Creating a land bank for future flood-mitigation could reduce mitigation costs, speed up projects, and protect the lives and homes of millions.
When we should acquire land for future flood mitigation.When we usually try to acquire it.
Why Flood Mitigation Takes So Long and Costs so Much
Five and a half years after Harvey, officials are still struggling to finance many flood-mitigation projects. Part of the issue has to do with high land-acquisition costs for large, stormwater detention basins and for widening channels.
The San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage study recommended 16 such projects in the upper basin. The plan includes 10 large regional detention facilities comprising approximately 229,000 ac-ft and six channel projects covering about 38.5 stream miles. Total cost: $2.9 to $3.3 billion (including construction). Land acquisition comprises a large percentage of that total. To put that in perspective, 229,000 acre feet is more than half the capacity of Lake Conroe. And 38.5 miles is exactly the distance from downtown Conroe to downtown Houston. And the cost totals more than Harris County’s 2018 flood bond.
Acquisition costs can vary greatly depending on whether the land is rural or urban; in a flood plain or not; wetlands or not; at a low or high elevation; distance to market; highway access; and other factors.
Ironically, the SJRA studied some of the same recommended detention basins along Spring Creek and its tributaries more than almost 40 years ago. A 1985 study on the Upper River Basin included a chapter on planning. It recommended…
“Right of way and reservoir land acquisition should occur while the land is open and available.”
Had people only listened, taxpayers might have saved a billion dollars or more. Land costs then were a small fraction of today’s. Only 1.8% of the watershed was developed. So why didn’t the interested parties start buying the land back then?
How Benefit/Cost Ratio Can Disincentivize Planning
Even though the costs were far lower, the benefits of buying farm or timber land were even lower still. Developments had to creep much closer before the Benefit/Cost Ratios increased enough to justify the expenditures. But of course, at that point people were already flooding or in danger of flooding. Now, repetitive payouts from the National Flood Insurance Plan help document the “benefits” of buying the land.
So why not create a land bank for future flood mitigation projects?
Buy the land when it’s cheap.
Put it “in the bank.”
Build detention basins on it when needed.
Land-Bank Precedents
There are precedents for this idea.
USDA started its Soil Bank in 1956. Basically, it pays farmers to take land out of production to support crop prices and farm income while preserving soil.
Land banks around the world acquire, hold, manage, and sometimes redevelop property for productive use and to meet community goals, such as increasing affordable housing or stabilizing property values.
Wetlands mitigation banks help preserve valuable wetlands to mitigate damage associated with new developments
HCFCD’s Frontier Program buys up land in rural areas, then develops flood mitigation projects on it. The District sells “detention capacity” to developers to help reduce its costs. This also ensures sufficient capacity for planned developments and optimum efficiency for flood-control projects.
In a similar vein, why not create land banks for flood-mitigation?
Forty years ago, when these projects were first studied, the benefit/cost ratio didn’t justify the purchase. Fast forward.
Benefits of Land Bank
Now, we’re looking at purchasing the same land, but because of inflation and development, the land cost is vastly higher. Had the land been purchased and “banked” way back then, the results would have been:
To be eligible for the proposed flood-mitigation land bank, the land would have to be:
Near a stream or river
Suited for building flood-mitigation projects (i.e., have the right topography)
In or around growing areas, such as Houston, where it would be needed for flood mitigation in a reasonable number of years.
If it contains forests or wetlands, it gets bonus points because its already reducing flooding.
In summary, the idea is to reduce future costs by purchasing land (at market rates) when it’s cheap. It has the added benefits of:
Preserving floodplains, wetlands and forests
Preventing flood damage
Shortening the time needed to develop mitigation projects
How Much Flood Damage Could Have Been Prevented?
The United States needs to re-engineer its flood-mitigation business processes. Flood mitigation takes costs too much and takes too long because we wait too long.
The San Jancinto River Master Drainage Plan released in 2020 points out significant flooding in 1940, 1960, 1973, 1994, 2016, 2017, and 2019 along with numerous other smaller flood events. We’ve been studying the problem for more than 40 years without actually mitigating it. A flood-mitigation land bank could help reduce costs speed up mitigation, and protect people before they flood.
It would be interesting to calculate how much damage could have been prevented in the last four of those floods had all the projects in the 1985 plan been implemented.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/28/2022
1947 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/20220722-RJR_0571.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2022-12-28 19:56:232022-12-28 20:06:46Create Land Bank for Future Flood-Mitigation Projects
In a devastating ruling for Quadvest, L.P., and Woodland Oaks Utility, L.P., John Delaney, visiting judge in the 284th District Court in Montgomery County, rejected their pre-trial arguments and granted a summary judgment that validated the San Jacinto River Authority’s Groundwater Reduction Plan (GRP) contract. Both Quadvest and Woodland Oaks have been subsidence deniers in the past.
The key to reducing subsidence in Montgomery County. SJRA water treatment plant at Lake Conroe Dam. Image courtesy of SJRA.
The only question now is whether the SJRA’s water rates are fair. However, Jace Houston, SJRA general manager, points out that SJRA makes no profit from selling water and that the defendants have cost the river authority more than $12.7 million by withholding contractual payments due under the GRP contract.
Other signers of the contract who did not contest it have had to pick up the slack for Quadvest and Woodland Oaks, placing an unfair burden on them. Both companies are private companies that pump groundwater in Montgomery County.
In a separate order on the same day, Judge Delaney ruled on the defendant’s defenses. Quadvest and Woodland Oaks claimed:
Lack of consideration
Failure of consideration
Fraud
Illegality
Mutual Mistake
In the second order, the Judge simply stated that those defenses were DENIED.
The order concluded, “The Court has determined as a matter of law that “SJRA’s GRP Contracts are incontestable, valid, and enforceable according to their terms.”
Why Contract is Incontestable
State law makes it clear that when a contract is signed that relates to a bond offering and which has been approved by the State Attorney General, the contract is incontestable. In this case, the SJRA issued $550 million of bonds and the Texas Attorney General approved the contract.
SJRA used the bonds to build its surface water treatment plant on Lake Conroe and a distribution system. The distribution system also required acquiring rights of way.
“Consideration” received by the 80 entities signing the contract included:
Reduced costs because they didn’t have to re-dig wells as often when aquifers depleted.
Quadvest and Woodland Oaks claimed they received no consideration because LSGCD had since changed its rules after the current Board became elected in 2018 – thanks in large part to major contributions by Quadvest.
The goal of reducing groundwater usage was an attempt by suppliers in the region to reduce subsidence.
Since 2020, Quadvest and Woodlands Oaks have refused to pay the rate due under the contract, but have continued to charge their customers as if they are abiding by the contracted amount.
Jace Houston, SJRA general manager, points out that the defendants had 30 other groundwater reduction plans they could have joined back in 2010 (when the contract went into effect) if they felt they weren’t getting fair consideration.
Subsidence reduced, then leveled off for several years after the contract. However, it is now accelerating again thanks to virtually unlimited groundwater pumping by Quadvest and others.
Second Lawsuit Still Winding its Way Through Courts
Although the ruling applied only to Quadvest and Woodland Oaks, it also has implications for two other entities, the Cities of Magnolia and Conroe.
Both signed the SJRA GRP contract. And both withhold payments. Magnolia is currently $800,000 in arrears and Conroe owes $15.8 million. With Quadvest and Woodland Oaks, that brings the total owed to the SJRA up to $29.3 million.
However, Magnolia and Conroe are not making the same claims as the two private entities. They claim “governmental immunity.”
Interestingly, the attorney general is worried about such claims BETWEEN governmental entities. If for some reason a judge allows the claim, a high percentage of regional water supply contracts in the State of Texas could become unenforceable, according to Mr. Houston. As a result, the Texas Water Development Board has stopped making loans and grants to entities in breach of such contracts. Interestingly, of the 80 parties signing the SJRA GRP contract, virtually half are governmental entities of some sort.
Next Steps
“Quadvest and others have tried for years to cloud the issues and confuse the public about the GRP Contracts, and today all of that has been put to rest,” said Mr. Houston. “Decisions up to this point have been on pre-trial matters such as jurisdiction and venue. We are pleased to have a ruling on the merits that declares the GRP contracts valid and incontestable in any court.”
“Any further proceedings in Montgomery County should only be to verify that the rates are reasonable,” said Houston. “We look forward to presenting to the court how SJRA takes great care to prepare a very conservative and reasonable budget, and charge rates that are ultimately voted on by our customers.”
Judge Delaney’s rulings, though not directly on the subject of subsidence, have the potential to impact it. Without a financial incentive by companies like Quadvest to deny subsidence, perhaps the LSGCD board will quit trying to deny it, too.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/21/2022
1940 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/2022/12/20100405-2016_09_30_AERIAL_SJRA-WTP_26.jpg?fit=1200%2C818&ssl=18181200adminadmin2022-12-21 15:46:332022-12-27 17:57:51MoCo District Judge Slams Door on Subsidence Deniers
Early in the morning on December 16, 2022, NASA launched a new satellite that will map and subsequently measure changes in virtually all of the Earth’s rivers, lakes and oceans. High-resolution imaging will even be able to measure changes in ocean currents and temperatures. Scientists will use the imaging capabilities to better understand flooding, droughts and coastal erosion. One said it will “revolutionize hydrology.”
About the Satellite and Orbit
The satellite will orbit more than 550 miles high. Nicknamed SWOT (Surface Water and Ocean Topography), the mission will cover the globe between the Arctic and Antarctica at least once every three weeks.
About the size of a SUV, the satellite will measure the height of water on more than 90% of Earth’s surface. It will enable scientists to track water flow and identify potential high-risk areas.
SWOT’s dual antennas at work. Image Credit: NASA.
The heart of the improvements is an innovative instrument called the Ka-band radar interferometer (KaRIn) – a major technological advance. KaRIn bounces radar pulses off the water’s surface and receives the return signal using two antennas on either side of the spacecraft.
According to NASA, for the first six months after launch, SWOT will be in a “fast-sampling” phase with a 1-day repeat orbit. Objectives in this phase include calibration and validation while studying rapidly changing phenomena.
The next phase – Operations & Sustainment – should last about three years It will have a 21-day repeat orbit to balance global coverage and sampling. NASA chose this “non-sun-synchronous orbit to minimize tidal aliasing and ensure coverage of major water bodies on land.” SWOT’s 75-mi-wide swath will result in overlapping measurements over most of the globe with an average revisit time of 11 days.
For a discussion of “tidal aliasing,” see this article in Geophysical Journal International. It’s about overcoming errors in current models that have to do with undersampling, uncertainty, imperfections and low-resolution.
Scientists Describe Anticipated Benefits
Scientists working on the mission described anticipated benefits:
Larry Smith: “Through acquisition of high-resolution, spatially continuous measurements of inland water surface elevations, SWOT stands poised to revolutionize terrestrial hydrology in much the same way that Seasat transformed physical oceanography in 1978.”
Mike Durand: SWOT will help us “better understand how precipitation is partitioned (runoff, evapotranspiration, storage).”
Colin Gleason: “SWOT’s downstream estimates of river discharge will form perhaps the world’s most complete accounting of human alteration of river flow.”
Marc Simard: It will tell us “where surface water flows and where it is stored, everywhere on Earth.”
Doug Vandemark: “New data will aid existing weather prediction models in terms of how they resolve and predict heat and energy exchange between the atmosphere and oceans in both fair and foul weather situations.”
Demitris Menemenlis: SWOT will give us “increased predictive skill for weather forecasting.”
David Sandwell: It will “improve our mapping of the marine [environment] by perhaps a factor of 5.”
SWOT is a joint effort of NASA and the French space agency CNES, with contributions from the Canadian and United Kingdom space agencies.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/18/22
1937 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Screenshot-2022-12-18-at-11.42.09-AM.png?fit=1414%2C826&ssl=18261414adminadmin2022-12-18 11:47:132022-12-18 11:54:03New NASA Satellite Will Measure Changes in Earth’s Rivers, Lakes, Oceans
Create Land Bank for Future Flood-Mitigation Projects
Creating a land bank for future flood-mitigation could reduce mitigation costs, speed up projects, and protect the lives and homes of millions.
Why Flood Mitigation Takes So Long and Costs so Much
Five and a half years after Harvey, officials are still struggling to finance many flood-mitigation projects. Part of the issue has to do with high land-acquisition costs for large, stormwater detention basins and for widening channels.
The San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage study recommended 16 such projects in the upper basin. The plan includes 10 large regional detention facilities comprising approximately 229,000 ac-ft and six channel projects covering about 38.5 stream miles. Total cost: $2.9 to $3.3 billion (including construction). Land acquisition comprises a large percentage of that total. To put that in perspective, 229,000 acre feet is more than half the capacity of Lake Conroe. And 38.5 miles is exactly the distance from downtown Conroe to downtown Houston. And the cost totals more than Harris County’s 2018 flood bond.
Acquisition costs can vary greatly depending on whether the land is rural or urban; in a flood plain or not; wetlands or not; at a low or high elevation; distance to market; highway access; and other factors.
Ironically, the SJRA studied some of the same recommended detention basins along Spring Creek and its tributaries more than almost 40 years ago. A 1985 study on the Upper River Basin included a chapter on planning. It recommended…
Had people only listened, taxpayers might have saved a billion dollars or more. Land costs then were a small fraction of today’s. Only 1.8% of the watershed was developed. So why didn’t the interested parties start buying the land back then?
How Benefit/Cost Ratio Can Disincentivize Planning
Even though the costs were far lower, the benefits of buying farm or timber land were even lower still. Developments had to creep much closer before the Benefit/Cost Ratios increased enough to justify the expenditures. But of course, at that point people were already flooding or in danger of flooding. Now, repetitive payouts from the National Flood Insurance Plan help document the “benefits” of buying the land.
So why not create a land bank for future flood mitigation projects?
Land-Bank Precedents
There are precedents for this idea.
In a similar vein, why not create land banks for flood-mitigation?
The genesis of the idea came from an observation about the two areas under consideration now for two floodwater detention basins on Spring Creek.
Forty years ago, when these projects were first studied, the benefit/cost ratio didn’t justify the purchase. Fast forward.
Benefits of Land Bank
Now, we’re looking at purchasing the same land, but because of inflation and development, the land cost is vastly higher. Had the land been purchased and “banked” way back then, the results would have been:
By waiting until land is developed and people flood, we get to pay twice – for their land and for their damages through the NFIP. And project length can drag out for decades.
To be eligible for the proposed flood-mitigation land bank, the land would have to be:
If it contains forests or wetlands, it gets bonus points because its already reducing flooding.
In summary, the idea is to reduce future costs by purchasing land (at market rates) when it’s cheap. It has the added benefits of:
How Much Flood Damage Could Have Been Prevented?
The United States needs to re-engineer its flood-mitigation business processes. Flood mitigation takes costs too much and takes too long because we wait too long.
The San Jancinto River Master Drainage Plan released in 2020 points out significant flooding in 1940, 1960, 1973, 1994, 2016, 2017, and 2019 along with numerous other smaller flood events. We’ve been studying the problem for more than 40 years without actually mitigating it. A flood-mitigation land bank could help reduce costs speed up mitigation, and protect people before they flood.
It would be interesting to calculate how much damage could have been prevented in the last four of those floods had all the projects in the 1985 plan been implemented.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/28/2022
1947 Days since Hurricane Harvey
MoCo District Judge Slams Door on Subsidence Deniers
In a devastating ruling for Quadvest, L.P., and Woodland Oaks Utility, L.P., John Delaney, visiting judge in the 284th District Court in Montgomery County, rejected their pre-trial arguments and granted a summary judgment that validated the San Jacinto River Authority’s Groundwater Reduction Plan (GRP) contract. Both Quadvest and Woodland Oaks have been subsidence deniers in the past.
The only question now is whether the SJRA’s water rates are fair. However, Jace Houston, SJRA general manager, points out that SJRA makes no profit from selling water and that the defendants have cost the river authority more than $12.7 million by withholding contractual payments due under the GRP contract.
Other signers of the contract who did not contest it have had to pick up the slack for Quadvest and Woodland Oaks, placing an unfair burden on them. Both companies are private companies that pump groundwater in Montgomery County.
Excessive groundwater production in Montgomery County has been linked to subsidence and flooding there and in Harris County.
Content of Rulings
In a terse, one paragraph order, the judge ruled that the arguments, pleadings, papers and evidence of Quadvest and Woodland Oaks should be denied under applicable law. Delaney signed the order on December 16th, 2022.
In a separate order on the same day, Judge Delaney ruled on the defendant’s defenses. Quadvest and Woodland Oaks claimed:
In the second order, the Judge simply stated that those defenses were DENIED.
The order concluded, “The Court has determined as a matter of law that “SJRA’s GRP Contracts are incontestable, valid, and enforceable according to their terms.”
Why Contract is Incontestable
State law makes it clear that when a contract is signed that relates to a bond offering and which has been approved by the State Attorney General, the contract is incontestable. In this case, the SJRA issued $550 million of bonds and the Texas Attorney General approved the contract.
SJRA used the bonds to build its surface water treatment plant on Lake Conroe and a distribution system. The distribution system also required acquiring rights of way.
“Consideration” received by the 80 entities signing the contract included:
Quadvest and Woodland Oaks claimed they received no consideration because LSGCD had since changed its rules after the current Board became elected in 2018 – thanks in large part to major contributions by Quadvest.
The goal of reducing groundwater usage was an attempt by suppliers in the region to reduce subsidence.
Since 2020, Quadvest and Woodlands Oaks have refused to pay the rate due under the contract, but have continued to charge their customers as if they are abiding by the contracted amount.
Jace Houston, SJRA general manager, points out that the defendants had 30 other groundwater reduction plans they could have joined back in 2010 (when the contract went into effect) if they felt they weren’t getting fair consideration.
Subsidence reduced, then leveled off for several years after the contract. However, it is now accelerating again thanks to virtually unlimited groundwater pumping by Quadvest and others.
Second Lawsuit Still Winding its Way Through Courts
Although the ruling applied only to Quadvest and Woodland Oaks, it also has implications for two other entities, the Cities of Magnolia and Conroe.
Both signed the SJRA GRP contract. And both withhold payments. Magnolia is currently $800,000 in arrears and Conroe owes $15.8 million. With Quadvest and Woodland Oaks, that brings the total owed to the SJRA up to $29.3 million.
However, Magnolia and Conroe are not making the same claims as the two private entities. They claim “governmental immunity.”
Interestingly, the attorney general is worried about such claims BETWEEN governmental entities. If for some reason a judge allows the claim, a high percentage of regional water supply contracts in the State of Texas could become unenforceable, according to Mr. Houston. As a result, the Texas Water Development Board has stopped making loans and grants to entities in breach of such contracts. Interestingly, of the 80 parties signing the SJRA GRP contract, virtually half are governmental entities of some sort.
Next Steps
“Quadvest and others have tried for years to cloud the issues and confuse the public about the GRP Contracts, and today all of that has been put to rest,” said Mr. Houston. “Decisions up to this point have been on pre-trial matters such as jurisdiction and venue. We are pleased to have a ruling on the merits that declares the GRP contracts valid and incontestable in any court.”
“Any further proceedings in Montgomery County should only be to verify that the rates are reasonable,” said Houston. “We look forward to presenting to the court how SJRA takes great care to prepare a very conservative and reasonable budget, and charge rates that are ultimately voted on by our customers.”
Judge Delaney’s rulings, though not directly on the subject of subsidence, have the potential to impact it. Without a financial incentive by companies like Quadvest to deny subsidence, perhaps the LSGCD board will quit trying to deny it, too.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/21/2022
1940 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.
New NASA Satellite Will Measure Changes in Earth’s Rivers, Lakes, Oceans
Early in the morning on December 16, 2022, NASA launched a new satellite that will map and subsequently measure changes in virtually all of the Earth’s rivers, lakes and oceans. High-resolution imaging will even be able to measure changes in ocean currents and temperatures. Scientists will use the imaging capabilities to better understand flooding, droughts and coastal erosion. One said it will “revolutionize hydrology.”
About the Satellite and Orbit
The satellite will orbit more than 550 miles high. Nicknamed SWOT (Surface Water and Ocean Topography), the mission will cover the globe between the Arctic and Antarctica at least once every three weeks.
About the size of a SUV, the satellite will measure the height of water on more than 90% of Earth’s surface. It will enable scientists to track water flow and identify potential high-risk areas.
The heart of the improvements is an innovative instrument called the Ka-band radar interferometer (KaRIn) – a major technological advance. KaRIn bounces radar pulses off the water’s surface and receives the return signal using two antennas on either side of the spacecraft.
According to NASA, for the first six months after launch, SWOT will be in a “fast-sampling” phase with a 1-day repeat orbit. Objectives in this phase include calibration and validation while studying rapidly changing phenomena.
The next phase – Operations & Sustainment – should last about three years It will have a 21-day repeat orbit to balance global coverage and sampling. NASA chose this “non-sun-synchronous orbit to minimize tidal aliasing and ensure coverage of major water bodies on land.” SWOT’s 75-mi-wide swath will result in overlapping measurements over most of the globe with an average revisit time of 11 days.
For a discussion of “tidal aliasing,” see this article in Geophysical Journal International. It’s about overcoming errors in current models that have to do with undersampling, uncertainty, imperfections and low-resolution.
Scientists Describe Anticipated Benefits
Scientists working on the mission described anticipated benefits:
For More Information
To learn more, check out the following:
SWOT is a joint effort of NASA and the French space agency CNES, with contributions from the Canadian and United Kingdom space agencies.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/18/22
1937 Days since Hurricane Harvey