Hi czechy91.czechy91 said:Congratulations, you must be Nostradamus, Einstein, and Frane Selak all rolled into one.CDUB98 said:Quote:
Are you telling me you would have done this?
Yes.
Allow me to introduce you to CDUB98.
Verdict is in for the "upstream" Barker and Addicks Reservoirs case
22,663 Views |
132 Replies |
Last: 17 days ago by Mas89
Allow me to introduce you to CDUB98.
This thread has taken a nosedive into a reservoir full of dicks.
Where would "flood pool" show up on a title report? Sincerely don't know that it does.Bondag said:TarponChaser said: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 thegovernmentdevelopers, realtors, and title companies should pay.
And anything a realtor tells you should THOROUGHLY be fact checked.
The issue is that when the ACOE built the dam there was nothing West of it but cow pastures so they never saw the need to buy the land because they did not think anyone would build a house in the reservoir.NoahAg said:Where would "flood pool" show up on a title report? Sincerely don't know that it does.Bondag said:TarponChaser said: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 thegovernmentdevelopers, realtors, and title companies should pay.
And anything a realtor tells you should THOROUGHLY be fact checked.
Profile says engineer. There are also people that read the software user agreements.czechy91 said:Congratulations, you must be Nostradamus, Einstein, and Frane Selak all rolled into one.CDUB98 said:Quote:
Are you telling me you would have done this?
Yes.
There are people downstream that did not flood during the rain but did during the dam releases when there was blue sky. These are people at a lower elevation than the dams, but so is the entirety of the area inside loop 610. So they are not in any 100 year or 500 year flood plain. Some in fact had higher elevation between them and the bayou, but because of the design of our drainage system the water came up from the storm drain. And when you called the county, their response was "Don't worry, you are out of the affected area and are not flooding."Quote:
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?
As for these safety procedures, there were none. It was a game time decision and done because the ACoE didn't want the water to go around the dam and spillways. They wanted to release the water where they knew where it would go. Only they didn't really know what those consequences would be. I would argue that the existence of spillways shows that the established procedure was to keep the dams closed, or at least not to release at unknown rates. The spillways could have sent the water to receding watersheds keeping the damage more limited to people that flooded during the actual storm.
As for the false narrative that the dams were in danger of a catastrophic failure, the text below from the time pretty well shows that wasn't a concern.
Why Houston's reservoirs aren't likely to fail after Hurricane HarveyQuote:
Could the dams for Addicks and Barker ever fail?
The Army Corps tell us the likelihood is minuscule even with this week's historic rainfall, which has strained their earthen dams. Fear and speculation about the dams' potential failure has been spurred by their placement several years ago on a list of critical infrastructure. But the Army Corps says they are on that list because of what could happen if they ever did fail not because they're actually in danger of failing. If a breach were to occur, the Army Corps estimates it would cause $60 billion in damage and more than 1 million residents downstream would be impacted.
They're not likely to fail under normal operations and even full pool.
However, any dam runs the risk of failure if overtopping begins, and that is where we were with Harvey.
Water going around the backside wasn't near the issue as the potential overtop.
The Corps of Engineers were in a no-win scenario and they ended up losing on both fronts. If they had opened the spillways sooner, they could have at least, possibly, prevented the flooding of the homes inside the flood pool.
However, any dam runs the risk of failure if overtopping begins, and that is where we were with Harvey.
Water going around the backside wasn't near the issue as the potential overtop.
The Corps of Engineers were in a no-win scenario and they ended up losing on both fronts. If they had opened the spillways sooner, they could have at least, possibly, prevented the flooding of the homes inside the flood pool.
Quote:
Is water going to overtop their dams?
No, says Richard Long, who oversees the operation of the reservoirs for the Army Corps. He said Tuesday that "the dams are designed not to be overtopped through the use of auxiliary spillways."
Quoted from the article from during the flooding. I think a lot of misinformation got out and a lot of fear based worse case scenarios were discussed, and then that became the basis for the revisionist history that the dams were going to fail.
FarmerJohn said:Quote:
Is water going to overtop their dams?
No, says Richard Long, who oversees the operation of the reservoirs for the Army Corps. He said Tuesday that "the dams are designed not to be overtopped through the use of auxiliary spillways."
Quoted from the article from during the flooding. I think a lot of misinformation got out and a lot of fear based worse case scenarios were discussed, and then that became the basis for the revisionist history that the dams were going to fail.
I wonder what the basis is for that assertion.
Does that person believe all excess pool water would go around and none over the top, that the rain would stop before it could happen, or a combo of both?
Water is designed to be relieved at the main gates/spillway, which empties it into its proper drainage channel, and not just "hey **** lets just see where it all goes instead!" which is a laughable course of action.
Those people flooded because it rained more upstream than the dam could handle. That their house flooding was delayed until it stopped raining to flood them out is irrelevant, if anything that also was a benefit to the dams existence, its more time to grab your **** and actually leave, which you certainly dont get like say you're in Timbergrove and your house ends up in White Oak Bayou. Downstream will have to prove either that they were worse off with a dam than without a dam, and that is laughable in terms of damages, in terms of property values, in terms of basically everything. There is no way to prove any of that and many, many ways to show that being downstream the dams are repeatedly of benefit to them. Or they will have to prove that through negligence or malice or something that they had damages caused by emptying the reservoir rather than let it be over topped to the emergency spillways. I dont see how you could even prove that your damage would have been less if they had let the dam overflow, it is highly likely the water just ends up in the same watershed and floods you anyway. Not opening the spillway doesnt reduce the amount of water than needs to go over or around the dam.
Those people flooded because it rained more upstream than the dam could handle. That their house flooding was delayed until it stopped raining to flood them out is irrelevant, if anything that also was a benefit to the dams existence, its more time to grab your **** and actually leave, which you certainly dont get like say you're in Timbergrove and your house ends up in White Oak Bayou. Downstream will have to prove either that they were worse off with a dam than without a dam, and that is laughable in terms of damages, in terms of property values, in terms of basically everything. There is no way to prove any of that and many, many ways to show that being downstream the dams are repeatedly of benefit to them. Or they will have to prove that through negligence or malice or something that they had damages caused by emptying the reservoir rather than let it be over topped to the emergency spillways. I dont see how you could even prove that your damage would have been less if they had let the dam overflow, it is highly likely the water just ends up in the same watershed and floods you anyway. Not opening the spillway doesnt reduce the amount of water than needs to go over or around the dam.
The person was in charge of the dams. The rain had already stopped. He stated that all the rain would go over the spillways and none over the top. So while I don't know the basis of his assertion, I feel that he would have to regarded as the authority on the matter and his statement taken as fact. Or to put another way, is there evidence that it was going to go over the top from a recognized authority? I have not seen any statement to that effect.CDUB98 said:
Does that person believe all excess pool water would go around and none over the top, that the rain would stop before it could happen, or a combo of both?
It seems logical, to me, that if they were not going to overtop, then there was no need to blow the spillway wide open and flood more homes downstream.
I dunno.
I dunno.
1. The dam was not going to overflow, as stated by the ACoE prior to the release and reference above.JJxvi said:
I dont see how you could even prove that your damage would have been less if they had let the dam overflow, it is highly likely the water just ends up in the same watershed and floods you anyway. Not opening the spillway doesnt reduce the amount of water than needs to go over or around the dam.
2. Water going over the auxiliary spillways would most likely push more water to White Oak Bayou and Brays Bayou. To what extent is unknown. But using the auxiliary spillways would reduce the amount of water to be shed by Buffalo Bayou. The risk is that the water would not be in a flood control channel.
3. Flooding is not just the amount of water, but the rate of the water through a watershed. By restraining the water and then releasing it at a greater rate than had been during the rain resulted in more flooding. Now without the dam the amount during the rain would be increased, but then again the reservoir collected all that rain and pushed it into the channel. But it's not impossible to calculate. I just can't give you a definitive answer on what elevation would flood.
If I did not flood during the rain but then flooded during the dam release, I would see what equivalent homes at the same elevation above and below the reservoir constrictions did. A lot of those never flooded.
We'll see what they win
That is one of the biggest things the downstream people are pissed about. They were told they would star releasing at 2am Monday morning and increase throughout the day. Instead they opened up full blast just after midnight and never told anyone.JJxvi said:
Water is designed to be relieved at the main gates/spillway, which empties it into its proper drainage channel, and not just "hey **** lets just see where it all goes instead!" which is a laughable course of action.
Those people flooded because it rained more upstream than the dam could handle. That their house flooding was delayed until it stopped raining to flood them out is irrelevant, if anything that also was a benefit to the dams existence, its more time to grab your **** and actually leave, which you certainly dont get like say you're in Timbergrove and your house ends up in White Oak Bayou. Downstream will have to prove either that they were worse off with a dam than without a dam, and that is laughable in terms of damages, in terms of property values, in terms of basically everything. There is no way to prove any of that and many, many ways to show that being downstream the dams are repeatedly of benefit to them. Or they will have to prove that through negligence or malice or something that they had damages caused by emptying the reservoir rather than let it be over topped to the emergency spillways. I dont see how you could even prove that your damage would have been less if they had let the dam overflow, it is highly likely the water just ends up in the same watershed and floods you anyway. Not opening the spillway doesnt reduce the amount of water than needs to go over or around the dam.
The residents were told to wait till the sun came up to leave...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/28/controlled-release-water-houston-reservoirs/607594001/Quote:
"The idea is to prepare ... pack up what you need and put it in your vehicle and when the sun comes up, get out," Lindner said Sunday. "And you don't have to go far, you just need to get out of this area."
So those people lost everything, including cars and other items they very well could have saved by listening to USACE...
I wouldn't call that a "line of thinking"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.
nonsensical comparison is better term.
I'd argue that the upstream case for anything built inside the flood pool - whether owned by Corps or not - is just as 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.
At some point in time common sense should come into play. You live by a river? Odds are you are going to get flooded. You live on the coast? Yep, a hurricane is a possibility. You live on the great plains? Tornadoes are a thing. Live in the mountains? Avalanches happen.
You build inside a man made reservoir that was built specifically for the purpose of retaining water during flood events to hopefully lessen the effects of flooding? Well, at some point in time - it's going to flood.
The government didn't "take" the land - Mother Nature and that ******* Harvey did.
Unreasonable for them to be an expert? Sure.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.
But entirely reasonable to expect a homeowner to do research on the property they are about to spend a lot of money on and learn potential issues of the area. If not, that's a risk you take for not doing your due diligence.
Completely different animal, and not really comparable.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?
But to answer your question - yes, because that would mean the government is buying the land and buildings to do the expansion. You are owed nothing if you choose to build your house inside an existing easement and the road is expanded at some point later that requires the use of that easement.
A simple look at a map tells you that you are. It really isn't rocket science.TarponChaser said: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.
Seeing if a can lend a little more clarity, almost EVERYTHING is designed to the 100-year level as an industry standard. Drainage channels, storm sewers and streets, building elevations, slab elevations are all based on the 100-yr flood. We've established that most of the flooded houses were outside the 100-year floodplain, and many here agree that victims behind the dam should be compensated. You are allowed to build behind the dam but outside the 100-year floodplain because FEMA and your mortgage company have decided that that location is of acceptable risk.
But what about all the other bayous that the Corps built? They built Sims Bayou to only contain the 100-year flood as is industry standard. They knew that a storm beyond that would flood homes built nearby. Should the Corps be reimbursing all those houses too since they knowingly flooded them by only building 100-year capacity in the bayou? And shouldn't they also be reimbursing pretty much everyone that's ever flooded in Houston for temporarily taking their property due to insufficient bayous? Is the city/county responsible for issuing permits outside the 100-year floodplain just like most other local governments in the country?
I guess I don't have the answer, but I'm concerned that if there's an industry standard, and you can be held liable for not exceeding that standard, the liability insurance for engineering and the costs to build everything to a Harvey standard will shut down any future drainage work since it won't be worth the risk.
But what about all the other bayous that the Corps built? They built Sims Bayou to only contain the 100-year flood as is industry standard. They knew that a storm beyond that would flood homes built nearby. Should the Corps be reimbursing all those houses too since they knowingly flooded them by only building 100-year capacity in the bayou? And shouldn't they also be reimbursing pretty much everyone that's ever flooded in Houston for temporarily taking their property due to insufficient bayous? Is the city/county responsible for issuing permits outside the 100-year floodplain just like most other local governments in the country?
I guess I don't have the answer, but I'm concerned that if there's an industry standard, and you can be held liable for not exceeding that standard, the liability insurance for engineering and the costs to build everything to a Harvey standard will shut down any future drainage work since it won't be worth the risk.
dp
Its kinda like those big dashed lines on key maps that used to denote where like the grand parkway or whatever was maybe planned to go, but then the government could just say "hey you should known we were gonna put a freeway here, sorry we dont have to buy it from you, its been on this map, shoulda done your homework"
At least one of the reservoirs had construction work going on at the flood gates when Harvey hit. They were already compromised because of this work. The earthen dams weren't in any real danger of failure, but the spill and flood gates are a different animal and there was significant concern at the fact that the reservoirs were full, water was still coming in because of the historic rainfall, and there was nowhere for it to go downstream - again because of that historic rainfall.
Literally nobody had a clue that there would be 40 some odd inches of rain during Harvey. Nobody. Nothing is designed for such an event. Addick's and Barker reservoirs are designed to hold water that can be released in a controlled fashion after the event has passed and Buffalo Bayou gets back in its banks. Harvey was such an anomaly that pretty much any and all procedures, what ifs and design considerations were out the window.
Literally nobody had a clue that there would be 40 some odd inches of rain during Harvey. Nobody. Nothing is designed for such an event. Addick's and Barker reservoirs are designed to hold water that can be released in a controlled fashion after the event has passed and Buffalo Bayou gets back in its banks. Harvey was such an anomaly that pretty much any and all procedures, what ifs and design considerations were out the window.
Again - you are comparing apples to quasars with roads and a dynamic flood pool in a once in a lifetime event that nobody could have ever predicted would be as catastrophic as it was.Sasappis said:schmellba99 said:Completely different animal, and not really comparable.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?
But to answer your question - yes, because that would mean the government is buying the land and buildings to do the expansion. You are owed nothing if you choose to build your house inside an existing easement and the road is expanded at some point later that requires the use of that easement.
Great word.
Since you know about easements, where is the easement that the government owns that allows for the use of the property in question?
If they don't own the easement to use the land, do you think they should have to pay for that use?
Or do you think the government can expand the road past its current boundary where they do not have an easement?
But you and I both agree that if you built inside the easement then you are SOL.
I'm going to continue to disagree that those that built inside the flood pool - whether it was owned by ACE or not - have any leg to stand on, because IMO they simply do not. 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 - it doesn't take a genius to make the deduction that pretty much anything south of I-10 is in a potential flood zone. And anything upstream of a man made dam is definitely in a potential flood zone. That's literally elementary school level stuff there.
Lets say that this was a facility built in 1950 by like Exxon or like some utility that needed to impound a cooling pond for a plant or whatever, and they built an impoundment that would flood land that was owned by someone else but they decided not to worry about that since it would maybe/probably never happen anyway. Do you expect that the company would have a defense that "well they should'n'a built on their land since our reservoir's been here for 70 years and everybody knew about it!" would get them out of paying compensation and damages after it flooded other peoples homes?
Some of yall are way too hung up on what the home owners knew or should have known about the risks of flooding at the time of purchase.
Knowing there was a risk doesn't change anything.
Hell, there could have been some home owners, that at time of purchase said, yep we're inside a reservoir, but if we ever flood, they're gonna need to compensate us.
A "taking" isn't hinged upon a knowing, or assumed risk.
If the ACOE wanted to transfer the risk, they should have done so contractually. Instead, they continued to assume the risk, rolled the dice, and subsequently lost in court.
Knowing there was a risk doesn't change anything.
Hell, there could have been some home owners, that at time of purchase said, yep we're inside a reservoir, but if we ever flood, they're gonna need to compensate us.
A "taking" isn't hinged upon a knowing, or assumed risk.
If the ACOE wanted to transfer the risk, they should have done so contractually. Instead, they continued to assume the risk, rolled the dice, and subsequently lost in court.
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.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
Humans build on or near flood control structures all over the world and have since the dawn of civilization.
Hopefully I can clear up a few things about the "auxiliary spillways". That is a very fancy word for "water running around the end of the dam. The auxiliary spillways in the case of Addicks Dam are at the North and West ends of the dam, and unless I am mistaken, they are not paved or cladded in anyway, they are just areas of earthen dam that are lower than the main dam elevation to allow water to flow around the end in an emergency to avoid overtopping the dam.
Pretty much every reservoir in the US has the same type of emergency spillway. What most of them don't have is homes, businesses, and highways built right up to and within the outflow for the spillway. When the emergency spillways for Addicks were planned and built, the reservoir was in the middle of nowhere. So they didn't pay too much attention to where the water would go after it went around the ends of the dam...it would just flow away from the dam and eventually make its way back to a bayou.
However, between the 40s and now, development has completely filled the area around the ends of the dams and the drainage throughout those areas has been channelized into storm drains and ditches. Nobody had done any modeling of what it would look like if they allowed completely uncontrolled releases from the emergency spillways to run through those areas on top of already saturated and flooded conditions.
So when the flood water reached those emergency spillways and started flowing over them, they were in uncharted territory. Lindner talked about it repeatedly in his briefings on the subject, saying "We don't really know where that water will end up, but it will eventually make it back to the bayou and may make things worse wherever it does go." The other concern was what would happen if too much flow went over the emergency spillway and started eroding the earthen dam there. This isn't "overtopping" in the classic sense...but it could be just as catastrophic if it caused more and more flow to start going around the dam.
USACE's objective in opening the gates was to try to limit how much flow was going around the end of the dam to minimize the potential for erosion of those spillways causing an uncontrolled release. Why they started releasing full bore, I don't know; but they started releasing when they did because the pool elevation kept climbing even after water started going around the ends. So I think they felt they couldn't get that flow under control with small flow releases at the gates which are miles away from the ends of the dam. The end result obviously flooded a lot of folks downstream, but I think there is a good chance that USACE was assuming they all had flood insurance while the folks around the ends of the dams and downstream from there probably did not. It was definitely a lesser of two evils approach, and the claims that it wasn't done to prevent overtopping are only half true. It was done to limit flow around the ends, which could have caused erosion that would have led to a more uncontrollable release and potentially more catastrophic flooding in unpredictable locations.
Pretty much every reservoir in the US has the same type of emergency spillway. What most of them don't have is homes, businesses, and highways built right up to and within the outflow for the spillway. When the emergency spillways for Addicks were planned and built, the reservoir was in the middle of nowhere. So they didn't pay too much attention to where the water would go after it went around the ends of the dam...it would just flow away from the dam and eventually make its way back to a bayou.
However, between the 40s and now, development has completely filled the area around the ends of the dams and the drainage throughout those areas has been channelized into storm drains and ditches. Nobody had done any modeling of what it would look like if they allowed completely uncontrolled releases from the emergency spillways to run through those areas on top of already saturated and flooded conditions.
So when the flood water reached those emergency spillways and started flowing over them, they were in uncharted territory. Lindner talked about it repeatedly in his briefings on the subject, saying "We don't really know where that water will end up, but it will eventually make it back to the bayou and may make things worse wherever it does go." The other concern was what would happen if too much flow went over the emergency spillway and started eroding the earthen dam there. This isn't "overtopping" in the classic sense...but it could be just as catastrophic if it caused more and more flow to start going around the dam.
USACE's objective in opening the gates was to try to limit how much flow was going around the end of the dam to minimize the potential for erosion of those spillways causing an uncontrolled release. Why they started releasing full bore, I don't know; but they started releasing when they did because the pool elevation kept climbing even after water started going around the ends. So I think they felt they couldn't get that flow under control with small flow releases at the gates which are miles away from the ends of the dam. The end result obviously flooded a lot of folks downstream, but I think there is a good chance that USACE was assuming they all had flood insurance while the folks around the ends of the dams and downstream from there probably did not. It was definitely a lesser of two evils approach, and the claims that it wasn't done to prevent overtopping are only half true. It was done to limit flow around the ends, which could have caused erosion that would have led to a more uncontrollable release and potentially more catastrophic flooding in unpredictable locations.
The spillways are concrete on either end of the dam. One spill way is lower than the other as well.
I believe there is concrete on the top, but are the sides concrete as well? I thought the downstream side was earthen and that is what they were worried about eroding out.Brad06ag said:
The spillways are concrete on either end of the dam. One spill way is lower than the other as well.
Edit: Nevermind, answered my own question. Based on google street view, the northern end beyond Clay Road appears to be concrete (albeit well cracked) on the top and the downstream side of the levee.
One other thing to point out regarding overtopping and levee failures is that overtopping isn't the only pathway to levee failure. At least one of the New Orleans levees that failed in Katrina did so because the water pressure contained behind it lubricated a weak stratigraphic layer under the levee and allowed an entire section of the levee to slide backward and ultimately to fail. So just because the water wasn't at risk of going over the top doesn't mean there wasn't any risk of the levee failing. How much risk really depends on the design calculations and how well the geology under the levee was evaluated and understood during the construction phase. In the case of the Katrina levee I am talking about, the root cause of the failure was a misinterpretation of a geologic boring log that resulted in a protective sheet piling not being driven deep enough in the area of the failure. I doubt anybody at USACE really knew for sure at the time of Harvey how close the Addicks or Barker reservoir levees were to their design maximums, and after the failures seen in Katrina, nobody really wanted to find out. I suspect that they have put a lot more thought into that by now and have a better understanding now than they did during Harvey.
They are replacing the flood Gates in part because of damage from water flowing around the outside of the gates leaving voids. The extra pressure from being full certainly didn't help.
+1.Ducks4brkfast said:
Some of yall are way too hung up on what the home owners knew or should have known about the risks of flooding at the time of purchase.
Knowing there was a risk doesn't change anything.
Hell, there could have been some home owners, that at time of purchase said, yep we're inside a reservoir, but if we ever flood, they're gonna need to compensate us.
A "taking" isn't hinged upon a knowing, or assumed risk.
If the ACOE wanted to transfer the risk, they should have done so contractually. Instead, they continued to assume the risk, rolled the dice, and subsequently lost in court.+
It would seem a simple test for "taking" by another party: Did that party have any legal right to the land they were on. This could be through ownership, easement or other legal vehicles.
In this case, USACE did not own the land, have an easement or any other legal right to impound water on the land they did. The act of impounding water was an intentional part of the design of the dam. The knowledge of the homeowners does not matter. This isn't at all similar to living on the coast, near or river or any other natural threat. This is a man made threat. The downstream side is different and would have to determine whether the damn actually hurt them or if they would have flooded anyway.
At some point in time, USACE will have to acquire rights to that land. The cheapest time would have been when it was fields and pastures.
They could have acquired the land or maybe an easement to impounding water on the land, but barring that, they could not easily prevent development of the land. Any development barriers from the government side would be admitting that the owners have had some sort of "taking" from them. Instead, they decided to kick the can down the road and let someone else face the music.
Exactly, if some other entity had the right to flood that land, it should have been recorded as either an ownership transfer or some other grant of rights from the property owner to the government, and that is when and how current land owners would be notified and have no recourse because it would be explicitly stated in their title that someone else had the right to flood what they were buying. It is also then likely that developers would have never been able to develop there.
The federal government ignored the problem because it allowed them to save money. The landowners ignored the problem because they didnt want to call attention to or because they were ignorant to how the reservoirs could potentially devalue their land. The local government ignored the problem because to ban development would decrease their tax base.
All three of these groups of entities gained financially and IMO potentially fraudulently at the expense of whatever future landowner was going to be left holding the bag when "the flood" eventually arrived.
The entity that created the problem from the very beginning, is the one that built a structure that would claim impoundment rights that it didn't own. Just because some people were able to see the problem before the fact doesn't change the whole situation because "everybody knew," and more importantly it does nothing to address the continuing fact that the government continues to assert rights over this land as long as those dams exist that they havent paid for.
The federal government ignored the problem because it allowed them to save money. The landowners ignored the problem because they didnt want to call attention to or because they were ignorant to how the reservoirs could potentially devalue their land. The local government ignored the problem because to ban development would decrease their tax base.
All three of these groups of entities gained financially and IMO potentially fraudulently at the expense of whatever future landowner was going to be left holding the bag when "the flood" eventually arrived.
The entity that created the problem from the very beginning, is the one that built a structure that would claim impoundment rights that it didn't own. Just because some people were able to see the problem before the fact doesn't change the whole situation because "everybody knew," and more importantly it does nothing to address the continuing fact that the government continues to assert rights over this land as long as those dams exist that they havent paid for.
Featured Stories
See All
12:37
39m ago
1.2k
Rapid Reaction: Ags end 2026 with 18 conference wins
by Ryan Brauninger
3:24
1h ago
2.3k
4:29
17h ago
4.6k
robprall
FINAL from Blue Bell: No. 10 A&M 7, No. 13 Mississippi State 6 (Saturday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
81
robprall
LIVE from Blue Bell: No. 10 Texas A&M vs. No. 13 Mississippi State (Saturday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
72
robprall
LIVE from Blue Bell: No. 10 Texas A&M vs. No. 13 Mississippi State (Saturday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
68
robprall
LIVE from Blue Bell: No. 10 Texas A&M vs. No. 13 Mississippi State (Saturday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
59
Rifleman86
FINAL from Blue Bell: No. 10 A&M 7, No. 13 Mississippi State 6 (Saturday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
54