For everyone else, I’ve posted a brief summary below. It covers key provisions, including those that affect lake lowering to help reduce flood risk. Spoiler alert: I made a startling discovery at the end of the contract doc.
But let’s start from the top of the Lake Conroe contract.
Key Definition
The first few pages lay out the customary recitals and definitions found in all contracts. The key definition is that of a 1987 Certificate of Adjudication (Number 10-4963, shown in Appendix A) that governs the impoundment, use, diversion, and priorities of water in Lake Conroe.
Ownership Interests
The meat of the contract starts in Article II on page 5: Interests of the Parties. Key points:
SJRA owns the land that constitutes the Lake.
The City owns two-thirds of the water in it.
SJRA owns the remaining one-third.
Each party has the right to sell its share of the water.
Other revenues from the operation of Lake Conroe, such as income from marina leases, go toward operating and maintaining the lake.
Operational Responsibilities
Article III on Page 6 of the Lake Conroe contract lays out operational responsibilities.
SJRA:
Operates and maintains the lake and dam.
Handles all the accounting and reporting for water impounded and released.
Maintains metering devices and monitors withdrawals (must be accurate within ±5% or better)
Lets lakefront homeowners pump water directly from the lake for $150/year to water their lawns
Joint Responsibilities:
Annual reports to public and TCEQ of withdrawals.
Annual withdrawals by their respective customers.
Release of Water and Reservoir Levels (Section 3.04, )age 8)
SJRA must release water when requested by City (subject to restrictions in the Certificate). But it must do so in a way that maximizes the operational yield of the lake.
Liability and Indemnification (Section 3.05, Page 9)
Both parties are jointly liable for damages when the lake is operated according to established procedures.
If one side is negligent, that party assumes sole responsibility for any damages.
Other sections in Article III cover:
Defense of claims
Regulatory compliance
Water Quality
Annual budget and what happens if City Council fails to approve the annual budget
Monthly payments by the City to SJRA for capital, operations and maintenance expenses
Flood mitigation (Section 3.16 (c), Page 17)
Reports and Inspections; Incidental Matters
Article IV, starting on Page 17 covers:
Annual audits
Inspection of records
Disposal of surplus property
Length of Contract
This contract replaces the original 1968 Lake Conroe contract between the City and SJRA. It will remain in effect until terminated by mutual agreement during the useful life of Lake Conroe.
Default and Notice; Remedies; Mediation
Article V covers how the parties will handle disputes. It starts on page 18 and goes through page 23. Basically, it covers procedures leading up to mediation in the event of disagreements.
Force Majeure
Article VII covers force-majeure events. In law, “Force Majeure” means “unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract.” This section defines what happens during Acts of God, such as hurricanes, storms, floods, droughts, etc.
This Article allows the temporary suspension of normal rules, except those regarding payments. However, it requires resumption of the normal rules after the event.
Other Provisions
Article VIII contains addresses and contact information for each party and approval procedures.
Article IX includes provisions concerning applicable law (State of Texas), procedures for amendments, etc.
Exhibit A
The Certificate of Adjudication from the Texas Water Commission, dated February 25, 1987, limits total withdrawals from Lake Conroe to 100,000 acre feet per year. It lists the maximum withdrawal rate as 700 cubic feet per second.
Note: Some at the SJRA and City have chafed at this limitation. It restricts pre-release rates that could lower Lake Conroe in advance of approaching storms. Some want to raise the limit so that more water could be released earlier and reduce flood peaks.
The TCEQ amended the Certificate in 2010. It keeps the total withdrawals and max withdrawal rate above constant. But it added an additional use for the water. To the original municipal, industrial and mining categories, they added agriculture. It says they did that because they had not received any complaints about the previous limits within each category.
This is, in essence, a permit to release/sell water. And the permit comes with an obligation – to implement water conservation plans, which the TCEQ letter also spells out.
Exhibit B
This 2016 letter from SJRA’s management to the City explains a residential-lawn-watering permit program for lakefront homeowners. The program lets them pump water directly from the lake for a permit fee of $150 per year (as of 2016). That’s 41 cents per day.
They saved the best part for last. This was a real eye opener.
The permits mandate a “drought contingency plan” that impose watering restrictions when the level of the lake gets to 199 feet above mean sea level. Astute readers may remember that SJRA’s seasonal lake lowering plan took the lake down to 199 for large parts of the year.
Editorial Comment
Hmmmmm. Could that be why the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) fought seasonal lake lowering so vigorously?
People protesting the seasonal lake lowering policy wore red shirts saying “Stop the Drop,” and packed SJRA board meetings.
We may never know with certainty whether the loss of lawn watering was the sole or a contributing reason. But either way, unlimited watering of giant lawns for only 41 cents per day certainly helps explain at least some of the pushback from the LCA.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/21/24
2549 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/2019/04/LC-Dam-e1719277556742.jpg?fit=1200%2C549&ssl=15491200adminadmin2024-08-21 20:00:532024-08-22 10:37:16Details of Lake Conroe Contract between SJRA, City
Improving building codes to mandate higher home elevations
Requiring greater setbacks from rivers, streams and bayous
De-snagging to prevent log-jams from backing water up
Preserving wetlands, grasslands and forests to absorb and slow runoff, and to create recreational opportunities for nearby homeowners
Bio-swales and ditches to create more stormwater storage and positive drainage around homes
Buying out flood-prone homes and converting the property to recreational or flood-mitigation space.
I’m sure more techniques exist. But those represent the big categories.
Complex Decisions Involving Many Factors
No one tool works for all situations. And many of the tools that reduce flood risk fly in the face of other human values. They may conflict with other values beyond safety, that we hold dear. Consider, for instance, property rights, individual freedom, job formation, expanding the tax base, a desire to live near water, and risk-taking.
So how do professionals decide which tools to apply where and when?
Again, it depends on a number of factors. To name a few:
Is State or Federal disaster-mitigation aid available?
Is Disaster Relief aid available?
Homeowner Inquiry Prompted Exploration
A homeowner reacted to one of my posts today. She lives in a low-lying area near FM1485 and the San Jacinto East Fork. It flooded badly on May2, 2024. She was certain that dredging and tree removal from the East Fork would help. But after investigating the area online, then from the ground and air, I wasn’t sure.
The normal river elevation in that area is 47.25 feet.
But on May 2, the river rose to 77.4 feet – 17 feet above the top of the river banks and 30 feet above normal!
Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist, had this to say about the May flood. “Since 1994, this was the second highest crest of the river at FM 1485. It exceeded Tropical Storm Imelda by 4.0 ft and the October 1994 flood by 1.0 ft.”
Lindner continued, “The flood of record remains Harvey which was 4.0 ft higher than the May 2024 event. The river exceeded the .2% (500-yr) exceedance probability elevation at the FM 1485 bridge by 1.5 ft. The table below shows the top five highest peaks on the East Fork of the San Jacinto River since 1994 at that location.”
Residents in this neighborhood experienced five 100-year-or-greater floods in 20 years. That’s one every four years. Is the risk 1% or 25% per year?
See the FEMA floodplain map below for the area in question.
It shows you how difficult flood prediction can be. It also shows you why even nature lovers should give water in Texas a wide berth unless they are prepared to lose everything. The May flood wasn’t even related to a tropical event!
Yellow/green diagonal line is the Harris/Montgomery County line. Image shows neighborhood S of FM1485 near East Fork. Crosshatch=floodway, Aqua=100-year and Tan=500 year floodplain.
Unfortunately, most of the homes in this neighborhood didn’t look like people could afford to lose everything. And I saw several that had been totally obliterated along with two roads that washed out.
I’m not sure what this was. But it was the only structure semi-standing for blocks around.
Professionals Say Buyouts Best Option In This Case, But…
In an area like this, flood-mitigation professionals have few good options. Given the depth of flooding, three professionals told me that intervention would have to be on a massive and costly scale to make a difference. As a result, each suggested buyouts as the best, most cost-effective alternative in this area.
Shortly after the May event, I interviewed a young couple named Daniel and Kathleen Moore. They lived on some of the highest land in the subdivision, but had flooded three times in the seven years that they owned their home (Harvey, Imelda, and May 2024).
They were hoping for a buyout. I called again today to see if they succeeded, but they were selling their property and moving out of state with their new baby. Why?
While Daniel was restoring the home, someone burned it to the ground on July 28th. Nothing stands there now but a charred chimney.
This was a heartbreaking story that deeply affected me personally. I once lived in a home near a creek that flooded frequently when I had two young babies.
While buyouts may sometimes be the most cost-effective option, they are not easy, according to a County Emergency Management Director that I interviewed. Counties must apply for FEMA buyout money and then it can take years to evaluate and rank all the applications and distribute the money.
Forest Cove buyouts took five years after Harvey to complete.
Ironically, the fact that the Moore’s were in a 500-year floodplain may have hurt their buyout chances. FEMA likes money to go to homes that are insured but which flood frequently.
So What About Dredging and Tree Removal?
The Moore’s lived in Montgomery County. But the other family that contacted me lived on the Harris side of the county line in the same neighborhood.
Typical scene in East Fork south of FM1485Area has trees down everywhere.
Experts I talked to suggested dredging wouldn’t make an appreciable difference given the narrow width of the river channel and the height of flooding. Plus, it could undermine more trees along the heavily wooded banks.
Removing trees that have already fallen, they say, is a good idea. They could float downstream, form log dams that flood other homes, and/or harm boaters in Lake Houston. But who is responsible for removing them?
I asked Matt Barrett, head of SJRA’s Flood Management Division. Said Barrett, “SJRA’s jurisdiction does not include Harris County, so projects constructed in Harris County would have to be led by HCFCD.”
Distant Chances for Other Flood Mitigation
That said, Barrett also volunteered that SJRA has partnerships with both HCFCD and the City of Houston. The entities work together on multiple projects from the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Plan. But finding funding remains a challenge. And large scale projects are not quick to implement.
That brings us full circle to the original question in the headline. What was or is the best thing(s) homeowners can do to reduce their flooding chances? In my opinion:
Avoid buying property near water if you have a flooding concern
I’m not a professional engineer and I do not render professional engineering opinions. But I have interviewed a lot of flood victims who wish they could turn back the hands of time and build on higher ground.
Foundation being endangered by riverbank erosion.
If you have the slightest qualms about flooding when purchasing property, make sure you consult a professional engineer to evaluate your risk and mitigation options.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/20/24
2548 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/2024/08/20240820-DJI_20240820122419_0652_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2024-08-20 19:27:412024-08-20 20:02:13What Can Be Done to Reduce Flood Risk?
8/18/24 – The sequence and timing of upcoming construction steps for the Northpark Drive Expansion Project is changing. Project Manager Ralph De Leon wants the public to know what will change, why and when between now and the end of the year.
All parties involved in the construction met last week and agreed to the plan outlined below. However, De Leon warned that it could still change. The new plan will start within the next two to three weeks. The steps outlined below should be substantially completed by December.
Unfortunately, they could involve fewer lanes for a period a time and will cause a total closure of Northpark for three days. The original plan kept two lanes of traffic open in both directions at all times. But that is no longer possible.
Reason for Changes
Due to highly publicized delays caused by utility conflicts, project planners started building pieces of the project out of sequence to keep crews busy.
“We are now out of sequence globally,” said De Leon. “That will never change. So throw out everything you knew in the past. We will publish a new schedule this week or next.”
A complex series of signal changes for traffic, railroad and pedestrian crossings also contributes to the schedule changes. And they will need to be built twice: once for temporary traffic and again for permanent traffic.
Electronics are driving the new Northpark construction sequence more than concrete at this point, according to De Leon. “Boring and installing communication cables to temporary, then permanent signals is the difficult part,” he said.
The schedule changes will not affect what is being built, just when. Nothing has changed regarding the goals. Additional lanes and the planned bridge over 494 and the railroad will still be built.
New Sequence Affects Planned West- and Eastbound Feeder Roads
This new Northpark construction sequence affects how and when the west- and eastbound feeder roads will be constructed. The old plan called for both to be constructed at the same time.
Then traffic was to have been rerouted to the new feeders while contractors demolished the middle. However, that is no longer viable as you can see from photos below.
Instead, Harper Brothers will construct eastbound feeder roads on the south side as they place culverts west to east along the north side. They will start at the Shell station on the northwest corner of Loop 494 and Northpark and work their way down to the area by the Quick Quack Car Wash.
De Leon’s goal is to keep the existing at-grade railroad crossing intact and use that for west bound traffic. The new feeder road on the south side will handle eastbound traffic.
However, that could still change. “We could have to switch everybody (both directions) to the new feeder road. That would mean a single lane for both east- and westbound traffic until the second westbound feeder road is constructed on the north side.”
Pictures Taken Friday 8/17/24
Looking W at Northpark Expansion Project. Previously, planners hoped to install drainage east to west. Now they will move west to east to accommodate UnionPacific which must reroute traffic during its busy season. Still looking west over 494. Contractors are already beginning to work on drainage that will go under 494 and the railroad tracks. Looking east. Two more feeder lanes will be built for east bound traffic south of Northpark.
UPRR will construct a crane on top of the rail tracks needed to install 200 feet of track panel. For that to happen they must rip out the existing rail tracks and reroute all traffic to rail lines that parallel the Hardy Tollroad.
The panel is in a single section that will stretch across ten lanes. UPRR needs that for track stability. However, its length will mean totally closing Northpark for three days.
Still looking east toward Russell Palmer and Kingwood Diversion Ditch. Crews have finished installing culvert and are now building up the center. To see how high, look at the height of manhole covers already installed.
While painful now, when finished, this project will give Kingwood its first all-weather evacuation route. It could save lives in the future.
For More Information
For more information about Northpark Drive expansion and a history of the project, see these posts on ReduceFlooding.
Details of Lake Conroe Contract between SJRA, City
8/21/24 – The City of Houston approved a new Lake Conroe contract with the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) last September.
For those interested in a deep dive, I’ve posted the entire 48-page document on my Reports Page under the San Jacinto River Authority tab.
For everyone else, I’ve posted a brief summary below. It covers key provisions, including those that affect lake lowering to help reduce flood risk. Spoiler alert: I made a startling discovery at the end of the contract doc.
But let’s start from the top of the Lake Conroe contract.
Key Definition
The first few pages lay out the customary recitals and definitions found in all contracts. The key definition is that of a 1987 Certificate of Adjudication (Number 10-4963, shown in Appendix A) that governs the impoundment, use, diversion, and priorities of water in Lake Conroe.
Ownership Interests
The meat of the contract starts in Article II on page 5: Interests of the Parties. Key points:
Operational Responsibilities
Article III on Page 6 of the Lake Conroe contract lays out operational responsibilities.
SJRA:
Joint Responsibilities:
Release of Water and Reservoir Levels (Section 3.04, )age 8)
Liability and Indemnification (Section 3.05, Page 9)
Other sections in Article III cover:
Reports and Inspections; Incidental Matters
Article IV, starting on Page 17 covers:
Length of Contract
This contract replaces the original 1968 Lake Conroe contract between the City and SJRA. It will remain in effect until terminated by mutual agreement during the useful life of Lake Conroe.
Default and Notice; Remedies; Mediation
Article V covers how the parties will handle disputes. It starts on page 18 and goes through page 23. Basically, it covers procedures leading up to mediation in the event of disagreements.
Force Majeure
Article VII covers force-majeure events. In law, “Force Majeure” means “unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract.” This section defines what happens during Acts of God, such as hurricanes, storms, floods, droughts, etc.
This Article allows the temporary suspension of normal rules, except those regarding payments. However, it requires resumption of the normal rules after the event.
Other Provisions
Article VIII contains addresses and contact information for each party and approval procedures.
Article IX includes provisions concerning applicable law (State of Texas), procedures for amendments, etc.
Exhibit A
The Certificate of Adjudication from the Texas Water Commission, dated February 25, 1987, limits total withdrawals from Lake Conroe to 100,000 acre feet per year. It lists the maximum withdrawal rate as 700 cubic feet per second.
Note: Some at the SJRA and City have chafed at this limitation. It restricts pre-release rates that could lower Lake Conroe in advance of approaching storms. Some want to raise the limit so that more water could be released earlier and reduce flood peaks.
The TCEQ amended the Certificate in 2010. It keeps the total withdrawals and max withdrawal rate above constant. But it added an additional use for the water. To the original municipal, industrial and mining categories, they added agriculture. It says they did that because they had not received any complaints about the previous limits within each category.
This is, in essence, a permit to release/sell water. And the permit comes with an obligation – to implement water conservation plans, which the TCEQ letter also spells out.
Exhibit B
This 2016 letter from SJRA’s management to the City explains a residential-lawn-watering permit program for lakefront homeowners. The program lets them pump water directly from the lake for a permit fee of $150 per year (as of 2016). That’s 41 cents per day.
They saved the best part for last. This was a real eye opener.
The permits mandate a “drought contingency plan” that impose watering restrictions when the level of the lake gets to 199 feet above mean sea level. Astute readers may remember that SJRA’s seasonal lake lowering plan took the lake down to 199 for large parts of the year.
Editorial Comment
Hmmmmm. Could that be why the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) fought seasonal lake lowering so vigorously?
We may never know with certainty whether the loss of lawn watering was the sole or a contributing reason. But either way, unlimited watering of giant lawns for only 41 cents per day certainly helps explain at least some of the pushback from the LCA.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/21/24
2549 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.
What Can Be Done to Reduce Flood Risk?
Flood-control experts have many tools in their tool chests to reduce flood risk. They include:
I’m sure more techniques exist. But those represent the big categories.
Complex Decisions Involving Many Factors
No one tool works for all situations. And many of the tools that reduce flood risk fly in the face of other human values. They may conflict with other values beyond safety, that we hold dear. Consider, for instance, property rights, individual freedom, job formation, expanding the tax base, a desire to live near water, and risk-taking.
So how do professionals decide which tools to apply where and when?
Again, it depends on a number of factors. To name a few:
Homeowner Inquiry Prompted Exploration
A homeowner reacted to one of my posts today. She lives in a low-lying area near FM1485 and the San Jacinto East Fork. It flooded badly on May2, 2024. She was certain that dredging and tree removal from the East Fork would help. But after investigating the area online, then from the ground and air, I wasn’t sure.
The normal river elevation in that area is 47.25 feet.
But on May 2, the river rose to 77.4 feet – 17 feet above the top of the river banks and 30 feet above normal!
Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist, had this to say about the May flood. “Since 1994, this was the second highest crest of the river at FM 1485. It exceeded Tropical Storm Imelda by 4.0 ft and the October 1994 flood by 1.0 ft.”
Lindner continued, “The flood of record remains Harvey which was 4.0 ft higher than the May 2024 event. The river exceeded the .2% (500-yr) exceedance probability elevation at the FM 1485 bridge by 1.5 ft. The table below shows the top five highest peaks on the East Fork of the San Jacinto River since 1994 at that location.”
Date Peak Elevation
HCFCD calculates the elevation of a 100-year flood is 70.6 feet.
So…
See the FEMA floodplain map below for the area in question.
It shows you how difficult flood prediction can be. It also shows you why even nature lovers should give water in Texas a wide berth unless they are prepared to lose everything. The May flood wasn’t even related to a tropical event!
Unfortunately, most of the homes in this neighborhood didn’t look like people could afford to lose everything. And I saw several that had been totally obliterated along with two roads that washed out.
Professionals Say Buyouts Best Option In This Case, But…
In an area like this, flood-mitigation professionals have few good options. Given the depth of flooding, three professionals told me that intervention would have to be on a massive and costly scale to make a difference. As a result, each suggested buyouts as the best, most cost-effective alternative in this area.
Shortly after the May event, I interviewed a young couple named Daniel and Kathleen Moore. They lived on some of the highest land in the subdivision, but had flooded three times in the seven years that they owned their home (Harvey, Imelda, and May 2024).
They were hoping for a buyout. I called again today to see if they succeeded, but they were selling their property and moving out of state with their new baby. Why?
While Daniel was restoring the home, someone burned it to the ground on July 28th. Nothing stands there now but a charred chimney.
This was a heartbreaking story that deeply affected me personally. I once lived in a home near a creek that flooded frequently when I had two young babies.
While buyouts may sometimes be the most cost-effective option, they are not easy, according to a County Emergency Management Director that I interviewed. Counties must apply for FEMA buyout money and then it can take years to evaluate and rank all the applications and distribute the money.
Forest Cove buyouts took five years after Harvey to complete.
Ironically, the fact that the Moore’s were in a 500-year floodplain may have hurt their buyout chances. FEMA likes money to go to homes that are insured but which flood frequently.
So What About Dredging and Tree Removal?
The Moore’s lived in Montgomery County. But the other family that contacted me lived on the Harris side of the county line in the same neighborhood.
Experts I talked to suggested dredging wouldn’t make an appreciable difference given the narrow width of the river channel and the height of flooding. Plus, it could undermine more trees along the heavily wooded banks.
Removing trees that have already fallen, they say, is a good idea. They could float downstream, form log dams that flood other homes, and/or harm boaters in Lake Houston. But who is responsible for removing them?
I asked Matt Barrett, head of SJRA’s Flood Management Division. Said Barrett, “SJRA’s jurisdiction does not include Harris County, so projects constructed in Harris County would have to be led by HCFCD.”
Distant Chances for Other Flood Mitigation
That said, Barrett also volunteered that SJRA has partnerships with both HCFCD and the City of Houston. The entities work together on multiple projects from the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Plan. But finding funding remains a challenge. And large scale projects are not quick to implement.
That brings us full circle to the original question in the headline. What was or is the best thing(s) homeowners can do to reduce their flooding chances? In my opinion:
I’m not a professional engineer and I do not render professional engineering opinions. But I have interviewed a lot of flood victims who wish they could turn back the hands of time and build on higher ground.
If you have the slightest qualms about flooding when purchasing property, make sure you consult a professional engineer to evaluate your risk and mitigation options.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/20/24
2548 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.
Northpark Construction Sequence Changing
8/18/24 – The sequence and timing of upcoming construction steps for the Northpark Drive Expansion Project is changing. Project Manager Ralph De Leon wants the public to know what will change, why and when between now and the end of the year.
All parties involved in the construction met last week and agreed to the plan outlined below. However, De Leon warned that it could still change. The new plan will start within the next two to three weeks. The steps outlined below should be substantially completed by December.
Unfortunately, they could involve fewer lanes for a period a time and will cause a total closure of Northpark for three days. The original plan kept two lanes of traffic open in both directions at all times. But that is no longer possible.
Reason for Changes
Due to highly publicized delays caused by utility conflicts, project planners started building pieces of the project out of sequence to keep crews busy.
“We are now out of sequence globally,” said De Leon. “That will never change. So throw out everything you knew in the past. We will publish a new schedule this week or next.”
A complex series of signal changes for traffic, railroad and pedestrian crossings also contributes to the schedule changes. And they will need to be built twice: once for temporary traffic and again for permanent traffic.
Electronics are driving the new Northpark construction sequence more than concrete at this point, according to De Leon. “Boring and installing communication cables to temporary, then permanent signals is the difficult part,” he said.
The schedule changes will not affect what is being built, just when. Nothing has changed regarding the goals. Additional lanes and the planned bridge over 494 and the railroad will still be built.
New Sequence Affects Planned West- and Eastbound Feeder Roads
This new Northpark construction sequence affects how and when the west- and eastbound feeder roads will be constructed. The old plan called for both to be constructed at the same time.
Then traffic was to have been rerouted to the new feeders while contractors demolished the middle. However, that is no longer viable as you can see from photos below.
Instead, Harper Brothers will construct eastbound feeder roads on the south side as they place culverts west to east along the north side. They will start at the Shell station on the northwest corner of Loop 494 and Northpark and work their way down to the area by the Quick Quack Car Wash.
De Leon’s goal is to keep the existing at-grade railroad crossing intact and use that for west bound traffic. The new feeder road on the south side will handle eastbound traffic.
However, that could still change. “We could have to switch everybody (both directions) to the new feeder road. That would mean a single lane for both east- and westbound traffic until the second westbound feeder road is constructed on the north side.”
Pictures Taken Friday 8/17/24
UPRR will construct a crane on top of the rail tracks needed to install 200 feet of track panel. For that to happen they must rip out the existing rail tracks and reroute all traffic to rail lines that parallel the Hardy Tollroad.
The panel is in a single section that will stretch across ten lanes. UPRR needs that for track stability. However, its length will mean totally closing Northpark for three days.
While painful now, when finished, this project will give Kingwood its first all-weather evacuation route. It could save lives in the future.
For More Information
For more information about Northpark Drive expansion and a history of the project, see these posts on ReduceFlooding.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/18/24
2546 Days since Hurricane Harvey