3/22/25 – Enough of the pendulum politics already! We seem to swing from the left to the right and from overregulation to no regulation, oblivious to any middle ground.
The latest agency in the Washington crosshairs: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). No doubt, most business people can cite an extreme example of EPA overregulation. And no doubt, many will welcome a relaxation of environmental regulations.
But the last 45 years have proven that businesses can make a fair profit while still protecting the environment, jobs and public health.
Those old enough to remember a time before the EPA know what I’m talking about. As I read several stories today about the gutting of the EPA, I not-so-fondly remembered scary images from my early childhood growing up in the Cleveland and Pittsburgh areas in the 1950s.
Choking, eye-watering smokestacks of the steel mills in Pittsburgh. The mills belched so much pollution that my father had to take a change of shirts to work. A white shirt would turn gray by midday.
The Cuyahoga River caught fire a total of 13 times dating back to 1868. It was one of the most polluted rivers in America. Photo: Cleveland State University Library.
At one time, people thought such horrors were the price of jobs and prosperity!
But the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen fifty-fold in the 45 years after the formation of the EPA in 1970. That’s far more than the seven-fold rise in the 45 years before the EPA.
Is Changing EPA’s Mission a Wink-Wink to Polluters?
I just finished reading two articles in the New York Times about the EPA. The first began, “The Trump administration said it would repeal dozens of the nation’s most significant environmental regulations, including limits on pollution from tailpipes and smokestacks, protections for wetlands…” Yada Yada.
The second article quoted Lee Zeldrin, new head of the EPA. He reportedly said, “Those changes…would allow the agency to better focus on its core mission and powering the Great American Comeback.”
The core mission no longer seems to be environmental protection as the name of the agency implies. According to Zeldrin, the core mission is now lowering the costs of “buying a car, heating a home and running a business.”
The same article also quoted Ann E. Carlson, a professor of environmental law at the UCLA School of Law. She said the changes at EPA are “…essentially a wink, wink to…pollute with what may be close to impunity.”
Need for Consistency
No doubt, most business people in Texas can cite an example of EPA overregulation. And no doubt, many will welcome a relaxation of environmental regulations.
But consider this. In general, one of the primary needs of most businesses is consistency. What CEO would invest a billion dollars in a new plant knowing that a change in the Oval Office could cause a regulatory flip back in the opposite direction before construction of the plant even finished?
Such uncertainty slows businesses down. It makes planning, forecasting, and decision-making much more difficult as business leaders weigh political probabilities.
Opportunities Overlooked
In my opinion, rather than only trying to make government more efficient with a chainsaw, we should be trying to make it work better. And when it comes to flood mitigation, opportunities abound.
Last night, I published an article about how Montgomery County has spent an incredible eight years running the grant gauntlet to obtain money to clean logjams out of its streams. And it could still be another year or more before the work can even begin. The work will likely take only months.
But instead of focusing on such obvious opportunities, we are simply lopping off branches of government that we still need.
Why We Still Need a Strong EPA
As I not-so-fondly reminisced about those horrific images from my childhood, I received a text about Hallett’s sand mine on the West Fork San Jacinto. The text contained a video showing the mine still leaking wastewater into the public water supply – after a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) investigation.
State, county and local government agencies, such as TCEQ, are far more susceptible to lobbying groups, such as the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association, than a Federal agency like the EPA.
The video shows a road acting like a berm to keep wastewater from escaping. But close scrutiny shows the wastewater going under the road, rather than over it, as it used to.
Video supplied by concerned nearby resident shows wastewater now goes under road instead of over it.
Historically, different levels of government in the U.S. complement each other. When local levels fail, we need other levels to help. Without the EPA as a backstop for the TCEQ, you will likely not only experience higher flood risk, but higher health risks, too.
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/2019/07/CuyahogaFire.jpg?fit=1500%2C997&ssl=19971500adminadmin2025-03-22 21:32:112025-03-24 08:33:20Editorial: The Perils of Pendulum Politics
3/21/25 – Montgomery County has received approval from the Texas General Land Office (GLO) for three “de-snagging” projects totaling $60,374,999.66. The grant, first reported in 2022, stems from money allocated to Texas by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) after Hurricane Harvey.
I’ll discuss the complex, lengthy process involved in awarding these grants below, but first let me outline the projects and who will benefit.
De-snagging Projects Will Benefit 185,000 People
The $60 million will enable three “de-snagging” projects. They include:
East County – $36.4 million
Lake Creek – $9 million
Stewart Creek – $15 million (also includes bank stabilization).
All three projects involve removing trees and loose debris that have fallen into streams or rivers.
Obstructions on San Jacinto East Fork after May 2024 flood……backed water up, threatening homes and businesses.
In many cases, log jams have formed around bridges, also threatening roadways. In addition, other debris – such as old cars, tires, and appliances – also hinders conveyance and streamflow.
The three projects also involve stream bank protection, i.e., with riprap or revegetation. But the Stewart Creek project also involves bank stabilization to help restore and harden the bank that has been lost.
The projects will help protect more than 185,000 people. Specifically, East County will help protect an estimated 115,439 people. Stewart Creek will help 42,560 people. And Lake Creek will benefit 28,325 people.
Mitigation Funds Not Limited to Just Harvey Debris
According to the GLO, all three areas qualify as HUD Most Impacted and Distressed (HMID). And even though the money comes out of an allocation made to the state after Hurricane Harvey, debris that has fallen into streams after Harvey still qualifies for removal.
That’s because of a distinction between disaster-relief and flood-mitigation funds. Disaster relief funds can only be used to help repair damage directly resulting from a storm. However, flood mitigation funds can also be used to help prevent future damage. Disaster relief looks back; flood mitigation looks forward.
So, anything in the streams today qualifies for removal because it would help prevent future flooding. That includes, but is not limited to debris deposited by Imelda in 2019 and three storms in 2024.
In 2024, we had a derecho that downed many trees. Then we had floods in May that swept them into streams and against bridges. Finally, we had Hurricane Beryl that downed even more trees. We experienced one wave of destruction after another.
More trees blocking San Jacinto East Fork after Beryl.
There is no doubt that people are suffering and will continue to suffer if the log jams are not removed.
According to Morgan Lumbley with the Montgomery County Office of Emergency Management, trees aren’t the only problem. The streams also contain debris such as cars, tires, refrigerators and trash that can back water up and flood people.
Multi-Step Funding Process Finally Near End
These funds come from HUD via the GLO and the Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC). This complex process involves multiple levels of government.
In 2018, Congress voted $28 billion for mitigation money throughout the U.S. Then HUD allocated $4.3 billion overall to the state of Texas for disasters in 2015 through 2018. That included Hurricane Harvey.
The Federal register for the HUD allocation was not even published until August 2019, two years after Harvey, and 1.5 years after the appropriation.
After Texas received its allocation, GLO had to devise a state action plan and go through a public comment period and approval processes.
At the state level, a large portion of the Texas’ allocation went to local Councils of Governments, such as the HGAC. After HGAC finally knew how much it had to work with, it had to devise a plan for distributing the money locally.
HGAC then had to develop and negotiate a plan called a MOD (Method of Distribution) based on all the requests for assistance from its competing members. A MOD basically is a list of sub-recipients stating how much each gets for what. That involved lengthy submission and project-ranking processes.
Once finalized, the GLO approved HGAC’s MOD in principle. Then entities like Montgomery County actually started developing highly detailed applications involving demographic data, engineering reports, surveys, maps and more. That step is very expensive, which explains why projects are conditionally approved at a high level first.
Where We Stand Now and Next Steps
The GLO just approved three of those applications for MoCo. This page on the GLO site outlines a six-step approval process for Council-of Government projects.
Now that the GLO has approved the MoCo project applications, only one more step remains before work can start. The GLO and MoCo must sign contracts formalizing their agreements. Then work can begin toward construction. That involves bids, procurement of vendors, obtaining any necessary permits, etc.
Whew! And after all that…the actual de-snagging can begin – hopefully before hurricane season…next year.
One observer noted that while upfront processes take years, the actual work might take only months. That makes a great case for de-snagging thebusiness processes around flood mitigation. Perhaps we can get DOGE working on that.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/21/25
2761 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/20240820-DJI_20240820122710_0662_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-03-21 18:27:432025-03-24 16:53:10MoCo Receives Approval from GLO for 3 De-snagging Projects Totaling $60 Million
3/20/25 – Montgomery County has asked U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw for federal help in sponsoring a study on repurposing old sand mines. Please send a letter expressing your support. For less than $1 – the cost of an envelope and a stamp – you could help reduce your flood risk.
Why Repurposing is Necessary
Southern Montgomery County has more than 20 square miles of sand mines. To put that in perspective, together, they exceed the size of Lake Houston. In fact, five of the mine complexes are wider than the lake itself at its widest point.
Some mines are still producing, but many have been abandoned – without any remediation or repurposing. Worse, an area 50% larger than Harris County drains through the mines and flushes sediment from them into Lake Houston during floods. The sediment reduces room for water, backs water up, contributes to flooding, and raises water treatment costs.
Exposed sediment in San Jacinto West Fork sand mine
Potential Benefits of Redevelopment
Other areas around the world have used old mines to enhance floodplain management, ecological restoration, and community recreation. Thoughtful redevelopment of Montgomery County mines might yield significant benefits here, too. That’s why we need this study.
Challenges of Abandoned Sand Mines in Floodplains:
Flooding Risks: Abandoned sand mines in floodplains can exacerbate flooding by altering natural water flow and increasing sediment deposition downstream. For instance, during Hurricane Harvey, sand from mining operations contributed to sediment buildup in the San Jacinto River, reducing its capacity and worsening flood conditions.
Environmental Degradation: Unrehabilitated mines can lead to habitat loss, water quality issues, and destabilized riverbanks, impacting local ecosystems and communities.
Potential Repurposing Strategies
Sand-mining in floodplains typically leaves large holes in the ground. With planning, they can turn into extra storage for flood water. Typical secondary uses include:
Water Management Infrastructure:
Stormwater Retention Basins: Repurposed mines can serve as detention basins, managing stormwater runoff and reducing urban flooding.
Groundwater Recharge Zones: These areas can facilitate groundwater recharge, enhancing water availability during dry periods.
Wetland and Riparian Restoration:
Flood Mitigation: Transforming abandoned mines into wetlands can act as natural sponges, absorbing excess floodwater and reducing downstream flooding.
Habitat Creation: Restored wetlands and riparian buffers support biodiversity, offering habitats for various species and improving water quality through natural filtration.
Recreational and Educational Facilities:
Parks and Trails: Redeveloping these areas into parks with walking trails, fishing spots, and bird-watching platforms can provide community recreational spaces.
Environmental Education Centers: Establishing centers focused on local ecology and conservation can promote environmental awareness and stewardship.
The Little Miami River, Ohio, USA: Provides flood control benefits, supports a rich array of wildlife, and has become an important recreational and educational resource for surrounding communities.
Maasplassen Lakes, Netherlands: Former sand pits were transformed into a network of lakes used for water sports, nature conservation, and tourism, boosting the local economy and biodiversity.
Chattahoochee RiverLands, Georgia, USA: Abandoned sand and gravel pits are being converted into natural areas and parks as part of a greenway system, focusing on habitat restoration and public access.
Tinsley Green Sand Quarry, South Yorkshire, UK: Now supports a wide range of species, including several that are rare or protected.
Angler’s Paradise, United Kingdom: A sand and gravel pit in Devon, England, was transformed into a well-known fishing and leisure destination known as Angler’s Paradise.
Considerations for the San Jacinto Watershed
For similar plans to succeed here in the San Jacinto Watershed, in my opinion, we need:
Comprehensive Planning: Collaborative efforts among local governments, environmental organizations, and communities are essential to develop sustainable repurposing plans.
Environmental Assessments: Conduct thorough assessments to address potential contamination and ensure safe redevelopment.
Community Engagement: Involving local residents in planning ensures that projects meet community needs and gain public support.
By implementing these strategies, abandoned sand mines in the San Jacinto watershed could potentially be transformed into assets that enhance environmental health, provide recreational opportunities, and improve flood resilience for communities downstream.
Miners could incorporate the long-term vision for the area into their mine-abandonment plans. But first, we need the vision. So, reduce your flood risk for less than $1.
Suggested Letter
Here is a sample letter. Feel free to copy it or put it in your own words. But send it right away. The deadline is March 28, 2025.
[Insert Your Return Address Here]
March 20, 2025
The Honorable Dan Crenshaw
248 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Supporting Flood Damage Reduction and Environmental Enhancements Study of Sand Mines Along the West Fork of the San Jacinto River
Dear Congressman Crenshaw:
I am writing to express my support for the proposed feasibility study regarding the re-purposing of sand mines along the West Fork of the San Jacinto River for flood damage reduction and environmental enhancements. This project will help mitigate flood risks, enhance water quality, restore ecological function, and improve the resilience of East Montgomery County as well as people downstream in Harris County.
The proposed feasibility study will focus on the reuse of existing sand mines. It presents an opportunity to improve drainage, provide for additional floodwater storage, and enhance recreation.
To put the problem in perspective, five of the sand mines are wider than Lake Houston. And all sand mines combined exceed the area of Lake Houston, which provides water for more than 2 million people.
We thank you for giving this project your full consideration and support and for your commitment to addressing the drainage challenges in Montgomery County Precinct 4.
Respectfully,
[Signature/Name]
Send your letter today! Granted, repurposing mines would be a long-term effort. But it could help reduce your flood risk for less than $1.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/20/25
2760 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/2021/08/20210505-DJI_0724.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2025-03-20 17:40:362025-03-20 23:50:20Reduce Your Flood Risk for Less than $1
Editorial: The Perils of Pendulum Politics
3/22/25 – Enough of the pendulum politics already! We seem to swing from the left to the right and from overregulation to no regulation, oblivious to any middle ground.
The latest agency in the Washington crosshairs: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). No doubt, most business people can cite an extreme example of EPA overregulation. And no doubt, many will welcome a relaxation of environmental regulations.
But the last 45 years have proven that businesses can make a fair profit while still protecting the environment, jobs and public health.
Those old enough to remember a time before the EPA know what I’m talking about. As I read several stories today about the gutting of the EPA, I not-so-fondly remembered scary images from my early childhood growing up in the Cleveland and Pittsburgh areas in the 1950s.
But the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen fifty-fold in the 45 years after the formation of the EPA in 1970. That’s far more than the seven-fold rise in the 45 years before the EPA.
Is Changing EPA’s Mission a Wink-Wink to Polluters?
I just finished reading two articles in the New York Times about the EPA. The first began, “The Trump administration said it would repeal dozens of the nation’s most significant environmental regulations, including limits on pollution from tailpipes and smokestacks, protections for wetlands…” Yada Yada.
The second article quoted Lee Zeldrin, new head of the EPA. He reportedly said, “Those changes…would allow the agency to better focus on its core mission and powering the Great American Comeback.”
The core mission no longer seems to be environmental protection as the name of the agency implies. According to Zeldrin, the core mission is now lowering the costs of “buying a car, heating a home and running a business.”
The same article also quoted Ann E. Carlson, a professor of environmental law at the UCLA School of Law. She said the changes at EPA are “…essentially a wink, wink to…pollute with what may be close to impunity.”
Need for Consistency
No doubt, most business people in Texas can cite an example of EPA overregulation. And no doubt, many will welcome a relaxation of environmental regulations.
But consider this. In general, one of the primary needs of most businesses is consistency. What CEO would invest a billion dollars in a new plant knowing that a change in the Oval Office could cause a regulatory flip back in the opposite direction before construction of the plant even finished?
Such uncertainty slows businesses down. It makes planning, forecasting, and decision-making much more difficult as business leaders weigh political probabilities.
Opportunities Overlooked
In my opinion, rather than only trying to make government more efficient with a chainsaw, we should be trying to make it work better. And when it comes to flood mitigation, opportunities abound.
Last night, I published an article about how Montgomery County has spent an incredible eight years running the grant gauntlet to obtain money to clean logjams out of its streams. And it could still be another year or more before the work can even begin. The work will likely take only months.
But instead of focusing on such obvious opportunities, we are simply lopping off branches of government that we still need.
Why We Still Need a Strong EPA
As I not-so-fondly reminisced about those horrific images from my childhood, I received a text about Hallett’s sand mine on the West Fork San Jacinto. The text contained a video showing the mine still leaking wastewater into the public water supply – after a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) investigation.
State, county and local government agencies, such as TCEQ, are far more susceptible to lobbying groups, such as the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association, than a Federal agency like the EPA.
The video shows a road acting like a berm to keep wastewater from escaping. But close scrutiny shows the wastewater going under the road, rather than over it, as it used to.
Historically, different levels of government in the U.S. complement each other. When local levels fail, we need other levels to help. Without the EPA as a backstop for the TCEQ, you will likely not only experience higher flood risk, but higher health risks, too.
During the COVID pandemic, the EPA announced a pause in its enforcement operations. Air pollution surged 62% in three weeks after the announcement, according to a Texas A&M study. Such are the perils of pendulum politics.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/22/25
2762 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.
MoCo Receives Approval from GLO for 3 De-snagging Projects Totaling $60 Million
3/21/25 – Montgomery County has received approval from the Texas General Land Office (GLO) for three “de-snagging” projects totaling $60,374,999.66. The grant, first reported in 2022, stems from money allocated to Texas by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) after Hurricane Harvey.
I’ll discuss the complex, lengthy process involved in awarding these grants below, but first let me outline the projects and who will benefit.
De-snagging Projects Will Benefit 185,000 People
The $60 million will enable three “de-snagging” projects. They include:
All three projects involve removing trees and loose debris that have fallen into streams or rivers.
In many cases, log jams have formed around bridges, also threatening roadways. In addition, other debris – such as old cars, tires, and appliances – also hinders conveyance and streamflow.
The three projects also involve stream bank protection, i.e., with riprap or revegetation. But the Stewart Creek project also involves bank stabilization to help restore and harden the bank that has been lost.
The projects will help protect more than 185,000 people. Specifically, East County will help protect an estimated 115,439 people. Stewart Creek will help 42,560 people. And Lake Creek will benefit 28,325 people.
Mitigation Funds Not Limited to Just Harvey Debris
According to the GLO, all three areas qualify as HUD Most Impacted and Distressed (HMID). And even though the money comes out of an allocation made to the state after Hurricane Harvey, debris that has fallen into streams after Harvey still qualifies for removal.
That’s because of a distinction between disaster-relief and flood-mitigation funds. Disaster relief funds can only be used to help repair damage directly resulting from a storm. However, flood mitigation funds can also be used to help prevent future damage. Disaster relief looks back; flood mitigation looks forward.
So, anything in the streams today qualifies for removal because it would help prevent future flooding. That includes, but is not limited to debris deposited by Imelda in 2019 and three storms in 2024.
In 2024, we had a derecho that downed many trees. Then we had floods in May that swept them into streams and against bridges. Finally, we had Hurricane Beryl that downed even more trees. We experienced one wave of destruction after another.
There is no doubt that people are suffering and will continue to suffer if the log jams are not removed.
According to Morgan Lumbley with the Montgomery County Office of Emergency Management, trees aren’t the only problem. The streams also contain debris such as cars, tires, refrigerators and trash that can back water up and flood people.
Multi-Step Funding Process Finally Near End
These funds come from HUD via the GLO and the Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC). This complex process involves multiple levels of government.
In 2018, Congress voted $28 billion for mitigation money throughout the U.S. Then HUD allocated $4.3 billion overall to the state of Texas for disasters in 2015 through 2018. That included Hurricane Harvey.
The Federal register for the HUD allocation was not even published until August 2019, two years after Harvey, and 1.5 years after the appropriation.
After Texas received its allocation, GLO had to devise a state action plan and go through a public comment period and approval processes.
At the state level, a large portion of the Texas’ allocation went to local Councils of Governments, such as the HGAC. After HGAC finally knew how much it had to work with, it had to devise a plan for distributing the money locally.
HGAC then had to develop and negotiate a plan called a MOD (Method of Distribution) based on all the requests for assistance from its competing members. A MOD basically is a list of sub-recipients stating how much each gets for what. That involved lengthy submission and project-ranking processes.
Once finalized, the GLO approved HGAC’s MOD in principle. Then entities like Montgomery County actually started developing highly detailed applications involving demographic data, engineering reports, surveys, maps and more. That step is very expensive, which explains why projects are conditionally approved at a high level first.
Where We Stand Now and Next Steps
The GLO just approved three of those applications for MoCo. This page on the GLO site outlines a six-step approval process for Council-of Government projects.
Now that the GLO has approved the MoCo project applications, only one more step remains before work can start. The GLO and MoCo must sign contracts formalizing their agreements. Then work can begin toward construction. That involves bids, procurement of vendors, obtaining any necessary permits, etc.
Whew! And after all that…the actual de-snagging can begin – hopefully before hurricane season…next year.
One observer noted that while upfront processes take years, the actual work might take only months. That makes a great case for de-snagging the business processes around flood mitigation. Perhaps we can get DOGE working on that.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/21/25
2761 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Reduce Your Flood Risk for Less than $1
3/20/25 – Montgomery County has asked U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw for federal help in sponsoring a study on repurposing old sand mines. Please send a letter expressing your support. For less than $1 – the cost of an envelope and a stamp – you could help reduce your flood risk.
Why Repurposing is Necessary
Southern Montgomery County has more than 20 square miles of sand mines. To put that in perspective, together, they exceed the size of Lake Houston. In fact, five of the mine complexes are wider than the lake itself at its widest point.
Some mines are still producing, but many have been abandoned – without any remediation or repurposing. Worse, an area 50% larger than Harris County drains through the mines and flushes sediment from them into Lake Houston during floods. The sediment reduces room for water, backs water up, contributes to flooding, and raises water treatment costs.
Potential Benefits of Redevelopment
Other areas around the world have used old mines to enhance floodplain management, ecological restoration, and community recreation. Thoughtful redevelopment of Montgomery County mines might yield significant benefits here, too. That’s why we need this study.
Challenges of Abandoned Sand Mines in Floodplains:
Potential Repurposing Strategies
Sand-mining in floodplains typically leaves large holes in the ground. With planning, they can turn into extra storage for flood water. Typical secondary uses include:
Water Management Infrastructure:
Wetland and Riparian Restoration:
Recreational and Educational Facilities:
Where It Has Worked Elsewhere
Other areas around the world have faced similar challenges and turned lemons into lemonade.
Considerations for the San Jacinto Watershed
For similar plans to succeed here in the San Jacinto Watershed, in my opinion, we need:
By implementing these strategies, abandoned sand mines in the San Jacinto watershed could potentially be transformed into assets that enhance environmental health, provide recreational opportunities, and improve flood resilience for communities downstream.
Miners could incorporate the long-term vision for the area into their mine-abandonment plans. But first, we need the vision. So, reduce your flood risk for less than $1.
Suggested Letter
Here is a sample letter. Feel free to copy it or put it in your own words. But send it right away. The deadline is March 28, 2025.
[Insert Your Return Address Here]
March 20, 2025
The Honorable Dan Crenshaw
248 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Supporting Flood Damage Reduction and Environmental Enhancements Study of Sand Mines Along the West Fork of the San Jacinto River
Dear Congressman Crenshaw:
I am writing to express my support for the proposed feasibility study regarding the re-purposing of sand mines along the West Fork of the San Jacinto River for flood damage reduction and environmental enhancements. This project will help mitigate flood risks, enhance water quality, restore ecological function, and improve the resilience of East Montgomery County as well as people downstream in Harris County.
The proposed feasibility study will focus on the reuse of existing sand mines. It presents an opportunity to improve drainage, provide for additional floodwater storage, and enhance recreation.
To put the problem in perspective, five of the sand mines are wider than Lake Houston. And all sand mines combined exceed the area of Lake Houston, which provides water for more than 2 million people.
We thank you for giving this project your full consideration and support and for your commitment to addressing the drainage challenges in Montgomery County Precinct 4.
Respectfully,
[Signature/Name]
Send your letter today! Granted, repurposing mines would be a long-term effort. But it could help reduce your flood risk for less than $1.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/20/25
2760 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.