First in a three-part series about ChatGPT and FloodKnowledge
The flood of articles about ChatGPT recently prompted me to wonder whether the artificial intelligence application could accurately answer questions about flooding. So I set up an account, started asking questions, and checked the answers with experts. The responses revealed patterns of strengths and weaknesses.
The more general the questions, the better the answers.
The more specific the questions, the more it missed.
In one test, it seriously missed an answer and gave misleading advice.
In another, it omitted an important component of the answer.
Sometimes I got no responses at all.
Despite ChatGPT’s considerable strengths, my test raised a red “caution flag” on this newly minted intellectual booster rocket. In my opinion, the biggest danger in using it is this.
The answers to questions seem so competent, an unsuspecting user may not question them.
My advice:
Use it, but also use it with caution.
Understand the limitations.
Drill down into topics and cross check the answers with other sources.
Test Run and Validation
I first asked ChatGPT, “What are the most effective techniques for flood control?” I sent the results to an industry leading hydrologist who specializes in flood control and the leaders of two leading conservation groups in the Houston area.
I asked them to grade the answer on a scale of A through F and to answer two simple questions. Was the ChatGPT response accurate? And did it omit anything important?
ChatGPT Response to Test Question
Below are my question and the ChatGPT response reproduced verbatim:
Q: “What are the most effective techniques for flood control?”
A: “Flood control involves a combination of structural and non-structural techniques to minimize the impact of flooding. Here are some of the most effective techniques used for flood control:
Dams and Reservoirs: Constructing dams and reservoirs helps regulate the flow of water in rivers and store excess water during heavy rainfall. This reduces downstream flood risk by controlling the release of water.
Levees and Flood Walls: Building levees and flood walls along riverbanks and coastlines can provide physical barriers to prevent floodwaters from reaching populated areas. These structures are designed to withstand the pressure of water and redirect it away from vulnerable regions.
Channelization: Modifying and straightening river channels can increase their capacity and improve the flow of water, reducing the risk of overflow. This technique involves reshaping riverbanks, removing obstacles, and dredging to deepen the channel.
Floodplain Zoning: Implementing land-use planning measures such as floodplain zoning helps prevent development in high-risk areas. By restricting construction and promoting open spaces or green infrastructure, floodwater can be absorbed or diverted, reducing damage to buildings and infrastructure.
Stormwater Management: Effective stormwater management systems capture and store rainwater, reducing the volume of water entering rivers and drainage systems during storms. Techniques include the use of retention ponds, green roofs, permeable pavements, and sustainable drainage systems (SUDS).
Wetland Restoration: Wetlands act as natural buffers against flooding, absorbing and storing excess water. Restoring and preserving wetlands can help regulate water flow, reduce flood peaks, and provide habitats for wildlife.
River Embankments and Terracing: Strengthening riverbanks through embankments and terracing helps contain floodwaters within the river channel. These techniques can reduce erosion and prevent water from spreading onto surrounding floodplains.
Urban Drainage Systems: Well-designed urban drainage systems, including storm sewers, culverts, and retention basins, efficiently collect and transport stormwater away from urban areas. Proper maintenance of these systems is crucial to prevent blockages and ensure effective flood control.
Early Warning Systems: Implementing advanced monitoring and early warning systems allows for timely dissemination of flood alerts to at-risk communities. This gives people more time to evacuate or take necessary precautions to protect life and property.
Public Awareness and Education: Raising public awareness about flood risks, safety procedures, and emergency response plans can significantly reduce the impact of floods. Educating communities on flood preparedness, including evacuation routes and the importance of insurance coverage, helps people respond effectively during flood events.
It’s worth noting that the most effective flood control strategies often involve a combination of these techniques, tailored to the specific characteristics and challenges of the area at risk. Additionally, climate change adaptation measures and sustainable water management practices play a crucial role in mitigating the long-term effects of flooding.”
Evaluation of Response by Experts
Hydrologist/flood expert: “That response is pretty good. It really depends on the audience. I would give it a B+ because it is thorough, but very general. Obviously, it doesn’t take into account the location, development, topography, etc., so that is why it can’t ever give an “A+” answer.”
Environmentalist #1: “I would give this an A. It’s basic, but it’s pretty comprehensive. Especially items 5,6,7, which are not always considered as common strategies employed for flood mitigation.”
Environmentalist #2: “I would give it an A- or B+. It hit many of the green strategies. But it did not seem to talk about preservation of natural ecosystems, like forests, floodplains, beaches, and grasslands. Nor did it discuss the use of hybrid solutions that incorporate engineered features with natural materials that mimic the functioning of natural ecosystems. I would also add another item to the list, ‘Use of native vegetation in residential and commercial areas to increase infiltration.'”
My Impression
I concluded ChatGPT is a research tool like any other.
Strengths
It’s definitely faster than search engines that would require you to explore dozens of links in order to compile a list like the one above.
It even composes well-formed summaries/answers for you in simple, easy-to-understand language.
It feels as though you are conversing with a knowledgeable, patient teacher.
It’s a great jumping-off point to start intellectual exploration.
If this were an “Intro to…” or “Principles of…” course, I would give it an A- or B+. It gives good, comprehensive, well-formed answers. The grammar is impressive for something computer generated.
Weaknesses
But that last strength can inspire a dangerous overconfidence that will become more apparent in the next two posts.
Also, it never quantified “most effective,” but in fairness, the last paragraph of the response (“worth noting”) explains why that would be problematic.
Down the Rabbit Holes
Armed with my expert’s evaluations, I started down some rabbit holes that revealed more strengths, weaknesses, limitations and an outright error on different aspects of flood control.
But more on those in the next two posts. One involves construction best management practices. Another will focus on the capabilities of a government agency, the Texas General Land Office.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/27/2023
2097 days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/20210420-DJI_0429.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2023-05-27 14:10:042023-05-27 14:59:58ChatGPT Advice on Most Effective Techniques for Flood Control
Jace Houston, the San Jacinto River Authority’s (SJRA) General Manager and point person on subsidence issues, resigned yesterday, 5/25/23, to avert a political war with Montgomery County subsidence deniers that could have taken down the entire SJRA board.
Houston had been with the SJRA for 16 years after spending 10 years with the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District. While at the SJRA, the lawyer/engineer helped put together a Groundwater Reduction Plan that included 80 municipalities and municipal utility districts (MUDs) across Montgomery County. He also helped the SJRA construct a surface-water treatment plant on Lake Conroe.
Goals of Effort to Preserve Groundwater
The half-billion dollar plant supplies surface water to the major population centers in Montgomery County, such as Conroe, The Woodlands and Oak Ridge North. Converting the population centers to surface water preserved groundwater for less populated and rural areas where water pipelines become uneconomical.
When the plant came online in 2015, it also virtually neutralized subsidence (see below).
When The Woodlands began using more surface water in 2016 after completion of a surface water pipeline, the rate of subsidence virtually leveled off.
The groundwater preservation effort proved effective at eliminating subsidence. It also helped water utilities avoid major costs associated with declining aquifer levels.
What costs? When water levels in wells drop, suppliers must move pumps deeper and use more electricity to pump water to the surface. In extreme cases, utilities may not be able to get water to the surface at all. Then they must drill new wells, often into deeper aquifers at hefty costs.
Declining well levels are especially worrisome in drought years when/where no alternative sources of water are available. Lack of water can limit population and economic growth as well as agricultural production.
However, preserving groundwater came at a cost. All members of the plan paid a fee to help pay for the surface water treatment plant even if they didn’t buy water from it. The need for such a plan became apparent more than 20 years ago, long before Houston joined the SJRA.
Need to Use Less Groundwater Validated by Legislature, But…
The Texas Leglislature validated the need to use less groundwater when it created the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) in 2001.
But in recent years, all that was forgotten. The LSGCD board denied subsidence was a problem and advocated unlimited groundwater pumping as a way to lower water costs.
In the meantime, subsidence has returned. So have water well declines.
As you can see below, since the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District began moving to deregulate groundwater usage, well levels have dropped significantly across the county, setting up a day of reckoning in the future.
Undeterred by these signals, the City of Conroe and the LSGCD board took their fight to the state legislature. They got State Representative Will Metcalf of Conroe to propose an amendment to the SJRA Sunset Review Bill that would replace Jace Houston. The amendment passed and emboldened Metcalf, Conroe and the LSGCD.
The amended bill then went to the Senate Water, Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee where the Conroe/LSGCD contingent testified again. But Senator Charles Perry, the committee chair, talked his fellow members out of adopting their proposals.
However, during the committee debate, Senator Lois Kolkorst, who represents Magnolia, fired a shot across the bow of the SJRA. She suggested making SJRA board-member terms one year.
That would have been disastrous, according to one seasoned SJRA board member, “It takes a year just to learn the job,” he said.
After defeat of all suggested amendments in Perry’s committee, it didn’t take long for back-channel rumors to mushroom. A whisper campaign suggested that sympathetic senator(s) might offer the Metcalf amendment or a one-year board amendment when the bill came up for a vote on the Senate floor.
Within days, the SJRA called a special board meeting to discuss Houston’s employment. While Houston reportedly had many supporters on the SJRA Board, he ultimately chose to resign and avoid a political battle royal that could have damaged the SJRA.
Board Accepts Houston’s Resignation
An article in Community Impact quoted SJRA Board President Ronald Anderson as saying: “At today’s meeting, the SJRA board of directors received and reluctantly accepted a resignation letter from our general manager, Jace Houston. Jace has served with honor and distinction for almost 16 years and has made the SJRA one of the most respected water agencies in the state of Texas.”
Anderson continued, “Even through these recent circumstances involving the legislature, Jace has once again placed the best interests of our organization and customers above his own, and the board wishes him the best in his future endeavors, which we know will be marked by continued success.”
Houston will remain at the SJRA until June 30th. But even on his way out the door, he seems less concerned about his own future than Montgomery County’s water future.
Impact of LSGCD on Water Future of MoCo and More
When asked about the impact of the LSGCD moves, Houston predicted, “They’re not going to regulate the aquifers. They’re going to allow pumpage to increase significantly.”
Houston added, “A lot of great work has been done to put a program together that allows Montgomery County to be able to afford the future water supplies it needs. And all of that is at risk. This just puts the county’s future at risk. They don’t understand the science. LSGCD is just dead wrong on the science.”
Because aquifers flow toward the coast, depleting groundwater in Montgomery County affects Harris and Galveston communities as well. But Metcalf and the LSGCD board never seemed to consider the impact on neighboring counties even though Metcalf’s district represents only about one thirtieth of the population in the San Jacinto watershed.
Because of differential subsidence, the impact of unlimited groundwater pumping in southern Montgomery County could actually tilt Lake Houston toward the north. That’s because the Kingwood/Porter area would subside more than the Lake Houston Dam by about two feet. And that could put many homes near floodplains into floodplains.
Projected subsidence in the northern Lake Houston Area could be 3.25 feet.Meanwhile, projected subsidence at the Lake Houston Dam would only be 1.25 feet.
The US Geological Survey (USGS) should release new, updated models later this year that could affect the rates shown approve (plus or minus).
Houston’s resignation seems to have averted a San Jacinto showdown for now. But some fear this fight isn’t over yet. Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of “As the Swamp Sinks.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/26/2023
2096 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/2023/05/Screenshot-2023-05-26-at-1.30.38-PM.png?fit=2384%2C1342&ssl=113422384adminadmin2023-05-26 18:31:232023-05-27 11:05:22Jace Houston Resigns as SJRA General Manager Under Pressure from Subsidence Deniers
The project to install more flood gates on the Lake Houston Dam has resulted in more nail-biting than a Steven Spielberg movie. Perhaps no project inspired more hope among flood-weary home- and business owners in the San Jacinto watershed. Importance is high, but the costs turned out far higher than expected and dollars proved hard to come by.
This morning, however, Dr. Greg Bonnen, chair of the House Appropriations Committee filed a rider to this year’s appropriations bill that will likely get the job done. The rider contains two provisions that affect funding for the gates.
Sec. 17.38 (a)(1) on page IX-22 contains $50 million for improvements to the Lake Houston Dam.
Sec. 17.38 (b)(1)(2)(3) on page IX-23 contains a provision that lets unexpended balances from previous grants be redeployed, so they can be spent on EITHER gates, a sediment capture pilot project, or sediment removal.
Lake Houston has four small floodgates only capable of releasing 1/15 the rate of Lake Conroe’s gates. New gates would go in the earthen embankment to the right of the old gates and spillway.
Funding Now Close to Expected Costs
According to Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin, Black & Veatch Engineering estimates the cost of an 11-gate structure to be between $125 and $225 million.
Balancing that on the income side of the ledger are:
The remaining Federal funds of the $50 million provided by FEMA early on for engineering, environmental surveys, permits and construction. So far the City has reportedly spent about $5 million on upfront work.
That puts available funding somewhere north of $170 million. Martin says that should be enough to lock in the original FEMA funding and get the project started.
Redeployment of Funds Important
Congressman Crenshaw’s office emphasized that even though some FEMA money will be redeployed from dredging the mouth bar, additional FEMA funds from another FEMA grant will let dredging around the lake continue.
Re: 17.38 (b) above (that second bucket of $50 million in funding from the state) Martin points out that it includes two other important projects: dredging and the sediment trap pilot study. However:
The pilot study should not be very expensive and has no firm deadline.
Congressman Dan Crenshaw has helped secure additional funding for dredging from a second FEMA grant.
Finally, Martin points out that Black & Veatch is examining options to scale back the number of gates in case construction costs exceed funding if something falls through.
Enough Funding Committed to Move Forward with Confidence
Lake Houston Area residents placed thousands of calls to save the project. Two days later, funding was placed in Bonnen’s rider. Martin thanks “ALL who placed phone calls, sent text messages and emailed state officials in support of our gates project.”
Thank you’s also go to all those who played key roles in this up-against-the-center-field wall catch:
State Senator Brandon Creighton
State Representative Charles Cunningham
Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick
State Representative Armando Walle
State Senator Joan Huffman
House Speaker Dade Phelan
House Appropriations Chairman Greg Bonnen
Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner
US Representative Dan Crenshaw and Kaaren Cambio, his District Director
Several others deserve special thanks:
Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin worked the phones relentlessly and made countless trips to Austin to raise awareness of the project and coordinate the area’s efforts.
City of Houston Chief Recovery Officer Stephen Costello convinced FEMA to include social benefits in the cost/benefit ratio (CBR). That raised the CBR to 3.5, making it the highest-rated project in the State of Texas.
City of Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, who called in some favors among Austin influentials to make the project happen.
Former State Representative Dan Huberty and Ben Melson, a CoH lobbyist, lobbied extensively over the last few months, working with Martin, Costello and Bill Kelly, the City’s Director of Government Affairs.
Reason More Gates Needed
Additional gates will let the City lower lake water faster as large storms approach, thus reducing flood peaks both upstream and down. That will, in turn, reduce flood risk for thousands of homeowners and businesses, not to mention all the schools that flooded.
But lowering the lake level carries some risk. If it takes too long to lower the lake, storms can veer away before they arrive, wasting water. Narrowing the window between release and the storm’s arrival, raises certainty that the storm will refill the lake.
More gates will also help balance releases from Lake Conroe with those from Lake Houston.
Next Steps
It ain’t over till it’s over. But even though only days are left in this session, Chairman Bonnen’s office said, “The legislature has never failed to pass an appropriations bill.”
More news as the project evolves.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/25/2023
2095 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/20200911-RJR_1524.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2023-05-25 16:54:592023-05-25 19:50:59Last-Minute Funding Breathes New Life into Lake Houston Gates Project
ChatGPT Advice on Most Effective Techniques for Flood Control
First in a three-part series about ChatGPT and Flood Knowledge
The flood of articles about ChatGPT recently prompted me to wonder whether the artificial intelligence application could accurately answer questions about flooding. So I set up an account, started asking questions, and checked the answers with experts. The responses revealed patterns of strengths and weaknesses.
Despite ChatGPT’s considerable strengths, my test raised a red “caution flag” on this newly minted intellectual booster rocket. In my opinion, the biggest danger in using it is this.
My advice:
Test Run and Validation
I first asked ChatGPT, “What are the most effective techniques for flood control?” I sent the results to an industry leading hydrologist who specializes in flood control and the leaders of two leading conservation groups in the Houston area.
I asked them to grade the answer on a scale of A through F and to answer two simple questions. Was the ChatGPT response accurate? And did it omit anything important?
ChatGPT Response to Test Question
Below are my question and the ChatGPT response reproduced verbatim:
Q: “What are the most effective techniques for flood control?”
A: “Flood control involves a combination of structural and non-structural techniques to minimize the impact of flooding. Here are some of the most effective techniques used for flood control:
It’s worth noting that the most effective flood control strategies often involve a combination of these techniques, tailored to the specific characteristics and challenges of the area at risk. Additionally, climate change adaptation measures and sustainable water management practices play a crucial role in mitigating the long-term effects of flooding.”
Evaluation of Response by Experts
Hydrologist/flood expert: “That response is pretty good. It really depends on the audience. I would give it a B+ because it is thorough, but very general. Obviously, it doesn’t take into account the location, development, topography, etc., so that is why it can’t ever give an “A+” answer.”
Environmentalist #1: “I would give this an A. It’s basic, but it’s pretty comprehensive. Especially items 5,6,7, which are not always considered as common strategies employed for flood mitigation.”
Environmentalist #2: “I would give it an A- or B+. It hit many of the green strategies. But it did not seem to talk about preservation of natural ecosystems, like forests, floodplains, beaches, and grasslands. Nor did it discuss the use of hybrid solutions that incorporate engineered features with natural materials that mimic the functioning of natural ecosystems. I would also add another item to the list, ‘Use of native vegetation in residential and commercial areas to increase infiltration.'”
My Impression
I concluded ChatGPT is a research tool like any other.
Strengths
It’s definitely faster than search engines that would require you to explore dozens of links in order to compile a list like the one above.
It even composes well-formed summaries/answers for you in simple, easy-to-understand language.
It feels as though you are conversing with a knowledgeable, patient teacher.
It’s a great jumping-off point to start intellectual exploration.
If this were an “Intro to…” or “Principles of…” course, I would give it an A- or B+. It gives good, comprehensive, well-formed answers. The grammar is impressive for something computer generated.
Weaknesses
But that last strength can inspire a dangerous overconfidence that will become more apparent in the next two posts.
Also, it never quantified “most effective,” but in fairness, the last paragraph of the response (“worth noting”) explains why that would be problematic.
Down the Rabbit Holes
Armed with my expert’s evaluations, I started down some rabbit holes that revealed more strengths, weaknesses, limitations and an outright error on different aspects of flood control.
But more on those in the next two posts. One involves construction best management practices. Another will focus on the capabilities of a government agency, the Texas General Land Office.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/27/2023
2097 days since Hurricane Harvey
Jace Houston Resigns as SJRA General Manager Under Pressure from Subsidence Deniers
Jace Houston, the San Jacinto River Authority’s (SJRA) General Manager and point person on subsidence issues, resigned yesterday, 5/25/23, to avert a political war with Montgomery County subsidence deniers that could have taken down the entire SJRA board.
Houston had been with the SJRA for 16 years after spending 10 years with the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District. While at the SJRA, the lawyer/engineer helped put together a Groundwater Reduction Plan that included 80 municipalities and municipal utility districts (MUDs) across Montgomery County. He also helped the SJRA construct a surface-water treatment plant on Lake Conroe.
Goals of Effort to Preserve Groundwater
The half-billion dollar plant supplies surface water to the major population centers in Montgomery County, such as Conroe, The Woodlands and Oak Ridge North. Converting the population centers to surface water preserved groundwater for less populated and rural areas where water pipelines become uneconomical.
When the plant came online in 2015, it also virtually neutralized subsidence (see below).
What costs? When water levels in wells drop, suppliers must move pumps deeper and use more electricity to pump water to the surface. In extreme cases, utilities may not be able to get water to the surface at all. Then they must drill new wells, often into deeper aquifers at hefty costs.
Declining well levels are especially worrisome in drought years when/where no alternative sources of water are available. Lack of water can limit population and economic growth as well as agricultural production.
However, preserving groundwater came at a cost. All members of the plan paid a fee to help pay for the surface water treatment plant even if they didn’t buy water from it. The need for such a plan became apparent more than 20 years ago, long before Houston joined the SJRA.
Need to Use Less Groundwater Validated by Legislature, But…
The Texas Leglislature validated the need to use less groundwater when it created the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) in 2001.
But in recent years, all that was forgotten. The LSGCD board denied subsidence was a problem and advocated unlimited groundwater pumping as a way to lower water costs.
In the meantime, subsidence has returned. So have water well declines.
As you can see below, since the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District began moving to deregulate groundwater usage, well levels have dropped significantly across the county, setting up a day of reckoning in the future.
A Shot Across the Bow of the Board
Undeterred by these signals, the City of Conroe and the LSGCD board took their fight to the state legislature. They got State Representative Will Metcalf of Conroe to propose an amendment to the SJRA Sunset Review Bill that would replace Jace Houston. The amendment passed and emboldened Metcalf, Conroe and the LSGCD.
The amended bill then went to the Senate Water, Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee where the Conroe/LSGCD contingent testified again. But Senator Charles Perry, the committee chair, talked his fellow members out of adopting their proposals.
However, during the committee debate, Senator Lois Kolkorst, who represents Magnolia, fired a shot across the bow of the SJRA. She suggested making SJRA board-member terms one year.
That would have been disastrous, according to one seasoned SJRA board member, “It takes a year just to learn the job,” he said.
After defeat of all suggested amendments in Perry’s committee, it didn’t take long for back-channel rumors to mushroom. A whisper campaign suggested that sympathetic senator(s) might offer the Metcalf amendment or a one-year board amendment when the bill came up for a vote on the Senate floor.
Within days, the SJRA called a special board meeting to discuss Houston’s employment. While Houston reportedly had many supporters on the SJRA Board, he ultimately chose to resign and avoid a political battle royal that could have damaged the SJRA.
Board Accepts Houston’s Resignation
An article in Community Impact quoted SJRA Board President Ronald Anderson as saying: “At today’s meeting, the SJRA board of directors received and reluctantly accepted a resignation letter from our general manager, Jace Houston. Jace has served with honor and distinction for almost 16 years and has made the SJRA one of the most respected water agencies in the state of Texas.”
Anderson continued, “Even through these recent circumstances involving the legislature, Jace has once again placed the best interests of our organization and customers above his own, and the board wishes him the best in his future endeavors, which we know will be marked by continued success.”
Houston will remain at the SJRA until June 30th. But even on his way out the door, he seems less concerned about his own future than Montgomery County’s water future.
Impact of LSGCD on Water Future of MoCo and More
When asked about the impact of the LSGCD moves, Houston predicted, “They’re not going to regulate the aquifers. They’re going to allow pumpage to increase significantly.”
Houston added, “A lot of great work has been done to put a program together that allows Montgomery County to be able to afford the future water supplies it needs. And all of that is at risk. This just puts the county’s future at risk. They don’t understand the science. LSGCD is just dead wrong on the science.”
Because aquifers flow toward the coast, depleting groundwater in Montgomery County affects Harris and Galveston communities as well. But Metcalf and the LSGCD board never seemed to consider the impact on neighboring counties even though Metcalf’s district represents only about one thirtieth of the population in the San Jacinto watershed.
Because of differential subsidence, the impact of unlimited groundwater pumping in southern Montgomery County could actually tilt Lake Houston toward the north. That’s because the Kingwood/Porter area would subside more than the Lake Houston Dam by about two feet. And that could put many homes near floodplains into floodplains.
The US Geological Survey (USGS) should release new, updated models later this year that could affect the rates shown approve (plus or minus).
In the meantime, for anyone who doubts the relationship between water-well declines and subsidence, USGS has published a 432-page scientific report on the subject based on 120 years of data from northeast Texas aquifers.
Houston’s resignation seems to have averted a San Jacinto showdown for now. But some fear this fight isn’t over yet. Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of “As the Swamp Sinks.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/26/2023
2096 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.
Last-Minute Funding Breathes New Life into Lake Houston Gates Project
The project to install more flood gates on the Lake Houston Dam has resulted in more nail-biting than a Steven Spielberg movie. Perhaps no project inspired more hope among flood-weary home- and business owners in the San Jacinto watershed. Importance is high, but the costs turned out far higher than expected and dollars proved hard to come by.
This morning, however, Dr. Greg Bonnen, chair of the House Appropriations Committee filed a rider to this year’s appropriations bill that will likely get the job done. The rider contains two provisions that affect funding for the gates.
Funding Now Close to Expected Costs
According to Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin, Black & Veatch Engineering estimates the cost of an 11-gate structure to be between $125 and $225 million.
Balancing that on the income side of the ledger are:
That puts available funding somewhere north of $170 million. Martin says that should be enough to lock in the original FEMA funding and get the project started.
Redeployment of Funds Important
Congressman Crenshaw’s office emphasized that even though some FEMA money will be redeployed from dredging the mouth bar, additional FEMA funds from another FEMA grant will let dredging around the lake continue.
Re: 17.38 (b) above (that second bucket of $50 million in funding from the state) Martin points out that it includes two other important projects: dredging and the sediment trap pilot study. However:
Finally, Martin points out that Black & Veatch is examining options to scale back the number of gates in case construction costs exceed funding if something falls through.
Enough Funding Committed to Move Forward with Confidence
While some uncertainty remains, Martin says the key point is that enough money has now been committed to move forward with confidence. This is a huge improvement over where the project stood just 8 days ago when concerned residents launched a call-in campaign to influential senators and representatives.
Lake Houston Area residents placed thousands of calls to save the project. Two days later, funding was placed in Bonnen’s rider. Martin thanks “ALL who placed phone calls, sent text messages and emailed state officials in support of our gates project.”
Thank you’s also go to all those who played key roles in this up-against-the-center-field wall catch:
Several others deserve special thanks:
Reason More Gates Needed
Additional gates will let the City lower lake water faster as large storms approach, thus reducing flood peaks both upstream and down. That will, in turn, reduce flood risk for thousands of homeowners and businesses, not to mention all the schools that flooded.
But lowering the lake level carries some risk. If it takes too long to lower the lake, storms can veer away before they arrive, wasting water. Narrowing the window between release and the storm’s arrival, raises certainty that the storm will refill the lake.
More gates will also help balance releases from Lake Conroe with those from Lake Houston.
Next Steps
It ain’t over till it’s over. But even though only days are left in this session, Chairman Bonnen’s office said, “The legislature has never failed to pass an appropriations bill.”
More news as the project evolves.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/25/2023
2095 Days since Hurricane Harvey