Lake Conroe Association Applies for Temporary Restraining Order To Prohibit Seasonal Lowering of Lake Conroe

They’re baaaa-aaaack. Yesterday, less than a day before the SJRA spring seasonal lowering program was set to kick in, the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) applied for a temporary restraining order to prohibit it. The LCA also seeks a permanent ban on the entire program. For the complete text of their 30-page lawsuit, click here. For a summary, see below.

Seasonal Release from Lake Conroe, 529 cfs from one tainter gate open six inches.
SJRA Seasonal Release on 4/15/2020. One tainter gate open six inches releases a slow, steady stream of 529 cfs.

History of Lake Lowering Policy

After disastrous flooding during Hurricane Harvey in 2017, Governor Abbott instructed the SJRA to get into the flood mitigation business and identify strategies to reduce the risk of downstream flooding. The simplest, fastest, most effective strategy that required no grants, funding, design or construction was to lower Lake Conroe during the peaks of spring and fall flood seasons. This created an extra buffer against downstream flooding by creating extra capacity in the upstream lake.

The seasonal-lowering policy started in 2018 and continued in 2019. By late 2019 when the SJRA was getting ready to review the policy for another year, the Lake Conroe Association mobilized opposition in a major-league way. People came to SJRA Board meetings in busloads. There were so many that they couldn’t all get in the SJRA boardroom to be heard. So the next meeting was held in the Conroe Convention Center. Close to a thousand “Stop the Drop” protesters showed up. They argued that lowering the lake a foot was destroying businesses around the lake, undermining property values, destroying the local school system, and threatening the entire tax base of Montgomery County.

They also argued that Lake Conroe was never intended to be a flood control reservoir, and that the policy wasted water, produced no benefit, and had minimal effect. The current lawsuit makes many of these same hyperbolic arguments.

Allegations in Lawsuit

Below, see the major allegations in the seasonal-lowering lawsuit (italics) and my responses (normal text).

The SJRA and City of Houston are unlawfully discharging billions of gallons of water from Lake Conroe which causes it to remain below full capacity. However, a quick check tonight showed that the lake was actually above its normal capacity.

The Lake Conroe Dam is being operated contrary to state law. The operation was initiated at the request of the governor and approved by the TCEQ as an emergency measure while permanent downstream flood mitigation efforts could be put in place.

Lake Conroe Dam operation is contrary to the interests of the parties “for whom the lake is maintained, regulated and conserved.” The City of Houston paid for the construction of the dam and owns two thirds of the water in the lake. The operation benefits Houston residents and was requested by the Mayor of Houston. So I ask, “For whom is the lake maintained, regulated and conserved?”

The State is entitled to regulate water to protect its citizens’ health and safety. Isn’t that what the lake-lowering policy ensures?

Lake Conroe is not a flood control reservoir. Right! We’re trying to do the best with what we have.

The policy doesn’t conserve water. Right again! But it does conserve downstream property and lives. Somehow those got lost in the LCA arguments. For a list of Lake Houston Area damages during Harvey, click here.

Flood control is not permitted for Lake Conroe. But the TCEQ did permit it. And the TCEQ rejected an LCA appeal last year.

There’s no evidence that the policy works. Tell that to the people who didn’t flood in this storm.

The policy is not really temporary. Why was the policy enacted for three years then? It’s intended to allow safe completion of additional gates on the Lake Houston Dam.

The seasonal releases happen far in advance of a storm. Lake Conroe’s gates can release water 15 times faster. If a major storm approaches and a large release becomes necessary, it could overwhelm the gates on Lake Houston. The slow seasonal release safely reduces that risk.

Harris County Flood Control’s Harvey Report found the benefits of lowering Lake Conroe to be “negligible.” That’s a lie. The word negligible never appears in the report. And the lawsuit distorts the figures. It claims the Lake Conroe release accounted for at most 16% of the water going over the Lake Houston Dam. But it was one third of all the water coming down the West Fork where the vast majority of the damage occurred. The lawsuit allegation includes East Fork water to exaggerate its claim. The Lake Conroe Dam has no effect on East Fork flow. Also consider this. All by itself the Lake Conroe release during Harvey would have ranked as the ninth largest flood in West Fork history. Hardly negligible!

Petitioners continue to be affected in their rights to their use and enjoyment of Lake Conroe. Now we’re getting to the heart of the matter. But these photos show little impact on recreation even when the lake was lowered two feet.

Water released as part of a seasonal lowering will never be available for use. Rain replenishes the lake at no cost.

As of 8pm on 3/31/2021, Lake Conroe was at its normal “target level.” The SJRA lake lowering policy calls for lowering it one foot during April and May.

Without the TRO, Lake Conroe residents will have no adequate remedy to protect the “public’s interest.” Which public? The owners of the water? Or residents of Lake Conroe?

Lake Conroe Residents Don’t All Agree with LCA

Not all Lake Conroe residents agree with this petition. Though the petition gives no hint of that. Many who flooded during Harvey have previously testified that they want the lake lowered – permanently!

Exaggeration Upon Exaggeration

This lawsuit exaggerates. And that’s its biggest flaw. It sounds like the kid who tells the teacher “My dog ate my homework, right before a bus ran him over, and a 747 crashed into the bus. I tried to retrieve my homework, but the fire department washed it down the sewer. And now it’s floating in Lake Conroe where water skiers are tripping on it. That’s going to destroy home values on Lake Conroe and undermine the tax base of the school district. So you see, Teach, we have much bigger things to worry about. Like your salary and job security.”

For more about the seasonal lake lowering policy, click on this page.

Hearing Scheduled

It’s not clear yet how this lawsuit will affect the spring lowering of Lake Conroe scheduled to start Thursday. The lawsuit is scheduled for a hearing on 4/19/2021 in Montgomery County.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/1/2021

1311 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.

HCFCD Issues Flood Bond Update as of March 30, 2021

In the March 30, 2021 Harris County Commissioner’s Court Meeting, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) gave a Flood Bond update. Here’s where projects in the 2018 Flood Bond program stand.

Overview

In the 30 months since the bond was approved by Harris County voters, the Harris County Flood Control District has used bond funds to:

  • Accept 25 grants totaling approximately $960 million with Bond funds providing around $259 million in local matching funds
  • Execute 326 engineering agreements totaling $241 million
  • Award 39 construction agreements totaling $296 million
  • Procure 19 staff augmentation agreements providing 113 contract staff members
  • Acquire nearly 340 properties at a value over $208 million for construction projects, floodplain preservation, and wetland mitigation banks
  • Make $115 million available to the Office of the County Engineer to manage and construct drainage improvements in nearly 100 subdivisions across Harris County
  • Conduct 140 community engagement meetings with over 11,413 attendees
  • Complete nearly 630 home buyouts at a value over $130 million with over 680 additional in process for a buyout (since Hurricane Harvey)
  • Complete over $125 million repair program to address damages to District infrastructure caused by Hurricane Harvey

19 Projects Completed, 372 Underway

The flood bond update shows that of the 19 projects completed so far, investigations, analyses and studies comprised 15.

Altogether there are 372 individual HCFCD projects in progress related to the Bond Program. The table below shows the stages of those projects.

88% of all projects identified in the flood bond are currently underway and at some state of completion.

Only 21 Projects Not Yet Started

Only 21 Bond projects have not yet started. They are all in the fourth quartile of the bond prioritization framework and will begin between July 2021 and March 2022. Of those, two are in the San Jacinto watershed: CI-61 (East Fork, West Fork, and Lake Houston Dredging) and F-15 (General Drainage Improvements near Atascocita).

Dredging included a $10 million match with estimated partner funds of $40 million.

FEMA/Army Corps, TWDB and City of Houston funds have covered dredging in the river to date.

Status of Lake Houston Area Projects

Other projects in the Lake Houston Area at least partially underway.

Luce Bayou and Huffman

Project underway include right-of-way acquisition, design and construction of general drainage improvements in the Luce Bayou Watershed and near Huffman (total $20 million). Luce Bayou right-of-way acquisition and floodplain preservation ($10 million) has also started.

Gates on Lake Houston Dam

Design and construction of additional gates on Lake Houston ($20 million) is nearing completion of the design phase. The City of Houston has taken the lead on that project but has made no announcements on it recently.

Other Projects Lake Houston Area Partially Underway
  • The San Jacinto Watershed Study ($625,000)
  • Funding for future partnership projects based on the SJR watershed study ($18.75 million)
  • Investigation of potential detention sites around the Glendale Dredge site in Partnership with the City of Houston ($50,000)
  • Conveyance improvements along Panther Creek ($10 million)
  • General drainage improvements east of Lake Houston ($10 million)
  • General Drainage Improvements near Kingwood ($10 million)

One Third of Projects Now Past Design Phase

One third of all projects have already begin work outside.

Ellis Not Content with 40% of Construction Going into Two Bayous in His Precinct

40% of all projects under construction are in Greens and Halls Bayou Watersheds, the two Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis cares most about. He wants to slow down projects in other areas to focus more on projects in his area.

For a discussion of how the meeting went, check back tomorrow.

For the full Flood Bond update, click here. For future reference, this link is also posted on the Reports page under the Harris County Flood Control District, tab.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/30/21

1309 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Paradoxes of “Flood Control”

Most of us would hate to get flooded. Repairs can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. They can also disrupt normal life for months or even years. Yet collectively, we often act in ways that worsen flooding. Why?

From Ignorance to Inadvertence and Intentional

Some individuals do it out of ignorance, like the person who re-routes his drainage onto a neighbor’s property without thinking.

Some do it out of self-interest, like the person who re-routes his drainage onto a neighbor’s property WHILE thinking that he is saving his own.

And some do it on a mass scale for profit. These include developers who falsify engineering reports, or exploit loopholes and grandfather clauses in local regulations to save money. For instance, by avoiding the construction of detention ponds, they can squeeze more saleable lots out of a piece of land. Likewise, some bring fill into floodplains. And even try to build homes in floodways.

Putting Self-Interest Ahead of Public Interest

They all have one thing in common. They put self-interest ahead of public interest. They let society deal with the consequences of inconsiderate and sometimes illegal actions. 

When you look at such actions as conflicts between the individual and the collective, they appear rational – people just trying to maximize their profits and minimize their costs.

But when you look at it from the taxpayer perspective, through the other end of the telescope, these actions appear irrational, self-contradictory and paradoxical. Some examples:

New condos being erected by a Chinese developer near the floodway of the San Jacinto West Fork (foreground). Everything behind these condos for more than a mile and a half flooded during Harvey. The developer targets Chinese investors who likely have little means to explore the flood risk.
  1. Montgomery County gives agricultural- and timber-exemption property tax breaks to sand mines in floodways. Then they let the federal government and downstream taxpayers in Harris County and the City of Houston pay for more than a hundred million dollars in dredging.
  2. We allow the destruction of wetlands, i.e., nature’s sponges. The loss of vegetation and increase in impervious cover due to development in wetlands speeds up the concentration of floodwaters, often exacerbating downstream flooding.
  3. Land in floodplains and floodways is cheap. Allowing builders to develop there maximizes their profit, but also increases damage during floods. Then residents make flood insurance claims, seek other financial assistance, or demand expensive flood mitigation projects to protect themselves.
  4. A corollary to that: we make publicly subsidized flood insurance available in the United States. That creates a false sense of security that encourages development in dangerous places. “Even if I flood, I’m covered.” Would a private insurance company make the same offer? Hell no! They would price the policy so that people had to investigate and reconsider the risk.
  5. To build in dangerous places, people yell “property rights.” They count on the fact that most Americans are such rabid individualists that they can rally political sentiment for dubious projects with that battle cry. But when the big flood comes, they jeopardize other people’s lives by forcing first responders to make high-water rescues in swift-moving currents.
  6. Most people place unfounded faith in numbers and experts. The engineer who tells them their new home is X feet above the hundred-year flood plain may be a hired gun who does not disclose limitations on the data. For instance, in one case I saw a new mall upstream changed the base flood elevation of a residence by 12 FEET! Who was that engineer working for? Was the City or County engineer really checking his work?
  7. Most people are not knowledgeable enough to interpret risk from flood maps. They think they’re in or out of the risky areas based on government flood maps. But they may not know that their local government has not updated the data on which those maps are built for decades. During that time, intensive upstream development may have occurred.
  8. Brown & Root warned of the need for maintenance dredging at certain places on the West Fork San Jacinto almost two decades before the need became APPARENT. But it was easy to defer maintenance on problems lurking underwater. And the City did. That contributed to the flooding of almost 20,000 homes and businesses in the Lake Houston area during Harvey.
  9. We acknowledge that flooding does not respect political boundaries. But flood regulations remain, in many cases, out of sync across those boundaries. The balkanization of local politics makes flood mitigation difficult. Careless development upstream can quickly offset the expenditure of hundreds of millions spent on flood mitigation projects downstream. That results in no net gain and can even make flooding worse.
  10. Failure to predict (or account for) upstream development can erode the margin of error that protects downstream residents from flooding.
  11. Most Americans dream of owning their own little plot of land. So, we continue to grow outward, not upward. This creates the need for more concrete and other impervious cover. More floodplains get filled. More wetlands get destroyed. More roads get paved. More aggregate gets extracted from floodways and floodplains. And the cycle continues relentlessly.
  12. Some counties deliberately design lax floodplain regulations or ignore them to lure developers. The East Montgomery County Improvement District used to trumpet, “Come here. We have no rules.” Then the developers build questionable developments in questionable places and target first-time home buyers who are too naïve to understand the risks.
  13. Montgomery County also hired an engineering firm to check the engineering firm’s own plans for a developer. As many as 600 homes across the county line in Kingwood flooded when the company didn’t highlight its own “errors.” For instance, they said there were no floodplains or wetlands when there were. If these guys were financial auditors, they would be disbarred by now. Talk about conflicts! But in the topsy-turvy world of engineering, that can make them more attractive to potential developer clients.
  14. One developer in Liberty County has forever altered the floodplains of the East Fork and Luce Bayou across an area that’s already 15,000 acres and growing. Liberty County commissioners refused to look at video evidence that the developer was not following county regulations. Then, in the same meeting, they complained about people making allegations without any evidence. Blindness is willful when tax dollars are at stake.
  15. Population can simply outgrow drainage infrastructure as it has in large parts of Houston. So, in 2010, Houstonians passed a drainage fee based on a property’s percentage of impervious cover. Then City officials promptly started diverting money from the fund. Voters passed another charter amendment in 2018 to create a lock box around the money. But the language did not do that. And guess what? A lack of ballot and budget transparency keeps us locked in cycles of despair and repair.
  16. Major floods happen infrequently enough that officials, engineers and developers can blame them on “acts of God.” In reality, floods result not only from what falls from the sky, but also from thousands of individual decisions leading up to the flood. Developers who built in the wrong place. People who bought in the wrong place. Based on information some experts knew was outdated. Without taking proper precautions. See above.
  17. Flood mitigation and disaster relief processes take too long. They need re-engineering to shorten the time between problem and solution. We are still accepting applications for Harvey aid. And most of the flood mitigation projects completed to date that arose from Harvey have been studies that are a preludeto construction. The lengthy time between problem and solution keeps people at risk for flooding. 

Bizarre Paradoxes

After studying and writing about flooding for more than three years, here are my nominations for the 17 most bizarre things we tolerate as a society re: flooding.

Self-Inflicted Flooding

I could go on. But you get the idea. Much flooding is self-inflicted by the human race.

I received a flood insurance mailing today from USAA. They pointed out how much even a small amount of water can set you back financially. “Just 1 inch of flood damage can cost you more than $25,000,” the company claims. “Why risk it?”

USAA also points out that:

  • Floods are the #1 natural disaster in the U.S.
  • Flood insurance isn’t part of your typical homeowner’s coverage.
  • More than 20% of flood losses each year occur in low- or medium-risk areas.

That last point really stopped me.

That means 80% of flood-insurance claims come from areas already known as high-risk. And why the National Flood Insurance Program is more than $20 billion in the hole.

We need to have a serious discussion about these paradoxes. Clearly, we’re doing many things wrong.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/29/2021

1308 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.