Since development of the Laurel Springs RV Resort started last October, the Centerpoint easement below the development has turned into a small lake. It’s not clear at this point what caused the lake to develop. Several theories come time mind: increased runoff; sediment blocking drains; heavy January rains; poorly drained soils; illegal discharges; or some combination of the above. Regardless, this raises the most common question I encounter these days. “What happens when a developer builds its land up and sends water onto my property?”
Before Development
Here’s how the Centerpoint easement looked on October 25 last year when contractors started clearing land. Note the power lines in the small corridor left of the bigger one for railroad tracks. Also notice the tiny little ponds in the distance toward Hamblen Road at the top of the frame.
Looking SSE along the utility corridor and railroad tracks to the west of the RV resort shortly after clearing started on October 25, 2021.
According to Weather.gov, the 30 year average for October is 5.46 inches. So we got a little more than an inch above normal. Yet the corridor had only tiny amounts of ponding water.
January Photo Shows Ponds Expanding
On January 9, we had a large rainfall event and a photo that day shows the ponds expanded.
After heavy rains on 1/9/2022. Note small stream of water running down middle of utility corridor and two large ponds.
But also note how the larger pond in the distance stops well short of Hamblen Road in top right of frame.
February Rainfall One Third of Normal, But Ponds Continue to Grow
But since January 8/9, we’ve had very little rain. Nevertheless, the ponds have expanded into what one resident called a “lake” that blocked her hike down the utility corridor. See below.
Looking S toward Hamblen Road at top of frame. Pond now extends almost all the way to Hamblen.
The amazing thing is that the “lake” grew despite very little rain in February. As the chart below shows, we got 1 inch which is one third of the monthly average of 2.97 inches. Moreover, we got no significant rain for the 7 weeks before I took the picture above.
Yet the lake now stretches almost all the way to Hamblen! It’s getting bigger! So where’s the water coming from?
Water Not Coming West, East or South
It didn’t come from west of the railroad tracks. Union Pacific elevated those several feet above ground level.
Laurel Springs Lane has storm sewers that would have intercepted water from the east.
And water doesn’t usually flow uphill, so it didn’t come from the south either.
Much of it probably came from the north and the detention pond below which the developers drained into Edgewater Park on January 29.
Contractors drained detention pond into Edgewater Park on January 29.
Prior to that, they also pumped water over the wall of the pond.
Laurel Springs RV Resort pumping stormwater into Edgewater Parkon 1/18/2022.Then on January 31, contractors even tried to lay pipe through the wall of the detention pond to create a permanent conduit for stormwater into Edgewater Park.
Addition of Fill
They’re also bringing in fill to build up the RV Resort higher than the property around them. As they do so, they have been pushing standing water toward the utility corridor.
Looking west toward Centerpoint corridor just beyond tree line. Photo taken 2/10/22.
Lake Expands on One-Third Average Rainfall!
The bottom line is this.
Standing water in the Centerpoint utility corridor has increased as rainfall has fallen well below normal.
When you look around, there’s only one place this water could have come from.
I don’t want to beat this horse to death. But I get emails every day from people across northern Harris and southern Montgomery Counties. They worry about comparable issues. In essence, the emails say something like this: “A developer is building up land and flooding my property.”
I can understand the desire to build up land to avoid flooding on your own property. But we need to agree on ways to avoid flooding neighbors in the process. The answer probably lies in:
Better construction practices and training, i.e., sloping all land toward detention ponds.
Meaningful inspections and penalties by authorities.
Publication of the penalties.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/28/2022
1644 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 data obtained from Harris County Flood Control District via a FOIA Request breaks down flood-mitigation funding by watershed through the end of 2021. It shows where your flood-bond money is going. It also debunks some popular myths. Those include the oft repeated:
Rich watersheds get all the funding; poor watersheds get none.
Partner funding favors rich watersheds because home values are higher.
HCFCD has historically discriminated against low-to-moderate income (LMI) watersheds.
Eight out of 23 watersheds in Harris County have a majority of residents that fall into the LMI category. That means a majority make less than the average annual income for the region. As the data below shows, those eight LMI watersheds get the vast majority of county, partner, and total funding. In fact, four have received 54% of total flood-mitigation funding since 2000.
Funding now correlates more highly with LMI population than damage!
Before I dive into the data, though, let me point out that between the 3Q21 and the end of last year, the county changed the way it compiles historical data. Instead of using the start/stop dates in project management software and reporting only completed projects, the county is now using invoice dates. This produces much higher accuracy. Dollars do not spill over from one period into another. The new data also reflects spending on projects that are ongoing, but still open.
In response to my FOIA Request, the county provided spending using both the old and new methods. They differ by roughly $615 million. Of that, approximately $215 million reflects actual fourth-quarter spending and $400 million reflects the change in when expenses are recognized.
Spending by Watershed
The rank order of spending by watershed has not changed much since last year. Several watersheds moved up or down by a place or two.
The top four are still the top four in the same order. But some of the amounts changed radically, mostly due to the change accounting. For instance, White Oak increased from $387 million to $521 million. But out of the $134 million difference, $102 million comes from when expenses are recognized.
Because this gets so confusing, and because the rank order did not change much, I will use only the new totals compiled by invoice date from now on. I will not compare old and new totals based on the different accounting methods.
Spending by watershed between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/2121 broken down by county and partner contributions, and LMI/Other watersheds.
Graphs of Spending
Here’s a graph of total funding by watershed since 2000, arranged from highest to lowest.
Watersheds rank ordered by amount of flood-mitigation funding received between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/2121.
Funding correlates with population. But you can see notable exceptions below. Some watersheds get far more funding than their proportion of the population, i.e., White Oak, Sims and Greens. Others get far less.
Spending is not allocated proportionately to population in all cases. Six out of eight LMI watersheds received more funding than their population alone would justify.
But population alone does not tell the whole story. Some watersheds are huge and some small. So I also looked at population density per square mile. The curves correlated even less.
Graphing population density vs. total spending shows more variance. Of the eight LMI watersheds, four (Brays, White Oak, Sims, and Greens) get far more than their population density alone would dictate.
As we saw last year, funding flows primarily to damage. The chart below plots funding versus the total number of structures in each watershed damaged in five major storms (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey, and Imelda). The slope of the curves closely match. But several major exceptions exist.
Historical Discrimination?
Many community groups from LMI neighborhoods have alleged historical discrimination in the distribution of flood-mitigation funding. I just don’t see it. All of the pie charts below take into account all funding between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/2021 based on invoice dates.
The county itself sent almost 60% of its flood-mitigation funding to one third of the watershedswith majority LMI populations.An even larger percentage came from partner funding.Whether you look only at county funding, partner-funding, or the total, the picture is still roughly the same.One third of the watersheds get almost two thirds of the funding.Top 4 include Brays, White Oak, Sims and Greens. All have an LMI percentage higher than 50%.
LMI Population Now Correlates Higher with Funding than Damage
A coefficient of correlation of 1.0 is considered perfect. A good example: between gallons of gas in your car and the distance they will take you.
As a result of the constant tweaking of the equity funding formula, “Population” and “LMI Population” now correlate more highly with “Funding” than “Damage.” The correlation between “Funding since 2000” and:
Population Density = .54
Damage = .85
Population = .87
LMI Population = .89
Statisticians consider all of the last three very high.
Despite investigations by local, county and state authorities into construction practices at the Laurel Springs RV Resort near Lakewood Cove, contractors seem to have stepped up the pace of construction. They’ve also launched a major cleanup effort around the detention pond. Contractors triggered a cease-and-desist letter from the County Attorney, with the threat of a lawsuit, after it became apparent the developer was emptying its stormwater into Harris County Precinct 4’s Edgewater Park contrary to permits and approved plans. Contractors also apparently cut down a wide swath of trees in the northern part of the park.
Photos Showing Construction Activity Since Last Friday
Looking west toward Sorters-McClellan Bridge over 59. Edgewater Park on left. RV Resort on right. Silt fence at the base of the pond corresponds to approximate southern boundary of RV Resort on survey. Taken 2/24/22.Looking south along Laurel Springs Lane at freshly poured concrete at entrance. Taken 2/24.This afternoon (2/25), trucks were pouring more concrete.Pipes being laid in northern part of RV Resort.Note water still ponding from rain in early January. Soil reports in the site’s stormwater pollution prevention plan claimed the soil was sandy loam which would have absorbed the rain by now.Still no pipe from the corner of the detention pond leading to the pump housing in the round whiteconcrete housing at top of frame. 2/23/22.
The detention pond was to have drained into the Lakewood Cove storm sewer system with the aid of pumps. But there’s no inlet yet at the pond.
Looking east toward Laurel Springs on 2/19/22.Plans approved by City of Houston for pumping stormwater in detention pond into Lakewood Cove’s storm sewer system.Contractors pulling up tree debris from below detention pond. 2/18/22.Looking SW.Looking south toward Edgewater Park. Contractors initially piled the debris on the western (right) wall of detention pond, but ran out of room. They then started hauling it round to northern edge of pond where trucks are carting it away.
Overall, the developer appears to be cleaning up its act. But as you can see in the first shot, they seem to have made a significant and serious intrusion on Edgewater Park.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/25/22
1641 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.
Centerpoint Utility Corridor Flooding Below RV Resort
Since development of the Laurel Springs RV Resort started last October, the Centerpoint easement below the development has turned into a small lake. It’s not clear at this point what caused the lake to develop. Several theories come time mind: increased runoff; sediment blocking drains; heavy January rains; poorly drained soils; illegal discharges; or some combination of the above. Regardless, this raises the most common question I encounter these days. “What happens when a developer builds its land up and sends water onto my property?”
Before Development
Here’s how the Centerpoint easement looked on October 25 last year when contractors started clearing land. Note the power lines in the small corridor left of the bigger one for railroad tracks. Also notice the tiny little ponds in the distance toward Hamblen Road at the top of the frame.
According to Weather.gov, the 30 year average for October is 5.46 inches. So we got a little more than an inch above normal. Yet the corridor had only tiny amounts of ponding water.
January Photo Shows Ponds Expanding
On January 9, we had a large rainfall event and a photo that day shows the ponds expanded.
But also note how the larger pond in the distance stops well short of Hamblen Road in top right of frame.
February Rainfall One Third of Normal, But Ponds Continue to Grow
But since January 8/9, we’ve had very little rain. Nevertheless, the ponds have expanded into what one resident called a “lake” that blocked her hike down the utility corridor. See below.
The amazing thing is that the “lake” grew despite very little rain in February. As the chart below shows, we got 1 inch which is one third of the monthly average of 2.97 inches. Moreover, we got no significant rain for the 7 weeks before I took the picture above.
Yet the lake now stretches almost all the way to Hamblen! It’s getting bigger! So where’s the water coming from?
Water Not Coming West, East or South
It didn’t come from west of the railroad tracks. Union Pacific elevated those several feet above ground level.
Laurel Springs Lane has storm sewers that would have intercepted water from the east.
And water doesn’t usually flow uphill, so it didn’t come from the south either.
Much of it probably came from the north and the detention pond below which the developers drained into Edgewater Park on January 29.
Prior to that, they also pumped water over the wall of the pond.
Addition of Fill
They’re also bringing in fill to build up the RV Resort higher than the property around them. As they do so, they have been pushing standing water toward the utility corridor.
Lake Expands on One-Third Average Rainfall!
The bottom line is this.
When you look around, there’s only one place this water could have come from.
I don’t want to beat this horse to death. But I get emails every day from people across northern Harris and southern Montgomery Counties. They worry about comparable issues. In essence, the emails say something like this: “A developer is building up land and flooding my property.”
I can understand the desire to build up land to avoid flooding on your own property. But we need to agree on ways to avoid flooding neighbors in the process. The answer probably lies in:
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/28/2022
1644 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.
Latest Flood-Mitigation Funding Trends
New data obtained from Harris County Flood Control District via a FOIA Request breaks down flood-mitigation funding by watershed through the end of 2021. It shows where your flood-bond money is going. It also debunks some popular myths. Those include the oft repeated:
Eight out of 23 watersheds in Harris County have a majority of residents that fall into the LMI category. That means a majority make less than the average annual income for the region. As the data below shows, those eight LMI watersheds get the vast majority of county, partner, and total funding. In fact, four have received 54% of total flood-mitigation funding since 2000.
Data also calls into question why some feel compelled to tweak the equity prioritization framework endlessly.
Improved Basis for Reporting
Before I dive into the data, though, let me point out that between the 3Q21 and the end of last year, the county changed the way it compiles historical data. Instead of using the start/stop dates in project management software and reporting only completed projects, the county is now using invoice dates. This produces much higher accuracy. Dollars do not spill over from one period into another. The new data also reflects spending on projects that are ongoing, but still open.
In response to my FOIA Request, the county provided spending using both the old and new methods. They differ by roughly $615 million. Of that, approximately $215 million reflects actual fourth-quarter spending and $400 million reflects the change in when expenses are recognized.
Spending by Watershed
The rank order of spending by watershed has not changed much since last year. Several watersheds moved up or down by a place or two.
The top four are still the top four in the same order. But some of the amounts changed radically, mostly due to the change accounting. For instance, White Oak increased from $387 million to $521 million. But out of the $134 million difference, $102 million comes from when expenses are recognized.
Because this gets so confusing, and because the rank order did not change much, I will use only the new totals compiled by invoice date from now on. I will not compare old and new totals based on the different accounting methods.
Graphs of Spending
Here’s a graph of total funding by watershed since 2000, arranged from highest to lowest.
Funding correlates with population. But you can see notable exceptions below. Some watersheds get far more funding than their proportion of the population, i.e., White Oak, Sims and Greens. Others get far less.
But population alone does not tell the whole story. Some watersheds are huge and some small. So I also looked at population density per square mile. The curves correlated even less.
As we saw last year, funding flows primarily to damage. The chart below plots funding versus the total number of structures in each watershed damaged in five major storms (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey, and Imelda). The slope of the curves closely match. But several major exceptions exist.
Historical Discrimination?
Many community groups from LMI neighborhoods have alleged historical discrimination in the distribution of flood-mitigation funding. I just don’t see it. All of the pie charts below take into account all funding between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/2021 based on invoice dates.
LMI Population Now Correlates Higher with Funding than Damage
A coefficient of correlation of 1.0 is considered perfect. A good example: between gallons of gas in your car and the distance they will take you.
As a result of the constant tweaking of the equity funding formula, “Population” and “LMI Population” now correlate more highly with “Funding” than “Damage.” The correlation between “Funding since 2000” and:
Statisticians consider all of the last three very high.
With all the rhetoric flying around these days, it’s more important than ever to have facts to base your decisions on. To see all the original data from my FOIA Request, click here.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/26/2022
1642 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Laurel Springs RV Resort Construction Pushes Forward Despite Investigations
Despite investigations by local, county and state authorities into construction practices at the Laurel Springs RV Resort near Lakewood Cove, contractors seem to have stepped up the pace of construction. They’ve also launched a major cleanup effort around the detention pond. Contractors triggered a cease-and-desist letter from the County Attorney, with the threat of a lawsuit, after it became apparent the developer was emptying its stormwater into Harris County Precinct 4’s Edgewater Park contrary to permits and approved plans. Contractors also apparently cut down a wide swath of trees in the northern part of the park.
Photos Showing Construction Activity Since Last Friday
The detention pond was to have drained into the Lakewood Cove storm sewer system with the aid of pumps. But there’s no inlet yet at the pond.
Investigations Still in Progress
Neither the County, City, nor Texas Commission on Environmental Quality would comment on the status of their investigations this week except to say that they are still ongoing. According to the Harris County District Clerk’s website, Harris County has not yet filed a lawsuit against the developer.
Overall, the developer appears to be cleaning up its act. But as you can see in the first shot, they seem to have made a significant and serious intrusion on Edgewater Park.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/25/22
1641 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.