Mark your calendar and sign up now. Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA 14) will meet by webinar Wednesday, January 20th at 10 AM to continue the process of developing a set of desired future conditions for area aquifers. The standards will eventually determine groundwater availability and affect other issues such as subsidence.
GMA 14 includes the 15 colored counties above. Each color represents a different Conservation District.Montgomery County (dark blue) has the Lonestar Groundwater Conservation District.
GMA 14 engages in a joint planning process and includes representatives from Bluebonnet, Brazoria County, Lone Star, Lower Trinity, and Southeast Texas groundwater conservation districts, plus two subsidence districts. GMA 14 spans 20 counties. It is one of 16 groundwater management areas in the state of Texas.
High Stakes
Groundwater availability is a growing concern in the management area due to subsidence, water table reduction, wells running dry, the triggering of geologic faults, impacts to infrastructure, foundation issues, and providing a sustainable basis for future growth.
Pumping 115,000 acre feet per year would cause up to 3.25 feet of subsidence in southern MoCo. That’s far more than the 1-foot in the Desired Future Conditions definedby GMA14.
The same amount of pumping would cause up 3 feet of subsidence in parts of Kingwood and Huffman, and a foot or more in much of the rest of Harris County.
Because aquifers travel under several counties, what happens in northern Montgomery County can impact southern Harris and Galveston counties, especially where people live closer to sea level.
How Much is Safe to Pump?
In determining groundwater availability targets, this month’s meeting will focus on:
Socioeconomic Impacts Reasonably Expected to Occur
Feasibility of Achieving the Desired Future Conditions
Other Relevant Information (including fault movement).
In all, GMA 14 considers nine factors in the join planning process:
Aquifer Uses and Conditions
Water Supply Needs and Management Strategies
Hydrological Conditions
Environmental Impacts
Impact on Subsidence
Socioeconomic Impacts
Private Property Rights
Feasibility of Achieving the desired future conditions
The Groundwater Management Area 14 Meeting will begin at 10:00 A.M. Click the following link to register for Groundwater Management Area 14 – January 20, 2021 Meeting: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5586548623672514573 Once the registration is completed, an email will be sent with information on logging into the meeting and/or phone numbers and access codes to dial into the meeting should you wish to attend by telephone. Please choose one method or the other to join to avoid audio feedback.
Note: Participation via video conference is not required. If you wish to address the Board, during the public comment period, please fill out and submit the online speaker registration form.
You may also register as a speaker at the beginning of the meeting. Registration as a speaker will require providing:
first and last name;
email address
phone number.
Any person participating in the meeting must be recognized and identified by the Chairman each time they speak.
Discussion and possible action to approve minutes of November 18, 2020 GMA 14 Joint Planning Meeting;
Update from Texas Water Development Board and discussion of any related items of interest to GMA 14;
Meeting will be convened as a meeting of the GMA 14 Joint Planning Interlocal Agreement Participants.
Presentation and discussion by Districts or Interlocal Agreement Participants of recent activities of interest to or impacting the GMA 14 planning group;
Discuss and consider current Desired Future Conditions as they relate to recent static water level measurements within GMA 14 Member Districts;
Presentation, discussion and consideration of “socioeconomic impacts reasonably expected to occur” (as required by Texas Water Code 36.108 (d)(6));
Presentation, discussion and consideration of “the feasibility of achieving the desired future conditions” (as required by Texas Water Code 36.108 (d)(8));
Presentation, discussion and consideration of “any other information relevant to the specific Desired Future Condition” including but not limited to fault movement related to groundwater pumping (as required by Texas Water Code 36.108 (d)(9));
Discussion and possible action regarding the DFCs and the path forward for GMA 14 to accomplish statutory mandates for Round 3 Joint Planning;
GMA 14 Interlocal Agreement financial report;
GMA 14 Interlocal Agreement Participants meeting will be adjourned, and the meeting of the GMA 14 District Representatives will reconvene.
Discussion and possible action regarding next meeting date, location, and agenda items;
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Slide3.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=16751200adminadmin2021-01-14 11:03:432021-01-14 11:08:26Groundwater Management Area 14 to Hold Joint Planning Committee Meeting on January 20
As a December 31st deadline expired, approximately $162 million – allocated by HUD to reimburse homeowners in the City of Houston for repairs they made after Harvey – remained unused. The City had worked on the reimbursement program for TWO years. Yet in all that time, the City’s Department of Housing and Community Development successfully processed only 120 applications for reimbursement of repairs. Grants awarded to those 120 families totaled a mere $2,024,000 out of the $164 million allocated – just 1.2% of available funds.
Desperate Families Needlessly Left Empty Handed
Meanwhile, flooded families:
Never received applications, despite repeated calls and emails from potential applicants
Received an application only hours before the deadline expired on the New Year’s weekend
Received incomplete and misleading information.
Regarding the last point, an email sent to residents at the 11th hour failed to inform them that they just needed to start the application and sign it before January 1st. Instead, residents were told that they needed to complete the application before December 31 (i.e., before the end of the day on December 30).
A two-step application process, engineered by the City, complicated and delayed aid. Residents first had to fill out a survey to qualify to fill out an application. The City then tried to sort the survey respondents into priority groups. This increased the workload, created management complexity, and delayed the filing of formal applications for years while the deadline passed.
Had everyone just been invited to fill out an application early on, no one would have missed the deadline.
As the final deadline loomed, it became apparent that the City wasn’t coming close to meeting its performance goals and that aid would not reach people who needed it. As a last resort to help flood victims, the GLO tried to terminate its contract with the City and take over the City’s Harvey-aid program. But the City sued the GLO to prevent the takeover. That cost even more precious time.
Before the final deadline, the GLO notified the City that it should alert all potential applicants and the media so that they, in turn, could spread the word about the impending deadline. The GLO even provided a sample press release that the City could tweak for local media. Instead, the City posted a notice on Twitter and social media. That severely limited the reach of the message.
Confusion Reigned
To this day, lawsuit settlement talks between the City and GLO continue. Meanwhile, the GLO provided the City of Houston with funds for the Homeowner Assistance Program (HoAP), which included its reimbursement program.
But according to Jennifer Coulter, a would-be applicant who called the City, the City swore the GLO had taken control. The resident then called the GLO. GLO correctly said, “No, the City has it.” The back-and-forth continued until she was told the deadline passed.
The Coulter family lived in a trailer in their driveway for almost two years as they repaired their home.
Resident Chris Johnsen flooded 4 feet during Harvey. After waiting 3.5 years for help, he received an email from Housing and Community Development minutes before the close of business on December 30. It erroneously told him he needed to complete and sign the application before December 31.
He was out of town when the application arrived at 4:08 PM on December 30th, but submitted it after he returned. The City rejected his application. When he complained, the City told him, “Unfortunately we are not able to accept the application because it is past the deadline of 12/31/2020.”
Adding Insult to Injury
Being flooded during Harvey and financially devastated during reconstruction were bad enough. But being denied aid through the City’s bureaucratic bungling added insult to injury. Ironically, the City requested and received a nearly $30 million increase in the amount of aid available for reimbursements part way through the program…and didn’t make a dent in it. The amount increased from $135,691,299 to $164,117,633.
Meanwhile, people are moving on with their lives and giving up. But maybe that’s the City’s intention.
The Big Question: Why?
The Department of Housing and Community Development’s avowed goal with Harvey relief is to focus on those “most in need and most at risk.” People who can afford to repair their own homes and then seek reimbursement generally do not fall into that category. By law, at least 70% of HUD reimbursement funds must go to LMI (low-to-moderate income) households.
However, the 70% requirement does not apply to eachindividual program within Houston’s total aid allocation. It’s an average requirement across all programs. So the entire $164 million allocated for reimbursements could have gone to non-LMI households without jeopardizing the City’s LMI requirement.
This has all the hallmarks of a conscious decision to limit reimbursement aid after requesting more. Why?
One observer suggested that spending less on reimbursements will let the City funnel those funds into multifamily housing instead.
This brings to a sad, sorry end one of the darkest chapters in Houston’s history. The end of the program means the death of hope for families desperate for assistance. Many cashed in retirement savings and their children’s college funds to rebuild their homes after Harvey.
The City claims hundreds of additional families filed applications before the end of the year for reimbursements. But the GLO has not yet confirmed those.
The City is allowed to process applications received before January 1. But the City can no longer accept applications.
Reimbursements: A Small Part of a Much Bigger Problem
On January 4, the City updated its HUD-compliance website. It showed that out of approximately $1.28 billion dollars that HUD set aside for City of Houston residents, the City still had not submitted applications for almost $800 million dollars (62.5% of the total). Said another way, the City could not achieve almost two thirds of its aid-distribution goals in two years.
The City has not returned calls, texts and emails from ReduceFlooding.com requesting comment and the City’s perspective.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/13/2021
1233 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Screen-Shot-2021-01-13-at-12.35.56-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C692&ssl=16921200adminadmin2021-01-13 13:34:382021-01-13 16:05:55City of Houston Couldn’t Even Give Away Harvey Aid Due to Bureaucratic Bungling
Castle Hill Partners in Austin, the company that owns CH-B Kingland LLC, did not return phone calls re: its development plans. However, since tollway construction is moving from west to east, it would make sense to develop the western portions in Montgomery and Harris Counties before moving east into Liberty County.
Kingland’s 2017 sales brochure shows that almost half of the western section lies in Montgomery County along the San Jacinto East Fork. The remainder of the western section lies within Harris County. Both portions lie partially within the City of Houston’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction.
Western section of Kingland shows a 41.3 acre detention pond, plus seven smaller ponds. But it’s unclear whether they will lie in the floodway or floodplain.
FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer shows the extent of the floodway and floodplains in that area.
Crosshatched area = floodway. Aqua = 100 year floodplain. Brown = 500 year.
I interviewed a family in that small development south of Kingland property that straddles the Harris/Liberty County Line and discovered that they flooded from the East Fork during both Harvey and Imelda. They live more than 1.5 miles from the nearest mapped floodplain. However, that could soon change when the new post-Harvey flood maps are redrawn.
Anyone downstream on the East Fork or Luce needs to keep a close eye on this one. It has the potential to further alter the hydrology of the watershed.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/11/2021
1231 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 480 since Imelda
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/2021/01/20210101-RJR_4417-1-e1610410584123.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-01-11 18:25:112021-01-11 22:16:33Thousands of Acres in East Fork, Luce Bayou Watersheds to be Developed as Part of Kingland
Groundwater Management Area 14 to Hold Joint Planning Committee Meeting on January 20
Mark your calendar and sign up now. Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA 14) will meet by webinar Wednesday, January 20th at 10 AM to continue the process of developing a set of desired future conditions for area aquifers. The standards will eventually determine groundwater availability and affect other issues such as subsidence.
GMA 14 engages in a joint planning process and includes representatives from Bluebonnet, Brazoria County, Lone Star, Lower Trinity, and Southeast Texas groundwater conservation districts, plus two subsidence districts. GMA 14 spans 20 counties. It is one of 16 groundwater management areas in the state of Texas.
High Stakes
The last available subsidence maps, for instance, showed the north Harris and south Montgomery County area sinking 2 feet relative to the Lake Houston Dam.
Because aquifers travel under several counties, what happens in northern Montgomery County can impact southern Harris and Galveston counties, especially where people live closer to sea level.
How Much is Safe to Pump?
In determining groundwater availability targets, this month’s meeting will focus on:
In all, GMA 14 considers nine factors in the join planning process:
MEETING INFORMATION
________________________
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AREA 14
JOINT PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
January 20, 2021 at 10:00 AM
Via GoToWebinar.com
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PARTICIPATING
The Groundwater Management Area 14 Meeting will begin at 10:00 A.M.
Click the following link to register for Groundwater Management Area 14 – January 20, 2021 Meeting: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5586548623672514573
Once the registration is completed, an email will be sent with information on logging into the meeting and/or phone numbers and access codes to dial into the meeting should you wish to attend by telephone. Please choose one method or the other to join to avoid audio feedback.
Note: Participation via video conference is not required. If you wish to address the Board, during the public comment period, please fill out and submit the online speaker registration form.
You may also register as a speaker at the beginning of the meeting. Registration as a speaker will require providing:
Any person participating in the meeting must be recognized and identified by the Chairman each time they speak.
Go To Webinar Information
https://www.gotomeeting.com/webinar/join-webinar
GMA 14 Speaker Registration Form
:http://www.setgcd.org/meetingshearings/
_______________________________
AGENDA
The agenda includes:
Meeting will be convened as a meeting of the GMA 14 Joint Planning Interlocal Agreement Participants.
GMA 14 Interlocal Agreement Participants meeting will be adjourned, and the meeting of the GMA 14 District Representatives will reconvene.
GMA 14 – January 20, 2021 Agenda
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/14/2020
1234 Days since Hurricane Harvey
City of Houston Couldn’t Even Give Away Harvey Aid Due to Bureaucratic Bungling
As a December 31st deadline expired, approximately $162 million – allocated by HUD to reimburse homeowners in the City of Houston for repairs they made after Harvey – remained unused. The City had worked on the reimbursement program for TWO years. Yet in all that time, the City’s Department of Housing and Community Development successfully processed only 120 applications for reimbursement of repairs. Grants awarded to those 120 families totaled a mere $2,024,000 out of the $164 million allocated – just 1.2% of available funds.
Desperate Families Needlessly Left Empty Handed
Meanwhile, flooded families:
Regarding the last point, an email sent to residents at the 11th hour failed to inform them that they just needed to start the application and sign it before January 1st. Instead, residents were told that they needed to complete the application before December 31 (i.e., before the end of the day on December 30).
A two-step application process, engineered by the City, complicated and delayed aid. Residents first had to fill out a survey to qualify to fill out an application. The City then tried to sort the survey respondents into priority groups. This increased the workload, created management complexity, and delayed the filing of formal applications for years while the deadline passed.
Help From GLO Refused
Worse yet, after missing one interim deadline after another, the City refused to let the Texas General Land Office (GLO) help. The GLO oversees HUD funds distributed in Texas. It had sent a team to Houston to help train City employees. However, the City refused to allow the GLO team into the Housing and Community Development offices.
As the final deadline loomed, it became apparent that the City wasn’t coming close to meeting its performance goals and that aid would not reach people who needed it. As a last resort to help flood victims, the GLO tried to terminate its contract with the City and take over the City’s Harvey-aid program. But the City sued the GLO to prevent the takeover. That cost even more precious time.
Before the final deadline, the GLO notified the City that it should alert all potential applicants and the media so that they, in turn, could spread the word about the impending deadline. The GLO even provided a sample press release that the City could tweak for local media. Instead, the City posted a notice on Twitter and social media. That severely limited the reach of the message.
Confusion Reigned
To this day, lawsuit settlement talks between the City and GLO continue. Meanwhile, the GLO provided the City of Houston with funds for the Homeowner Assistance Program (HoAP), which included its reimbursement program.
But according to Jennifer Coulter, a would-be applicant who called the City, the City swore the GLO had taken control. The resident then called the GLO. GLO correctly said, “No, the City has it.” The back-and-forth continued until she was told the deadline passed.
Resident Chris Johnsen flooded 4 feet during Harvey. After waiting 3.5 years for help, he received an email from Housing and Community Development minutes before the close of business on December 30. It erroneously told him he needed to complete and sign the application before December 31.
He was out of town when the application arrived at 4:08 PM on December 30th, but submitted it after he returned. The City rejected his application. When he complained, the City told him, “Unfortunately we are not able to accept the application because it is past the deadline of 12/31/2020.”
Adding Insult to Injury
Being flooded during Harvey and financially devastated during reconstruction were bad enough. But being denied aid through the City’s bureaucratic bungling added insult to injury. Ironically, the City requested and received a nearly $30 million increase in the amount of aid available for reimbursements part way through the program…and didn’t make a dent in it. The amount increased from $135,691,299 to $164,117,633.
Meanwhile, people are moving on with their lives and giving up. But maybe that’s the City’s intention.
The Big Question: Why?
The Department of Housing and Community Development’s avowed goal with Harvey relief is to focus on those “most in need and most at risk.” People who can afford to repair their own homes and then seek reimbursement generally do not fall into that category. By law, at least 70% of HUD reimbursement funds must go to LMI (low-to-moderate income) households.
However, the 70% requirement does not apply to each individual program within Houston’s total aid allocation. It’s an average requirement across all programs. So the entire $164 million allocated for reimbursements could have gone to non-LMI households without jeopardizing the City’s LMI requirement.
This has all the hallmarks of a conscious decision to limit reimbursement aid after requesting more. Why?
Death of Hope
96,410 homes flooded in Houston during Harvey (see page 15) and could theoretically have been eligible for reimbursements. But only 120 received reimbursement checks by the end of 2020 – again, about 1.2%. See below.
In contrast, the GLO started its own reimbursement program (for the 48 counties in which it is administering the program) on February 28, 2019, and has already completed the program with nearly 3,000 reimbursements approved for more than $85 million.
This brings to a sad, sorry end one of the darkest chapters in Houston’s history. The end of the program means the death of hope for families desperate for assistance. Many cashed in retirement savings and their children’s college funds to rebuild their homes after Harvey.
The City claims hundreds of additional families filed applications before the end of the year for reimbursements. But the GLO has not yet confirmed those.
Reimbursements: A Small Part of a Much Bigger Problem
On January 4, the City updated its HUD-compliance website. It showed that out of approximately $1.28 billion dollars that HUD set aside for City of Houston residents, the City still had not submitted applications for almost $800 million dollars (62.5% of the total). Said another way, the City could not achieve almost two thirds of its aid-distribution goals in two years.
The City has not returned calls, texts and emails from ReduceFlooding.com requesting comment and the City’s perspective.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/13/2021
1233 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Thousands of Acres in East Fork, Luce Bayou Watersheds to be Developed as Part of Kingland
Back in 2015, HHF and Land Advisors advertised 8,673 acres of timberland for sale that bracketed the State Highway 99 extension in Montgomery, Harris and Liberty Counties. They called the property “Kingland” and billed it as one of the largest undeveloped areas left in the Houston area – perfect for a masterplanned community.
Subsequently, CH B-Kingland LLC (the owner) sold 4,394 acres in Liberty County to Colony Ridge in 2016.
Colony Ridge has already started the process of clearing and developing most of their purchase, north and east of the new Grand Parkway (SH99). But ironically, Colony Ridge’s construction practices are sending rivers of mud down the once pristine river and bayous where Kingland could itself soon start developing also.
North of Lake Houston, South of Colony Ridge, Spanning 3 Counties
Here’s a 2017 map of the 4000+ acres remaining in Kingland after the partial sale to Colony Ridge.
Here’s what the property looks like from the air in January.
Development Usually Follows Concrete
TXDoT says this section of the Grand Parkway should open sometime in the spring or summer of 2022. When it does, you can expect development in this area to accelerate rapidly.
Castle Hill Partners in Austin, the company that owns CH-B Kingland LLC, did not return phone calls re: its development plans. However, since tollway construction is moving from west to east, it would make sense to develop the western portions in Montgomery and Harris Counties before moving east into Liberty County.
Kingland’s 2017 sales brochure shows that almost half of the western section lies in Montgomery County along the San Jacinto East Fork. The remainder of the western section lies within Harris County. Both portions lie partially within the City of Houston’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction.
FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer shows the extent of the floodway and floodplains in that area.
Wetlands pockmark the entire area, too.
I interviewed a family in that small development south of Kingland property that straddles the Harris/Liberty County Line and discovered that they flooded from the East Fork during both Harvey and Imelda. They live more than 1.5 miles from the nearest mapped floodplain. However, that could soon change when the new post-Harvey flood maps are redrawn.
Anyone downstream on the East Fork or Luce needs to keep a close eye on this one. It has the potential to further alter the hydrology of the watershed.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/11/2021
1231 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 480 since Imelda
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.