SJRA Wins Appeal Against Downstream Homeowners
October 20, 2025 – On October 16, 2025, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals ruled that the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) enjoyed governmental immunity in one set of “takings” claims arising out of Hurricane Harvey. The three-judge panel reversed a ruling by the 152nd District Court in Harris County.
The new ruling said that the SJRA acted reasonably and that the property owners failed to prove their case. The property owners had accused the SJRA of causing or worsening their flooding during Hurricane Harvey as a result of releases from Lake Conroe.
Case Specifics
The case in question – SJRA v. Thomas E. and Beth F. Ross, Et Al. included 295 appellees.
When the three judge panel ruled that SJRA enjoyed governmental immunity, all of plaintiffs’ other claims became moot.
Justice Kevin Jewell, Conclusion on Page 31
Even so, the ruling runs to 33 pages. Every paragraph represents a Tylenol moment for the plaintiffs. From discussions of applicable law to standards of proof, expert witness testimony and more.
The justices relied heavily on the gravity and immediacy of the threat posed by Hurricane Harvey (page 18) in determining that SJRA deserved immunity. Harvey was “significantly serious” and “likely to produce great harm or danger,” they said (page 20).
Key Factors in Finding
The judges believed that SJRA acted “reasonably,” a pivotal word they applied. “SJRA created a Gate Policy that was intended to minimize threats to life and property and to comply with applicable rules and legal authority. Adhering to that policy during a storm emergency is objectively reasonable,” they added on Page 21.
Further they found (page 25) that the downstream property owners failed to prove that “the threat to life or property posed by Harvey [did] not qualify as grave and immediate.”
And they agreed with the SJRA (page 29) that releasing the stormwater from Lake Conroe was “necessary,” even though:
- Some buffer existed before SJRA would have flooded upstream residents
- The dam could have withstood higher levels.
In the end, they said (page 31), “The decision of whether, when, and how much, water to release was discretionary and the Property Owners have not presented evidence that the amount released was so extreme as to be objectively unreasonable.”
Conclusion: Reversal With Prejudice
Thus, they concluded, “We reverse the trial court’s order and render judgment dismissing with prejudice [emphasis added] the Property Owners’ statutory takings claims.”
A dismissal “with prejudice” means the case is over. Plaintiffs cannot refile the claim ever again. This final judgment permanently ends the lawsuit and prevents the same issues from relitigation in the future. Except through a successful appeal to a higher court.
It’s unclear how this case differs from several other similar takings cases arising out of Harvey. It’s also unclear at this point whether the plaintiffs will appeal the case.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/20/2025
2974 Days since Hurricane Harvey
