Yesterday was the last day for lawmakers to file bills for the 87th Texas legislative session. Eight bills have been introduced to curb abuses of aggregate production operations, which include sand mines. Five address reclamation of mines in various ways.
Huberty’s HB4478: Reclamation and Performance Bonds
Dan Huberty from the Lake Houston Area introduced HB4478 which addresses abandonment of sand mines. Many miners simply walk away from mines leaving abandoned, rusting equipment in place and dangerous conditions. Huberty’s bill would require mines to file a reclamation plan before they start mining and also post a bond ensuring they actually execute the plan. Currently, mines are required to file a plan, but there is no requirement in Texas to execute it. Miners can simply walk away from mines after they extract the last ounce of sand. That can leave scars on the landscape, degrade water quality, and threaten public safety.
Huberty’s HB767: Best Practices
Huberty also introduced HB767, a bill that would require the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to establish and publish best management practices for sand mining. However, it does not require sand mines to follow the practices. While that’s disappointing, it could bring heat to operations that don’t follow the guidelines.
Biederman’s HB4341: Changes Responsibility for Oversight
Representative Kyle Biederman from Fredericksburg introduced HB4341, a bill that would transfer regulation of aggregate production operations from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to the Texas Railroad Commission (TRRC). The bill gives the Railroad Commission the right to conduct unannounced inspections to ensure compliance with water and air quality regulations. Biederman’s bill also mandates reclamation of mines, but includes more specifics than Huberty’s. Finally, it provides criminal penalties for people who knowingly and willfully violate conditions of their permits. The big news: transfer of oversight responsibility from the TCEQ to TRRC. If it passes, it will be a resounding vote of “no confidence” in the job that the TCEQ has been doing in regulating sand mines.
Zwiener’s HB2422: Limiting Location of Mines
Representative Erin Zwiener from Kyle introduced HB2422. Her bill applies to counties with a population of 500,000 or more. It would allow county commissioners to prohibit the construction or expansion of an aggregate production operation at a location less than one mile from a residence, school, place of worship, hospital, or land platted for residential development. The bill would also allow commissioners to establish conditions for the construction or expansion of mines elsewhere in the county.
Murr’s HB291: Reclamation and Performance Bonds
Representative Andrew Murr from Kerrville introduced HB291. It also focuses on reclamation of mines. It would require the grading of banks, revegetation, and removal of equipment upon completion of mining. The bill would also require operators to reclaim mines in stages as extraction activities on different parts cease. It would give miners a deadline for reclamation, too: six months. Finally, it would require a performance bond equal to $2,500 for each acre affected by extraction activities. Upon completion of reclamation activities, the TCEQ would release the performance bond. Cities and counties would have the right to waive the reclamation requirement if reclamation conflicts with proposed future uses of the land.
Abandoned dredge left at abandoned Texas Concrete Sand & Gravel Mine in Plum Grove on San Jacinto East Fork.Photographed 3/3/2021
Guillen’s HB1544: APO Taxation
Representative Ryan Guillen from Rio Grande City introduced HB1544. It addresses the tax classification of land used for sand mining. The language is confusing and an analysis of the bill has not yet been submitted. However, it appears to state that sand mine, once it meets requirements for reclamation, may revert to a property tax rate associated with open space, such as agriculture. The bill lays out some unique requirements for reclamation not discussed in the other bills here. While this seems to give sand miners a positive incentive to restore land, I’m not sure how much. In Montgomery County, the tax appraiser routinely grants ag exemptions to land used for sand mining.
State Senator Charles Schwertner from Bryan introduced SB1209. It is an identical companion bill to HB1912. Companion bills increase the chance of passage by broadening the base of support in both houses.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/20210303-RJR_5616.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-03-13 14:08:362021-03-13 14:08:39Eight Bills Introduced in Texas Legislature This Year Affect Sand Mines
Ironically, the GLO press release pointed out that 2016 grants were for repetitively damaged areas. And in the five years since the 2016 floods, we’ve also had Hurricane Harvey, Tropical Storm Imelda, and a record-setting 2020 hurricane season.
Reading the release felt like getting hit by three buses while waiting for the ambulance to arrive. That prompted a call to the GLO, which administers HUD grants in Texas. I asked a simple question.
“What Takes So Long?”
When I asked the GLO “Why does flood-mitigation funding take so long”, they referred me to this page. Key takeaways include:
Congress didn’t appropriate money for Disaster Declarations in 2015, 2016 and 2017 until February 9, 2018.
Texas received $4.3 billion from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for all those years.
Before the GLO could distribute those funds, it had to wait for HUD to develop and publish rules in the Federal Register governing the distribution of those funds. That took 1.5 years.
Then the GLO had to develop a state action plan. That required developing another set of rules, holding public meetings around the state, soliciting public comments, responding to the comments, and getting HUD approval of the plan. HUD finally approved the state action plan on March 31, 2020.
Then GLO had to translate the plan into Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, Vietnamese, and Korean before publishing it.
To be fair to everyone across the state, GLO then holds a “competition” to find the most worthy projects. The criteria for “worthiness” include multiple factors. But the biggest in HUD grants are: percentage of low-to-moderate income families being helped, how economically distressed an area is, and total expected benefits for dollars invested. For instance, when comparing applications for a $10 million grant that will help 1,000 families to a grant for the same amount that will help a 100,000 families, the latter would win.
But to determine that kind of information, applicants need to conduct preliminary engineering studies before they can even file applications.
The GLO must wait for all applications to be submitted, evaluate the applications, rank order them, and see how many will fit within available funding. In the case of the grants just announced, the GLO received requests for almost TWICE as much funding as they had available. The average over the years exceeds 3X. For Harvey, it was 5X.
HUD must then review and approve the grants.
GLO distributes the money.
Finally, mitigation projects can begin.
Are All These Steps Necessary?
When you look at the list above, each step sounds reasonable. But there may be ways to collapse steps and speed up the flood-mitigation funding process. Why, for instance, do you need 1.5 years to publish rules specific to these floods in the Federal Register? Why not have a generic set of rules for all floods and adapt the boilerplate as needed?
I also asked if a way existed to shorten the process by eliminating the competition. After all, its easier to approve one application than compare it to hundreds. Their reply: “Competitions are the only fair way to do it.”
Should We Go Back to Earmarks?
The current competition system replaced an earmark system whereby Congress directly allocated funds to certain projects in certain districts. Earmarks sped up construction, but had many problems of their own. For instance, unnecessary projects often went to the districts of congressional leaders. That sometimes deprived other areas with greater needs.
However, the competition system for flood-mitigation funding has obvious problems, too. It has spawned whole industries of grant writers, project managers and people who know how to navigate traps in the convoluted application process.
I talked to one project manager today who told me about a grant that cost more to apply for than the grant was worth.
Hopefully, that doesn’t happen often. But when it does, we have proof that bureaucracy has become more important than the taxpayers it serves.
More about GLO/HUD Grants Announced This Week
For the record, out of the $135 million in grants announced yesterday, Harris County received $10 million for cloverleaf drainage improvements in Carpenters Bayou. City of Houston received $8.2 million for flood mitigation in the Alief Forest Area. Baytown, Freeport, Sweeny, and Jacinto City also received grants.
This table shows where the money went.
For descriptions of individual projects, pleaseclick here.
Texas Counties Affected by 2016 Floods. MID stands for Most Impacted and Distressed Areas.
Hurricane Harvey Competition Results Not Yet Announced
Winners of the first round of the Hurricane Harvey Mitigation Competition are expected to be announced in late spring or early summer. The GLO received 220 extensive applications totaling more than $5 billion in requests for the $1 billion in available funding (Round 1).
The Hurricane Harvey State Mitigation Competition for flood-mitigation funding is open to cities, counties, COGs, state entities, and special purpose districts. Examples of projects include flood control and drainage improvements, infrastructure improvements, green infrastructure, public facilities, and buyouts. Each proposed project must have a total proposed cost between $3 million to $100 million.
What We Need
Getting disaster relief 5-10 years after the fact is the largest disaster of all. We need Congress to reform the process to speed up the delivery of flood mitigation funding. How many homes and businesses that flooded in 2015, flooded again in 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2020? And what were the associated costs? Did repeat-flooding damages for these years due to funding delays cost more than the amount of mitigation funds appropriated by Congress? Somebody, somewhere has that information.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/12/2021
1291 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/image.jpeg?fit=1200%2C752&ssl=17521200adminadmin2021-03-12 18:09:502021-03-12 21:22:56Why Does Flood-Mitigation Funding Take So Long?
When Harris County and the City of Houston closed on the purchase of Woodridge Village, flood victims in Elm Grove, North Kingwood Forest and along Taylor Gully were elated. Harris County purchased the land to create a regional floodwater detention basin. That immediately raised questions about what comes next and when?
The first will occur early in the development of the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER). The goals: to inform the community of each project’s purpose and receive community input during preliminary engineering.
A second meeting will occur once the final draft of the preliminary engineering report is complete. Its purpose: to present the results to community.
HCFCD will also communicate with local groups such as homeowner associations and the Kingwood Service Association in regularly scheduled virtual meetings as needed. Those will provide project updates and information about other Flood Control District efforts (e.g., buyouts, maintenance projects, smaller capital projects) in the Kingwood area throughout the PER process.
The Flood Control District will also identify opportunities to participate in regularly scheduled meetings and develop project-specific presentations to convey project information and proposed project features.
First Engineering Firm Already Selected
The engineering firm elected to develop the Preliminary Engineering Report for Taylor Gully improvements, IDCUS, will also consider Woodridge Village within its scope of work. IDCUS will consider what detention volume can be achieved on the Woodridge Village property and how that would affect the Taylor Gully project.
The Flood Control District plans to set up a separate project with a different consultant team to provide the detailed design services for the proposed detention basin.
Role of Rustling Elms Bridge in Flooding to Be Examined
Many residents have observed that the bridge over Taylor Gully at Rustling Elms seems to be a choke point that backs water up into surrounding homes. HCFCD will examine the role of the bridge in flooding. But, said Matt Zeve, Deputy Executive Director of HCFCD, “I cannot guarantee that the recommended plan will include any modifications to Rustling Elms.”
Looking downstream at the Rustling Elms Bridge over Taylor Gully during peak of May 7, 2019 flood. Note how water downstream from the bridge is within banks, but water upstream is overflowing.
The different heights of water above and below the bridge relate its design. See below.
Looking upstream at same bridge at later date, you can see how the twin-culvert design severely restricts flow.
However, retaining more water upstream might eliminate the need to make any costly changes to the bridge. Everything works together. It’s just too early to tell.
Other Changes Being Considered
The Flood Control District is considering a regional stormwater detention basin for the Woodridge Village site. A portion of the property will be owned by the City of Houston for a future wastewater treatment plant.
Looking south across the main portion of Woodridge Village toward homes that flooded twice in 2019. HCFCD will have the southern two thirds of this property (toward the top of the photo) to use for a regional detention basin.
Other amenities could be considered for the site, but would require a partner to construct and maintain those amenities. “The Flood Control District does not design, construct, or maintain amenities such as dog parks, trails, playgrounds, or sports fields,” said Zeve. However, HCFCD expressed a willingness to meet and work with community groups to discuss potential partnerships and make sure that input is included in design considerations.
Atlas 14 Will Form Basis of Design
Perry Homes sized detention ponds currently on the site to meet pre-Atlas-14 requirements. That means their detention capacity will fall about 30-40% short of Atlas-14 requirements. Montgomery County’s Atlas-14 requirements are lower than Harris County’s. When asked about this, Zeve responded, “HCFCD will use Atlas 14 rainfall rates for our designs even if the watershed area is not in Harris County.” That should provide some extra capacity that provides a buffer against additional upstream growth in the watershed.
Could Excavation Start Before Hurricane Season?
The Flood Control District will sometimes starts excavation on sites before final design plans are completed. HCFCD uses this program frequently to get a head start on excavation for large stormwater detention basins. “The District may not have enough time to get that program up and running by June 1, 2021, but we can certainly provide updates on this effort via our website,” said Zeve.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/11/2021
1290 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Taylor-Gully-at-Peak-e1728600738227.jpg?fit=1100%2C327&ssl=13271100adminadmin2021-03-11 14:38:492021-03-11 14:38:55What Next for Woodridge Village, Taylor Gully
Eight Bills Introduced in Texas Legislature This Year Affect Sand Mines
Yesterday was the last day for lawmakers to file bills for the 87th Texas legislative session. Eight bills have been introduced to curb abuses of aggregate production operations, which include sand mines. Five address reclamation of mines in various ways.
Huberty’s HB4478: Reclamation and Performance Bonds
Dan Huberty from the Lake Houston Area introduced HB4478 which addresses abandonment of sand mines. Many miners simply walk away from mines leaving abandoned, rusting equipment in place and dangerous conditions. Huberty’s bill would require mines to file a reclamation plan before they start mining and also post a bond ensuring they actually execute the plan. Currently, mines are required to file a plan, but there is no requirement in Texas to execute it. Miners can simply walk away from mines after they extract the last ounce of sand. That can leave scars on the landscape, degrade water quality, and threaten public safety.
Huberty’s HB767: Best Practices
Huberty also introduced HB767, a bill that would require the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to establish and publish best management practices for sand mining. However, it does not require sand mines to follow the practices. While that’s disappointing, it could bring heat to operations that don’t follow the guidelines.
Biederman’s HB4341: Changes Responsibility for Oversight
Representative Kyle Biederman from Fredericksburg introduced HB4341, a bill that would transfer regulation of aggregate production operations from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to the Texas Railroad Commission (TRRC). The bill gives the Railroad Commission the right to conduct unannounced inspections to ensure compliance with water and air quality regulations. Biederman’s bill also mandates reclamation of mines, but includes more specifics than Huberty’s. Finally, it provides criminal penalties for people who knowingly and willfully violate conditions of their permits. The big news: transfer of oversight responsibility from the TCEQ to TRRC. If it passes, it will be a resounding vote of “no confidence” in the job that the TCEQ has been doing in regulating sand mines.
Zwiener’s HB2422: Limiting Location of Mines
Representative Erin Zwiener from Kyle introduced HB2422. Her bill applies to counties with a population of 500,000 or more. It would allow county commissioners to prohibit the construction or expansion of an aggregate production operation at a location less than one mile from a residence, school, place of worship, hospital, or land platted for residential development. The bill would also allow commissioners to establish conditions for the construction or expansion of mines elsewhere in the county.
Murr’s HB291: Reclamation and Performance Bonds
Representative Andrew Murr from Kerrville introduced HB291. It also focuses on reclamation of mines. It would require the grading of banks, revegetation, and removal of equipment upon completion of mining. The bill would also require operators to reclaim mines in stages as extraction activities on different parts cease. It would give miners a deadline for reclamation, too: six months. Finally, it would require a performance bond equal to $2,500 for each acre affected by extraction activities. Upon completion of reclamation activities, the TCEQ would release the performance bond. Cities and counties would have the right to waive the reclamation requirement if reclamation conflicts with proposed future uses of the land.
Guillen’s HB1544: APO Taxation
Representative Ryan Guillen from Rio Grande City introduced HB1544. It addresses the tax classification of land used for sand mining. The language is confusing and an analysis of the bill has not yet been submitted. However, it appears to state that sand mine, once it meets requirements for reclamation, may revert to a property tax rate associated with open space, such as agriculture. The bill lays out some unique requirements for reclamation not discussed in the other bills here. While this seems to give sand miners a positive incentive to restore land, I’m not sure how much. In Montgomery County, the tax appraiser routinely grants ag exemptions to land used for sand mining.
Wilson/Schwertner’s HB1912/SB1209: Permit Requirements
HB1912 filed by Representative Terry Wilson of Georgetown establishes additional permit requirements for aggregate production operations. They affect air quality, light pollution, noise, blasting, dust, and other operational issues identified by the House Interim Committee on APOs back in January.
State Senator Charles Schwertner from Bryan introduced SB1209. It is an identical companion bill to HB1912. Companion bills increase the chance of passage by broadening the base of support in both houses.
During the 86th Legislature in 2019, TACA beat back all reasonable attempts to regulate sand mining. Let’s hope for the sake of everyone’s health and property values that this session has more success. I will keep you posted.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/13/2021
1292 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Why Does Flood-Mitigation Funding Take So Long?
On Tuesday this week, Harris County Commissioners Court erupted into heated discussion over flood-mitigation funding for Halls and Greens Bayous. Construction delays had to do with the length of time for awarding grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Then, in a cosmic coincidence, yesterday, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) sent out a press release announcing $135 million in HUD flood mitigation grants – for 2016 floods that happened under President Obama.
Ironically, the GLO press release pointed out that 2016 grants were for repetitively damaged areas. And in the five years since the 2016 floods, we’ve also had Hurricane Harvey, Tropical Storm Imelda, and a record-setting 2020 hurricane season.
Reading the release felt like getting hit by three buses while waiting for the ambulance to arrive. That prompted a call to the GLO, which administers HUD grants in Texas. I asked a simple question.
“What Takes So Long?”
When I asked the GLO “Why does flood-mitigation funding take so long”, they referred me to this page. Key takeaways include:
Are All These Steps Necessary?
When you look at the list above, each step sounds reasonable. But there may be ways to collapse steps and speed up the flood-mitigation funding process. Why, for instance, do you need 1.5 years to publish rules specific to these floods in the Federal Register? Why not have a generic set of rules for all floods and adapt the boilerplate as needed?
I also asked if a way existed to shorten the process by eliminating the competition. After all, its easier to approve one application than compare it to hundreds. Their reply: “Competitions are the only fair way to do it.”
Should We Go Back to Earmarks?
The current competition system replaced an earmark system whereby Congress directly allocated funds to certain projects in certain districts. Earmarks sped up construction, but had many problems of their own. For instance, unnecessary projects often went to the districts of congressional leaders. That sometimes deprived other areas with greater needs.
However, the competition system for flood-mitigation funding has obvious problems, too. It has spawned whole industries of grant writers, project managers and people who know how to navigate traps in the convoluted application process.
Hopefully, that doesn’t happen often. But when it does, we have proof that bureaucracy has become more important than the taxpayers it serves.
More about GLO/HUD Grants Announced This Week
For the record, out of the $135 million in grants announced yesterday, Harris County received $10 million for cloverleaf drainage improvements in Carpenters Bayou. City of Houston received $8.2 million for flood mitigation in the Alief Forest Area. Baytown, Freeport, Sweeny, and Jacinto City also received grants.
This table shows where the money went.
Hurricane Harvey Competition Results Not Yet Announced
Winners of the first round of the Hurricane Harvey Mitigation Competition are expected to be announced in late spring or early summer. The GLO received 220 extensive applications totaling more than $5 billion in requests for the $1 billion in available funding (Round 1).
The Hurricane Harvey State Mitigation Competition for flood-mitigation funding is open to cities, counties, COGs, state entities, and special purpose districts. Examples of projects include flood control and drainage improvements, infrastructure improvements, green infrastructure, public facilities, and buyouts. Each proposed project must have a total proposed cost between $3 million to $100 million.
What We Need
Getting disaster relief 5-10 years after the fact is the largest disaster of all. We need Congress to reform the process to speed up the delivery of flood mitigation funding. How many homes and businesses that flooded in 2015, flooded again in 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2020? And what were the associated costs? Did repeat-flooding damages for these years due to funding delays cost more than the amount of mitigation funds appropriated by Congress? Somebody, somewhere has that information.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/12/2021
1291 Days since Hurricane Harvey
What Next for Woodridge Village, Taylor Gully
When Harris County and the City of Houston closed on the purchase of Woodridge Village, flood victims in Elm Grove, North Kingwood Forest and along Taylor Gully were elated. Harris County purchased the land to create a regional floodwater detention basin. That immediately raised questions about what comes next and when?
Public Input
Although an exact date has not yet been announced, the Harris Count Flood Control District (HCFCD) plans to hold community engagement meetings in the near future.
The first will occur early in the development of the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER). The goals: to inform the community of each project’s purpose and receive community input during preliminary engineering.
A second meeting will occur once the final draft of the preliminary engineering report is complete. Its purpose: to present the results to community.
HCFCD will also communicate with local groups such as homeowner associations and the Kingwood Service Association in regularly scheduled virtual meetings as needed. Those will provide project updates and information about other Flood Control District efforts (e.g., buyouts, maintenance projects, smaller capital projects) in the Kingwood area throughout the PER process.
The Flood Control District will also identify opportunities to participate in regularly scheduled meetings and develop project-specific presentations to convey project information and proposed project features.
First Engineering Firm Already Selected
The engineering firm elected to develop the Preliminary Engineering Report for Taylor Gully improvements, IDCUS, will also consider Woodridge Village within its scope of work. IDCUS will consider what detention volume can be achieved on the Woodridge Village property and how that would affect the Taylor Gully project.
The Flood Control District plans to set up a separate project with a different consultant team to provide the detailed design services for the proposed detention basin.
Role of Rustling Elms Bridge in Flooding to Be Examined
Many residents have observed that the bridge over Taylor Gully at Rustling Elms seems to be a choke point that backs water up into surrounding homes. HCFCD will examine the role of the bridge in flooding. But, said Matt Zeve, Deputy Executive Director of HCFCD, “I cannot guarantee that the recommended plan will include any modifications to Rustling Elms.”
The different heights of water above and below the bridge relate its design. See below.
However, retaining more water upstream might eliminate the need to make any costly changes to the bridge. Everything works together. It’s just too early to tell.
Other Changes Being Considered
The Flood Control District is considering a regional stormwater detention basin for the Woodridge Village site. A portion of the property will be owned by the City of Houston for a future wastewater treatment plant.
Other amenities could be considered for the site, but would require a partner to construct and maintain those amenities. “The Flood Control District does not design, construct, or maintain amenities such as dog parks, trails, playgrounds, or sports fields,” said Zeve. However, HCFCD expressed a willingness to meet and work with community groups to discuss potential partnerships and make sure that input is included in design considerations.
Atlas 14 Will Form Basis of Design
Perry Homes sized detention ponds currently on the site to meet pre-Atlas-14 requirements. That means their detention capacity will fall about 30-40% short of Atlas-14 requirements. Montgomery County’s Atlas-14 requirements are lower than Harris County’s. When asked about this, Zeve responded, “HCFCD will use Atlas 14 rainfall rates for our designs even if the watershed area is not in Harris County.” That should provide some extra capacity that provides a buffer against additional upstream growth in the watershed.
Could Excavation Start Before Hurricane Season?
The Flood Control District will sometimes starts excavation on sites before final design plans are completed. HCFCD uses this program frequently to get a head start on excavation for large stormwater detention basins. “The District may not have enough time to get that program up and running by June 1, 2021, but we can certainly provide updates on this effort via our website,” said Zeve.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/11/2021
1290 Days since Hurricane Harvey