8/15/2026 – The lawsuit between the Army Corps of Engineers and residents upstream of the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs has been delayed again. The government is still deciding whether to file another appeal to the United States Supreme Court. It was supposed to have made a decision by August 7, 2026.
However, the government advised at that hearing that it could not make a decision re: the appeal and asked for yet another extension. The appeals court granted a further extension to September 4, 2026, postponing a decision once again.
The law firm McGehee ☆ Chang, Feiler, which represents the upstream flood victims, said “We are disappointed by the continued delay. That said, this is a significant case requiring extensive deliberation within the government.”
History of Case
For a complete history of the case, see the Addicks-Barker page on the law firm’s site. This 10-page brief provides a chilling recreation of events during Harvey. Judges in the case expressed their displeasure re: the government’s request for extensions as early as December 20, 2017.
One case eventually split into two because of different issues involving up- and downstream residents. I have covered the both cases since 2020.
The initial trial phase of the upstream case drew to a close in the second half of 2022. The judge ruled the government was liable for damages. But the government appealed on December 29, 2022. Three years later, on December 29, 2025, the Court of Appeals, after 13 months of deliberations, affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the issue of liability. It agreed that the government is liable for taking of the Upstream homeowners’ property.
The homeowners contended that when the reservoirs were built, the Corps didn’t buy enough property within them. Private developers then built homes within the reservoirs. The government warned as early as 1973 that it knew of the problem and that homes could be flooded.
Flooded Homes in Addicks Reservoir during Harvey
And then it happened.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/15/2026
3273 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Flooded-Homes-Addicks-Reservoir.jpg?fit=1200%2C765&ssl=17651200adminadmin2026-08-15 17:01:122026-08-16 08:52:12Addicks-Barker Upstream Lawsuit Delayed Again
8/14/26 – Yesterday, someone asked me why flood mitigation takes so long. It’s a simple question that ultimately demands another question. How can we speed it up? Let me outline what I’ve learned about the “why so long” issue before wading into whether we can speed it up.
The process isn’t always linear. Surprises in one step may require adjustments in another. And there are many steps.
Flood-mitigation-process diagram produced by ChatGPT.
Overview of Key Steps in Mitigation Process
Cities and counties generally have the responsibility for flood prevention and mitigation. But they rarely have the money. Unless you live in a place like Harris County, flooding happens infrequently enough that officials generally don’t budget for disasters. They have other urgent needs and limited cash. Even in Harris, needs outstrip available funding.
So when disasters do happen, local governments look for financial assistance. That assistance could come from state or federal sources. But states and the federal government don’t just hand over piles of cash and say, “Go to it.”
Note: the steps below are not necessarily in chronological order depending on findings in other stages.
Feasibility Studies
First, local authorities must prove that they have a valid, constructible solution to a recurring problem. They start with a feasibility study. This usually involves establishing the magnitude of the problem and looking at alternative solutions to see if any are a) effective and b) affordable before investing more time and money.
Proving “No Adverse Impact”
Next, comes engineering and design. Local authorities must move a project far enough along to prove that the proposed solution does not create an adverse impact downstream. Simply getting rid of the water faster upstream, for instance, may create higher flood peaks downstream.
Finding the Local-Match Money
State and federal authorities almost always demand that cities and counties have “skin in the game.” So, the local authorities must put up a “local match,” usually 30% of estimated grant costs. Raising that 30% may require selling bonds. Which may require a bond referendum/election like Harris County had in 2018.
Benefit/Cost Analysis
Assuming local authorities can scrape up enough money for the local match, they must then actually apply for the grants. This will likely require a deeper level of engineering than the high-level feasibility study had. It will also require a BCA (benefit/cost analysis) to ensure the benefits exceed the costs. And that may require actual design.
Grant Applications
Applying for grants can be quite costly and time-consuming. The local authorities must first determine where a request is most likely to succeed (FEMA, HUD, EPA, etc.). To complicate matters, such agencies usually have multiple programs geared to different needs.
Environmental Studies
But that’s not all. Local authorities must also conduct environmental studies. An environmental study evaluates how a proposed flood-mitigation project could affect natural and human resources such as: wetlands, waterways, wildlife, water quality, cultural resources, and nearby communities. It also identifies regulatory requirements and measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts.
Regulatory Approval/Permitting
Then come the regulatory approvals. If the solution impacts “waters of the U.S.”, for instance, it will need to be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Congressional Appropriations and Rules
After a disaster, Congress must appropriate money for disaster relief and flood mitigation. But the money doesn’t go directly to cities and counties. It goes to states…after FEMA and HUD write rules for how the money can be used.
State-Level Administration
State authorities, such as the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) and Texas General Land Office (GLO), then review grant applications and determine whether projects comply with all relevant rules attached to funding.
If they do, the state agency then contracts with cities or counties which are considered sub-recipients. The state may have more applications than funding. So, it must prioritize projects, just like cities and counties do. This process requires:
An application period long enough for all interested parties to develop and submit requests
A review period to establish compliance with federal rules for the money
Time for public comments
Ranking of applications received
Coordination with federal authorities.
Bidding and Construction
Once state and federal authorities approve a project, local authorities must actually build it. This can take several years. Groups, such as Houston Public Works or the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD):
Determine specs for the project
Get approval to proceed from their oversight bodies such as Houston City Council or Harris County Commissioners Court
Seek qualified bidders
Give them time to compile and submit bids
Evaluate the bids and determine the winning bidder
Negotiate the contract
Get the contract approved by the relevant oversight body
Receive “authorization to use government funds” (AUGF) by TDEM or GLO
Build the project.
Aligning Dominos
Getting all the dominos aligned with all the supporting studies and documentation can take years. The money involved can be hundreds of millions…or even billions. So, the rules are both rigorous and onerous. And there are multiple audits along the way designed to prevent fraud.
But nobody has deeper pockets than the federal government. Typically, FEMA pays for 70% of each project. HUD ranges up to 90-100%. So, that makes the wait worthwhile.
Can We Speed Things Up?
As a former business owner, if I were looking for ways to speed up this convoluted process and reduce overall administration costs, I would examine two areas:
Reducing the number of layers or steps where possible
Improving efficiency within each step.
It would be difficult to reduce the number of layers and steps.
If you tried to cut out state agencies, you would lose local expertise and reduce local control. That might not be politically palatable. You would also likely just wind up transferring state costs to the federal level.
Reducing steps, such as “bidding” would likely be an invitation to fraud – also not politically palatable.
The Need to Spread Risk
The multi-level system we have spreads risk, much like an insurance company would. So, cutting out the federal government and funding everything locally or at the state level would also be difficult.
The National Hazard Mitigation Association points out that inland riverine flooding has affected 99% of U.S. counties in the past 20 years. Such flooding has also caused more than $45 billion of damage since 1980.
Flooding happens sporadically. Years can roll by without a disaster. Then suddenly you get a Hurricane Harvey. That’s when you need help from neighbors. And almost every community will need help sooner or later.
Prevention Easier, Less Expensive Than Correction
There may be room to improve efficiency within each step. However, that could only be determined on a case-by-case, location-by-location basis, as we saw recently with HCFCD.
Only one thing is certain. Prevention is far less expensive and less time-consuming than correction. Preventing floods through measures such as better building codes and floodplain preservation is always a more cost-effective solution than correcting flooding after the fact.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/14/2026
3272 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Flood-Mitigation-Process.png?fit=1254%2C1254&ssl=112541254adminadmin2026-08-14 18:20:122026-08-15 11:32:50Why Flood Mitigation Takes So Long
8/13/26 – The American Flood Coalition (AFC) is a nationwide advocate for flood-risk reduction at the local, state and federal levels. August 2026 is a landmark month for federal disaster recovery, according to the group.
CDBG-DR Simplification
On July 10, Congress passed a bipartisan proposal to authorize the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program for three years.
AFC’s advocacy arm, American Flood Coalition Action (AFCA), has long called on Congress to authorize CDBG-DR. It provides flexible funding for states and communities to rebuild housing, repair critical infrastructure, and address other long-term needs as they recover from floods, wildfires, and other disasters.
But until now, HUD had to write new regulations each time Congress funded the program. That added delays and complexity for communities on the long road to recovery.
However, for the first-ever, this authorization will:
Ensure consistent rules for the next three years.
Establish an Office of Disaster Management and Resiliency within HUD.
Require coordination and data sharing between HUD and other federal agencies like FEMA and the Small Business Administration.
Create a long-term disaster recovery fund at the U.S. Treasury.
AFC says it will continue to share updates as this major win for disaster-impacted states and communities is implemented. You can sign up for their newsletter here.
CDBG-DR programs finance many flood-mitigation projects in Harris County. So, we may directly benefit from these changes.
Flooding during Harvey at Kingwood Village Estates where 12 people died near Bens Branch. It is part of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch project which is now in final engineering and still seeking funding.
Farm Bill Advancing in Senate and House with AFC Priorities
In June, the Senate Agriculture Committee released its draft Farm Bill. The draft includes three AFCA policy priorities:
Strengthening the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program to fund both post-flood recovery and proactive watershed upgrades that reduce future disaster risk.
Expanding the Regional Conservation Partnership Program’s purpose to include flood prevention.
Tripling mandatory funding for the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program, which helps state and local governments protect and restore watersheds.
The House passed its version of the legislation in April, which incorporates three additional AFCA priorities:
Allowing EWP project sponsors to begin pre-approved emergency watershed protection measures after a disaster and count costs as part of their cost share without having to wait for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approval, speeding up recoveries.
Directing USDA to conduct a national agricultural flood vulnerability assessment.
Increasing the federal cost share for the Watershed Rehabilitation program.
While the House and Senate still need to reconcile their respective Farm Bills, these steps would help farmers and farmland communities advance flood-smart agriculture and bolster their resilience to floods and extreme weather.
Embracing flood-smart agriculture helps reduce flood risk throughout a watershed. When farmers adopt practices that slow runoff, increase soil infiltration, and store water, they protect their own fields while serving as critical flood infrastructure for entire watersheds.
For instance, AFC research in Iowa found that wider use of multi-cropping upstream in the Cedar River Watershed could reduce flooding by up to 30%. Such nature-based solutions benefit all residents of a watershed.
Addicks-Barker Upstream Lawsuit Delayed Again
8/15/2026 – The lawsuit between the Army Corps of Engineers and residents upstream of the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs has been delayed again. The government is still deciding whether to file another appeal to the United States Supreme Court. It was supposed to have made a decision by August 7, 2026.
However, the government advised at that hearing that it could not make a decision re: the appeal and asked for yet another extension. The appeals court granted a further extension to September 4, 2026, postponing a decision once again.
The law firm McGehee ☆ Chang, Feiler, which represents the upstream flood victims, said “We are disappointed by the continued delay. That said, this is a significant case requiring extensive deliberation within the government.”
History of Case
For a complete history of the case, see the Addicks-Barker page on the law firm’s site. This 10-page brief provides a chilling recreation of events during Harvey. Judges in the case expressed their displeasure re: the government’s request for extensions as early as December 20, 2017.
One case eventually split into two because of different issues involving up- and downstream residents. I have covered the both cases since 2020.
The initial trial phase of the upstream case drew to a close in the second half of 2022. The judge ruled the government was liable for damages. But the government appealed on December 29, 2022. Three years later, on December 29, 2025, the Court of Appeals, after 13 months of deliberations, affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the issue of liability. It agreed that the government is liable for taking of the Upstream homeowners’ property.
The homeowners contended that when the reservoirs were built, the Corps didn’t buy enough property within them. Private developers then built homes within the reservoirs. The government warned as early as 1973 that it knew of the problem and that homes could be flooded.
And then it happened.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/15/2026
3273 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Why Flood Mitigation Takes So Long
8/14/26 – Yesterday, someone asked me why flood mitigation takes so long. It’s a simple question that ultimately demands another question. How can we speed it up? Let me outline what I’ve learned about the “why so long” issue before wading into whether we can speed it up.
The process isn’t always linear. Surprises in one step may require adjustments in another. And there are many steps.
Overview of Key Steps in Mitigation Process
Cities and counties generally have the responsibility for flood prevention and mitigation. But they rarely have the money. Unless you live in a place like Harris County, flooding happens infrequently enough that officials generally don’t budget for disasters. They have other urgent needs and limited cash. Even in Harris, needs outstrip available funding.
So when disasters do happen, local governments look for financial assistance. That assistance could come from state or federal sources. But states and the federal government don’t just hand over piles of cash and say, “Go to it.”
Note: the steps below are not necessarily in chronological order depending on findings in other stages.
Feasibility Studies
First, local authorities must prove that they have a valid, constructible solution to a recurring problem. They start with a feasibility study. This usually involves establishing the magnitude of the problem and looking at alternative solutions to see if any are a) effective and b) affordable before investing more time and money.
Proving “No Adverse Impact”
Next, comes engineering and design. Local authorities must move a project far enough along to prove that the proposed solution does not create an adverse impact downstream. Simply getting rid of the water faster upstream, for instance, may create higher flood peaks downstream.
Finding the Local-Match Money
State and federal authorities almost always demand that cities and counties have “skin in the game.” So, the local authorities must put up a “local match,” usually 30% of estimated grant costs. Raising that 30% may require selling bonds. Which may require a bond referendum/election like Harris County had in 2018.
Benefit/Cost Analysis
Assuming local authorities can scrape up enough money for the local match, they must then actually apply for the grants. This will likely require a deeper level of engineering than the high-level feasibility study had. It will also require a BCA (benefit/cost analysis) to ensure the benefits exceed the costs. And that may require actual design.
Grant Applications
Applying for grants can be quite costly and time-consuming. The local authorities must first determine where a request is most likely to succeed (FEMA, HUD, EPA, etc.). To complicate matters, such agencies usually have multiple programs geared to different needs.
Environmental Studies
But that’s not all. Local authorities must also conduct environmental studies. An environmental study evaluates how a proposed flood-mitigation project could affect natural and human resources such as: wetlands, waterways, wildlife, water quality, cultural resources, and nearby communities. It also identifies regulatory requirements and measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts.
Regulatory Approval/Permitting
Then come the regulatory approvals. If the solution impacts “waters of the U.S.”, for instance, it will need to be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Congressional Appropriations and Rules
After a disaster, Congress must appropriate money for disaster relief and flood mitigation. But the money doesn’t go directly to cities and counties. It goes to states…after FEMA and HUD write rules for how the money can be used.
State-Level Administration
State authorities, such as the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) and Texas General Land Office (GLO), then review grant applications and determine whether projects comply with all relevant rules attached to funding.
If they do, the state agency then contracts with cities or counties which are considered sub-recipients. The state may have more applications than funding. So, it must prioritize projects, just like cities and counties do. This process requires:
Bidding and Construction
Once state and federal authorities approve a project, local authorities must actually build it. This can take several years. Groups, such as Houston Public Works or the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD):
Aligning Dominos
Getting all the dominos aligned with all the supporting studies and documentation can take years. The money involved can be hundreds of millions…or even billions. So, the rules are both rigorous and onerous. And there are multiple audits along the way designed to prevent fraud.
But nobody has deeper pockets than the federal government. Typically, FEMA pays for 70% of each project. HUD ranges up to 90-100%. So, that makes the wait worthwhile.
Can We Speed Things Up?
As a former business owner, if I were looking for ways to speed up this convoluted process and reduce overall administration costs, I would examine two areas:
It would be difficult to reduce the number of layers and steps.
The Need to Spread Risk
The multi-level system we have spreads risk, much like an insurance company would. So, cutting out the federal government and funding everything locally or at the state level would also be difficult.
The National Hazard Mitigation Association points out that inland riverine flooding has affected 99% of U.S. counties in the past 20 years. Such flooding has also caused more than $45 billion of damage since 1980.
Flooding happens sporadically. Years can roll by without a disaster. Then suddenly you get a Hurricane Harvey. That’s when you need help from neighbors. And almost every community will need help sooner or later.
Prevention Easier, Less Expensive Than Correction
There may be room to improve efficiency within each step. However, that could only be determined on a case-by-case, location-by-location basis, as we saw recently with HCFCD.
Only one thing is certain. Prevention is far less expensive and less time-consuming than correction. Preventing floods through measures such as better building codes and floodplain preservation is always a more cost-effective solution than correcting flooding after the fact.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/14/2026
3272 Days since Hurricane Harvey
American Flood Coalition Helps Advance Mitigation Programs
8/13/26 – The American Flood Coalition (AFC) is a nationwide advocate for flood-risk reduction at the local, state and federal levels. August 2026 is a landmark month for federal disaster recovery, according to the group.
CDBG-DR Simplification
On July 10, Congress passed a bipartisan proposal to authorize the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program for three years.
AFC’s advocacy arm, American Flood Coalition Action (AFCA), has long called on Congress to authorize CDBG-DR. It provides flexible funding for states and communities to rebuild housing, repair critical infrastructure, and address other long-term needs as they recover from floods, wildfires, and other disasters.
But until now, HUD had to write new regulations each time Congress funded the program. That added delays and complexity for communities on the long road to recovery.
However, for the first-ever, this authorization will:
AFC says it will continue to share updates as this major win for disaster-impacted states and communities is implemented. You can sign up for their newsletter here.
CDBG-DR programs finance many flood-mitigation projects in Harris County. So, we may directly benefit from these changes.
Farm Bill Advancing in Senate and House with AFC Priorities
In June, the Senate Agriculture Committee released its draft Farm Bill. The draft includes three AFCA policy priorities:
The House passed its version of the legislation in April, which incorporates three additional AFCA priorities:
While the House and Senate still need to reconcile their respective Farm Bills, these steps would help farmers and farmland communities advance flood-smart agriculture and bolster their resilience to floods and extreme weather.
Embracing flood-smart agriculture helps reduce flood risk throughout a watershed. When farmers adopt practices that slow runoff, increase soil infiltration, and store water, they protect their own fields while serving as critical flood infrastructure for entire watersheds.
For instance, AFC research in Iowa found that wider use of multi-cropping upstream in the Cedar River Watershed could reduce flooding by up to 30%. Such nature-based solutions benefit all residents of a watershed.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/13/2026
3271 Days since Hurricane Harvey