Those who watched recent Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) and Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA-14) meetings were treated to some jaw-dropping, head-spinning doublespeak on the subject of subsidence. On January 20, 2021, at a GMA-14 meeting, LSGCD rejected any mention of subsidence in their Desired Future Conditions (DFCs). Then on 2/9/2021, three presenters told the Lone Star board that they were still considering subsidence. Then on 2/24/2021, the same three presenters told GMA-14 they still rejected subsidence.
Pardon My Whiplash!
As if that wasn’t enough, during the three-hour 2/24 GMA-14 meeting, they also:
Claimed that their groundwater withdrawal plan won’t create subsidence, but insisted on removing subsidence as a measure of their performance.
Believe they are entitled to their fair share of subsidence.
Insisted they should be measured on nine factors (which included subsidence), but then argued to take subsidence out of the mix.
Their main point? In essence, “We reject subsidence as a measure of our performance.”
Why? Samantha Reiter, LSGWCD General Manager, listed four reasons in a six-page, 3716-word letter which she read to GMA-14. I have summarized her arguments below for readability and to make concise responses possible.
Argument #1: Modeling
Modeling shows that projected water draw-downs won’t create subsidence in excess of one foot on average across Montgomery County, so why worry?
Response: Subsidence models have not yet been validated for the aquifer from which Montgomery County would predominantly pump – the Jasper. Moreover, while aquifers can rebound from overpumping, subsidence cannot. Without a subsidence metric as a check, private water utilities, such as Quadvest, could merrily pump as much water as they wanted for 40 years and claim they would make it up in the last ten. But the subsidence damage at that point would be permanent.
Much of the groundwater in Montgomery County used for human consumption is pumped from the Jasper aquifer which also affects Harris and Galveston Counties. However, models predicting subsidence from the Jasper have not been validated as they have for the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers. Source Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.
Argument #2: Can’t Control Harris County
LSGCD can’t control Harris County pumping which affects subsidence in MoCo.
Response: True, but MoCo has already shown that surface water can dramatically reduce subsidence, even where subsidence is worst – in the heavily populated, southern part of the county. Moreover, SJRA’s surface water treatment plant has space to quadruple its capacity. While MoCo is arguing to increase its reliance on groundwater, Harris County is desperately trying to reduce its.
When The Woodlands began using more surface water in 2016 after completion of a surface water pipeline, the rate of subsidence dropped 75%.
See more below under “More on Argument #2.”
Argument #3: Unfairness
It’s unfair to limit subsidence in MoCo to an amount less than Harris County experienced.
Response: Is LSGCD really arguing to make the same mistakes Harris County did? Is it really worth damaging peoples’ foundations, walls, doors, cabinets, ceilings, roofs and driveways to make a philosophical point about fairness?
These front steps in The Woodlands dropped almost 10 inches due to subsidence before conversion to more surface water. Photo courtesy of Mark Meinwrath.
Argument #4: Measurable Goals
Goals must be measurable and LSGCD does not have enough monitoring sites or equipment to measure subsidence throughout Montgomery County.
Mike Turco, head of the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District answered this in the GMA-14 meeting. You can monitor subsidence with GPS, LIDAR and other readily available technologies for much less than the cost of a network of extensometers.
Of the four arguments posed above, #2 seems strongest. Excessive pumping in either Harris or Montgomery County can produce subsidence across the county line. So how do you determine who’s causing how much in each location?
This is a question for scientists to answer. However, it seems to me that if one county is reducing its reliance on groundwater and the other is increasing its, any increase in the rate of subsidence should be easy to trace.
And this is precisely the scenario we face. Harris is reducing its dependence on groundwater; Montgomery is arguing to increase its.
In my opinion, verbose, rambling, repetitive 3-hour meetings filled with doublespeak have been designed to cloud tradeoffs, not find the best balance. It shouldn’t take smart people three hours to articulate a problem. And until we can get at what the real problem is, we will never find a real solution.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/5/2021
1284 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/2018/11/6-Aquifers-e1541284612604.jpg?fit=1500%2C1130&ssl=111301500adminadmin2021-03-05 15:11:002021-03-06 08:35:41Doublespeak Continues to Cloud MoCo Subsidence Debate
Today, almost two years after Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village development first contributed to flooding Elm Grove Village and North Kingwood Forest in Kingwood, Harris County and the City of Houston finally purchased the aborted, ill-conceived development.
Current plans are for the City of Houston to build a wastewater treatment plant on the northern portion. Harris County Flood Control District will use the southern portion to build a regional floodwater detention center. The latter should alleviate flooding problems adjacent to the development as well as other areas farther downstream on Taylor Gully.
Exact Plans for Additional Detention Capacity Not Yet Developed
A press release issued today by Harris County Flood Control said, “The next step is to undergo an engineering analysis to maximize stormwater detention volume, quantify the benefit to the community and determine project cost and funding. Additional community engagement will be scheduled to gather input from area residents on the proposed project and to present project alternatives.”
History of Flooding
The flooding problems began on May 7, 2019 when approximately 200 homes flooded from sheet flow coming from the development. Two to three times that number of homes flooded on September 19th, 2019 during Imelda.
Eventually, Perry Homes, its subsidiaries and contractors managed to build five detention ponds, but their capacity still fell about 40% short of Atlas-14 requirements. Thus, the development would have posed a risk forever after had Harris County and the City not stepped in.
Photos of Property Just Purchased
Here are pictures of Woodridge Village taken on 3/3/2021 from several different angles.
Woodridge Village looking SW from the NE corner of the property in Montgomery County. The diagonal near the top of the frame and the detention pond is the Harris/Montgomery County line. Ford Road is on left.
Looking SE from the NW corner over Webb Street in Porter. The land slopes from the corner in the foreground to the detention pond in the background. Taylor Gully starts just beyond the detention pond.
Looking west along the northern boundary. The City portion of the property will border the tree line on the left and extend into the small area at the top.
Looking east along the southern border.Camera position was over Kingwood Park High School.
Looking NE from the southern border over Sherwood Trails Village in Kingwood.
Looking north up Village Springs Drive in Elm Grove. Taylor Gully starts on the right at the county line just below the concrete junction.
Looking NW from over North Kingwood Forest. Taylor Gully is on bottom right. The land slopes toward the camera position.
More About the Sale
All of the 267.35 cleared acres fall within Montgomery County. But a provision within the 2018 Flood Bond allows Harris County to purchase land in other counties if it helps control flooding in Harris.
The Harris County Flood Control District and the City of Houston jointly purchased the property for approximately $14 million. The Flood Control District is using funds from the 2018 Bond Program (Bond ID Z-02) to acquire the land. The City of Houston contributed approximately $3.8 million dollars for the use and ownership of 73 acres on the northern part of the property.
Reaction from Government Officials
“This is a great example of government doing what government is supposed to do – listening to the people who live in those neighborhoods and working to protect them from future flooding,” said Harris County Precinct 4 Commissioner R. Jack Cagle, who pushed this project through against opposition in Commissioner’s Court.
Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin also worked tirelessly to make the deal happen. It involved trading City land to the County for flood control projects and getting the City to adopt the County’s flood control standards. “This purchase is integral for investment in the future of the Kingwood area as well as many homes along the county line. Collaboration like this is essential in providing a sense of security to residents who have endured so much uncertainty these last few years,” said Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin.
Congressman Dan Crenshaw lauded Cagle, Martin, and community support. “This is an important step forward in building a more resilient community,” he said.
State Senator Brandon Creighton said, “This type of partnership and investment will make Kingwood and surrounding areas better protected.”
State Representative Dan Huberty complimented the City and County for working together. “This is a great example of different areas of government working together to achieve the best outcomes for local residents,” he said.
Additional detention ponds are not yet built, but this is a huge step forward. A big “thank you” and “whew” to all involved.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/3/2021
1283 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 532 since Imelda
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/20210303-RJR_6236.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-03-04 13:06:272021-03-04 13:11:27Harris County, City of Houston Finally Close on Purchase of Woodridge Village Property
After 3.5 years since Harvey and dozens of helicopter flights up and down the West Fork of the San Jacinto, it never ceases to amaze me. Despite sediment gage readings that say more silt is coming from Spring and Cypress Creeks than the West Fork, the West Fork appears siltier the vast majority of the time.
Misleading Data Used to Kill Meaningful Legislation
Here’s what the West Fork looked like today. Definitely siltier.
West Fork comes down from top of frame, Spring and Cypress Creeks from right. Photo taken 3/3/2021 from near US59 bridge, looking north.
I’ve even heard miners testify on multiple occasions in the state legislature to that effect. That’s how they managed to kill best-practices legislation and minimum setbacks in the legislature in 2019.
When Brown & Root, the SJRA, City of Houston, Montgomery County, and Harris County Flood Control all cite the same misleading statistics, what’s an ordinary citizen to do?
Only a Sediment Gage Below Sand Mines Will Tell Whether This is Serious
To be fair, the engineers and hydrologists point out that the silt you see above and below may float out into Galveston Bay.
But I would also point out that:
The giant sand bar above didn’t exist before Harvey.
The point is: we will never really know what’s going on here until we get a gage downstream from the sand mines.
Photos of same location taken from different angles in previous months.In each case, the West Fork is siltier.
Time Of Essence
When I pointed out the data error caused by a misrepresentative gage location, the partners in the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Study promised to re-evaluate claims they made based on the gage. The originally found, as did Brown & Root, that the vast majority of the sediment is coming from Spring and Cypress Creeks – based on the gage upstream of the sand mines. They also promised to consider installing a new gage downstream from the mines. But nothing has happened yet. And we’re already well into this legislative session.
Until changes are actually made to the study and a new gage is added, I fear the same miners may again repeat the same self-serving and misleading statistics in the legislature. That’s how they have killed bills that could help clean up our water more than once.
We’re now into the third month of the legislative session. And until the San Jacinto Master Drainage Plan consultants modify their findings, we’re all at risk. People will likely reference that study for another two decades, just as they have referenced Brown & Root’s. So this is important. Tick tock.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/3/2021
1282 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/20210303-RJR_5459.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-03-03 20:36:292021-03-03 20:36:32West Fork Still Running Siltier Than Spring Creek
Doublespeak Continues to Cloud MoCo Subsidence Debate
Those who watched recent Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) and Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA-14) meetings were treated to some jaw-dropping, head-spinning doublespeak on the subject of subsidence. On January 20, 2021, at a GMA-14 meeting, LSGCD rejected any mention of subsidence in their Desired Future Conditions (DFCs). Then on 2/9/2021, three presenters told the Lone Star board that they were still considering subsidence. Then on 2/24/2021, the same three presenters told GMA-14 they still rejected subsidence.
Pardon My Whiplash!
As if that wasn’t enough, during the three-hour 2/24 GMA-14 meeting, they also:
Why? Samantha Reiter, LSGWCD General Manager, listed four reasons in a six-page, 3716-word letter which she read to GMA-14. I have summarized her arguments below for readability and to make concise responses possible.
Argument #1: Modeling
Modeling shows that projected water draw-downs won’t create subsidence in excess of one foot on average across Montgomery County, so why worry?
Response: Subsidence models have not yet been validated for the aquifer from which Montgomery County would predominantly pump – the Jasper. Moreover, while aquifers can rebound from overpumping, subsidence cannot. Without a subsidence metric as a check, private water utilities, such as Quadvest, could merrily pump as much water as they wanted for 40 years and claim they would make it up in the last ten. But the subsidence damage at that point would be permanent.
Argument #2: Can’t Control Harris County
LSGCD can’t control Harris County pumping which affects subsidence in MoCo.
Response: True, but MoCo has already shown that surface water can dramatically reduce subsidence, even where subsidence is worst – in the heavily populated, southern part of the county. Moreover, SJRA’s surface water treatment plant has space to quadruple its capacity. While MoCo is arguing to increase its reliance on groundwater, Harris County is desperately trying to reduce its.
See more below under “More on Argument #2.”
Argument #3: Unfairness
It’s unfair to limit subsidence in MoCo to an amount less than Harris County experienced.
Response: Is LSGCD really arguing to make the same mistakes Harris County did? Is it really worth damaging peoples’ foundations, walls, doors, cabinets, ceilings, roofs and driveways to make a philosophical point about fairness?
Argument #4: Measurable Goals
Goals must be measurable and LSGCD does not have enough monitoring sites or equipment to measure subsidence throughout Montgomery County.
Mike Turco, head of the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District answered this in the GMA-14 meeting. You can monitor subsidence with GPS, LIDAR and other readily available technologies for much less than the cost of a network of extensometers.
To see Ms. Reiter’s full text, click here. Her subsidence discussion starts on page 4.
More On Argument #2
Of the four arguments posed above, #2 seems strongest. Excessive pumping in either Harris or Montgomery County can produce subsidence across the county line. So how do you determine who’s causing how much in each location?
This is a question for scientists to answer. However, it seems to me that if one county is reducing its reliance on groundwater and the other is increasing its, any increase in the rate of subsidence should be easy to trace.
And this is precisely the scenario we face. Harris is reducing its dependence on groundwater; Montgomery is arguing to increase its.
In Harris County, the City of Houston is investing heavily to move people off groundwater. The $351 million Luce Bayou Interbasin Transfer Project will bring more water to Lake Houston. And the new $1.4 billion Northeast Water Purification Plant will supply that water to Houston as well as surrounding municipalities, counties and utility districts. Montgomery County already has a lake that’s 3-4X larger and a water treatment plant that can supply its growing population with enough water to reduce subsidence to a negligible rate. With the Montgomery County investment already made, why risk subsidence?
We Need Fewer Filibusters, Less Doublespeak, More Debate
I wish the LSGCD would engage in debates, not filibusters. By its own admission, LSGCD has tried to come up with a statement of Desired Future Conditions since 2016. That’s five years! How long does it take to study a problem and write a sentence!
In my opinion, verbose, rambling, repetitive 3-hour meetings filled with doublespeak have been designed to cloud tradeoffs, not find the best balance. It shouldn’t take smart people three hours to articulate a problem. And until we can get at what the real problem is, we will never find a real solution.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/5/2021
1284 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.
Harris County, City of Houston Finally Close on Purchase of Woodridge Village Property
Today, almost two years after Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village development first contributed to flooding Elm Grove Village and North Kingwood Forest in Kingwood, Harris County and the City of Houston finally purchased the aborted, ill-conceived development.
Current plans are for the City of Houston to build a wastewater treatment plant on the northern portion. Harris County Flood Control District will use the southern portion to build a regional floodwater detention center. The latter should alleviate flooding problems adjacent to the development as well as other areas farther downstream on Taylor Gully.
Exact Plans for Additional Detention Capacity Not Yet Developed
It is not immediately clear how much additional detention pond capacity HCFCD will build on the property or where. However, on February 9, 2021, HCFCD hired an engineering company to develop preliminary plans.
A press release issued today by Harris County Flood Control said, “The next step is to undergo an engineering analysis to maximize stormwater detention volume, quantify the benefit to the community and determine project cost and funding. Additional community engagement will be scheduled to gather input from area residents on the proposed project and to present project alternatives.”
History of Flooding
The flooding problems began on May 7, 2019 when approximately 200 homes flooded from sheet flow coming from the development. Two to three times that number of homes flooded on September 19th, 2019 during Imelda.
Contributing factors included:
Eventually, Perry Homes, its subsidiaries and contractors managed to build five detention ponds, but their capacity still fell about 40% short of Atlas-14 requirements. Thus, the development would have posed a risk forever after had Harris County and the City not stepped in.
Photos of Property Just Purchased
Here are pictures of Woodridge Village taken on 3/3/2021 from several different angles.
More About the Sale
All of the 267.35 cleared acres fall within Montgomery County. But a provision within the 2018 Flood Bond allows Harris County to purchase land in other counties if it helps control flooding in Harris.
The Harris County Flood Control District and the City of Houston jointly purchased the property for approximately $14 million. The Flood Control District is using funds from the 2018 Bond Program (Bond ID Z-02) to acquire the land. The City of Houston contributed approximately $3.8 million dollars for the use and ownership of 73 acres on the northern part of the property.
Reaction from Government Officials
“This is a great example of government doing what government is supposed to do – listening to the people who live in those neighborhoods and working to protect them from future flooding,” said Harris County Precinct 4 Commissioner R. Jack Cagle, who pushed this project through against opposition in Commissioner’s Court.
Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin also worked tirelessly to make the deal happen. It involved trading City land to the County for flood control projects and getting the City to adopt the County’s flood control standards. “This purchase is integral for investment in the future of the Kingwood area as well as many homes along the county line. Collaboration like this is essential in providing a sense of security to residents who have endured so much uncertainty these last few years,” said Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin.
Congressman Dan Crenshaw lauded Cagle, Martin, and community support. “This is an important step forward in building a more resilient community,” he said.
State Senator Brandon Creighton said, “This type of partnership and investment will make Kingwood and surrounding areas better protected.”
State Representative Dan Huberty complimented the City and County for working together. “This is a great example of different areas of government working together to achieve the best outcomes for local residents,” he said.
Additional detention ponds are not yet built, but this is a huge step forward. A big “thank you” and “whew” to all involved.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/3/2021
1283 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 532 since Imelda
West Fork Still Running Siltier Than Spring Creek
After 3.5 years since Harvey and dozens of helicopter flights up and down the West Fork of the San Jacinto, it never ceases to amaze me. Despite sediment gage readings that say more silt is coming from Spring and Cypress Creeks than the West Fork, the West Fork appears siltier the vast majority of the time.
Misleading Data Used to Kill Meaningful Legislation
Here’s what the West Fork looked like today. Definitely siltier.
Approximately 20 squares miles of sand mines line the West Fork. Problem is, the one sediment gage on the West Fork is upstream from virtually all of the mines. But most people don’t understand that. And that lack of understanding has allowed the mines to claim for decades that they are not the dominant source of sediment.
I’ve even heard miners testify on multiple occasions in the state legislature to that effect. That’s how they managed to kill best-practices legislation and minimum setbacks in the legislature in 2019.
When Brown & Root, the SJRA, City of Houston, Montgomery County, and Harris County Flood Control all cite the same misleading statistics, what’s an ordinary citizen to do?
Only a Sediment Gage Below Sand Mines Will Tell Whether This is Serious
To be fair, the engineers and hydrologists point out that the silt you see above and below may float out into Galveston Bay.
But I would also point out that:
Finally, I would point out that the dikes of sand mines routinely breach and many mines routinely pump sediment laden water into the West Fork.
The point is: we will never really know what’s going on here until we get a gage downstream from the sand mines.
Time Of Essence
When I pointed out the data error caused by a misrepresentative gage location, the partners in the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Study promised to re-evaluate claims they made based on the gage. The originally found, as did Brown & Root, that the vast majority of the sediment is coming from Spring and Cypress Creeks – based on the gage upstream of the sand mines. They also promised to consider installing a new gage downstream from the mines. But nothing has happened yet. And we’re already well into this legislative session.
We’re now into the third month of the legislative session. And until the San Jacinto Master Drainage Plan consultants modify their findings, we’re all at risk. People will likely reference that study for another two decades, just as they have referenced Brown & Root’s. So this is important. Tick tock.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/3/2021
1282 Days since Hurricane Harvey