Last Day to Protest High-Rise Development in Kingwood

A reminder. If you want to protest the high-rise development planned for Kingwood, today is the last day to email the Army Corps of Engineers and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The deadline: midnight tonight.

The proposed high-rise development would wrap around the Barrington and border the soccer fields at River Grove Park. It includes 5000 condos, and multiple high rises from 25 to 50 stories tall. Developers, who are being sued for fraud by investors, are attempting to finance the project with EB-5 visas for foreigners.

High Rises in Area Apparently Deed-Restricted to Single-Family Residential

The development would take place in an area apparently deed restricted to single-family residential. Developers have refused to meet with the public to answer questions concerning the development or how they plan to get around the deed restrictions.

Where to Find More Info

To learn more about the controversy, visit the high-rise page of this website. There, you will find:

  • A brief summary of the issues
  • Links to the Army Corps’ Public Notice
  • Previous posts on the subject
  • Sample letters that people and groups have written already.

Causes for Concern

Many of reasons exist to protest this development. Besides the 8,800 cars it would add to Kingwood Drive, the lack of evacuation routes, apparent deed restriction violations, impacts on wildlife including bald eagles, loss of wetlands and streams, flooding, adequacy of the market survey, safety issues (building high rises so near a floodway), water pollution from a giant marina operation, school over-crowding, and the experience of the developers.

How and Where to Protest

The Corps states explicitly that if they don’t hear from you, they assume you have no objections.

So please take ten minutes to email your objections to:

Army Corps of Engineers: swg_public_notice@usace.army.mil

TCEQ: 401certs@tceq.texas.gov. (Water-quality issues only)

Feel free to copy from the letters of others. Make sure you include the project number in the subject line of your email: SWG-2016-00384

Posted by Bob Rehak on March 1, 2019

549 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statutes of the great State of Texas.

Flooded Street by Julie Yandell. During Harvey.

County Suggesting New Way to Prioritize Flood-Bond Projects

Harris County Flood Control has developed a new way to prioritize bond projects after a trial ballon turned into a lead balloon. Initially the county ranked projects based, in part, on readily available income statistics to achieve its equity goal in ranking projects.

However, giving low-to-moderate-income (LMI) neighborhoods higher priority than affluent neighborhoods facing greater flood threats hardly seemed fair. It sparked a tsunami of criticism.

When flood control shared its initial formula for ranking projects with small groups of community leaders, they pushed back immediately. They argued that the worst flooding problems should be tackled first. As a result, the county developed an alternative formula that didn’t rely on income.

Homes in Barrington in 500-year flood plain during Harvey. Photo courtesy of Julie Yandell. She was forced to flee with her husband and 81-year-old neighbor when waters rose without warning.

Factors in Initial Proposal

Version 1.0 of the prioritization attempted to rank-order projects based on seven factors, each given different weights.

  • Existing Conditions – Drainage Level of Service (How Bad Things Currently Are) – 20%
  • Equity (LMI) – 20%
  • Flood Risk Reduction (Looking only at # of Structures, not their Value) – 20%
  • Long-Term Maintenance Costs – 5%
  • Minimizes Environment Impacts (To reduce Permitting Delays) – 5%
  • Potential for Multiple Benefits – 5%
  • Project Efficiency (Cost of project/# of Structures Benefitted) – 15%

Problems with Version 1.0

Scoring projects using these criteria pushed Kingwood – one of the hardest hit areas in the city – farther down the list in most cases. Therefore the leaders of the Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Initiative sent a letter to the new County Judge listing these concerns.

  • Failure to appropriately recognize benefits from multi-million dollar partnership matching grants
  • Failure to capture full flooding impacts and full project benefits by not considering commercial property, schools, hospitals, and senior-care facilities
  • Not recognizing benefits to LMI areas received from projects executed in non-LMI areas
  • Not considering Costs/benefits of pre-Harvey Capital Improvement Projects
  • Lack of inclusion of URGENT NEED criteria in the matrix

To see the entire letter, click here.

Version 2.0 Already Published

Based on initial feedback, Harris County Flood Control has already posted version 2.0 of the ranking formula. The goal: to provide a defensible methodology for determining when one project will start versus another.

Differences in Version 2.0

Version 2.0 of the formula:

  • Takes LMI consideration out
  • Adds an eighth criteria, “Do we have a funding partner for a project? Yes/No?”
  • Changes weighting to give more urgency to parts of town that historically have had a lower level of service.
  • Looks at some old criteria in new ways.

Here are the new weights and criteria:

  • Flood Risk Reduction – 25%
  • Existing Conditions Drainage Level of Service – 20%
  • Lack of Service – 15%
  • Project Efficiency Weighting Factor – 15%
  • Partnership Funding – 10%
  • Long Term Maintenance Costs – 5%
  • Minimizes Environmental Impacts – 5%
  • Potential for Multiple Benefits – 5%

“You Have to Start Somewhere”

“You have to start somewhere,” said Zeve. “We’re trying to be as transparent as possible so people understand the order in which we attack projects.”

Harris County Flood Control posted a new web page to address misconceptions surrounding the prioritization process.

To see the thinking process behind how the new formula works, click here.

Revised Project List To Be Posted Soon

The revised project-priority list has not yet been posted. That should happen tonight or this weekend according to Zeve. They need to score and calculate many factors for hundreds of projects. I can’t wait to see the outcome. More news to follow tomorrow.

How to Be Heard

If you would like to participate in this process, or send written comments, please email Gabe Baker at gabe.baker@cjo.hctx.net.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/1/2019

549 Days since Hurricane Harvey

SJRA Board Votes to Maintain Lake-Lowering Policy for Another Year

At its February 28th meeting, the San Jacinto River Authority voted to maintain its lake-lowering policy for another year. The policy calls for lowering Lake Conroe one foot below normal pool level (from 201 feet to 200) during the wettest months in Spring and two feet during the peak of hurricane season.

Extra Safety from Flooding

Until other mitigation measures can be put in place, the plan gives downstream residents an extra measure of safety from massive releases like those experienced during Hurricane Harvey. Those include dredging and additional flood gates for Lake Houston.

This is good news for the Lake Houston Area where Harvey made approximately 11,000 people homeless overnight.

Complaints from Lake Conroe Association in January Meeting

The Lake Conroe Association set the stage for conflict last month. The Association testified that last year’s lowering had a negative impact on business and home values in the area. They also maintained that the Board had acted unilaterally – without consultation – and that the project was only supposed to last through the end of dredging.

Having been at last year’s meeting where the proposal was discussed, I would disagree with these statements. The board considered dredging and gates for Lake Houston. The board also acted on the report of a consultant hired to review the proposal.

Mark Micheletti, a SJRA board member, said the board had received no complaints from businesses on the lake and that a check with realtors found no negative effect on home prices.

Reportedly, the Lake Conroe Association had also collected signatures on a petition asking for the policy to be reversed. At today’s meeting, the room was crowded with spectators, but I did not see the Association’s president, Mike Bleier. The association presented no petition.

The cataclysmic impacts on Lake Conroe’s economy did not materialize. Because of evaporation, the lowering really only amounted a little more than a foot in the fall.

Speaking for Kingwood

During the public comment section of the meeting, three Kingwood residents, Bill Fowler, Amy Slaughter and I, spoke FOR continuing to lower the lake. So did one Lake Conroe resident who flooded during Harvey.

I pointed out the fact that dredging was NOT yet complete and that the river still had an exaggerated flooding response to moderate rainfalls because of sediment dams. Fowler talked about normal evaporation levels in the lake and how the lowering was not as great as the targets would imply. Slaughter mentioned the impact of flooding on her family and recent Supreme Court rulings on inverse condemnation.

The Lake Conroe resident said he wished the Lake were lowered year round. He flooded during Harvey and thought that the lower levels would actually help Lake Conroe home values.

“But what if there’s a drought?”

When it came time to speak AGAINST the lowering, one man spoke up. He used water conservation as his main argument and posed the specter of drought.

When the board began debating the measure, Jace Houston, SJRA’s general manager, pointed out that many people misunderstood the measure. He said that the SJRA was not going to lower the lake beyond the 1- and 2-foot levels in the policy. If the lake was already down a foot due to evaporation, for instance, the SJRA would release no additional water.

Chuck Gilman, Director or Water Resources and Flood Management, thenshowed a series of slides that led to discussions about:

  • Lake-lowering strategy
  • Progress of the current West Fork dredging and Lake Houston Gates projects
  • Rainfall averages and historical lake levels by month
  • How the lowering and subsequent raising of the lake worked last fall
  • Staff recommendations
Graph presented by Chuck Gilman showed how gradual lowering and natural refilling of Lake Conroe worked last year.
Gilman also showed a slide discussing the status of additional gates for Lake Houston.

To see all the slides in the original high-resolution PDF format, click here.

Brenda Cooper, a new SJRA Board Member, then mentioned that some Lake Conroe residents had approached her to voice their disapproval of the project.

Motion Passes Unanimously

Board President Lloyd Tisdale finally called for a voice vote. “All members present voted FOR the lowering,” said Mark Micheletti, one of the Lake Houston Area’s two members on the SJRA board. “The vote could not have gone better from the Lake Houston area’s perspective.”

The SJRA will continue to lower Lake Conroe seasonally. The measure will come up for discussion again next February.

Community Reaction

Bill Fowler, Vice Chair of the Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Initiation, said, “I was impressed by the Board’s firm grasp of the importance of lowering Lake Conroe on a seasonal basis for downstream residents. Their willingness to help until permanent solutions can be implemented impressed me.”

Kaaren Cambio, another SJRA board director from the Lake Houston area, said, “I’m happy that the board is balancing the needs of both upstream and downstream communities.

Amy Slaughter, the Kingwood lawyer whose home flooded badly, said, “They did the right thing.”

Posted by Bob Rehak on February 28, 2019

548 Days After Hurricane Harvey