In 2018, Humble ISD voters approved a $575 million bond referendum. One of the projects involves a complete rebuild of Kingwood Middle School with an open, airy feeling; much larger classrooms; and unlike the old school, a large detention pond. Three years later, it’s starting to look real. I took all photos below on March 21, 2021.
Framing of a new building with steel. This is when you can see plans on paper start to come to life for the first time.Looking west toward Woodland Hills Drive.Looking north toward the middle part of the new site. Construction is moving in this direction. Those green boxes are where concrete piers will eventually support steel columns that, in turn, support the weight of the building.At the southeast end of the site, a temporary detention pond holds runoff from the construction site. Eventually, contractors will replace it with a permanent detention pond farther to the west.This Google Earth photo taken months ago, shows the new middle school going in where the playing fields used to be north of the existing school. When the new building is complete, it will be torn down and the playing fields will be relocated where the existing building is now.
The new middle school’s design incorporates the concept of Kingwood’s “Livable Forest,” using ample amounts of natural light to combine interior and exterior spaces into a cohesive learning environment. There will be more space for collaboration, integrated physical activity and movement. Classrooms will be about 200 square feet larger. Car and bus drop-off and pick-up have also been optimized to relieve traffic on the neighboring streets.
Computer rendering of new school.
Target opening: start of the 2022 school year. So we still have another year of construction. But I’m sure the result will be well worth any inconvenience.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/22/2021
1301 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/20210321-DJI_0356.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2021-03-22 13:09:142021-03-22 13:17:22Construction Update: Steel Going up for New Kingwood Middle School
On January 21, 2021, the Texas Sunset Commission released its “Staff Report with Commission Decisions” on the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA). The 53-page report generally gave the SJRA a good review, but recommended that it:
Improve trust through better communications, public outreach, openness and transparency
Receive better value by improving contracting processes
The Commission also recommends that the Texas Legislative Council update and consolidate the SJRA’s governing law and processes.
The Sunset Act never subjected the SJRA to abolishment. However, it put its governance, management, operating structure, and compliance with legislative requirements under a microscope.
The report alluded to issues surrounding flooding and groundwater. However, Sunset Commission does not comment on issues in litigation as a matter of policy, so as not to influence the outcome. And although the Commission received extensive public input, it did not address comments directly for the same reason.
Those who take the time to read the entire report will be rewarded with a thorough, yet concise and illuminating summary of the SJRA’s business and the challenges it faces. The SJRA has adopted most, if not all, of the recommendations made by the Commission to some degree. Adopting the recommendations should not have any adverse fiscal impact on the SJRA or cause it financial strain.
Need for Better Communication and Engagement to Improve Trust
The Commission found that SJRA needs an effective communications strategy to advance projects. Especially if the projects could result in increased costs to the general public years before the public sees benefits.
Criticism: SJRA has not developed a formal strategy for engaging the general public in its activities, struggles to provide clear explanations of its wholesale water rates, and does not maintain important information on its website.
The Commission recommended a more proactive and strategic approach to communicating with and engaging the public. That, it felt, would help SJRA earn the trust of and get buy-in from the communities it ultimately serves.
Key recommendations included:
Require SJRA to adopt a public engagement policy that guides and encourages public involvement on key decisions.
Direct SJRA to develop a strategic communications plan.
Direct SJRA to provide clear, understandable information on its rates and fees prominently on its website.
Improve Contracting Function to Receive Best Value
The Commission also found that the SJRA guidance to staff fell short in important areas. Those areas included justifying the need to outsource services and maximizing open competition for contracts. In addition, the commission also felt SJRA lacks consistent documentation for monitoring the performance of its vendors.
Key recommendations included directing the SJRA to:
Establish additional guidance for contracting needs and procurement methods, and use open solicitations except in documented exceptions.
Consistently monitor, document, and evaluate vendor performance.
Improve the transparency, fairness, and effectiveness of its contracting process.
Update Governing Law and Processes
Over the years, Sunset reviews have included a number of standard elements designed to ensure open, responsive, and effective government. SJRA’s governing law does not contain several standard provisions, including those related to the governor’s appointment of the board president, grounds for removal of a board member, board member training, separation of duties of board members from those of staff, public testimony at board meetings, and maintaining a system for receiving and acting on complaints.
SJRA’s governing law is also uncodified and difficult for the public to find and understand. Finally, SJRA lacks goals and a plan to increase its workforce diversity.
Key recommendations:
Apply the standard across-the-board requirements regarding governor appointment of the board’s presiding officer, grounds for removal of a board member, board member training, separation of duties of board members from those of staff, public testimony at board meetings, and maintaining a system for receiving and acting on complaints.
Direct the Texas Legislative Council to update SJRA’s governing law.
Direct SJRA to plan and monitor its efforts to increase workforce diversity.
Other Findings
Strained Relationships with Stakeholders
Sunset Commission staff observed how protracted legal disputes and other controversies have strained SJRA’s relationship with some stakeholders and communities. That eroded trust in its decision making and jeopardized its ability to conduct the long-term planning and construction for which the Legislature created it.
The general public was highly critical of SJRA’s efforts, in contrast to SJRA’s direct customers who were generally satisfied with the authority’s performance.
No Formal Strategy for Public Engagement
SJRA’s own recent public opinion poll revealed most respondents had a negative opinion of the authority, no opinion of it, or had not heard of it, highlighting the need for direct outreach to the public rather than relying on others to speak on its behalf.
Lack of Clear Communication about Rates and Fees
A frequent complaint during the Sunset review was that consumers often see an “SJRA fee” or “surface water conversion fee” listed on their monthly bill with little to no explanation. SJRA’s public opinion poll confirms many consumers do not know what the fee is for. Only about half of respondents correctly identified the fee is used for maintaining a water treatment plant and pipeline.
Several other wholesale water providers in the region explain their rates and fees, which are higher than SJRA’s, on the front page of their website and clearly describe how some retail utility providers modify the fees when passing them on to consumers to cover other costs.
Governing Law Outdated, Difficult for Public to Find and Understand
While some water districts and river authorities are governed by laws that are fully compiled in a specific Texas code or statute, SJRA’s governing law exists solely in “session law.” That means changes are scattered in various statutes and amendments dating back to 1937. In the absence of ONE codified statute, members of the public and even the river authority itself struggle to correctly compile all of the changes to its laws and understand their cumulative impact.
For example, SJRA’s governing law stipulates the board has six members, even though the Texas Constitution now requires all boards and commissions to have an odd number of members. Even Rep. Will Metcalf’s recently introduced bill, HB3116 – recommending changes in how the governor makes SJRA board appointments – still refers to six positions.
Although general law adds a seventh member to preserve the board’s constitutionality, this outdated provision in SJRA’s governing law misrepresents the board’s actual makeup.
SJRA’s governing law contains many more out-of-date references to defunct state agencies and code sections that have been amended, renamed, or no longer exist, further complicating full understanding of the authority’s powers and duties.
Revenues and Expenses
The SJRA had approximately $112 million in revenues in Fiscal Year 2019 with $115 in expenses. The difference had to do with some reserve-fund expenditures for specific projects.
Litigation Summary
For an excellent summary of SJRA litigation over groundwater issues and Harvey flooding, see Appendix B on Page 37. Even as someone who follows these cases closely, there were several aspects that I simply did not know about.
Texas State Representative Will Metcalf from Conroe has introduced two bills in the 87th Legislature that would affect the composition of the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) Board. The two bills have major differences. One calls for the election of Board members. In case that fails, the other recommends how the Governor should appoint directors. Both bills, however, introduce an upstream bias in the selection of board members at the expense of downstream residents.
Excluding Harris County Voters
HB4575 would create a Board of seven directors who must be legal voters in the State of Texas. It does not specify who gets to vote in the election. It simply says voters in the District will elect Board members at large. But the boundaries of “the District” are not defined in HB4575. They are, however, defined in Section 5 of the SJRA enabling legislation to EXCLUDE Harris County. So far, no other sponsors have signed onto the bill.
Stacking Deck in Favor of MoCo
HB3116 relates to recommendations for the appointment of SJRA directors. It calls for the Governor to appoint six directors, all of whom must be Texas voters and property owners. Four of the six must reside in Montgomery County, the only county wholly encompassed by the District defined in the SJRA boundaries.
The Commissioners Court of Montgomery County would get to recommend two directors to the governor. Other counties in the watershed could each recommend one. But, again, four – a two-thirds majority – would have to reside in Montgomery County.
The SJRA board currently has seven members, so this bill would reduce that number by one and also increase the possibility of tie votes. That could help stymie approval of policies, such as lowering Lake Conroe seasonally or fighting subsidence. As of this date, no other sponsors have signed onto this bill either. It was referred to the Natural Resources committee yesterday.
Could Impact Lake-Lowering Policy
Metcalf’s filing of these bills comes hot on the heels of a contentious debate last year about seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe to provide a buffer against flooding in downstream communities. The hotly contested issue drew hundreds of Lake Conroe residents to a board meeting that had to be held in the Montgomery County Convention Center to accommodate the crowd. Protestors complained that it would ruin recreation and the tax base of Montgomery County.
In the end, the appointed board voted to continue its lake lowering policy. The policy calls for lowering the lake from 201 feet to 200 during April and May, then again in August. During September, the peak of hurricane season, the SJRA would lower Lake Conroe an additional half foot to 199.5. The City of Houston owns two-thirds of the water in the lake, and all releases come from the City’s share, and only at the City’s request. SJRA staff coordinate with City staff on the details and timing of all releases. And if the level of Lake Conroe has already dropped to the target elevation due to natural evaporation, no additional releases are called for.
Photo by Jay Muscatof the Kingwood Greens Evacuation during Harvey after the SJRA release from Lake Conroe.
If Metcalf’s bills gain traction, the bills could potentially undermine the lake-lowering policy. The SJRA Board extended it for three years starting last year. That would give the City of Houston time to add more gates to the Lake Houston dam. FEMA gave the City three years to complete the gates when the project clock started ticking on April 8th of last year. The City is still in the preliminary engineering phase of that project, and trying to prove up the benefit/cost ratio for FEMA.
Could Also Impact Groundwater and Subsidence Debates
Metcalf’s bills could also affect the subsidence debate between upstream and downstream interests.
Private groundwater providers, such as Quadvest, heavily backed a slate of candidates for the LSGCD Board in 2018. Their candidates won based on the promise to “restore affordable water,” but residents report that water rates have not gone down.
The SJRA has opposed the unlimited pumping of groundwater. Electing the SJRA board, too, opens it up to the same kind of shadowy influence exerted by Quadvest prior to the 2018 election. If Quadvest is successful again, Quadvest could eliminate its primary opposition on the subsidence issue. The residents of northern Harris and southern Montgomery Counties would then potentially face increased subsidence. And subsidence can damage foundations, walls, ceilings, cabinets, doors, driveways, streets, pipelines, and more.
Drawing down aquifers in MoCo by 30% (leaving 70%) was supposed to have produced no more than 1 foot of subsidence, but models showed it could produce 3 feet in the Kingwood and Huffman areas of Harris County.The same amount of pumping produced 3.25 feet of subsidence in southern MoCo.
Neither Elections, Nor Appointments, Should Exclude Affected Residents
I normally don’t oppose elected boards. But I also don’t want to return to the days just before Harvey when the SJRA board represented only upstream interests and downstream areas flooded disastrously.
If the SJRA board is elected, downstream residents in Harris County should be able to vote on the board members. Metcalf’s bills have the appearance of populism, but they strive to stack the deck against downstream residents. Both are wrong.
Everyone who lives and works along the San Jacinto should get to vote on the composition of the SJRA Board if board members will be elected.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/20/2021
1299 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/KingwoodGreens-e1551452236612.jpg?fit=1500%2C1038&ssl=110381500adminadmin2021-03-20 14:35:302021-03-20 18:33:02Rep. Metcalf Introduces Bills to Deny Downstream Representation on SJRA Board
Construction Update: Steel Going up for New Kingwood Middle School
In 2018, Humble ISD voters approved a $575 million bond referendum. One of the projects involves a complete rebuild of Kingwood Middle School with an open, airy feeling; much larger classrooms; and unlike the old school, a large detention pond. Three years later, it’s starting to look real. I took all photos below on March 21, 2021.
The new middle school’s design incorporates the concept of Kingwood’s “Livable Forest,” using ample amounts of natural light to combine interior and exterior spaces into a cohesive learning environment. There will be more space for collaboration, integrated physical activity and movement. Classrooms will be about 200 square feet larger. Car and bus drop-off and pick-up have also been optimized to relieve traffic on the neighboring streets.
Target opening: start of the 2022 school year. So we still have another year of construction. But I’m sure the result will be well worth any inconvenience.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/22/2021
1301 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Sunset Commission Recommends SJRA Improvements, But Tiptoes Around Key Issues
On January 21, 2021, the Texas Sunset Commission released its “Staff Report with Commission Decisions” on the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA). The 53-page report generally gave the SJRA a good review, but recommended that it:
The Commission also recommends that the Texas Legislative Council update and consolidate the SJRA’s governing law and processes.
The Sunset Act never subjected the SJRA to abolishment. However, it put its governance, management, operating structure, and compliance with legislative requirements under a microscope.
Litigation Issues Deliberately Not Addressed
The report alluded to issues surrounding flooding and groundwater. However, Sunset Commission does not comment on issues in litigation as a matter of policy, so as not to influence the outcome. And although the Commission received extensive public input, it did not address comments directly for the same reason.
Those who take the time to read the entire report will be rewarded with a thorough, yet concise and illuminating summary of the SJRA’s business and the challenges it faces. The SJRA has adopted most, if not all, of the recommendations made by the Commission to some degree. Adopting the recommendations should not have any adverse fiscal impact on the SJRA or cause it financial strain.
Need for Better Communication and Engagement to Improve Trust
The Commission found that SJRA needs an effective communications strategy to advance projects. Especially if the projects could result in increased costs to the general public years before the public sees benefits.
Criticism: SJRA has not developed a formal strategy for engaging the general public in its activities, struggles to provide clear explanations of its wholesale water rates, and does not maintain important information on its website.
The Commission recommended a more proactive and strategic approach to communicating with and engaging the public. That, it felt, would help SJRA earn the trust of and get buy-in from the communities it ultimately serves.
Key recommendations included:
Improve Contracting Function to Receive Best Value
The Commission also found that the SJRA guidance to staff fell short in important areas. Those areas included justifying the need to outsource services and maximizing open competition for contracts. In addition, the commission also felt SJRA lacks consistent documentation for monitoring the performance of its vendors.
Key recommendations included directing the SJRA to:
Update Governing Law and Processes
Over the years, Sunset reviews have included a number of standard elements designed to ensure open, responsive, and effective government. SJRA’s governing law does not contain several standard provisions, including those related to the governor’s appointment of the board president, grounds for removal of a board member, board member training, separation of duties of board members from those of staff, public testimony at board meetings, and maintaining a system for receiving and acting on complaints.
SJRA’s governing law is also uncodified and difficult for the public to find and understand. Finally, SJRA lacks goals and a plan to increase its workforce diversity.
Key recommendations:
Other Findings
Strained Relationships with Stakeholders
Sunset Commission staff observed how protracted legal disputes and other controversies have strained SJRA’s relationship with some stakeholders and communities. That eroded trust in its decision making and jeopardized its ability to conduct the long-term planning and construction for which the Legislature created it.
The general public was highly critical of SJRA’s efforts, in contrast to SJRA’s direct customers who were generally satisfied with the authority’s performance.
No Formal Strategy for Public Engagement
SJRA’s own recent public opinion poll revealed most respondents had a negative opinion of the authority, no opinion of it, or had not heard of it, highlighting the need for direct outreach to the public rather than relying on others to speak on its behalf.
Lack of Clear Communication about Rates and Fees
A frequent complaint during the Sunset review was that consumers often see an “SJRA fee” or “surface water conversion fee” listed on their monthly bill with little to no explanation. SJRA’s public opinion poll confirms many consumers do not know what the fee is for. Only about half of respondents correctly identified the fee is used for maintaining a water treatment plant and pipeline.
Several other wholesale water providers in the region explain their rates and fees, which are higher than SJRA’s, on the front page of their website and clearly describe how some retail utility providers modify the fees when passing them on to consumers to cover other costs.
Governing Law Outdated, Difficult for Public to Find and Understand
While some water districts and river authorities are governed by laws that are fully compiled in a specific Texas code or statute, SJRA’s governing law exists solely in “session law.” That means changes are scattered in various statutes and amendments dating back to 1937. In the absence of ONE codified statute, members of the public and even the river authority itself struggle to correctly compile all of the changes to its laws and understand their cumulative impact.
For example, SJRA’s governing law stipulates the board has six members, even though the Texas Constitution now requires all boards and commissions to have an odd number of members. Even Rep. Will Metcalf’s recently introduced bill, HB3116 – recommending changes in how the governor makes SJRA board appointments – still refers to six positions.
Although general law adds a seventh member to preserve the board’s constitutionality, this outdated provision in SJRA’s governing law misrepresents the board’s actual makeup.
SJRA’s governing law contains many more out-of-date references to defunct state agencies and code sections that have been amended, renamed, or no longer exist, further complicating full understanding of the authority’s powers and duties.
Revenues and Expenses
The SJRA had approximately $112 million in revenues in Fiscal Year 2019 with $115 in expenses. The difference had to do with some reserve-fund expenditures for specific projects.
Litigation Summary
For an excellent summary of SJRA litigation over groundwater issues and Harvey flooding, see Appendix B on Page 37. Even as someone who follows these cases closely, there were several aspects that I simply did not know about.
For More Information
Read the entire Sunset Commission report and visit their website. One thing I discovered: the SJRA was apparently the only agency/authority reviewed last year for which the Sunset Commission did not request legislative changes.
For the Sunset Commission Report to the Legislature on all agencies, click here.
For the State Auditors Report on recommendations that were self-implemented, click here.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/21/2021
1300 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Rep. Metcalf Introduces Bills to Deny Downstream Representation on SJRA Board
Texas State Representative Will Metcalf from Conroe has introduced two bills in the 87th Legislature that would affect the composition of the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) Board. The two bills have major differences. One calls for the election of Board members. In case that fails, the other recommends how the Governor should appoint directors. Both bills, however, introduce an upstream bias in the selection of board members at the expense of downstream residents.
Excluding Harris County Voters
HB4575 would create a Board of seven directors who must be legal voters in the State of Texas. It does not specify who gets to vote in the election. It simply says voters in the District will elect Board members at large. But the boundaries of “the District” are not defined in HB4575. They are, however, defined in Section 5 of the SJRA enabling legislation to EXCLUDE Harris County. So far, no other sponsors have signed onto the bill.
Stacking Deck in Favor of MoCo
HB3116 relates to recommendations for the appointment of SJRA directors. It calls for the Governor to appoint six directors, all of whom must be Texas voters and property owners. Four of the six must reside in Montgomery County, the only county wholly encompassed by the District defined in the SJRA boundaries.
The Commissioners Court of Montgomery County would get to recommend two directors to the governor. Other counties in the watershed could each recommend one. But, again, four – a two-thirds majority – would have to reside in Montgomery County.
The SJRA board currently has seven members, so this bill would reduce that number by one and also increase the possibility of tie votes. That could help stymie approval of policies, such as lowering Lake Conroe seasonally or fighting subsidence. As of this date, no other sponsors have signed onto this bill either. It was referred to the Natural Resources committee yesterday.
Could Impact Lake-Lowering Policy
Metcalf’s filing of these bills comes hot on the heels of a contentious debate last year about seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe to provide a buffer against flooding in downstream communities. The hotly contested issue drew hundreds of Lake Conroe residents to a board meeting that had to be held in the Montgomery County Convention Center to accommodate the crowd. Protestors complained that it would ruin recreation and the tax base of Montgomery County.
In the end, the appointed board voted to continue its lake lowering policy. The policy calls for lowering the lake from 201 feet to 200 during April and May, then again in August. During September, the peak of hurricane season, the SJRA would lower Lake Conroe an additional half foot to 199.5. The City of Houston owns two-thirds of the water in the lake, and all releases come from the City’s share, and only at the City’s request. SJRA staff coordinate with City staff on the details and timing of all releases. And if the level of Lake Conroe has already dropped to the target elevation due to natural evaporation, no additional releases are called for.
The SJRA board first adopted this policy after Governor Gregg Abbott visited the flood-ravaged Lake Houston Area in 2018. That year, he also appointed two downstream residents who flooded during Harvey, Kaaren Cambio and Mark Micheletti, to the SJRA board.
If Metcalf’s bills gain traction, the bills could potentially undermine the lake-lowering policy. The SJRA Board extended it for three years starting last year. That would give the City of Houston time to add more gates to the Lake Houston dam. FEMA gave the City three years to complete the gates when the project clock started ticking on April 8th of last year. The City is still in the preliminary engineering phase of that project, and trying to prove up the benefit/cost ratio for FEMA.
Could Also Impact Groundwater and Subsidence Debates
Metcalf’s bills could also affect the subsidence debate between upstream and downstream interests.
Shortly after the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) first elected its board in 2018, the LSGCD board began advocating for higher groundwater pumping. It has also stonewalled any mention of subsidence in the desired future conditions for Montgomery County in Groundwater Management Area 14.
Private groundwater providers, such as Quadvest, heavily backed a slate of candidates for the LSGCD Board in 2018. Their candidates won based on the promise to “restore affordable water,” but residents report that water rates have not gone down.
The SJRA has opposed the unlimited pumping of groundwater. Electing the SJRA board, too, opens it up to the same kind of shadowy influence exerted by Quadvest prior to the 2018 election. If Quadvest is successful again, Quadvest could eliminate its primary opposition on the subsidence issue. The residents of northern Harris and southern Montgomery Counties would then potentially face increased subsidence. And subsidence can damage foundations, walls, ceilings, cabinets, doors, driveways, streets, pipelines, and more.
As the map below shows, subsidence could also tilt Lake Houston toward the Harris/Montgomery County line by two feet relative to the amount of subsidence at the Lake Houston Dam. That could increase flood risk for people living in the upstream reaches of the lake.
Neither Elections, Nor Appointments, Should Exclude Affected Residents
I normally don’t oppose elected boards. But I also don’t want to return to the days just before Harvey when the SJRA board represented only upstream interests and downstream areas flooded disastrously.
If the SJRA board is elected, downstream residents in Harris County should be able to vote on the board members. Metcalf’s bills have the appearance of populism, but they strive to stack the deck against downstream residents. Both are wrong.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/20/2021
1299 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.