More than 850 days after Hurricane Harvey, the City of Houston has released a 170-page report called Living with Water™. (Caution: 60-meg download.)
A Primer on Green Flood Mitigation
In many ways, Living with Water is a primer on flood mitigation in the Bayou City. It lays out many of the problems we face as a region. It also points to many innovative solutions. It even takes three neighborhoods within the City (Greenspoint, Kashmere Gardens, and Independence Heights) and shows how various “green” strategies could reduce flood risk.
So far, nothing to argue with. The primary value of Living with Water lies in raising awareness of opportunities that can be used to solve problems throughout the region.
High-Level Ideas with No Actionable Plan Yet
But if you were looking for specifics – case studies, costs, plans, timetables, and budget line items associated with recommendations – you will be sorely disappointed. This isn’t that kind of report. And the absence of those specifics 887 days after Harvey will frustrate many who believe we should be far past brainstorming at this point.
Living with Water contains many magic-wand solutions that people in workshops often develop.
For instance, they identified “cooperation” as a strategy. Yet they failed to identify how to get upstream interests to factor downstream impacts into their development costs willingly.
From 2001 to 2016, most new development took place outside the Houston city limits. Yet during the first two decades of this century, the region added approximately three million people, nearly doubling in size. This creates development pressure in low-lying and risky areas that can impact downstream areas.
Another example: the creation of “interceptor streets.” They are never fully defined, but have something to do with storing stormwater under historic streets. Ten years after the implementation of the drainage fee, have we had one such project developed anywhere in the City?
Finally: a recommendation to “Bring back the prairie.” Great. Now how?
The Benefit: A Shared Vision of the Future
Regardless, it’s important that we share a possible vision of the future if we are ever to agree politically on solutions. Living with Water paints a positive vision of what that future could be. It also provides many tangible examples of how we could get there.
In the end, people will remember Living with Water for one thing. It shows how we could turn stormwater from the enemy into a series of amenities that enrich City life.
Whether this effort turns into reality or “credenza-ware” will depend on how quickly the City can implement pilot programs that demonstrate practical, achievable, cost-effective, flood-reducing benefits.
Posted by Bob Rehak on February 2, 2020
887 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/New-Development.jpg?fit=1200%2C1035&ssl=110351200adminadmin2020-02-02 18:05:132020-02-02 18:10:29City of Houston Releases “Living With Water™” Report
The first placement area: an active sand mine south of the Kingwood College between Sorters-McClellan Road and the West Fork. Note all the sand in the picture below. This sand mine was for sale, but the dredging spoils gave it new life. From here, sand goes to new construction projects across north Houston and southeast Montgomery County.
Looking SE at Placement Area 1, the Eagle Mine. West Fork San Jacinto in lower right. Sorters-McClellan Road cuts diagonally through top of frame above sand mine.Photo taken 1/20/2020.
Placement Area 2
The second placement area: an old pit on Townsend behind some flooded apartments in Humble.
Townsend in foreground turns from east/west to north/south. The apartments were heavily flooded during Harvey. West Fork and Army Corps Command Post in background. Some of this sand being sold too.
Placement Area 3: Berry Madden’s Property
Placement Area 3 is Berry Madden’s property south of the West Fork but north of FM1960. The water below is a back channel of the West Fork. Here, the spoils are being barged in from the mouth bar. The barges offload in the center left and the spoils are trucked inland. Should the dredgers shift over from mechanical to hydraulic dredging, this property can accommodate that.
Berry Madden’s property south of San Jacinto West Fork, west of Kings Lake Estates. Photo taken 1/20/2020. This placement area is just starting up. It will accommodate additional sand taken from the West Fork Mouth Bar. See below.
A Look at Mechanical Dredging
Currently, DRC is mechanically dredging the West Fork Mouth Bar. In hydraulic dredging, sand is pumped upstream continuously via pipeline. In mechanical, excavators scoop sand onto a barge, which shuttles it to a placement area as the pictures below show.
Excavator loads sand from west end of mouth bar onto waiting dredge.Photo by Josh Alberson 2/1/2020.Wider shot shows a second excavator and another barge working together farther east.Photo by Josh Alberson 2/1/2020.60-80 cubic yards are loaded onto a barge which is pushed upriver to Madden’s property. Photo by Josh Alberson 2/1/2020.After offloading, it returns to mouth bar for another load. Round trip time on Saturday afternoon: about 3 hours.Photo by Josh Alberson 2/1/2020.Back at the mouth bar, it’s time for a reload. Photo by Rachel Taylor, 2/1/2020.Bottoms up. Photo by Rachel Taylor, 2/1/2020.
Posted by Bob Rehak with photos from Josh Alberson and Rachel Taylor on February 2, 2020
887 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/20200120-RJR_7445.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-02-02 04:19:042020-02-02 14:13:36What Happened to Sand From West Fork Dredging?
Since flooding in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest last year, the TCEQ has completed half a dozen investigations of Woodridge Village with more in the works. Woodridge Village is the troubled Perry Homes development where contractors clearcut 268 acres while installing less than 25% of the required detention capacity.
The TCEQ has repeatedly charged Perry contractors and subsidiaries with stormwater pollution violations and unauthorized discharge of sediment. Below are results of six investigations that led to a total of 13 citations. Together the 449 pages of these investigations indicate a lax attitude toward regulations, repeated failures to comply, poor coordination among vendors, and lack of awareness of responsibilities.
Investigation 1571093 of Figure Four Partners in June 2019
On June 17 and 18, 2019, TCEQ investigators cited Figure Four Partners, LTD for “failure to prevent the unauthorized discharge of sediment-laden water from the construction site which could contribute to pollution in waters of the state of Texas.” (See Investigation 1571093 and attachments.)
Investigators found Figure Four failed to implement and maintain best management practices. They tracked the illegal discharge 2.5 miles down Taylor Gully. Where the stream entered woods, lack of access prevented tracking the discharge further.
TCEQ ordered the operator to install adequate sediment controls to minimize discharges from the site.
Investigation 1579654 of Rebel Contractors in June 2019
This was an investigation of Rebel Contractors, which had responsibility for the southern 80 acres of the site.
The TCEQ report starts by noting that two previous complaints about Rebel Contractors had been referred to Montgomery County for investigation.
In this investigation, TCEQ collected water samples upstream and adjacent to the development that were not impacted. They also collected samples above the outfall from the development and downstream of it that were.
They found that total suspended solids (TSS) in the non-impacted samples ranged from 29 to 45 milligrams/liter. The impacted samples, however, ranged from 245 to 620 milligrams per liter.
Investigators also looked at total dissolved solids (TDS). Non-impacted samples ranged from 128 to 158 milligrams per liter. Impacted samples ranged from 2053 to 2804 milligrams per liter.
Water from and below the site had significantly higher TSS and TDS.
Investigators allege Rebel failed to implement and maintain effective Best Management Practices. They cited Rebel for “failure to prevent the unauthorized discharge of sediment-laden water from the construction site which could contribute to pollution in waters of the state of Texas.” They also cited Rebel for failure to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. It took Rebel six weeks to prepare and submit the plan to the TCEQ.
Investigation 1604733 of Figure Four Partners in October 2019
On October 25, 2019, investigators returned to the site and found Figure Four had violations similar to June. They ordered Figure Four, once again, to install adequate sediment controls that minimized discharges from the site. (See Investigation 1604733 and attachments.) They ordered Figure Four to install adequate controls that reduced discharges.
Investigation 1579655 of Double Oak Construction in June 2019
Double Oak Construction is responsible for clearing and grubbing on the Woodridge site. In June, TCEQ conducted an investigation during which they collected the previously mentioned water samples. They cited Double Oak for failure to prevent unauthorized discharges of sediment-laden water and failure to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
They also found that Double Oak could not identify where discharges went. They thought it was Galveston Bay.
By the end of August last year, Double Oak still had not submitted a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
Investigation 1604738 of Rebel Contractors in October 2019
Second verse same as the first. Investigators found elevated levels of suspended and dissolves solids from the site relative to non-impacted areas. TCEQ alleges Rebel failed to implement and maintain Best Management Practices. They also allege discharge of pollutants, i.e., sediment-laden stormwater and failure to post a construction permit.
TCEQ ordered Rebel to control discharges and post a permit. It took Rebel 7 weeks to post the permit.
Investigation 1604741 of D&J Construction in October 2019
TCEQ cited D&J for failure to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and failure to include required information on their construction site notice.
886 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 135 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/2020/02/Woodridge-Erosion-by-TCEQ.jpg?fit=1200%2C910&ssl=19101200adminadmin2020-02-01 08:52:322020-02-01 08:57:21Six TCEQ Investigations Lead to 13 Citations for Woodridge Village Developer and Contractors
City of Houston Releases “Living With Water™” Report
More than 850 days after Hurricane Harvey, the City of Houston has released a 170-page report called Living with Water™. (Caution: 60-meg download.)
A Primer on Green Flood Mitigation
In many ways, Living with Water is a primer on flood mitigation in the Bayou City. It lays out many of the problems we face as a region. It also points to many innovative solutions. It even takes three neighborhoods within the City (Greenspoint, Kashmere Gardens, and Independence Heights) and shows how various “green” strategies could reduce flood risk.
So far, nothing to argue with. The primary value of Living with Water lies in raising awareness of opportunities that can be used to solve problems throughout the region.
High-Level Ideas with No Actionable Plan Yet
But if you were looking for specifics – case studies, costs, plans, timetables, and budget line items associated with recommendations – you will be sorely disappointed. This isn’t that kind of report. And the absence of those specifics 887 days after Harvey will frustrate many who believe we should be far past brainstorming at this point.
Living with Water contains many magic-wand solutions that people in workshops often develop.
For instance, they identified “cooperation” as a strategy. Yet they failed to identify how to get upstream interests to factor downstream impacts into their development costs willingly.
Another example: the creation of “interceptor streets.” They are never fully defined, but have something to do with storing stormwater under historic streets. Ten years after the implementation of the drainage fee, have we had one such project developed anywhere in the City?
Finally: a recommendation to “Bring back the prairie.” Great. Now how?
The Benefit: A Shared Vision of the Future
Regardless, it’s important that we share a possible vision of the future if we are ever to agree politically on solutions. Living with Water paints a positive vision of what that future could be. It also provides many tangible examples of how we could get there.
In the end, people will remember Living with Water for one thing. It shows how we could turn stormwater from the enemy into a series of amenities that enrich City life.
Whether this effort turns into reality or “credenza-ware” will depend on how quickly the City can implement pilot programs that demonstrate practical, achievable, cost-effective, flood-reducing benefits.
Posted by Bob Rehak on February 2, 2020
887 Days after Hurricane Harvey
What Happened to Sand From West Fork Dredging?
People often ask, “What happened to all that sand they took out of the river?” During the Army Corps Emergency West Fork San Jacinto Dredging Project in 2018 and 2019, they pumped approximately 2.3 million cubic yards of sand upriver to two “placement areas.”
Placement Area 1
The first placement area: an active sand mine south of the Kingwood College between Sorters-McClellan Road and the West Fork. Note all the sand in the picture below. This sand mine was for sale, but the dredging spoils gave it new life. From here, sand goes to new construction projects across north Houston and southeast Montgomery County.
Placement Area 2
The second placement area: an old pit on Townsend behind some flooded apartments in Humble.
Placement Area 3: Berry Madden’s Property
Placement Area 3 is Berry Madden’s property south of the West Fork but north of FM1960. The water below is a back channel of the West Fork. Here, the spoils are being barged in from the mouth bar. The barges offload in the center left and the spoils are trucked inland. Should the dredgers shift over from mechanical to hydraulic dredging, this property can accommodate that.
A Look at Mechanical Dredging
Currently, DRC is mechanically dredging the West Fork Mouth Bar. In hydraulic dredging, sand is pumped upstream continuously via pipeline. In mechanical, excavators scoop sand onto a barge, which shuttles it to a placement area as the pictures below show.
Posted by Bob Rehak with photos from Josh Alberson and Rachel Taylor on February 2, 2020
887 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Six TCEQ Investigations Lead to 13 Citations for Woodridge Village Developer and Contractors
Since flooding in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest last year, the TCEQ has completed half a dozen investigations of Woodridge Village with more in the works. Woodridge Village is the troubled Perry Homes development where contractors clearcut 268 acres while installing less than 25% of the required detention capacity.
The TCEQ has repeatedly charged Perry contractors and subsidiaries with stormwater pollution violations and unauthorized discharge of sediment. Below are results of six investigations that led to a total of 13 citations. Together the 449 pages of these investigations indicate a lax attitude toward regulations, repeated failures to comply, poor coordination among vendors, and lack of awareness of responsibilities.
Investigation 1571093 of Figure Four Partners in June 2019
On June 17 and 18, 2019, TCEQ investigators cited Figure Four Partners, LTD for “failure to prevent the unauthorized discharge of sediment-laden water from the construction site which could contribute to pollution in waters of the state of Texas.” (See Investigation 1571093 and attachments.)
Investigators found Figure Four failed to implement and maintain best management practices. They tracked the illegal discharge 2.5 miles down Taylor Gully. Where the stream entered woods, lack of access prevented tracking the discharge further.
TCEQ ordered the operator to install adequate sediment controls to minimize discharges from the site.
Investigation 1579654 of Rebel Contractors in June 2019
This was an investigation of Rebel Contractors, which had responsibility for the southern 80 acres of the site.
The TCEQ report starts by noting that two previous complaints about Rebel Contractors had been referred to Montgomery County for investigation.
In this investigation, TCEQ collected water samples upstream and adjacent to the development that were not impacted. They also collected samples above the outfall from the development and downstream of it that were.
They found that total suspended solids (TSS) in the non-impacted samples ranged from 29 to 45 milligrams/liter. The impacted samples, however, ranged from 245 to 620 milligrams per liter.
Investigators also looked at total dissolved solids (TDS). Non-impacted samples ranged from 128 to 158 milligrams per liter. Impacted samples ranged from 2053 to 2804 milligrams per liter.
Water from and below the site had significantly higher TSS and TDS.
Investigators allege Rebel failed to implement and maintain effective Best Management Practices. They cited Rebel for “failure to prevent the unauthorized discharge of sediment-laden water from the construction site which could contribute to pollution in waters of the state of Texas.” They also cited Rebel for failure to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. It took Rebel six weeks to prepare and submit the plan to the TCEQ.
(See Investigation 1579654 and attachments.)
Investigation 1604733 of Figure Four Partners in October 2019
On October 25, 2019, investigators returned to the site and found Figure Four had violations similar to June. They ordered Figure Four, once again, to install adequate sediment controls that minimized discharges from the site. (See Investigation 1604733 and attachments.) They ordered Figure Four to install adequate controls that reduced discharges.
Investigation 1579655 of Double Oak Construction in June 2019
Double Oak Construction is responsible for clearing and grubbing on the Woodridge site. In June, TCEQ conducted an investigation during which they collected the previously mentioned water samples. They cited Double Oak for failure to prevent unauthorized discharges of sediment-laden water and failure to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
(See Investigation 1579655 and attachments.)
They also found that Double Oak could not identify where discharges went. They thought it was Galveston Bay.
By the end of August last year, Double Oak still had not submitted a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
Investigation 1604738 of Rebel Contractors in October 2019
Second verse same as the first. Investigators found elevated levels of suspended and dissolves solids from the site relative to non-impacted areas. TCEQ alleges Rebel failed to implement and maintain Best Management Practices. They also allege discharge of pollutants, i.e., sediment-laden stormwater and failure to post a construction permit.
TCEQ ordered Rebel to control discharges and post a permit. It took Rebel 7 weeks to post the permit.
(See Investigation 1604738 and attachments.)
Investigation 1604741 of D&J Construction in October 2019
TCEQ cited D&J for failure to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and failure to include required information on their construction site notice.
(See Investigation 1604741 and attachments.)
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/1/2020
886 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 135 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.