270
‘No warning at all’: Texas flood survivors question safety planning and officials’ response
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
270 points (98.6% liked)
News
30898 readers
2957 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We've known for decades that Texas has loose regulations allowing development to ignore flooding concerns. "Texas shoulders the most urban stormwater runoff of any state in the country ". After Hurricane Harvey flooded Houston in 2017, everyone was talking about the development issue, but alas, mostly just about Houston instead the state as a whole.
Post Harvey, The Atlantic had a big piece on how, "The combination of climate change and aggressive development made an event like this almost inevitable."
Also from that 2017 disaster, The Washington Post concluded:
Some argued that "Houston isn't flooded because of its land use planning" ... but while the author there is an expert in urban planning, he is not an expert in hydrology.
Of course the recent tragedy was no where near Houston. It was closer to Austin and San Antonio. On Austin: "Flash flooding is a pressing concern for Austin, so much so that it has been labeled the "Flash Flood Alley" of Texas." On San Santonio:
I don't want to hear "No warning at all." This was a risk known for decades where the state and municipalities decided they'd rather allow an eventual catastrophe than spend the money needed to prevent one.
I'm not arguing with your post, just one of your sources.
I live in Houston and was really interested in what that article has to say, because based on your comment, I thought, "Am I wrong? Was I misled by bad information and failed to do my due diligence?"
Nope, that article about Houston flooding is absolute trash.
One of his points he's like, "I don't even know what that means."
One point he argues more green space would lead to more paved surfaces and then doesn't really explain how that supposedly works.
Another point he says something along the lines of, "Like, I guess an argument COULD be made that some people were impacted because developers built on a flood plain..."
GTFO with that bullshit article.
Yeah, Harvey dropped more rain than the land, that was overbuilt, could have absorbed, but that was just one of the contributing man caused factors.
There was always going to be flooding from Harvey, but it was WAY worse than it should have been if proper planning had been used. But Houston, like Texas as a whole, seems allergic to zoning and real urban planning development.
Developers always have been and always will be happy to build anywhere, and cut every possible corner they can, as long as it stands for the for the 10 years they still have a warranty.
I agree wirth you, but since I'm not a hydrologist nor any other type of expert, I included that contrary piece as an opposing view on whether better planning could have helped. Since we now know that there's been a plan to have warning sirens in the works for years, I think it obvious that the area is a known flood risk and at least that much COULD have been done.