The Harris County Flood Control District has released a Report Summary of results from the 600-page Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis. HCFCD will hold an online community meeting Tuesday night to discuss the results. It may help to review this summary or HCFCD’s before the meeting.
Objective: Protect Homes/Businesses from Bigger Rains
The objective of the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis: to provide the knowledge needed to protect homes and businesses from flooding in a 100-year (1% chance) rain as defined by the new, higher Atlas-14 Rainfall Probability Statistics. Said another way, the engineers want to make sure that if you bought a home outside the 100-year flood plain, that you STILL won’t be flooded in a 100-year rain. Engineers call that “the 100-year Level of Service (LOS).”
Steams, ditches and channels evaluated as part of the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis. Please note ditch numbers for any comments you make as the flood control district identifies them by that number.It will help communication.
What Study Included
To accomplish their objectives, engineers:
Evaluated historical floods and mapped flood damage
Created hydrologic and hydraulic models to quantify flooding risks along streams, channels and open ditches
Identified drainage issues associated with storm sewers and streets
Performed an overland flow analysis
Used LiDAR, record drawings, previous surveys and data collected in the field
Incorporated the impact of potential storm sewer improvements on channel capacity
Quantified detention capacity needed to prevent increasing flows into Lake Houston
Determined how many structures would benefit from each improvement (or planned future improvement)
Researched rights-of-way and flowage easements
Recommended channel-capacity improvements
Recommended bridge and culvert improvements
Developed preliminary cost estimates
Recommended construction sequencing
In places where ditches provide less than a 100-year level of service, storm sewers cannot empty into them during a 100-year rain. When that happens, water backs up into streets and can flood homes. So engineers are looking at the performance of the drainage system from end to end in conjunction with the City of Houston.
Limitations: What Study Does NOT Include
The study does NOT:
Include new topographic surveys
Evaluate improvements for greater than 100-year events
Examine Montgomery County issues except for North Park Drive
Identify sites for detention basins
Duplicate the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Plan or associated sedimentation and sand trap studies
No construction is included as part of this project. This project will only lay the groundwork for subsequent construction projects.
Study Identified Nine Channels That Need Improvement
Not surprisingly, the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis found that many channels do not need improvements. Said another way, they already provide the required level of service. However, engineers identified nine channels that DO need improvement to protect homes and businesses.
Six of those nine have rights-of-way controlled by HCFCD. They include:
For summary sheets of each recommended Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis project, click on the associated links. The Taylor Gully project will need to be re-analyzed if the Woodridge Village purchase goes through; that area could turn into a regional detention facility.
This table contains a summary of streams, channel types, ownership, current level of service, improvements, rights of way needed, cost estimates and detention estimates for all the projects considered in the Kingwood area.
Two Projects Recommended Immediately
Based on the results of the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis, HCFCD recommends two projects: G103-38-00 (Kingwood Diversion Ditch) and G103-80-03.1B (Taylor Gully) move to the next phase: engineering design. Additionally, HCFCD recommends the Taylor Gully project be reanalyzed to determine how the use of Woodridge Village for detention could modify the recommended plan.
These two projects were chosen because:
They help the largest number of people.
HCFCD owns land to expand and deepen the Diversion Ditch.
Diversion Ditch enhancement will immediately take pressure off Ben’s Branch, and help flooding there.
Thus, these two projects address the three biggest needs. The remainder will have to wait for Capital Improvement funds.
First Step of Many
The Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis is a feasibility study that helped identify the problem areas. As you can see from the lifecycle diagram below, it represents the first step of several. The Flood Control District included $10 million in the bond fund (See F14) for Kingwood projects. That can be local-match seed money for attracting state and federal grants.
HCFCD will hold an online meeting Tuesday night. Engineers will describe the project and recommendations in more detail. You will also have a chance to interact with team members, make suggestions, and ask questions.
Or by phone at 855-925-2801 with Meeting Code: 9541
Please login a few minutes early. The Flood Control District has a brief survey on the login page that will help them track your concerns.
What the Flood Control District Needs from You
The Flood Control District needs to know about local issues that they may NOT have identified near you.
For example, culverts under Kingwood Drive for a ditch near me are almost totally blocked by sediment. That could have affected their analysis. And the stream may have correctable issues that could easily prevent future flooding.
Another example. The recommendations include taking out the low water crossing near Bear Branch Elementary School. Many kids use that to walk or bicycle to school. Removal without replacement would create a major inconvenience. It might also negatively affect downstream bridges damaged in previous storms.
A final example: the study did not recommend any changes to the bridge over Taylor Gully at Rustling Elms. However, many Elm Grove residents identified that as a major issue in two floods last year.
The Rustling Elms Bridge is a road over twin culverts, not a true open bridge like the one farther downstream in the background.
Please join the meeting Tuesday night and be prepared to discuss such issues. Volunteer your local knowledge. Speak up now or live with the results.
Credits
The Kingwood Area Drainage analysis cost $700,000. Funds from the 2018 Harris County Flood Bond and TIRZ 10 paid for this study.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/19/2020
1147 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/hvr7ksjet8llq3oonj3l.jpeg?fit=1599%2C1188&ssl=111881599adminadmin2020-10-19 16:50:002020-10-20 20:26:12Sneak Peak at Results of Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis; Review Before Meeting Tuesday Night
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
Sneak Peak at Results of Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis; Review Before Meeting Tuesday Night
The Harris County Flood Control District has released a Report Summary of results from the 600-page Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis. HCFCD will hold an online community meeting Tuesday night to discuss the results. It may help to review this summary or HCFCD’s before the meeting.
Objective: Protect Homes/Businesses from Bigger Rains
The objective of the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis: to provide the knowledge needed to protect homes and businesses from flooding in a 100-year (1% chance) rain as defined by the new, higher Atlas-14 Rainfall Probability Statistics. Said another way, the engineers want to make sure that if you bought a home outside the 100-year flood plain, that you STILL won’t be flooded in a 100-year rain. Engineers call that “the 100-year Level of Service (LOS).”
What Study Included
To accomplish their objectives, engineers:
In places where ditches provide less than a 100-year level of service, storm sewers cannot empty into them during a 100-year rain. When that happens, water backs up into streets and can flood homes. So engineers are looking at the performance of the drainage system from end to end in conjunction with the City of Houston.
Limitations: What Study Does NOT Include
The study does NOT:
Study Identified Nine Channels That Need Improvement
Not surprisingly, the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis found that many channels do not need improvements. Said another way, they already provide the required level of service. However, engineers identified nine channels that DO need improvement to protect homes and businesses.
Six of those nine have rights-of-way controlled by HCFCD. They include:
Other entities control the rights-of-way for the three remaining ditches/streams that need improvements:
For summary sheets of each recommended Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis project, click on the associated links. The Taylor Gully project will need to be re-analyzed if the Woodridge Village purchase goes through; that area could turn into a regional detention facility.
This table contains a summary of streams, channel types, ownership, current level of service, improvements, rights of way needed, cost estimates and detention estimates for all the projects considered in the Kingwood area.
Two Projects Recommended Immediately
Based on the results of the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis, HCFCD recommends two projects: G103-38-00 (Kingwood Diversion Ditch) and G103-80-03.1B (Taylor Gully) move to the next phase: engineering design. Additionally, HCFCD recommends the Taylor Gully project be reanalyzed to determine how the use of Woodridge Village for detention could modify the recommended plan.
These two projects were chosen because:
Thus, these two projects address the three biggest needs. The remainder will have to wait for Capital Improvement funds.
First Step of Many
The Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis is a feasibility study that helped identify the problem areas. As you can see from the lifecycle diagram below, it represents the first step of several. The Flood Control District included $10 million in the bond fund (See F14) for Kingwood projects. That can be local-match seed money for attracting state and federal grants.
Online Meeting Details Tuesday Night
HCFCD will hold an online meeting Tuesday night. Engineers will describe the project and recommendations in more detail. You will also have a chance to interact with team members, make suggestions, and ask questions.
Tuesday, October 20, 2020
6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Join online at PublicInput.com/Kingwood
Or by phone at 855-925-2801 with Meeting Code: 9541
Please login a few minutes early. The Flood Control District has a brief survey on the login page that will help them track your concerns.
What the Flood Control District Needs from You
The Flood Control District needs to know about local issues that they may NOT have identified near you.
For example, culverts under Kingwood Drive for a ditch near me are almost totally blocked by sediment. That could have affected their analysis. And the stream may have correctable issues that could easily prevent future flooding.
Another example. The recommendations include taking out the low water crossing near Bear Branch Elementary School. Many kids use that to walk or bicycle to school. Removal without replacement would create a major inconvenience. It might also negatively affect downstream bridges damaged in previous storms.
A final example: the study did not recommend any changes to the bridge over Taylor Gully at Rustling Elms. However, many Elm Grove residents identified that as a major issue in two floods last year.
Please join the meeting Tuesday night and be prepared to discuss such issues. Volunteer your local knowledge. Speak up now or live with the results.
Credits
The Kingwood Area Drainage analysis cost $700,000. Funds from the 2018 Harris County Flood Bond and TIRZ 10 paid for this study.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/19/2020
1147 Days since Hurricane Harvey
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.