Friday, July 10, at 11 a.m., the San Jacinto River Authority Board of Directors will meet in a closed session to discuss pending Harvey litigation with their lawyers and consultants.
Kingwood Greens Evacuation During Harvey by Jay Muscat
Special Meeting with No Action on Agenda Items
A meeting notice put out by the SJRA says they will hold the “special” meeting via telephone conference call due to COVID. The notice also said:
There are no items on the agenda for action by said Board of Directors. Accordingly, there will not be an opportunity to provide public comments during the meeting.
The notice provided a phone number for LISTENING PURPOSES ONLY.
(936) 588-7199, Conference ID is 660572
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER (OPEN SESSION)
CLOSED SESSION – The Board of Directors will adjourn to Closed Session for consultations with the Authority’s attorneys, pursuant to Texas Government Code, Section 551.071, regarding pending litigation related to Hurricane Harvey. No action will be taken during or following Closed Session.
RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION – The Board of Directors will reconvene in Open Session.
ADJOURN
The publication of the phone number meets a technical requirement for public agencies to conduct public board meetings. But it sounds as if they will immediately go into executive session and adjourn the meeting as soon as they come out.
This made me curious about the status of pending litigation.
Cases Slowed Due to Covid
SJRA is fighting several different cases. According to one lawyer following them, the Medina case appears to be the most active. Attorneys in that case just filed an agreed motion to modify the scheduling order. That sets the SJRA’s “plea to the jurisdiction” hearing in November, 2020.
In Texas, a “plea to the jurisdiction” challenges the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Two SJRA pleas argue that the court should dismiss the case, not that venue should change.
For the full text of the pleas, click on these links:
The second plea introduces more arguments and develops them more fully. Three firms and nine lawyers signed the supplemental plea. (And the SJRA complains about legal costs!)
They argue that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a valid claim to which SJRA is not immune.
“Indeed, the evidence conclusively demonstrates,” they argue in their conclusion, “that no constitutional taking occurred. The Court should therefore grant SJRA’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.” [Emphasis added.]
(Aside: No constitutional taking? Did they just agree with plaintiffs’ arguments? Plaintiffs allege UNconstitutional taking. Curious wording there!)
Pillars of SJRA’s Argument
To support the dismissal plea, the SJRA argues, in part, that:
“SJRA’s engineers established a Gate Operations Policy intended to reduce flows in the river.”
The River Authority followed its Gate Operations Policy.
The Policy reduced downstream flows during Hurricane Harvey.
Other sources – over which SJRA has no control – converge with the West Fork San Jacinto River and contributed to flooding.
Very little, if any, of the floodwaters that inundated Plaintiffs’ properties passed through the Lake Conroe Dam.
Plaintiffs cannot prove that flooding on individual properties was caused by SJRA actions.
SJRA did not intentionally take any action certain to flood any plaintiff’s property.
The plaintiffs cannot even show the first element of a “takings” claim – that SJRA’s acts caused damage to their property.
If you flooded during Harvey and want a good night’s sleep, don’t read these documents before bedtime. Here’s just one of the claims that had my brain in turmoil at 3 a.m.
“Texas law makes clear that a dam operator does not commit a taking when it does not release water from the dam in such a way that it increases the flow into the river or negatively changes the character of the flows in the river.”
SJRA Supplemental Plea
The SJRA’s own documents show that it released almost exactly one-third of the water coming down the West Fork between Humble and Kingwood during Harvey. The volume they released at the peak – all by itself – would have been the ninth largest flood in West Fork history … and the sixth largest since Lake Conroe was built almost 50 years ago.
“Very little, if any, of the floodwaters that inundated Plaintiffs’ properties passed through the Lake Conroe Dam.” Really? How can these lawyers refer to their claims as indisputable on page after page?
Hmmmm. I guess that’s why they make a $1000/hour.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/10/2020
1046 Days since Hurricane Harvey
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/2019/02/KingwoodGreens-e1551452236612.jpg?fit=1500%2C1038&ssl=110381500adminadmin2020-07-09 20:20:342020-07-10 09:25:58SJRA Board to Meet Friday in Closed Session on Pending Harvey Litigation
In March, the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) awarded engineering firm Freese & Nichols a $250,000 work order for “Conceptual Design” of sand traps. Then in June, SJRA applied for a $200,000 grant from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for “Preliminary Design” of sand traps on the West Fork. What’s this all about? How do the projects relate? Are they worthwhile?
SJRA and HCFCD hope to mitigate flooding by constructing one or more “sand traps.” Their plan calls for partnering with Aggregate Production Operations (APOs) in the vicinity of the sand trap(s) to clean them out periodically. It’s not yet clear whether APO’s would do this for a fee, or do it for the sand. One thing is clear, at this point, however. APO’s don’t want to go far. All the locations under consideration are next to sand mines.
Evaluating potential sand trap locations and trapping effectiveness
Developing conceptual sand trap designs
Determining downstream benefits of potential sand trap solutions
Recommending which site(s) to carry forward into preliminary engineering.
Phase 2 of Pilot Goes Further
The goal: to move forward with preliminary engineering on two sites, with the likely construction of at least one. This small scale effort, involving only one or two sand traps, is intended to act as a “pilot” before a more costly, full-scale program.
Preliminary results in the first phase indicate that the sand traps will likely be located along the West Fork.
However, to move beyond conceptual design, even on the pilot, SJRA needs more money to supplement local match resources.
If successful, the TWDB grant application for preliminary design will cover:
Environmental permitting investigation
Preliminary land acquisition efforts
Survey
Geotechnical investigation
30% design efforts.
Need for Sediment Control of Some Sort
To date, more than 2.3 million cubic yards of material have been removed from the West Fork, at a cost of more than $90 million. An additional $30 million has been dedicated to continue these efforts. SJRA hopes sand traps will help protect that investment.
It seems, though, that reducing sediment coming out of sand mines might be a simpler, less-risky, more cost-effective solution.
Benefits
Long-term benefits beyond the initial sand trap development “pilot” project are anticipated to potentially extend beyond the immediate benefit area.
Benefits include potential reduction of sediment load entering Lake Houston.
Primary benefit area is in purple along West Fork. Secondary benefit area is in green (Lake Houston).
SJRA can not yet quantify the level of flood mitigation provided by the sand trap(s). However, restoring or expanding storm flow capacity could potentially remove structures from the floodplain, they say. The conceptual design phase currently underway will attempt to evaluate downstream hydraulic benefits.
Freese & Nichols should report the results of their conceptual study this September.
SJRA anticipates it can complete the preliminary engineering study in 18 months. However, construction will take longer – up to 36 months.
Next Steps
If results of this pilot project indicate that sand traps are a feasible and effective solution, a larger program in various locations throughout the basin could be implemented.
Preliminary cost estimates will be developed as part of the conceptual design phase currently underway. So SJRA has not yet determined a benefit/cost ratio.
However, the cost of dredging has proved substantial. And the cost of flooding during Harvey proved astronomical. Reducing those costs just 1% could easily justify the cost of this project.
We have too many unknowns at this point to pass judgment.
How much will the project cost?
Will sand traps be effective?
Who will maintain a trap when a sand mine goes out of business?
What will the environmental impact be?
Will the traps accelerate erosion and jeopardize infrastructure such as pipelines and bridges?
Is this the opening volley in an effort to begin large-scale river mining?
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Sand-Trap-Benefit-Area.jpg?fit=1200%2C1210&ssl=112101200adminadmin2020-07-09 15:26:042020-07-09 15:26:28Details of SJRA Application to TWDB for Grant to Develop Sand Traps
The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) has applied for a Flood Infrastructure Fund Grant from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to extend its Flood Early Warning System in San Jacinto county. The abridged grant application covers the cost of three new gages that would measure rainfall and flood height (but not flow rates). SJRA would install the gages on:
Winters Bayou at SH150
San Jacinto East Fork at FM945
Peach Creek at FM3081
Complement to Potential HCFCD
These gages would complement four others that Harris County Flood Control District is considering for San Jacinto county.
Winters Bayou at FM2693
East Fork at SH150
Winters Bayou at Tony Tap Road
East Fork at SH105
Locations of potential SJRA and HCFCD gages in San Jacinto county
HCFCD could display the information from both its own gages and SJRA gages on its Flood Warning System (FWS) website. The FWS site lets residents view data from all gages throughout the region in one location.
Gage Components and Communications Infrastructure
Equipment installed at each location would include break-away mounting pole, box enclosure with antenna mast, rain gage, river/stream stage sensor, and alert transmitter/sensors.
Components of the system susceptible to water damage would be installed above at least the 0.2% annual chance inundation level, based on Atlas 14 data.
SJRA would transmit data obtained from the gages to its ALERT2 network and display it on its Contrail system. This would let San Jacinto County staff and residents easily access and view the data at any time. These gages would become part of a growing regional network of gages.
Extent of Application
The grant application includes:
Verifying that signals can reach SJRA’s repeater tower in Montgomery County.
Site survey work at the proposed gage locations
Installation of the gages
San Jacinto county would provide ongoing maintenance after training by SJRA staff. That would include including twice-per-year inspection, periodic cleaning, and any required repairs or corrective maintenance.
Project Benefits
The intent of the Flood Early Warning System: to provide early warning to downstream residents, businesses, and property owners. The gages will also help county emergency personnel and responders protect life and personal property which can be moved to a safe location with adequate warning (vehicles, valuables, etc.).
The grant, says the SJRA, would benefit the entire population of San Jacinto County (27,819 in 2018). San Jacinto county lies between Cleveland and Lake Livingston.
Properties downstream of the gages would directly benefit by the proposed flood early warning system (FEWS). But other benefits would extend to the rest of the county. For example:
More time to evacuate in advance of a storm could reduce the burden on county-wide emergency services.
It could also give the county more time to close roads and tend to other needs during the event.
The gages could also benefit areas downstream of San Jacinto County. For instance, they could provide advance streamflow data to HCFCD.
Gages Located Near Habitual Road Closures
San Jacinto County says multiple major storms have impacted the areas downstream of the proposed gages, including Hurricanes Harvey, Rita, and Ike, as well as storms in 1994, 1998, 2015, and 2016. All caused road closures, high water rescues, etc. These have historically been low population areas, but are growing rapidly.
Additionally, the proposed gage at Peach Creek and FM 3081 could provide some benefits to a small area of Montgomery County, as Peach Creek runs along the county line between San Jacinto and Montgomery Counties. It is possible that some or all of the gaging equipment may be installed on the Montgomery County side of the county line, depending on site conditions.
Cost and Timing
SJRA anticipates the extension of its Flood Early Warning System can be completed in 18 months.
San Jacinto County participated in the process of developing this project. SJRA anticipates the total project will cost $65,000.
All applications for the TWDB Flood Infrastructure Fund Grants go through a two stage process. This abridged application is step one. If TDWB deems the project valuable enough, and if it has enough money, TDWB would invite SJRA to submit a more detailed application for step two.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/8/2020
1044 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/FEWS-San-Jac-County.jpg?fit=1200%2C915&ssl=19151200adminadmin2020-07-08 16:10:192020-07-08 16:10:43Details of SJRA Grant Application for Flood Early Warning System in San Jacinto county
SJRA Board to Meet Friday in Closed Session on Pending Harvey Litigation
Friday, July 10, at 11 a.m., the San Jacinto River Authority Board of Directors will meet in a closed session to discuss pending Harvey litigation with their lawyers and consultants.
Special Meeting with No Action on Agenda Items
A meeting notice put out by the SJRA says they will hold the “special” meeting via telephone conference call due to COVID. The notice also said:
The notice provided a phone number for LISTENING PURPOSES ONLY.
AGENDA
The publication of the phone number meets a technical requirement for public agencies to conduct public board meetings. But it sounds as if they will immediately go into executive session and adjourn the meeting as soon as they come out.
This made me curious about the status of pending litigation.
Cases Slowed Due to Covid
SJRA is fighting several different cases. According to one lawyer following them, the Medina case appears to be the most active. Attorneys in that case just filed an agreed motion to modify the scheduling order. That sets the SJRA’s “plea to the jurisdiction” hearing in November, 2020.
For the full text of the pleas, click on these links:
3 Firms, 9 Lawyers Defending SJRA
The second plea introduces more arguments and develops them more fully. Three firms and nine lawyers signed the supplemental plea. (And the SJRA complains about legal costs!)
“Indeed, the evidence conclusively demonstrates,” they argue in their conclusion, “that no constitutional taking occurred. The Court should therefore grant SJRA’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.” [Emphasis added.]
(Aside: No constitutional taking? Did they just agree with plaintiffs’ arguments? Plaintiffs allege UNconstitutional taking. Curious wording there!)
Pillars of SJRA’s Argument
To support the dismissal plea, the SJRA argues, in part, that:
If the judge does NOT dismiss the case, and if COVID allows, the trial will proceed in 2021.
Pleas NOT Good Bedtime Reading
If you flooded during Harvey and want a good night’s sleep, don’t read these documents before bedtime. Here’s just one of the claims that had my brain in turmoil at 3 a.m.
The SJRA’s own documents show that it released almost exactly one-third of the water coming down the West Fork between Humble and Kingwood during Harvey. The volume they released at the peak – all by itself – would have been the ninth largest flood in West Fork history … and the sixth largest since Lake Conroe was built almost 50 years ago.
“Very little, if any, of the floodwaters that inundated Plaintiffs’ properties passed through the Lake Conroe Dam.” Really? How can these lawyers refer to their claims as indisputable on page after page?
Hmmmm. I guess that’s why they make a $1000/hour.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/10/2020
1046 Days since Hurricane Harvey
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.
Details of SJRA Application to TWDB for Grant to Develop Sand Traps
In March, the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) awarded engineering firm Freese & Nichols a $250,000 work order for “Conceptual Design” of sand traps. Then in June, SJRA applied for a $200,000 grant from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for “Preliminary Design” of sand traps on the West Fork. What’s this all about? How do the projects relate? Are they worthwhile?
West Fork 90% Blocked After Harvey
After Harvey, the Army Corps documented that the West Fork had become 90% blocked by sediment in places. That contributed to the flooding of thousands of homes and businesses. It also triggered a massive dredging program that is still ongoing. Finally, it launched a search for solutions that stretched all the way to Austin (plus, interestingly, Kerrville and San Antonio). See more below.
SB1824 Opens Door for Sand Traps
House Bill 1824 was introduced by State Rep. Murr from Kerrville and sponsored by Senator Flores from San Antonio. Approved last year, it allows SJRA and Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) to remove material from the San Jacinto River and its tributaries to restore, maintain, or expand storm flow capacity without the need for “state permitting” or royalty payments to the state.
SJRA and HCFCD hope to mitigate flooding by constructing one or more “sand traps.” Their plan calls for partnering with Aggregate Production Operations (APOs) in the vicinity of the sand trap(s) to clean them out periodically. It’s not yet clear whether APO’s would do this for a fee, or do it for the sand. One thing is clear, at this point, however. APO’s don’t want to go far. All the locations under consideration are next to sand mines.
Freese & Nichols Already Underway with Phase 1
The first phase of the project, Freese & Nichols’ conceptual design, is currently underway. It includes:
Phase 2 of Pilot Goes Further
The goal: to move forward with preliminary engineering on two sites, with the likely construction of at least one. This small scale effort, involving only one or two sand traps, is intended to act as a “pilot” before a more costly, full-scale program.
Preliminary results in the first phase indicate that the sand traps will likely be located along the West Fork.
However, to move beyond conceptual design, even on the pilot, SJRA needs more money to supplement local match resources.
If successful, the TWDB grant application for preliminary design will cover:
Need for Sediment Control of Some Sort
To date, more than 2.3 million cubic yards of material have been removed from the West Fork, at a cost of more than $90 million. An additional $30 million has been dedicated to continue these efforts. SJRA hopes sand traps will help protect that investment.
It seems, though, that reducing sediment coming out of sand mines might be a simpler, less-risky, more cost-effective solution.
Benefits
Long-term benefits beyond the initial sand trap development “pilot” project are anticipated to potentially extend beyond the immediate benefit area.
Benefits include potential reduction of sediment load entering Lake Houston.
SJRA can not yet quantify the level of flood mitigation provided by the sand trap(s). However, restoring or expanding storm flow capacity could potentially remove structures from the floodplain, they say. The conceptual design phase currently underway will attempt to evaluate downstream hydraulic benefits.
Timing
If this abridged application succeeds, SJRA will need to submit a more detailed application. TWDB won’t report results on that until late this year.
Freese & Nichols should report the results of their conceptual study this September.
SJRA anticipates it can complete the preliminary engineering study in 18 months. However, construction will take longer – up to 36 months.
Next Steps
If results of this pilot project indicate that sand traps are a feasible and effective solution, a larger program in various locations throughout the basin could be implemented.
Preliminary cost estimates will be developed as part of the conceptual design phase currently underway. So SJRA has not yet determined a benefit/cost ratio.
However, the cost of dredging has proved substantial. And the cost of flooding during Harvey proved astronomical. Reducing those costs just 1% could easily justify the cost of this project.
We have too many unknowns at this point to pass judgment.
I will withhold judgement until I learn more.
To review the abridged application, click here.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/9/2020
1045 Days after Hurricane Harvey
Details of SJRA Grant Application for Flood Early Warning System in San Jacinto county
The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) has applied for a Flood Infrastructure Fund Grant from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to extend its Flood Early Warning System in San Jacinto county. The abridged grant application covers the cost of three new gages that would measure rainfall and flood height (but not flow rates). SJRA would install the gages on:
Complement to Potential HCFCD
These gages would complement four others that Harris County Flood Control District is considering for San Jacinto county.
HCFCD could display the information from both its own gages and SJRA gages on its Flood Warning System (FWS) website. The FWS site lets residents view data from all gages throughout the region in one location.
Gage Components and Communications Infrastructure
Equipment installed at each location would include break-away mounting pole, box enclosure with antenna mast, rain gage, river/stream stage sensor, and alert transmitter/sensors.
Components of the system susceptible to water damage would be installed above at least the 0.2% annual chance inundation level, based on Atlas 14 data.
SJRA would transmit data obtained from the gages to its ALERT2 network and display it on its Contrail system. This would let San Jacinto County staff and residents easily access and view the data at any time. These gages would become part of a growing regional network of gages.
Extent of Application
The grant application includes:
San Jacinto county would provide ongoing maintenance after training by SJRA staff. That would include including twice-per-year inspection, periodic cleaning, and any required repairs or corrective maintenance.
Project Benefits
The intent of the Flood Early Warning System: to provide early warning to downstream residents, businesses, and property owners. The gages will also help county emergency personnel and responders protect life and personal property which can be moved to a safe location with adequate warning (vehicles, valuables, etc.).
The grant, says the SJRA, would benefit the entire population of San Jacinto County (27,819 in 2018). San Jacinto county lies between Cleveland and Lake Livingston.
Properties downstream of the gages would directly benefit by the proposed flood early warning system (FEWS). But other benefits would extend to the rest of the county. For example:
The gages could also benefit areas downstream of San Jacinto County. For instance, they could provide advance streamflow data to HCFCD.
Gages Located Near Habitual Road Closures
San Jacinto County says multiple major storms have impacted the areas downstream of the proposed gages, including Hurricanes Harvey, Rita, and Ike, as well as storms in 1994, 1998, 2015, and 2016. All caused road closures, high water rescues, etc. These have historically been low population areas, but are growing rapidly.
Additionally, the proposed gage at Peach Creek and FM 3081 could provide some benefits to a small area of Montgomery County, as Peach Creek runs along the county line between San Jacinto and Montgomery Counties. It is possible that some or all of the gaging equipment may be installed on the Montgomery County side of the county line, depending on site conditions.
Cost and Timing
SJRA anticipates the extension of its Flood Early Warning System can be completed in 18 months.
San Jacinto County participated in the process of developing this project. SJRA anticipates the total project will cost $65,000.
All applications for the TWDB Flood Infrastructure Fund Grants go through a two stage process. This abridged application is step one. If TDWB deems the project valuable enough, and if it has enough money, TDWB would invite SJRA to submit a more detailed application for step two.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/8/2020
1044 Days since Hurricane Harvey