Recommended Floodgates Could Release at Rate of Lake Conroe During Harvey

City of Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin’s office has supplied ReduceFlooding.com with the Black & Veatch Engineering report on the recommended alternative for adding floodgates to Lake Houston. One key finding immediately jumped out at me that wasn’t in Martin’s press release last week. The recommended gates would have a release capacity that virtually equals the highest release rate of Lake Conroe during Hurricane Harvey.

The Lake Conroe release rate during Harvey maxed out at 79,000 cubic feet per second (CFS).

The eleven tainter gates recommended by Black & Veatch would have a release rate of 78,700 CFS.

New Possibilities, More Certainty

That opens up a world of possibilities. For instance, the City could wait to start releasing water until it knew water was coming downstream from Harvey.

Said Martin, “Once constructed, we can release with a moments notice which gives us great opportunities to coordinate release protocols with the SJRA!!”

Previously, Public Works has been reluctant to release water in advance of a storm because the release rate of the existing gates is so small. They have to start lowering the lake so far in advance of storms that a storm can veer away before it gets here. If it does, that means water has been wasted.

The recommended floodgates should provide much more certainty for operators and avoid waste.

Key Elements of Recommendation

site of proposed gates for Lake Houston on east side of dam
Gates would be placed at the original channel for the San Jacinto River seen in foreground.

Other key elements of the recommendation include:

  • Locating the floodgates in the earthen eastern portion of the dam near the old channel of the San Jacinto River.
  • Creating baffles and a dissipation basin downstream from the new gates to break up the flow and reduce water velocity
  • “Outdenting” the gates (i.e., building them in front of the current dam)
  • A bridge between the two parts of the earthen dam
  • Using tainter gates, the same type used at Lake Conroe.
  • A 3.5 year construction schedule.

The last point means that if construction started in January, the earliest completion date would be mid-2026.

However, given the need to line up additional funding in the state legislature, 2027 is a more realistic date.

For a complete discussion of the project history, constraints, alternatives, recommended options, construction drawings, rationales, and costs, see the entire 28-page Black and Veatch Report by Chris Mueller, PhD, P.E.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/14/22 based on the Black & Veatch Report

1933 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Last Reminder: Taylor Gully Meeting Wednesday 6:30 p.m.

Harris County Flood Control District will hold a virtual Taylor Gully meeting Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 6:30 p.m. Purpose: to discuss the findings of its plan to reduce flood risk along Taylor Gully. Register at: PublicInput.com/taylor.

To learn more about the project scope, see this post. It discusses the related effort to virtually double detention capacity on the Woodridge Village Property that HCFCD purchased in 2021. Up to six hundred homes flooded in this area twice in 2019.

About Taylor Gully

The headwaters of Taylor Gully originally started where Woodridge Village is today, just north of the Harris/Montgomery County Line (tan area in map below). From there, it cuts through Elm Grove, Mills Branch and Woodstream Forest before joining White Oak Creek which then joins Caney Creek and the East Fork San Jacinto.

Taylor Gully/Woodridge Village
Project being discussed Wednesday night

Taylor Gully Meeting Details

The virtual community engagement meeting will be held on:

December 14, 2022, 6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. 
Register/Join online at: PublicInput.com/taylor
Or join by phone* at 855-925-2801 with Meeting Code: 3364

The Taylor Gully meeting will begin with a brief presentation to share project updates, followed by a moderated Q&A session with Flood Control District team members. Residents will be able to submit questions, comments and input before, during and after the meeting, which will be considered during project development. Any comments not addressed during the Q&A session will receive a response at the conclusion of the public comment period.

Meeting Followup

Even if you are unable to attend the live meeting, residents are encouraged to register for the meeting to receive future project updates. A recorded version of the meeting will be available on the Flood Control District’s website and YouTube channel after the event. 

Special Needs?

Meeting accommodations can be made for those with disabilities. If needed, please contact 346-286-4040 at least three business days prior to the meeting. For questions, please contact the Flood Control District at 346-286-4000, or fill out the comment form online at hcfcd.org/taylor.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/13/22

1932 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 1181 since Imelda

Flood Map Accuracy

On December 6, 2022, The Washington Post ran an article titled “America Underwater: Extreme floods expose the flaws in FEMA’s risk maps.” The lengthy story by Samuel Oakford, John Muyskens, Sarah Cahlan and Joyce Sohyun Lee cross-referenced photos and videos with FEMA flood maps from areas around the country that flooded last summer.

The basic premise: FEMA’s flood maps “are failing to warn Americans about flood risk.” The authors then claim, “The resulting picture leaves homeowners, prospective buyers, renters and cities in the dark about the potential dangers they face, which insurance they should buy and what kinds of development should be restricted.”

There’s certainly room for improvement in FEMA flood maps.

FEMA Map from National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Note how mapping stops at Montgomery County line, one of the issues cited in The Post article.

But is Climate Change the Reason for Inaccuracy?

However, the authors blame climate change for the inaccuracy far more than other contributing factors which are far more obvious.

FEMA is supposed to update flood maps every 5-10 years. It’s hard to imagine climate change invalidating them in that time period.

Climate is an average of weather occurring over much longer time periods. Depending on whether you talk to a meteorologist or a geologist, the time period could range from 30 to millions of years.

At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth’s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. The last period of glaciation, often called the “Ice Age,” peaked about 20,000 years ago. At that time, the world was on average probably about 10°F colder than today.

Interestingly, one day after The Post article, the New York Times ran a story about the DNA of animals found frozen in the permafrost of northern Greenland, just a few hundred miles from the North Pole. The 135 different species scientists found there paint a picture of an arctic once lush with life typical of warmer climates today.

But another thing puzzles me. I see climate change often mentioned as the reason for drought. The US Geological Survey states, “Climate change has further altered the natural pattern of droughts, making them more frequent, longer, and more severe.” But The Post uses almost identical language to blame climate change for frequent flooding in many of the same general areas at the same time. Which is it?

And to what degree can climate change explain flood map inaccuracy? Many more obvious reasons exist that are less of a stretch for any inaccuracies.

Reasons Listed in Post Article for Inaccuracy of Maps

Here’s a list of the references in The Washington Post story used to explain inaccuracies found within FEMA maps. I’ve broken them into two groups so you can see the weight they gave to climate change.

Climate-Change References:
  1. “As climate change accelerates, it is increasing types of flooding that the maps aren’t built to include.”
  2. “Extreme precipitation events are growing increasingly common.”
  3. “A warming climate allows storms to carry more moisture, producing greater rain or snow in a short period of time.”
  4. “Climate has changed so much that the maps aren’t going to keep up.”
  5. Maps are out of date, some decades-old “in a changing climate.”
  6. “The effects of a changing climate.”
  7. Climate change impacts are getting worse.
  8. Climate change is “pushing FEMA’s maps beyond their limits.”
  9.  A gap exists between the data that goes into FEMA maps and current climate conditions.
  10. Climate change baseline is changing.
  11. “Climate change velocities are high.”
  12. “Maps do not take climate change into account.”
  13. “Overestimating the rarity of some events even before climate change…”
Other Possible Explanations Mentioned by The Post:
  1. “Communities may resist expanding designated flood zones because it adds costs and can hamper development.”
  2. Not all areas that flooded are mapped yet.
  3.  “Local communities often resist the expansion of federal flood zones”
  4. “Maps do not forecast flooding. Maps only reflect past flooding…”
  5. “Local governments have been opposed to any maps that show an increasing risk.”
  6. Relatively high imperviousness of gentrifying areas.
  7. Maps don’t reflect intense bursts of rainfall in a short period and the resulting street flooding.
  8. Impervious surface is replacing porous surface.
  9. Maps cover mainly coastal and riverine flooding.
  10. “Rain combining with melted snowpack.”
  11. FEMA flood maps don’t even attempt to model urban flooding
  12. “City neglected drainage problems.”
  13. Local opposition to expanding the floodplain.
  14. No sense of urgency to update maps.
  15. “Multiple compounding factors contribute to the flooding”

However, the article makes no mention of the mathematical limitations of Extreme Value Analysis, the key to understanding the uncertainties associated with rainfall probabilities.

Floods Can Also Be Explained Without Climate Change

The second group of references in The Post article seems far more immediate, compelling and easily provable when explaining any inaccuracy found in flood maps. They’re certainly typical of what I have found in the Houston area.

For the past five years I have been researching instances of flooding in and around Harris County. I published more than 250 articles on different aspects of the 2019 Elm Grove floods alone. And I don’t recall one person ever blaming those on climate change.

Elm Grove did not flood during Harvey, but did flood on two much smaller rains in 2019. The difference? Clearcutting and insufficiently mitigated upstream development. Contractors clearcut approximately 270 acres immediately north of Elm Grove without building sufficient detention capacity before the rains fell.

Similar stories – with variations – have played out over and over again throughout the Houston region. For instance, we see developers filling in wetlands. Exaggerating the infiltration rates of soils. Underestimating impermeable cover. Building in floodplains. Building to outdated codes and floodplain regulations. Being grandfathered under old regulations. Various jurisdictions refusing to update regulations. And more.

Regardless of your position on climate change, this discussion dramatizes the needs to:

  • Understand your local flood risk and the factors that affect it
  • Buy flood insurance.

Hopefully, Harris County Flood Control District’s MAAPnext project will address data deficiencies discussed in The Post article. But it will be years before those maps become official. And when they do, the landscape will have already changed.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/12/22

1931 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.