Between August 25 and 29, 2017, the federal government stored massive amounts of stormwater from Tropical Storm Harvey in Addicks and Barker Reservoirs. As a result, both reservoirs reached historically high levels and flooded thousands of homes and businesses which were built within the reservoirs’ maximum “design pools.” This lawsuit asserts that the federal government cannot use private property to store federal floodwaters without providing compensation.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built the reservoirs in the 1940s and 1950s. They were designed to flood a predetermined area of land known as the “design pool.” However, the federal government only purchased part of the land within the design pools and left a large portion of land within the design pools as private property. As a result, over the next several decades, subdivisions with homes and commercial properties were built in the remaining portion of the design pools.
The flooding in these neighborhoods during Hurricane Harvey reveals the grave error committed by the federal government. The federal government sat back silently and watched while developers built out private property within the reservoir, that was designed to flood. In many cases, the federal government helped the developers by issuing authorizations and permits. If the federal government had bought this land in the first place or obtained flood easements, the devastation during Harvey could have been prevented.
More historical background is available in this article in the Dallas Morning News .
This lawsuit covers all property owners, whether residential homeowners or businesses, whose property is located within the maximum “design pool” of Addicks and Barker Reservoirs and that flooded during Harvey. For Addicks, the class is all owners of property that flooded that is below approximately 109.1 feet elevation. For Barker, the class is all owners of property that flooded that is below approximately 101.5 feet elevation.
“Just compensation” under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is the value of the property of which you as the owner were deprived. Not all losses will be compensable. The proper amount of damages depends on the particular circumstances in each case. We assert that the federal government should pay just compensation for the “direct, natural, or probable results” of the Corps’ operation and management of the dams. This may include compensation for diminished property values, the “cost to cure” (or repair) damaged improvements, and damaged personal property.
In October 2022, the U.S. Court of Claims issued a ruling awarding just compensation of $484,166.44 (plus interest) for six test property plaintiffs. The biggest awards went to the flood victims who suffered structure flooding and significant property damage during Harvey.
The awards (before interest) for the flooded test property homes reflect between 37% to 64% of the pre-flood home value. In terms of house size, those numbers yield between $98-134 per square foot of flooded space.
Because of the nature of the calculation, it may not be appropriate to apply these numbers directly to your home’s pre-flood value or lower-floor square footage. But these results should help understand the value in these cases—and what people stand to lose if they do not file claims.
These awards are subject to interest—which has been running since Harvey. According to the Court, interest started counting on the day of the flood and continues at a rate of 3.62% compounded semi-annually until the date of payment.
You need to sign up with an attorney, and we are here to represent you. Please contact us to tell us that you want to participate, and we will discuss the case with you.
If you just wish to be added to our email list for updates, please submit your contact information here. Please understand that you only become one of our clients by signing an engagement letter with us.
We are still accepting clients and encourage you to sign up as soon as possible to secure your claim.
We are aware that a lot of law firms are trying to sign up clients. You can, and should, pick whichever firm you are most comfortable with. You can, and should, interview several attorneys and make the best decision for you and your family.ﾠ
In our agreement, the client pays no expenses, does not pay anything in the event that we are unsuccessful, and we commit to a 25% contingency fee. We are not aware of any attorneys with a lower fee. We would advise individuals to check the contingency fee in any contract they consider.ﾠ
We urge you to talk to an independent lawyer before you sign any engagement that contains any provision regarding a claim on pre-suit property buyouts or an attorney lien on future buyouts.ﾠ
Make sure that any lawyer you speak to is actually planning to handle and manage your case. That is our commitment to you.ﾠ
Although the government has been found liable for the upstream flooding, resolving all the claims will still take substantial time because it involves complex litigation against the federal government. Also, the potential cost to the federal government will likely require Congressional involvement and authorization. Please be wary of any attorney promising quick results.ﾠ
Nothing. We will cover all expenses and will recover a fee only if we obtain a successful result.ﾠ
More than 1,000 affected property owners have designated our team to handle their claims. Our team holds 3 of the 6 leadership positions in upstream cases, as appointed by the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. No other team has more than one lead lawyer.
Our team comprises attorneys with environmental and class action experience from Irvine & Conner PLLC and Burns Charest LLP, along with attorney and engineer Larry Dunbar.
Irvine & Conner PLLC. Attorneys with Irvine & Conner and co-counsel Mr. Dunbar regularly handle technical flooding and drainage cases. In addition to being an attorney, Mr. Dunbar has been a registered professional engineer in Texas since 1983, and has served as a flood expert witness in that capacity in numerous state and federal judicial and administrative proceedings.
Among counsel’s most pertinent experiences are two federal cases centered on the Addicks Reservoir, in which Irvine & Conner’s attorneys were part of plaintiff’s litigation team and Mr. Dunbar served as plaintiff’s flooding and drainage expert:
As a result of work on these cases and other projects, there is a repository of data, documents, and studies directly relevant to the upstream claims. Further, Mr. Irvine holds a Masters in Science, and Mr. Dunbar has an engineering background. They both have extensive experience working with large sets of data, sophisticated computer models, and have previously overseen large teams of experts in complicated science-based litigation, including flood cases.
Burns Charest LLP. Founded in 2015 by two former Susman Godfrey LLP partners in Dallas and an environmental and complex litigation lawyer in New Orleans, Burns Charest currently serves as lead or co-lead in complex cases throughout the nation.
Currently, Burns Charest serves as co-lead counsel in several complex actions including In re EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection USP) Marketing, Sales Practices, and Antitrust Litigation, MDL 2785 (D. Kan.), In re: Chesapeake Barnett Royalty Litigation #2, MDL No. 48-000000-15 (48th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas), and on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in In re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, MDL 2656 (D.D.C.), and In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, No. 16-cv-696 (E.D.N.Y.). Each of these cases involve class wide claims and complex and sometimes novel issues of law.
Additionally, Burns Charest is co-lead counsel in Salvation Army v. Union Pacific Railroad, a groundwater contamination suit designed to remediate harmful contaminants in the drinking water source for most of Southwest Louisiana. In the past, Burns Charest has been appointed to serve as co-lead counsel for a class of end-payor indirect purchasers in In re Vehicle Carrier Services Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2471 and appointed as co-lead counsel in In re Crude Oil Commodity Futures Litigation, No. 11-cv-03600, a class action involves complex antitrust and commodities claims.
Just as important as the Firm’s experience is its ability to work cooperatively and efficiently with other firms to achieve results. For example, when Warren Burns and Daniel Charest served as co-lead counsel in In re Crude Oil Commodity Futures Litigation, they managed dozens of firms in that litigation, and Mr. Burns personally negotiated a class settlement with the defendants that was approved by the Court. Similarly, Mr. Charest coordinates with attorneys with individual clients in the Chesapeake Barnett MDL for discovery issues, motion practice, and hearing preparation. And, while at Susman Godfrey, Mr. Burns served as co-lead counsel for the end-payor class in the In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2311, and personally led negotiations resulting in substantial settlements for the indirect purchaser classes.