6/25/2025 – On February 7, 2025, Harris County commissioners, expressed concerns about budget shortfalls in flood-bond and subdivision drainage projects. They asked Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) for an accounting of where the money went and how much was left. One hundred and thirty-eight days later, after missing repeated deadlines, HCFCD filed the report below for Agenda Item #2 – one blank page. It has nothing on it. Nada. Zip. Bupkis. Zero.
This is what passes for “transparency” in Harris County and the Commissioners Court’s Orwellian world of double-speak. There’s a reason for this.
They’re trying to shift funds around without you knowing.
Commissioners Secretly Debating Scenarios for Dealing with Shortfall
I would hasten to add that Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has shared information with commissioners, just notyou. And according to Commissioner Tom Ramsey of Precinct 3, all commissioners are engaged in a heated debate about five different scenarios for dealing with the shortfall.
Only one scenario would treat each precinct equally – Ramsey’s. The other four would take money from Republican Precinct 3 and give it to Democratic precincts.
For instance, under one scenario, Precinct 3 would get cut by $223 million while Democratic precincts would be cut only by an average of $120 million. So…
Precinct 3 would be cut $100 million more than other precincts.
According to Ramsey, they’re using “equity” to defend allocations that have nothing to do with equity. For instance, Barrett Station, an underserved neighborhood in Precinct 3 with flooding problems, would receive nothing under the Democratic funding scenarios.
Unacknowledged Scope Creep, Bloat, and Massive Slowdown
Another complaint that Ramsey has is about “scope creep.” Some line items in the flood bond were limited to engineering studies.
However, now that those studies are complete, some commissioners want to increase those limited financial commitments to include full-blown construction costs as well. That was never originally intended.
And when you factor in 27.5% inflation since the 2018 flood bond, you can understand why Democrats are grabbing Ramsey’s fair share.
Of course, they would never acknowledge that they created Harris County’s bloated, process-bound, equity-obsessed bureaucracy that has reduced HCFCD spending to pre-bond levels – making inflation take an ever larger toll on purchasing power.
That has also put essential, life-saving projects at risk. For instance, on the chopping block: the project to add more floodgates to Lake Houston. The flood bond allocated $20 million that is now at risk of going elsewhere.
GLO Takes Stand Against Partisan Politics, Encourages Speed
Ramsey has drawn a line in the sand on the floodgate issue in particular and the unfair allocation issue in general. He says he has talked with Texas General Land Office Commissioner Dawn Buckingham about the money grab.
According to Ramsey, Buckingham supports a fair and equal allocation of remaining bond funds among all precincts.
Buckingham issued this statement:
“My mission at the Texas GLO is to serve those we are supposed to serve and do it well. Since becoming Commissioner in 2023, I have put politics aside and done what is right for Harris County. Flood waters do not respect political boundaries, and neither should prioritization of resilience efforts. I encourage the Harris County Commissioners’ Court to put aside partisan politics and focus on maximizing effectiveness of the funds available as well as putting them to work as quickly as possible.”
Democrats may have a majority. But Ramsey likely has a bigger stick. Harris County cannot afford to lose Buckingham’s support at a time when her team is reviewing $850 million in Harris County grant applications with tight federal deadlines.
Will the other precincts share the pain? Will they vote for an equal allocation of the remaining funds? Or will they try to steal from Ramsey’s fair share?
How Did We Get Here?
The County’s complete and utter lack of transparency raises the question, “What are they trying to hide from us?” They have clearly forgotten that this is our money, not theirs. Where is it going? Why? Why can’t HCFCD move faster? And how are we to know whether remaining dollars are going where they are most needed? (HCFCD doesn’t publish flood risk data either.)
And most important: How are we to hold executives and elected officials accountable? We can’t without information.
This is the opposite of transparency. Secrecy will increase flood risk for large segments of Harris County’s population that have received little to no help from HCFCD up to now. Like the Lake Houston Area.
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Legislation-Details-On-Agenda-Item-2.jpg?fit=1275%2C1650&ssl=116501275adminadmin2025-06-25 17:47:592025-06-26 08:15:30Why HCFCD’s Report on Remaining Flood-Bond Funds is One Blank Page
6/24/25 – Representatives of the City of Houston District E Office, Houston Public Works, Kings Forest, and the Bear Branch Trail Association (BBTA) met this morning west of Kingwood High School. Purpose: to discuss clearing a drainage ditch that had been neglected for so long, it became seriously overgrown. So overgrown, in fact, that the ditch was almost impossible to see.
“Over there?”“Maybe over here?”“The map says it should be that way.”“GPS says it should be over here.”“Let’s send out a special recon unit.““This is going to be a tough one!”
Can You Spot the Water?
And then! Aha! Water! Can you see it below? It’s almost up to the level of Kingwood Drive…when it hasn’t rained for eight days. That’s how blocked the ditch was by vegetation!
See reflection to right of tree near bottom of frame.
One hundred and ten homes adjacent to this ditch flooded, not including the community meeting room. So did Kingwood High School. And Kingwood Drive which is a major evacuation route.
All that vegetation increases the risk of future flooding by backing water up.
Residents have been lobbying for years to get the City to address this issue. Now, it’s finally happening!
The Plan to Clear It
I don’t have anything in writing yet, but I think Public Works agreed to start from the downstream side which you see immediately below. The vegetation blocking the outflow needs to be removed and the culverts need cleaning out.
The ditch outfalls onto the Kingwood Country Club Lake Course and Lake Kingwood.
More vegetation in the median also blocks the flow and will be cleared.
Can you even see where the ditch crosses the median?
Next, they will work back north to clear the entrance to the culverts under the westbound lanes.
Then, they will continue working their way up the ditch removing blockages, including several trees that fell during Beryl last year.
After removing those, Public Works will ensure that the storm sewers leading from neighborhoods to the ditch are also clear and graded properly. Sediment currently blocks the outfalls backing water up into storm sewers and neighborhoods.
BBTA and Kings Forest representatives plus their residents emphasized that they don’t want the entire greenbelt scalped. They just want to remove enough vegetation to restore the flow as designed.
Chris Bloch of the BBTA Board hacked his way through the underbrush to help document the blockages. He said that Public works told him they hope to have the work started by the end of June and completed in July before the start of school.
Public Works also promised to evaluate the roadside ditches in Kings Forest to restore conveyance. But that will be a separate project.
Thank You!
Thanks to Houston District E City Council Member Fred Flickinger, and his staff members Dustin Hodges and Demari Perez. Thanks also to BBTA Board members Chris Bloch and Lee Danner for their assistance in documenting issues and granting access to their property.
Finally, thanks to the staff of Houston Public Works who showed up in the heat and humidity this morning. They braved poison ivy and mosquitoes the size of B-52 Bombers to help protect residents.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/24/25
2856 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/20250624-DSC_3016.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2025-06-24 16:01:572025-06-24 23:09:04“I Know There’s a Drainage Ditch in There Somewhere”
“Pit capture” is when a river punches through the dikes of a sand mine and starts flowing through it.
Photographs taken on 6/22/25 from a rented helicopter show that the San Jacinto West Fork continues to flow into and through the two sand pits. Their dikes have not been repaired. And the river has rerouted itself through the pits which are on private property. See below.
Entry Breach at former Hallett Pit now owned by Riverwalk Porter LLC. West Fork now flows into pit (upper left) rather than following its normal course (bottom right).At the other end of the pit, the river flows back to its original channel (lower right).
At the northern end of the Hallett mine, the West Fork has captured another pit.
Water flows toward camera position through two dike breaches, instead of taking the long (slow) way around the curve.Looking downstream. Closer shot of entry point shows accumulated sediment in pit has already broken the water surface and that vegetation is taking over the old river bed.Made of sand, this dike was never very high, wide or strong. Little wonder the river breached it and captured the pit.
Best management practices recommend minimum 100-foot-wide, reinforced dikes to eliminate problems like this. That obviously wasn’t the case here.
So, do pit captures encourage or discourage downstream sediment buildups that contribute to flooding?
Industry Says Sediment Falls into Pits. But Does It?
The table below shows particle sizes that water moving at various speeds can transport.
Sediment Size
Diameter (mm)
Approx. Critical Flow Velocity for Initiation
Clay/Silt
<0.004
~0.5 ft/s (~0.34 mph)
Very Fine Sand
0.004–0.062
~1.5 ft/s (~1.0 mph)
Fine Sand
0.062–0.2
~2 ft/s (~1.3 mph)
Medium Sand
0.2–0.5
~3–4 ft/s (~2–2.7 mph)
Coarse Sand
0.5–2.0
~4–5 ft/s (~2.7–3.4 mph)
Very Coarse Sand
2.0–4.0
~5–6 ft/s (~3.4–4.1 mph)
Small Gravel
4–16
~6–7 ft/s (~4.1–4.8 mph)
Medium Gravel
16–64
~7–10 ft/s (~4.8–6.8 mph)
Conclusions:
Sediment deposited in pits is not permanently trapped.
Floods can churn up and flush out stored sediment.
Sediment transport becomes episodic and pulse-like.
Modeling studies show that even in pits 20-25 feet deep, floodwaters at 5 MPH can mobilize and carry away all but the largest gravel. Consequently, experts say sand-mining pits do not serve well as permanent sediment sinks. But are they adding to the sediment load downstream?
How Pit Capture Can Add to Sediment Loads Downstream
Numerous studies have examined whether pit capture makes downstream sedimentation better or worse. Generally, they indicate that pit captures tend to make downstream sedimentation worse—especially over the long term.
To summarize, these sources generally conclude that pit capture:
Results in channel instability and sediment pulses.
Worsens downstream sedimentation, contrary to any short-term sediment-trapping benefit.
Therefore, management efforts typically and strongly recommend preventing pit capture through:
Better engineering practices
Increased setback distances
Reinforced berms
Strategic sediment management planning.
For More Information or a Summer-Science Project
For those interested in learning more or for a summer-science project, consult the following:
Peer Reviewed and Technical Studies:
Kondolf, G.M. (1997). “Hungry water: Effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels.” Environmental Management, 21(4), 533–551.
Kondolf, G.M. (2001). “Geomorphic and environmental effects of instream gravel mining.” Landscape and Urban Planning, 28(2-3), 225–243.
Kondolf, G.M. et al. (2007). “Two Decades of Geomorphic Effects of Gravel Mining in the Tuolumne River, California.” Environmental Management, 40, 571–584.
Collins, B.D., & Dunne, T. (1990). “Fluvial geomorphology and river-gravel mining: A guide for planners, case studies included.” U.S. Geological Survey Special Report 98, California Department of Conservation.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2004). “Gravel Mining and Channel Stability: An evaluation of gravel extraction impacts on salmon habitat.”NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-66.
NMFS (2011). “Channel Processes and Sediment Transport: Implications for Salmon Habitat Restoration.” NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-115.
Texas-Specific Agency Reports:
TWDB (2020). “Lake Houston and San Jacinto River Watershed Study: Sediment Management and Flood Risk Assessment.” Texas Water Development Board, Austin, TX.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) (2019–2022). Multiple investigation and enforcement reports documenting pit breaches and sediment spills from sand mines along the San Jacinto River (publicly available through TCEQ’s Central File Room and online database).
TCEQ (2021). “Best Management Practices for Sand Mining in the San Jacinto River Watershed.” RG-555. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Austin, TX.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) (2018). “Impacts of Gravel and Sand Mining on Instream Habitats and Fish Communities in Texas.” TPWD Inland Fisheries Division Technical Report IF-TM-2018-01.
SJRA (2021). “San Jacinto Regional Sediment Management Plan.” Harris County Flood Control District and SJRA joint publication.
Army Corps and HCFCD. “West Fork San Jacinto River Emergency Dredging Project Final Report (2019).”
“San Jacinto River Master Drainage Plan – Appendix F: Sediment Management (2021).”
Background and Context:
Langer, W. H. (2003). “A General Overview of the Technology of In-Stream Mining of Sand and Gravel Resources, Associated Potential Environmental Impacts, and Methods to Control Potential Impacts.” USGS Open File Report OF-02-153.
Bull, W.B., & Scott, K.M. (1974). “Impact of mining gravel from urban stream beds in the Southwestern United States.”Geology, 2(4), 171–174.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/23/25
2855 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/20250622-DSC_2689-copy.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2025-06-23 19:56:052025-06-23 22:01:14West Fork Pit Captures Still Not Addressed After a Year
Why HCFCD’s Report on Remaining Flood-Bond Funds is One Blank Page
6/25/2025 – On February 7, 2025, Harris County commissioners, expressed concerns about budget shortfalls in flood-bond and subdivision drainage projects. They asked Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) for an accounting of where the money went and how much was left. One hundred and thirty-eight days later, after missing repeated deadlines, HCFCD filed the report below for Agenda Item #2 – one blank page. It has nothing on it. Nada. Zip. Bupkis. Zero.
This is what passes for “transparency” in Harris County and the Commissioners Court’s Orwellian world of double-speak. There’s a reason for this.
Commissioners Secretly Debating Scenarios for Dealing with Shortfall
I would hasten to add that Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has shared information with commissioners, just not you. And according to Commissioner Tom Ramsey of Precinct 3, all commissioners are engaged in a heated debate about five different scenarios for dealing with the shortfall.
Only one scenario would treat each precinct equally – Ramsey’s. The other four would take money from Republican Precinct 3 and give it to Democratic precincts.
For instance, under one scenario, Precinct 3 would get cut by $223 million while Democratic precincts would be cut only by an average of $120 million. So…
According to Ramsey, they’re using “equity” to defend allocations that have nothing to do with equity. For instance, Barrett Station, an underserved neighborhood in Precinct 3 with flooding problems, would receive nothing under the Democratic funding scenarios.
Unacknowledged Scope Creep, Bloat, and Massive Slowdown
Another complaint that Ramsey has is about “scope creep.” Some line items in the flood bond were limited to engineering studies.
However, now that those studies are complete, some commissioners want to increase those limited financial commitments to include full-blown construction costs as well. That was never originally intended.
And when you factor in 27.5% inflation since the 2018 flood bond, you can understand why Democrats are grabbing Ramsey’s fair share.
Of course, they would never acknowledge that they created Harris County’s bloated, process-bound, equity-obsessed bureaucracy that has reduced HCFCD spending to pre-bond levels – making inflation take an ever larger toll on purchasing power.
Lake Houston Floodgates at Risk Tomorrow
That has also put essential, life-saving projects at risk. For instance, on the chopping block: the project to add more floodgates to Lake Houston. The flood bond allocated $20 million that is now at risk of going elsewhere.
GLO Takes Stand Against Partisan Politics, Encourages Speed
Ramsey has drawn a line in the sand on the floodgate issue in particular and the unfair allocation issue in general. He says he has talked with Texas General Land Office Commissioner Dawn Buckingham about the money grab.
According to Ramsey, Buckingham supports a fair and equal allocation of remaining bond funds among all precincts.
Buckingham issued this statement:
Democrats may have a majority. But Ramsey likely has a bigger stick. Harris County cannot afford to lose Buckingham’s support at a time when her team is reviewing $850 million in Harris County grant applications with tight federal deadlines.
Will the other precincts share the pain? Will they vote for an equal allocation of the remaining funds? Or will they try to steal from Ramsey’s fair share?
How Did We Get Here?
The County’s complete and utter lack of transparency raises the question, “What are they trying to hide from us?” They have clearly forgotten that this is our money, not theirs. Where is it going? Why? Why can’t HCFCD move faster? And how are we to know whether remaining dollars are going where they are most needed? (HCFCD doesn’t publish flood risk data either.)
And most important: How are we to hold executives and elected officials accountable? We can’t without information.
This is the opposite of transparency. Secrecy will increase flood risk for large segments of Harris County’s population that have received little to no help from HCFCD up to now. Like the Lake Houston Area.
Watch the 6/26/25 commissioners court meeting. The meeting starts at 10AM. Don’t miss Agenda Item #2. And remember that blank page and broken promises during the next election.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/25/2025
2857 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.
“I Know There’s a Drainage Ditch in There Somewhere”
6/24/25 – Representatives of the City of Houston District E Office, Houston Public Works, Kings Forest, and the Bear Branch Trail Association (BBTA) met this morning west of Kingwood High School. Purpose: to discuss clearing a drainage ditch that had been neglected for so long, it became seriously overgrown. So overgrown, in fact, that the ditch was almost impossible to see.
Can You Spot the Water?
And then! Aha! Water! Can you see it below? It’s almost up to the level of Kingwood Drive…when it hasn’t rained for eight days. That’s how blocked the ditch was by vegetation!
One hundred and ten homes adjacent to this ditch flooded, not including the community meeting room. So did Kingwood High School. And Kingwood Drive which is a major evacuation route.
All that vegetation increases the risk of future flooding by backing water up.
Residents have been lobbying for years to get the City to address this issue. Now, it’s finally happening!
The Plan to Clear It
I don’t have anything in writing yet, but I think Public Works agreed to start from the downstream side which you see immediately below. The vegetation blocking the outflow needs to be removed and the culverts need cleaning out.
More vegetation in the median also blocks the flow and will be cleared.
Next, they will work back north to clear the entrance to the culverts under the westbound lanes.
Then, they will continue working their way up the ditch removing blockages, including several trees that fell during Beryl last year.
After removing those, Public Works will ensure that the storm sewers leading from neighborhoods to the ditch are also clear and graded properly. Sediment currently blocks the outfalls backing water up into storm sewers and neighborhoods.
BBTA and Kings Forest representatives plus their residents emphasized that they don’t want the entire greenbelt scalped. They just want to remove enough vegetation to restore the flow as designed.
Chris Bloch of the BBTA Board hacked his way through the underbrush to help document the blockages. He said that Public works told him they hope to have the work started by the end of June and completed in July before the start of school.
Public Works also promised to evaluate the roadside ditches in Kings Forest to restore conveyance. But that will be a separate project.
Thank You!
Thanks to Houston District E City Council Member Fred Flickinger, and his staff members Dustin Hodges and Demari Perez. Thanks also to BBTA Board members Chris Bloch and Lee Danner for their assistance in documenting issues and granting access to their property.
Finally, thanks to the staff of Houston Public Works who showed up in the heat and humidity this morning. They braved poison ivy and mosquitoes the size of B-52 Bombers to help protect residents.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/24/25
2856 Days since Hurricane Harvey
West Fork Pit Captures Still Not Addressed After a Year
6/23/25 – Two West Fork pit captures caused by floods in early 2024 are now more than a year old and untouched.
“Pit capture” is when a river punches through the dikes of a sand mine and starts flowing through it.
Photographs taken on 6/22/25 from a rented helicopter show that the San Jacinto West Fork continues to flow into and through the two sand pits. Their dikes have not been repaired. And the river has rerouted itself through the pits which are on private property. See below.
Here’s a video shot in May 2024 while flying from one end of the mile-long pit to the other.
At the northern end of the Hallett mine, the West Fork has captured another pit.
Best management practices recommend minimum 100-foot-wide, reinforced dikes to eliminate problems like this. That obviously wasn’t the case here.
Industry Says Sediment Falls into Pits. But Does It?
The sand mining industry would have you believe that the pits capture all sand that flows into them. That may be true in certain instances and not in others.
It depends on speed of the water. During the May 2024 flood, I used a drone to measure the speed of floodwaters moving through one of the pits at 5 MPH.
The table below shows particle sizes that water moving at various speeds can transport.
Conclusions:
Modeling studies show that even in pits 20-25 feet deep, floodwaters at 5 MPH can mobilize and carry away all but the largest gravel. Consequently, experts say sand-mining pits do not serve well as permanent sediment sinks. But are they adding to the sediment load downstream?
How Pit Capture Can Add to Sediment Loads Downstream
Numerous studies have examined whether pit capture makes downstream sedimentation better or worse. Generally, they indicate that pit captures tend to make downstream sedimentation worse—especially over the long term.
To summarize, these sources generally conclude that pit capture:
Therefore, management efforts typically and strongly recommend preventing pit capture through:
For More Information or a Summer-Science Project
For those interested in learning more or for a summer-science project, consult the following:
Peer Reviewed and Technical Studies:
Texas-Specific Agency Reports:
Background and Context:
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/23/25
2855 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.