With the Texas legislature days away from adjournment, it’s time to see how flood-related legislation fared. Out of the 20 bills listed below, one has a chance of turning into law.
This bill by Armando Walle of Houston relates to floodplain disclosure for leased dwellings. It has passed both the House and Senate and is awaiting the Governor’s signature. Several pieces of similar legislation did not fare as well. See below.
Dan Huberty’s proposed legislation to establish a Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District passed the house. But the it’s sitting in the Local Government Committee in the senate chaired by Senator Paul Bettencourt. So is the identical companion bill filed by Senator Brandon Creighton SB 1982. It’s been sitting in the same committee since April 8. Someone doesn’t want this to see the light of day. A group called WaterUsersCoalition.org is desperately trying to kill both bills with misinformation. The web site characterizes the bill as one that only benefits Kingwood and Atascocita drainage. It would have certainly done that, but it would also have helped maintain and restore the capacity of Lake Houston. The website also says it would be funded by taxes which the bill(s) explicitly prohibit. And implies that increasing lake capacity would somehow hamper the conversion from groundwater to surface water.
Another bill by Huberty was referred to the House Natural Resources committee on 3/29. Nothing has happened to it since. The bill would have required two things: reclamation of sand mines at the end of mining and a performance bond to ensure they met certain criteria, such as the removal of all equipment. Died in committee.
Abandoned dredge at abandoned Texas Concrete Sand and Gravel mine in Plum Grove. The TCEQ has deemed this mine reclaimed; it’s now off their radar.
Yet another piece of legislation by Huberty – would have established best management practices for sand mines. The House Environmental Regulation Committee left the bill pending in committee, just as they did in the 2019 legislative session. TACA wins again. We’ll have to live with worst practices for at least another two years.
This bill By Kyle Beiderman of Fredericksburg – was sent to the House Environmental Regulation Committee on 3/29. They didn’t even hold a hearing on it. The bill would have transferred responsibility for regulating sand mines from the TCEQ to the Railroad Commission of Texas.
A piece of proposed legislation by Erin Zwiener of Kyle, Tx. would have allowed County Commissioners (in counties with populations greater than 500,000) to prohibit sand mining or the expansion of sand mines when they are too close to homes, hospitals, churches and certain other facilities. The Environmental Regulation Committee has bottled that bill up since 3/16. TACA wins again.
Proposed legislation by Terry Wilson of Georgetown would have stiffened regulations relating to nuisances associated with aggregate production operations such as blasting, noise, air quality and more. The Environmental Regulation Committee has left it pending since 4/19. TACA wins again.
Will Metcalf of Conroe introduced two bills to change the composition of the San Jacinto River Authority Board. This one, the first, would have reduced the number of directors on the SJRA board from 7 to 6 and changed the way they are appointed. The change would have guaranteed a majority of directors from Montgomery County. The House referred the bill to its Natural Resources Committee on 3/19. Nothing has happened to it since then.
SB 314 – Disclosure of Flood Zones for Leased Property
This piece of legislation by Joan Huffman of Houston got referred to the Business and Commerce committee on 3/9. Nothing has happened since. The bill would have mandated disclosure of flood risk for leased property in a flood zone. A similar bill passed in the last session for property for sale. However, the Committee has taken no action on the leasing bill since 3/9.
HB 1059 – Disclosure of Flood Zones on Vacant Land for Sale
Another flood plain disclosure bill by Phil Stephenson of Rosenberg would have required sellers of vacant lots smaller than 15 acres to disclose whether any portion of the lot was in a flood plain. The bill would also have let buyers recover damages if the property flooded within five years and the seller failed to disclose the flood plain. This bill made it out of the Business and Industry Committee. However, the Calendar Committee never brought it up for a vote on the House floor since 4/15. It’s companion bill in the Senate – SB 461 by Kolkhorst – also stalled.
Michelle Beckley of Carrollton introduced legislation that would have required certain state agencies to consider the impact of climate changes in their strategic plans. It got referred to the State Affairs Committee on 3/15. Ba Dump. Same for similar bills like HB 1949, SB306, HB 2017, HB 3246, and HB4178.
HB 655 – Feasibility Study for Statewide Disaster Alert System
This bill Richard Raymond of Laredo called for studying the feasibility, efficiency and benefits of setting up a statewide disaster alert system. It went to the Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee on 3/1. No action since.
SB 859 – Continuation of Electronic Meetings after COVID for Regional Flood Planning Groups
A common-sense bill by Charles Perry of Lubbock would have let Regional Flood Planning Groups continue to hold meetings via telephone conference call and videoconference after emergency COVID restrictions expire. The rationale: these groups are staffed by volunteers, many of whom have to drive across several counties to get to meetings. That can take all day in West Texas. It was voted out of the Senate Business and Commerce Committee before it ran out of gas. A companion bill, HB 2103, passed the House, but also stalled in the Senate.
Seems like a lot of good ideas were left on the table.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/24/2021 based on research by John Barr
1364 Days after 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/2021/05/20210515-RJR_6600.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-05-24 14:08:152021-05-24 14:17:122021 Report Card on Texas Flood-Issue Legislation To Date
Yesterday’s post cited the testimony of two “licensed professional engineers” in the State of Texas who claimed that Lake Conroe could not refill from rainfall in the Spring or Fall after being lowered one foot to provide an extra margin of safety, which helps prevent flooding homes on both sides of the dam. However, the lake did refill…and then some…within two days after the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) filed their affidavits in its lawsuit to prevent the seasonal lowering.
Deeper investigation reveals that neither engineer is a civil engineer. One is an electrical engineer and the other a chemical engineer.
Paragraph A states that engineers shall practice only in their areas of competence.
Paragraph C states, “The engineer shall not express an engineering opinion in deposition before a court … which is contrary to generally accepted scientific and engineering principles without fully disclosing the basis and rationale for such an opinion.”
There was no such disclosure in their affidavits.
In fairness, the engineers also testified as residents and they had more concerns than flooding.
However, both:
Cited their professional credentials at the start of their affidavits – without disclosing their areas of expertise.
Drew the same conclusion about the inability of the lake to refill through rainfall – without stating the basis of their conclusions.
Mr. Elliott has retired and his license is inactive. Mr. Waitts’ license is still active.
Background
Only two days after LCA filed the engineers’ affidavits, rainfall raised the lake level two feet above normal, and threatened homes and businesses. SJRA had to release water at almost 10,000 CFS to avoid flooding them.
SJRA Seasonal Release on 4/15/2020. One tainter gate open six inches released a slow, steady stream of 529 cfs.
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/2020/04/Release-529-cfs-pic1.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2021-05-23 13:54:142021-05-23 13:59:25Engineers Testifying for LCA are Electrical and Chemical, Not Civil
Never says never. Especially in a lawsuit. It didn’t take long to disprove that claim! Two days after LCA filed the claim on April 28th, the SJRA had to open its gates to keep Lake Conroe homes and businesses from flooding. And they are still releasing water…three weeks later.
SJRA Dashboard as of 6pm Friday night, 5/21/2021. Normal level is 201. Despite near constant releases this month, the lake’s level has remained above average.
Two licensed professional engineers – with more than 80 years of experience between them – filed affidavits. They claim that the SJRA’s seasonal lake lowering policy “does not allow Lake Conroe to refill through rainfall in the Spring and Fall.” Their claim is repeated over and over again in affidavits by others.
Lake Conroe Association’s Third Supplement to its Original Petition
SJRA Forced to Go Beyond Seasonal Lowering to Avoid Flooding
Twice this month, the SJRA has had to release water from Lake Conroe above and beyond the seasonal lowering policy to prevent flooding. After the May Day event, they released almost 10,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) for several days to keep the homes and businesses around Lake Conroe from flooding.
The boats are in slips, but the docks are underwater. Near Monty’s Lighthouse and Fajita Jacks on Lake Conroe on 5/1/2021, when the water level exceeded 203 feet halfway through the Spring seasonal lowering.
The rains this week have been more spread out, but the SJRA still had to release almost 3,000 CFS most days to reduce flood risk around Lake Conroe.
Engineers rarely deal in absolutes. They deal in extremes and qualify almost everything they say. But these intrepid professionals stepped over the edge on the far side of reality. Mother Nature always gets the last word.
One of Many Exaggerated Claims
The LCA lawsuit seeks to stop the SJRA’s seasonal lake lowering policy. The “refill” claim is just one of many exaggerated claims that LCA has made.
This lawsuit overflows with self-destructive claims and internal contradictions.
Say That Again!
The latest filing claims that the Lake Conroe Association has the authority to speak for all of its members because LCA feels it proved actual or imminent damages to at least one of its members. In logic, they call that “the fallacy of generalization.” I know at least one influential member of LCA who disagrees vehemently with the lawsuit. So which of those two individuals should we listen to?
LCA also asserts that the Association’s rights are “in every practical sense identical” with “its members.” Its interests, however, may not be.
Some may not find flooding enjoyable.
In its original petition, LCA claimed that its purpose was “over-seeing, directing, initiating, and promulgating programs that directly affect the control, use, and enjoyment of Lake Conroe…” Had it not been for the seasonal lake lowering policy, many homes and businesses upstream or down would likely have flooded after the May Day rains.
In the same sentence about enjoyment, LCA also claims that Lake Conroe is operated exclusively for the benefit of the citizens of Montgomery County, Texas.
At one point, the lawsuit claims the sole purpose of Lake Conroe is to supply drinking water. But most of LCA’s complaints refer to lost recreational opportunities.
The second supporting document LCA filed sought relief for irreparable damages but did not specify what those were. Previously LCA members have complained about:
But LCA’s latest filing reveals what could be the real issue here: dredging. Reportedly, the former president of the LCA had shallow water next to some lakefront property he was trying to sell. But with the water lowered, shallowness made the property less marketable.
Shallow water especially impacts residents at the north end (headwaters) of the lake.
Some LCA affidavits claim that access channels to the lake have been cut off by siltation. This latest filing references dredging in numerous places.
Wildwood Shores claims the estimated cost to dredge area canals exceeds one million dollars. They have hired an engineering company to set up a multi-year dredging plan that would spread out the costs. But they worry that the costs may still not be affordable. Dredging companies have explained the costs of dewatering the dredged materials; hauling them out of the floodplain; and the Army Corps’ permitting process.
Residents from Wildwood Shores, an area without fire hydrants, also claim that the Sam Houston National Forest could burn down if a house fire gets out of control and the local fire department can’t find a way to draw water from the lake.
I wonder if they’ve compared the cost of dredging to putting in a water well and tank from which tanker trucks can refill. I googled “cost of water tanks” and quickly found one that holds 90,000 gallons for $35,000. That’s a lot less than a million dollars for dredging. And the capacity would be enough to fill up at least 30 of the tanker trucks they reference in the lawsuit. The engineer who filed that affidavit didn’t explore that option. Perhaps because he had something else in mind…like boating, for instance.
Let’s Focus on the Real Issues and Work Together
I’m not trying to minimize the:
Loss of recreational opportunities
Inconvenience of silt
Expense of dredging.
We in the Lake Houston Area have been grappling with those same issues…on top of the flooding that silt dams contribute to. They are all real.
But making claims that are false at face value; inventing one doomsday scenario after another; and ignoring reasonable, cost-effective alternatives only undermine your own credibility.
Keeping water high is a temporary solution at best. Eventually, silt will pop up all around Lake Conroe. Especially after heavy rains.
Until you start enforcing regulations that reduce the effects of egregious development (including sedimentation) and form a Flood Control District to help dredge, this problem will dog you.
Realize that we’re all in this together – upstream and down. Let’s focus on ways to mitigate our mutual problems, not fight each other for a temporary advantage.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/22/2021
1362 Days after 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/2021/05/Docks.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-05-22 14:46:132021-05-22 18:25:20LCA Claims “Seasonal Lake Lowering Policy Does Not Allow Lake Conroe to Refill Through Rainfall in Spring, Fall”
2021 Report Card on Texas Flood-Issue Legislation To Date
With the Texas legislature days away from adjournment, it’s time to see how flood-related legislation fared. Out of the 20 bills listed below, one has a chance of turning into law.
Still Has a Chance
HB 531 – Floodplain Disclosure
This bill by Armando Walle of Houston relates to floodplain disclosure for leased dwellings. It has passed both the House and Senate and is awaiting the Governor’s signature. Several pieces of similar legislation did not fare as well. See below.
Better Luck Next Session!
HB 2525 – Lake Houston Dredging District
Dan Huberty’s proposed legislation to establish a Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District passed the house. But the it’s sitting in the Local Government Committee in the senate chaired by Senator Paul Bettencourt. So is the identical companion bill filed by Senator Brandon Creighton SB 1982. It’s been sitting in the same committee since April 8. Someone doesn’t want this to see the light of day. A group called WaterUsersCoalition.org is desperately trying to kill both bills with misinformation. The web site characterizes the bill as one that only benefits Kingwood and Atascocita drainage. It would have certainly done that, but it would also have helped maintain and restore the capacity of Lake Houston. The website also says it would be funded by taxes which the bill(s) explicitly prohibit. And implies that increasing lake capacity would somehow hamper the conversion from groundwater to surface water.
HB 4478 – Sand Mine Reclamation
Another bill by Huberty was referred to the House Natural Resources committee on 3/29. Nothing has happened to it since. The bill would have required two things: reclamation of sand mines at the end of mining and a performance bond to ensure they met certain criteria, such as the removal of all equipment. Died in committee.
HB 767 – Sand Mining Best Practices
Yet another piece of legislation by Huberty – would have established best management practices for sand mines. The House Environmental Regulation Committee left the bill pending in committee, just as they did in the 2019 legislative session. TACA wins again. We’ll have to live with worst practices for at least another two years.
HB 4341 – Sand Mine Regulatory Responsibility
This bill By Kyle Beiderman of Fredericksburg – was sent to the House Environmental Regulation Committee on 3/29. They didn’t even hold a hearing on it. The bill would have transferred responsibility for regulating sand mines from the TCEQ to the Railroad Commission of Texas.
HB 2422 – Sand Mine Locations
A piece of proposed legislation by Erin Zwiener of Kyle, Tx. would have allowed County Commissioners (in counties with populations greater than 500,000) to prohibit sand mining or the expansion of sand mines when they are too close to homes, hospitals, churches and certain other facilities. The Environmental Regulation Committee has bottled that bill up since 3/16. TACA wins again.
HB 1912 – Sand Mine Nuisances
Proposed legislation by Terry Wilson of Georgetown would have stiffened regulations relating to nuisances associated with aggregate production operations such as blasting, noise, air quality and more. The Environmental Regulation Committee has left it pending since 4/19. TACA wins again.
HB 3116 – SJRA Board Appointments
Will Metcalf of Conroe introduced two bills to change the composition of the San Jacinto River Authority Board. This one, the first, would have reduced the number of directors on the SJRA board from 7 to 6 and changed the way they are appointed. The change would have guaranteed a majority of directors from Montgomery County. The House referred the bill to its Natural Resources Committee on 3/19. Nothing has happened to it since then.
HB 4575 – SJRA Board Elections
The second Metcalf bill would have made the SJRA board elected, rather than appointed by the government. But there was a hitch. It would have denied representation to downstream residents. Hasn’t gone anywhere since April 8.
SB 314 – Disclosure of Flood Zones for Leased Property
This piece of legislation by Joan Huffman of Houston got referred to the Business and Commerce committee on 3/9. Nothing has happened since. The bill would have mandated disclosure of flood risk for leased property in a flood zone. A similar bill passed in the last session for property for sale. However, the Committee has taken no action on the leasing bill since 3/9.
HB 1059 – Disclosure of Flood Zones on Vacant Land for Sale
Another flood plain disclosure bill by Phil Stephenson of Rosenberg would have required sellers of vacant lots smaller than 15 acres to disclose whether any portion of the lot was in a flood plain. The bill would also have let buyers recover damages if the property flooded within five years and the seller failed to disclose the flood plain. This bill made it out of the Business and Industry Committee. However, the Calendar Committee never brought it up for a vote on the House floor since 4/15. It’s companion bill in the Senate – SB 461 by Kolkhorst – also stalled.
HB 1956 – Climate Change Planning
Michelle Beckley of Carrollton introduced legislation that would have required certain state agencies to consider the impact of climate changes in their strategic plans. It got referred to the State Affairs Committee on 3/15. Ba Dump. Same for similar bills like HB 1949, SB306, HB 2017, HB 3246, and HB4178.
HB 655 – Feasibility Study for Statewide Disaster Alert System
This bill Richard Raymond of Laredo called for studying the feasibility, efficiency and benefits of setting up a statewide disaster alert system. It went to the Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee on 3/1. No action since.
SB 859 – Continuation of Electronic Meetings after COVID for Regional Flood Planning Groups
A common-sense bill by Charles Perry of Lubbock would have let Regional Flood Planning Groups continue to hold meetings via telephone conference call and videoconference after emergency COVID restrictions expire. The rationale: these groups are staffed by volunteers, many of whom have to drive across several counties to get to meetings. That can take all day in West Texas. It was voted out of the Senate Business and Commerce Committee before it ran out of gas. A companion bill, HB 2103, passed the House, but also stalled in the Senate.
Seems like a lot of good ideas were left on the table.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/24/2021 based on research by John Barr
1364 Days after 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.
Engineers Testifying for LCA are Electrical and Chemical, Not Civil
Yesterday’s post cited the testimony of two “licensed professional engineers” in the State of Texas who claimed that Lake Conroe could not refill from rainfall in the Spring or Fall after being lowered one foot to provide an extra margin of safety, which helps prevent flooding homes on both sides of the dam. However, the lake did refill…and then some…within two days after the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) filed their affidavits in its lawsuit to prevent the seasonal lowering.
Deeper investigation reveals that neither engineer is a civil engineer. One is an electrical engineer and the other a chemical engineer.
“The Engineer Shall Not…”
Here’s why it is important. Note Paragraphs A and C below.
Paragraph A states that engineers shall practice only in their areas of competence.
Paragraph C states, “The engineer shall not express an engineering opinion in deposition before a court … which is contrary to generally accepted scientific and engineering principles without fully disclosing the basis and rationale for such an opinion.”
In fairness, the engineers also testified as residents and they had more concerns than flooding.
However, both:
Mr. Elliott has retired and his license is inactive. Mr. Waitts’ license is still active.
Background
Only two days after LCA filed the engineers’ affidavits, rainfall raised the lake level two feet above normal, and threatened homes and businesses. SJRA had to release water at almost 10,000 CFS to avoid flooding them.
Without the seasonal lake lowering policy, someone on either side of the dam would likely have flooded. Dam operators would have been forced to flip a coin to see who. But the seasonal lowering – about which the chemical and electrical engineers complained – helped protect everyone. No one, to my knowledge, flooded on either side of the dam due to river flooding.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/23/2021
1363 Days after 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.
LCA Claims “Seasonal Lake Lowering Policy Does Not Allow Lake Conroe to Refill Through Rainfall in Spring, Fall”
Never says never. Especially in a lawsuit. It didn’t take long to disprove that claim! Two days after LCA filed the claim on April 28th, the SJRA had to open its gates to keep Lake Conroe homes and businesses from flooding. And they are still releasing water…three weeks later.
This afternoon, I read the third supplement to the petition by the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) in its lawsuit against the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) and nearly busted a gut laughing. After a week where we received more than half the rain for the year so far, I needed the comic relief. And got it.
SJRA Forced to Go Beyond Seasonal Lowering to Avoid Flooding
Twice this month, the SJRA has had to release water from Lake Conroe above and beyond the seasonal lowering policy to prevent flooding. After the May Day event, they released almost 10,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) for several days to keep the homes and businesses around Lake Conroe from flooding.
The rains this week have been more spread out, but the SJRA still had to release almost 3,000 CFS most days to reduce flood risk around Lake Conroe.
Engineers rarely deal in absolutes. They deal in extremes and qualify almost everything they say. But these intrepid professionals stepped over the edge on the far side of reality. Mother Nature always gets the last word.
One of Many Exaggerated Claims
The LCA lawsuit seeks to stop the SJRA’s seasonal lake lowering policy. The “refill” claim is just one of many exaggerated claims that LCA has made.
Say That Again!
The latest filing claims that the Lake Conroe Association has the authority to speak for all of its members because LCA feels it proved actual or imminent damages to at least one of its members. In logic, they call that “the fallacy of generalization.” I know at least one influential member of LCA who disagrees vehemently with the lawsuit. So which of those two individuals should we listen to?
LCA also asserts that the Association’s rights are “in every practical sense identical” with “its members.” Its interests, however, may not be.
In its original petition, LCA claimed that its purpose was “over-seeing, directing, initiating, and promulgating programs that directly affect the control, use, and enjoyment of Lake Conroe…” Had it not been for the seasonal lake lowering policy, many homes and businesses upstream or down would likely have flooded after the May Day rains.
In the same sentence about enjoyment, LCA also claims that Lake Conroe is operated exclusively for the benefit of the citizens of Montgomery County, Texas.
Did they really mean to say that Lake Conroe is operated exclusively for MoCo residents when the City of Houston owns two thirds of the water in it?
At one point, the lawsuit claims the sole purpose of Lake Conroe is to supply drinking water. But most of LCA’s complaints refer to lost recreational opportunities.
The second supporting document LCA filed sought relief for irreparable damages but did not specify what those were. Previously LCA members have complained about:
Could Dredging Costs Be The Real Issue?
But LCA’s latest filing reveals what could be the real issue here: dredging. Reportedly, the former president of the LCA had shallow water next to some lakefront property he was trying to sell. But with the water lowered, shallowness made the property less marketable.
Shallow water especially impacts residents at the north end (headwaters) of the lake.
Some LCA affidavits claim that access channels to the lake have been cut off by siltation. This latest filing references dredging in numerous places.
Wildwood Shores claims the estimated cost to dredge area canals exceeds one million dollars. They have hired an engineering company to set up a multi-year dredging plan that would spread out the costs. But they worry that the costs may still not be affordable. Dredging companies have explained the costs of dewatering the dredged materials; hauling them out of the floodplain; and the Army Corps’ permitting process.
Residents from Wildwood Shores, an area without fire hydrants, also claim that the Sam Houston National Forest could burn down if a house fire gets out of control and the local fire department can’t find a way to draw water from the lake.
I wonder if they’ve compared the cost of dredging to putting in a water well and tank from which tanker trucks can refill. I googled “cost of water tanks” and quickly found one that holds 90,000 gallons for $35,000. That’s a lot less than a million dollars for dredging. And the capacity would be enough to fill up at least 30 of the tanker trucks they reference in the lawsuit. The engineer who filed that affidavit didn’t explore that option. Perhaps because he had something else in mind…like boating, for instance.
Let’s Focus on the Real Issues and Work Together
I’m not trying to minimize the:
We in the Lake Houston Area have been grappling with those same issues…on top of the flooding that silt dams contribute to. They are all real.
But making claims that are false at face value; inventing one doomsday scenario after another; and ignoring reasonable, cost-effective alternatives only undermine your own credibility.
Keeping water high is a temporary solution at best. Eventually, silt will pop up all around Lake Conroe. Especially after heavy rains.
Until you start enforcing regulations that reduce the effects of egregious development (including sedimentation) and form a Flood Control District to help dredge, this problem will dog you.
Realize that we’re all in this together – upstream and down. Let’s focus on ways to mitigate our mutual problems, not fight each other for a temporary advantage.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/22/2021
1362 Days after 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.