Spring Creek enters the West Fork and Lake Houston at US59. The watershed extends west from there and covers portions of Montgomery, Harris, Grimes, and Waller Counties. Spring Creek itself acts as the county line between Harris and Montgomery Counties.
The Siting Study, still in draft form, has identified two potential locations. One is along Walnut Creek and the other on Birch Creek.
Both have potential to mitigate flooding in the watershed. SJRA anticipates the Master Watershed Drainage Plan will recommend them for implementation. See draft spec sheets below.
Draft Walnut Creek spec sheet supplied as part of grant applicationDraft Birch Creek spec sheet supplied as part of grant application
Notice that neither of these projects comes close to competing with the Barker or Addicks Reservoirs in terms of acre-feet of storage. At roughly 20,000 acre feet combined, they are roughly one twentieth the size of Barker and Addicks combined. That said, the proposed reservoirs could each still reduce flooding by up to half a foot for 25-40 miles downstream.
Grant Covers Everything Up Through Costing
The next phase of efforts related to the reservoirs will require, at a minimum:
Environmental due diligence
Site investigations
Literature and mapping review
Permitting requirement investigations
Desktop surveys/assessments
Preliminary coordination with permitting agency
Conceptual design of dams to determine feasibility – geotechnical borings, alternative configurations development, H&H modeling analysis, etc.
Cost estimate development – dam construction costs, as well as costs related to land acquisition, utility conflicts and relocations, environmental mitigation, O&M, etc.
Update benefit/cost ratios (BCR) from SJRWMDP using data developed as part of this effort.
Completion of these tasks will determine feasibility and cost-effectiveness. The grant will also help determine what should proceed to preliminary engineering, final design and construction.
Upstream Benefits of Project
Spring Creek watershed flood mitigation will benefit all areas impacted by Hurricane Harvey, as well as storms in 2016 (Tax Day and Memorial Day), 1994, Tropical Storm Imelda and other recent and historical events.
The most substantial benefits would accrue to structures within the Spring Creek Watershed. SJRA estimates the Birch and Walnut Creek reservoirs could remove 918 and 1,412 structures, from the 100-year floodplain based on Atlas-14 data.
Preliminary benefit/cost ratio (BCR) estimates range from 0.55-0.83 for Birch Creek to 0.78-1.06 for Walnut. However, SJRA feels the combined BCR of the two reservoirs could increase to 2.7 if social benefits typically allowed in FEMA grants are also included.
Downstream Benefits
Project benefits also extend farther downstream. In the event of major storms, the dams could delay water migrating downstream. That would help protect thousands of homes and businesses in the Lake Houston convergence zone. Remember the Plea for DDG (Detention, Dredging and Gates)? Adding to upstream detention was one of the three main strategies advocated by Lake Houston Area leaders after Harvey to reduce flooding.
The proposed dams will likely be earthen embankments with minimal permanent storage (i.e. “dry bottom” reservoirs) with and uncontrolled discharge structures and spillways.
Therefore, they will provide no water supply benefit. However, they could collect and trap sediment, which would otherwise flow into Spring Creek, the West Fork, and ultimately Lake Houston. That would reduce the loss of water storage in Lake Houston.
Timing and Partners
SJRA says it can complete the study within 18 months, but future design and construction will take longer.
SJRA will submit a separate application for an Upper San Jacinto River Basin Regional Sedimentation Study. If funded, it could help determine how much sediment the proposed dams could remove.
SJRA has not yet identified funding for operations and maintenance. This grant will not cover land acquisition, but will ultimately be required to implement construction.
For this specific application, SJRA received input from HCFCD, Harris County Precinct 4, Harris-Montgomery Counties MUD 386, Montgomery County, and Woodlands Water Agency.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Birch-Dam.jpg?fit=981%2C1200&ssl=11200981adminadmin2020-07-10 18:29:582020-07-10 18:30:10SJRA Applies for TWDB Grant to Study Feasibility of Flood Control Dams in Spring Creek Watershed
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
SJRA Applies for TWDB Grant to Study Feasibility of Flood Control Dams in Spring Creek Watershed
The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) has applied for a $500,000 grant from the Texas Water Development Board’s Flood Infrastructure Fund to study the possibility of building two flood control dams in the upper Spring Creek Watershed.
Spring Creek enters the West Fork and Lake Houston at US59. The watershed extends west from there and covers portions of Montgomery, Harris, Grimes, and Waller Counties. Spring Creek itself acts as the county line between Harris and Montgomery Counties.
Feasibility Study Would Build on Basin-Wide Study
The proposed project builds on a Spring Creek Siting Study, currently underway as part of the San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan project. The latter should be released this fall.
Both have potential to mitigate flooding in the watershed. SJRA anticipates the Master Watershed Drainage Plan will recommend them for implementation. See draft spec sheets below.
Notice that neither of these projects comes close to competing with the Barker or Addicks Reservoirs in terms of acre-feet of storage. At roughly 20,000 acre feet combined, they are roughly one twentieth the size of Barker and Addicks combined. That said, the proposed reservoirs could each still reduce flooding by up to half a foot for 25-40 miles downstream.
Grant Covers Everything Up Through Costing
The next phase of efforts related to the reservoirs will require, at a minimum:
Completion of these tasks will determine feasibility and cost-effectiveness. The grant will also help determine what should proceed to preliminary engineering, final design and construction.
Upstream Benefits of Project
Spring Creek watershed flood mitigation will benefit all areas impacted by Hurricane Harvey, as well as storms in 2016 (Tax Day and Memorial Day), 1994, Tropical Storm Imelda and other recent and historical events.
The most substantial benefits would accrue to structures within the Spring Creek Watershed. SJRA estimates the Birch and Walnut Creek reservoirs could remove 918 and 1,412 structures, from the 100-year floodplain based on Atlas-14 data.
Preliminary benefit/cost ratio (BCR) estimates range from 0.55-0.83 for Birch Creek to 0.78-1.06 for Walnut. However, SJRA feels the combined BCR of the two reservoirs could increase to 2.7 if social benefits typically allowed in FEMA grants are also included.
Downstream Benefits
Project benefits also extend farther downstream. In the event of major storms, the dams could delay water migrating downstream. That would help protect thousands of homes and businesses in the Lake Houston convergence zone. Remember the Plea for DDG (Detention, Dredging and Gates)? Adding to upstream detention was one of the three main strategies advocated by Lake Houston Area leaders after Harvey to reduce flooding.
Therefore, they will provide no water supply benefit. However, they could collect and trap sediment, which would otherwise flow into Spring Creek, the West Fork, and ultimately Lake Houston. That would reduce the loss of water storage in Lake Houston.
Timing and Partners
SJRA says it can complete the study within 18 months, but future design and construction will take longer.
SJRA will submit a separate application for an Upper San Jacinto River Basin Regional Sedimentation Study. If funded, it could help determine how much sediment the proposed dams could remove.
SJRA has not yet identified funding for operations and maintenance. This grant will not cover land acquisition, but will ultimately be required to implement construction.
For this specific application, SJRA received input from HCFCD, Harris County Precinct 4, Harris-Montgomery Counties MUD 386, Montgomery County, and Woodlands Water Agency.
To review the complete grant application, click here.
Next Steps
This is an abridged application. TWDB reviews abridged applications to rank the most important projects and ensure they have funding for them. If the abridged app is approved, SJRA must complete a more thorough application. TWDB will pass judgement on those before the end of the year.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/10/2020
1046 Days after Hurricane Harvey
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