Confluence of Spring Creek (left) and San Jacinto West Fork (top) on March 6, 2020.The Montgomery County line cuts left to right through the center of this picture at the tip of that white sand bar.
If the Clean Water Act were still being enforced, we might see scenes like this less often. You’re looking at the confluence of Spring Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork. It has looked like this during random flyovers in four out of the last six months.
Liberty isn’t the only sand mine on the West Fork. You can find approximately 20 square miles of sand mines in the twenty mile stretch between I-69 and I-45. Spring Creek on the other hand has only one mine – almost 30 miles upstream at SH249.
Most West Fork mines have a tendency to leak waste water from time to time. That’s part of what you see in the photo above. Below are seven NEW breaches spotted this month upstream on the West Fork.
Mine water leaks into wetlands and out past perimeter road at LMI E. River Road mine in Conroe.Pumping water over dike at same Liberty Materials Mine on River Road.At same mine, a pipe through the dike discharges water at a fixed height into an adjoining ditch that leads to the West Fork.Liberty Materials leaks water into backyard of home in Bennett Estates. From here it goes into a storm drain on Calhoun and into the river.Difficult to see at this resolution, there’s a pump in front of the trees on the left. It’s sending waste water into the wetlands below the mine. Hallett sprouts another leak into the West Fork (lower right).Most of these breaches happen out of sight and never get reported.
Another part of the West Fork turbidity problem is upstream construction in Montgomery County. Believe it or not, Montgomery County starts at the tip of that white sand bar at the confluence of Spring Creek and the West Fork.
That’s how you get construction practices like those in the new 2200 acre Artavia complex going in next to the West Fork sand mines, just south of SH242 by FM1314. Brand new culverts are already clogging. See below.
Artavia drainage ditch and culverts. A river of mud.
More on Artavia in a future post.
The erosion is so bad, even the erosion is eroding in many places.
Decline of Clean Water Act
Then, of course, another part of the problem is the gutting of the Federal Clean Water Act. States, counties and municipalities used to have someone setting standards and looking over their shoulders. The rollback of key provisions, such as the redefinition of “waters of the U.S.”, has been heralded as a boon to developers and the death knell of wetlands.
Of course, you don’t have to change regulations to kill them. You can just not enforce them. By turning a blind eye. Gutting enforcement staff. Overruling staff. Reinterpreting policy. Ignoring evidence. Or resetting priorities. To name just a few.
Don’t Know What You Got Till It’s Gone
Many of us who grew up before the Clean Water Act (formerly known as Federal Water Pollution Control Act, passed in 1972) remember how bad things were. Like the Cuyahoga River fire in 1969.
The San Jacinto West Fork has already been named one of the most endangered rivers in America. But my biggest fears are not for the river. They’re for the health of the millions of people who depend on water from the river. For the people who will flood when the river becomes clogged with sediment. For the poor and elderly who can’t afford sky high bills to cover the cost of water treatment. And for the long-term health of the economic hub of the region, Houston.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/14/2020
928 Days after 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/2020/03/20200306-RJR_9506.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-03-14 21:46:342020-03-14 21:47:53Clean Water Act, R.I.P.
Triple P.G. Sand Development LLC appears to have violated provisions of an injunction by dredging before its trail and flooding neighboring properties with industrial waste water.
In part, the injunction stipulated that the defendant shall:
Not conduct any dredging operations at the Facility.
Not engage in any operations at its Facility that discharge process wastewater, nor shall Defendant engage in any operations at the Facility that produce process wastewater that must be discharged off Defendant’s property without express prior approval from TCEQ.
Immediately and permanently cease and prevent all discharges of any Industrial Waste and/or Process Wastewater from the Facility into or adjacent to waters in the state.
Not allow any discharge of water that is in or has ever been in the Facility’s Dredge Ponds without the express prior approval of TCEQ.
Aerial Photos Show Potential Violations
The aerial photos below show that within eight days of agreeing to the injunction, the mine started pumping process wastewater OVER BERMS into a pit that then overflowed onto the property of adjoining landowners and lands adjacent to White Oak Creek.
Before showing you the photos, let me show you a satellite image that helps illustrate the relationship between the different elements of this report.
Overview of mine, area drainage and adjoining properties in Montgomery County. Note the location of the mine’s stockpile in the satellite photo above for orientation when viewing the photos below. Brownish creek to right of mine is Caney Creek. Blue line shows approximate path of White Oak Creek through forest. Red oval shows adjoining properties in area of interest. Solid red line shows ditch around perimeter of mine. Green lines show approximate locations of breaches in Attorney General’s lawsuit.
Water pumped out of the mine’s wastewater pond is now flooding neighboring properties within the red oval that he does not own. The mine also dug a ditch around the perimeter of its property (solid red line) through dense forest that channels the process wastewater toward White Oak Creek (solid blue line) and the wetlands along it. It’s not clear, though, whether the wastewater has actually entered the creek yet; the forest canopy limits visibility. Regardless, the injunction says they can’t discharge waste adjacent to waters of the state.
No Flooding That Lasted Months of Adjoining Properties Until Injunction
None of the historical satellite images in Google Earth dating back to 1989 show flooding in the red oval. Some of the properties in the red oval lie in the 100-year flood plain. However, there has been no widespread flooding in this area since Imelda on September 19, 2019.
Nor has there been prolonged flooding as far as I can determine. Photos taken of this exact location on 9/27/2019, ten days after Imelda, show no flooding of the adjacent properties. Likewise, the property was not flooded on 9/14/2017, two weeks after Harvey. I can find no evidence that this area has ever flooded for months before.
Looking south toward stockpile in background. Properties in the forested strip do not belong to Guniganti. On 9/27/2019, ten days after Imelda, they showed no flooding.
For months, I’ve been watching waste water build higher and higher in the area above until it overflowed the pit and invaded neighboring properties. That made me curious and prompted a review of thousands of aerial photos. Here’s what I found.
Photos Taken In November Before Injunction Show Neighboring Land Still Not Flooded
The neighboring properties were NOT flooded on November 4, 2019 (before the injunction). Notice the level of water in the foreground pit – higher than after Imelda, but still waaaay short of overflowing.
Think of the November 4th photo below as the “before” shot. Compare it with other photos below taken from December through March 2020.
Properties in the red oval are between the pit in the foreground and stockpile in background. Note level of water in pit.Photo taken November 4, 2019, looking south.The mine’s process waste water enters the pit immediately to the left of the trees.
After Injunction, Mine Starts PUMPING Waste Water OVER Dike
Eight days AFTER the injunction, on December 3, 2019, I flew over the mine again. I noticed that the mine was pumping water out of its main waste water pond and into the pit in the photo above. But the pit had not yet overflowed. Here’s how the pumping looked. (Note: You can even see the pumping from outer space if you zoom in on this area within Google Earth and look at the Dec. 1 satellite image.)
Close up of pump taken on 12/3/2019. The pumping operation can also be seen in Google Earth satellite photo dated 12/1/19.
On January 20, Pumping Continues From Different Location
I flew over the mine again on January 20, 2020; the pumping from and into the same pits continued – but from a different location.
Looking West. Notice the line running from the arc in the wastewater pond (diagonally from center to lower right).Looking south. The same line dumps water into the trench (bottom left). The trench then carries the water south (toward the top of the frame) to fill the pond next to the stockpile and flood adjoining properties with waste water.Looking SE. Here’s what it looked like closer up. Notice the waste water extending into the tree line and ending at the stockpile (upper right). The same pond that had plenty of excess capacity in September and November was now overflowing.Looking south. This wider shot shows the flooding wastewater curled around the stockpile and headed south into the woods where White Oak Creek flows toward the mine.Looking SE. Close up of the waste water turning the corner around the stockpile.
From where you lose visibility of the ditch under the forest canopy to White Oak Creek is about 80 yards according to Google Earth.
Floodwaters Even Higher on February 13
On my February 13, 2020, overflight, I captured the following images. They show the floodwater had risen even higher and backed up farther.
Looking SW. On February 13th, the flooding wastewater appeared even higher.Looking SE.It still curled down the ditch on the west (right) side of the mine and flowed into the woodstoward White Oak Creek
Water backed up so far, it even flowed into the utility corridor at the north end of the mine.
Looking East.Water in utility corridor at north end of mineon February 13, 2020
In March, Possible Dredging Observed, Still Flooding Neighboring Properties
In March, one of the first things I noticed was the dredge. The cutterhead, which had been elevated for months, was now DOWN. That usually indicates the dredge is working. And that’s something the injunction prohibited.
Dredge with its cutter head down usually means active dredging.
The pond next to the waste water pit overflowed onto neighboring properties even more. It came right up to the road. Note the huge difference between the levels of the two ponds below.
Note how high the water level is in the pond at the top of the frame compared to the waste pit at the bottom. Looking SW. Floodwaters stretch into adjoining properties. Stockpile is behind trees in upper left.Looking SE. Floodwater still fills the ditch running south along west side of stockpile.Looking NW at wastewater flooding adjoining properties.Stockpile is in lower left.Looking SE. Adjoining properties are in tree strip in front of stockpile. Notice waste water among the trees.Looking north from over stockpile toward vast areaflooded with waste water.Looking west. Even more of utility corridor is flooded in March.
Water In, Water Out
Miners use water to clean silt out of the sand before shipment. Note the damp sand coming off the conveyor belts.Looking south. A river of waste water is seen leaving the processing equipment on March 6, 2020.Looking NW. The silt-laden waste water even forms a delta in the waste pit. Flooded properties are on the other side of the road that cuts diagonally through the frame from middle left to upper right.
So water is leaving the processing equipment and going into the waste pit. It has to come in from somewhere. But where? As you can see from the photos below, the supply lines for the processing equipment come from the dredge pond.
Looking west. Water goes into the processing equipment from the dredge pond.Looking North. Wide shot showing dredge with cutterhead down and discharge pipe leading back to shore.
In the shot above, you can see that the lowest pond in the whole operation is the pond receiving ALL the waste water. Why is that?
The Big Questions and Some Possible Answers
So it appears that the mine is pumping water out of the dredge pit, into the waste pit, and finally into the surrounding forest. The big questions are these.
Why is the mine keeping the level of the water in the waste pit so low?
Why is the mine flooding the surrounding forest and neighboring properties with industrial waste water?
Is the waste water polluting White Oak Creek?
To hypothesize some answers to those questions, let’s look at two pictures: the first from February and the second from March.
Looking south. February 20, 2020. Miners have been removing sand from area with all the tracks in the center and the big pond at the lower left.
From this one photo, we can see that to avoid dredging (per the injunction), the miners have started surface mining. But the level of mining is getting down to a) the water table, and b) the level of the waste pit.
Looking NW. March 6, 2020. Three weeks later, mining is now BELOW level of water in the waste pit.
Note the differing levels of water in the forest (top) and waste pit (middle). Also note that the level of the surface mining has now gone far below the level of sediment in the waste pond.
From this photo (and others in the series) we can conjecture what happened. Please note: I have no proof of this. It is only conjecture.
Theory for the Discharge
I suspect that the mine realized that if it were to continue filling orders while it waited for trial on June 22, 2020, it would need to start surface mining AND mine below the level of water in the waste pit. So, I’m guessing they started lowering the level of the pond to keep mining as long as possible.
I’m also guessing that the terms of the injunction and heightened scrutiny by the TCEQ meant they could no longer make excuses about discharging water into the creek. So they discharged into the forest instead…most of which Guniganti owns except for that strip north of the stockpile. If the discharge drained into White Oak Creek deep in the forest, at least it wouldn’t be visible.
Is Discharge Reaching White Oak Creek?
Is the waste-water pollution reaching White Oak Creek? Because of the dense forest canopy, that’s impossible to determine from the air. One could only tell from the ground. And because Guniganti owns all the land around the mine (except for the properties in the red circle), the only way to determine that would be by trespassing. That makes it impossible for ordinary citizens to spot any illegal discharge, such as Tony Buzbee did when he was running for Mayor of Houston. Fortunately, the TCEQ has the right to inspect the property from the ground if it suspects a violation of the restraining order. And they are investigating this.
Summary of Potential Violations
This whole affair once again raises questions about whether sand mines should be permitted in floodways. This mine actually sits at the confluence of TWO. Which is part of the reason why it was sued by the attorney general in the first place. Both Caney and White Oak Creeks captured the pit last year and the TCEQ estimates millions of gallons of process waste water were discharged without a permit into the headwaters of Lake Houston.
Meanwhile, Triple PG appears to be discharging again without the benefit of storms to blame the behavior on. They also appear to be violating terms of their injunction by:
Dredging
Discharging process wastewater
Producing process wastewater that had to be discharged off their property.
Discharging water that had been in the Facility’s Dredge Ponds.
Discharging Industrial Waste and/or Process Wastewater adjacent to waters of the state (White Oak Creek)
I have contacted the TCEQ twice already about whether they permitted any of these activities. They have not responded yet, citing the ongoing investigation. However, I must believe that had they permitted the activities, they would not be investigating and would have replied immediately. They visited the site yesterday.
Posted by Bob Rehak on March 13, 2020
927 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 176 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/2020/03/20200306-RJR_0052.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-03-13 20:13:412020-03-14 10:49:56Triple PG Mine Appears to Violate Injunction
The State of Texas, Harris County and the City of Houston are whittling down the mouth bar of the San Jacinto West Fork – teaspoon by teaspoon. Just kidding; it only feels that way.
At the planned rate, the partners will remove approximately one third to one half of the planned 400,000 cubic yards of sediment by the start of hurricane season. But after waiting two and a half years since Hurricane Harvey, any and all progress is welcome! I’m not complaining.
The Mouth Bar Immediately After Harvey
Harvey deposited massive amounts of sediment in the area where the San Jacinto meets Lake Houston.
The mouth bar two weeks after Hurricane Harvey. With the exception of the treed areas on the extreme right, Harvey deposited virtually all the sand you see here plus more that you can’t see underwater.
The mouth bar formed where it did because the river water slows down when it meets the lake. The lower velocity causes sediment to drop out of suspension and accumulate faster.
While the Corps used hydraulic dredging to remove 500,000 cubic yards from the mouth bar in three months, the current phase uses mechanical dredging. Partners hope to remove another 400,000 cubic yards in 12 months. The process resembles whittling in that workers remove small chunks at a time.
Big Machines Dwarfed by Size of Job
Mechanical dredging uses large excavators. They load the sediment on pontoons. Tugs then push the pontoons upriver to a placement area. There, skid loaders remove the sediment and put it in trucks. The trucks cart it inland.
The excavators are currently nibbling away at the southern edge of the bar. I took all photos below on 3/6/2020.
Excavators are nibbling row after row, like from an ear of corn. This shot shows the immensity of the task.They load one pontoon while another waits. The West Fork now has its own shuttle service.Unfortunately, round trip is still more than two hours.These double pontoons can carry an estimated 160 cubic yards. Project goal: 400,000 cubic yards. That’s about 2,500 round trips for the pontoons.Keeping the pontoon balanced requires coordination.Tugs then push the pontoons upstream.Dock of the placement area on Berry Madden’s property south of the West Fork, opposite River Grove Park boat dock on north shore.From there, trucks haul the sediment inland out of the floodway, about a mile from the river. And the cycle repeats itself.
Mechanical vs. Hydraulic Dredging
The whole process resembles a five-mile long conveyor belt. It involves excavators, pontoons, tugs, trucks and more. Both mechanical and hydraulic dredging have advantages and disadvantages. Hydraulic dredging takes more time to mobilize, but re-suspends less sediment, and costs less per cubic yard of sediment removed. Mechanical dredging, on the other hand, can mobilize much faster.
At this point, returning to hydraulic dredging feels like a distant dream. No one is commenting on the possibility. But this picture speaks volumes.
Former Army Corps command post for West Fork Emergency Dredging project
It shows the once-bustling, but now-empty Army Corps command post. Just three months ago, it was filled with dredge pipe, spare parts, construction trailers, pontoons, booster pumps, survey boats, and more. Getting all that equipment back will be difficult.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/12/2020
926 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/20200306-RJR_9728.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-03-12 15:32:312020-03-12 15:34:58Whittling Down the San Jacinto West Fork Mouth Bar
Clean Water Act, R.I.P.
If the Clean Water Act were still being enforced, we might see scenes like this less often. You’re looking at the confluence of Spring Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork. It has looked like this during random flyovers in four out of the last six months.
Clean Water Act Abuses
Only after the infamous and extreme white-water incident in November last year was West Fork pollution reduced briefly. The white-water episode was so egregious that it attracted network television attention and prompted a crackdown by the TCEQ. TCEQ cited Liberty Materials in Conroe for allegedly discharging 56 million gallons of white goop into the West Fork. The discharge had 25 times the normal level of suspended solids in it.
Liberty isn’t the only sand mine on the West Fork. You can find approximately 20 square miles of sand mines in the twenty mile stretch between I-69 and I-45. Spring Creek on the other hand has only one mine – almost 30 miles upstream at SH249.
Most West Fork mines have a tendency to leak waste water from time to time. That’s part of what you see in the photo above. Below are seven NEW breaches spotted this month upstream on the West Fork.
MoCo Tax Breaks for Polluters
Why such a high concentration of mines on the West Fork? It might have something to do with tax breaks by the Montgomery County Appraiser’s Office which passes out ag and timber exemptions for industrial cesspools. That’s contrary to how the State Controller says MoCo should appraise the mines. But nobody at the state level seems to put much pressure on MoCo.
Construction Practices Muddy Clean Water Act, Too
Another part of the West Fork turbidity problem is upstream construction in Montgomery County. Believe it or not, Montgomery County starts at the tip of that white sand bar at the confluence of Spring Creek and the West Fork.
Sediment control is not a high priority for MoCo developers. Nor is enforcement a high priority for MoCo. In fact, the East Montgomery County Improvement District actively advertises its LACK of rules as a way to lure developers.
That’s how you get construction practices like those in the new 2200 acre Artavia complex going in next to the West Fork sand mines, just south of SH242 by FM1314. Brand new culverts are already clogging. See below.
More on Artavia in a future post.
Decline of Clean Water Act
Then, of course, another part of the problem is the gutting of the Federal Clean Water Act. States, counties and municipalities used to have someone setting standards and looking over their shoulders. The rollback of key provisions, such as the redefinition of “waters of the U.S.”, has been heralded as a boon to developers and the death knell of wetlands.
Just last week, we saw the Army Corps rule that the wetlands on Perry Homes Woodridge Village property did NOT fall under their jurisdiction, so there was no violation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Of course, you don’t have to change regulations to kill them. You can just not enforce them. By turning a blind eye. Gutting enforcement staff. Overruling staff. Reinterpreting policy. Ignoring evidence. Or resetting priorities. To name just a few.
Don’t Know What You Got Till It’s Gone
Many of us who grew up before the Clean Water Act (formerly known as Federal Water Pollution Control Act, passed in 1972) remember how bad things were. Like the Cuyahoga River fire in 1969.
The San Jacinto West Fork has already been named one of the most endangered rivers in America. But my biggest fears are not for the river. They’re for the health of the millions of people who depend on water from the river. For the people who will flood when the river becomes clogged with sediment. For the poor and elderly who can’t afford sky high bills to cover the cost of water treatment. And for the long-term health of the economic hub of the region, Houston.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/14/2020
928 Days after 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.
Triple PG Mine Appears to Violate Injunction
Triple P.G. Sand Development LLC appears to have violated provisions of an injunction by dredging before its trail and flooding neighboring properties with industrial waste water.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing the mine for discharging millions of gallons of process wastewater into the headwaters of Lake Houston last year. On November 25th, 2019, the mining company (operated by a cardiologist from Nacogdoches, Tx., Prabhakar Guniganti, MD), agreed to the terms of a temporary injunction. Within days, his employees apparently started violating it.
Terms of Injunction
In part, the injunction stipulated that the defendant shall:
Aerial Photos Show Potential Violations
Before showing you the photos, let me show you a satellite image that helps illustrate the relationship between the different elements of this report.
Note the location of the mine’s stockpile in the satellite photo above for orientation when viewing the photos below.
Brownish creek to right of mine is Caney Creek.
Blue line shows approximate path of White Oak Creek through forest.
Red oval shows adjoining properties in area of interest.
Solid red line shows ditch around perimeter of mine.
Green lines show approximate locations of breaches in Attorney General’s lawsuit.
The lot lines are from the Montgomery County Appraisal District Web Site. The properties within the red oval belong to multiple people or trusts. Guniganti owns the large forested areas outside the red oval and west of the mine. However…
No Flooding That Lasted Months of Adjoining Properties Until Injunction
None of the historical satellite images in Google Earth dating back to 1989 show flooding in the red oval. Some of the properties in the red oval lie in the 100-year flood plain. However, there has been no widespread flooding in this area since Imelda on September 19, 2019.
Nor has there been prolonged flooding as far as I can determine. Photos taken of this exact location on 9/27/2019, ten days after Imelda, show no flooding of the adjacent properties. Likewise, the property was not flooded on 9/14/2017, two weeks after Harvey. I can find no evidence that this area has ever flooded for months before.
For months, I’ve been watching waste water build higher and higher in the area above until it overflowed the pit and invaded neighboring properties. That made me curious and prompted a review of thousands of aerial photos. Here’s what I found.
Photos Taken In November Before Injunction Show Neighboring Land Still Not Flooded
The neighboring properties were NOT flooded on November 4, 2019 (before the injunction). Notice the level of water in the foreground pit – higher than after Imelda, but still waaaay short of overflowing.
Think of the November 4th photo below as the “before” shot. Compare it with other photos below taken from December through March 2020.
After Injunction, Mine Starts PUMPING Waste Water OVER Dike
Eight days AFTER the injunction, on December 3, 2019, I flew over the mine again. I noticed that the mine was pumping water out of its main waste water pond and into the pit in the photo above. But the pit had not yet overflowed. Here’s how the pumping looked. (Note: You can even see the pumping from outer space if you zoom in on this area within Google Earth and look at the Dec. 1 satellite image.)
On January 20, Pumping Continues From Different Location
I flew over the mine again on January 20, 2020; the pumping from and into the same pits continued – but from a different location.
Floodwaters Even Higher on February 13
On my February 13, 2020, overflight, I captured the following images. They show the floodwater had risen even higher and backed up farther.
Water backed up so far, it even flowed into the utility corridor at the north end of the mine.
In March, Possible Dredging Observed, Still Flooding Neighboring Properties
In March, one of the first things I noticed was the dredge. The cutterhead, which had been elevated for months, was now DOWN. That usually indicates the dredge is working. And that’s something the injunction prohibited.
The pond next to the waste water pit overflowed onto neighboring properties even more. It came right up to the road. Note the huge difference between the levels of the two ponds below.
Water In, Water Out
So water is leaving the processing equipment and going into the waste pit. It has to come in from somewhere. But where? As you can see from the photos below, the supply lines for the processing equipment come from the dredge pond.
In the shot above, you can see that the lowest pond in the whole operation is the pond receiving ALL the waste water. Why is that?
The Big Questions and Some Possible Answers
So it appears that the mine is pumping water out of the dredge pit, into the waste pit, and finally into the surrounding forest. The big questions are these.
To hypothesize some answers to those questions, let’s look at two pictures: the first from February and the second from March.
From this one photo, we can see that to avoid dredging (per the injunction), the miners have started surface mining. But the level of mining is getting down to a) the water table, and b) the level of the waste pit.
Note the differing levels of water in the forest (top) and waste pit (middle). Also note that the level of the surface mining has now gone far below the level of sediment in the waste pond.
From this photo (and others in the series) we can conjecture what happened. Please note: I have no proof of this. It is only conjecture.
Theory for the Discharge
I suspect that the mine realized that if it were to continue filling orders while it waited for trial on June 22, 2020, it would need to start surface mining AND mine below the level of water in the waste pit. So, I’m guessing they started lowering the level of the pond to keep mining as long as possible.
I’m also guessing that the terms of the injunction and heightened scrutiny by the TCEQ meant they could no longer make excuses about discharging water into the creek. So they discharged into the forest instead…most of which Guniganti owns except for that strip north of the stockpile. If the discharge drained into White Oak Creek deep in the forest, at least it wouldn’t be visible.
Is Discharge Reaching White Oak Creek?
Is the waste-water pollution reaching White Oak Creek? Because of the dense forest canopy, that’s impossible to determine from the air. One could only tell from the ground. And because Guniganti owns all the land around the mine (except for the properties in the red circle), the only way to determine that would be by trespassing. That makes it impossible for ordinary citizens to spot any illegal discharge, such as Tony Buzbee did when he was running for Mayor of Houston. Fortunately, the TCEQ has the right to inspect the property from the ground if it suspects a violation of the restraining order. And they are investigating this.
Summary of Potential Violations
This whole affair once again raises questions about whether sand mines should be permitted in floodways. This mine actually sits at the confluence of TWO. Which is part of the reason why it was sued by the attorney general in the first place. Both Caney and White Oak Creeks captured the pit last year and the TCEQ estimates millions of gallons of process waste water were discharged without a permit into the headwaters of Lake Houston.
Meanwhile, Triple PG appears to be discharging again without the benefit of storms to blame the behavior on. They also appear to be violating terms of their injunction by:
I have contacted the TCEQ twice already about whether they permitted any of these activities. They have not responded yet, citing the ongoing investigation. However, I must believe that had they permitted the activities, they would not be investigating and would have replied immediately. They visited the site yesterday.
Posted by Bob Rehak on March 13, 2020
927 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 176 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.
Whittling Down the San Jacinto West Fork Mouth Bar
The State of Texas, Harris County and the City of Houston are whittling down the mouth bar of the San Jacinto West Fork – teaspoon by teaspoon. Just kidding; it only feels that way.
At the planned rate, the partners will remove approximately one third to one half of the planned 400,000 cubic yards of sediment by the start of hurricane season. But after waiting two and a half years since Hurricane Harvey, any and all progress is welcome! I’m not complaining.
The Mouth Bar Immediately After Harvey
Harvey deposited massive amounts of sediment in the area where the San Jacinto meets Lake Houston.
The Army Corps of Engineers dredged a 600-acre area south of the mouth bar three feet deeper last summer. However, they barely touched the part of the mouth bar above water.
The mouth bar created a sediment dam behind the Lake Houston Dam that contributed to flooding more than 4100 structures in the Humble, Kingwood, and Atascocita areas.
Why Mouth Bar Formed Where It Did
While the Corps used hydraulic dredging to remove 500,000 cubic yards from the mouth bar in three months, the current phase uses mechanical dredging. Partners hope to remove another 400,000 cubic yards in 12 months. The process resembles whittling in that workers remove small chunks at a time.
Big Machines Dwarfed by Size of Job
Mechanical dredging uses large excavators. They load the sediment on pontoons. Tugs then push the pontoons upriver to a placement area. There, skid loaders remove the sediment and put it in trucks. The trucks cart it inland.
The excavators are currently nibbling away at the southern edge of the bar. I took all photos below on 3/6/2020.
Mechanical vs. Hydraulic Dredging
The whole process resembles a five-mile long conveyor belt. It involves excavators, pontoons, tugs, trucks and more. Both mechanical and hydraulic dredging have advantages and disadvantages. Hydraulic dredging takes more time to mobilize, but re-suspends less sediment, and costs less per cubic yard of sediment removed. Mechanical dredging, on the other hand, can mobilize much faster.
At this point, returning to hydraulic dredging feels like a distant dream. No one is commenting on the possibility. But this picture speaks volumes.
It shows the once-bustling, but now-empty Army Corps command post. Just three months ago, it was filled with dredge pipe, spare parts, construction trailers, pontoons, booster pumps, survey boats, and more. Getting all that equipment back will be difficult.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/12/2020
926 Days since Hurricane Harvey