At 2pm EDT on 7/11/22, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) issued an update that shows an area of concern offshore that stretches from Galveston Bay to the Florida Panhandle. NHC currently gives it a 30% chance of developing into something more serious in the next five days (10% in two days).
Area of low pressure sitting offshore on Monday afternoon at around 2PM.
Heavy Rain, Flash Flooding Likely East of Houston
This broad trough of low pressure is producing a large area of disorganized showers and thunderstorms. According to NHC, gradual development within this area of concern is possible if it can remain offshore while it meanders near the Gulf coast through the end of the week.
Regardless of development, heavy rains will be possible along portions of the northern Gulf coast from Louisiana to the Florida Panhandle over the next several days. For more information about the potential for heavy rain, see local National Weather Service forecasts and/or the Weather Prediction Center.
While the main danger from heavy rains currently lies to the east, global models are not yet unanimous in their forecasts. Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist says, “Global forecast models show some development of this trough into a closed area of low pressure mid- to late-week. Steering currents become very weak late week … with high pressure building into the Plains.” That will cause any tropical system over the northern Gulf to meander. Lindner added that the consensus among forecasters this morning kept any development well east of Houston.
Heat Records Fall Throughout Region
In the meantime, we could use a break from the blistering heat. Numerous records fell over the region yesterday.
College Station: 111 (exceeded July monthly record of 110 set in 1917)
BUSH IAH: 105 (exceeded daily record of 101 from 1998)
Hobby: 104 (exceeded daily record of 100 from 1964)
Galveston: 96 (tied daily record of 96 from 1931)
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/11/2022
1777 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/two_atl_5d0.png?fit=900%2C665&ssl=1665900adminadmin2022-07-11 14:27:462022-07-11 19:10:39Offshore Area of Concern
On 7/5/2022, demolition began on the first of three townhome complexes remaining on Marina Drive in Forest Cove. The complexes had been damaged beyond repair when 240,000 cubic feet per second of stormwater roared through them during Hurricane Harvey.
Since then, the abandoned properties had become magnets for drug dealing, arsonists, and illegal dumping. But the buyout process stalled when owners of some of the units could not be found. The county had to exercise its powers of eminent domain on those by declaring the purchase of several units a “public necessity.”
Now, with legalities out of the way, demolition began at 4:45 Tuesday afternoon. You could almost hear a collective sigh of relief from Forest Cove residents. Removal of the eyesores will restore the community’s image while eliminating a public safety hazard.
Photos of Demolition
Here are some pictures taken between 7/5 and 7/9/22. All that’s left of the first complex is a shrinking pile of rubble, some twisted girders, and some driveway.
Beginning of Forest Cove Townhome Demolition on 7/5/22By end of second day, 7/6/2022, half of first complex was down, but most of rubble remained.By end of third day, 7/7/2022, entire first complex was down. Contractors compacted rubbleto make it easier to haul it away.They also separated girders from the rubble.This EPA article describes recycling opportunities for demolition waste.End of fourth day, 7/9/22. Most of waste was hauled away. Practically nothing remains of first building.Second complex in background will come down next week.Pile of twisted girders. Remnants of a once proud townhome complex and a laid-back river lifestyle.Next up for demo: the building in background.
Next Steps
The next steps:
Demolish building in photo above 7/14/22.
Schedule demo of third building as soon as last buyout is completed.
Kudos to Harris County Flood Control and its contractors. This is not easy work when the temperature soars into triple digits. Their efforts will make a huge difference to the community.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/10/2022
1776 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/20220707-DJI_0084.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2022-07-10 14:21:342022-07-12 16:31:17Forest Cove Townhomes: One Down, Two to Go
The letter below expresses disagreement with two recent ReduceFlooding.com posts about a proposed Flood Mitigation Benefits Index. It is from Michael Bloom, P.E. While I disagree with almost all of his claims, I am reprinting his letter verbatimbecause I encourage healthy debate. Compare the posts and draw your own conclusions. – Bob Rehak, Host, ReduceFlooding.com.
Why are we Using the Index When it Produces Inconsistent Results that are Not Intuitive? Mr. Rehak provides an example that holds the current population and current risk the same, but changes the total prior investment amounts, as illustrated in the table below:
Prior Investment ($)
Current Population (Number)
Current Risk (% Annual Chance)
FMBI
Area A
100,000
5,000
10
2
Area B
1,000,000
5,000
10
20
Mr. Rehak looks at these results and writes: “So, spending more money to get the same results increases benefits? Shouldn’t it be the opposite? That’s both depressing and confusing. You spend 10X the money; flood risk remains the same; and the “benefit” increases!!!??? You would think spending less money to achieve identical results would be more beneficial. It certainly is for taxpayers.”
Everyone should be depressed and confused by this result if the FMBI was illustrating the results for the same location. Mr. Rehak appears to make that inference when he writes: “spending more money to get the same results increases benefits.”
But Area A and Area B are two different locations. The FMBI is just telling us what the current conditions are at two different locations in the county. One location had 10 times the prior investment than the other – but both locations still have the same current risk.
Worse, in this case, BOTH locations have risks that are ten times the current standard of care for new developments – which require structures to have less than a 1% annual chance of inundation. Clearly, both locations need more flood risk investment. The FMBIs of 2 and 20 both are extremely low, meaning they need help, regardless of the prior investments. A high FMBI indicates that no additional help is needed in that location. A low FMBI indicates that additional help is needed in that location.
The table included in the middle of my February 17, 2022, post entitled “How Should We Decide Where to Invest in Flood Risk Reduction?” presents additional examples showing how the FMBI changes from location to location with only one changed variable. It also provides narrative explanations of each sequence. Notice how the index values are greater than 3,000 (sometimes greater than 20,000 or 100,000) in locations where the current annual chance of inundation is less than 1%? Again, a high FMBI means we don’t need to make more investments in that location. A low FMBI means that location needs more help.
Isn’t the FMBI Trying to Prove Inequitable Investments in Flood Risk Reduction? To some extent, partially, yes, it is. This was always an important aspect of the FMBI, when it was originally proposed as the “Flood Benefits Index (FBI)” by Dr. Erthea Nance and Iris Gonzalez in May 2021. I have continued to advocate for its use as one of four input variables we should use to create our county-wide “heat map.” This is explained in more detail in my other article. Mr. Rehak is concerned about the taxpayer. I am also. I don’t think the taxpayers of Harris County should pay for flood risk reduction projects in areas that already have a high FMBI. Said another way, it is a waste of taxpayer money to invest in additional flood risk reduction projects in areas currently with less than a 1% annual chance of inundation.
Isn’t the FMBI Measuring per capita Investment Associated with a Certain Level of Flood Risk and Mistakenly Calling that a “Benefit?” Mr. Rehak writes: “The more people you help with any given sum, the more the benefit goes down. Voila! That makes it look as though the highly populated watersheds (that have received the overwhelming majority of prior investments) have received little benefit. And that may be the point of this formula. It will send even more money to those same areas.”
This interpretation again seems to stem, I think, from Mr. Rehak’s belief that the index will be used to compare the same location at different times – before and after various investments. This is not the proposed use of the index. The proposal is to use the index to describe the current conditions at all locations in the county at the same time.
I’m not sure I understand Mr. Rehak’s concern about the index being a per capita value. The more people in an area who benefit from prior investments the better. Wouldn’t we want to invest in areas that help the most people?
The blue-shaded area of the table in my earlier post illustrates how population differences between locations will change the index value among those locations. For convenience I’ve repeated the table below:
Hypothetical examples.
Mr. Rehak accurately notes that the index goes up in locations with fewer people and down in locations with more people; this will incentivize planners to direct future investments in those higher population areas. He writes: “The more people you help with any given sum, the more the benefit goes down.” This is true, but Mr. Rehak’s statement doesn’t connect it to the past and it omits how the index will be normalized by area size. Index values will be calculated for similarly sized areas. This will allow an apples-to-apples comparison of per capita investments. The index is intended to incentivize future investments in areas with more people in cases where risk and prior investments are equal because we want to help as many people as possible.
By Michael Bloom, P.E.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/10/2022
1776 Days since Hurricane Harvey
If you have views on this subject, please share them through the contact form on this website.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/20220709-Screen-Shot-2022-07-09-at-4.37.23-PM.jpg?fit=1167%2C1200&ssl=112001167adminadmin2022-07-10 09:35:492022-07-10 09:50:38Response to Concerns About Flood Mitigation Benefits Index (Part II)
Offshore Area of Concern
At 2pm EDT on 7/11/22, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) issued an update that shows an area of concern offshore that stretches from Galveston Bay to the Florida Panhandle. NHC currently gives it a 30% chance of developing into something more serious in the next five days (10% in two days).
Heavy Rain, Flash Flooding Likely East of Houston
This broad trough of low pressure is producing a large area of disorganized showers and thunderstorms. According to NHC, gradual development within this area of concern is possible if it can remain offshore while it meanders near the Gulf coast through the end of the week.
Regardless of development, heavy rains will be possible along portions of the northern Gulf coast from Louisiana to the Florida Panhandle over the next several days. For more information about the potential for heavy rain, see local National Weather Service forecasts and/or the Weather Prediction Center.
While the main danger from heavy rains currently lies to the east, global models are not yet unanimous in their forecasts. Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist says, “Global forecast models show some development of this trough into a closed area of low pressure mid- to late-week. Steering currents become very weak late week … with high pressure building into the Plains.” That will cause any tropical system over the northern Gulf to meander. Lindner added that the consensus among forecasters this morning kept any development well east of Houston.
Heat Records Fall Throughout Region
In the meantime, we could use a break from the blistering heat. Numerous records fell over the region yesterday.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/11/2022
1777 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Forest Cove Townhomes: One Down, Two to Go
On 7/5/2022, demolition began on the first of three townhome complexes remaining on Marina Drive in Forest Cove. The complexes had been damaged beyond repair when 240,000 cubic feet per second of stormwater roared through them during Hurricane Harvey.
Since then, the abandoned properties had become magnets for drug dealing, arsonists, and illegal dumping. But the buyout process stalled when owners of some of the units could not be found. The county had to exercise its powers of eminent domain on those by declaring the purchase of several units a “public necessity.”
Now, with legalities out of the way, demolition began at 4:45 Tuesday afternoon. You could almost hear a collective sigh of relief from Forest Cove residents. Removal of the eyesores will restore the community’s image while eliminating a public safety hazard.
Photos of Demolition
Here are some pictures taken between 7/5 and 7/9/22. All that’s left of the first complex is a shrinking pile of rubble, some twisted girders, and some driveway.
Next Steps
The next steps:
Kudos to Harris County Flood Control and its contractors. This is not easy work when the temperature soars into triple digits. Their efforts will make a huge difference to the community.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/10/2022
1776 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Response to Concerns About Flood Mitigation Benefits Index (Part II)
The letter below expresses disagreement with two recent ReduceFlooding.com posts about a proposed Flood Mitigation Benefits Index. It is from Michael Bloom, P.E. While I disagree with almost all of his claims, I am reprinting his letter verbatim because I encourage healthy debate. Compare the posts and draw your own conclusions. – Bob Rehak, Host, ReduceFlooding.com.
This is Part II of my two-part article providing responses to concerns raised by my colleague on the Community Flood Resilience Task Force (CFRTF), Mr. Bob Rehak about the FMBI. If you missed Part I, you can read it here.
Why are we Using the Index When it Produces Inconsistent Results that are Not Intuitive? Mr. Rehak provides an example that holds the current population and current risk the same, but changes the total prior investment amounts, as illustrated in the table below:
Investment
($)
Population
(Number)
Risk
(% Annual Chance)
Mr. Rehak looks at these results and writes: “So, spending more money to get the same results increases benefits? Shouldn’t it be the opposite? That’s both depressing and confusing. You spend 10X the money; flood risk remains the same; and the “benefit” increases!!!??? You would think spending less money to achieve identical results would be more beneficial. It certainly is for taxpayers.”
Everyone should be depressed and confused by this result if the FMBI was illustrating the results for the same location. Mr. Rehak appears to make that inference when he writes: “spending more money to get the same results increases benefits.”
But Area A and Area B are two different locations. The FMBI is just telling us what the current conditions are at two different locations in the county. One location had 10 times the prior investment than the other – but both locations still have the same current risk.
Worse, in this case, BOTH locations have risks that are ten times the current standard of care for new developments – which require structures to have less than a 1% annual chance of inundation. Clearly, both locations need more flood risk investment. The FMBIs of 2 and 20 both are extremely low, meaning they need help, regardless of the prior investments. A high FMBI indicates that no additional help is needed in that location. A low FMBI indicates that additional help is needed in that location.
The table included in the middle of my February 17, 2022, post entitled “How Should We Decide Where to Invest in Flood Risk Reduction?” presents additional examples showing how the FMBI changes from location to location with only one changed variable. It also provides narrative explanations of each sequence. Notice how the index values are greater than 3,000 (sometimes greater than 20,000 or 100,000) in locations where the current annual chance of inundation is less than 1%? Again, a high FMBI means we don’t need to make more investments in that location. A low FMBI means that location needs more help.
Isn’t the FMBI Trying to Prove Inequitable Investments in Flood Risk Reduction? To some extent, partially, yes, it is. This was always an important aspect of the FMBI, when it was originally proposed as the “Flood Benefits Index (FBI)” by Dr. Erthea Nance and Iris Gonzalez in May 2021. I have continued to advocate for its use as one of four input variables we should use to create our county-wide “heat map.” This is explained in more detail in my other article. Mr. Rehak is concerned about the taxpayer. I am also. I don’t think the taxpayers of Harris County should pay for flood risk reduction projects in areas that already have a high FMBI. Said another way, it is a waste of taxpayer money to invest in additional flood risk reduction projects in areas currently with less than a 1% annual chance of inundation.
Isn’t the FMBI Measuring per capita Investment Associated with a Certain Level of Flood Risk and Mistakenly Calling that a “Benefit?” Mr. Rehak writes: “The more people you help with any given sum, the more the benefit goes down. Voila! That makes it look as though the highly populated watersheds (that have received the overwhelming majority of prior investments) have received little benefit. And that may be the point of this formula. It will send even more money to those same areas.”
This interpretation again seems to stem, I think, from Mr. Rehak’s belief that the index will be used to compare the same location at different times – before and after various investments. This is not the proposed use of the index. The proposal is to use the index to describe the current conditions at all locations in the county at the same time.
I’m not sure I understand Mr. Rehak’s concern about the index being a per capita value. The more people in an area who benefit from prior investments the better. Wouldn’t we want to invest in areas that help the most people?
The blue-shaded area of the table in my earlier post illustrates how population differences between locations will change the index value among those locations. For convenience I’ve repeated the table below:
Mr. Rehak accurately notes that the index goes up in locations with fewer people and down in locations with more people; this will incentivize planners to direct future investments in those higher population areas. He writes: “The more people you help with any given sum, the more the benefit goes down.” This is true, but Mr. Rehak’s statement doesn’t connect it to the past and it omits how the index will be normalized by area size. Index values will be calculated for similarly sized areas. This will allow an apples-to-apples comparison of per capita investments. The index is intended to incentivize future investments in areas with more people in cases where risk and prior investments are equal because we want to help as many people as possible.
By Michael Bloom, P.E.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/10/2022
1776 Days since Hurricane Harvey
If you have views on this subject, please share them through the contact form on this website.