This post is a case study in how insufficiently mitigated upstream development can result in taxation without representation on downstream residents.
Last week, I photographed Ben’s Branch from the Tree Lane Bridge after a two inch rain. Last night, I saw a presentation about urban channel evolution. The photos (with some taken earlier at the same location) perfectly illustrated the points in the presentation by Carolyn White of the Harris County Infrastructure Resilience Team.
White’s presentation followed another by Maryanne Piacentini of the Katie Prairie Conservancy and Lisa Gonzalez of the Houston Audubon Society. All three talked about the importance of nature-based strategies in reducing flooding. White’s presentation and my photos show what happens when you ignore the kind of solutions Piacentini and Gonzalez discussed: riparian buffers, natural channel design, conservation easements, wetland preservation, low impact development and more. As the photos below will show, insufficiently mitigated upstream development creates taxation without representation on downstream residents.
White’s Presentation on Urban Channel Evolution
The following three slides from White’s presentation illustrate the process of stream downcutting.
Upstream urban development creates faster, more frequent runoff resulting in erosion and downcutting.
As the stream deepens, banks become stressed and the bottom degrades, through a process called incision.
Eventually, the banks collapse. As slabs fall off, riparian vegetation collapses into the stream. Excessive erosion impairs water quality. The stream and surrounding infrastructure become harder or even impossible to maintain.
MoCo Developments Along Bens Branch Illustrate Principles
I’ve lived near Bens Branch for almost 40 years. For most of its length from Woodland Hills Drive to Kingwood Drive, it meanders through an 800-foot wide heavily forested greenbelt. That greenbelt provided a natural buffer from flooding. The trees also provided friction for floodwater that reduced its velocity and therefore its erosive power.
Upper Ben’s Branch watershed in 1985. Large parts of Kingwood (left and right) were still under construction. Note the large green spaces in the upper left (headwaters of Bens Branch). Ben’s Branch cuts diagonally from upper left to lower right.
Same area in December 2021.The MoCo/Harris County Line cuts diagonally through the photo above from near the upper right to the lower left.
Brooklyn Trails on Bens Branch Tributary
As the upper watershed developed, developers took less care to protect those trees. They practiced clearcutting. And each promised the MoCo county engineer that there would be “no adverse impact” – a condition for obtaining building permits.
Brooklyn Trails was one of those. You can see it in the satellite photo above at the top of the frame next to the railroad tracks a block east of US59.
The developer of Brooklyn Trails understated detention pond requirements by 30%. And claimed there were no wetlands on the site. But this development is certainly not the only one affecting Bens Branch.
Preserve at Woodridge Forest: 11+ Homes to Acre
A little farther east, between Kingwood Park High School and St. Martha Catholic Church, Gueffen is building 11+ homes to an acre on a 17 acre site. Some are as large as 660 square feet and less than five feet from their neighbors.
Preserve at Woodridge with rentable homes as large as 660 square feet.
The Preserve at Woodridge is still under constructionalong this ditch that feeds into Bens Branch one block south.
On the other side of St. Martha Catholic Church, Woodridge Forest continues its relentless growth west along Bens Branch. Detention ponds in that area are less than optimal. In fact, the one below is sub-functional.
This detention pond was blown out during Harvey and hasn’t been fixed since.The outfall is wider than the inlet.Water flows both around and straight through the pond.
Downstream in Harris County, Your Tax Dollars at Work … Again and Again.
A little farther downstream in Harris County, Bens Branch crosses under Tree Lane near an elementary school. Due to excessive erosion, the City undertook major repairs on the bridge substructure exactly two years ago. Here’s what it looked like before the repairs.
Bens Branch undercutting supports for bridge at Tree Lane. Photo taken December 2019.
Excavation of Bens Branch under Kingwood Drive by COH, August 2021.
The Hidden Tax of Insufficiently Mitigated Development
These pictures dramatize the points made in the first three images above. Especially the one about “limited ability to maintain.” Insufficiently mitigated upstream development imposes maintenance and repair costs that increase taxes on downstream residents. This is why we need a regional approach to flood mitigation. And why we need to harmonize regulations across county lines. Until we do, insufficiently mitigated upstream development will result in taxation without representation on downstream residents.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/31/2022
1675 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/2022/03/20220322-RJR_9303.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2022-03-31 22:26:212022-04-01 08:12:48How Insufficiently Mitigated Upstream Development Imposes Taxation without Representation on Downstream Residents
A February update by Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) on the status of the 2018 Flood Bond showed that 35% of the way into the program (42 out of 120 months), 19.4% of the funds from all sources (including grants and partnerships) had been spent. That percentage was based on $967 million spent out of $5 billion projected.
Cost of Studies vs. Construction
While one percentage seems to lag the other by a factor of almost 2X, HCFCD estimates it is virtually on schedule. That’s because studies conducted up front cost far less than construction. And only 44 of 181 Bond program projects have entered construction at this point (24%). As more projects enter the construction phase, the pace of spending should accelerate.
From High-Level Summary to Nitty-Gritty Detail
The 13-page update features three major sections:
Summary statistics for the entire bond program
Project flow charts showing status of all projects
Watershed maps showing the amount spent to date; funded to date; and the values of all active maintenance and capital projects.
Spending by watershed on HCFCD flood bond projects through the end of February 2022.
Skewed Distribution of Capital Improvement Projects
Out of 75 active capital improvement projects, I counted only 13 in Precincts 3 and 4 which have Republican commissioners. Those contracts totaled only about $82 million out of about $249 million. That’s a testament to how thoroughly the Democrat-controlled Commissioners Court has relentlessly tweaked the Equity Prioritization Framework. For instance…
In northeastern Harris County, the update shows only two active capital projects valued at a whopping $1,000 each.
Of the 13 active capital projects in Precincts 3 and 4, six are E&R contracts valued at just $6,125 altogether. See page 13. The report lists no E&R contracts in Precincts 1 and 2.
Excavation and removal contracts let contractors sell dirt they remove from a site as a way of making back their normal profit margin. They’re a good deal for taxpayers as long as the demand for fill dirt remains high. But if demand slows, excavation progress could stall. In other words, they come with uncertainty attached.
Breakdown of San Jacinto Watershed Projects
Of ten bond projects listed in the San Jacinto Watershed, schedules show:
The February report did not address a method of distribution for $750 million allocated by HUD and the GLO for flood mitigation to Harris County. The award happened on March 18, 2022 and will likely be covered next month.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/30/2022
1674 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Screen-Shot-2022-03-30-at-5.22.09-PM.png?fit=1844%2C1402&ssl=114021844adminadmin2022-03-30 17:55:032022-03-30 21:57:58Flood Bond Progress: 35% Time Elapsed, 19.4% Money Spent
In the rush to mitigate flooding after Hurricane Harvey, most people agreed that we should attack the areas with the worst flooding first. While almost everyone agreed with the “worst first” mantra, no one defined it – until after the flood bond passed.
Alternative Ways to Define “Worst First”
How would you define the “worst” flooding? The area with the:
Most flooded homes?
Most frequent flooding?
Most damage in dollar terms?
Largest population living in a 100-year floodplain?
Most low-to-moderate income residents who can least afford to fix their homes?
Largest minority populations?
Highest Social Vulnerability Index (SVI)?
Most damage to infrastructure (bridges, hospitals, grocery stores, schools, sewage treatment plants, etc.)?
Highest water above the tops of banks in a widespread storm like Harvey?
You could make valid arguments for each. And people have – almost from the day the flood bond passed – as they fought for more funding for their watersheds.
Yesterday, as I reviewed a doctoral thesis from a student at the Colorado School of Mines, I saw a graph that compared the height of the Harvey flood at the San Jacinto West Fork and US59 to other rivers/streams in the region. The West Fork flood towered above the others. So it made me wonder. How did the flood at that location compare to other streams and bayous in Harris County?
Click on the “For more information” link in the pop-up box.
On the new page (dedicated to historical information about that gage), click on the stream elevation tab.
Note the “flooding likely” elevation. This roughly coincides with the top of bank, though banks can vary slightly.
Scroll down to the bottom of the page and note the elevation of the flood at that location during Hurricane Harvey.
Subtract the “flooding likely” level from the Harvey level, to determine the feet above flood stage in Harvey.
Click on the drop-down box with the gage information to compare the same stats for additional gages.
North Harris County Had Highest Floods
This morning, I compiled the data for 33 gages. The chart below shows what I found. Of the gages I sampled, the four highest floods all occurred in the upper San Jacinto River Basin: West Fork at 59, Spring Creek at 45, Cypress Creek at Cypresswood, and West Fork at 99. Also note the preponderance of high water along Greens Bayou at numerous locations.
“Feet above Flood Stage” by itself won’t tell you which area had the worst flooding during Harvey. It’s just one measure. You must consider other factors, too, such as those listed above.
One must also acknowledge the role that topography plays in a chart, such as this. A narrow floodplain with steep banks can force water higher. A wider floodplain through a flat area allows water to spread out, lowering the height of floodwaters.
Variations in rainfall across an area can also skew results.
And finally, I didn’t click on every gage in the region. There are hundreds. You wouldn’t have been able to read the chart because the type would have been so small. So investigate on your own and let me know what you find.
Need for Active Discussion/Debate in Upcoming Elections
The Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force just voted to change the way “worst first” is calculated – again! The highest correlation between funding and all of the other factors I have evaluated is now with low-to-moderate-income population. It’s not with damaged structures, dollar damage, watershed size, or population density.
If you want to ensure that outlying areas get their fair share of flood mitigation dollars in the future, you need to demand them when you go to the polls this fall.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/29/2022
1673 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/2022/03/Feet-Above-Flood-Stage-in-Harvey-e1699502224912.png?fit=1100%2C729&ssl=17291100adminadmin2022-03-29 15:57:372022-03-30 10:13:01How Do You Define “Worst First”?
How Insufficiently Mitigated Upstream Development Imposes Taxation without Representation on Downstream Residents
This post is a case study in how insufficiently mitigated upstream development can result in taxation without representation on downstream residents.
Last week, I photographed Ben’s Branch from the Tree Lane Bridge after a two inch rain. Last night, I saw a presentation about urban channel evolution. The photos (with some taken earlier at the same location) perfectly illustrated the points in the presentation by Carolyn White of the Harris County Infrastructure Resilience Team.
White’s presentation followed another by Maryanne Piacentini of the Katie Prairie Conservancy and Lisa Gonzalez of the Houston Audubon Society. All three talked about the importance of nature-based strategies in reducing flooding. White’s presentation and my photos show what happens when you ignore the kind of solutions Piacentini and Gonzalez discussed: riparian buffers, natural channel design, conservation easements, wetland preservation, low impact development and more. As the photos below will show, insufficiently mitigated upstream development creates taxation without representation on downstream residents.
White’s Presentation on Urban Channel Evolution
The following three slides from White’s presentation illustrate the process of stream downcutting.
MoCo Developments Along Bens Branch Illustrate Principles
I’ve lived near Bens Branch for almost 40 years. For most of its length from Woodland Hills Drive to Kingwood Drive, it meanders through an 800-foot wide heavily forested greenbelt. That greenbelt provided a natural buffer from flooding. The trees also provided friction for floodwater that reduced its velocity and therefore its erosive power.
Brooklyn Trails on Bens Branch Tributary
As the upper watershed developed, developers took less care to protect those trees. They practiced clearcutting. And each promised the MoCo county engineer that there would be “no adverse impact” – a condition for obtaining building permits.
Brooklyn Trails was one of those. You can see it in the satellite photo above at the top of the frame next to the railroad tracks a block east of US59.
The developer of Brooklyn Trails understated detention pond requirements by 30%. And claimed there were no wetlands on the site. But this development is certainly not the only one affecting Bens Branch.
Preserve at Woodridge Forest: 11+ Homes to Acre
A little farther east, between Kingwood Park High School and St. Martha Catholic Church, Gueffen is building 11+ homes to an acre on a 17 acre site. Some are as large as 660 square feet and less than five feet from their neighbors.
On the other side of St. Martha Catholic Church, Woodridge Forest continues its relentless growth west along Bens Branch. Detention ponds in that area are less than optimal. In fact, the one below is sub-functional.
Downstream in Harris County, Your Tax Dollars at Work … Again and Again.
A little farther downstream in Harris County, Bens Branch crosses under Tree Lane near an elementary school. Due to excessive erosion, the City undertook major repairs on the bridge substructure exactly two years ago. Here’s what it looked like before the repairs.
Just 2 years later, it’s time to start over on the repairs.
In a large, intense rainfall, that crushed outfall could back water up into neighboring streets and homes.
Increasing Erosion May Soon Require More Maintenance
Next, look at these two photos of Bens Branch from 2019 and 2022.
Within the last year, HCFCD finished a major sediment removal project on Bens Branch downstream from here. At this rate, it won’t be long before they need to redo the job.
The City also was forced to remove sediment from under the Kingwood Drive Bridge over Bens Branch just six months ago.
The Hidden Tax of Insufficiently Mitigated Development
These pictures dramatize the points made in the first three images above. Especially the one about “limited ability to maintain.” Insufficiently mitigated upstream development imposes maintenance and repair costs that increase taxes on downstream residents. This is why we need a regional approach to flood mitigation. And why we need to harmonize regulations across county lines. Until we do, insufficiently mitigated upstream development will result in taxation without representation on downstream residents.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/31/2022
1675 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.
Flood Bond Progress: 35% Time Elapsed, 19.4% Money Spent
A February update by Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) on the status of the 2018 Flood Bond showed that 35% of the way into the program (42 out of 120 months), 19.4% of the funds from all sources (including grants and partnerships) had been spent. That percentage was based on $967 million spent out of $5 billion projected.
Cost of Studies vs. Construction
While one percentage seems to lag the other by a factor of almost 2X, HCFCD estimates it is virtually on schedule. That’s because studies conducted up front cost far less than construction. And only 44 of 181 Bond program projects have entered construction at this point (24%). As more projects enter the construction phase, the pace of spending should accelerate.
From High-Level Summary to Nitty-Gritty Detail
The 13-page update features three major sections:
Skewed Distribution of Capital Improvement Projects
Out of 75 active capital improvement projects, I counted only 13 in Precincts 3 and 4 which have Republican commissioners. Those contracts totaled only about $82 million out of about $249 million. That’s a testament to how thoroughly the Democrat-controlled Commissioners Court has relentlessly tweaked the Equity Prioritization Framework. For instance…
Of the 13 active capital projects in Precincts 3 and 4, six are E&R contracts valued at just $6,125 altogether. See page 13. The report lists no E&R contracts in Precincts 1 and 2.
Excavation and removal contracts let contractors sell dirt they remove from a site as a way of making back their normal profit margin. They’re a good deal for taxpayers as long as the demand for fill dirt remains high. But if demand slows, excavation progress could stall. In other words, they come with uncertainty attached.
Breakdown of San Jacinto Watershed Projects
Of ten bond projects listed in the San Jacinto Watershed, schedules show:
To see the full February Update presented at the March 22, 2022 Commissioner’s Court Meeting, click here.
The February report did not address a method of distribution for $750 million allocated by HUD and the GLO for flood mitigation to Harris County. The award happened on March 18, 2022 and will likely be covered next month.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/30/2022
1674 Days since Hurricane Harvey
How Do You Define “Worst First”?
In the rush to mitigate flooding after Hurricane Harvey, most people agreed that we should attack the areas with the worst flooding first. While almost everyone agreed with the “worst first” mantra, no one defined it – until after the flood bond passed.
Alternative Ways to Define “Worst First”
How would you define the “worst” flooding? The area with the:
You could make valid arguments for each. And people have – almost from the day the flood bond passed – as they fought for more funding for their watersheds.
Least Considered Alternative
But the one I have heard talked about the least is the last one: highest water above tops of banks. Surely, the depth of a flood must count for something. It affects the ability to evacuate and rescue people. It puts lives at risk. Can destroy infrastructure. Spread sewage. Increase erosion. Even cause rivers to migrate. And sweep whole apartment buildings into rivers.
Yesterday, as I reviewed a doctoral thesis from a student at the Colorado School of Mines, I saw a graph that compared the height of the Harvey flood at the San Jacinto West Fork and US59 to other rivers/streams in the region. The West Fork flood towered above the others. So it made me wonder. How did the flood at that location compare to other streams and bayous in Harris County?
How to Determine “Feet Above Flood Stage”
There’s an easy way to find out. The Harris County Flood Warning System contains all the pertinent information.
North Harris County Had Highest Floods
This morning, I compiled the data for 33 gages. The chart below shows what I found. Of the gages I sampled, the four highest floods all occurred in the upper San Jacinto River Basin: West Fork at 59, Spring Creek at 45, Cypress Creek at Cypresswood, and West Fork at 99. Also note the preponderance of high water along Greens Bayou at numerous locations.
Limitations of Measure
“Feet above Flood Stage” by itself won’t tell you which area had the worst flooding during Harvey. It’s just one measure. You must consider other factors, too, such as those listed above.
But this chart sure makes it hard to ignore the fact that something is happening in north Harris County to exacerbate flooding. I’ve chronicled many of those things in the pages of this website: sand mining, development, rapid growth, impervious cover, loss of wetlands, lack of detention ponds, lax regulation/enforcement and more.
One must also acknowledge the role that topography plays in a chart, such as this. A narrow floodplain with steep banks can force water higher. A wider floodplain through a flat area allows water to spread out, lowering the height of floodwaters.
Variations in rainfall across an area can also skew results.
And finally, I didn’t click on every gage in the region. There are hundreds. You wouldn’t have been able to read the chart because the type would have been so small. So investigate on your own and let me know what you find.
Need for Active Discussion/Debate in Upcoming Elections
The Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force just voted to change the way “worst first” is calculated – again! The highest correlation between funding and all of the other factors I have evaluated is now with low-to-moderate-income population. It’s not with damaged structures, dollar damage, watershed size, or population density.
If you want to ensure that outlying areas get their fair share of flood mitigation dollars in the future, you need to demand them when you go to the polls this fall.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/29/2022
1673 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.