New Video Shows How Flood Protection Plan Would Transform Galveston Bay

Twelve years ago, Hurricane Ike leveled the Bolivar Peninsula as it roared into Galveston Bay. Had Ike come onshore 10-20 miles west, Houston would be a very different place today. Most of Houston’s industrial might would have been on the dirty side of the storm instead of the dry side. Refineries, tank farms, and ships could have been destroyed with their chemicals poisoning the Bay. Ever since then, people and think tanks have advanced ideas to avoid such a possibility.

Park Would Protect Populated Areas in Larger Storms

One of the most novel and affordable is a complement to the Army Corps’ Coastal Protection Study. It’s called the Galveston Bay Park Project.

Still Frame from Galveston Bay Park Plan Video. Click here to see video.

While the Corps’ plan would reportedly protect the west side of Galveston Bay in a Category 1 or light Category 2 storm, critics worry that it wouldn’t be enough for a Cat 3, 4, or 5 storm. That’s where the Galveston Bay Park Plan comes in. It would form a natural barrier that helps protect industrial facilities from League City to Deer Park from storm surge driven into and across the Bay.

Recreational and Wildlife Potential

The Galveston Bay Park Plan would also create recreational opportunities for people within the Bay, while creating additional natural habitat for the area’s abundant birds, fish and shellfish.

Architects of Plan

The Severe Storm Prediction Education & Evacuation from Disaster (SPPEED) Center at Rice University conceived the plan and Rogers Partners of New York and Houston designed it.

Materials for Construction

The Park would be constructed by widening the Houston Ship Channel from its currently proposed 700 feet to 900 feet. The excavated clay will help build a 25-foot levee along the ship channel from Houston Point in Chambers County to the Texas City hurricane levee in Galveston County.

Additionally, with the disposal of the dredged material, the Galveston Bay Park Plan will create usable park space within Galveston Bay which will also include constructed wetlands as well as other bird habitats.

Award Winning Plan and Video

The GBPP was recently chosen as one of the top designs in the Houston 2020 Visions Competition. This competition sought creative ideas focused on making Houston more resilient. 

According to Houston City Council Member David W. Robinson, FAIA, “This video is a must-watch for those concerned about the future of our region and the critical need for ongoing disaster preparedness. Hurricane storm surge is the sleeping giant of flood issues. This project is vitally necessary for our success in the 21st Century and will be a valuable asset for the region for many generations to come.”

View the video here. It’s divided up into three segments:

  • Intro by Marvin Odum, former president of Shell Oil and Chief Harvey Recovery Officer for City of Houston
  • Recap of Ike that sets the stage for the plan
  • Description of the plan

The plan itself is almost too audacious to describe. You need to see it. Part 3 starts at 6:32 in and runs to 10:55.

The video was produced by filmmaker Jeffrey Mills of Io Communications of Houston. Barbara Mills provided animation and other special effects.  

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/4/2020

1194 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 12 years since Ike

HCFCD Raises Questions about Army Corps’ Buffalo Bayou Interim Report

In October, I reported on the Army Corps’ 210-page Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries Resiliency Study (BBTRS) Interim Report.

First look at Corps’ alternatives to reduce flooding on the West Side of Houston

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) provided eight pages of detailed comments on it. HCFCD shared concerns expressed by the public about certain alternatives such as the widening of Buffalo Bayou. HCFCD also expressed that they hoped the Corps would not prematurely rule out some alternatives. The biggest: a flood tunnel.

HCFCD felt the Corps needed to put a sharper pencil to tunnel cost estimates and weigh those against the environmental impact/costs of widening Buffalo Bayou.

High-Level Concerns

Flood Control expressed six high-level concerns:

  1. The Corps seemed to ignore a wealth of studies conducted by HCFCD on the study area and arrived at different conclusions.
  2. The Interim Report presents benefits only in terms of annualized monetary values. “Water surface elevation reductions, numbers of structures benefitted, and the locations of benefits are curiously absent in the main report.” HCFCD believes some cost estimates should be revisited. “In particular, we believe the Interim Report overestimates stormwater tunnel costs and underestimates costs, both environmental and economic, of large-scale conveyance improvements to Buffalo Bayou.”
  3. Estimated project costs are so high, and their benefit/cost ratios so low, that HCFCD anticipates funding challenges on both the federal and local levels. The 2018 Flood Bond did not allocate money for any of the alternatives proposed by the Corps. “However, smaller scales of the alternatives could be more affordable and acceptable to the public, and as a result, are more likely to be funded and implemented. These variations, both for structural and nonstructural alternatives, warrant more attention moving forward.”
  4. The District recommends that “the full array of alternatives be consistently evaluated for environmental impacts, both beneficial and adverse. For example, we see opportunities for habitat restoration associated with the Addicks and Barker excavations…” But “…environmental impacts associated with the Buffalo Bayou channel improvement alternative are underestimated…” HCFCD believes that closer environmental inspection, right-of-way evaluation and public opposition, Buffalo Bayou expansion will not be deemed plausible.
  5. The Corps’ report acknowledges that a non-structural alternative exists to improve water control operations at the existing reservoirs and to update the reservoir’s Water Control Manual. Unfortunately, the Corps does not elaborate much on these alternatives, but HCFCD believes “Operational changes could reduce the scale of alternatives necessary to achieve the desired level of resilience. Plus, modified operations alone could reduce flood risks and mitigate erosion and slope failures along Buffalo Bayou downstream of the reservoirs, both of which are problems that the study aims to address.”
  6. Purchasing additional property upstream of the current reservoirs would require non-federal cost sharing. The Flood Control District questions the rationale for “commingling ownership responsibility with the Corps.” The District says, “We need to more fully understand why the Corps feels it is our responsibility to participate financially should this alternative move forward.”

Detailed Concerns

The report then goes into eight pages of amazingly detailed comments in a spreadsheet format. Most amount to requests for more information or clarification.

For instance:

Buffalo Bayou Widening: Costs vs. Benefits

“What are assumed costs for stream habitat loss associated with deepening Buffalo Bayou 11‐12 feet? How many acres of land would have to be acquired for this alternative, at what cost? How many parcels and/or structures? Please also summarize benefits of this alternative?”

HCFCD comments also include several suggestions:

Excavating Reservoirs: Way to Reduce Costs

Re: additional excavation of the Barker and Addicks reservoirs to increase their storage capacity, HCFCD said the following. “We feel there is an opportunity to further value engineer this alternative by stockpiling material within the reservoirs to create hills which will help limit haul costs.”

Tunnel Cost Estimates Too High; Need to be Weighed Against Tradeoffs

Re: the construction of tunnels to create an alternate route for floodwaters to Galveston Bay, HCFCD said this. “The tunnel cost is shown as $6.5B to $12B. This is significantly higher than estimates prepared during the District’s Phase 1 tunnel study…” The District estimated that a tunnel capable of conveying 10,000 cfs from the reservoirs to the Houston Ship Channel would cost $3 to $3.5 billion including a 50 percent contingency. That’s about a half to a third of the cost estimated by the Corps.

HCFCD fears that tunnels may have been prematurely eliminated from evaluation. Especially because environmental impacts associated with widening Buffalo Bayou were not considered in the decision to drop the tunnels from consideration.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/4/2020

1193 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Defendants, Plaintiffs Latest Legal Wrangling in Elm Grove Lawsuits

When last I checked on the lawsuits brought by Elm Grove residents against Perry Homes, et. al., it was early August. The plaintiff’s lawyers had added Concourse Development to the lawsuits and the defendants’ lawyers were blaming everyone in sight, including the flood victims, for their problems.

In September, 2019, residents on Village Springs Dr. in Elm Grove we’re still living in trailers from the May 7th flood when they were struck again. Woodridge Village is immediately to the right, just out of frame. Shown here: sheet flow coming from Woodridge.

Since August, both defendants and plaintiffs have filed another 122 documents, totaling hundreds of pages on the Harris County District Clerk’s website. Some make entertaining reading.

Now, for instance, the defendants’ lawyers argue that they shouldn’t be forced to produce resumes for people being deposed because experience has nothing to do with qualifications.

So here’s what’s happened since the last update.

Key Developments in August

  • Double Oak Construction moved to quash plaintiffs’ “notice of intent” to take the oral depositions of ten individuals (8/17/2020)
  • Figure Four Partners, LTD, PSWA, Inc., and Perry Homes, LLC moved to quash deposition notices and subpoenas duces tecum (subpoenas for documents) (8/18/2020)
  • Concourse Development, Rebel Contractors, LJA Engineering, and Texasite LLC made similar but separate motions (8/19/2020)
  • Plaintiffs’ move to compel depositions (8/20/2020)
  • Defendants then requested an emergency status conference to discuss the motion to compel.
  • Judge Lauren Reeder denied the emergency conference (8/24/2020)
  • Defendants then contacted the plaintiff to set up depositions (8/25/2020). Depositions for 7 of 10 defendant employees were set up
  • Plaintiff’s lawyers sent a letter to the court revoking the request to compel depositions for those 7 individuals (8/27/2020)
  • Figure Four Partners objected to defendants’ request for production of documents, arguing among other things that the defendants had not adequately defined the word “person.” (8/31/2020). The defendants requested, among other things to see the defendants’ (plural) Joint Defense Agreement.
  • Defendants fired off a blistering response the same day (8/31/2020). They argued that Figure Four previously admitted that defendants had a joint-defense agreement, that Figure Four was engaged in a “blatant attempt to mislead the court,” and that Figure Four had not found one mutually agreeable deposition date since April 1.

September Developments

Double Oak moved to transfer venue out of Harris County. They claimed third parties, not they, produced plaintiffs’ damages. (9/11/2020)

Plaintiffs filed “responses to the responses” of Double Oak, Rebel Contractors, Concourse Development, Figure Four, PSWA, and Perry Homes. Plaintiffs, for the most part, allege that defendants failed to be specific in their responses. For instance, when defendants’ alleged that plaintiffs’ damages were the result of prior or pre-existing conditions, they failed to specify what those pre-existing conditions were.

Defendants also alleged that, because they “acted with due care” and “complied with all applicable federal, state, and local law,” defendants’ claims should be barred. Plaintiffs took exception to that claim. They pointed out that defendants do not name “one statute, regulation, or common law requirement that they complied with so that Plaintiff’s claims would be barred.”

October Developments

On October 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed a seventh amended petition with 14 exhibits totaling 273 pages.

One of the major changes: the inclusion of “trespass” as a cause of action. Paragraph 54 under Count 7 on page 23 says, “A defendant commits trespass to real property where there is an ‘unauthorized entry upon the land of another, and may occur when one enters—or causes something to enter—another’s property.’” Barnes v. Mathis, 353 S.W.3d 760, 764 (Tex. 2011).

Other sections of the amended petition appear to have minor changes and updates that address issues raised to date during the case. Rather than try to summarize them all here, I’ll simply provide a link to the amended petition.

Separately, Figure Four objected to the subpoena duces tecum for Richard Hale. Defendants had requested his resume and legal documents to prepare for his deposition (10/19/2020). Lawyers for Figure Four claim Mr. Hale’s experience is not relevant. That seems to asking defendants to take a lot on faith! Figure Four lawyers also claim that by asking for papers that Mr. Hale used to prepare for his deposition that defendants are violating attorney/client privilege.

Figure Four also filed an objection to Taylor Gunn’s subpoena duces tecum. They claimed the subpoena wasn’t a subpoena, that his experience was not relevant, and that the request violated attorney/client privilege.

Rebel and Double Oak also objected to documents they were expected to produce, claiming they didn’t have enough notice (10/26/2020).

November, December Developments

In November, not much happened. Defendants filed documents showing that they had a “Rule 11” agreement with Concourse. rule 11 agreement refers to Rule 11 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedures. Rule 11 says that an agreement between lawyers in a case is enforceable if the agreement is: A) in writing and B) filed in the papers of the court or C) unless it be made in open court and entered in the record.

In December, LJA filed an objection and response to the plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum for Taylor Baumgartner. LJA also argued that the subpoena violated attorney/client privilege. However, Baumgartner agreed to bring his resume to the deposition.

Status of Depositions, Discovery, Start of Trial

Both sides have done significant written discovery. Estimates range upwards of 20,000 pages of documents produced to date.  Depositions reportedly started in late October. Lawyers will schedule more in January/February.

The trial still appears to be scheduled for the two weeks beginning September 20, 2021. But that could be pushed back by COVID concerns.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/2/2020

1191 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 440 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.