It’s Official: Harvey Flood Mitigation Is Taking Longer than World War II

Sunday, May 9th will mark a special day in the history of flood mitigation. We will have spent more time responding to Hurricane Harvey – and accomplishing little – than it took us to win World War II. December 7, 1941 to VJ Day on August 15, 1945 was 1349 days. On May 9, 2021, it will have been 1349 days since Hurricane Harvey ravaged Texas and the Gulf Coast.

USS Arizona burning after forward magazine exploded, afternoon of December 7, 1941. Photo courtesy of National Park Service.

What Happened to American Determination and Unity?

After Harvey, we stood united in a sense of grief, loss and determination. We vowed to implement measures that would make us more resilient against such storms in the future.

In the Lake Houston Area, we had a three part mitigation strategy:

  • More upstream detention to help offset future releases from Lake Conroe.
  • Dredging to eliminate blockages in the rivers.
  • Additional flood gates on Lake Houston so we can shed water as fast as Lake Conroe sends it downstream.

Less in. Faster through. More out.

Grading the Report Card

So how have we done?

We Need More Emphasis on Action

Imagine if we had still been studying an appropriate response to Pearl Harbor after 1349 Days. Somehow, we’ve confused studying problems with fixing them. Thought has become disconnected from action, or worse, substituted for it. This is not America’s finest hour.

It’s not that we can’t mitigate flooding problems. It’s that we’re not organized to do so in a timely way. We study these things endlessly. We value perfection more than protection.

We have compounded a natural disaster with:

  • “Paralysis through analysis”
  • Divided responses on the federal, state and local levels that have no central coordinator
  • Contradictory priorities between upstream and downstream interests
  • Complex, often contradictory, organizational requirements.

We CAN Be the Solution

We need to re-engineer business processes to focus on what matters:

  1. Helping people rebuild their homes, businesses and infrastructure…
  2. And reducing the risk of future disasters…
  3. In the least amount of time possible.

That’s it. It’s that simple. The first two are clear statements of intent to unify purpose. And the third is a simple goal by which everyone involved can measure individual efforts.

In the coming days, I will publish a series of articles on how to streamline the business processes built up around flood mitigation and disaster relief. One will be authored by George P. Bush, the state’s highest disaster relief official. And another will be anonymous to allow several people to speak freely and frankly.

My goal is to stimulate a public dialog that can help us get closer to the goals listed above.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/7/2021

1347 Days since Hurricane Harvey

TWDB Approves $10.1 Million to Widen, Deepen Taylor Gully

At its first May board meeting this morning, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) approved a $10.1 million loan to the City of Houston to widen and deepen Taylor Gully.

Removing 400 Homes from Harm’s Way

The project should help alleviate flooding in Kingwood subdivisions such as Elm Grove, North Kingwood Forest, Mills Branch and Woodstream Forest. Residents in each village experienced disastrous flooding, not once, but twice in 2019. Widening and deepening the gully will increase its conveyance and take more than 400 homes out of harm’s way.

Connected Issues

However, the increased conveyance could also create the need for more more detention capacity to reduce the risk of flooding elsewhere.

This graph of Brays Bayou during the last century shows how runoff accelerates with development. Instead of floodwaters being stored in wetlands and forests, storm drains rush the water to the bayou. That results in higher, faster rises during storms.

Rapid upstream development has put pressure that never existed before on downstream homes. That development decreases the time of accumulation for floodwaters. Without more detention ponds to hold some water back, widening, deepening Taylor Gully could solve a problem in one place and create a problem in another. It could result in faster, higher flood peaks downstream.

Woodridge Village Could Be Part of Taylor Gully Solution

The logical place to put the extra floodwater detention would be on the Woodridge Village property that Harris County just acquired from Perry Homes. Currently, the property is about 40% short of the detention pond capacity needed to absorb a 100-year rainfall under new Atlas-14 requirements. And it has more than 170 acres available to meet that need.

Woodridge Village and headwaters of Taylor Gully (upper left) as they existed in January of 2020

The City loan which will be matched by money from the Harris County Flood Bond and, hopefully the federal government, can be used to address both conveyance and detention issues.

Delicate Dance Between Political, Project Leaders

Thanks to the TWDB, the bulk of construction money is now committed to the project through the City of Houston. That means the lead partner on this project, HCFCD, can tell its engineering contractor to accelerate planning.

Development of such projects is often like a dance between political and project leadership. Neither side can get out of step with the other for long.

At this hour, many details have yet to be worked out on the engineering and cost estimating side. But some of the political and funding clouds are parting enough to see a clear path to completion. However, one thing is perfectly clear.

As watersheds develop, it’s important to set aside room for detention pond capacity. Once a watershed is fully developed, homes and businesses must be bought out to create those ponds.

The buyouts increase the time and cost of projects exponentially.

For the minutes of today’s TWDB board meeting, click here and view Item #6.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/6/2021

1346 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 595 since Imelda

Porter Residents File Lawsuit Against Perry Homes, Its Subsidiaries, Contractors

In the continuing saga of the Woodridge Village fiasco, lawyers Jason Webster and Kimberley Spurlock have filed a new lawsuit on behalf of approximately 50 Porter residents who flooded on May 7th and/or September 19th in 2019. Webster and Spurlock previously filed lawsuits on behalf of Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest residents who flooded on those same days.

Beating Statute of Limitations

Webster and Spurlock filed the new suit on May 5th, 2021. Normally, a two-year statute of limitations applies in such cases, according to one lawyer I talked to. So these plaintiffs just beat the deadline.

Documents filed yesterday with the District Clerk of Harris County make many of the same allegations made in the Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest flooding cases, with one crucial addition. These residents, who live on the west side of Woodridge Village, also claim that the defendants blocked drainage coming out of their neighborhoods, thus backing water up.

Contractors built Woodridge Village (right) up about 3 feet relative neighbors (left) without providing a path for water to drain. Note ponding water on left where plaintiff Chris Yates lives. Photo courtesy of Yates.

Legal Basis for Claims

Defendants allege that the proximate cause of flooding to their homes was an illegal impoundment of surface water caused by defective construction practices. They cite Section 11.086 of the Texas Water Code. It states that “No person may divert or impound the natural flow of surface waters in this state, or permit a diversion or impounding by him to continue, in a manner that damages the property of another by the overflow of the water diverted or impounded.”

In relation to the alleged “defective construction practices, plaintiffs claim “Negligence, Negligent Retention, Negligent Supervision, Negligence Per Se, and Gross Negligence for the May 7, 2019 floods.” Pages 14 and 15 of their complaint claim 34 separate failures.

Plaintiffs also claim Negligence, Negligence Per Se and Gross Negligence against the developer defendants for the September 19th flood. In regard to those claims, they list 29 separate failures relating to inadequate construction.

Plaintiffs further allege defendants created a nuisance and “trespassed” on their property. From a legal point of view, trespass includes “causing something to enter another’s property.” In this case, the something was water.

List of Defendants

Defendants in the lawsuit include the developers, engineering company and contractors. They include:

  • Perry Homes, LLC (developer)
  • Figure Four Partners, LTD (a Perry Subsidiary)
  • PSWA, Inc. (another Perry Subsidiary)
  • LJA Engineering Inc.
  • Rebel Contractors, Inc.
  • Double Oak Construction, Inc.
  • Texasite, LLC
  • Concourse Development, LLC

LJA Played Central Role

LJA played a central role in the flooding. Perry and its subsidiaries hired LJA to engineer the development and help supervise contractors to ensure they were working to plan. Plaintiffs allege LJA:

  • Failed to follow the correct drainage guidelines for Montgomery County
  • Failed to enforce the construction schedule
  • Failed to provide adequate drainage
  • Failed to adequately model the development
  • Removed drainage channels
  • Caused water elevations to increase downstream
  • Failed to design adequate detention ponds
  • Failed to use the correct hydrology method
  • Failed to design emergency overflows
  • Failed to comply with the soil report produced by Terracon Consultants, Inc.
  • Failed to protect water runoff from flooding Plaintiff’s homes
  • Violated the contractors duty and standard of care.

Plaintiffs Seeking Compensation For…

Plaintiffs seek compensation for damages including:

  • Cost of repairs
  • Cost of replacement or fair market value of personal property lost, damaged, or destroyed
  • Loss of use of personal property
  • Loss of income and business income
  • Consequential costs incurred such as hotel accommodations and replacement costs
  • Mental anguish and/or emotional distress
  • Prejudgment interest
  • Post judgment interest
  • Attorneys’ fees
  • Court costs
  • Exemplary and punitive damages

Finally, the plaintiffs seek a jury trial to decide issues of fact in the case.

For Text of the Full Case and Expert Witness Report

For the full 32-page complaint, click here.

For the 253-page certificate of merit in the case, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/6/2021

1346 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 595 since Imelda

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.