On Friday, October 16, 2020, stakeholders in the Lake Houston Spillway Improvement Project met at the dam to review gate alternatives and progress on the project. The main item of interest: a review of options still under consideration to increase the outflow during major storms, such as Harvey.
Phase One includes preliminary engineering and environmental permitting. It should take 18 months and is on schedule at this point. A key deliverable for phase one is verification of the benefit/cost ratio. But, of course, to determine that, you need to know the cost.
Alternatives Still Under Consideration
FEMA allotted 18 months for Phase 1. We’re six months into that. Work to date has focused on determining the optimal alternative. Five remain:
Expanding the existing spillway by adding new tainter gates
Adding a new gated spillway within the east embankment
Creating a new uncontrolled spillway within the east embankment
Building crest gates within the east embankment
Developing crest gates within the existing spillway
Tainter gates lift up from a radial arm. The tainter gates on Lake Conroe have 15X more release capacity than the lift gates on Lake Houston.
Above: the current conditions at the Lake Houston Dam.Looking slightly upstream. East is on the right.
The east embankment is a solid earthen area 2800 feet long east of the spillway and existing gates. Water cannot get over it in a storm. By adding various structures in this area, engineers could widen the current spillway capacity, allowing release of more stormwater.
One main benefit: additional gates would reduce uncertainty associated with pre-releases. Operators could wait longer until they were certain an approaching storm would not veer away at the last minute. That would avoid wasting water.
Reverse angle.Note the difference in height between the east embankment (left) and the spillway (right).Looking downstream toward Galveston Bay.Looking west toward Beltway 8. This shows the major segments of the dam.
Benefit/Cost Ratio Must Be > 1.0
The lake-level reduction benefits of these gate alternatives during major floods range up to roughly 8x. The costs also vary by roughly 4x. Those are order-of-magnitude, back-of-the-envelope estimates and far from final. Much hard work remains to develop tighter costs and tighter estimates of flood-level reductions. The latter will determine flood-prevention savings in a storm. And the benefits divided by the costs will determine the benefit/cost ratio.
In FEMA’s eyes, the benefit/cost ratio must exceed 1.0 to justify the project. Said another way, it must produce more benefits than it costs.
FEMA allotted 18 months for phase 1. We’re six months into that phase with a year left. Project partners expect results of the alternatives analysis before the end of the year.
Benefit/Cost Calculation
Given the ballpark costs of some of these gate alternatives, we will need very tight estimates of the benefits.
Potential Benefits include:
Upstream flood risk reduction
Reduced maintenance (debris management) for CWA
Improved Water Quality (post storm)
Potential Impacts include:
Increased scour and erosion potential to wetlands downstream
Increased water surface elevations to structures downstream
Calculating Benefits
Benefit Cost Ratio = (Net Present Value of Benefits)/(Project Costs)
Project Costs = (Capital costs) + (Net Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs)
Major Tasks Remaining in Phase 1
Barring surprises, the preliminary engineering report is due in February 2021 and environmental permitting should be complete by the Fall of 2021. Other tasks that must be completed by then include:
Hydrologic modeling of flows into and out of Lake Houston using the latest Atlas 14 data
Hydraulic modeling of Lake Houston, its Dam, and the San Jacinto River downstream of the dam to Galveston Bay
Calibration of models to historic storms
Examination of upstream benefits to residents/businesses removed from flood impacts
Examination of downstream impacts associated with additional flow release scenarios
It’s important to understand that not everyone who flooded in the Lake Houston Area did so because of the lake level. Some on the periphery of the flood flooded because water backed up in streams leading to the lake. If you got two feet of water in your living room, it doesn’t automatically mean a lake level reduction of two feet would eliminate your flooding by itself.
Congressman Dan Crenshaw (left) reviews the project with team members at the Lake Houston Dam and listens to their needs.
Phase 2 Still Not Certain
Assuming all goes well in the planning, accounting, and conceptual validation, FEMA will make a go/no go decision on construction at the end of next year or the beginning of the following year. Construction should take another 18 months.
Credits
Funding for this project comes from FEMA, Texas Division of Emergency Management, City of Houston and Harris County Flood Control. Other stakeholders include the Coastal Water Authority, Harris County, Fort Bend County, Baytown, Deer Park, and other communities adjacent to Lake Houston.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/17/2020
1145 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 394 since Imelda
A seven-month-long TCEQ investigation of Colony Ridge construction practices resulted in a 184-page report that confirmed allegations of erosion and silt flowing uncontrolled into ditches and streams. The investigation resulted in a “notice of enforcement.”
TCEQ Alleges Permit Violations Affecting Human Health
TCEQ found the Colony Ridge developer in violation of its Construction General Permit for failure to install even minimum controls such as silt fences and vegetative buffer strips.
As a result, the report says the developer failed to prevent discharges that “contribute to a violation of water quality standards” and that have “a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment.”
Investigators found unstabilized and unprotected drainage channels connecting 3,678.69 acres of disturbed land to unprotected streams and creeks. Sediment now almost completely fills some of those streams. They lead to Luce Bayou and and the East Fork San Jacinto River, which empty into Lake Houston, the source of drinking water for 2 million people.
Lack of Construction Best Management Practices
Colony Ridge’s Construction General Permit does not authorize discharges into Texas surface waters. Yet investigators found:
Drainage ditches with unstabilized soil on their sides
A drainage ditch with completely destabilized sides
Sediment deposition in multiple creeks
One creek channel almost completely filled by sediment
Culverts blocked with sediment
A washed out road
Water samples with elevated levels of dissolved and suspended solids as high as 1370 milligrams/liter (suspended) and 6360 (solid)…
...All tied to inadequate or non-existent best management practices
See photos below.
Self-Reports in Stark Contrast to TCEQ Report
In contrast, the construction superintendent’s own inspection checklists (pages 51-78) rated virtually all erosion-prevention measures that the company did employ as “acceptable.” However, he also indicated that the company did not use most common protective measures, such as vegetation, sod, silt fences and detention basins; claiming they were “not applicable.” His report on 2/19/20 contained a note indicating the construction site “Looks good.” His last weekly report before the complaint that triggered the investigation found no “action items.”
Below is a sampling of ten photos from the report. The TCEQ investigator took them all on 6/16/2020. He also provided the captions. Page numbers refer to the full TCEQ report.
Downstream view of Rocky Branch Creek. Washed out road in background. Photo 2 out of 57. Page 141.
Destabilized banks along Long Branch Creek and sediment deposition in creek channel. Note: the creek channel almost completely filled in by sediment. Photo 17 of 57. Page 146.
Unstabilized drainage channels in Section 7 that are tied into Long Branch Creek. Photo 20 of 57. Page 147.
Area surrounding Long Branch Creek destabilized with no BMPs installed around the creek. Note unstabilized sediment piles next to the creek. Photo 30 of 57, Page 151.
Area surrounding Long Branch Creek destabilized with no BMPs installed around the creek. Note unstabilized sediment piles next to the creek. Photo 32 of 57, Page 151.
Sediment and debris in cement culvert that allows Long Branch Creek to flow underneath Section 5 entrance road. Photo 40 of 57. Page 154.
Sediment and debris in cement culvert that allows Long Branch Creek to flow underneath Section 5 entrance road. Photo 41 of 57. Page 154.
Inadequate BMPs in drainage ditch that leads to Long Branch Creek. Note: Undercut silt fence. Photo 44 of 57, page 155.
Sediment deposition in unnamed creek channel right before Long Branch Creek. Note sediment line on cree. Sediment line is demarcated by pocket knife in red circle. Photo 48 of 57. Page 156.
Sediment in a drainage ditch that is tied into an unnamed creek. Note over-capacitated silt fence. Photo 53 of 57. Page 158.
Personal Observations Corroborate Report
Based on personal observations, I don’t think the investigator exaggerated. On the contrary, he may not have captured the full scope the hazards. Some can only be seen from the air. As luck would have it, I flew a helicopter over Colony Ridge on the same day the investigator captured his photos. Here are two from the air and one from the ground.
Washed out ditches abounded.
The developer was clearing more land before previously developed areas could be stabilized.
Silt fence being propped up to allow raw sewage to flow underneath it into Luce Bayou, which empties into Lake Houston.
Other Strangeness
Colony Ridge hired Merit Professional Services in Flower Mound, a Dallas/Fort Worth suburb. Merit obtains stormwater pollution prevention permits and also provides stormwater inspection services. However, according to the complainant in this case, Merit claimed they only provided the permit, but not inspection services. Lack of local oversight may have been a large part of the problem.
Ironically, Double Oak Construction is a defendant in the Elm Grove lawsuits against Perry Homes and its contractors on the Woodridge Village project in Montgomery County. That case involves many of the same issues involved in both the TCEQ report and the City of Plum Grove’s lawsuit against the developer of Colony Ridge. The report does not mention exactly when Double Oak started working for Colony Ridge.
1144 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 393 After 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/2020/10/Screen-Shot-2020-10-16-at-4.52.08-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C942&ssl=19421200adminadmin2020-10-16 18:26:302020-10-16 18:36:06TCEQ Blasts Colony Ridge, Says Construction Practices Could Adversely Affect Human Health
The City of Plum Grove on the San Jacinto East Fork has sued the developer of Colony Ridge over alleged breaches of an agreement that governs development in the City’s extra territorial jurisdiction. Colony Ridge is the world’s largest trailer park. Specifically, the City claims that Colony Ridge:
Allowed stormwater runoff from the development to flood the City
Failed to contain sewage that overflowed into neighborhoods and waterways
Parallels with Elm Grove Lawsuit against Woodridge Village Developer
This lawsuit has many parallels with a lawsuit by Elm Grove Village homeowners in Kingwood. They are suing Perry Homes, its subsidiaries and contractors for flooding hundreds of homes last year. Similarities include:
Neighboring homeowners vs. a developer that…
Clearcut land
Filled in wetlands
Without allegedly installing adequate detention or drainage
More than $1 Million in Damage to City Hall, Roads and Other Property
Plum Grove seeks damages for Colony Ridge’s “repeated and serious damage to City-owned or maintained buildings, roadways and other property.” The City claims more than $1 million in damages to date. But the City is not seeking compensation for damages. It wants the developer to fix the problems that are causing repeated flooding and sewage spills.
Causes of Action
Lawyers for Plum Grove cite several “causes of action” to support their claims and damages:
Breach of Contract
Negligence
Private Nuisance
Violation of Texas Water Code § 11.086
Trespass
Breach
“The fundamental breach of the Agreement arises from the fact that Defendant has paved over wetland area and/or diverted the flow of surface water without construction of adequate drainage or detention facilities. Because of developments by Defendant without conforming to applicable drainage standards and regulations, Plum Grove and the surrounding area are now experiencing significant flooding after major rainfall events,” says the lawsuit on pages 6 and 7.
From Liberty County Stormwater Regulations. Plum Grove’s agreement with the developer specified that the developer had to comply with these regulations.
Negligence
A defendant’s actions rise to the level of negligence under Texas law if 1) the defendant “owed a duty” to plaintiffs (had an obligation); 2) the defendant breached that duty; and 3) the breach caused the plaintiff’s damages.
Nuisance
Private nuisance is a condition that substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of land by causing unreasonable discomfort or annoyance. In that regard, the suit mentions both flooding and the repeated overflow of sewage into creeks, ditches and property.
Water Code Violation
The Texas Water Code, Chapter 11.086, prohibits a person from diverting the natural flow of surface water in a manner that damages the property of another.
“Because of the increased stormwater runoff from Defendant’s developments during significant rain events like Hurricane Harvey, Tropical Storm Imelda, and the May 7, 2019 storm,” says the suit, “City Hall was flooded, City-owned/maintained roads, and residential areas have been inundated and City-owned/maintained bridges and culverts have experienced significant damage. Defendant’s actions constitute the wrongful diversion of surface water onto City property.”
Plum Grove residents allege that Colony Ridge cleared forests, filled in wetlands and re-routed runoff without adequate detention. And as a result, flood risk has increased within tiny Plum Grove which has only several hundred residents left. Many have been driven off already.
Trespass
The most interesting legal theory is that the stormwater “trespassed” on neighbor’s property. A defendant commits “trespass to real property,” claims the suit, “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.”
Problems Became Apparent in 2015
Further, the suit alleges that Colony ridge was aware of drainage violations since at least 2015 (Page 7). Finally, it alleges that had Colony Ridge followed County regulations and standards as required by the agreement with Plum Grove, that flooding and its impact on the City and nearby properties would have been significantly reduced.
Long-Time Resident Verifies City Claims
Resident Michael Shrader says that his property never flooded before Colony Ridge started clearing land upstream from his home on Maple Branch. He has lived in Plum Grove since 1987 and weathered huge storms in 1994 and 2001 (Tropical Storm Allison) without flooding. “The extreme flooding in my yard and home during more recent storms,” said Shrader, “was clearly a result of the Camino Real Colonia’s stormwater run-off that’s all directed to the head of Maple Branch that then runs behind my back yard. Colony Ridge is the only major change to the landscape since I’ve lived here. All the wetlands that were there are now gone!”
Area the way it existed in 2011, before Colony Ridge
Same area in 2019. Colony Ridge is still expanding today.See area at right.
Shrader’s house as water was still rising during Harvey. Shrader says it eventually got up to the windows in the foreground.
Maria Acevedo, another local land owner and activist has seen firsthand the construction practices at Colony Ridge. “Their lack of Best Management Practices has sent silt downstream. That silt as clogged drains and ditches, causing water to back up and overflow. The TCEQ has documented these practices. The longer such abuses continue, the more pushback this developer will get from Plum Grove residents and also residents of Colony Ridge.”
“We are not going away until they comply with the law.”
Maria Acevedo
More on that TCEQ report tomorrow. It’s 184 pages long and deserves its own post.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/15/2020
1143 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 392 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/2020/10/Front-Yard-Aug-27-2017.jpg?fit=1336%2C752&ssl=17521336adminadmin2020-10-15 18:17:332020-10-15 18:53:49Plum Grove Sues Colony Ridge Developer Over Floodwater, Sewage Leaks
October 2020 Gate Update
On Friday, October 16, 2020, stakeholders in the Lake Houston Spillway Improvement Project met at the dam to review gate alternatives and progress on the project. The main item of interest: a review of options still under consideration to increase the outflow during major storms, such as Harvey.
History of Project
Shortly after Harvey, representatives from the Lake Houston Area identified “increasing outflow” as one of the main strategies to reduce flooding. Harris County Flood Control District even conducted a pilot study. Flood Control included $20 million for the project in the 2018 bond fund (CI-028). With matching funds identified, grants were then written.
FEMA approved the project. And in April of this year, the clock started ticking on the first of two phases.
Phase One Includes…
Phase One includes preliminary engineering and environmental permitting. It should take 18 months and is on schedule at this point. A key deliverable for phase one is verification of the benefit/cost ratio. But, of course, to determine that, you need to know the cost.
Alternatives Still Under Consideration
FEMA allotted 18 months for Phase 1. We’re six months into that. Work to date has focused on determining the optimal alternative. Five remain:
Tainter gates lift up from a radial arm. The tainter gates on Lake Conroe have 15X more release capacity than the lift gates on Lake Houston.
Crest gates flop down from a bottom hinge.
The east embankment is a solid earthen area 2800 feet long east of the spillway and existing gates. Water cannot get over it in a storm. By adding various structures in this area, engineers could widen the current spillway capacity, allowing release of more stormwater.
Benefit/Cost Ratio Must Be > 1.0
The lake-level reduction benefits of these gate alternatives during major floods range up to roughly 8x. The costs also vary by roughly 4x. Those are order-of-magnitude, back-of-the-envelope estimates and far from final. Much hard work remains to develop tighter costs and tighter estimates of flood-level reductions. The latter will determine flood-prevention savings in a storm. And the benefits divided by the costs will determine the benefit/cost ratio.
In FEMA’s eyes, the benefit/cost ratio must exceed 1.0 to justify the project. Said another way, it must produce more benefits than it costs.
FEMA allotted 18 months for phase 1. We’re six months into that phase with a year left. Project partners expect results of the alternatives analysis before the end of the year.
Benefit/Cost Calculation
Given the ballpark costs of some of these gate alternatives, we will need very tight estimates of the benefits.
Potential Benefits include:
Potential Impacts include:
Calculating Benefits
Benefit Cost Ratio = (Net Present Value of Benefits)/(Project Costs)
Project Costs = (Capital costs) + (Net Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs)
Major Tasks Remaining in Phase 1
Barring surprises, the preliminary engineering report is due in February 2021 and environmental permitting should be complete by the Fall of 2021. Other tasks that must be completed by then include:
Phase 2 Still Not Certain
Assuming all goes well in the planning, accounting, and conceptual validation, FEMA will make a go/no go decision on construction at the end of next year or the beginning of the following year. Construction should take another 18 months.
Credits
Funding for this project comes from FEMA, Texas Division of Emergency Management, City of Houston and Harris County Flood Control. Other stakeholders include the Coastal Water Authority, Harris County, Fort Bend County, Baytown, Deer Park, and other communities adjacent to Lake Houston.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/17/2020
1145 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 394 since Imelda
TCEQ Blasts Colony Ridge, Says Construction Practices Could Adversely Affect Human Health
A seven-month-long TCEQ investigation of Colony Ridge construction practices resulted in a 184-page report that confirmed allegations of erosion and silt flowing uncontrolled into ditches and streams. The investigation resulted in a “notice of enforcement.”
TCEQ Alleges Permit Violations Affecting Human Health
TCEQ found the Colony Ridge developer in violation of its Construction General Permit for failure to install even minimum controls such as silt fences and vegetative buffer strips.
Investigators found unstabilized and unprotected drainage channels connecting 3,678.69 acres of disturbed land to unprotected streams and creeks. Sediment now almost completely fills some of those streams. They lead to Luce Bayou and and the East Fork San Jacinto River, which empty into Lake Houston, the source of drinking water for 2 million people.
Lack of Construction Best Management Practices
Colony Ridge’s Construction General Permit does not authorize discharges into Texas surface waters. Yet investigators found:
See photos below.
Self-Reports in Stark Contrast to TCEQ Report
In contrast, the construction superintendent’s own inspection checklists (pages 51-78) rated virtually all erosion-prevention measures that the company did employ as “acceptable.” However, he also indicated that the company did not use most common protective measures, such as vegetation, sod, silt fences and detention basins; claiming they were “not applicable.” His report on 2/19/20 contained a note indicating the construction site “Looks good.” His last weekly report before the complaint that triggered the investigation found no “action items.”
Get the Picture
Below is a sampling of ten photos from the report. The TCEQ investigator took them all on 6/16/2020. He also provided the captions. Page numbers refer to the full TCEQ report.
Personal Observations Corroborate Report
Based on personal observations, I don’t think the investigator exaggerated. On the contrary, he may not have captured the full scope the hazards. Some can only be seen from the air. As luck would have it, I flew a helicopter over Colony Ridge on the same day the investigator captured his photos. Here are two from the air and one from the ground.
Other Strangeness
Colony Ridge hired Merit Professional Services in Flower Mound, a Dallas/Fort Worth suburb. Merit obtains stormwater pollution prevention permits and also provides stormwater inspection services. However, according to the complainant in this case, Merit claimed they only provided the permit, but not inspection services. Lack of local oversight may have been a large part of the problem.
Page 182 of the TCEQ report contains an August 12, 2020, memo from Landplan Engineering to the investigator. It states that, “Going forward, Colony has switched to Double Oak since they are headquartered in the Houston Area.” Double Oak provides the same services and then some. Their website shows they offer construction, erosion control and stormwater management.
Ironically, Double Oak Construction is a defendant in the Elm Grove lawsuits against Perry Homes and its contractors on the Woodridge Village project in Montgomery County. That case involves many of the same issues involved in both the TCEQ report and the City of Plum Grove’s lawsuit against the developer of Colony Ridge. The report does not mention exactly when Double Oak started working for Colony Ridge.
For the full TCEQ report, click here. Caution: large download, 28 megs, 184 pages.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/16/2020
1144 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 393 After 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.
Plum Grove Sues Colony Ridge Developer Over Floodwater, Sewage Leaks
The City of Plum Grove on the San Jacinto East Fork has sued the developer of Colony Ridge over alleged breaches of an agreement that governs development in the City’s extra territorial jurisdiction. Colony Ridge is the world’s largest trailer park. Specifically, the City claims that Colony Ridge:
The City wants the developer to fix the problems and live up to the terms of their agreement (see Exhibit 1, Page 15). Plum Grove’s lawsuit cites several instances of both flooding and sewage spills. Only some have previously been covered in ReduceFlooding.com posts.
Parallels with Elm Grove Lawsuit against Woodridge Village Developer
This lawsuit has many parallels with a lawsuit by Elm Grove Village homeowners in Kingwood. They are suing Perry Homes, its subsidiaries and contractors for flooding hundreds of homes last year. Similarities include:
More than $1 Million in Damage to City Hall, Roads and Other Property
Plum Grove seeks damages for Colony Ridge’s “repeated and serious damage to City-owned or maintained buildings, roadways and other property.” The City claims more than $1 million in damages to date. But the City is not seeking compensation for damages. It wants the developer to fix the problems that are causing repeated flooding and sewage spills.
Causes of Action
Lawyers for Plum Grove cite several “causes of action” to support their claims and damages:
Breach
“The fundamental breach of the Agreement arises from the fact that Defendant has paved over wetland area and/or diverted the flow of surface water without construction of adequate drainage or detention facilities. Because of developments by Defendant without conforming to applicable drainage standards and regulations, Plum Grove and the surrounding area are now experiencing significant flooding after major rainfall events,” says the lawsuit on pages 6 and 7.
Negligence
A defendant’s actions rise to the level of negligence under Texas law if 1) the defendant “owed a duty” to plaintiffs (had an obligation); 2) the defendant breached that duty; and 3) the breach caused the plaintiff’s damages.
Nuisance
Private nuisance is a condition that substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of land by causing unreasonable discomfort or annoyance. In that regard, the suit mentions both flooding and the repeated overflow of sewage into creeks, ditches and property.
Water Code Violation
The Texas Water Code, Chapter 11.086, prohibits a person from diverting the natural flow of surface water in a manner that damages the property of another.
“Because of the increased stormwater runoff from Defendant’s developments during significant rain events like Hurricane Harvey, Tropical Storm Imelda, and the May 7, 2019 storm,” says the suit, “City Hall was flooded, City-owned/maintained roads, and residential areas have been inundated and City-owned/maintained bridges and culverts have experienced significant damage. Defendant’s actions constitute the wrongful diversion of surface water onto City property.”
Plum Grove residents allege that Colony Ridge cleared forests, filled in wetlands and re-routed runoff without adequate detention. And as a result, flood risk has increased within tiny Plum Grove which has only several hundred residents left. Many have been driven off already.
Trespass
The most interesting legal theory is that the stormwater “trespassed” on neighbor’s property. A defendant commits “trespass to real property,” claims the suit, “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.”
Problems Became Apparent in 2015
Further, the suit alleges that Colony ridge was aware of drainage violations since at least 2015 (Page 7). Finally, it alleges that had Colony Ridge followed County regulations and standards as required by the agreement with Plum Grove, that flooding and its impact on the City and nearby properties would have been significantly reduced.
Long-Time Resident Verifies City Claims
Resident Michael Shrader says that his property never flooded before Colony Ridge started clearing land upstream from his home on Maple Branch. He has lived in Plum Grove since 1987 and weathered huge storms in 1994 and 2001 (Tropical Storm Allison) without flooding. “The extreme flooding in my yard and home during more recent storms,” said Shrader, “was clearly a result of the Camino Real Colonia’s stormwater run-off that’s all directed to the head of Maple Branch that then runs behind my back yard. Colony Ridge is the only major change to the landscape since I’ve lived here. All the wetlands that were there are now gone!”
Maria Acevedo, another local land owner and activist has seen firsthand the construction practices at Colony Ridge. “Their lack of Best Management Practices has sent silt downstream. That silt as clogged drains and ditches, causing water to back up and overflow. The TCEQ has documented these practices. The longer such abuses continue, the more pushback this developer will get from Plum Grove residents and also residents of Colony Ridge.”
More on that TCEQ report tomorrow. It’s 184 pages long and deserves its own post.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/15/2020
1143 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 392 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.