11/21/24 – Last week, the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District published a request for qualifications (RFQ) for consultants interested in conducting an alternative water supply feasibility study for Northeast Harris County.
Mike Turco, the District’s general manager, said he is specifically focused on the area east of Lake Houston, which is experiencing tremendous growth. The completion of the Grand Parkway has triggered much of that growth. And with it will come increased water demand, which has the potential to trigger subsidence.
“Alternative Water” Reduces Effects of Subsidence
The District defines “an alternative water supply” as a source that does not trigger subsidence. That most often means a source other than groundwater. Subsidence frequently results from excessive groundwater extraction. That can cause compaction of the earth and a whole range of consequences.
Subsidence can also cause bowls in the landscape that trap water and increase flood risk Subsidence can even change the gradient of streams, slowing water down and backing it up.
An SMU study found that subsidence can cause faulting and damage structures such as homes, roads, pipelines, storm sewers, sanitary sewers and more.
Differential subsidence can create another set of problems altogether. For instance, the rate of subsidence at the Harris/Montgomery county line is much greater than the rate at the Lake Houston Dam.
That has the potential to tilt the lake toward its headwaters. And that could reduce the freeboard factor (feet above flood level) for homes in northern Harris County.
But alternative water sources can reduce all those impacts.
Examples of Alternative Water
In this region, surface water, i.e., from Lake Houston, is the most common “alternative water source,” according to the District’s definition. Lake Houston provides water for more than 2 million people without causing any subsidence.
One example of an alternative water source. Lake Houston from Kingwood’s East End Park. By Dr. Charles Campbell.
So if we already have the major source of water in the area, why look at other alternatives? The planning horizon for water projects is typically 50 years. The RFQ specifically mentions recommendations to meet demand through 2070.
Given expected population growth during that period, the region may need more than Lake Houston. So it behooves us to look at all available alternatives.
According to Turco, right now, the City is already aggressively expanding water distribution from Lake Houston to areas like Spring, which has experienced some of the worst subsidence in the region – 30.5 centimeters, slightly more than a foot since 2007. See below.
Subsidence is widely considered to be irreversible. It’s comforting to know that people are already planning for the welfare of our grandchildren.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/21/24
2641 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Campbell-sunrise-12_3_18-small.jpg?fit=1500%2C1114&ssl=111141500adminadmin2024-11-21 19:58:482024-11-22 11:16:39Subsidence District to Study Alternative Water Supply for NE Harris County
11/20/2024 – The Texas General Land Office (GLO) confirmed funding approval from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for seven Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) projects.
In June of last year, HCFCD submitted two projects lists to GLO for $825 million in HUD Community Development Block Grant disaster relief (CDBG-DR) funding and flood mitigation (CDBG-MIT) funding.
Since then, HCFCD has worked with GLO to finalize the HUD applications. HCFCD presented an update to Commissioner’s Court in early October, 2024. Today, GLO provided an update to the update.
CDBG-DR Projects
According to an email from GLO spokesperson Brittany Eck received today, seven DR projects have received funding approvals to date. They include:
Eck also said that five more CDBG-DR projects are under final quality-control review. “We are making sure the project submissions are complete and meet all federal eligibility requirements so that there are not issues or concerns down the road.”
Disaster Relief projects have the tightest deadlines. So, all parties focused on those first.
CDBG-MIT Funding Still Under Review
“Seventeen CDBG-mitigation projects are still in various stages of preliminary review,” said Eck.
“We are working back and forth on requests for more information required by HUD on many of the projects,” said Eck. “We continue to work very closely with the HCFCD team to make sure they have all available resources needed to complete the applications. Overall our team is very pleased with the progress being made and the relationship continues to be strong.”
Only two mitigation projects have not yet been submitted for preliminary review.
Channel Conveyance Improvements (C147-00-00-E002) in the Sims Bayou Watershed.
Tremendous Progress
“HCFCD has made tremendous progress on these funds,” said Eck. “However, the rate of approval may not yet demonstrate the progress being made behind the scenes.”
She added, “This process, especially considering the amount funds being administered is an extremely lengthy federal process. Additionally HCFCD has needed to combine projects due to functionality and the GLO is working closely with them to ensure eligibility in the most efficient timeframe imaginable.”
Kingwood Projects Not Mentioned in This Update
Eck did not comment on the status of two Kingwood projects. I can only assume they are still under review. She did not mention any that had been eliminated.
Two additional stormwater detention basins upstream from Taylor Gully on Woodridge Village property acquired by HCFCD and the City of Houston.
Woodridge Village detention basin photographed on 10/25/24. Project paused pending outcome of HUD financing approval.
In its October update to Commissioners Court, HCFCD said the Woodridge Stormwater Detention Basins were originally below the funding line for CDBG-DR.
“The original engineering analysis indicated that only Woodridge Basin Compartment 1 was needed for the Taylor Gully mitigation,” said the update. “As the analysis has progressed it indicates that Compartment 2 (or a portion of it) may also be needed. Due to other projects potentially reducing in budget from the initial estimates, there may be funding available to include the Woodridge basin in the Taylor Gully project.”
That word “may” in the last sentence worries me.
HCFCD did not propose the Kingwood Diversion Ditch project for HUD consideration. HCFCD called the diversion ditch one of the two most important projects in Kingwood. That funding will have to come from somewhere else.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/20/24
2640 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/20241025-DJI_20241025151115_0018_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2024-11-20 18:32:292024-11-20 18:32:31GLO, HUD Funding Approved for 7 HCFCD Projects So Far
11/19/2024 – The time to fully complete half of all FEMA-funded buyouts takes more than five years from disaster to closeout.
The screen capture below was taken from a presentation earlier this month to the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force by Thao Costis, head of Harris County’s Housing and Community Development Department.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) steps as shown to Harris County Flood Task Force on 11/6/24. For higher res PDF, click here.
The slide compares the time it takes to pay off an insurance claim (lower left) to the time it takes to complete a buyout (upper right).
The median is the midpoint of a frequency distribution. That means there is an equal probability of any given transaction falling above it or below it.
The thirteen steps involved in the buyout process as federal state and local governments pass information up and down the ladder to each other and homeowners can take more than six years at times. Meanwhile, insurance payouts usually take six months.
80% of Buyouts Go to Those Making Less than Median Income for Region
Sadly, buyouts affect the most vulnerable among us the most often. Approximately half of all buyouts in Harris County go to homeowners that fall into the bottom quartile of the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index.
The bottom two quartiles (those making less than the median income for the region) account for a whopping 80% of all buyouts.
Typically, government agencies buy out homes that flood repetitively. That’s because insurance payouts after multiple floods can easily exceed the cost of a home.
But FEMA doesn’t make it easy. This 68-page PDF details all the procedures involved in a FEMA buyout.
Low-income homeowners generally are the least able to afford insurance and often have higher flood risk.
The higher flood risk can stem from living in older homes, built when less stringent building regulations were in place and when flood risk (or our estimates of it) were lower.
The Case for Business Process Re-Engineering
Regardless of the reason, buyout candidates have few good choices if they don’t have insurance. They may not be able to afford to move or afford fix up their homes. And staying put may entail health risks.
Buyout candidates may also not have the time, skills and financial resources to understand their options, navigate the application process, and wait out bureaucracies.
Buyout flow chart. Where the money comes from, how it gets to homeowners and different types of grants that are available.
Five years is a long time to wait with black mold growing in the walls.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/FEMA-Buyout-Process.jpg?fit=1100%2C611&ssl=16111100adminadmin2024-11-19 17:51:492024-11-22 14:17:53Half of FEMA-Funded Buyouts Take More Than 5 Years
Subsidence District to Study Alternative Water Supply for NE Harris County
11/21/24 – Last week, the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District published a request for qualifications (RFQ) for consultants interested in conducting an alternative water supply feasibility study for Northeast Harris County.
Mike Turco, the District’s general manager, said he is specifically focused on the area east of Lake Houston, which is experiencing tremendous growth. The completion of the Grand Parkway has triggered much of that growth. And with it will come increased water demand, which has the potential to trigger subsidence.
“Alternative Water” Reduces Effects of Subsidence
The District defines “an alternative water supply” as a source that does not trigger subsidence. That most often means a source other than groundwater. Subsidence frequently results from excessive groundwater extraction. That can cause compaction of the earth and a whole range of consequences.
Such compaction caused an entire Baytown subdivision to sink into Galveston Bay.
Subsidence can also cause bowls in the landscape that trap water and increase flood risk Subsidence can even change the gradient of streams, slowing water down and backing it up.
An SMU study found that subsidence can cause faulting and damage structures such as homes, roads, pipelines, storm sewers, sanitary sewers and more.
Differential subsidence can create another set of problems altogether. For instance, the rate of subsidence at the Harris/Montgomery county line is much greater than the rate at the Lake Houston Dam.
That has the potential to tilt the lake toward its headwaters. And that could reduce the freeboard factor (feet above flood level) for homes in northern Harris County.
But alternative water sources can reduce all those impacts.
Examples of Alternative Water
In this region, surface water, i.e., from Lake Houston, is the most common “alternative water source,” according to the District’s definition. Lake Houston provides water for more than 2 million people without causing any subsidence.
So if we already have the major source of water in the area, why look at other alternatives? The planning horizon for water projects is typically 50 years. The RFQ specifically mentions recommendations to meet demand through 2070.
Given expected population growth during that period, the region may need more than Lake Houston. So it behooves us to look at all available alternatives.
According to Turco, right now, the City is already aggressively expanding water distribution from Lake Houston to areas like Spring, which has experienced some of the worst subsidence in the region – 30.5 centimeters, slightly more than a foot since 2007. See below.
The City is also expanding the Northeast Waster Purification Plant and bringing in water from Lake Livingston via the Luce Bayou Inter-basin Transfer Project. But will it be enough to meet demand 50 years from now?
Other alternative sources could conceivably reduce demands on Lake Houston. They include but are not limited to:
For More Information
A District spokesperson said they want to look at all options, costs and timing. To review the RFQ, click here.
For the District’s latest annual report on subsidence, see this six-page executive summary, this 47-page presentation, or the 307-page full report with appendices.
Subsidence is widely considered to be irreversible. It’s comforting to know that people are already planning for the welfare of our grandchildren.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/21/24
2641 Days since Hurricane Harvey
GLO, HUD Funding Approved for 7 HCFCD Projects So Far
11/20/2024 – The Texas General Land Office (GLO) confirmed funding approval from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for seven Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) projects.
In June of last year, HCFCD submitted two projects lists to GLO for $825 million in HUD Community Development Block Grant disaster relief (CDBG-DR) funding and flood mitigation (CDBG-MIT) funding.
Since then, HCFCD has worked with GLO to finalize the HUD applications. HCFCD presented an update to Commissioner’s Court in early October, 2024. Today, GLO provided an update to the update.
CDBG-DR Projects
According to an email from GLO spokesperson Brittany Eck received today, seven DR projects have received funding approvals to date. They include:
Eck also said that five more CDBG-DR projects are under final quality-control review. “We are making sure the project submissions are complete and meet all federal eligibility requirements so that there are not issues or concerns down the road.”
Disaster Relief projects have the tightest deadlines. So, all parties focused on those first.
CDBG-MIT Funding Still Under Review
“Seventeen CDBG-mitigation projects are still in various stages of preliminary review,” said Eck.
“We are working back and forth on requests for more information required by HUD on many of the projects,” said Eck. “We continue to work very closely with the HCFCD team to make sure they have all available resources needed to complete the applications. Overall our team is very pleased with the progress being made and the relationship continues to be strong.”
Only two mitigation projects have not yet been submitted for preliminary review.
Tremendous Progress
“HCFCD has made tremendous progress on these funds,” said Eck. “However, the rate of approval may not yet demonstrate the progress being made behind the scenes.”
She added, “This process, especially considering the amount funds being administered is an extremely lengthy federal process. Additionally HCFCD has needed to combine projects due to functionality and the GLO is working closely with them to ensure eligibility in the most efficient timeframe imaginable.”
Kingwood Projects Not Mentioned in This Update
Eck did not comment on the status of two Kingwood projects. I can only assume they are still under review. She did not mention any that had been eliminated.
The two Kingwood projects:
In its October update to Commissioners Court, HCFCD said the Woodridge Stormwater Detention Basins were originally below the funding line for CDBG-DR.
“The original engineering analysis indicated that only Woodridge Basin Compartment 1 was needed for the Taylor Gully mitigation,” said the update. “As the analysis has progressed it indicates that Compartment 2 (or a portion of it) may also be needed. Due to other projects potentially reducing in budget from the initial estimates, there may be funding available to include the Woodridge basin in the Taylor Gully project.”
That word “may” in the last sentence worries me.
HCFCD did not propose the Kingwood Diversion Ditch project for HUD consideration. HCFCD called the diversion ditch one of the two most important projects in Kingwood. That funding will have to come from somewhere else.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/20/24
2640 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Half of FEMA-Funded Buyouts Take More Than 5 Years
11/19/2024 – The time to fully complete half of all FEMA-funded buyouts takes more than five years from disaster to closeout.
The screen capture below was taken from a presentation earlier this month to the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force by Thao Costis, head of Harris County’s Housing and Community Development Department.
The slide compares the time it takes to pay off an insurance claim (lower left) to the time it takes to complete a buyout (upper right).
The median is the midpoint of a frequency distribution. That means there is an equal probability of any given transaction falling above it or below it.
The thirteen steps involved in the buyout process as federal state and local governments pass information up and down the ladder to each other and homeowners can take more than six years at times. Meanwhile, insurance payouts usually take six months.
80% of Buyouts Go to Those Making Less than Median Income for Region
Sadly, buyouts affect the most vulnerable among us the most often. Approximately half of all buyouts in Harris County go to homeowners that fall into the bottom quartile of the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index.
The bottom two quartiles (those making less than the median income for the region) account for a whopping 80% of all buyouts.
Typically, government agencies buy out homes that flood repetitively. That’s because insurance payouts after multiple floods can easily exceed the cost of a home.
But FEMA doesn’t make it easy. This 68-page PDF details all the procedures involved in a FEMA buyout.
Low-income homeowners generally are the least able to afford insurance and often have higher flood risk.
The higher flood risk can stem from living in older homes, built when less stringent building regulations were in place and when flood risk (or our estimates of it) were lower.
The Case for Business Process Re-Engineering
Regardless of the reason, buyout candidates have few good choices if they don’t have insurance. They may not be able to afford to move or afford fix up their homes. And staying put may entail health risks.
Buyout candidates may also not have the time, skills and financial resources to understand their options, navigate the application process, and wait out bureaucracies.
Five years is a long time to wait with black mold growing in the walls.
It’s a classic case for business process re-engineering which buyouts desperately need.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/19/2024
2639 Days since Hurricane Harvey