August 16, 2025 – At its August 18, 2025 meeting, the Board of Directors of the Southeast Texas Flood Control District will discuss dissolving the District and taking all action necessary, through legal counsel, to formally close out all banking accounts and to satisfy any outstanding debts. See the agenda here.
District Formed After Imelda
The Southeast Texas Flood Control District, LGC is a local government corporation of Hardin, Jefferson, Orange, Chambers, Liberty, Newton, Jasper and Tyler Counties. They created it to coordinate flood-control efforts among the sponsoring counties and regional drainage districts, conservation districts, municipalities and other regional entities and communities.
The counties adopted the resolution approving the district in 2020. That was shortly after Tropical Storm Imelda dumped as much as 43 inches of rain over parts of Southeast Texas from Galveston to Beaumont in 2019.
Tropical Storm Imelda in 2019 dumped more than 40″ of rain near Beaumont. NASA photo.
Hurricane Harvey had created even more devastation throughout the same areas just two years earlier.
Original Purpose of District Now Duplicated
The hope articulated in the articles of incorporation was that the District could protect residents, infrastructure, industry, businesses and housing against flooding by improving, enlarging and integrating damage-reduction systems.
When asked why the group was considering dissolving, Fred Jackson, Executive Director of the District, said that the need had not gone away but the group’s efforts were duplicated by other groups that had also sprung up.
I could find no website for the Southeast Texas Flood Control District. Several flood control experts in Harris County had never even heard of it. So, it appears the vision may not have come together quite the way the founders hoped.
Need for Flood-Mitigation Simplification to Facilitate Cross-Jurisdictional Solutions
The fate of the Southeast Texas Flood Control District underscores the difficulty of coordinating multiple government agencies from municipal to federal across wide areas. Rural areas may find it especially hard to navigate the jurisdictional labyrinth. That’s why the bipartisan bill to streamline FEMA recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is so important.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/16/2025
2909 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Imelda.jpg?fit=1100%2C751&ssl=17511100adminadmin2025-08-16 19:34:352025-08-16 19:45:48Southeast Texas Flood Control District Could Dissolve on Monday
8/15/25 – The San Jacinto River Authority and City of Conroe issued a joint press release about the settlement this morning of their nine-year legal battle over water rates. This press release just came in. I’ve added subheads to help highlight key points. Otherwise, the text between the lines is verbatim:
SJRA Directors Unanimously Approve
Conroe, Texas—Today the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) Board of Directors unanimously approved the execution of a Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement with the City of Conroe to end current litigation related to the SJRA Groundwater Reduction Plan (GRP). The City of Conroe considered and approved the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement at a City Council meeting on Thursday.
End to Legal Squabbles is Mutually Beneficial
SJRA General Manager, Aubrey Spear, said “We appreciate the City of Conroe’s efforts in working with SJRA in reaching this settlement agreement. Putting this litigation behind us is best for all GRP participants and their rate payers. With Conroe’s payment and savings on legal fees, the wholesale water rates will go down. Ending the litigation also strengthens our partnership with Conroe to continue supplying water to its growing population.”
Conroe City Administrator, Gary Scott, said “After months of negotiations, I am pleased with an outcome that is truly beneficial to both parties. Securing additional water is critical to Conroe’s economic growth and long-term vitality. We recognize and appreciate the efforts of the San Jacinto River Authority in working with us. This agreement represents a shared commitment to the betterment of us all. This is a historic decision that sets Conroe on the path to the future.”
The agreement settles legal disputes between the parties dating back to 2016 when the City of Conroe disputed increases in wholesale water rates related to SJRA’s 2010 Groundwater Reduction Plan contract.
Conroe Agrees to Pay Full Amount
In the settlement, the City of Conroe agrees to pay the full amount that it has short-paid SJRA since 2017 to the present that it has been holding in escrow. Conroe also agrees to begin paying the current rate for treated surface water from Lake Conroe and the groundwater pumpage fee going forward.
SJRA Agrees to Provide More Surface Water and More
On the other hand, SJRA agrees to provide Conroe with additional surface water, reduce the term of Conroe’s GRP contract from 80 years to 40 years, forgive penalties and fees on past due amounts, and clarify in the contract that there is no obligation by the City of Conroe to participate in future GRP phases or expansion of the GRP water treatment plant.
Documents Not Yet Available
Agreement documents are in the process of being fully executed.
Reliance on Groundwater Has Contributed to Subsidence
This is good news for both parties. It will reduce the amount they spend on legal fees that rate- and taxpayers have funded.
However, the press release did not address how it will affect the amount of groundwater that Conroe pumps aside from saying that SJRA will provide Conroe with “additional surface water.”
Subsidence in southern Montgomery County including Conroe and the Woodlands is among the most severe in the region. SJRA’s Water Treatment Plant and the Groundwater Reduction Plan were at the heart of the lawsuit. Both were intended to reduce subsidence. And they did briefly when the plant first came online in 2015. Then the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) started pumping huge amounts of groundwater, claiming there was no connection between the loss of groundwater and subsidence.
LSGCD says on their Resources Page under the subsidence tab that, “…the rate at which [their] compaction occurs is 10 times (10x) slower than the rate at which compaction occurs in Harris County.”
Regardless, a huge area is still sinking 8 to 12 millimeters per year. And most of Montgomery County is sinking at least 6 according to this subsidence map recently published by the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.
Subsidence Has Triggered Faults
The subsidence has triggered faults in the area. That in turn has damaged homes, streets and drainage infrastructure. I spent a whole day last week taking a fault tour of the Woodlands with area residents. Below are three of dozens of pictures I took at day.
Fault line under the foundation cracked this Woodland’s home’s slab and walls.Front steps are now twice their original height because the front yard sank relative to the front door.Faulting damage in parking lot of Woodland’s High School.
Millimeters may not sound like much. But 12 millimeters per year is half an inch per year. During the life of a 30-year mortgage, that’s 15 inches…plus a lot of home and street repairs, and a lot of foundation leveling.
Inland subsidence has also been linked to flooding. It can change the gradient of streams and rivers, so water moves more slowly and builds higher during floods.
And differential subsidence (between two areas) can reduce the height of structures above floodplains. For instance, the subsidence rate in Conroe is far higher than subsidence at the Lake Houston Dam. That means homes north of the dam have less freeboard (height above expected floods). Said another way, it’s like tilting Lake Houston toward the homes north of the dam.
SJRA has not yet responded to questions about how the settlement will affect Conroe’s groundwater pumping.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/15/25
2908 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/2025/08/10-year-Subsidence-Rates.png?fit=1624%2C1532&ssl=115321624adminadmin2025-08-15 15:55:562025-08-15 16:14:58SJRA, Conroe Settle Lawsuit after Nine Years
8/14/25 – A State of Texas lawsuit against the Triple PG sand mine that began in 2019 will now be tried, at the earliest, in 2026. Meanwhile problems at the mine have gotten worse. Breaches in their dikes that triggered the lawsuit have recurred. And five pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids (HVL) are now exposed and suspended over another breach.
Trial Date Set for Feb. 2026
According to the fourth revised scheduling order issued by a Travis County district court, the lawsuit brought by the State of Texas against the Triple PG sand mine in Porter will now go to a jury no earlier than February 2026.
The State first sued Triple PG in 2019 for mining sand in a pit whose dikes had been breached in at least two places. White Oak Creek was flowing through an area being actively mined and then out through Caney Creek into the headwaters of Lake Houston, which supplies drinking water for more than 2 million people.
The judge quickly issued an injunction against the mine’s owner. Mining briefly stopped while miners repaired the dikes. But the dikes failed again. And the mine briefly became an issue in a Houston mayoral election when Tony Buzbee visited the breach for a photo op in May 2019.
Tony Buzbee (plaid shirt) visited Triple PG breach into Caney Creek with camera crew in May 2019 during mayoral campaign.
On the legal front, the mine’s owner, a cardiologist from Nacogdoches, named Prabhakar R. Guniganti, transferred ownership of the mine through a series of shell companies and trust funds that he and his family controlled. This forced the attorney general’s office to sue one entity after another and name the cardiologist individually as a defendant.
In August and September this year, the parties will designate their expert witnesses.
During October and November, they will complete discovery.
In December, they will challenge each other’s expert witnesses and file remaining unheard motions.
In January, they will exchange witness and exhibit lists.
And the Jury Trial will begin on February 9, 2026.
However, the possibility exists that this could slip again as it has at least twice before. The judge originally scheduled this case for trial on October 10, 2023, and October 28, 2024.
General Reasons for Delays
Aside from specific legal maneuverings in this case, lawsuits in general can drag on for years. Many moving parts must align. And each step can take months or even longer. The main causes include:
1. Pre-trial Procedures Can Be Slow
Discovery – Both sides gather and exchange evidence, which can involve reviewing thousands of documents, deposing witnesses, and fighting over what’s admissible.
Motions and Hearings – Lawyers may file motions to dismiss, suppress evidence, or get summary judgment. Each motion needs time for responses and court rulings.
Scheduling Conflicts – Courts juggle many cases, and attorneys may have other trials or deadlines.
2. Complexity of the Case
Many Issues – Multi-defendant cases or lawsuits involving technical subjects (e.g., environmental law, patents) require more experts, more evidence, and more coordination.
Specialized Evidence – Expert reports, forensic analysis, or financial audits can take months to produce.
3. Negotiation and Settlement Efforts
Even if both sides want to settle, negotiations can stall while parties evaluate risk, await rulings on key motions, or try mediation.
4. Appeals and Interlocutory Delays
If a court rules on an important issue before trial, one side might appeal immediately. This “pause” can last a year or more before the trial even resumes.
5. Strategic Delays
Parties may deliberately slow the process to pressure the other side—by increasing costs, waiting for evidence to weaken, or banking on a change in law or circumstance.
6. Court Backlogs
In busy jurisdictions, there can be long waits simply for your turn on the docket—especially after events like the COVID-19 pandemic, which created major case backlogs.
Dikes Open and Pipelines Exposed
In July, mining continued with the dikes wide open again.
The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration regulation §56.20010 regarding retaining dams specifies that “If failure of a water or silt retaining dam will create a hazard, it shall be of substantial construction and inspected at regular intervals.”
TCEQ also has requirements for constructing dikes and levees. Note the paragraph on page 2 about structural integrity. “Construction must be based upon sound engineering principles. Structural integrity must withstand any waters which the levee or other improvement is intended to restrain or carry, considering all topographic features, including existing levees.”
Pipeline Issues Now Added to Complaint
Breaches aren’t the only issue at the Triple PG mine (now operated under the name Texas Fracsand). The daredevils operating the mine have exposed five pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids.
Triple PG Breaches and Exposed Pipelines on July 24, 2025
I alerted the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality after discovering this, but have not yet heard of the outcome of their investigation.
When went back today to see if the operator had addressed either the breaches or the pipeline issues, I found no changes.
The breeches were still wide open and the pipelines unprotected.
Pray that we don’t see any more delays in the jury trial.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/14/25
2907 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/2025/08/20250814-DJI_20250814160312_0143_D-2.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-08-14 17:40:112025-08-14 17:42:04Triple PG Sand-Mine Lawsuit Slides to Year 7 as Problems Get Worse
Southeast Texas Flood Control District Could Dissolve on Monday
August 16, 2025 – At its August 18, 2025 meeting, the Board of Directors of the Southeast Texas Flood Control District will discuss dissolving the District and taking all action necessary, through legal counsel, to formally close out all banking accounts and to satisfy any outstanding debts. See the agenda here.
District Formed After Imelda
The Southeast Texas Flood Control District, LGC is a local government corporation of Hardin, Jefferson, Orange, Chambers, Liberty, Newton, Jasper and Tyler Counties. They created it to coordinate flood-control efforts among the sponsoring counties and regional drainage districts, conservation districts, municipalities and other regional entities and communities.
The counties adopted the resolution approving the district in 2020. That was shortly after Tropical Storm Imelda dumped as much as 43 inches of rain over parts of Southeast Texas from Galveston to Beaumont in 2019.
Hurricane Harvey had created even more devastation throughout the same areas just two years earlier.
Original Purpose of District Now Duplicated
The hope articulated in the articles of incorporation was that the District could protect residents, infrastructure, industry, businesses and housing against flooding by improving, enlarging and integrating damage-reduction systems.
This PowerPoint presentation explains more about the background, purpose, and origins of the group.
When asked why the group was considering dissolving, Fred Jackson, Executive Director of the District, said that the need had not gone away but the group’s efforts were duplicated by other groups that had also sprung up.
I could find no website for the Southeast Texas Flood Control District. Several flood control experts in Harris County had never even heard of it. So, it appears the vision may not have come together quite the way the founders hoped.
Need for Flood-Mitigation Simplification to Facilitate Cross-Jurisdictional Solutions
The fate of the Southeast Texas Flood Control District underscores the difficulty of coordinating multiple government agencies from municipal to federal across wide areas. Rural areas may find it especially hard to navigate the jurisdictional labyrinth. That’s why the bipartisan bill to streamline FEMA recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is so important.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/16/2025
2909 Days since Hurricane Harvey
SJRA, Conroe Settle Lawsuit after Nine Years
8/15/25 – The San Jacinto River Authority and City of Conroe issued a joint press release about the settlement this morning of their nine-year legal battle over water rates. This press release just came in. I’ve added subheads to help highlight key points. Otherwise, the text between the lines is verbatim:
SJRA Directors Unanimously Approve
Conroe, Texas—Today the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) Board of Directors unanimously approved the execution of a Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement with the City of Conroe to end current litigation related to the SJRA Groundwater Reduction Plan (GRP). The City of Conroe considered and approved the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement at a City Council meeting on Thursday.
End to Legal Squabbles is Mutually Beneficial
SJRA General Manager, Aubrey Spear, said “We appreciate the City of Conroe’s efforts in working with SJRA in reaching this settlement agreement. Putting this litigation behind us is best for all GRP participants and their rate payers. With Conroe’s payment and savings on legal fees, the wholesale water rates will go down. Ending the litigation also strengthens our partnership with Conroe to continue supplying water to its growing population.”
Conroe City Administrator, Gary Scott, said “After months of negotiations, I am pleased with an outcome that is truly beneficial to both parties. Securing additional water is critical to Conroe’s economic growth and long-term vitality. We recognize and appreciate the efforts of the San Jacinto River Authority in working with us. This agreement represents a shared commitment to the betterment of us all. This is a historic decision that sets Conroe on the path to the future.”
The agreement settles legal disputes between the parties dating back to 2016 when the City of Conroe disputed increases in wholesale water rates related to SJRA’s 2010 Groundwater Reduction Plan contract.
Conroe Agrees to Pay Full Amount
In the settlement, the City of Conroe agrees to pay the full amount that it has short-paid SJRA since 2017 to the present that it has been holding in escrow. Conroe also agrees to begin paying the current rate for treated surface water from Lake Conroe and the groundwater pumpage fee going forward.
SJRA Agrees to Provide More Surface Water and More
On the other hand, SJRA agrees to provide Conroe with additional surface water, reduce the term of Conroe’s GRP contract from 80 years to 40 years, forgive penalties and fees on past due amounts, and clarify in the contract that there is no obligation by the City of Conroe to participate in future GRP phases or expansion of the GRP water treatment plant.
Documents Not Yet Available
Agreement documents are in the process of being fully executed.
Reliance on Groundwater Has Contributed to Subsidence
This is good news for both parties. It will reduce the amount they spend on legal fees that rate- and taxpayers have funded.
However, the press release did not address how it will affect the amount of groundwater that Conroe pumps aside from saying that SJRA will provide Conroe with “additional surface water.”
Subsidence in southern Montgomery County including Conroe and the Woodlands is among the most severe in the region. SJRA’s Water Treatment Plant and the Groundwater Reduction Plan were at the heart of the lawsuit. Both were intended to reduce subsidence. And they did briefly when the plant first came online in 2015. Then the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) started pumping huge amounts of groundwater, claiming there was no connection between the loss of groundwater and subsidence.
LSGCD says on their Resources Page under the subsidence tab that, “…the rate at which [their] compaction occurs is 10 times (10x) slower than the rate at which compaction occurs in Harris County.”
Regardless, a huge area is still sinking 8 to 12 millimeters per year. And most of Montgomery County is sinking at least 6 according to this subsidence map recently published by the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.
Subsidence Has Triggered Faults
The subsidence has triggered faults in the area. That in turn has damaged homes, streets and drainage infrastructure. I spent a whole day last week taking a fault tour of the Woodlands with area residents. Below are three of dozens of pictures I took at day.
Millimeters may not sound like much. But 12 millimeters per year is half an inch per year. During the life of a 30-year mortgage, that’s 15 inches…plus a lot of home and street repairs, and a lot of foundation leveling.
Inland subsidence has also been linked to flooding. It can change the gradient of streams and rivers, so water moves more slowly and builds higher during floods.
And differential subsidence (between two areas) can reduce the height of structures above floodplains. For instance, the subsidence rate in Conroe is far higher than subsidence at the Lake Houston Dam. That means homes north of the dam have less freeboard (height above expected floods). Said another way, it’s like tilting Lake Houston toward the homes north of the dam.
SJRA has not yet responded to questions about how the settlement will affect Conroe’s groundwater pumping.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/15/25
2908 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.
Triple PG Sand-Mine Lawsuit Slides to Year 7 as Problems Get Worse
8/14/25 – A State of Texas lawsuit against the Triple PG sand mine that began in 2019 will now be tried, at the earliest, in 2026. Meanwhile problems at the mine have gotten worse. Breaches in their dikes that triggered the lawsuit have recurred. And five pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids (HVL) are now exposed and suspended over another breach.
Trial Date Set for Feb. 2026
According to the fourth revised scheduling order issued by a Travis County district court, the lawsuit brought by the State of Texas against the Triple PG sand mine in Porter will now go to a jury no earlier than February 2026.
The State first sued Triple PG in 2019 for mining sand in a pit whose dikes had been breached in at least two places. White Oak Creek was flowing through an area being actively mined and then out through Caney Creek into the headwaters of Lake Houston, which supplies drinking water for more than 2 million people.
Shell Game and Other Early Delays
The judge quickly issued an injunction against the mine’s owner. Mining briefly stopped while miners repaired the dikes. But the dikes failed again. And the mine briefly became an issue in a Houston mayoral election when Tony Buzbee visited the breach for a photo op in May 2019.
The judge then ordered the miners to develop an engineered solution that permanently sealed off the pit. However, the dikes failed yet again last year and have remained open for more than a year.
Between breaches they pumped water over their dikes onto adjoining properties.
Meanwhile, other hazards developed at the mine. The miners have exposed pipelines carrying natural gas and highly volatile liquids by mining near a utility easement.
On the legal front, the mine’s owner, a cardiologist from Nacogdoches, named Prabhakar R. Guniganti, transferred ownership of the mine through a series of shell companies and trust funds that he and his family controlled. This forced the attorney general’s office to sue one entity after another and name the cardiologist individually as a defendant.
Fourth Scheduling Order
Meanwhile, hundreds of miles away, the case lumbers along. See the full FOURTH Amended Scheduling Order here.
If this sticks…
However, the possibility exists that this could slip again as it has at least twice before. The judge originally scheduled this case for trial on October 10, 2023, and October 28, 2024.
General Reasons for Delays
Aside from specific legal maneuverings in this case, lawsuits in general can drag on for years. Many moving parts must align. And each step can take months or even longer. The main causes include:
1. Pre-trial Procedures Can Be Slow
2. Complexity of the Case
3. Negotiation and Settlement Efforts
4. Appeals and Interlocutory Delays
5. Strategic Delays
6. Court Backlogs
Dikes Open and Pipelines Exposed
In July, mining continued with the dikes wide open again.
Dike Regulations
The Triple PG mine received 15 citations in two years from the Mine Safety and Health Administration before the TCEQ filed its lawsuit through the Texas Attorney General. See the MSHA site for a key to the citations.
The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration regulation §56.20010 regarding retaining dams specifies that “If failure of a water or silt retaining dam will create a hazard, it shall be of substantial construction and inspected at regular intervals.”
TCEQ also has requirements for constructing dikes and levees. Note the paragraph on page 2 about structural integrity. “Construction must be based upon sound engineering principles. Structural integrity must withstand any waters which the levee or other improvement is intended to restrain or carry, considering all topographic features, including existing levees.”
Pipeline Issues Now Added to Complaint
Breaches aren’t the only issue at the Triple PG mine (now operated under the name Texas Fracsand). The daredevils operating the mine have exposed five pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids.
I alerted the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality after discovering this, but have not yet heard of the outcome of their investigation.
The breeches were still wide open and the pipelines unprotected.
Pray that we don’t see any more delays in the jury trial.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/14/25
2907 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.