On January 10, Mayor Sylvester Turner wrote the SJRA Board to support continued lowering of Lake Conroe. “This temporary measure,” said the Mayor, “will help mitigate against future flooding until permanent flood gates can be installed and dredging of the San Jacinto’s West Fork can be completed.”
Reminding LCA Who Owns the Water
The Mayor also reminded the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) that the City of Houston owns two thirds of the water in Lake Conroe.
Changing the LCA Narrative
Turner also addressed an LCA narrative that claims Lake Conroe was not built for flood control. It was built for drinking water, they say. But the letter changes that narrative. It says, “While the lake was originally constructed as a reservoir for drinking water, the Houston region has become increasingly prone to flooding due to population growth, development and more frequent storms with record rainfall. Both the City of Houston and the State of Texas recognize that flood control must be a consideration. The proactive release water is an effective measure until more permanent solutions can be completed.” See the full text of the Mayor’s letter below.
I have not always agreed with Mayor Turner, but I support him wholeheartedly on this.
Clash of Political Titans
Tuesday, Montgomery County Commissioners will vote on a resolution recommending to END the seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe.
I suspect Harris County Commissioners and the governor may enter this fray before the final vote.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/14/2019
868 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1.10.2020-Lake-Conroe-Water-Level-NA.doc.jpg?fit=1700%2C2200&ssl=122001700adminadmin2020-01-13 23:31:352020-01-17 08:54:29Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner Supports Continuing to Lower Lake Conroe Seasonally to Help Mitigate Flooding
To avert another seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe, the Lake Conroe Association is appealing to State Representatives, State Senators, the Governor, the Conroe City Council, and Montgomery County Commissioners. They focus on the temporary loss of recreation in some parts of the lake. They also say that “damages” home values and businesses.
Finally, they’re telling officials there’s no proof that lowering the lake helps prevent downstream flooding and that it wastes $10 million of water.
They are NOT telling officials, however, that ending the program before other mitigation measures are in place could potentially open up the SJRA and State of Texas to billions of dollars in law suits.
Fifth Amendment “Takings Clause”
The issue has to do with the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It says that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation. This so-called takings clause forms the basis for many of the lawsuits against the SJRA stemming from Harvey flooding. Those have not yet gone to trial. But lawsuits in a parallel case have.
He said the flooding of homes was a foreseeable result of government actions.
Rulings in Addicks/Barker Cases
“U.S. Judge Charles F. Lettow detailed how government officials knowingly and intentionally used private property to store rising floodwaters,” said a Houston Chronicle article about the decision. The key point in the case, according to the judge: The government knew for decades that the reservoirs could NOT contain the floodwaters in a deluge and did NOTHING over decades to prevent it. “Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated that the inundation of floodwaters onto their private property was the ‘direct, natural, or probable result’ of the government’s activity,” he wrote.
How Addicks Case Applies to SJRA Lake Lowering Policy
Hold that thought. Now apply those principles to the SJRA today. It faces a decision between the temporary seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe or NOT lowering the lake. Not lowering the lake would placate recreational boaters and lakefront property owners like LCA president Mike Bleier (who did not flood during Harvey).
That’s almost 6000 structures on the West Fork. One structure might include a whole apartment complex housing hundreds of families, a shopping center employing hundreds, a high school with 4000 students, a hotel providing housing to flood victims or a hospital treating them.
None of these numbers includes damages to East Fork property, which Lake Conroe releases do not affect
Now let’s assume that the SJRA eliminates the seasonal lowering policy which it has publicly stated prevented flooding twice so far.
Let’s also assume that a big storm comes along that dumps 10-12 inches of rain on Lake Conroe and that because that buffer no longer exists, people flood again.
Parallels
Lake Conroe and downstream residents now have a ready-made, almost watertight case against the SJRA and its financial backer, the State of Texas. All the essential elements from the Barker/Addicks decision are there.
Government knew that downstream flooding was likely.
SJRA had a proven strategy at its disposal to reduce flooding.
SJRA chose not to use the strategy, which the governor endorsed.
Governor had made flood mitigation a top priority for SJRA.
SJRA chose instead to increase recreational possibilities on public property (Lake Conroe).
Private property then flooded as a foreseeable result.
It seems like a pretty close parallel to me. Perhaps it’s even more of a textbook case. Especially considering recent directives by the governor for the SJRA to focus on flood mitigation and his public endorsement of the lake lowering strategy.
Mandates in SJRA Enabling Legislation
The state created the SJRA to “conserve, control, and utilize to beneficial service the storm and flood waters of the rivers and streams of the State.” Section 2 of the enabling legislation mentions floodwaters three times. It doesn’t mention recreational boating or lakefront home values once.
In addition, the enabling legislation also says that the purpose of the SJRA is to:
Prevent the devastation of land from recurrent overflows.
Protect life and property.
Regulate the waters of the San Jacinto River and its tributaries.
Conserve “soils against destructive erosion … thereby preventing the increased flood menace incident thereto.”
If the SJRA floods people again when it might have been avoided, this sounds more and more like a slam-dunk case for plaintiffs.
That includes understanding how the seasonal lowering strategy helps. It is designed more for “less than 100-year” rain events, than it is for another Harvey. Another Harvey would fill up that 1-2 foot buffer quickly and repeatedly. The value of the strategy lies in offsetting storms that we experience far more frequently, but which could still flood people, such as those last May.
For Those Who Have Never Personally Flooded
Before closing, I’d like to publish several images that West Fork residents Rhonda Haney and Alexis Faust sent me. The images show their Harvey experiences. Thank God, most Lake Conroe residents didn’t have to suffer through what Rhonda and Alexis did. Most Lake Conroe residents may not know the financial and emotional devastation of flooding. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
Harvey Photo courtesy of Alexis FaustHarvey Photo courtesy of Rhonda Haney
Harvey Photo courtesy of Rhonda Haney
Harvey Photo courtesy of Rhonda Haney
Harvey Photo courtesy of Alexis Faust
Harvey Photo courtesy of Alexis Faust
Harvey Photo courtesy of Alexis Faust
Posted By Bob Rehak on 1/13/2019 with thanks to Alexis Faust and Rhonda Haney for sharing their photos
867 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/2020/01/Alexis-Lehman.jpg?fit=900%2C1200&ssl=11200900adminadmin2020-01-13 00:49:342020-01-17 08:53:24Legal Aspect of Lake Lowering That Lake Conroe Association Won’t Tell Officials About
Woodridge Still Far Short of Promised Detention Capacity
After about 15 months of working on the Woodridge Village site, Perry Homes still has only 23% of the detention capacity installed. And even that does not yet meet Montgomery County regulations (see below). None of the work this week focused on new detention ponds that would reduce flood risk for Elm Grove residents.
Perry Homes had promised to build three ponds on the northern section. But they have not started any of those yet.
And Far Behind Schedule
On October 17th last year, an attorney for Perry Homes, J. Carey Gray, promised the Houston City attorney that Perry would have S2 completed in no more than 45 days. It has now been 86 days since Mr. Gray sent his letter and the work is still far from complete. I’m sure this creates an embarrassment to the Mayor of Houston, especially considering that Perry Homes gave $5000 to his re-election campaign. It creates the appearance of trying to buy favors.
Put 30-foot wide maintenance roads around the ponds.
Place backslope interceptor swales around the ponds.
Have effective erosion control measures in place.
Implement protective measures for their overflow spillway.
Prevent increases in downstream flood levels.
Prepare a geotechnical report (that they shared with Montgomery County) showing groundwater levels at detention pond sites.
Ensure complete drainage of the detention pond.
Detention Pond Falls Short of Promised Capacity
Calculations for the capacity of the detention ponds begin from the bottom of the pond – when empty. When partially filled with water, the calculation begins from the top of the water. The bottom 2-3 feet of S2 has retained water for months, indicating that part of the pond is below the water table. So you can subtract about 20% of capacity that LJA Engineering promised and that Rebel Contractors initially built.
The flurry of work this week centered around creating the maintenance road that regulations demand. Or perhaps Perry is just building up the lip of S2 to compensate for the water it holds. Both are potentially good things.
However, workers also started filling the backslope interceptor swales they previously built. This created a sharp slope next to neighboring residents’ property and increased runoff toward the residents during last night’s rain.
Contractors placing dirt along the southern edge of the S1 pond to build a roadearlier in the week.
Elm Grove Trail on left. Woodridge Village on right of silt fence. Note how land is being sloped toward Elm Grove.
An interceptorswale collects water above slopes and diverts it to the bottom of a detention pond through pipes so runoff does not create erosion on the slopes that lead to the pond.
Perry Homes has given no reason why they started filling in the swale they previously built that complied with MoCo regulations.
Looking west from Village Springs Drive. In the foreground, you can see how workers built a road and filled in the interceptor swale between it and Elm Grove on the left.Still looking west. From this drain pipe, you can better see the grassy swale previously created to drain water into the detention pond (right) and to keep it out of Elm Grove (left).Reverse shot, looking east. Here you can see how workers filled in the swale and created a road three to four feet high. Residents worry about the effect.Looking east near the entrance to Taylor Gully from the road, the change in drainage toward Elm Grove (right) becomes very apparent. Picture taken Friday afternoon before rain. Road was uncompacted except for the weight of the small bulldozer spreading dirt (see first picture above).
Same Changes Between S1 and Sherwood Trails
The same changes appear along the southern edge of S1, north of Sherwood Trails, though the road does not appear as high and there also appears to be a shallow swale.
Looking west along the southern edge of Woodridge Village S1 detention pond, toward Woodland Hills from Fair Grove.
No Effective Erosion Control Yet
Perry Homes has also failed to put effective erosion control measures in place in Woodridge Village. For instance, most pond banks do not yet have grass planted on them.
The new road covered up what little grass had grown around the ponds. And raw dirt now fills the former interceptor swale.
A one-inch rain last night swept sediment into the pond, which emptied into Taylor Gully and Caney Creek before joining the East Fork of the San Jacinto.
Massive Pollution
Boater Josh Alberson took the dramatic picture below this afternoon where Caney Creek joins the East Fork. The East Fork water looks natural, but the water coming from Caney Creek via Taylor Gully is clouded with sediment. Woodridge Village is the only large source of exposed earth up Taylor Gully at this time. (Alberson verified that this sediment-laden runoff was NOT coming from the Triple PG mine up White Oak Creek.)
Water from Taylor Gully (right) merging with East Fork water (left) on Saturday afternoon, 1/11/2020, after a 1-inch rain last night.
Posted by Bob Rehak with images from Josh Alberson, Edythe Cogdill and Nancy Vera
865 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 114 since Imelda
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/RoadNoSwale.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2020-01-11 22:51:072020-01-11 22:55:48Perry Homes’ Contractors Return to Woodridge Village, But Undo Some Previous Work, Add to Sediment-Laden Runoff
Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner Supports Continuing to Lower Lake Conroe Seasonally to Help Mitigate Flooding
On January 10, Mayor Sylvester Turner wrote the SJRA Board to support continued lowering of Lake Conroe. “This temporary measure,” said the Mayor, “will help mitigate against future flooding until permanent flood gates can be installed and dredging of the San Jacinto’s West Fork can be completed.”
Reminding LCA Who Owns the Water
The Mayor also reminded the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) that the City of Houston owns two thirds of the water in Lake Conroe.
Changing the LCA Narrative
Turner also addressed an LCA narrative that claims Lake Conroe was not built for flood control. It was built for drinking water, they say. But the letter changes that narrative. It says, “While the lake was originally constructed as a reservoir for drinking water, the Houston region has become increasingly prone to flooding due to population growth, development and more frequent storms with record rainfall. Both the City of Houston and the State of Texas recognize that flood control must be a consideration. The proactive release water is an effective measure until more permanent solutions can be completed.” See the full text of the Mayor’s letter below.
I have not always agreed with Mayor Turner, but I support him wholeheartedly on this.
Clash of Political Titans
Tuesday, Montgomery County Commissioners will vote on a resolution recommending to END the seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe.
I suspect Harris County Commissioners and the governor may enter this fray before the final vote.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/14/2019
868 Days after Hurricane Harvey
Legal Aspect of Lake Lowering That Lake Conroe Association Won’t Tell Officials About
To avert another seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe, the Lake Conroe Association is appealing to State Representatives, State Senators, the Governor, the Conroe City Council, and Montgomery County Commissioners. They focus on the temporary loss of recreation in some parts of the lake. They also say that “damages” home values and businesses.
Finally, they’re telling officials there’s no proof that lowering the lake helps prevent downstream flooding and that it wastes $10 million of water.
They are NOT telling officials, however, that ending the program before other mitigation measures are in place could potentially open up the SJRA and State of Texas to billions of dollars in law suits.
Fifth Amendment “Takings Clause”
The issue has to do with the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It says that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation. This so-called takings clause forms the basis for many of the lawsuits against the SJRA stemming from Harvey flooding. Those have not yet gone to trial. But lawsuits in a parallel case have.
In December, a federal judge ruled in favor of plaintiffs flooded behind the Addicks and Barker reservoirs. He found the Army Corps liable for damages.
Rulings in Addicks/Barker Cases
“U.S. Judge Charles F. Lettow detailed how government officials knowingly and intentionally used private property to store rising floodwaters,” said a Houston Chronicle article about the decision. The key point in the case, according to the judge: The government knew for decades that the reservoirs could NOT contain the floodwaters in a deluge and did NOTHING over decades to prevent it. “Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated that the inundation of floodwaters onto their private property was the ‘direct, natural, or probable result’ of the government’s activity,” he wrote.
How Addicks Case Applies to SJRA Lake Lowering Policy
Hold that thought. Now apply those principles to the SJRA today. It faces a decision between the temporary seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe or NOT lowering the lake. Not lowering the lake would placate recreational boaters and lakefront property owners like LCA president Mike Bleier (who did not flood during Harvey).
The lowering provides a buffer against flooding for BOTH Lake Conroe and downstream communities on the West Fork of the San Jacinto. They include Woodloch, Porter, Humble, Atascocita and Kingwood. During Harvey, approximately 300 structures flooded on Lake Conroe, 1100 between Lake Conroe and US59, 3652 in Kingwood along the West Fork, 366 in Atascocita, and 466 in Humble.
That’s almost 6000 structures on the West Fork. One structure might include a whole apartment complex housing hundreds of families, a shopping center employing hundreds, a high school with 4000 students, a hotel providing housing to flood victims or a hospital treating them.
None of these numbers includes damages to East Fork property, which Lake Conroe releases do not affect
Now let’s assume that the SJRA eliminates the seasonal lowering policy which it has publicly stated prevented flooding twice so far.
Let’s also assume that a big storm comes along that dumps 10-12 inches of rain on Lake Conroe and that because that buffer no longer exists, people flood again.
Parallels
Lake Conroe and downstream residents now have a ready-made, almost watertight case against the SJRA and its financial backer, the State of Texas. All the essential elements from the Barker/Addicks decision are there.
It seems like a pretty close parallel to me. Perhaps it’s even more of a textbook case. Especially considering recent directives by the governor for the SJRA to focus on flood mitigation and his public endorsement of the lake lowering strategy.
Mandates in SJRA Enabling Legislation
The state created the SJRA to “conserve, control, and utilize to beneficial service the storm and flood waters of the rivers and streams of the State.” Section 2 of the enabling legislation mentions floodwaters three times. It doesn’t mention recreational boating or lakefront home values once.
In addition, the enabling legislation also says that the purpose of the SJRA is to:
Officials Should Get the Facts
Before Montgomery County Commissioners, the Conroe City Council, Representative Will Metcalf and Senator Robert Nichols fire off more letters telling the SJRA what to do based on Mike Bleier’s misinformation, one hopes they would at least ask for a briefing from the SJRA to get the whole picture.
That includes understanding how the seasonal lowering strategy helps. It is designed more for “less than 100-year” rain events, than it is for another Harvey. Another Harvey would fill up that 1-2 foot buffer quickly and repeatedly. The value of the strategy lies in offsetting storms that we experience far more frequently, but which could still flood people, such as those last May.
For Those Who Have Never Personally Flooded
Before closing, I’d like to publish several images that West Fork residents Rhonda Haney and Alexis Faust sent me. The images show their Harvey experiences. Thank God, most Lake Conroe residents didn’t have to suffer through what Rhonda and Alexis did. Most Lake Conroe residents may not know the financial and emotional devastation of flooding. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
Posted By Bob Rehak on 1/13/2019 with thanks to Alexis Faust and Rhonda Haney for sharing their photos
867 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.
Perry Homes’ Contractors Return to Woodridge Village, But Undo Some Previous Work, Add to Sediment-Laden Runoff
After pulling all construction equipment from the Woodridge Village site in December, Perry Homes’ contractors returned this week. They are still working on the S2 (second southern) detention pond. But the new work appears to undo some previous work, and make sediment-laden runoff worse.
Woodridge Still Far Short of Promised Detention Capacity
After about 15 months of working on the Woodridge Village site, Perry Homes still has only 23% of the detention capacity installed. And even that does not yet meet Montgomery County regulations (see below). None of the work this week focused on new detention ponds that would reduce flood risk for Elm Grove residents.
And Far Behind Schedule
On October 17th last year, an attorney for Perry Homes, J. Carey Gray, promised the Houston City attorney that Perry would have S2 completed in no more than 45 days. It has now been 86 days since Mr. Gray sent his letter and the work is still far from complete. I’m sure this creates an embarrassment to the Mayor of Houston, especially considering that Perry Homes gave $5000 to his re-election campaign. It creates the appearance of trying to buy favors.
Still Does Not Comply With MoCo Regulations
I previously detailed seven Montgomery County regulations that Perry Homes’ detention ponds did not meet. Perry Homes did not:
Detention Pond Falls Short of Promised Capacity
Calculations for the capacity of the detention ponds begin from the bottom of the pond – when empty. When partially filled with water, the calculation begins from the top of the water. The bottom 2-3 feet of S2 has retained water for months, indicating that part of the pond is below the water table. So you can subtract about 20% of capacity that LJA Engineering promised and that Rebel Contractors initially built.
Adding Maintenance Road, Subtracting Backslope Swales
The flurry of work this week centered around creating the maintenance road that regulations demand. Or perhaps Perry is just building up the lip of S2 to compensate for the water it holds. Both are potentially good things.
However, workers also started filling the backslope interceptor swales they previously built. This created a sharp slope next to neighboring residents’ property and increased runoff toward the residents during last night’s rain.
An interceptor swale collects water above slopes and diverts it to the bottom of a detention pond through pipes so runoff does not create erosion on the slopes that lead to the pond.
Same Changes Between S1 and Sherwood Trails
The same changes appear along the southern edge of S1, north of Sherwood Trails, though the road does not appear as high and there also appears to be a shallow swale.
No Effective Erosion Control Yet
Perry Homes has also failed to put effective erosion control measures in place in Woodridge Village. For instance, most pond banks do not yet have grass planted on them.
The new road covered up what little grass had grown around the ponds. And raw dirt now fills the former interceptor swale.
A one-inch rain last night swept sediment into the pond, which emptied into Taylor Gully and Caney Creek before joining the East Fork of the San Jacinto.
Massive Pollution
Boater Josh Alberson took the dramatic picture below this afternoon where Caney Creek joins the East Fork. The East Fork water looks natural, but the water coming from Caney Creek via Taylor Gully is clouded with sediment. Woodridge Village is the only large source of exposed earth up Taylor Gully at this time. (Alberson verified that this sediment-laden runoff was NOT coming from the Triple PG mine up White Oak Creek.)
Posted by Bob Rehak with images from Josh Alberson, Edythe Cogdill and Nancy Vera
865 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 114 since Imelda
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.