6/8/24 – Today, I discovered another sand pit captured by the San Jacinto West Fork. I also discovered two more pits with breached dikes. That makes at least four San Jacinto West Fork sand pits seriously damaged by the last storm.
The West Fork has now captured a pit that Hallett owned until earlier this year and another that it still owns.
Let’s look at each. See the photos below.
Photos Taken on 6/8/24
Pit Capture #1
I discovered the first pit capture in mid-May and photographed it again today.
Looking from over West Fork at blocked channel and former Hallett pit. River now runs through the pit.
Hallett sold this mile-long,, half-mile-wide pit to a real estate company called Riverwalk Porter LLC in January, just days before the first breach at the downstream end. The breach at the northern end, in the foreground above, happened in May.
Pit capture is a phenomenon where the river cuts through one side of a mine and out the other. Watch it happen in this table top experiment.
Pit Capture #2
I discovered a second pit capture today. The river punched through one side of the pit and now flows out the other. It’s taking a shortcut through the pit, rather than going around like it used to.
Note how the river curves way out to the upper left in the photo. The inside of that curve used to be what geologists call a point bar. Such areas usually contain finely sorted sand. And indeed, historical images in Google Earth show trucks pulling sand from river banks before Hallett started mining here.
Hallett pit on another point bar, also captured by West ForkRiver flows from top to bottom.
Ironically, this area was being considered by the SJRA for its sand trap study. They may have to reconsider that now.
Breach #1
Another pit purchased from Hallett by Riverwalk Porter LLC also drains directly into the West Fork. Nothing holds it back now.
The area around the pipe has expanded into a chasm.
Breach #2
Farther north, Heidelberg Materials Southwest Agg LLC owns another pit that now drains into the West Fork.
Looking S from over West Fork (bottom left) toward Heidelberg Property.
Historical satellite images of the Heidelberg property show that they started mining it decades ago. Then they sold the mine to another company and recently repurchased it. While this particular area is recovering, the company appears to be mining other areas around it.
And look what’s happening downstream from the breach above. Could this be a third pit capture in the making?
Downstream at the same pond, the river looks as though it could soon punch through another narrow dike. Photo taken 5/22/24.
If and when this happens, the river could then route itself through the pit above. That would make at least three pits captured on the West Fork.
There may be more breaches and pit captures that I have not yet found.
Geomorphic Processes Accelerated to a Human Time Scale
It’s interesting to watch geomorphic processes at work on a human time scale. It’s also disconcerting to know that without help from miners and the TCEQ – which did not establish setbacks of mines from rivers until 2021 – the West Fork would have much less sediment pollution.
See below.
Confluence of Spring Creek (left) and San Jacinto West Fork (right), where all of the sand mine breaches above area.
If you wish to lodge a complaint with the TCEQ, go to this web page. Last time I heard, they only inspect the river once every three years unless citizens file complaints.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/8/24
2475 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/2024/06/Hallett-North.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2024-06-08 21:54:082024-06-09 09:52:54Another Sand Pit Captured, More Breached by San Jacinto West Fork
6/7/24 – Last night, the Kingwood Service Association (KSA) Parks Committee discussed the future of its River Grove boat launch. As reported previously on ReduceFlooding.com, the boat launch has become seriously blocked by sand and other sediment coming downriver during the May floods, primarily from the West Fork San Jacinto.
After floods in January, boaters complained of difficulty navigating through the sediment to the river. So KSA commissioned a sonar study. It showed that approximately 11,500 cubic yards of sediment needed to be dredged to open the channel. The cost approached $800,000…without any contingency funds built in.
KSA’s board authorized the Parks Committee to spend the money at its April Board Meeting. However, board members also requested the Parks Committee to explore ways to lower the cost first.
During that exploration, May floods deposited even more sand. To avoid surprise overages, a dredging subcommittee asked the low bidder to do another sonar survey. The new survey indicated that the amount of sand needing removal increased about 50 percent.
Budget-Busting Costs
The cost – without any contingency funds for overages – represents 49% of KSA’s current Capital Assets Reserve Fund balance. And that prompted many tough questions from the Parks Committee. Especially since boat dock usage represents only a small part of KSA’s responsibilities. And because a relatively small percentage of Kingwood residents use the boat docks.
Through June 5, KSA has issued 837 boat trailer stickers. Compare that to 23,842 regular vehicle stickers. Only 3.5% of the vehicles using Kingwood parks use the boat launch.
Meanwhile East End Park needs extensive trail restoration after the last storm. And KSA is about to renovate the entry at Kingwood Drive and US59.
Note, however, that the mouth of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch (at the boat docks) also plays a role in flooding. The ditch drains the western third of Kingwood. And when it became blocked during Harvey, hundreds of homes behind the blockage flooded.
Options KSA Considered
Here is a slight revision of the River Grove boat launch presentation that the KSA Parks Committee reviewed last night. The revisions reflect changes discussed in the meeting.
To make it easier to understand, I’ve also shown the individual pages below with some background information.
The title slide shows sediment buildup at the mouth of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch in River Grove. Not only does it affect boating, if sediment continues to build, it could eventually back water up into homes as it did during Harvey.
Image taken after May floods when lake was down slightly for gate repairs at dam.
The next section of the presentation covered developments since the last Parks Committee meeting.
After the first sonar survey of the River Grove Boat Launch in February, the Dredging Subcommittee authorized a second survey to quantify the amount of additional sediment deposited by May storms and the cost impact…even as it looked for ways to reduce costs.
The cost of the second survey was necessary to be considered for FEMA debris removal/flood mitigation funds. You must prove that the money requested came from the storm covered by a disaster declaration. This became a huge issue with the Mouth Bar after Harvey.
The amount of sediment requiring removal increased 50% during May. The low bidder proposed hydraulic as opposed to mechanical dredging which is much faster. And the sediment would go to a property owner on the south shore of the river, instead of being trucked away.
By paying the landowner directly, KSA avoids markup on disposal costs.
The slide below shows an estimate of the revised costs and the current balance in KSA’s capital assets reserve fund. The River Grove Boat Launch dredging would consume 49% of KSA’s fund balance. Even though more sand is being dredged, the ability to pump the sand across the river helped to keep direct dredging costs close to the first estimate.
What to Do? Options Considered
With all that as background, the next slides present additional dimensions of the problem. The photo below shows the confluence of Spring Creek (left) and the West Fork (right) at US59. Sediment is now coming downriver from the West Fork after flowing through a mile-long sand pit.
The photo above helps explain the sediment build up at the River Grove Boat Launch: 5+ feet in places at the mouth of the Diversion Ditch and an average of 1.5 feet across the entire dredging area.
The dredging-company representative said he’d never seen anything like it in that short of a period.
And a retired Army Corps representative who helped lead the Emergency West Fork Dredging Project after Harvey said, “After we completed our survey of the area, we predicted sedimentation will be a perpetual problem at this location.”
Hydrologists call the photo below a “difference map. The colors represent the difference between the first and second surveys. It shows the build up between mid-February and mid-May outside the River Grove Boat Launch. The red, orange and yellow areas show the greatest build up. Blue and green show the lesser areas.
Note the options listed on the left. They set up a discussion of the pros and cons for each alternative.
Pros and Cons of Options
For the sake of brevity, I’ll let you read the pros and cons from the visuals in the following slides. They are fairly self explanatory.
In the first option, KSA would seek help with dredging costs. This became a possibility when the Governor and President issued disaster declarations for this area last month. Suddenly, federal money became available for debris removal and flood mitigation. The sand deposits might qualify under either.
Council Members Fred Flickinger and Twila Carter have already reviewed the pre/post surveys and forwarded them to the City’s Chief Resilience Officer, Stephen Costello, for help with developing an application.
However, the outcome won’t be known for a while. So, if that option fails, KSA could make the decision to dredge one more time using its own money. But if a hurricane should come along and fill the sand back in, then KSA would wipe out its capital asset reserves fund. Hence the emphasis on “ONE” below.
Another option the Parks Committee agreed to explore was asking the City to dredge. The City is strapped for cash right now, but if the City could get funds from FEMA to cover the removal, it might be possible. That’s because the City already has a dredge in the river for a separate project between Kings Point and FM1960.
If FEMA covered the sand deposited after the first survey, perhaps a cost-sharing arrangement could be worked out with the City for the rest.
After all, the City owns the lake and the lake is developing a sediment problem. The City also has responsibility for maintaining the outfalls of the ditches around the lake.
While discussing ways to reduce dredging costs, KSA’s low bidder suggested long-term ways to make periodic dredging more affordable and sustainable.
This is not an immediate answer to the problem, but could be considered as a follow-on option if one of the others becomes possible.
Example: the dredging company suggested building a jetty to deflect floodwaters out into the river instead of letting them curl into the gap between the islands.
They also suggested building low underwater rock walls that could catch sand scooting along the riverbed. This could trap sediment behind the walls. And that could help minimize the area needing dredging in the future. Hopefully, that could also make dredging more affordable and sustainable in the future.
However, the permitting and construction costs for those measures would be in addition to any dredging done now.
Some people on the parks committee felt the jetty might work in small floods, but not in larger ones like we just had.
KSA also considered an option to just close the boat dock. However, after discussion, a compromise became clear: just limit its use.
This would let families with smaller watercraft, such as canoes, kayaks and paddle boards, continue to use the facilities if they could portage over the developing sand bar. Large boats would have to seek other places to launch.
Next Steps and Timetable for Decision
The Parks Committee agreed that the options needed to be shared with HOAs and residents. Hopefully, after debate, public comment, and more exploration of the options, consensus may develop around one of the options. The community can then make a decision in the fall when people return from summer vacations about both short- and long-range plans for the River Grove boat launch.
Make Your Feelings Known
If you live in Kingwood, please share this post with friends and neighbors. And make sure you register your opinion with your homeowner association officers.
Even though most residents don’t use the boat launch, many people might like to have the option. And that option could affect home values. For instance, imagine if a potential buyer for your home someday owned a boat.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/7/2024
2474 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/2024/06/KSA-Boat-Launch-Options-R3_Page_07.jpg?fit=1500%2C1125&ssl=111251500adminadmin2024-06-07 00:47:282024-06-07 09:40:58Future of River Grove Boat Launch Discussed at KSA Meeting
June 5, 2024 – The Triple PG sand mine trial, originally scheduled for 2020, has been rescheduled yet again for March 2025 – a five year delay and counting.
A new schedule shows the Texas Attorney General lawsuit against the Triple PG sand mine in Porter may go to a jury on March 24, 2025. Originally, the case was set for trial on June 22, 2020.
But a corporate shell game by the defendant created a series of delays while the AG tried to figure out who was on first.
Then they took two years off for COVID. Finally the judge scheduled a conference call to jumpstart the case in 2022.
Original Complaint
The Texas Attorney General (AG) sued the Triple PG sand mine in Porter on behalf of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in 2019. Two breaches in the mine’s dikes were allowing industrial wastewater to flush into White Oak and Caney Creeks, then into the headwaters of Lake Houston. The lake supplies drinking water for two million people.
But not much has happened since then. And the Triple PG sand mine trial just got postponed. Again. Without explanation.
New Scheduling Order
See the second amended agreed scheduling order in the Triple PG sand mine trial. Five years of delays on a case originally scheduled to go to trial in one year!
The Attorney General’s office did not respond to a request for explanation or comment.
Discovery is now supposed to end on December 20, 2024. And a jury trial will begin “on or after March 24, 2025.” Uh, oh! I don’t like that “or after” part.
While Everyone Delayed…
Along the way, those daredevils at the Triple PG have:
Those bullet points just scratch the surface. I’ve created more than 60 posts that feature the Triple PG mine.
All Charges Denied
Prabakar Guniganti, the cardiologist from Nacogdoches owns the mine through one of his shell companies. The Montgomery County Appraisal District shows that the Guniganti Children’s Trust Fund owns it now. Guniganti has denied all charges by the TCEQ and Attorney General.
Pipeline that wasn’t exposed, December 6, 2019Wastewaterat Triple PG mine, July 27, 2022.Guniganti has an ag/timber tax exemption on this gem.Trees killed by process wastewater on neighboring property, June 6, 2022Triple PG wastewater flowing unobstructed into Caney Creekand Lake Houston,September 2019
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/5/24
2472 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/2024/06/20190927-Helicopter9.27_106.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2024-06-05 18:22:362024-06-05 18:28:29Triple PG Sand Mine Trial Delays Total 5 Years Now
Another Sand Pit Captured, More Breached by San Jacinto West Fork
6/8/24 – Today, I discovered another sand pit captured by the San Jacinto West Fork. I also discovered two more pits with breached dikes. That makes at least four San Jacinto West Fork sand pits seriously damaged by the last storm.
The West Fork has now captured a pit that Hallett owned until earlier this year and another that it still owns.
Let’s look at each. See the photos below.
Photos Taken on 6/8/24
Pit Capture #1
I discovered the first pit capture in mid-May and photographed it again today.
Hallett sold this mile-long,, half-mile-wide pit to a real estate company called Riverwalk Porter LLC in January, just days before the first breach at the downstream end. The breach at the northern end, in the foreground above, happened in May.
Pit capture is a phenomenon where the river cuts through one side of a mine and out the other. Watch it happen in this table top experiment.
Pit Capture #2
I discovered a second pit capture today. The river punched through one side of the pit and now flows out the other. It’s taking a shortcut through the pit, rather than going around like it used to.
Note how the river curves way out to the upper left in the photo. The inside of that curve used to be what geologists call a point bar. Such areas usually contain finely sorted sand. And indeed, historical images in Google Earth show trucks pulling sand from river banks before Hallett started mining here.
Ironically, this area was being considered by the SJRA for its sand trap study. They may have to reconsider that now.
Breach #1
Another pit purchased from Hallett by Riverwalk Porter LLC also drains directly into the West Fork. Nothing holds it back now.
The area around the pipe has expanded into a chasm.
Breach #2
Farther north, Heidelberg Materials Southwest Agg LLC owns another pit that now drains into the West Fork.
Historical satellite images of the Heidelberg property show that they started mining it decades ago. Then they sold the mine to another company and recently repurchased it. While this particular area is recovering, the company appears to be mining other areas around it.
And look what’s happening downstream from the breach above. Could this be a third pit capture in the making?
If and when this happens, the river could then route itself through the pit above. That would make at least three pits captured on the West Fork.
There may be more breaches and pit captures that I have not yet found.
Geomorphic Processes Accelerated to a Human Time Scale
It’s interesting to watch geomorphic processes at work on a human time scale. It’s also disconcerting to know that without help from miners and the TCEQ – which did not establish setbacks of mines from rivers until 2021 – the West Fork would have much less sediment pollution.
See below.
If you wish to lodge a complaint with the TCEQ, go to this web page. Last time I heard, they only inspect the river once every three years unless citizens file complaints.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/8/24
2475 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.
Future of River Grove Boat Launch Discussed at KSA Meeting
6/7/24 – Last night, the Kingwood Service Association (KSA) Parks Committee discussed the future of its River Grove boat launch. As reported previously on ReduceFlooding.com, the boat launch has become seriously blocked by sand and other sediment coming downriver during the May floods, primarily from the West Fork San Jacinto.
After floods in January, boaters complained of difficulty navigating through the sediment to the river. So KSA commissioned a sonar study. It showed that approximately 11,500 cubic yards of sediment needed to be dredged to open the channel. The cost approached $800,000…without any contingency funds built in.
KSA’s board authorized the Parks Committee to spend the money at its April Board Meeting. However, board members also requested the Parks Committee to explore ways to lower the cost first.
During that exploration, May floods deposited even more sand. To avoid surprise overages, a dredging subcommittee asked the low bidder to do another sonar survey. The new survey indicated that the amount of sand needing removal increased about 50 percent.
Budget-Busting Costs
The cost – without any contingency funds for overages – represents 49% of KSA’s current Capital Assets Reserve Fund balance. And that prompted many tough questions from the Parks Committee. Especially since boat dock usage represents only a small part of KSA’s responsibilities. And because a relatively small percentage of Kingwood residents use the boat docks.
Through June 5, KSA has issued 837 boat trailer stickers. Compare that to 23,842 regular vehicle stickers. Only 3.5% of the vehicles using Kingwood parks use the boat launch.
Meanwhile East End Park needs extensive trail restoration after the last storm. And KSA is about to renovate the entry at Kingwood Drive and US59.
Note, however, that the mouth of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch (at the boat docks) also plays a role in flooding. The ditch drains the western third of Kingwood. And when it became blocked during Harvey, hundreds of homes behind the blockage flooded.
Options KSA Considered
Here is a slight revision of the River Grove boat launch presentation that the KSA Parks Committee reviewed last night. The revisions reflect changes discussed in the meeting.
To make it easier to understand, I’ve also shown the individual pages below with some background information.
The title slide shows sediment buildup at the mouth of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch in River Grove. Not only does it affect boating, if sediment continues to build, it could eventually back water up into homes as it did during Harvey.
The next section of the presentation covered developments since the last Parks Committee meeting.
After the first sonar survey of the River Grove Boat Launch in February, the Dredging Subcommittee authorized a second survey to quantify the amount of additional sediment deposited by May storms and the cost impact…even as it looked for ways to reduce costs.
The amount of sediment requiring removal increased 50% during May. The low bidder proposed hydraulic as opposed to mechanical dredging which is much faster. And the sediment would go to a property owner on the south shore of the river, instead of being trucked away.
The slide below shows an estimate of the revised costs and the current balance in KSA’s capital assets reserve fund. The River Grove Boat Launch dredging would consume 49% of KSA’s fund balance. Even though more sand is being dredged, the ability to pump the sand across the river helped to keep direct dredging costs close to the first estimate.
What to Do? Options Considered
With all that as background, the next slides present additional dimensions of the problem. The photo below shows the confluence of Spring Creek (left) and the West Fork (right) at US59. Sediment is now coming downriver from the West Fork after flowing through a mile-long sand pit.
The photo above helps explain the sediment build up at the River Grove Boat Launch: 5+ feet in places at the mouth of the Diversion Ditch and an average of 1.5 feet across the entire dredging area.
The dredging-company representative said he’d never seen anything like it in that short of a period.
And a retired Army Corps representative who helped lead the Emergency West Fork Dredging Project after Harvey said, “After we completed our survey of the area, we predicted sedimentation will be a perpetual problem at this location.”
Hydrologists call the photo below a “difference map. The colors represent the difference between the first and second surveys. It shows the build up between mid-February and mid-May outside the River Grove Boat Launch. The red, orange and yellow areas show the greatest build up. Blue and green show the lesser areas.
Note the options listed on the left. They set up a discussion of the pros and cons for each alternative.
Pros and Cons of Options
For the sake of brevity, I’ll let you read the pros and cons from the visuals in the following slides. They are fairly self explanatory.
In the first option, KSA would seek help with dredging costs. This became a possibility when the Governor and President issued disaster declarations for this area last month. Suddenly, federal money became available for debris removal and flood mitigation. The sand deposits might qualify under either.
Council Members Fred Flickinger and Twila Carter have already reviewed the pre/post surveys and forwarded them to the City’s Chief Resilience Officer, Stephen Costello, for help with developing an application.
However, the outcome won’t be known for a while. So, if that option fails, KSA could make the decision to dredge one more time using its own money. But if a hurricane should come along and fill the sand back in, then KSA would wipe out its capital asset reserves fund. Hence the emphasis on “ONE” below.
Another option the Parks Committee agreed to explore was asking the City to dredge. The City is strapped for cash right now, but if the City could get funds from FEMA to cover the removal, it might be possible. That’s because the City already has a dredge in the river for a separate project between Kings Point and FM1960.
If FEMA covered the sand deposited after the first survey, perhaps a cost-sharing arrangement could be worked out with the City for the rest.
After all, the City owns the lake and the lake is developing a sediment problem. The City also has responsibility for maintaining the outfalls of the ditches around the lake.
While discussing ways to reduce dredging costs, KSA’s low bidder suggested long-term ways to make periodic dredging more affordable and sustainable.
This is not an immediate answer to the problem, but could be considered as a follow-on option if one of the others becomes possible.
Example: the dredging company suggested building a jetty to deflect floodwaters out into the river instead of letting them curl into the gap between the islands.
They also suggested building low underwater rock walls that could catch sand scooting along the riverbed. This could trap sediment behind the walls. And that could help minimize the area needing dredging in the future. Hopefully, that could also make dredging more affordable and sustainable in the future.
However, the permitting and construction costs for those measures would be in addition to any dredging done now.
Some people on the parks committee felt the jetty might work in small floods, but not in larger ones like we just had.
KSA also considered an option to just close the boat dock. However, after discussion, a compromise became clear: just limit its use.
This would let families with smaller watercraft, such as canoes, kayaks and paddle boards, continue to use the facilities if they could portage over the developing sand bar. Large boats would have to seek other places to launch.
Next Steps and Timetable for Decision
The Parks Committee agreed that the options needed to be shared with HOAs and residents. Hopefully, after debate, public comment, and more exploration of the options, consensus may develop around one of the options. The community can then make a decision in the fall when people return from summer vacations about both short- and long-range plans for the River Grove boat launch.
Make Your Feelings Known
If you live in Kingwood, please share this post with friends and neighbors. And make sure you register your opinion with your homeowner association officers.
Even though most residents don’t use the boat launch, many people might like to have the option. And that option could affect home values. For instance, imagine if a potential buyer for your home someday owned a boat.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/7/2024
2474 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 Trial Delays Total 5 Years Now
June 5, 2024 – The Triple PG sand mine trial, originally scheduled for 2020, has been rescheduled yet again for March 2025 – a five year delay and counting.
A new schedule shows the Texas Attorney General lawsuit against the Triple PG sand mine in Porter may go to a jury on March 24, 2025. Originally, the case was set for trial on June 22, 2020.
But a corporate shell game by the defendant created a series of delays while the AG tried to figure out who was on first.
Then they took two years off for COVID. Finally the judge scheduled a conference call to jumpstart the case in 2022.
Original Complaint
The Texas Attorney General (AG) sued the Triple PG sand mine in Porter on behalf of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in 2019. Two breaches in the mine’s dikes were allowing industrial wastewater to flush into White Oak and Caney Creeks, then into the headwaters of Lake Houston. The lake supplies drinking water for two million people.
But not much has happened since then. And the Triple PG sand mine trial just got postponed. Again. Without explanation.
New Scheduling Order
See the second amended agreed scheduling order in the Triple PG sand mine trial. Five years of delays on a case originally scheduled to go to trial in one year!
The Attorney General’s office did not respond to a request for explanation or comment.
Discovery is now supposed to end on December 20, 2024. And a jury trial will begin “on or after March 24, 2025.” Uh, oh! I don’t like that “or after” part.
While Everyone Delayed…
Along the way, those daredevils at the Triple PG have:
Those bullet points just scratch the surface. I’ve created more than 60 posts that feature the Triple PG mine.
All Charges Denied
Prabakar Guniganti, the cardiologist from Nacogdoches owns the mine through one of his shell companies. The Montgomery County Appraisal District shows that the Guniganti Children’s Trust Fund owns it now. Guniganti has denied all charges by the TCEQ and Attorney General.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/5/24
2472 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.