10/22/24 – The New York Times ran a story today about a radical English experiment to reduce flooding. The gist: giving land back to the sea by turning farm land into salt marsh.
The subhead claims, “When a huge tract of land on the Somerset coast was deliberately flooded, the project was slammed as ‘ridiculous’ by a local lawmaker. But the results have been transformative.”
The experiment is ten years old this year. And the area had record rains. Even after they received a month’s worth of rain in a day in September, no one flooded. Experts believe that England’s traditional defenses – seawalls, barriers and sandbanks – will be insufficient to hold back the sea in the face of climate change.
History of Project
The radical English experiment cost about $20 million pounds ($26 million). “Rather than attempting to resist the sea, the land was given back to it,” says author Rory Smith. He claims that, “A decade on, its results might offer a blueprint for how some parts of Britain — and the rest of the world — might adapt to the reality of climate change.”
“The idea was to turn what had been farmland into salt marsh, an ancient ecosystem that soaks up water as the tide comes in and releases it as the sea retreats.”
The project encountered considerable pushback from displaced farmers. One called it “environmental vandalism.” And a member of parliament called it an “extravagant, ridiculous scheme.”
The NYT points out that since 1860, Britain has lost 85 percent of its salt marshes, according to the U.K. Center for Ecology and Hydrology, a research institute. The article continues, “Returning Steart [the area where the experiment took place] to swampy wilderness was, in part, an acknowledgment that the overdevelopment of coastal land had made flooding more likely, not less.”
Benefits of Experiment
The return to nature began in 2014. After digging a series of canals that look like the veins of a leaf, they let water flow in. It wasn’t pretty at first. But ten years later, “The marsh acts as a natural and hugely effective bulwark against flooding, absorbing and slowing tides before they can encroach inland,” says the leader of a local conservation group.
The man-made swamp has become a haven for wildlife and birdwatching. It is now a source of immense local pride. Cows can even graze within it, eating natural grasses, which allows farmers to sell their leaner beef at a premium. Scientists have even documented the ability of the swamp to act as a carbon sink.
The alliance between the conservationists and the local population has helped to overcome initial objections to the project, which some describe as “rewilding.”
Could It Work Here?
The conservationists in charge of the radical English experiment believe it has great applicability for America and Australia.
Hurricane Ike devastated developed areas along the Bolivar Peninsula in 2008 that still haven’t fully recovered today. But the swamps behind them recovered immediately. Areas still flooded, but flood damage was greatly reduced.
The Times story reminded me of exploring salt marshes near High Island and Anahuac with my Nikon. I’m constantly reminded of the beauty of nature and how the marshes buffer us from flooding. Even more, I’m dazzled by the abundant wildlife.
I took the shot below in December several years ago during the fall migration near Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge. The geese were so thick you could barely see the ground. Or the sky!
Tens of thousands of snow geese taking wing over salt marsh near Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge.
Sometimes the solution may not be to fight nature, but to enjoy it more.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/22/24
2611 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20081214-Snow-Geese-2972.jpg?fit=1100%2C731&ssl=17311100adminadmin2024-10-22 21:25:512024-10-22 21:45:33Radical English Experiment Reduces Flooding
Correction 10/28/24 – The table showing maintenance dollars/square mile has been updatedwith maintenance dollars/stream miles, a more appropriate metric for maintenance dollars.
10/21/24 – Today is the first day of early voting. Knowing where maintenance dollars go may affect how you vote on Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) proposed 63% maintenance-tax increase.
Before you vote, you should know that maintenance dollars spent per stream mile in different watersheds vary by 28:1. And that the San Jacinto, Spring Creek, Little Cypress Creek, Luce Bayou and Cedar Bayou watersheds are among those that receive the fewest maintenance dollars per stream mile. They all fall in the bottom third.
Why HCFCD Requested Tax Increase
HCFCD says it needs the additional tax revenue because:
Money available for maintenance has remained flat for many years, while…
Assets needing maintenance have grown, especially since the 2018 flood bond.
Assets include flood-mitigation features, such as stormwater detention basins and channels. HCFCD has built many new ones with capital improvement funds from the bond.
What They Don’t Tell You in Flood-Tax Meetings
HCFCD has been holding in-person and virtual meetings throughout the county to explain the need for its proposed tax increase. But the one I attended did not offer any explanations for the magnitude of the tax increase.
Neither could/would HCFCD personnel answer my questions about the allocation of tax dollars among watersheds.
How, when, where, why, and on what basis will the new tax revenue be spent? My fear: another Equity Prioritization Framework for maintenance-tax dollars.
Where Money is Already Going
When looking at the data, it seems we may already have an equity prioritization framework for maintenance dollars – in practice if not in policy. To date, flood-bond dollars have gone disproportionately to watersheds where more than 50% of residents qualify as low-to-moderate income (LMI). See the eight highlighted in gold below.
Maintenance $/stream mile from Hurricane Harvey through 3Q24. Gold watersheds have majority LMI population.
The San Jacinto River watershed, Spring Creek, Little Cypress Creek, Cedar Bayou and Luce Bayou all fall predominantly within the Republican-led Precinct 3. And they all fall to the bottom of the list.
I suspect the highlighted watersheds above float higher because, as LMI-majority watersheds, they have received a disproportionate share of capital-improvement spending.
As a generalization, maintenance money follows capital-improvement spending. So, we can probably expect to see a continuation of that trend.
Other Factors Affecting Maintenance Spending
But ranking maintenance allocations is not as clearcut as ranking overall spending. In addition to watershed size, everal other factors also influence the need for maintenance. They include:
Degree of development (Undeveloped areas require less maintenance.)
Age of assets (New assets require less maintenance than older ones.)
Severity of flooding (Larger floods erode more.)
Type of asset (Is it a concrete channel or grass-lined? Concrete costs more to repair.)
Size of watershed. (Larger watersheds convey more water, creating greater damage/erosion.)
Political factors also likely influence the allocation of dollars. For instance:
Commissioner Rodney Ellis lives in the Brays Bayou watershed.
Right now, HCFCD is juggling projects to raise the LMI percentage of HUD applications totaling $825 million. HUD requires 50%. HCFCD is trying to get the percentage to 70%.
All told, if you vote for the maintenance-tax increase, understand that you may not see as much benefit from it as other parts of the county…if you see any benefit at all. Nothing in the wording of the ballot item guarantees a fair share to each watershed.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/21/2024and updated 10/28/24
2610 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/2024/10/Maint-per-SqMi-copy-e1729548059767.png?fit=1100%2C692&ssl=16921100adminadmin2024-10-21 17:52:402024-10-28 19:54:44Before You Vote, Know Where HCFCD Maintenance Dollars Go
10/20/24 – My latest FOIA request revealed some surprising details about Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) spending in the San Jacinto Watershed and how it contrasts to the Brays Bayou Watershed.
For several years, I have tracked HCFCD spending by watershed and project phase on a quarterly basis. I have discovered tremendous disparities in flood mitigation funding across the county.
From high to low, the ratio varies by more than 1000:1. The types of activities also vary greatly from watershed to watershed. The Brays and San Jacinto Watersheds make illuminating examples.
San Jacinto Watershed Vs. Brays
Out of the county’s 23 watersheds, the San Jacinto ranks in the bottom half of total funding since Harvey. Despite being the county’s largest watershed and having the most severe flooding, it comes in at #13 in terms of dollars received.
The San Jacinto Watershed received approximately $40 million between Harvey and the end of the third quarter in 2024. That’s less than 2% of the total $2.03 billion HCFCD has spent since Harvey.
Compare that to Brays Bayou where Commissioner Rodney Ellis lives.
Brays has received 10% of all the money spent by HCFCD since Harvey – $202.4 million out of $2.03 billion. That’s more than five times as much as the San Jacinto.
The totals show an impressive difference. But they don’t tell the whole story.
71% of Brays spending has gone into construction activities that actually reduce flood risk.
Meanwhile, the San Jacinto watershed received a fifth as much in total dollars. And one tenth as much went into construction that actually reduces flooding.
Data from FOIA Request
Details of San Jacinto Spending: Where Money Went
Drilling down even deeper into the data, I discovered that virtually all of the San Jacinto “construction” spending was classified as maintenance. In other words, the construction dollars went toward repairing the insufficient infrastructure that resulted in the county’s worst flooding. Very little went toward construction of new capital improvement projects.
On a sad note, HCFCD reported spending $230 on true capital-improvement construction in the San Jacinto Watershed. That’s not a typo. We’re not talking about thousands or millions. We’re talking about just a little more money than the default withdrawal from most ATMs.
That was for the Excavation and Removal (E&R) Project on the Woodridge Village property. HCFCD later cancelled the E&R project when it applied for HUD grants for Woodridge and Taylor Gully improvements.
E&R contracts give contractors the right to sell dirt excavated from detention basins in exchange for a nominal fee, usually $1,000. They make their money, not from HCFCD, but from developers, homebuilders and road builders who buy the dirt at market rates.
The single largest expenditure in the San Jacinto Watershed since Harvey was for the purchase of the Woodridge Village property itself for $13,994,735.
Spike in middle of graph is purchase of Woodridge property. Other spike in 2022 was dredging.
Here’s a breakdown of $40 million in spending against all significant projects.
Spending in San Jacinto Watershed Since Harvey
Amount 17Q3 – 24-Q3
Purchase of Woodridge Village
$13,994,735
Unspecified Maintenance Projects, most classified as construction
$8,303,416
County’s Share of Dredging (East and West Forks)
$7,278,626
SJRA’s San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Plan
$2,777,980
Bens Branch Conveyance Improvements (maint)
$1,788,949
Panther Creek Feasibility Study
$1,744,343
Kingwood Diversion Ditch Preliminary Engineering
$872,759
Baytown Storm Sewer Improvements Design Study
$810,869
Taylor Gully Preliminary Engingeering Study
$584,179
Atascocita Preliminary Flood Reduction Study
$541,186
Drainage Study for Watersheds East of Lake Houston
$298,534
Deer Park Project(s)/Design and Right of Way
$213,089
SJRA’s River Basin Sedimentation Study
$162,500
Indian Shores Partnership Project
$130,000
SJRA’s San Trap Location Study
$128,820
Redesign of Failed Sheet Pile Wall/Location Not Specified)
$118,799
Boggy Gully Study
$42,280
Lake Houston Gates Study
$23,547
USACE Support on West Fork Dredging
$9,265
$7.2 million of the HCFCD money spent in the San Jacinto Watershed since Harvey has gone toward studies. That’s almost twice as much as the $3.7 million spent on studies in the Brays Watershed during the same period.
The engineering studies are necessary to qualify for grants which might eventually lead to construction projects that mitigate flooding. But since the studies exist only on paper, they don’t actually reduce any flooding. At least, not until they qualify the area for funding.
Less than $2 Million Per Quarter with Two Exceptions
Here’s how San Jacinto Watershed funding breaks down over time.
Tall blip in middle contains Woodridge purchase. Blip in Q3 22 includes county’s share of dredging.
The thing that chaps me most about all this is Commissioner Rodney Ellis continually harping about how Kingwood gets all the money. He has convinced low-income people throughout the county that areas with high-dollar homes get all the money. The opposite is true according to the data.
Meanwhile, Ellis is pushing funding from just about everywhere else into the watershed where he lives.
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/2024/10/SJR-Basin-Pie-e1729480716722.png?fit=1100%2C654&ssl=16541100adminadmin2024-10-20 22:03:402024-10-21 09:38:30Details of HCFCD Spending in San Jacinto Watershed Since Harvey
Radical English Experiment Reduces Flooding
10/22/24 – The New York Times ran a story today about a radical English experiment to reduce flooding. The gist: giving land back to the sea by turning farm land into salt marsh.
The subhead claims, “When a huge tract of land on the Somerset coast was deliberately flooded, the project was slammed as ‘ridiculous’ by a local lawmaker. But the results have been transformative.”
The experiment is ten years old this year. And the area had record rains. Even after they received a month’s worth of rain in a day in September, no one flooded. Experts believe that England’s traditional defenses – seawalls, barriers and sandbanks – will be insufficient to hold back the sea in the face of climate change.
History of Project
The radical English experiment cost about $20 million pounds ($26 million). “Rather than attempting to resist the sea, the land was given back to it,” says author Rory Smith. He claims that, “A decade on, its results might offer a blueprint for how some parts of Britain — and the rest of the world — might adapt to the reality of climate change.”
“The idea was to turn what had been farmland into salt marsh, an ancient ecosystem that soaks up water as the tide comes in and releases it as the sea retreats.”
The project encountered considerable pushback from displaced farmers. One called it “environmental vandalism.” And a member of parliament called it an “extravagant, ridiculous scheme.”
The NYT points out that since 1860, Britain has lost 85 percent of its salt marshes, according to the U.K. Center for Ecology and Hydrology, a research institute. The article continues, “Returning Steart [the area where the experiment took place] to swampy wilderness was, in part, an acknowledgment that the overdevelopment of coastal land had made flooding more likely, not less.”
Benefits of Experiment
The return to nature began in 2014. After digging a series of canals that look like the veins of a leaf, they let water flow in. It wasn’t pretty at first. But ten years later, “The marsh acts as a natural and hugely effective bulwark against flooding, absorbing and slowing tides before they can encroach inland,” says the leader of a local conservation group.
The man-made swamp has become a haven for wildlife and birdwatching. It is now a source of immense local pride. Cows can even graze within it, eating natural grasses, which allows farmers to sell their leaner beef at a premium. Scientists have even documented the ability of the swamp to act as a carbon sink.
The alliance between the conservationists and the local population has helped to overcome initial objections to the project, which some describe as “rewilding.”
Could It Work Here?
The conservationists in charge of the radical English experiment believe it has great applicability for America and Australia.
Hurricane Ike devastated developed areas along the Bolivar Peninsula in 2008 that still haven’t fully recovered today. But the swamps behind them recovered immediately. Areas still flooded, but flood damage was greatly reduced.
The Times story reminded me of exploring salt marshes near High Island and Anahuac with my Nikon. I’m constantly reminded of the beauty of nature and how the marshes buffer us from flooding. Even more, I’m dazzled by the abundant wildlife.
I took the shot below in December several years ago during the fall migration near Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge. The geese were so thick you could barely see the ground. Or the sky!
Sometimes the solution may not be to fight nature, but to enjoy it more.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/22/24
2611 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Before You Vote, Know Where HCFCD Maintenance Dollars Go
Correction 10/28/24 – The table showing maintenance dollars/square mile has been updated with maintenance dollars/stream miles, a more appropriate metric for maintenance dollars.
10/21/24 – Today is the first day of early voting. Knowing where maintenance dollars go may affect how you vote on Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) proposed 63% maintenance-tax increase.
Before you vote, you should know that maintenance dollars spent per stream mile in different watersheds vary by 28:1. And that the San Jacinto, Spring Creek, Little Cypress Creek, Luce Bayou and Cedar Bayou watersheds are among those that receive the fewest maintenance dollars per stream mile. They all fall in the bottom third.
Why HCFCD Requested Tax Increase
HCFCD says it needs the additional tax revenue because:
Assets include flood-mitigation features, such as stormwater detention basins and channels. HCFCD has built many new ones with capital improvement funds from the bond.
What They Don’t Tell You in Flood-Tax Meetings
HCFCD has been holding in-person and virtual meetings throughout the county to explain the need for its proposed tax increase. But the one I attended did not offer any explanations for the magnitude of the tax increase.
Neither could/would HCFCD personnel answer my questions about the allocation of tax dollars among watersheds.
How, when, where, why, and on what basis will the new tax revenue be spent? My fear: another Equity Prioritization Framework for maintenance-tax dollars.
Where Money is Already Going
When looking at the data, it seems we may already have an equity prioritization framework for maintenance dollars – in practice if not in policy. To date, flood-bond dollars have gone disproportionately to watersheds where more than 50% of residents qualify as low-to-moderate income (LMI). See the eight highlighted in gold below.
The San Jacinto River watershed, Spring Creek, Little Cypress Creek, Cedar Bayou and Luce Bayou all fall predominantly within the Republican-led Precinct 3. And they all fall to the bottom of the list.
I suspect the highlighted watersheds above float higher because, as LMI-majority watersheds, they have received a disproportionate share of capital-improvement spending.
As a generalization, maintenance money follows capital-improvement spending. So, we can probably expect to see a continuation of that trend.
Other Factors Affecting Maintenance Spending
But ranking maintenance allocations is not as clearcut as ranking overall spending. In addition to watershed size, everal other factors also influence the need for maintenance. They include:
Political factors also likely influence the allocation of dollars. For instance:
All told, if you vote for the maintenance-tax increase, understand that you may not see as much benefit from it as other parts of the county…if you see any benefit at all. Nothing in the wording of the ballot item guarantees a fair share to each watershed.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/21/2024 and updated 10/28/24
2610 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.
Details of HCFCD Spending in San Jacinto Watershed Since Harvey
10/20/24 – My latest FOIA request revealed some surprising details about Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) spending in the San Jacinto Watershed and how it contrasts to the Brays Bayou Watershed.
For several years, I have tracked HCFCD spending by watershed and project phase on a quarterly basis. I have discovered tremendous disparities in flood mitigation funding across the county.
From high to low, the ratio varies by more than 1000:1. The types of activities also vary greatly from watershed to watershed. The Brays and San Jacinto Watersheds make illuminating examples.
San Jacinto Watershed Vs. Brays
Out of the county’s 23 watersheds, the San Jacinto ranks in the bottom half of total funding since Harvey. Despite being the county’s largest watershed and having the most severe flooding, it comes in at #13 in terms of dollars received.
The San Jacinto Watershed received approximately $40 million between Harvey and the end of the third quarter in 2024. That’s less than 2% of the total $2.03 billion HCFCD has spent since Harvey.
Compare that to Brays Bayou where Commissioner Rodney Ellis lives.
Brays has received 10% of all the money spent by HCFCD since Harvey – $202.4 million out of $2.03 billion. That’s more than five times as much as the San Jacinto.
The totals show an impressive difference. But they don’t tell the whole story.
71% of Brays spending has gone into construction activities that actually reduce flood risk.
Details of San Jacinto Spending: Where Money Went
Drilling down even deeper into the data, I discovered that virtually all of the San Jacinto “construction” spending was classified as maintenance. In other words, the construction dollars went toward repairing the insufficient infrastructure that resulted in the county’s worst flooding. Very little went toward construction of new capital improvement projects.
On a sad note, HCFCD reported spending $230 on true capital-improvement construction in the San Jacinto Watershed. That’s not a typo. We’re not talking about thousands or millions. We’re talking about just a little more money than the default withdrawal from most ATMs.
That was for the Excavation and Removal (E&R) Project on the Woodridge Village property. HCFCD later cancelled the E&R project when it applied for HUD grants for Woodridge and Taylor Gully improvements.
E&R contracts give contractors the right to sell dirt excavated from detention basins in exchange for a nominal fee, usually $1,000. They make their money, not from HCFCD, but from developers, homebuilders and road builders who buy the dirt at market rates.
The single largest expenditure in the San Jacinto Watershed since Harvey was for the purchase of the Woodridge Village property itself for $13,994,735.
Here’s a breakdown of $40 million in spending against all significant projects.
$7.2 million of the HCFCD money spent in the San Jacinto Watershed since Harvey has gone toward studies. That’s almost twice as much as the $3.7 million spent on studies in the Brays Watershed during the same period.
The engineering studies are necessary to qualify for grants which might eventually lead to construction projects that mitigate flooding. But since the studies exist only on paper, they don’t actually reduce any flooding. At least, not until they qualify the area for funding.
For instance, none of the studies that HCFCD partnered with the SJRA on (River Basin Master Drainage Study, Sedimentation, Sand Traps) have advanced to the construction phase yet.
Less than $2 Million Per Quarter with Two Exceptions
Here’s how San Jacinto Watershed funding breaks down over time.
The thing that chaps me most about all this is Commissioner Rodney Ellis continually harping about how Kingwood gets all the money. He has convinced low-income people throughout the county that areas with high-dollar homes get all the money. The opposite is true according to the data.
Meanwhile, Ellis is pushing funding from just about everywhere else into the watershed where he lives.
Such heavy-handed politics make me skeptical about the 63% tax increase being proposed by HCFCD.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/20/2024
2609 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.