Part One began by talking about how, after every major natural disaster, FEMA sends in building-code experts to examine how structures performed and make recommendations for code changes to reduce future damage. It’s part of a process of continuous improvement that could/should make us all safer.
Part One ended with one of the most poignant stories I have ever heard. After a Cat 4 Hurricane struck Florida last year, a FEMA team was driving down a street littered with the debris of gutted homes and shattered lives. Mountains of waterlogged drywall, carpeting, furniture and cherished possessions lined both sides of the street waiting to be hauled away…just as it did in Houston after Harvey and Imelda.
Kingwood debris pile after Imelda.
But when the FEMA team got to the end of the street, they saw something that stunned them – a pristine home with nothing out front. It was actually the home on the street closest to the ocean. As they paused to marvel at the miracle, the homeowner drove up. They asked him the logical question, “Did you build above code requirements?”
“Not really,” said the homeowner. “I just built to what the code required.”
He went on to elaborate how the building inspector was a real stickler. “I thought he just had it in for me because I was a hippie. I really hated the guy.”
“What do you think of him now?” asked the FEMA employees. The homeowner extended his arms and made a bowing motion as if to praise and thank the man who had been such a thorn in his side.
Billions Saved
FEMA estimates that adoption of hazard-resistant building codes saved $32 billion during the last 20 years and could save another $132 billion by 2040. Not to mention saving a lot of heartbreak and misery.
So why are people so resistant to adopting higher building codes?
Resistance on Many Levels
Part Two of the presentation examined sources of resistance to adopting higher building codes. They used Louisiana’s attempt to increase freeboard factors as an example of the the types of resistance FEMA frequently encounters from various groups.
In engineering, freeboard is is the distance codes require you to build above the current estimated 100-year flood level.
The greater the freeboard, the safer you are.
But still, people found reasons not to increase the freeboard. The second presenter examined seven sources of resistance:
Perceived conflict between statewide minimum codes and local governments that may wish to adopt higher standards.
Uncertainty about where freeboard regulations had and hadn’t been adopted already.
Debate about whether the state or local authorities should establish standards.
Questions about why FEMA isn’t making the regulations at a national level.
Perceived lack of discounts in Risk Rating 2.0 national flood insurance premiums for structures elevated to meet higher freeboard requirements.
Concern about whether fill to elevate homes would make flooding worse.
Confusion over how building code officials and floodplain managers can collaborate.
All are valid concerns. But all can be overcome. Pretty easily, it turns out.
Answers readily exist for each of these issues. For example, with #6 (probably the most valid concern), communities have adopted standards to limit fill in areas where floodwater storage is a major concern.
For the other answers, see the entire presentation. The point I really want to make is about the pushback against proven practices that save lives and property.
Why Resist Changes that Avert Human Suffering?
As I watched the presentation, the image floating through my head was of the NTSB investigating a plane crash that killed hundreds of people. Imagine if the investigation found a defective engine part caused the catastrophe. Do you think manufacturers would resist upgrading the part?
It’s unthinkable. Who would board such an airplane? What aircraft manufacturer would even lobby against the change? The negative publicity would put them out of business.
But homebuilding and the development business are different. The industry has a million players, not a handful. A few bad actors can escape notice because:
The codes are so complex that few understand them.
Lobbyists frame discussion as “acceptable risk” vs. “unacceptable costs.”
Responsibility is shared among government regulators at many levels, their political masters, and private industry.
This creates an atmosphere of plausible deniability when disaster strikes. “We were just following regulations.” (Yeah, but who lobbied against them?)
Building Codes Like Seat Belts
Some readers may remember the battles to pass and enforce seat belt laws. Even though the federal government required manufacturers to install seat belts in all new cars starting in 1968, only 14% of Americans regularly used them at first. Adoption of state laws mandating usage was spotty. And when a Michigan state rep introduced a bill in the early 1980s that levied a fine for not buckling up, he received hate mail comparing him to Hitler. American’s love their freedom so much, they can even react negatively to efforts to protect them.
Only six municipalities in all counties shown here have adopted up-to-date building codes.
So when the next disaster strikes, let the finger pointing begin.
No wait! Let’s just get a bailout from FEMA!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/1/2023
2010 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/2023/03/20230301-Screenshot-2023-03-01-at-10.33.27-AM.jpg?fit=1200%2C746&ssl=17461200adminadmin2023-03-01 11:01:492023-03-02 16:57:55Building-Code Pushback that Makes Disasters Worse
The Lake Houston Gates Project is moving closer to reality with breakthroughs on the benefit/cost ratio, funding and endorsements.
City of Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin and Chief Recovery Officer Stephen Costello provided updates on 2/27/23 at City Hall on the Lake Houston Gates Project. The wide-ranging, hour-long discussion covered several related topics. They included:
A critical path for construction
Dredging of the lake
Funding for gates and dredging
Several related engineering studies
A favorable ruling from FEMA on the Benefit-Cost Ratio
An endorsement to the area’s legislators by the Greater Houston Partnership.
Need For Gates
For those new to the area, the City of Houston has been pushing to add gates to the Lake Houston Dam ever since Harvey in 2017. Upstream, Lake Conroe’s gates can release 150,000 cubic feet per second (CFS). But Lake Houston’s can only release 10,000 CFS.
The disparity in discharge capacity complicates joint-reservoir-management and pre-release strategies designed to avoid flooding by reducing the water level in Lake Houston.
Lake Houston releases cannot keep up with Lake Conroe’s. And pre-releasing water from Lake Houston takes so long that storms can veer away during the lowering process, often resulting in wasted water. That’s an important consideration for a water-supply lake.
According to Martin and Costello, the gate project will:
• Serve as the first phase of a long-term effort to extend the life of the Dam • Enable the rapid lowering of lake levels in advance of a flood • Eliminate the need for a seasonal lowering of both Lake Houston and Lake Conroe • Provide potential water-rights savings • Protect an estimated 5,000 residential properties in the surrounding area • Yield an estimated half billion dollars in economic benefits during the life of the project
However, the City discarded that idea as “too risky” after further study. The engineering company cautioned the City that it would have a difficult time finding contractors willing to risk modifying a 70-year old concrete dam. The potential liability was just too great. So the City then revisited adding various numbers of tainter gates to the eastern, earthen portion of the dam.
Because tainter gates exceeded FEMA’s funding, the City had initially focused on crest gates. But after investigating the safety issues, the City decided to seek more funding for tainter gates instead.
Recommended location for new tainter gates is next to old ones, not farther east as I conjectured earlier.
The picture below is slightly wider and shows more of how both halves of the dam come together.
If funding comes through, new gates would go in the upper right along the earthen portion of the dam, next to the old gates.
Funding Needs
FEMA initially set aside $50 million for the gates. Plus Harris County committed $20 million in the 2018 Flood Bond to attract FEMA’s match. But the latest construction estimates show eleven tainter gates could cost between $200 and $250 million.
After engineering and environmental studies, only $68.3 million in funding remains. That includes an earmark secured by Congressman Dan Crenshaw. So the City is seeking another $150 million from the State of Texas. Martin and Costello have made weekly trips to Austin so far during this session to line up support from legislators, committee chairs, and the Texas Division of Emergency Management.
Social Benefits Improve Benefit/Cost Ratio
All this is suddenly possible because of a favorable ruling from FEMA on the benefit-cost ratio (BCR).
For years, Houston had struggled to get the BCR for the gate project above 1.0 (the point at which benefits exceed costs). Usually, FEMA strictly interprets benefits as “avoided damages to structures.”
But Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Costello met with FEMA to argue that the problem was much bigger than damaged structures.
As a result, FEMA allowed the City to add the value of “social benefits” to the BCR. Social benefits can include such things as avoiding lost wages when businesses are destroyed; transportation disruptions that reduce the region’s productivity; reducing negative impacts on student achievement when schools are disrupted; and more.
The social-benefit ruling covers a number of City projects, not just the gates. It should also benefit other areas, especially rural ones.
Said Costello, “The minute the social benefits came in, everything was great.” Instead of struggling to reach 1.0, the City is now far above it.
Greater Houston Partnership Endorsement
With that out of the way, the Greater Houston Partnership wrote a powerful letter to state legislators seeking their support for the gate project. See below.
The Partnership includes business leaders from 900 member companies in the 12-county Houston Region.
Dredging Update
While pressing ahead with the gates project, the City is also working on a long-term dredging plan for the lake and working with the SJRA on sedimentation and sand-trap pilot projects.
The lake has already lost more than 20,000 acre feet of capacity due to sedimentation. That worsens flooding. While the Federal Government supports efforts to improve Lake Houston now, the chances of getting more money in the future will be reduced – unless we can show that we’re at least keeping pace with annual sediment deposits.
Since Harvey, FEMA, the Army Corps, TWDB, and City of Houston have removed almost 4 million cubic yards of material from the lake at a cost of $226 million.
We have to prevent more sediment from coming downstream or dredge it after it gets here.
Stephen Costello, City of Houston Chief Recovery Officer
The City is currently lobbying for another $50 million for maintenance dredging to add to the money secured in the last legislative session by now-retired State Representative Dan Huberty. New Representative Charles Cunningham will reportedly now carry that banner forward along with State Senator Brandon Creighton.
Legislative News to Follow
March 10th is the last day to file bills in the Texas Legislature this year. Please visit the legislation page on ReduceFlooding.com for updates once bills are filed and start moving forward in Austin.
Thanks to all of our elected and appointed representatives who have pushed so hard on so many fronts for the last 2008 days to tie all the pieces of this complicated flood-mitigation puzzle together.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/27/2023
2008 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/20230227-Screenshot-2023-02-27-at-9.28.29-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C679&ssl=16791200adminadmin2023-02-27 21:45:512023-02-28 11:45:24Lake Houston Gates Project Moves Closer to Reality
The controversial new Royal Pines subdivision that flooded a neighbor four times in two months has finally built a stormwater detention basin.
The good news: The basin should capture water flowing from one direction toward the neighbor.
The bad news: The height of the berm around the pond could back up water from the opposite direction onto the neighbor’s property. The concentrated flow could also erode the earth over a natural gas pipeline.
Drainage Now Concentrated Over Pipeline
The pipeline is buried only 36″ deep along the silt fence in the photo below. So any floodwater coming from the west (right) will now be concentrated directly over the pipeline.
Water used to converge from both east and west toward a natural depression in the middle of the new development. But contractors changed the natural grade, confusing the situation.
Looking south from over White Oak Creek toward the new 6.3-acre detention pond in the NW corner of Royal Pines. Water drains toward camera.
The drainage impact analysis for Royal Pines below shows that 11.6 acres outlined in purple (labeled as OFF1, for offsite area #1) drains through the larger 49.5 acre area that contains detention Pond 1 shown in the upper left. The plans show a channel running about a quarter of the way down the left border where the silt fence now is, then mysteriously stopping.
When I first saw the plans, I assumed the water in that channel would empty into the pond. But no inlets are installed at that location. At least not yet even though others are installed elsewhere.) See below and above.
Looking west toward neighborhood that flooded from development. No inletscome from that direction.
Instead, water coming from the west will meet a wall approximately 8 feet high.
The wall of the detention pond. This area used to slope down toward the trees in the background.Now you can barely see them.
The berm forms a dam against any water coming from the west (behind the camera position). That includes floodwaters from White Oak Creek.
So where will the stormwater go? Instead of spreading out, it will be squeezed between the berm and homeowners. That has the potential to cause more flooding.
The analysis claims the development will have no adverse impact either up- or downstream. However, during a five-year rain in January, the level of White Oak Creek came up much higher than a five-year flood.
What’s on the ground counts for more than what’s on paper.
Another Danger Lurks 36″ Down
But there’s potentially an even bigger danger. A natural gas pipeline is buried next to that silt fence that borders homes along the western edge of the detention pond. Erosion from all that concentrated water rushing over the pipeline could expose it, just as it exposed another pipeline 1.5 miles away.
The man behind the mine, Prabhakar Guniganti, also owns or owned Royal Pines. His name shows up on the general plan, although the Montgomery County tax rolls show a company called TC LB Royal Pines LP now owns the property. It’s not clear if there’s a connection between Guniganti and the Royal Pines Limited Partnership.
Guniganti has a history of corporate shell games. After the Attorney General sued him, ownership of his mine changed hands so many times that the AG had to add five shell companies to the lawsuit. The AG also added Guniganti as an individual and as a director of the companies/partnerships to the lawsuit. Because of all the delays, the case still has not gone to trial.
This does not inspire confidence. Especially among homeowners who may be flooded, but don’t have the State’s deep pockets.
When I and homeowners talked to Montgomery County Engineering last week, the developer did not yet have a construction permit for the pond. The county said only that if any changes become necessary, they will be at the developer’s expense.
Just a reminder. Section 11.086 of the Texas Water Code states, “No person may divert … the natural flow of surface waters in this state, or permit a diversion to continue, in a manner that damages the property of another…”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/25/2023
2006 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.
Building-Code Pushback that Makes Disasters Worse
On 2/28/23, I attended an excellent online FEMA seminar about building codes. It was a two-part presentation. Part One discussed how higher building codes can reduce damages from flooding. Part Two discussed building-code pushback. For example, despite all the flood damage in Texas, the State hasn’t updated its building codes since 2012 – even though the International Building Code and International Resilience Code have been updated several times since then.
That raises the question, “Why not?”
Life-Saving Codes
Part One began by talking about how, after every major natural disaster, FEMA sends in building-code experts to examine how structures performed and make recommendations for code changes to reduce future damage. It’s part of a process of continuous improvement that could/should make us all safer.
Part One ended with one of the most poignant stories I have ever heard. After a Cat 4 Hurricane struck Florida last year, a FEMA team was driving down a street littered with the debris of gutted homes and shattered lives. Mountains of waterlogged drywall, carpeting, furniture and cherished possessions lined both sides of the street waiting to be hauled away…just as it did in Houston after Harvey and Imelda.
But when the FEMA team got to the end of the street, they saw something that stunned them – a pristine home with nothing out front. It was actually the home on the street closest to the ocean. As they paused to marvel at the miracle, the homeowner drove up. They asked him the logical question, “Did you build above code requirements?”
“Not really,” said the homeowner. “I just built to what the code required.”
He went on to elaborate how the building inspector was a real stickler. “I thought he just had it in for me because I was a hippie. I really hated the guy.”
“What do you think of him now?” asked the FEMA employees. The homeowner extended his arms and made a bowing motion as if to praise and thank the man who had been such a thorn in his side.
Billions Saved
FEMA estimates that adoption of hazard-resistant building codes saved $32 billion during the last 20 years and could save another $132 billion by 2040. Not to mention saving a lot of heartbreak and misery.
So why are people so resistant to adopting higher building codes?
Resistance on Many Levels
Part Two of the presentation examined sources of resistance to adopting higher building codes. They used Louisiana’s attempt to increase freeboard factors as an example of the the types of resistance FEMA frequently encounters from various groups.
In engineering, freeboard is is the distance codes require you to build above the current estimated 100-year flood level.
But still, people found reasons not to increase the freeboard. The second presenter examined seven sources of resistance:
All are valid concerns. But all can be overcome. Pretty easily, it turns out.
Answers readily exist for each of these issues. For example, with #6 (probably the most valid concern), communities have adopted standards to limit fill in areas where floodwater storage is a major concern.
For the other answers, see the entire presentation. The point I really want to make is about the pushback against proven practices that save lives and property.
Why Resist Changes that Avert Human Suffering?
As I watched the presentation, the image floating through my head was of the NTSB investigating a plane crash that killed hundreds of people. Imagine if the investigation found a defective engine part caused the catastrophe. Do you think manufacturers would resist upgrading the part?
It’s unthinkable. Who would board such an airplane? What aircraft manufacturer would even lobby against the change? The negative publicity would put them out of business.
But homebuilding and the development business are different. The industry has a million players, not a handful. A few bad actors can escape notice because:
Building Codes Like Seat Belts
Some readers may remember the battles to pass and enforce seat belt laws. Even though the federal government required manufacturers to install seat belts in all new cars starting in 1968, only 14% of Americans regularly used them at first. Adoption of state laws mandating usage was spotty. And when a Michigan state rep introduced a bill in the early 1980s that levied a fine for not buckling up, he received hate mail comparing him to Hitler. American’s love their freedom so much, they can even react negatively to efforts to protect them.
It’s the same way with building codes. Even when they provide a greater than 10-to-1 payback and qualify you for a billion dollars in flood-mitigation funding!
If you want to see how appallingly out of date Texas building codes can be, explore these two websites.
So when the next disaster strikes, let the finger pointing begin.
No wait! Let’s just get a bailout from FEMA!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/1/2023
2010 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.
Lake Houston Gates Project Moves Closer to Reality
The Lake Houston Gates Project is moving closer to reality with breakthroughs on the benefit/cost ratio, funding and endorsements.
City of Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin and Chief Recovery Officer Stephen Costello provided updates on 2/27/23 at City Hall on the Lake Houston Gates Project. The wide-ranging, hour-long discussion covered several related topics. They included:
Need For Gates
For those new to the area, the City of Houston has been pushing to add gates to the Lake Houston Dam ever since Harvey in 2017. Upstream, Lake Conroe’s gates can release 150,000 cubic feet per second (CFS). But Lake Houston’s can only release 10,000 CFS.
The disparity in discharge capacity complicates joint-reservoir-management and pre-release strategies designed to avoid flooding by reducing the water level in Lake Houston.
Lake Houston releases cannot keep up with Lake Conroe’s. And pre-releasing water from Lake Houston takes so long that storms can veer away during the lowering process, often resulting in wasted water. That’s an important consideration for a water-supply lake.
According to Martin and Costello, the gate project will:
• Serve as the first phase of a long-term effort to extend the life of the Dam
• Enable the rapid lowering of lake levels in advance of a flood
• Eliminate the need for a seasonal lowering of both Lake Houston and Lake Conroe
• Provide potential water-rights savings
• Protect an estimated 5,000 residential properties in the surrounding area
• Yield an estimated half billion dollars in economic benefits during the life of the project
Gates, Funding, BCR, Studies
Preliminary engineering studies evaluated about a dozen different alternatives for adding discharge capacity to Lake Houston. The City initially favored adding crest gates to the spillway portion of the dam.
However, the City discarded that idea as “too risky” after further study. The engineering company cautioned the City that it would have a difficult time finding contractors willing to risk modifying a 70-year old concrete dam. The potential liability was just too great. So the City then revisited adding various numbers of tainter gates to the eastern, earthen portion of the dam.
Because tainter gates exceeded FEMA’s funding, the City had initially focused on crest gates. But after investigating the safety issues, the City decided to seek more funding for tainter gates instead.
The City now recommends adding 11 tainter gates.
The picture below is slightly wider and shows more of how both halves of the dam come together.
Funding Needs
FEMA initially set aside $50 million for the gates. Plus Harris County committed $20 million in the 2018 Flood Bond to attract FEMA’s match. But the latest construction estimates show eleven tainter gates could cost between $200 and $250 million.
After engineering and environmental studies, only $68.3 million in funding remains. That includes an earmark secured by Congressman Dan Crenshaw. So the City is seeking another $150 million from the State of Texas. Martin and Costello have made weekly trips to Austin so far during this session to line up support from legislators, committee chairs, and the Texas Division of Emergency Management.
Social Benefits Improve Benefit/Cost Ratio
All this is suddenly possible because of a favorable ruling from FEMA on the benefit-cost ratio (BCR).
For years, Houston had struggled to get the BCR for the gate project above 1.0 (the point at which benefits exceed costs). Usually, FEMA strictly interprets benefits as “avoided damages to structures.”
But Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Costello met with FEMA to argue that the problem was much bigger than damaged structures.
As a result, FEMA allowed the City to add the value of “social benefits” to the BCR. Social benefits can include such things as avoiding lost wages when businesses are destroyed; transportation disruptions that reduce the region’s productivity; reducing negative impacts on student achievement when schools are disrupted; and more.
The social-benefit ruling covers a number of City projects, not just the gates. It should also benefit other areas, especially rural ones.
Said Costello, “The minute the social benefits came in, everything was great.” Instead of struggling to reach 1.0, the City is now far above it.
Greater Houston Partnership Endorsement
With that out of the way, the Greater Houston Partnership wrote a powerful letter to state legislators seeking their support for the gate project. See below.
The Partnership includes business leaders from 900 member companies in the 12-county Houston Region.
Dredging Update
While pressing ahead with the gates project, the City is also working on a long-term dredging plan for the lake and working with the SJRA on sedimentation and sand-trap pilot projects.
The Texas Water Department Board (TWDB) has estimated sediment inflow to Lake Houston at about 380 acre-feet of material annually.
The lake has already lost more than 20,000 acre feet of capacity due to sedimentation. That worsens flooding. While the Federal Government supports efforts to improve Lake Houston now, the chances of getting more money in the future will be reduced – unless we can show that we’re at least keeping pace with annual sediment deposits.
Since Harvey, FEMA, the Army Corps, TWDB, and City of Houston have removed almost 4 million cubic yards of material from the lake at a cost of $226 million.
The City is currently lobbying for another $50 million for maintenance dredging to add to the money secured in the last legislative session by now-retired State Representative Dan Huberty. New Representative Charles Cunningham will reportedly now carry that banner forward along with State Senator Brandon Creighton.
Legislative News to Follow
March 10th is the last day to file bills in the Texas Legislature this year. Please visit the legislation page on ReduceFlooding.com for updates once bills are filed and start moving forward in Austin.
Thanks to all of our elected and appointed representatives who have pushed so hard on so many fronts for the last 2008 days to tie all the pieces of this complicated flood-mitigation puzzle together.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/27/2023
2008 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Royal Pines Builds Stormwater Detention Basin, But…
The controversial new Royal Pines subdivision that flooded a neighbor four times in two months has finally built a stormwater detention basin.
The good news: The basin should capture water flowing from one direction toward the neighbor.
The bad news: The height of the berm around the pond could back up water from the opposite direction onto the neighbor’s property. The concentrated flow could also erode the earth over a natural gas pipeline.
Drainage Now Concentrated Over Pipeline
The pipeline is buried only 36″ deep along the silt fence in the photo below. So any floodwater coming from the west (right) will now be concentrated directly over the pipeline.
Water used to converge from both east and west toward a natural depression in the middle of the new development. But contractors changed the natural grade, confusing the situation.
The drainage impact analysis for Royal Pines below shows that 11.6 acres outlined in purple (labeled as OFF1, for offsite area #1) drains through the larger 49.5 acre area that contains detention Pond 1 shown in the upper left. The plans show a channel running about a quarter of the way down the left border where the silt fence now is, then mysteriously stopping.
When I first saw the plans, I assumed the water in that channel would empty into the pond. But no inlets are installed at that location. At least not yet even though others are installed elsewhere.) See below and above.
Instead, water coming from the west will meet a wall approximately 8 feet high.
The berm forms a dam against any water coming from the west (behind the camera position). That includes floodwaters from White Oak Creek.
So where will the stormwater go? Instead of spreading out, it will be squeezed between the berm and homeowners. That has the potential to cause more flooding.
That giant wall also has the potential to obstruct the floodplain and back water up during a storm, just as the berms around sand mines can.
The analysis claims the development will have no adverse impact either up- or downstream. However, during a five-year rain in January, the level of White Oak Creek came up much higher than a five-year flood.
Another Danger Lurks 36″ Down
But there’s potentially an even bigger danger. A natural gas pipeline is buried next to that silt fence that borders homes along the western edge of the detention pond. Erosion from all that concentrated water rushing over the pipeline could expose it, just as it exposed another pipeline 1.5 miles away.
Erosion exposed a Kinder-Morgan pipeline at the Triple PG Sand Mine. See below.
The Texas Attorney General is still suing the owner of the mine over dangerous business practices.
Same Cast of Characters
The man behind the mine, Prabhakar Guniganti, also owns or owned Royal Pines. His name shows up on the general plan, although the Montgomery County tax rolls show a company called TC LB Royal Pines LP now owns the property. It’s not clear if there’s a connection between Guniganti and the Royal Pines Limited Partnership.
The detail below taken from General Plans dated March 18, 2022 shows the Guniganti Family is part owner of the property. But Royal Pines allegedly bought the land from the 1992 Guniganti Credit Shelter Trusts on 12/9/21 – more than three months earlier.
So, will the real owner please stand up?
Master of the Corporate Shell Game
Guniganti has a history of corporate shell games. After the Attorney General sued him, ownership of his mine changed hands so many times that the AG had to add five shell companies to the lawsuit. The AG also added Guniganti as an individual and as a director of the companies/partnerships to the lawsuit. Because of all the delays, the case still has not gone to trial.
This does not inspire confidence. Especially among homeowners who may be flooded, but don’t have the State’s deep pockets.
When I and homeowners talked to Montgomery County Engineering last week, the developer did not yet have a construction permit for the pond. The county said only that if any changes become necessary, they will be at the developer’s expense.
Just a reminder. Section 11.086 of the Texas Water Code states, “No person may divert … the natural flow of surface waters in this state, or permit a diversion to continue, in a manner that damages the property of another…”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/25/2023
2006 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.