Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin announced today a “Lake Houston Safety Plan.” It promotes lake safety by helping boaters better identify their locations on the lake when calling 9-1-1, so help can arrive faster.
Use Colors to Narrow Down Location when Calling for Help
Martin worked with City of Houston’s Planning Department to create a map identifying seven geographic areas by color for residents needing to identify their position on the lake. Martin’s District E Office, Houston Fire Department, Houston Police Department and Lake Patrol Division, Houston Emergency Center, Houston Public Works, and Harris County Sheriff’s Office jointly designed the map.
When contacting first responders, the color coded zones will help reduce response time by narrowing down a boat’s location. The City will provide the safety plan map to all public docks/piers and private launch areas for posting. Dispatchers at Houston’s Emergency Center have already started training based on the map.
Maps have also been provided to all Lake Houston Area first responders. The City of Houston Public Works Department will also place highly visible signs on bridges crossing Lake Houston and the San Jacinto River with the names of roadways by Memorial Day.
For More Information on Safety Plan
District E will conduct outreach events, launch a targeted social-media campaign, and send out a mailer this summer to Lake Houston residents with more information on the Safety Plan.
To receive resources on the Lake Houston Safety Plan or to schedule a member of the District E Team to provide a presentation to your group directly please call (832) 393-3008 or email the District E Office at districte@houstontx.gov.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/15/2021 based on information from Dave Martin’s Office
1325 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Lake-Houston-Safety-Plan-Zones.jpg?fit=837%2C777&ssl=1777837adminadmin2021-04-15 10:24:132021-04-15 15:06:28Martin Announces Lake Houston Safety Plan With Color-Coded Zones
Samantha Reiter, General Manager of LSGCD, has repeatedly stated for months that subsidence is not a limiting factor in Montgomery County, so it shouldn’t be included in DFCs for Montgomery County. She made three motions in the GMA-14 meeting last week that would have let LSGCD avoid a subsidence limitation that she claimed did not apply.
The study – which might or might not support that conclusion – will take 60 weeks to complete. But the Texas Water Development Board deadline for DFCs from all groundwater management areas is January 5, 2022 – in 38 weeks.
The study will cost $122,700 and arrive 22 weeks after the train leaves the station.
A thorough reader will also note that while LSGCD has been trumpeting “subsidence is not a limiting factor here,” the scope of work acknowledges that Phase One of the study was basically a literature review of pre-existing studies. Most of those were based in other counties.
The ostensible purpose of the Phase Two study is to develop data specific to Montgomery County and LSGCD (see pages 1/2). So it appears, they may not really obtain data to prove or disprove their claim until long after DFCs must be finalized by statute.
Lone Star Still Hopeful It Can Avoid Subsidence Metric
To her credit, Ms. Reiter admitted later in the board meeting that GMA-14 rejected her three alternative motions to make a subsidence DFC optional. However, during that discussion, she also said she thought part of the pushback came because she circulated her motion(s) for review at 11 p.m. the night before the meeting. That angered some people who said they had been begging for motions to review, even if only in draft form, for months.
Reiter stated last night to her board that she hoped those GMA-14 members would reconsider her motions in October. That would happen after the public comment period on the DFCs adopted last Friday. However, making a major change at that point might trigger a second 90-day public comment period. That’s going to be tight. Only 91 days exist between October 6th (the next GMA-14 meeting) and January 5, the state’s mandatory deadline.
Two Potential Issues with Study Scope
First, LSGCD said it plans to review the DFCs with stakeholders. But many of the people impacted are outside Montgomery County and they aren’t considered “stakeholders.” For instance, models show that at the rate LSGCD wants to pump groundwater, it would cause approximately 3 feet of subsidence in the Kingwood, Humble, Atascocita and Huffman areas but only 1 foot of subsidence at the Lake Houston Dam. That would essentially bring floodwaters two feet closer to upstream homes in Harris County. But we’re not considered LSGCD stakeholders.
Second, the scope of work for the Lone Star subsidence study says, “we will evaluate logs up to 10 miles beyond the Montgomery County boundary to aid in constraining the interpolation of surfaces within LSGC.” Said another way, it appears that they won’t evaluate their impact on Harris County. The purpose of a groundwater management area is to bind all the people of a region together in a common cause. But that doesn’t seem to be happening here.
Fortunately, Harris County residents will still have an opportunity to provide input directly to GMA-14 or the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.
People must stay engaged on this issue. We should not assume it is behind us simply because GMA-14 adopted some proposed DFCs for public comment.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/14/2021
1324 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/2019/02/LakeHoustonDamDuringHarvey.jpg?fit=1500%2C968&ssl=19681500adminadmin2021-04-14 16:23:122021-04-14 16:23:16LSGCD Finally Approves Phase II of Subsidence Study, Only One Problem…
On Friday, April 9, 2021, Texas Groundwater Management Area-14 (GMA-14), which comprises 21 counties in Southeast Texas, finally adopted metrics for Desired Future Conditions (DFCs). These define how much groundwater each conservation district can pump from aquifers and how much subsidence they will tolerate until 2080.
However, Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) continued to fight a subsidence metric even though they repeatedly claimed subsidence was not an issue for them. They fought to make the subsidence metric optional in Montgomery County. When that failed, discussion shifted to how much flexibility LSGCD has to implement goals adopted by the group.
Below, I summarize meeting highlights. The time codes below will take you to the relevant portions of the video. You can access it by clicking this link. It will take you to a registration page. Fill in your name and email, and click register to view the video.
Opening Comments
Public comments, a motion to approve minutes from previous meetings and a request by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for feedback on the state water plan took up the first twenty and a half minutes.
General Discussion of DFCs
At 20:33, the group started discussing Agenda Items 7 and 8 regarding the DFCs. For the next half hour they discussed, in general terms:
What happens if GMA-14 and Lone Star disagree on DFCs (18:30)
The process of evaluating proposals (25:30)
What DFCs mean (30:30)
Which goals are most relevant where (32:00)
Limiting factors within each district and how each gets to decide the best way to achieve goals in its Groundwater Reduction Plans (37:15)
DFCs considered by the group in previous months (38.30)
The importance of measuring subsidence (41:30)
How Lone Star wants the flexibility to determine which metrics apply to itself, i.e., not measuring subsidence (46:20)
First Motion
Having laid the groundwork for voting on DFCs, at 50:30, the group began making motions. The first was to adopt Resolution 2021-04-09. This is resolution features multiple metrics based on the Houston Area Groundwater Model approved by the TWDB. Specifics include:
No less than 70% of available drawdown will remain in wells by 2080 (defined by the average height of water columns in wells to well bottoms).
One foot of additional subsidence on average across a county
A pumping increase of no more than 30,000 acre feet per year
Cover page of first motion to be approved, complete with “whereas’s”
John Martin, the chairman of GMA-14, stated that he believes this is the “most centrist” of the different scenarios the group had been examining. (52:30)
Samantha Reiter, general manager of the LSGCD in MoCo, said that she had quite a few issues with this motion. Her board did not approve it, therefore she opposed it. She also stated that she believed “each county should be able to adopt its own metrics. That’s critical.”
At 56:20, members vote. The motion carried 4 to 1. Only LSGCD voted No. Everyone breathed half a sigh of relief. But it didn’t end there.
Second Motion (LSGCD’s First)
At 57:20, Reiter made the first of three alternative, rapid-fire motions. She requested members adopt a resolution that she sent to them for review at 11 p.m. the previous evening. This motion gave groundwater conservation districts the flexibility to adopt metrics that work best for them. Reiter claims “subsidence is not a limiting factor” in MoCo, so she “can’t support it.”
Editorial comment: She’s saying in essence, “Subsidence is irrelevant because it won’t come into play. Then she argues tooth and nail against including the metric as she has for months. Why? It makes one suspicious.
Bob Rehak
At 61:30, she recapped key elements of her motion. They included:
Leave 70% of groundwater in place by 2080 for those counties where that’s a limiting factor
No more than 1 foot average subsidence for those counties where that’s a limiting factor
Each district can adopt the metric it chooses based on “Model Run D.”
During the discussion, Reiter also claims, “This doesn’t impact anyone else.” A critic points out that that is false. He also points out that Model Run D was not in the written resolution she submitted.
The motion fails: 2 FOR, 3 AGAINST.
Third Motion (LSGCD’s Second)
When that motion failed, Reiter immediately made another at 1:07:15. Key elements included:
Leave 70% of groundwater in place
Optional subsidence metric.
This motion also died.
Fourth Motion (LSGCD’s Third)
At 1:11:30, Reiter immediately made her third alternative motion: “That we approve two alternative motions, the one already approved and the one I just laid out” (with an optional subsidence metric). She wants to put BOTH out for public comment.
At 1:12:50, the representative from TWDB says, “I don’t see a provision under Chapter 36 for competing proposals.” He adds, “That’s not what the GMA is tasked with doing.”
A lawyer observes at 1:17:30 that the motion needs to be clear enough for people to provide public comment. He also worries that if one of the alternatives is substantially modified after public comment, that they might need a second round of public comment.
Reiter then modifies the motion at 1:19:30. She stripped from her proposal the wording of the previously approved, written resolution. She also suggested that they vote only on the metrics which are virtually identical to those approved in the very first motion. Then she calls on Stacey Reese, Lone Star’s legal counsel, who chimes in at 1:21:30. Reese explores the nooks and crannies of legal nuance with the other lawyer and the TWDB. She asserts that:
They don’t need to vote on a full resolution with explanatory text.
They can make two proposals.
If you propose multiple alternatives for public comment, it’s no violation of the rules. Therefore, there would be no need to go back out for public comment a second time.
Members attempted to clarify the motion at 1:19. Basically, the “resolution” turned into a statement of metrics from the very first motion (minus the “whereas’s”).
They never do circle back to whether a subsidence metric would be optional.
At 1:24:30, Martin asks what the purpose of all that was. That question remains.
At 1:28:30, the motion passes unanimously. The cost of not printing a lengthy legal notice in newspapers appeals to some of the members. This apparently superseded the first motion; but that was never clarified.
Next Steps
GMA-14’s technical consultant will craft language to be specific about what the motion does or doesn’t include. (1:30:30). According to Martin, at a minimum, the statement of Proposed DFCs will include two metrics:
No less than 70% median available drawdown remaining in 2080
No more than 1 additional foot of average subsidence between 2009 and 2080. Then they set the next meeting for the first Wednesday in October and adjourned.
Then the statement will be put out for public comment. More news to follow.
How those metrics were explained in the first resolution adopted earlier.
LSGCD Meeting 6 PM Tonight
The regularly scheduled April meeting of the LSGCD board is tonight. It will be interesting to see how Reiter spins the results of the GMA-14 meeting. Here’s the agenda and background information. Pay particular attention to Items 9 through 12. They include discussion of the second phase of a subsidence study, results of the GMA-14 meeting, and a discussion of the legal implications. Here’s how to watch it live. If you want to make public comments, see the instructions in the agenda. The fun starts at 6 p.m.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/13/2021 (Updated at 6pm to revise time codes per newly posted video).
1323 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/2021/04/Groundwater-Resolution.jpg?fit=1200%2C641&ssl=16411200adminadmin2021-04-13 14:08:522021-04-13 18:37:03GMA-14 Adopts Desired Future Conditions, But Not Without a Fight from LSGCD
Martin Announces Lake Houston Safety Plan With Color-Coded Zones
Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin announced today a “Lake Houston Safety Plan.” It promotes lake safety by helping boaters better identify their locations on the lake when calling 9-1-1, so help can arrive faster.
Use Colors to Narrow Down Location when Calling for Help
Martin worked with City of Houston’s Planning Department to create a map identifying seven geographic areas by color for residents needing to identify their position on the lake. Martin’s District E Office, Houston Fire Department, Houston Police Department and Lake Patrol Division, Houston Emergency Center, Houston Public Works, and Harris County Sheriff’s Office jointly designed the map.
When contacting first responders, the color coded zones will help reduce response time by narrowing down a boat’s location. The City will provide the safety plan map to all public docks/piers and private launch areas for posting. Dispatchers at Houston’s Emergency Center have already started training based on the map.
Maps have also been provided to all Lake Houston Area first responders. The City of Houston Public Works Department will also place highly visible signs on bridges crossing Lake Houston and the San Jacinto River with the names of roadways by Memorial Day.
For More Information on Safety Plan
District E will conduct outreach events, launch a targeted social-media campaign, and send out a mailer this summer to Lake Houston residents with more information on the Safety Plan.
To receive resources on the Lake Houston Safety Plan or to schedule a member of the District E Team to provide a presentation to your group directly please call (832) 393-3008 or email the District E Office at districte@houstontx.gov.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/15/2021 based on information from Dave Martin’s Office
1325 Days since Hurricane Harvey
LSGCD Finally Approves Phase II of Subsidence Study, Only One Problem…
At its April 13, 2021 board meeting, the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) finally approved Phase 2 of its Subsidence Study. Approval of the study had been on the agenda for months, but kept getting postponed. It was only after Groundwater Management Agency 14 (GMA-14) insisted on a subsidence metric in its Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) last Friday, that LSGCD finally approved the study this Tuesday.
Samantha Reiter, General Manager of LSGCD, has repeatedly stated for months that subsidence is not a limiting factor in Montgomery County, so it shouldn’t be included in DFCs for Montgomery County. She made three motions in the GMA-14 meeting last week that would have let LSGCD avoid a subsidence limitation that she claimed did not apply.
The study – which might or might not support that conclusion – will take 60 weeks to complete. But the Texas Water Development Board deadline for DFCs from all groundwater management areas is January 5, 2022 – in 38 weeks.
For the full details of the study scope of work, costs, and timetable that LSGCD approved last night, click here.
Scope of Work to Focus on MoCo
A thorough reader will also note that while LSGCD has been trumpeting “subsidence is not a limiting factor here,” the scope of work acknowledges that Phase One of the study was basically a literature review of pre-existing studies. Most of those were based in other counties.
The ostensible purpose of the Phase Two study is to develop data specific to Montgomery County and LSGCD (see pages 1/2). So it appears, they may not really obtain data to prove or disprove their claim until long after DFCs must be finalized by statute.
Lone Star Still Hopeful It Can Avoid Subsidence Metric
To her credit, Ms. Reiter admitted later in the board meeting that GMA-14 rejected her three alternative motions to make a subsidence DFC optional. However, during that discussion, she also said she thought part of the pushback came because she circulated her motion(s) for review at 11 p.m. the night before the meeting. That angered some people who said they had been begging for motions to review, even if only in draft form, for months.
Reiter stated last night to her board that she hoped those GMA-14 members would reconsider her motions in October. That would happen after the public comment period on the DFCs adopted last Friday. However, making a major change at that point might trigger a second 90-day public comment period. That’s going to be tight. Only 91 days exist between October 6th (the next GMA-14 meeting) and January 5, the state’s mandatory deadline.
Two Potential Issues with Study Scope
First, LSGCD said it plans to review the DFCs with stakeholders. But many of the people impacted are outside Montgomery County and they aren’t considered “stakeholders.” For instance, models show that at the rate LSGCD wants to pump groundwater, it would cause approximately 3 feet of subsidence in the Kingwood, Humble, Atascocita and Huffman areas but only 1 foot of subsidence at the Lake Houston Dam. That would essentially bring floodwaters two feet closer to upstream homes in Harris County. But we’re not considered LSGCD stakeholders.
Second, the scope of work for the Lone Star subsidence study says, “we will evaluate logs up to 10 miles beyond the Montgomery County boundary to aid in constraining the interpolation of surfaces within LSGC.” Said another way, it appears that they won’t evaluate their impact on Harris County. The purpose of a groundwater management area is to bind all the people of a region together in a common cause. But that doesn’t seem to be happening here.
Fortunately, Harris County residents will still have an opportunity to provide input directly to GMA-14 or the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.
People must stay engaged on this issue. We should not assume it is behind us simply because GMA-14 adopted some proposed DFCs for public comment.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/14/2021
1324 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.
GMA-14 Adopts Desired Future Conditions, But Not Without a Fight from LSGCD
On Friday, April 9, 2021, Texas Groundwater Management Area-14 (GMA-14), which comprises 21 counties in Southeast Texas, finally adopted metrics for Desired Future Conditions (DFCs). These define how much groundwater each conservation district can pump from aquifers and how much subsidence they will tolerate until 2080.
However, Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) continued to fight a subsidence metric even though they repeatedly claimed subsidence was not an issue for them. They fought to make the subsidence metric optional in Montgomery County. When that failed, discussion shifted to how much flexibility LSGCD has to implement goals adopted by the group.
Below, I summarize meeting highlights. The time codes below will take you to the relevant portions of the video. You can access it by clicking this link. It will take you to a registration page. Fill in your name and email, and click register to view the video.
Opening Comments
Public comments, a motion to approve minutes from previous meetings and a request by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for feedback on the state water plan took up the first twenty and a half minutes.
General Discussion of DFCs
At 20:33, the group started discussing Agenda Items 7 and 8 regarding the DFCs. For the next half hour they discussed, in general terms:
First Motion
Having laid the groundwork for voting on DFCs, at 50:30, the group began making motions. The first was to adopt Resolution 2021-04-09. This is resolution features multiple metrics based on the Houston Area Groundwater Model approved by the TWDB. Specifics include:
John Martin, the chairman of GMA-14, stated that he believes this is the “most centrist” of the different scenarios the group had been examining. (52:30)
Samantha Reiter, general manager of the LSGCD in MoCo, said that she had quite a few issues with this motion. Her board did not approve it, therefore she opposed it. She also stated that she believed “each county should be able to adopt its own metrics. That’s critical.”
At 56:20, members vote. The motion carried 4 to 1. Only LSGCD voted No. Everyone breathed half a sigh of relief. But it didn’t end there.
Second Motion (LSGCD’s First)
At 57:20, Reiter made the first of three alternative, rapid-fire motions. She requested members adopt a resolution that she sent to them for review at 11 p.m. the previous evening. This motion gave groundwater conservation districts the flexibility to adopt metrics that work best for them. Reiter claims “subsidence is not a limiting factor” in MoCo, so she “can’t support it.”
At 61:30, she recapped key elements of her motion. They included:
During the discussion, Reiter also claims, “This doesn’t impact anyone else.” A critic points out that that is false. He also points out that Model Run D was not in the written resolution she submitted.
The motion fails: 2 FOR, 3 AGAINST.
Third Motion (LSGCD’s Second)
When that motion failed, Reiter immediately made another at 1:07:15. Key elements included:
This motion also died.
Fourth Motion (LSGCD’s Third)
At 1:11:30, Reiter immediately made her third alternative motion: “That we approve two alternative motions, the one already approved and the one I just laid out” (with an optional subsidence metric). She wants to put BOTH out for public comment.
At 1:12:50, the representative from TWDB says, “I don’t see a provision under Chapter 36 for competing proposals.” He adds, “That’s not what the GMA is tasked with doing.”
A lawyer observes at 1:17:30 that the motion needs to be clear enough for people to provide public comment. He also worries that if one of the alternatives is substantially modified after public comment, that they might need a second round of public comment.
Reiter then modifies the motion at 1:19:30. She stripped from her proposal the wording of the previously approved, written resolution. She also suggested that they vote only on the metrics which are virtually identical to those approved in the very first motion. Then she calls on Stacey Reese, Lone Star’s legal counsel, who chimes in at 1:21:30. Reese explores the nooks and crannies of legal nuance with the other lawyer and the TWDB. She asserts that:
Members attempted to clarify the motion at 1:19. Basically, the “resolution” turned into a statement of metrics from the very first motion (minus the “whereas’s”).
At 1:24:30, Martin asks what the purpose of all that was. That question remains.
At 1:28:30, the motion passes unanimously. The cost of not printing a lengthy legal notice in newspapers appeals to some of the members. This apparently superseded the first motion; but that was never clarified.
Next Steps
GMA-14’s technical consultant will craft language to be specific about what the motion does or doesn’t include. (1:30:30). According to Martin, at a minimum, the statement of Proposed DFCs will include two metrics:
Then the statement will be put out for public comment. More news to follow.
LSGCD Meeting 6 PM Tonight
The regularly scheduled April meeting of the LSGCD board is tonight. It will be interesting to see how Reiter spins the results of the GMA-14 meeting. Here’s the agenda and background information. Pay particular attention to Items 9 through 12. They include discussion of the second phase of a subsidence study, results of the GMA-14 meeting, and a discussion of the legal implications. Here’s how to watch it live. If you want to make public comments, see the instructions in the agenda. The fun starts at 6 p.m.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/13/2021 (Updated at 6pm to revise time codes per newly posted video).
1323 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.