Six years after the 2018 floods in Aude: why the court rejected the request of a resident of Villegailhenc against an expropriation order

The six arguments raised by Gérard Loubès’ lawyer were not enough. On January 7, 2025, the Montpellier administrative court ruled. And rejected his request, requesting the annulment of the prefectural decree of August 3, 2022 relating to the declaration of public utility (DUP) of “the expropriation of property exposed to a major natural risk of torrential flooding” et “transferability of buildings necessary for the safety of occupants”. On the night of October 14 to 15, 2018, in Villegailhenc, this house at 8 avenue du Languedoc, at the confluence of the Trapel and the Merdeau, suffered the full force of the fury of the waves. In the early morning, in the village, the toll was terrible: 870 buildings flooded, the 118 bridge washed away and, a heavy human toll, three dead.

Also read:
“I will go all the way”: in Villegailhenc, convinced of being able to cope with the risk of flooding, a resident wants to avoid the destruction of his house

Villegailhenc must reinvent itself. On June 17, 2019, the municipality signed, with Carcassonne Agglo, an agreement with the public land establishment (EPF) of Occitanie allowing the acquisition of the buildings “exposed to a major natural risk of torrential flooding” : nearly thirty properties concerned. An amicable acquisition, thanks to the Barnier Fund, will be recorded in the majority of cases. But the owners of five properties say no, refusing offers between €90,100 and €333,200 depending on the house, for a total budget of more than €1 million.

Foreseeable risk, serious threat to human lives, lack of cheaper alternative solution

Enough to lead to a public inquiry, and this prefectural decree of August 3, 2022. Authorizing the EPF to acquire these properties, if necessary, by expropriation to proceed with their demolition. A procedure which requires three conditions: “a foreseeable risk”, “a serious threat to human lives”et “the absence of a less expensive alternative solution”. Questions at the heart of the decision of January 7, 2025. Serge Loubès and his lawyer took the issue to the merits. First by pointing “the insufficiency of the file submitted to public inquiry”. No, say the judges: convinced that the file sets out with “sufficient precision and accuracy of the natural phenomena to which the property is exposed, the importance and seriousness of the threat it presents to human life”.

No more success with “errors of judgment” et “by law” raised, Serge Loubès’ lawyer pointing out “past analyzes and studies which no longer have anything to do with the current situation”. A route chosen to discuss the security provided by the new bridge on the RD 118 and the impact of the restoration work on the Trapel operating space. Yes, answers the court, on the improvement of the flow. But remembering that, whatever the studies, the models count on a flow of 250 m³/s. Much lower than that of 2018, estimated at 367 m³/s “at the height of the event”. Above all, there is nothing to conclude at the end of the risk, and in particular for “the applicant’s home […] among the most impacted in terms of flood height” of October 2018. Average ruled out, therefore.

The occurrence of an event comparable to that of 2018 is not devoid of all probability

Just like the uncertainty over the return period of such an event: “a century according to the public inquiry file” ; “one to two centuries in the study (from ISL Ingénierie for Dreal, Editor’s note) from April 12, 2019″ ; “3 to 5 centuries according to the comments of the hydrological engineer produced by the applicants”. Vast margin. Which does not prevent the court from recalling “the worsening of the phenomenon of intense rains over the Mediterranean arc”documented by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). With, assuming a 4°C rise in temperatures, a 2.7 times greater probability of such precipitation by 2030-2050. Demonstration completed by recalling that “the intensity of such episodes […] would increase by 7% for each degree” temperature rise: “The occurrence of an event comparable to that of 2018 is not devoid of all probability”.

And to complete the rejection of the request by dismissing the argument of a “refuge floor in the attic”. Don’t mention it “exclude a serious threat to human lives”will judge the court. Basing its decision on “testimonials” victims of October 2018: “The sudden wave phenomenon […] only left a few minutes” to the residents “to take shelter indoors if they could or to swim to a refuge area”.