4/10/2025 – Law firm McGehee ☆ Chang, Landgraf, Feiler issued a press release today on the final arguments in the Addicks Barker Reservoirs litigation in the Court of Federal Claims. Arguments took place on April 8, 2025 and conclude the liability portion of the case. The judge advised that he intends to issue a ruling “soon.”
The plaintiffs claim the Army Corps of Engineers opened the gates of the reservoirs unnecessarily during Harvey and flooded plaintiffs homes. They also allege that the Corps’ action constituted a “taking” by the government without just compensation.
The Addicks and Barker reservoirs (big green areas on left) lie on either side of I-10 on Houston’s west side.
The Corps and Harris County Flood Control developed the reservoirs in response to devastating floods in 1929 and 1935.
When constructed development had not yet reached them. Since then, it has surrounded them.
Issues in Case
The issues defined by presiding Judge Loren Smith were:
(1): Did an emergency necessitate the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) to open the Addicks and Barker reservoir gates? Or did the Corps open them as a matter of ordinary operating procedure?
(2): What would have happened if the gates had remained closed?
While the questions sound simple, the case involved hundreds of hours of lengthy depositions, trial testimony, and more than 500,000 pages of documents.
Plaintiff’s Attorneys Optimistic
According to lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Jack McGehee, his team utilized hours and hours of trial testimony, deposition testimony, the Corps’ own internal documents, and expert testimony which he says were “largely uncontested by the defense expert.”
The law firm contended, of course, that there was no “emergency” that necessitated the opening of the flood gates. In support of that conclusion, the attorney says the Corps’:
Various personnel admitted as much before “emergency” became an issue in the case.
Own reports and documentation lack reference to any “emergency”
Further, McGehee reported that both the Plaintiffs’ expert and the Corps’ expert agreed – that if the gates were not opened, then, the vast majority of the test properties would not have flooded. Further, he says, the others would have received less flooding.
He added that that conclusion “was made abundantly clear through the 500,000 pages of documents and hundreds of hours of lengthy deposition/trial testimony.”
McGehee added that the government’s strategy focused on the “emergency” declarations by the Corps and the federal and state government. However, the government reportedly failed to point out that these “emergency” declarations were made days prior to Harvey, and had nothing to do with the opening of the flood gates.
These emergency declarations, he claims, concerned Harvey in general, but not the Addicks/Barker reservoirs that are the subject of this case.
Additionally, the government emphasized how much the Addicks and Barker dams have benefited the Houston area in the past and how it was reasonable for the Corps to open the gates.
McGehee concluded, “The government, however, did not address that these claims are not relevant in the legal analysis of a government ‘taking’ of private property. “
Legal History of Case
This case is one of two that involve alleged “takings” by the Federal government during Harvey related to the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs. Several years ago, they were split into upstream and downstream cases because the issues and facts differed somewhat.
These posts include background information on both:
For more updates dating back to 2017, see this page on the law firm’s site.
Almost eight years after Harvey, we still don’t have a decision in this case. That underscores the need to purchase flood insurance if you live in Harris County.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/10/25
2781 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250410-AddicksBarker-Location.jpg?fit=1100%2C526&ssl=15261100adminadmin2025-04-10 16:26:112025-04-10 16:55:53Court of Federal Claims Hears Final Arguments in Addicks Barker Downstream Case
Update: 4/10/25 – After reading this post, the media liaison for HCFCD emailed me to say, “One correction to your post today – Dr. Petersen testified as a resource on the bill, not against it.” Listen to her testimony at the link provided and you be the judge.
4/9/2025 – The Texas House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee heard testimony today on HB2068. HB2068 attempts to reconstitute the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) into one with wider authority to address flooding that originates outside Harris County.
It would also give the governor authority to appoint a board for the reconstituted district that would replace Harris County Commissioners Court, which has severely politicized flood mitigation much to the detriment of those who live on the periphery of the county.
The committee heard live testimony from three people. All spoke against the bill. They included Stephen Costello, the City’s former Chief Recovery Officer under the late Mayor Sylvester Turner. They also included Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD and Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia.
Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia testifying against HB2068 in today’s House Natural Resources Committee hearing.
The essence of Costello’s testimony was “HCFCD is working. Don’t mess with it.” He called the District a good partner for the City of Houston. And that may be true in certain areas.
Petersen and Garcia both bragged about HCFCD’s track record under their leadership, including their ability to take politics out of decision making.
Their testimony stood in stark contrast to brutal confrontations in Harris County Commissioners Court during the last two months. Commissioners, including Garcia, have raked Petersen over the coals. They complained bitterly and repeatedly about budget shortfalls totaling hundreds of millions of dollars that have jeopardized their pet projects.
No one seems to know where the current budget or projects stand. And that has made it impossible for commissioners to prioritize projects for any budget remaining.
Regardless, Petersen touted the county’s failed IT systems as a positive. She estimated it would cost the District $75 million to replace them if Flood Çontrol were a stand-alone entity.
Petersen also failed to mention the four-year slowdown in HCFCD activity.
Rep. Dennis Paul, the bill’s author, teed up his bill by explaining how much flooding originated outside the county. However, neither Costello, Petersen, nor Garcia addressed that point.
The failure to address such an obvious point may have been a fatal flaw in their arguments. Any casual observer could see the disconnect.
In fact, 10 of the 22 watersheds in Harris County originate outside the county, including most of the largest ones. Excluding cooperative efforts with people in those areas dooms large parts of Harris County to repetitive flooding. Especially those on the periphery of the county.
Harris County Watershed map
Electronically Filed Comments Overwhelmingly Support Bill
Many county residents have received virtually no support from HCFCD during Petersen’s tenure because of deliberate diversions of funds to low-income areas. Residents who remain living with high flood risk did not share Petersen’s and Garcia’s appraisals of their own performance, judging by their written comments.
However, a number of people from Porter, Conroe, and even as far north as Cleveland also favored the bill. All had been flooded. And all sought the kind of support that an expanded District could provide.
Only one other bill discussed in Natural Resources today received more comments than HB2068. It was a quarrying bill relating to the Lower Colorado River Authority. The rest received only a handful of comments. Most received 0 to 3.
That in itself seems like it would argue for closer scrutiny and debate.
Bill Not Debated in Committee, Fate Up in Air
However, at the end of the testimony, the chairman left the bill “pending in committee.” That could mean they will just let it die. Or it could mean they will debate it and pass it out of committee to the full house for a vote at a future date.
Rep. Paul’s bill does not yet have a companion bill in the Senate.
More news to follow when it becomes available.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/9/2025
2780 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250409-Garcia-Testifying-in-Natural-Resources.jpg?fit=1100%2C621&ssl=16211100adminadmin2025-04-09 22:02:242025-04-10 13:43:46Natural Resources Committee Hears Testimony on HB2068
4/8/25 – State Representative Dennis Paul has authored a bill, HB2068, which would transform the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) by reconstituting its management and potentially expanding its geographic scope. Fifteen other state representatives have expressed their support by signing on as “co-authors” of the bill. Most represent parts of the San Jacinto River Basin.
The Texas House of Representatives Natural Resources committee will hold hearings on the bill tomorrow. We need to make sure the bill doesn’t die a quiet death by never making it out of the committee for a vote by the full House. So please write today to express your support.
Why We Need HB2068
Water doesn’t respect political boundaries. Back in 1937 when the legislature created HCFCD, that wasn’t a huge problem. Most of the region’s population lived within Harris County.
But since then, the Houston area has grown to encompass all or parts of seven counties. Having the state’s only flood control district focusing primarily on the area inside Beltway 8 no longer serves the needs of the region.
For instance, in the San Jacinto watershed, an area half again as large as Harris County drains past Kingwood. Yet Kingwood has received only $230 in capital improvement construction projects from HCFCD. Ever.
But during Harvey, Kingwood also had the highest flooding in the county. And it has flooded several times since then.
Meanwhile, eight other watersheds favored by certain Harris County Commissioners have received more than $740 million…just since 2018.
Their formula for allocating funds relies heavily on race and income. The majority of County Commissioners now in control do not even include flood damage or risk in their current formula for prioritizing flood-mitigation projects.
Plus, certain commissioners have vowed not to allow HCFCD to spend money on projects outside of Harris County, where many of the County’s flooding problems originate.
How HB2068 Could Change That
HB2068 modifies the legislation that originally created HCFCD. The modifications do two basic things. They:
Replace Harris County Commissioners Court as managers of HCFCD with a board appointed by the governor. (See Section 1D Page 3.)
Allow surrounding counties to join the reconstituted district voluntarily after approval by their Commissioners Courts and voters.
Thus…
HB2068 would enable the reconstituted district to serve all people of the river basin and give them a way to address their flooding issues together.
Flooding does not respect political boundaries. HB2068 bridges those boundaries.
Remember public comments must be submitted before the end of the meeting. To be safe, do it now! And do it here. You are limited to 3000 characters. I suggest something that expresses the key points above under:
Why We Need HB2068
How HB2068 Could Change That.
They include 2000 characters.
If you are pressed for time, just say, “I support this bill.”
Please DO IT NOW!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/8/2025
2779 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Upper-Lower-River-Basin-Map.png?fit=900%2C1034&ssl=11034900adminadmin2025-04-08 12:59:262025-04-08 22:39:32Action Needed: Support HB2068 NOW!
Court of Federal Claims Hears Final Arguments in Addicks Barker Downstream Case
4/10/2025 – Law firm McGehee ☆ Chang, Landgraf, Feiler issued a press release today on the final arguments in the Addicks Barker Reservoirs litigation in the Court of Federal Claims. Arguments took place on April 8, 2025 and conclude the liability portion of the case. The judge advised that he intends to issue a ruling “soon.”
The plaintiffs claim the Army Corps of Engineers opened the gates of the reservoirs unnecessarily during Harvey and flooded plaintiffs homes. They also allege that the Corps’ action constituted a “taking” by the government without just compensation.
The Corps and Harris County Flood Control developed the reservoirs in response to devastating floods in 1929 and 1935.
When constructed development had not yet reached them. Since then, it has surrounded them.
Issues in Case
The issues defined by presiding Judge Loren Smith were:
(1): Did an emergency necessitate the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) to open the Addicks and Barker reservoir gates? Or did the Corps open them as a matter of ordinary operating procedure?
(2): What would have happened if the gates had remained closed?
While the questions sound simple, the case involved hundreds of hours of lengthy depositions, trial testimony, and more than 500,000 pages of documents.
Plaintiff’s Attorneys Optimistic
According to lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Jack McGehee, his team utilized hours and hours of trial testimony, deposition testimony, the Corps’ own internal documents, and expert testimony which he says were “largely uncontested by the defense expert.”
The law firm contended, of course, that there was no “emergency” that necessitated the opening of the flood gates. In support of that conclusion, the attorney says the Corps’:
Further, McGehee reported that both the Plaintiffs’ expert and the Corps’ expert agreed – that if the gates were not opened, then, the vast majority of the test properties would not have flooded. Further, he says, the others would have received less flooding.
He added that that conclusion “was made abundantly clear through the 500,000 pages of documents and hundreds of hours of lengthy deposition/trial testimony.”
McGehee added that the government’s strategy focused on the “emergency” declarations by the Corps and the federal and state government. However, the government reportedly failed to point out that these “emergency” declarations were made days prior to Harvey, and had nothing to do with the opening of the flood gates.
These emergency declarations, he claims, concerned Harvey in general, but not the Addicks/Barker reservoirs that are the subject of this case.
Additionally, the government emphasized how much the Addicks and Barker dams have benefited the Houston area in the past and how it was reasonable for the Corps to open the gates.
McGehee concluded, “The government, however, did not address that these claims are not relevant in the legal analysis of a government ‘taking’ of private property. “
Legal History of Case
This case is one of two that involve alleged “takings” by the Federal government during Harvey related to the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs. Several years ago, they were split into upstream and downstream cases because the issues and facts differed somewhat.
These posts include background information on both:
24/12/9 Addicks Barker Litigation Update – about testimony in an appeal of the cases.
24/11/25 Flood Digest: Brief Summaries of Five Flood-Related News Items contains a summary of then-recent developments in the upstream case.
23/1/19 Downstream Addicks Barker Case Moves Another Step Closer to Trial
22/11/21 Government Again Moves for Summary Judgment In Addicks-Barker Downstream Cases
22/8/9 Addicks-Barker Upstream Trial Case Entering Final Phase
22/6/11 Upstream Addicks-Barker Trial Concludes, But No Ruling Yet on Damages
22/6/3 Appeals Court Revives Addicks-Barker Downstream Takings Cases
20/2/26 New Presentations on Barker-Addicks Upstream Case and State of Regional Flood Mitigation
For more updates dating back to 2017, see this page on the law firm’s site.
Almost eight years after Harvey, we still don’t have a decision in this case. That underscores the need to purchase flood insurance if you live in Harris County.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/10/25
2781 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
Natural Resources Committee Hears Testimony on HB2068
Update: 4/10/25 – After reading this post, the media liaison for HCFCD emailed me to say, “One correction to your post today – Dr. Petersen testified as a resource on the bill, not against it.” Listen to her testimony at the link provided and you be the judge.
4/9/2025 – The Texas House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee heard testimony today on HB2068. HB2068 attempts to reconstitute the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) into one with wider authority to address flooding that originates outside Harris County.
It would also give the governor authority to appoint a board for the reconstituted district that would replace Harris County Commissioners Court, which has severely politicized flood mitigation much to the detriment of those who live on the periphery of the county.
Three people testified in person AGAINST the bill. But 192 provided written comments FOR the bill. Still, the bill’s fate is unclear tonight.
Three In-Person Testifiers All Against Bill
The committee heard live testimony from three people. All spoke against the bill. They included Stephen Costello, the City’s former Chief Recovery Officer under the late Mayor Sylvester Turner. They also included Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD and Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia.
The essence of Costello’s testimony was “HCFCD is working. Don’t mess with it.” He called the District a good partner for the City of Houston. And that may be true in certain areas.
Petersen and Garcia both bragged about HCFCD’s track record under their leadership, including their ability to take politics out of decision making.
Their testimony stood in stark contrast to brutal confrontations in Harris County Commissioners Court during the last two months. Commissioners, including Garcia, have raked Petersen over the coals. They complained bitterly and repeatedly about budget shortfalls totaling hundreds of millions of dollars that have jeopardized their pet projects.
No one seems to know where the current budget or projects stand. And that has made it impossible for commissioners to prioritize projects for any budget remaining.
Regardless, Petersen touted the county’s failed IT systems as a positive. She estimated it would cost the District $75 million to replace them if Flood Çontrol were a stand-alone entity.
Petersen also failed to mention the four-year slowdown in HCFCD activity.
See the entire testimony here. HB2068 starts about 1:18 into the video.
Strange Failure to Address Author’s Claims
Rep. Dennis Paul, the bill’s author, teed up his bill by explaining how much flooding originated outside the county. However, neither Costello, Petersen, nor Garcia addressed that point.
The failure to address such an obvious point may have been a fatal flaw in their arguments. Any casual observer could see the disconnect.
In fact, 10 of the 22 watersheds in Harris County originate outside the county, including most of the largest ones. Excluding cooperative efforts with people in those areas dooms large parts of Harris County to repetitive flooding. Especially those on the periphery of the county.
Electronically Filed Comments Overwhelmingly Support Bill
Many county residents have received virtually no support from HCFCD during Petersen’s tenure because of deliberate diversions of funds to low-income areas. Residents who remain living with high flood risk did not share Petersen’s and Garcia’s appraisals of their own performance, judging by their written comments.
194 people submitted comments electronically. You can read them here. Of the 194, only two were against HB2068. The other 192 strongly favored it. Virtually all of them came from the Lake Houston Area.
However, a number of people from Porter, Conroe, and even as far north as Cleveland also favored the bill. All had been flooded. And all sought the kind of support that an expanded District could provide.
Only one other bill discussed in Natural Resources today received more comments than HB2068. It was a quarrying bill relating to the Lower Colorado River Authority. The rest received only a handful of comments. Most received 0 to 3.
That in itself seems like it would argue for closer scrutiny and debate.
Bill Not Debated in Committee, Fate Up in Air
However, at the end of the testimony, the chairman left the bill “pending in committee.” That could mean they will just let it die. Or it could mean they will debate it and pass it out of committee to the full house for a vote at a future date.
Rep. Paul’s bill does not yet have a companion bill in the Senate.
More news to follow when it becomes available.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/9/2025
2780 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Action Needed: Support HB2068 NOW!
4/8/25 – State Representative Dennis Paul has authored a bill, HB2068, which would transform the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) by reconstituting its management and potentially expanding its geographic scope. Fifteen other state representatives have expressed their support by signing on as “co-authors” of the bill. Most represent parts of the San Jacinto River Basin.
The Texas House of Representatives Natural Resources committee will hold hearings on the bill tomorrow. We need to make sure the bill doesn’t die a quiet death by never making it out of the committee for a vote by the full House. So please write today to express your support.
Why We Need HB2068
Water doesn’t respect political boundaries. Back in 1937 when the legislature created HCFCD, that wasn’t a huge problem. Most of the region’s population lived within Harris County.
But since then, the Houston area has grown to encompass all or parts of seven counties. Having the state’s only flood control district focusing primarily on the area inside Beltway 8 no longer serves the needs of the region.
For instance, in the San Jacinto watershed, an area half again as large as Harris County drains past Kingwood. Yet Kingwood has received only $230 in capital improvement construction projects from HCFCD. Ever.
But during Harvey, Kingwood also had the highest flooding in the county. And it has flooded several times since then.
Meanwhile, eight other watersheds favored by certain Harris County Commissioners have received more than $740 million…just since 2018.
Their formula for allocating funds relies heavily on race and income. The majority of County Commissioners now in control do not even include flood damage or risk in their current formula for prioritizing flood-mitigation projects.
Moreover, HCFCD under the leadership of Harris County Commissioners Court refuses to release comparative flood risk data in their possession.
Plus, certain commissioners have vowed not to allow HCFCD to spend money on projects outside of Harris County, where many of the County’s flooding problems originate.
How HB2068 Could Change That
HB2068 modifies the legislation that originally created HCFCD. The modifications do two basic things. They:
Thus…
Flooding does not respect political boundaries. HB2068 bridges those boundaries.
How to Express Your Support
The Natural Resources committee will meet on Wednesday April 9, 2025 to hear testimony on HB2068.
Remember public comments must be submitted before the end of the meeting. To be safe, do it now! And do it here. You are limited to 3000 characters. I suggest something that expresses the key points above under:
They include 2000 characters.
If you are pressed for time, just say, “I support this bill.”
Please DO IT NOW!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/8/2025
2779 Days since Hurricane Harvey