Hacker News Reader

Comment by dcole2929 | Hacker News Reader

I'm sorry these people lost their homes, but it does seem pretty straightforward that if you build in a flood plane your home might flood. If there is any failure here it's that they weren't given adequate warning before they flooded the neighborhoods. It sounds like they announced it for the next morning but because of the pace of the water rising they had to blow it over night instead. That's something you start announcing over loudspeakers if you have to at that point.

The other issue I see is that for some reason Houston didn't require all of these people to have flood insurance. I feel like if you live in an area that gets hit with Hurricanes flood insurance should be a requirement period. This would all be a moot point if these people were adequately covered by insurance

View on HN

There was recently another article covering the construction of homes in the flood reservoir area.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15472082

According to the article, it sounds pretty bad. The city and county knew where the flood reservoirs were. The developers knew, there were "small notices on the plats" for these properties (which developers fought). Homewoner's never saw these plats and had no idea they were in a flood zone.

"In the end, over significant opposition from developers, the county agreed to put a one-sentence disclosure of possible “controlled inundation” for plots of land in neighborhoods inside Barker. But the sentence was buried in the plat documents, which are not typically shown to homebuyers."

> the sentence was buried in the plat documents, which are not typically shown to homebuyers

Sounds like the developers withheld material information from the homeowners. If so, it seems clear who is liable.

It sounds like the city or county (it was unclear to me from the article) also holds some responsibility. They agreed to this "compromise" with the developers.

"The other issue I see is that for some reason Houston didn't require all of these people to have flood insurance."

Banks require homeowners in flood plains with mortgages to maintain flood insurance. The problem is if you don't have a mortgage, you don't necessarily need insurance. However, perpetual Federal Government bailouts of homeowners creates moral hazard, and the expectation that Government will make you whole regardless of insurance, and thus bigger risks for all.

> The other issue I see is that for some reason Houston didn't require all of these people to have flood insurance.

They do for 100-year plains, just not 500-year. Are these requirements common elsewhere for 500-year? I am not sure, but I assume so since there is surprise that "for some reason Houston didn't require" it.

I didn't understand this comment until I started to check out the FEMA maps myself. Indeed, almost all of Houston is in the "0.2% annual chance of flooding" zone (once every 500 years). To help put that in perspective, you can zoom into almost any area in the US and there will be a 20-30' zone on either side of almost any waterway (I'm talking very small rivers / creeks in my area) that has the same risk of flooding and I'd bet good money no one would criticize someone for not buying flood insurance in these zones.

Really nails home how overly critical we can be.

Houston is proud of their low regulation and unrestrictive zoning. Requiring flooding insurance would be at odds with their philosophy.

However you can't have your cake and eat it too. Other regions have come up with regulations specifically because of the belief that a majority of the population benefits from them. The downside of regulation is cost and inconvenience—and a potential for corruption.

If a region decides against regulation then so be it. But then it incombs to its residents to plan their own contingencies (whether in the form of savings or insurance). The article's title is definitely on the click-bait side of the spectrum to cater to a narrative that the rich are overly bearing the burden of everyone else.

I agree, for the folks that built in a 'flood pool' plain, even if they feel that wasn't adequately communicated to them when they purchased.

The folks outside of that pool, however, whose homes were only flooded because the Corp of Engineers decided to open the reservoir floodgates, have a reasonable claim for damages.

Their attorney is basing this claim on a violation of the 5th amendment, specifically relating to the state 'purposing private property for public use'.

If the homes were flooded because the flood gates were opened, were they no by definition, in a flood plain?

> The other issue I see is that for some reason Houston didn't require all of these people to have flood insurance.

Not necessarily Houston. FEMA gets involved... if you're in a flood zone, FEMA mandates flood insurance (and so do the mortgage companies.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com