary of the 500yr if you think insurance rates in the 100yr are too high.

---

Those in the 500 yr will be grandfathered.

---

I doubt it, you'll have to link something for me to believe that. It completely defeats the purpose of expanding the 100yr based on the latest data.

---

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1810-25045-1191/flood_insurance_and_the_grandfathering_rule.pdf

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1488482596393-dcc52e6c120c9327dcd75f1c08e802e4/GrandfatheringForAgents_03_2016.pdf

---

So a policy is still required, but at a lower cost.

If it was a rental, maybe. Personal residence - no.

No

W said:

---

the folks saying it was a "one-time" deal...

everything is a one-time deal...until it happens again

---

Welcome to Houston.

That's the truth. How many 100 year, 500 year, to 10,000 year rain events have we had in the last decade? Mucking out houses is no fun, I'm just glad I could go home at the end of the day.

For flood prone homes, I have often wondered if installing a flood frame would be effective.

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

The new flood maps are predicting the existing 500yr to become the 100yr. It several years out and the prelim maps aren't even released yet. So be wary of the 500yr if you think insurance rates in the 100yr are too high.

---

Those in the 500 yr will be grandfathered.

---

I doubt it, you'll have to link something for me to believe that. It completely defeats the purpose of expanding the 100yr based on the latest data.

---

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1810-25045-1191/flood_insurance_and_the_grandfathering_rule.pdf

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1488482596393-dcc52e6c120c9327dcd75f1c08e802e4/GrandfatheringForAgents_03_2016.pdf

---

So a policy is still required, but at a lower cost.

---

Yes, you need a policy if you want the lower cost policy.

Let's not forget resale value. It's going to be much less for a home that flooded and is located in or near a flood plain.