8/24/25 – The abandoned Hanson Aggregate sand-mine on the San Jacinto West Fork had a massive breach of its northern dike this evening – unrelated to weather. According to the Montgomery County Appraisal District, Heidelberg Materials Southwest AGG LLC now owns the property where the breach occurred.
Location of breach circled in red.
Breach Discovered Shortly after 6 PM on 8/24/25
A thousand acre-feet of water or possibly more rushed out of the 140-acre pond, obliterating everything in its path, and depositing enough sand and silt in the San Jacinto West Fork to back water up in the river.
I received a call from a neighbor who alerted me to the breach at 6:38 PM. And by the time I arrived shortly after 7 PM, the water level in the pond had dropped an estimated 8-10 feet he said.
Water was still rushing out of the pond fast enough to cause large chunks of the shore to break away, endangering onlookers who had to back away.
The water eroded a channel approximately 800 feet long, 50 to 200 feet wide and perhaps 15-20 feet deep – all in a matter of minutes.
The cause of the breach is unknown. However, aerial photos showed a small excavator and piles of drain pipe near the breach.
Photos, Video Taken Between 7 and 8 PM on 8/24/25
Below are photos and video of the devastation.
Water rushing out through breach in pit wall. West Fork San Jacinto is just out of frame at the top. Looking W.Compare height of breach to height of excavator for scale.Also note amount of decline between water surface and brush along shoreline.Looking upriver at sand and silt expelled from mine.Note large, mature pine trees undermined by rushing water.The raging water mowed down dozens of mature trees as it carved its way to the river.Looking east from over the river at breach and turbulence it created in water.Higher angle looking west shows volume of material swept away.Sediment deposited in West Fork. Looking SEand downriver.Closer shot of water exiting channel.Corrugated pipe next to excavator tracks that were gobbled up by raging water.Close up of excavator at edge of breach.
Here is a 26-second drone video taken while flying from the pond to the river.
There Must Be A Better Way!
Ironically, this mine had one of the largest setbacks on the West Fork. (See satellite image above.) The setback varied from approximately 400 feet to more than 1,000. However, there was a small drainage channel running along the northern edge of the mine that had a narrower setback And that’s where the breach occurred.
This disaster underscores the need to find a permanent, safe solution for abandoned sand mines along area rivers and streams.
I previously proposed aggregating them over time into a West Fork Greenway which could become a state park. I tentatively named the concept the Montgomery County Lake District.
Instead of letting such mines remain a dangerous blight, turn them into a recreational amenity that could add value to area homeowners and developers.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/24/25
2917 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/20250824-DJI_20250824193037_0189_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-08-24 23:13:172025-08-25 09:14:45Massive Sand-Mine Breach Empties Hundreds of Acre-Feet into West Fork
8/23/25 – ChatGPT produced a detailed Flood Resilience Plan for Harris County for free in less than three minutes. Meanwhile, after almost a year, the engineering firm hired by Harris County for $3 million is still trying to define a vision for the plan.
Flood Resilience Plan on Agenda for Tuesday’s Commissioners Court Meeting
It seems like it’s taking the company a long time to get out of the starting blocks. So, I decided to see how long it would take ChatGPT to develop a resilience plan for the county. It took two minutes and 52 seconds and cost nothing.
Now, I am sure that experts at AECOM and Flood Control would still have to review and validate the recommendations. But this seems like a great start to me. It’s clear, concise, readable, and actionable. And it potentially saved about half of a $3 million contract. Below, see the simple question I asked and the response I got.
“Chat, can you develop a flood resilience plan for Harris County, Texas?”
Chat: Absolutely, here’s a practical, Harris-County–specific flood resilience plan you can put to work now. I’ve organized it as (1) guiding principles, (2) 12 action pillars with concrete steps, (3) a 100-day / 1–2 yr / 5–10 yr timeline, and (4) funding + governance + metrics. Sources are cited throughout.
Guiding Principles (What “Good” Looks Like)
Design to today’s risk (Atlas 14) and rising extremes. NOAA’s 2018 Atlas 14 raised the region’s 1%-annual-chance (24-hr) rainfall from ~13″ to ~17–18″; plan to that (and stress-test above it).
Map the real pathways of flooding, not just rivers. Use MAAPnext’s overland “community flooding” products while FEMA reviews new FIRMs.
No Adverse Impact (NAI). New development should not increase risk elsewhere—codify and enforce NAI countywide.
One watershed system. Coordinate cities, county, TxDOT, USACE, upstream counties, and sand-mine operators so conveyance, detention, and maintenance work as a system.
12 Action Pillars
1) Finish modern risk mapping & put it to work
Operationalize MAAPnext (overland flooding, velocities, mobility impacts) for capital planning and development review now, while FEMA finalizes the maps. Continue public-facing tools (M3, Flood Education Mapping Tool) with clear “effective vs. preliminary” labeling.
Close the FEMA gap. Press FEMA and the State to accelerate preliminary→effective FIRMs (current public reporting notes continued delays into 2026). Use county policy to consider MAAPnext where it’s the best availabledata. (Houston Chronicle)
Quick metric: % of permits reviewed against MAAPnext + Atlas 14 criteria (target: 100%).
2) Lock in stronger, uniform standards (countywide + cities)
Keep Atlas-14 standards in the HCFCD PCPM (2019) and Harris County infrastructure regs, and close any variance loopholes. Align municipalities to the same floor.
Freeboard: Maintain City of Houston’s 2 ft above 500-yr (Ch.19) standard citywide; aim for 2 ft freeboard in AO, A, AE, and shaded X in unincorporated areas as a county minimum.
Detention & outflow controls: Enforce post-Atlas-14 detention rates and multi-frequency release; require on-site peak and volume controls sized to tailwater realities.
Adopt NAI ordinance language (ASFPM model) to make “no measurable rise/no new harms” enforceable.
Quick metric: % plats meeting NAI and Atlas-14 detention without variances.
3) Deliver a prioritized capital program by watershed
Focus on the 23 watersheds with a scored, public list: benefits per $1, structures removed from risk, equity (CFRTF lens), and O&M burden.
Countywide priorities:
Regional detention & conveyance upgrades tied to Atlas 14, coordinated with city storm sewers and TxDOT outfalls.
Sediment management at scale. Expand the FEMA-funded channel desilt program that secured nearly $250M in 2021; make “design for maintainability” standard in new projects.
Stormwater tunnels as a targeted tool (e.g., Buffalo/Greens/Halls corridors) advancing feasibility toward a pilot where they outperform surface options—stay evidence-led and transparent on cost/benefit.
SAFER planning build-out. Use the new SAFER study (covering ~half the county’s watersheds) to feed the project hopper and federal asks.
Lake Houston spillway gates & dredging. Support the City/Coastal Water Authority in completing gate design and long-term maintenance dredging strategy for the West Fork delta reach.
Watershed notes (examples):
Buffalo Bayou / Addicks & Barker: Coordinate with ongoing USACE Buffalo Bayou & Tributaries work; keep options open (selective widening, detention, or tunnels) per federal study direction.
Greens/Halls: Prioritize conveyance + storage + potential tunnel pilot (equity win with high benefit density).
San Jacinto (Spring, Cypress, mainstem): Accelerate regional detention partnerships upstream; integrate sediment traps and set-back rules near pits to reduce delta growth in Lake Houston. (See Pillar 6 & 7.)
Quick metric: public “Top 50” project list with BCR, equity score, O&M cost.
4) Buyouts & floodplain preservation at scale
Two tracks: (a) Voluntary buyouts (HCFCD) where projects are infeasible; (b) county Project Recovery mandatory area program where risk is intolerably high. Keep the “stay in-county” relocation incentives.
Greenways & storage: Convert acquired land to passive storage/greenways to reduce future risk and add value.
Quick metric: buyouts closed per quarter; open-space acres added.
5) Maintenance: make capacity durable
Fund a permanent desilt & repair program using FEMA/NRCS where eligible; publish a rolling 3-yr maintenance map.
Design for maintainability (access benches, hardened inlets, riparian stabilization) in every capital project.
Quick metric: miles of channel restored to design capacity per year.
6) Sand-mine & pit-capture risk reduction (San Jacinto focus)
Codify river set-backs, armored crossings, and flood emergency plans for in-floodplain pits; align local criteria with TCEQ quarry BMP rules (30 TAC 311 Subchapter J).
Create a pit-capture remediation fund seeded by performance bonds/fees; require post-mining reclamation to flood-safe end uses.
Quick metric: % pits with compliant flood plans; # of reclaimed pits.
7) Streets as secondary channels (urban flooding)
City/County program to upsize storm sewers and raise sag points where MAAPnext shows ponding; synchronize with roadway rehab.
Quick metric: lane-miles where depth–velocity at 1% event drops below hazardous thresholds.
8) Early warning, gauges, & comms
Expand Harris County Flood Warning System (more gages in sheet-flow basins; redundant power/comms), integrate push alerts and low-water crossing sensors.
Neighborhood-level nowcasts and standardized evacuation/road closure criteria.
Quick metric: % population within 3 miles of a rain+stage gage.
9) Coastal surge interface (doing both: surge and rain)
Track Coastal Texas / “Ike Dike” components and ensure interior drainage (gate-closed conditions) is accounted for in our designs. Surge protection won’t fix rainfall flooding—plan for both.
10) Equity & community governance
Use the Community Flood Resilience Task Force to set equity scoring and co-design projects; publish how community input changed designs. (Harris County Judge, cfrtf.harriscountytx.gov)
Quick metric: % of projects with documented CFRTF input; equity score trend.
11) Funding stack & federal alignment
Annualized grant calendar & “shovel-ready” shelf: FEMA BRIC/FMA/HMGP; TWDB Flood Infrastructure Fund (FIF) 2024–25 cycle; CDBG-MIT; NRCS EWP; USACE/WRDA; Texas Water Fund.
Bond program transparency. Keep the 2018 Bond dashboards, “completed Bond IDs,” and press updates current to maintain match-making credibility with federal partners. (Harris County Flood Control District)
Quick metric: external $ leveraged per local $ (target: ≥2:1).
12) Data, transparency, and O&M lifecycle costs
Single public map integrating: project pipeline & status, MAAPnext layers, buyout tracts, maintenance backlog, mowing/repairs, and 12-month bid outlook.
O&M endowment concept: dedicate a slice of every capital dollar to long-term upkeep.
Timeline
First 100 days
Publish a Top-50 priority projects list (with BCR, equity, O&M).
Adopt NAI ordinance language and reaffirm Atlas-14 PCPM as the countywide minimum.
Stand up a MAAPnext-based development review policy for best available data.
Announce an expanded desilt/repair schedule (3-yr horizon) and launch low-water crossing sensor pilots.
File pre-applications for FEMA BRIC/FMA, TWDB FIF, NRCS EWP on the Top-50 set.
1–2 years
Let construction for the first 15–20 high-BCR projects across multiple watersheds.
Close 1,000+ buyouts in deepest risk pockets; green them into storage/greenways.
Complete SAFER recommendations → add to pipeline and federal asks.
Advance Lake Houston gate design and a long-term delta dredging framework.
5–10 years
Deliver full regional detention + conveyance corridors (multi-benefit parks where feasible).
If merited by feasibility, design/construct a tunnel pilot in the corridor with the strongest cost-effectiveness and equity benefits.
Integrate interior drainage with Coastal Texas components as they progress.
State: TWDB FIF (planning, design, construction), Texas Water Fund; coordinate with GLO on CDBG-MIT.
Local: HCFCD 2018 Bond balances; city drainage funds; utility/impact fees aligned to Atlas-14/NAI. Keep the Completed Bond ID reporting up to date to strengthen match prospects. (Harris County Flood Control District)
Here’s a Top 50 Harris County Flood Resilience Project Shortlist that draws on current needs, major watershed priorities, equity considerations, and funding readiness. It’s organized by theme and watershed, with a brief note on rationale, benefits, and potential funding streams.
📋 Top 50 Priority Flood Resilience Projects
1. Regional Detention Basins (storage backbone)
Cypress Creek: North Detention Regional Basin expansion
Little Cypress Creek: Accelerated spine & tributary basins
Spring Creek: Joint Montgomery–Harris County basin package
White Oak Bayou: Additional regional basins near Cole Creek confluence
Greens Bayou: Beltway 8 regional basin expansion
Halls Bayou: North & South basin pair (equity priority)
Sims Bayou: Southeast regional detention basin
Clear Creek: Joint basin with Fort Bend/Brazoria Counties
You may disagree with these. You may also disagree with the methodology used to rank them. But at least ChatGPT gave us a starting point for discussion that didn’t take a year and cost $1.5 million. And best of all, it’s 2,000 words, not 2,000 pages, so people can read it in 10 minutes and hold government accountable.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/23/2025based on information from ChatGPT
2916 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/FRP-Groups-Rankings.png?fit=1512%2C1444&ssl=114441512adminadmin2025-08-23 17:19:072025-08-23 17:27:07ChaptGPT Develops Harris County Flood Resilience Plan for Free in 2 Minutes 52 Seconds
8/21/25 – State Representative Steve Toth, who has announced his intention to run against U.S. Congressman Dan Crenshaw in the next election cycle, posted a video on Facebook today. In it, he says prohibiting the building of youth camps in floodplains is “ridiculous.” He also worries that it would “destroy camping in Texas.”
His comment about destroying camping is a slap in the face to the parents who lost children at Camp Mystic in the July disaster on the Guadalupe River. More than 135 people died in flash flooding, many of them young girls at Camp Mystic.
Toth Video
Below is the 48-second video that Toth posted.
Text of Toth Video
Because of background noise in the video, I’ve transcribed the text below.
Toth: “HB-1 sets up legislation to protect kids from the devastating floods that took so many lives at Camp Mystic. Only the amendment that the Democrats put on it basically restricts the building of any kind of sleeping quarters in floodways, not floodplains. The kids that were killed at Mystic were actually in a floodway.”
“This is going to basically close most of the youth camps in Texas. Twenty percent of Texas is in floodplains – not floodways – floodplains. And while, yes, we want to keep camps out of floodways … the idea of trying to say that you can’t build in a floodplain is ridiculous. This is going to destroy camping in the state of Texas.“
Specifics of Bill and Amendments
HB-1 is the Youth CAMPER Act. CAMPER stands for youth Camp Alert, Mitigation, Preparedness and Emergency Response. The bill requires youth camps to develop emergency plans; train employees how to implement them; make the plans available to campers and their parents; and share them with emergency response personnel in the vicinity.
Representative Donna Howard, a Democrat from Austin (another co-author of the bill) offered the amendment that Toth complained about. It says that a state license may not be issued or renewed “for a youth camp that operates one or more cabins located within a floodplain.” Elsewhere in her amendment, Howard defines “floodplain” as the FEMA 100-year floodplain.
Howard’s amendment passed 73 to 59. Toth voted against it, even though he later voted for the bill itself as amended. HB-1 passed in the House by 135 to 1. The engrossed (as amended) version now goes to the Senate.
Problems with Toth Claims
Toth makes several misleading statements in his video.
Implying All Victims in Floodway
Toth implies all fatalities occurred in cabins located in the floodway of the Guadalupe. However, news reports indicate that many of the victims were in cabins outside the floodway although I can’t find an official count at this time.
Implying It’s Safe to Build in Floodplains
Mr. Toth implies that if all the campers had slept in the floodplain instead of the floodway, they would have been safe. That’s like a drug company downplaying a dangerous side effect.
Almost six million people live in Texas floodplains. And according to USGS, Texas consistently leads the nation in flood-related fatalities. In fact, we have more than twice the number of the next nearest state.
Serious Omissions
In Mr. Toth’s black-and-white view of flood risk (Floodway is bad; floodplain is safe), he fails to disclose the considerable uncertainty, politicking, and protesting that accompanies flood maps, largely because of the way they affect developers and flood insurance. Toth should know that if he’s running for Congress.
FEMA’s maps are based on statistical probabilities and often revised after major storms to reflect new knowledge. In the case of Camp Mystic, FEMA last revised that area’s flood maps in 2011, years before Hurricane Harvey and Atlas 14. Both the floodway and floodplains will expand based on newly acquired data. So, cabins shown outside the floodway are, in all likelihood, deep into it. That’s another potentially fatal misleading statement by Toth.
Camp Mystic in FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Cross-hatch = floodway. Aqua = 100-year floodplain. Tan = 500-year floodplain.Note small green type showing date of map: 2011.Great enlargement shows many of the cabins appear to be built in the aqua and tan areas in the upper right next to the floodway.
“Saying You Can’t Build in a Floodplain is Ridiculous”
Mr. Toth seems to be trying to legitimize building in floodplains. It’s true that many people do. In fact, about 20% of the people in Texas (5.9 million) live in 100- and 500-year floodplains. Toth seems to dismiss the risks, costs, deaths, and disruptions to the economy, like many before him.
As a society, we spend trillions of dollars on flood mitigation, flood repairs, and flood insurance. The Joint Economic Committee (JEC) estimates that the total annual economic cost of flooding—covering infrastructure damage; lost productivity; home and commercial damage; ecosystem losses; and more—ranges between $179.8 billion and $496.0 billion in 2023 dollars.
That’s a pretty hefty share of the annual federal budget. But I guess Mr. Toth isn’t thinking that far ahead. That’s not good for a man who wants to represent you in Congress.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/21/2025
2914 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/20250821-Camp-Mystic-Close-up.jpg?fit=1100%2C635&ssl=16351100adminadmin2025-08-21 21:23:162025-08-22 09:31:29Toth Fights for Right to Build Kids’ Camps in Floodplains
Massive Sand-Mine Breach Empties Hundreds of Acre-Feet into West Fork
8/24/25 – The abandoned Hanson Aggregate sand-mine on the San Jacinto West Fork had a massive breach of its northern dike this evening – unrelated to weather. According to the Montgomery County Appraisal District, Heidelberg Materials Southwest AGG LLC now owns the property where the breach occurred.
Breach Discovered Shortly after 6 PM on 8/24/25
A thousand acre-feet of water or possibly more rushed out of the 140-acre pond, obliterating everything in its path, and depositing enough sand and silt in the San Jacinto West Fork to back water up in the river.
I received a call from a neighbor who alerted me to the breach at 6:38 PM. And by the time I arrived shortly after 7 PM, the water level in the pond had dropped an estimated 8-10 feet he said.
Water was still rushing out of the pond fast enough to cause large chunks of the shore to break away, endangering onlookers who had to back away.
The water eroded a channel approximately 800 feet long, 50 to 200 feet wide and perhaps 15-20 feet deep – all in a matter of minutes.
The cause of the breach is unknown. However, aerial photos showed a small excavator and piles of drain pipe near the breach.
Photos, Video Taken Between 7 and 8 PM on 8/24/25
Below are photos and video of the devastation.
Here is a 26-second drone video taken while flying from the pond to the river.
There Must Be A Better Way!
Ironically, this mine had one of the largest setbacks on the West Fork. (See satellite image above.) The setback varied from approximately 400 feet to more than 1,000. However, there was a small drainage channel running along the northern edge of the mine that had a narrower setback And that’s where the breach occurred.
This disaster underscores the need to find a permanent, safe solution for abandoned sand mines along area rivers and streams.
I previously proposed aggregating them over time into a West Fork Greenway which could become a state park. I tentatively named the concept the Montgomery County Lake District.
Instead of letting such mines remain a dangerous blight, turn them into a recreational amenity that could add value to area homeowners and developers.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/24/25
2917 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
ChaptGPT Develops Harris County Flood Resilience Plan for Free in 2 Minutes 52 Seconds
8/23/25 – ChatGPT produced a detailed Flood Resilience Plan for Harris County for free in less than three minutes. Meanwhile, after almost a year, the engineering firm hired by Harris County for $3 million is still trying to define a vision for the plan.
Flood Resilience Plan on Agenda for Tuesday’s Commissioners Court Meeting
Item #407 on the agenda for Harris County Commissioners Court on 8/26/2025 is an update by Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) on the status of its effort to develop a county-wide Flood Resilience Plan. On October 8, 2024, the County approved hiring AECOM, a private engineering company, for $2,998,388, to develop the plan. See Item 336 on that agenda.
Almost a year later, the participants are still trying to establish a vision. They hope to finalize their goals by Spring 2026.
It seems like it’s taking the company a long time to get out of the starting blocks. So, I decided to see how long it would take ChatGPT to develop a resilience plan for the county. It took two minutes and 52 seconds and cost nothing.
Now, I am sure that experts at AECOM and Flood Control would still have to review and validate the recommendations. But this seems like a great start to me. It’s clear, concise, readable, and actionable. And it potentially saved about half of a $3 million contract. Below, see the simple question I asked and the response I got.
“Chat, can you develop a flood resilience plan for Harris County, Texas?”
Chat: Absolutely, here’s a practical, Harris-County–specific flood resilience plan you can put to work now. I’ve organized it as (1) guiding principles, (2) 12 action pillars with concrete steps, (3) a 100-day / 1–2 yr / 5–10 yr timeline, and (4) funding + governance + metrics. Sources are cited throughout.
Guiding Principles (What “Good” Looks Like)
12 Action Pillars
1) Finish modern risk mapping & put it to work
Quick metric: % of permits reviewed against MAAPnext + Atlas 14 criteria (target: 100%).
2) Lock in stronger, uniform standards (countywide + cities)
Quick metric: % plats meeting NAI and Atlas-14 detention without variances.
3) Deliver a prioritized capital program by watershed
Focus on the 23 watersheds with a scored, public list: benefits per $1, structures removed from risk, equity (CFRTF lens), and O&M burden.
Countywide priorities:
Watershed notes (examples):
Quick metric: public “Top 50” project list with BCR, equity score, O&M cost.
4) Buyouts & floodplain preservation at scale
Quick metric: buyouts closed per quarter; open-space acres added.
5) Maintenance: make capacity durable
Quick metric: miles of channel restored to design capacity per year.
6) Sand-mine & pit-capture risk reduction (San Jacinto focus)
Quick metric: % pits with compliant flood plans; # of reclaimed pits.
7) Streets as secondary channels (urban flooding)
Quick metric: lane-miles where depth–velocity at 1% event drops below hazardous thresholds.
8) Early warning, gauges, & comms
Quick metric: % population within 3 miles of a rain+stage gage.
9) Coastal surge interface (doing both: surge and rain)
10) Equity & community governance
Quick metric: % of projects with documented CFRTF input; equity score trend.
11) Funding stack & federal alignment
Quick metric: external $ leveraged per local $ (target: ≥2:1).
12) Data, transparency, and O&M lifecycle costs
Timeline
First 100 days
1–2 years
5–10 years
Funding (How to Pay for It)
Governance & Roles
What You Can Do Next (Fast Wins)
Top 50 Projects
Here’s a Top 50 Harris County Flood Resilience Project Shortlist that draws on current needs, major watershed priorities, equity considerations, and funding readiness. It’s organized by theme and watershed, with a brief note on rationale, benefits, and potential funding streams.
📋 Top 50 Priority Flood Resilience Projects
1. Regional Detention Basins (storage backbone)
2. Conveyance Improvements (channels, ditches, corridors)
3. Stormwater Tunnels (feasibility and pilot builds)
4. Buyouts & Floodplain Preservation
5. Sediment & Sand-Mine Risk Management
6. Urban Flooding (streets-as-channels & storm sewers)
7. Critical Facilities & Mobility
8. Coastal Surge / Rainfall Interaction
Projects Grouped and Prioritized
ChatGPT even ranked and grouped the projects. Groups include Top 10/Immediate Priority, Next 20/Medium Term and Final 20/Long Term.
The table below shows them. However, for the sake of readability, it omits 10 columns used to calculate their scores. For a PDF that shows all columns, click here.
You may disagree with these. You may also disagree with the methodology used to rank them. But at least ChatGPT gave us a starting point for discussion that didn’t take a year and cost $1.5 million. And best of all, it’s 2,000 words, not 2,000 pages, so people can read it in 10 minutes and hold government accountable.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/23/2025 based on information from ChatGPT
2916 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
Toth Fights for Right to Build Kids’ Camps in Floodplains
8/21/25 – State Representative Steve Toth, who has announced his intention to run against U.S. Congressman Dan Crenshaw in the next election cycle, posted a video on Facebook today. In it, he says prohibiting the building of youth camps in floodplains is “ridiculous.” He also worries that it would “destroy camping in Texas.”
His comment about destroying camping is a slap in the face to the parents who lost children at Camp Mystic in the July disaster on the Guadalupe River. More than 135 people died in flash flooding, many of them young girls at Camp Mystic.
Toth Video
Below is the 48-second video that Toth posted.
Text of Toth Video
Because of background noise in the video, I’ve transcribed the text below.
Toth: “HB-1 sets up legislation to protect kids from the devastating floods that took so many lives at Camp Mystic. Only the amendment that the Democrats put on it basically restricts the building of any kind of sleeping quarters in floodways, not floodplains. The kids that were killed at Mystic were actually in a floodway.”
“This is going to basically close most of the youth camps in Texas. Twenty percent of Texas is in floodplains – not floodways – floodplains. And while, yes, we want to keep camps out of floodways … the idea of trying to say that you can’t build in a floodplain is ridiculous. This is going to destroy camping in the state of Texas.“
Specifics of Bill and Amendments
HB-1 is the Youth CAMPER Act. CAMPER stands for youth Camp Alert, Mitigation, Preparedness and Emergency Response. The bill requires youth camps to develop emergency plans; train employees how to implement them; make the plans available to campers and their parents; and share them with emergency response personnel in the vicinity.
Here’s the full text of the bill as introduced, which Toth co-authored with dozens of his colleagues. For more on HB-1, see the House analysis.
Representative Donna Howard, a Democrat from Austin (another co-author of the bill) offered the amendment that Toth complained about. It says that a state license may not be issued or renewed “for a youth camp that operates one or more cabins located within a floodplain.” Elsewhere in her amendment, Howard defines “floodplain” as the FEMA 100-year floodplain.
Howard’s amendment passed 73 to 59. Toth voted against it, even though he later voted for the bill itself as amended. HB-1 passed in the House by 135 to 1. The engrossed (as amended) version now goes to the Senate.
Problems with Toth Claims
Toth makes several misleading statements in his video.
Implying All Victims in Floodway
Toth implies all fatalities occurred in cabins located in the floodway of the Guadalupe. However, news reports indicate that many of the victims were in cabins outside the floodway although I can’t find an official count at this time.
Implying It’s Safe to Build in Floodplains
Mr. Toth implies that if all the campers had slept in the floodplain instead of the floodway, they would have been safe. That’s like a drug company downplaying a dangerous side effect.
Almost six million people live in Texas floodplains. And according to USGS, Texas consistently leads the nation in flood-related fatalities. In fact, we have more than twice the number of the next nearest state.
Serious Omissions
In Mr. Toth’s black-and-white view of flood risk (Floodway is bad; floodplain is safe), he fails to disclose the considerable uncertainty, politicking, and protesting that accompanies flood maps, largely because of the way they affect developers and flood insurance. Toth should know that if he’s running for Congress.
FEMA’s maps are based on statistical probabilities and often revised after major storms to reflect new knowledge. In the case of Camp Mystic, FEMA last revised that area’s flood maps in 2011, years before Hurricane Harvey and Atlas 14. Both the floodway and floodplains will expand based on newly acquired data. So, cabins shown outside the floodway are, in all likelihood, deep into it. That’s another potentially fatal misleading statement by Toth.
“Saying You Can’t Build in a Floodplain is Ridiculous”
Mr. Toth seems to be trying to legitimize building in floodplains. It’s true that many people do. In fact, about 20% of the people in Texas (5.9 million) live in 100- and 500-year floodplains. Toth seems to dismiss the risks, costs, deaths, and disruptions to the economy, like many before him.
Because of thinking like that, more people live in Texas floodplains than the populations of 30 states. And that comes at a tremendous cost to taxpayers, not just those who pay with their lives.
As a society, we spend trillions of dollars on flood mitigation, flood repairs, and flood insurance. The Joint Economic Committee (JEC) estimates that the total annual economic cost of flooding—covering infrastructure damage; lost productivity; home and commercial damage; ecosystem losses; and more—ranges between $179.8 billion and $496.0 billion in 2023 dollars.
That’s a pretty hefty share of the annual federal budget. But I guess Mr. Toth isn’t thinking that far ahead. That’s not good for a man who wants to represent you in Congress.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/21/2025
2914 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.