As we enter 2020, keep your eyes on these stories.
Elm Grove Lawsuits and Mitigation
In 2019, Elm Grove flooded twice with runoff from the Perry Homes/Woodridge Village development in Montgomery County. Hundreds of homeowners sued Perry Homes’ subsidiaries (PSWA and Figure Four Partners) and their contractors.
On 12/17/19, attorney’s for the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended petition. Since the original filing, plaintiffs have named Double Oak Construction and Texasite LLC as additional defendants.
The judge set a jury trial date for July 13, 2020. To date, Perry Homes has done nothing to reduce the threat of flooding from their job site.
The 268-acres clear-cut acres that contributed to Elm Grove Flooding.
That brings us to the subject of mitigation.
What can be done to restore the safety of residents?
Perry Homes has demonstrated no interest in reducing the threat to downstream flood victims.
Protecting homeowners will require massive intervention from an outside source. But who? And how?
I recently learned of two new developments in the Ben’s Branch watershed.
A developer intends to build 18 acres of apartments where the woods adjacent to the new St. Martha Church now stand.
Another developer intends to build hundreds of homes on tiny lots on an 80-acre site just north of St. Martha’s.
These two projects represent dozens of others gobbling up farm and forest land in southeast Montgomery County.
This drainage ditch feeds into Ben’s Branch at Northpark Drive. The 18 acres of trees on the other side of the ditch could soon become apartments.
Businesses such as the St. Martha School and Kids in Action already flooded twice this year. So did dozens of homes along Ben’s Branch.
Additional upstream development has the potential to make flooding even worse. This is like death by a thousand cuts. Residents just don’t have the time or energy to monitor each development to ensure that owners follow rules and regulations for wetlands, floodplains, drainage, etc. Neither evidently does Montgomery County. Which brings us to…
Montgomery County Standards and Enforcement
Montgomery County competes for development by touting its lack of regulations. That’s a huge problem for downstream residents.
Montgomery County still bases flood maps on data from the 1980s.
Large parts of the county remain unmapped for flood hazards.
The County last updated its Drainage Criteria Manual in 1989.
Developers ignore many provisions within it.
County Commissioners voted to leave loopholes open that allow developers to avoid building detention ponds.
The County even paid an engineering company to investigate itself for its role in the Elm Grove Disaster.
You get the idea. If you thought some benign government entity watched over new developments to protect downstream residents, think again. Below you can see the 80-acre site I mentioned above.
Source: USGS National Wetlands Inventory.
Note how it was covered in wetlands. Developers did not ask permission from the Corps to remove them. They just decided on their own that they didn’t need to ask.
Below, you can see how virtually half the site is in a flood zone or floodway.
Here’s how it looks in Google Earth. Developers have already cleared the site.
Developers intend to build high-density homes in the floodplains. They will also build their detention pond in the floodway. Those hazard areas will likely expand when and if the County incorporates new Atlas-14 data into their flood maps.
Layout for Brooklyn Trails development in Montgomery County
None of this seems to bother the leadership of Montgomery County. And that’s a bigger problem than any one development.
In 2020, expect more focus on the decision-making process and decision makers who have created a permissive culture of indifference to flooding problems.
Sand Mines
Sand mines operate so closely to the San Jacinto that their walls frequently break and pour polluted process water into the drinking water for 2 million people. If they get caught, they pay a small fine and continue operating with impunity.
Left: Liberty Materials Mine in Conroe that undercut five pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids. Center: Triple PG mine in Porter where erosion during Imelda exposed one natural gas line and threatens 5 more HVL pipelines. Right: Another Liberty Materials mine that allegedly dumped 56 million gallons of white goop into the West Fork.
Upstream Detention
During Harvey, the release of 80,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Conroe added to downstream flooding. The goal: to find enough upstream detention capacity to help offset future releases. The San Jacinto River Basin Study will examine that possibility. It’s unlikely that one reservoir will provide enough capacity. However, multiple smaller reservoirs may.
Luckily, State Representative Dan Huberty sponsored legislation that allocated another $30 million. The Harris County Flood Bond allocated $10 million. The City of Houston allocated $6 million. Plus two more grant requests are still pending that could increase the total even more. And a disposal site for the material has already been permitted.
Mouth Bar of the West Fork. Photo taken 12/3/2019.
Last week, Harris County commissioners voted to proceed with additional dredging. Project managers are studying the most cost effective ways to proceed. We should see more dredging soon.
This money could also be used on the growing mouth bar of the East Fork.
State Highway 99 Extension
The extension of the Grand Parkway (State Highway 99) east and south to I-10 will open up vast new expanses of forest and farmland to high density development. The biggest threat will be to the East Fork watershed as construction moves through southeast Montgomery County and the northeast tip of Harris County into Liberty County.
Eastward clearing for SH99 has reached Caney Creek near Lake Houston Park.
Those are my predictions for the biggest stories of 2020. There’s a lot of good news in the forecast and much to remain vigilant about. Life seems to be a constant struggle between those who would increase and decrease our margin of safety when it comes to flooding.
Posted on 12/21/2019 by Bob Rehak
844 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/2019/12/Slide14.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2019-12-21 12:30:522019-12-21 14:37:12Big Stories to Watch in 2020
Tuesday, at the open house in Kingwood to review work to date on the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Plan, the Plan task force members showed two very interesting posters. Together, they show where the water came from during Harvey and the extent of inundation. They also show the amount of rainfall in different areas throughout the watershed.
When you put these two maps together, one high-level message screams through:
1.5 to 3.5 feet of rain fell over 2,885 square miles. That’s an area bigger than Delaware. And it all drained toward Lake Houston.
Watersheds Within River Basin
Looking at these posters gives you an appreciation for how complex flood forecasting can be, especially for areas like Kingwood where so many watersheds converge. The river basin map below shows the number of square miles drained by each of the major tributaries. The upper right corner inset map shows the same tributaries mapped over the major roads, counties and cities in the region to help you place the streams.
The second poster shows the extent of inundation along each of those major tributaries during Harvey. The upper right inset map shows rainfall across the region. Note how the rainfall was heavier toward the lower and eastern parts of the river basin. As water came downstream and the rain kept falling in those areas, the floodwater just kept building higher and higher.
How Local Factors and Channel Hydraulics Come Into Play
The maps also reveal much about smaller areas within the watershed.
Matt Zeve, Deputy Executive Director of Harris County Flood Control, has studied channel hydraulics for more than 20 years. He emphasized flooding in The Woodlands and Cypress did NOT flood because of water backing all the way up from Lake Houston. Lowering water in Lake Houston faster will not prevent flooding that far upstream, he says. A wide variety of local conditions govern upstream flooding, such as:
Rainfall rate, volume and location
Time of accumulation
Channel width/depth
Gradient
Flatness of terrain
Blockages
Rate and timing of runoff
Time of year
Amount of vegetation vs. impermeable cover
Soil type
Ground saturation and more.
This rainfall and inundation map clearly shows the effect of some of these factors. Notice, for instance, the three pockets of heavy flooding at the west end of Cypress Creek on the left. Also notice how the flooding narrows downstream toward the right. There are a several things going on here, according to Zeve.
The area that flooded so badly was extremely flat. The area used to contain rice paddies. Farmers made the land even flatter.
That area also received more rainfall. Note the small pocket of orange on the rainfall inset map over the area that flooded so badly on Cypress Creek.
As you move east on Cypress Creek, the flooded area gets less wide. That’s because the channel gradient increases. The creek therefore creates a deeper channel and the floodplain narrows.
Rice fields surrounded the headwaters of Cypress Creek in 1989.
As you look at these maps, apply your knowledge of local conditions to see if you can explain similar anomalies.
For Future Reference
These maps still exist in draft form. The river basin survey is only half complete. The maps may change before completion of the study.
For easy reference in the future, I will post the high-res PDFs under the Hurricane Harvey tab in the Reports page.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/20/2019
843 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/EX03_HarveyCalibration-copy.jpg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=112001200adminadmin2019-12-20 16:21:242019-12-20 18:30:29Where the Water Came From During Harvey and Extent of Inundation
With 2019 almost behind us, we should look back to see what we accomplished on flood mitigation. Tomorrow, I’ll take a look at the stories that will likely define 2020.
Limited Dredging
In 2018, FEMA and the Army Corps announced that they would dredge 2.1 miles of the San Jacinto West Fork when they were given authority to dredge 8 miles. Questions immediately started to swirl about why they were not dredging all the way to Lake Houston. The answer was “part of the mouth bar was there before Harvey and we can only spend disaster relief funds on what Harvey deposited.”
The mouth bar as it existed shortly after Hurricane Harvey. Photo taken 9/14/2017.
Regardless, they left the biggest blockage in the river. Imelda washed a tremendous amount of sediment downriver. In mid-October, RD Kissling sent me a photo from his kayak. He as standing in water less than knee deep 700 yards south of the mouth bar. It’s important to understand that sand bars are like ice bergs. You only see the tip above water. Most of the bar exists below water. And much of this mouth bar remains to be removed.
To learn more about this controversy, search this site using the key words “mouth bar.”
Flood Mitigation Legislation: A Big Win
No one budgets for disasters, such as Hurricane Harvey. So after the disaster, cities and counties had to scramble for grant money to even qualify for matching funds from the Federal government. More than two and a half years after the event, money is finally starting to trickle down to the areas that need it to implement flood mitigation projects. That’s thanks in large part to Senator Brandon Creighton who authored Senate Bill 7.
SB7 creates dedicated Texas Infrastructure and Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Funds for flood control planning and the funding of flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects. The Texas Water Development Board is finalizing rules for the distribution of those funds right now. SB500, a supplemental appropriations bill, includes funding for SB7 and an amendment that would dedicate $30 million for dredging at the confluence of the San Jacinto and Lake Houston. State Representative Dan Huberty authored the amendment to SB500 that provides the $30 million.
For more information about legislation affecting this area, see the Legislation page of this web site or search using the key words “SB7” or “SB500.”
Sand Mining Legislation: One Small Gain, Some Big Losses
Activists statewide pushed for legislation to reign in the excesses of an out-of-control aggregate industry. Here in the Houston area, State Representative Dan Huberty introduced HB 907. It passed and doubles the penalties for not registering a sand mining operation. It also increases the frequency of inspection from every three years to two years and established a registry of active sand mines.
Picture of the West Fork of the San Jacinto the day it turned white (11/4/2019). The TCEQ later issued a notice of enforcement to the Liberty Materials mine upstream for dumping 56 million gallons of white goopy pollution into the West Fork.Water samples indicated 25 times the normal amount of suspended solids.
That was the only bill that the high powered lobbyists of TACA (the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association) would allow to pass. That’s mostly because their members are already registered.
However, other important bills died in committee due to the lobbying power of TACA.
HB 908 would have provided for penalties up to $50,000 for water code violations and every-other-year inspections.
HB 909 would have created best management practices for sand mines.
HB 1671 would have extended water quality protections to the West Fork of the San Jacinto currently enjoyed by the John Graves District on the Brazos and attached penalties for non-compliance with best practices defined under HB909.
HB 2871. Would require sand mines and other aggregate production operations to acquire a reclamation permit and to file a performance bond ensuring reclamation.
For more information about sand mining in the Lake Houston area, see the Sand Mining page of this web site. You can also search on the key words “sand mining, TACA, Triple PG, TCEQ, breach, Liberty, and white water.”
Artist’s conceptual drawing of a high-rise development called The Herons: Kingwood.
The tallest buildings would have been 500 feet and located on the edge of the current floodway. That floodway will almost certainly expand in light of new Atlas-14 rainfall data. The developers also announced a marina that would have held 640 40-foot boats and 200 jet skis. There were no evacuation routes that would have remained above water in the event of a flood.
The developer’s web site now says the project is on hold, pending improvements to the West Fork and Lake Houston.
For more information on this development, see the High Rises page of this web site or search for the key words “Romerica, high rises, eagle, or The Herons.”
The $2.5 Billion Flood Bond Equity Flap
When the wording for Harris County’s historic $2.5 billion flood bond offering was worked out in early 2018, leaders from the Humble/Kingwood area in Precinct 4 argued to include the notion of an equitable distribution of funds. Why? Historically the Flood Control District had focused more on projects in other parts of the county, especially Precinct 1, that Precinct 4.
In one meeting after another, Ellis’ ringers showed up in commissioners court to complain about discrimination in the distribution of funds for buyouts, construction spending, and more. Yet in every category, Ellis’ precinct already had the lion’s share of funding.
This is an on-going controversy that affects everyone in the Lake Houston area. Ellis is looting transportation dollars from Precinct 4. You have to hand it to Ellis. Even if he doesn’t know what equity means, he knows how to work the system.
For more information on this topic, search this site using the key words “equity or Ellis.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that the language in the summary of the referendum on the ballot was misleading. It failed to disclose that the money would be raised through a new tax. So the Court ordered a revote.
In 2018, the Mayor “resold” the fee by saying, “If you want a lockbox around the money, vote FOR Proposition A. If you don’t want a lockbox around the money, vote AGAINST it.”
It was another artful dodge. There was nothing in the language of the bill to create a lockbox. The language in Prop A was almost identical to the original bill. But the funding formula was even looser!
Unaware voters once again approved the fee. And the Mayor continued to divert money from the fund. These diversions became a central element in the Mayoral campaign this year after thousands of people flooded in May and again during Imelda.
Nevertheless, the Mayor won re-election.
To learn more about this topic, search this site using the key word “Proposition A.”
10 New Gates for Lake Houston
The flood gates on Lake Conroe can release water 15 times faster than the gates on Lake Houston. During Harvey, that bottleneck contributed to the flooding of thousands of homes. A study showed that additional gates would have lowered the water level by almost two feet in the event of another Harvey. During smaller storms, the gates would also help pre-release water faster to create a buffer against possible flooding.
Lake Houston can shed water at 10,000 cubic feet per second. Lake Conroe can shed it at 150,000 cubic feet per second.
The City of Houston applied for a grant from FEMA and the Texas Division of Emergency Management to add ten new gates. FEMA approved the project. It’s happening in two phases. The first includes design and an environmental survey. The second includes construction. Each will take 18 months. We’re now six months into Phase One.
Details of dam improvement project.
For more information on this topic, search this site using the key word “gates.”
Temporary Seasonal Lowering of Lake Conroe
After Harvey, people in the Lake Houston area started pleading for more upstream detention, dredging and gates. Dredging started immediately. The project to add more gates to the Lake Houston spillway has also started. Upstream detention is still years way. The San Jacinto Watershed Study is only now beginning to identify possible locations.
Many lakefront property owners on Lake Conroe, however, claim the lowering hurts their property values and damages their bulkheads. Buses full of protesters showed up at the December SJRA Board meeting wearing red shirts that say, “Stop the Drop.” So many came that two busloads full of people had to be turned away.
Angry Lake Conroe residents showed up at the last SJRA board meeting in busloads.
Net: the policy to lower Lake Conroe temporarily is under assault. The SJRA will likely vote on whether to continue the policy in February. The SJRA will hold two additional meetings at the Lonestar Convention and Conference Center in January and February to give everyone who wants to provide input a chance to do so.
For more information on this topic, search this site using the key words “lake lowering.”
This is another issue that will carry over into 2020.
For more information on this topic, search this site using the keywords “Perry Homes, Woodridge Village, Figure Four Development, PSWA, Elm Grove, Spurlock, cease and desist, detention, what went wrong, North Kingwood Forest, or drainage criteria.”
There’s your digest of the biggest stories of 2019. 2020 to follow.
Posted by Bob Rehak on December 19, 2019
842 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 92 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/2019/12/Slide11.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2019-12-19 11:45:402019-12-19 12:01:13The Biggest Stories of 2019
Big Stories to Watch in 2020
As we enter 2020, keep your eyes on these stories.
Elm Grove Lawsuits and Mitigation
In 2019, Elm Grove flooded twice with runoff from the Perry Homes/Woodridge Village development in Montgomery County. Hundreds of homeowners sued Perry Homes’ subsidiaries (PSWA and Figure Four Partners) and their contractors.
On 12/17/19, attorney’s for the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended petition. Since the original filing, plaintiffs have named Double Oak Construction and Texasite LLC as additional defendants.
The judge set a jury trial date for July 13, 2020. To date, Perry Homes has done nothing to reduce the threat of flooding from their job site.
That brings us to the subject of mitigation.
Perry Homes has demonstrated no interest in reducing the threat to downstream flood victims.
Protecting homeowners will require massive intervention from an outside source. But who? And how?
Harris County Bond Fund Mitigation Projects
In 2019, Harris County Flood Control began work on 146 of 239 of the projects identified in their $2.5 billion flood bond.
Many of those projects required studies and partners. Three affecting the Lake Houston Area are:
Recommendations from each study should come out in 2020. Then many more projects will get underway.
Upstream Development
In 2019, we saw what upstream development did to homes in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest bordering Taylor Gully.
I recently learned of two new developments in the Ben’s Branch watershed.
These two projects represent dozens of others gobbling up farm and forest land in southeast Montgomery County.
Businesses such as the St. Martha School and Kids in Action already flooded twice this year. So did dozens of homes along Ben’s Branch.
Additional upstream development has the potential to make flooding even worse. This is like death by a thousand cuts. Residents just don’t have the time or energy to monitor each development to ensure that owners follow rules and regulations for wetlands, floodplains, drainage, etc. Neither evidently does Montgomery County. Which brings us to…
Montgomery County Standards and Enforcement
Montgomery County competes for development by touting its lack of regulations. That’s a huge problem for downstream residents.
You get the idea. If you thought some benign government entity watched over new developments to protect downstream residents, think again. Below you can see the 80-acre site I mentioned above.
Note how it was covered in wetlands. Developers did not ask permission from the Corps to remove them. They just decided on their own that they didn’t need to ask.
Below, you can see how virtually half the site is in a flood zone or floodway.
Here’s how it looks in Google Earth. Developers have already cleared the site.
Developers intend to build high-density homes in the floodplains. They will also build their detention pond in the floodway. Those hazard areas will likely expand when and if the County incorporates new Atlas-14 data into their flood maps.
None of this seems to bother the leadership of Montgomery County. And that’s a bigger problem than any one development.
Sand Mines
Sand mines operate so closely to the San Jacinto that their walls frequently break and pour polluted process water into the drinking water for 2 million people. If they get caught, they pay a small fine and continue operating with impunity.
Upstream Detention
During Harvey, the release of 80,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Conroe added to downstream flooding. The goal: to find enough upstream detention capacity to help offset future releases. The San Jacinto River Basin Study will examine that possibility. It’s unlikely that one reservoir will provide enough capacity. However, multiple smaller reservoirs may.
The study partners will release their results in the second half of 2020. Land acquisition and construction could take several additional years.
Dredging
Dredging is another essential element of flood mitigation on the West Fork of the San Jacinto. Sand buildup near the mouth of the river has created a giant sediment dam. The Army Corps removed three feet in a dredging effort that ended on Labor Day. But much remains.
Luckily, State Representative Dan Huberty sponsored legislation that allocated another $30 million. The Harris County Flood Bond allocated $10 million. The City of Houston allocated $6 million. Plus two more grant requests are still pending that could increase the total even more. And a disposal site for the material has already been permitted.
Last week, Harris County commissioners voted to proceed with additional dredging. Project managers are studying the most cost effective ways to proceed. We should see more dredging soon.
This money could also be used on the growing mouth bar of the East Fork.
State Highway 99 Extension
The extension of the Grand Parkway (State Highway 99) east and south to I-10 will open up vast new expanses of forest and farmland to high density development. The biggest threat will be to the East Fork watershed as construction moves through southeast Montgomery County and the northeast tip of Harris County into Liberty County.
Those are my predictions for the biggest stories of 2020. There’s a lot of good news in the forecast and much to remain vigilant about. Life seems to be a constant struggle between those who would increase and decrease our margin of safety when it comes to flooding.
Posted on 12/21/2019 by Bob Rehak
844 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.
Where the Water Came From During Harvey and Extent of Inundation
Tuesday, at the open house in Kingwood to review work to date on the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Plan, the Plan task force members showed two very interesting posters. Together, they show where the water came from during Harvey and the extent of inundation. They also show the amount of rainfall in different areas throughout the watershed.
When you put these two maps together, one high-level message screams through:
Watersheds Within River Basin
Looking at these posters gives you an appreciation for how complex flood forecasting can be, especially for areas like Kingwood where so many watersheds converge. The river basin map below shows the number of square miles drained by each of the major tributaries. The upper right corner inset map shows the same tributaries mapped over the major roads, counties and cities in the region to help you place the streams.
Rainfall and Extent of Inundation
The second poster shows the extent of inundation along each of those major tributaries during Harvey. The upper right inset map shows rainfall across the region. Note how the rainfall was heavier toward the lower and eastern parts of the river basin. As water came downstream and the rain kept falling in those areas, the floodwater just kept building higher and higher.
How Local Factors and Channel Hydraulics Come Into Play
The maps also reveal much about smaller areas within the watershed.
Matt Zeve, Deputy Executive Director of Harris County Flood Control, has studied channel hydraulics for more than 20 years. He emphasized flooding in The Woodlands and Cypress did NOT flood because of water backing all the way up from Lake Houston. Lowering water in Lake Houston faster will not prevent flooding that far upstream, he says. A wide variety of local conditions govern upstream flooding, such as:
This rainfall and inundation map clearly shows the effect of some of these factors. Notice, for instance, the three pockets of heavy flooding at the west end of Cypress Creek on the left. Also notice how the flooding narrows downstream toward the right. There are a several things going on here, according to Zeve.
As you look at these maps, apply your knowledge of local conditions to see if you can explain similar anomalies.
For Future Reference
These maps still exist in draft form. The river basin survey is only half complete. The maps may change before completion of the study.
For easy reference in the future, I will post the high-res PDFs under the Hurricane Harvey tab in the Reports page.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/20/2019
843 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The Biggest Stories of 2019
With 2019 almost behind us, we should look back to see what we accomplished on flood mitigation. Tomorrow, I’ll take a look at the stories that will likely define 2020.
Limited Dredging
In 2018, FEMA and the Army Corps announced that they would dredge 2.1 miles of the San Jacinto West Fork when they were given authority to dredge 8 miles. Questions immediately started to swirl about why they were not dredging all the way to Lake Houston. The answer was “part of the mouth bar was there before Harvey and we can only spend disaster relief funds on what Harvey deposited.”
After arguing for more than a year with the City about how much sediment FEMA deposited, the Corps finally decided to dredge 500,000 cubic yards from a 600 acre acre in front of the mouth bar. They finished on or about Labor Day. Then the dredging contractors waited several more weeks to see if there would be an additional assignment. There was not. They then departed in October.
Regardless, they left the biggest blockage in the river. Imelda washed a tremendous amount of sediment downriver. In mid-October, RD Kissling sent me a photo from his kayak. He as standing in water less than knee deep 700 yards south of the mouth bar. It’s important to understand that sand bars are like ice bergs. You only see the tip above water. Most of the bar exists below water. And much of this mouth bar remains to be removed.
We need to cut a channel through this area to the lake to restore conveyance of the river. If Harvey couldn’t blow this dune out of there, nothing will.
To learn more about this controversy, search this site using the key words “mouth bar.”
Flood Mitigation Legislation: A Big Win
No one budgets for disasters, such as Hurricane Harvey. So after the disaster, cities and counties had to scramble for grant money to even qualify for matching funds from the Federal government. More than two and a half years after the event, money is finally starting to trickle down to the areas that need it to implement flood mitigation projects. That’s thanks in large part to Senator Brandon Creighton who authored Senate Bill 7.
SB7 creates dedicated Texas Infrastructure and Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Funds for flood control planning and the funding of flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects. The Texas Water Development Board is finalizing rules for the distribution of those funds right now. SB500, a supplemental appropriations bill, includes funding for SB7 and an amendment that would dedicate $30 million for dredging at the confluence of the San Jacinto and Lake Houston. State Representative Dan Huberty authored the amendment to SB500 that provides the $30 million.
For more information about legislation affecting this area, see the Legislation page of this web site or search using the key words “SB7” or “SB500.”
Sand Mining Legislation: One Small Gain, Some Big Losses
Activists statewide pushed for legislation to reign in the excesses of an out-of-control aggregate industry. Here in the Houston area, State Representative Dan Huberty introduced HB 907. It passed and doubles the penalties for not registering a sand mining operation. It also increases the frequency of inspection from every three years to two years and established a registry of active sand mines.
That was the only bill that the high powered lobbyists of TACA (the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association) would allow to pass. That’s mostly because their members are already registered.
However, other important bills died in committee due to the lobbying power of TACA.
For more information about sand mining in the Lake Houston area, see the Sand Mining page of this web site. You can also search on the key words “sand mining, TACA, Triple PG, TCEQ, breach, Liberty, and white water.”
High Rises Near the Floodway of the West Fork
Early in the year, two investors from Mexico announced plans to build a series of high rises surrounded by more than 5000 condos in the floodplains and wetlands near River Grove Park. Their company, Romerica, proposed to build the high rises on land that was deed restricted to single family residential development. They even proposed underground parking!
The tallest buildings would have been 500 feet and located on the edge of the current floodway. That floodway will almost certainly expand in light of new Atlas-14 rainfall data. The developers also announced a marina that would have held 640 40-foot boats and 200 jet skis. There were no evacuation routes that would have remained above water in the event of a flood.
A massive public outcry arose. More than 700 people and organizations filed letters of protest with the Army Corps, TCEQ and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. In the end, regulators showed good judgment and common sense. The Corps withdrew Romerica’s permit application.
The developer’s web site now says the project is on hold, pending improvements to the West Fork and Lake Houston.
For more information on this development, see the High Rises page of this web site or search for the key words “Romerica, high rises, eagle, or The Herons.”
The $2.5 Billion Flood Bond Equity Flap
When the wording for Harris County’s historic $2.5 billion flood bond offering was worked out in early 2018, leaders from the Humble/Kingwood area in Precinct 4 argued to include the notion of an equitable distribution of funds. Why? Historically the Flood Control District had focused more on projects in other parts of the county, especially Precinct 1, that Precinct 4.
Humble/Kingwood voters turned out in record numbers to support the bond. It passed. But when it came time to implement the projects, Commissioner Rodney Ellis from Precinct 1 tried to redefine equity to mean reparations for historical discrimination, i.e., slavery.
In one meeting after another, Ellis’ ringers showed up in commissioners court to complain about discrimination in the distribution of funds for buyouts, construction spending, and more. Yet in every category, Ellis’ precinct already had the lion’s share of funding.
This is an on-going controversy that affects everyone in the Lake Houston area. Ellis is looting transportation dollars from Precinct 4. You have to hand it to Ellis. Even if he doesn’t know what equity means, he knows how to work the system.
For more information on this topic, search this site using the key words “equity or Ellis.”
Proposition A
In 2010, voters managed to get a referendum on the ballot that would create a dedicated fund for drainage improvements. It passed by a narrow margin. Almost immediately, city officials started using the money it raised for other purposes.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that the language in the summary of the referendum on the ballot was misleading. It failed to disclose that the money would be raised through a new tax. So the Court ordered a revote.
In 2018, the Mayor “resold” the fee by saying, “If you want a lockbox around the money, vote FOR Proposition A. If you don’t want a lockbox around the money, vote AGAINST it.”
It was another artful dodge. There was nothing in the language of the bill to create a lockbox. The language in Prop A was almost identical to the original bill. But the funding formula was even looser!
Unaware voters once again approved the fee. And the Mayor continued to divert money from the fund. These diversions became a central element in the Mayoral campaign this year after thousands of people flooded in May and again during Imelda.
Nevertheless, the Mayor won re-election.
To learn more about this topic, search this site using the key word “Proposition A.”
10 New Gates for Lake Houston
The flood gates on Lake Conroe can release water 15 times faster than the gates on Lake Houston. During Harvey, that bottleneck contributed to the flooding of thousands of homes. A study showed that additional gates would have lowered the water level by almost two feet in the event of another Harvey. During smaller storms, the gates would also help pre-release water faster to create a buffer against possible flooding.
The City of Houston applied for a grant from FEMA and the Texas Division of Emergency Management to add ten new gates. FEMA approved the project. It’s happening in two phases. The first includes design and an environmental survey. The second includes construction. Each will take 18 months. We’re now six months into Phase One.
For more information on this topic, search this site using the key word “gates.”
Temporary Seasonal Lowering of Lake Conroe
After Harvey, people in the Lake Houston area started pleading for more upstream detention, dredging and gates. Dredging started immediately. The project to add more gates to the Lake Houston spillway has also started. Upstream detention is still years way. The San Jacinto Watershed Study is only now beginning to identify possible locations.
To help provide Lake Houston area residents with an additional buffer against flooding while officials worked on these mitigation measures, the SJRA Board voted to lower the level of Lake Conroe seasonally and temporarily. One foot during the rainiest months in Spring and two feet during the peak of hurricane season.
Many lakefront property owners on Lake Conroe, however, claim the lowering hurts their property values and damages their bulkheads. Buses full of protesters showed up at the December SJRA Board meeting wearing red shirts that say, “Stop the Drop.” So many came that two busloads full of people had to be turned away.
Net: the policy to lower Lake Conroe temporarily is under assault. The SJRA will likely vote on whether to continue the policy in February. The SJRA will hold two additional meetings at the Lonestar Convention and Conference Center in January and February to give everyone who wants to provide input a chance to do so.
For more information on this topic, search this site using the key words “lake lowering.”
Flooding from Upstream Development
By far, the biggest and saddest story of the year had to be the flooding of Elm Grove Village, North Kingwood Forest, and even many homes in Porter. Not once, but twice this year. In each instance, runoff from Perry Homes’ newly clearcut 268-acre Woodridge Village development spilled over into surrounding streets and homes. Perry Homes filled in natural streams and wetlands without an Army Corps permit. And they still have not even installed 25% of the detention capacity required for an area that large.
They haven’t even finished the detention ponds they started, in direct violation of a promise to the City of Houston. In fact, Perry Homes has shown no interest in resolving the problems it created. They have scarcely done any work on this site since August. Meanwhile hundreds of residents live under the heightened threat of flooding.
This is another issue that will carry over into 2020.
For more information on this topic, search this site using the keywords “Perry Homes, Woodridge Village, Figure Four Development, PSWA, Elm Grove, Spurlock, cease and desist, detention, what went wrong, North Kingwood Forest, or drainage criteria.”
There’s your digest of the biggest stories of 2019. 2020 to follow.
Posted by Bob Rehak on December 19, 2019
842 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 92 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.