Fun5Acres - Unfortunately, I was unable to find the information in the PT paper. Probably the Internet archives don't go back far enough. Are you sure there was a lawsuit filed? When I do a Google Search, I find nothing. Any help you could offer would be great.

On another note, if Norm Rose or anyone else make changes to the riverbed it would certainly seem to put him at some liability for any damages downstream. That water has to go somewhere. If someone could prove that his actions caused a downstream owner to suffer damages, I think (not a lawyer though), he could be held liable for those damages.

In regards to Government help and Government actions - I certainly hope that Snohomish County would protect their roads. Those roads, somewhat like the river, are owned by the public and the Government has an obligation to keep them functional. Once again, their actions can not just shift the problem to someone downstream. If so, I believe they would be liable for damages - although, to be fair, it is not easy to sue a County and win.

In regards to the articles that Plunker posted - one line really stood out. ""People were put there to manage nature. If nature's going to run amok, then counties shouldn't be selling homes on floodplains or taking taxes from people on floodplains," said Joan Burden, who bought her recreational riverside property a decade before the government acted to protect the waterway."

What an interesting viewpoint. People were put there to manage nature - Good luck, Nature has a ferocious bite sometime.

The counties shouldn't be selling homes on floodplains - I know of no counties that are in the residential real estate sales business.

In regards to the taxes, she has a point, but only if she no longer owns the property.

Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware is never more sage advice than when you look to buy land near a river. And it does require a heightened responsibility on the part of the landowner. If they didn't know that going in, shame on them.