When I first read the denial, its brevity shocked me – one sentence. It basically says to the attorney general “prove your case.”
I quote: “…Triple PG generally denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Original Petition, and all amendments and supplements thereto, and demands strict proof thereof by a preponderance of the evidence.”
I called a lawyer to ask whether such brief denials were common. The answer: yes. My next question: Why?
Why the Brief Denial?
Basically, had the defendant made no reply to the claims within 20 days, it could have had a default judgement entered against it. So this blocks a default judgment. This also stops the clock, forces the Attorney General to reveal more of its case, and gives the defendant more time to develop an affirmative defense … if it has one. Triple PG can always amend its reply later.
AG Already Laid Out Evidence
The TCEQ has performed onsite inspections and overflights. The TCEQ report was made public with the AG filing. But the TCEQ isn’t the only entity investigating. So by delaying a settlement, the mine could be opening itself to additional fines. And the discovery of additional evidence.
The longer they wait to settle this case, the higher per-day fines could go.
Hearing Delayed Again
The hearing scheduled for November 12 on a permanent injunction against the mine has now been rescheduled for November 25th.
Deny This
When I flew over the mine on November 4, 46 days after Imelda, Triple PG was only starting to fix the second of eight breaches. The TCEQ did not even find all of those breaches because many roads within the mine had washed out when they paid their surprise visit. So delays could add to Triple PG’s woes as they also run up legal fees.
Here’s what breach #2 looked like on 11/4/2019.
Breach between Triple PG sand mine pit (upper left) and White Oak Creek lower right, photographed on 11/4/2019.Same breach photographed from reverse angle over pit. Note the white scum floating out of the mine.Third angle shows more scum and trees blown inward toward the mine during the breach.
The Defendant’s response also included a one sentence prayer. They prayed that all charges would be dismissed and that they would be entitled to further relief, which they did not specify. The only other thing the AG sought was a permanent injunction barring the mine from discharging wastewater. But they might seek to recover court costs if found no guilty.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/14/2019
807 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 56 after Imelda
The thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy 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/2019/11/RJR_4561.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-11-13 21:38:222019-11-13 21:38:33Triple PG Sand Mine Denies Attorney General Claims
Before Harvey hit, we knew tremendous rains were coming. But we could do little to prepare Lake Houston for the onslaught. The small gates you see in the photo below release a combined 10,000 cubic feet per second (CFS). That’s nothing compared to the 150,000 from the gates at the Lake Conroe Dam.
Lake Houston’s gates release a maximum of 10,000 CFS.The gates at Lake Conroe can release water at up too 150,000 CFS...15X faster.
We Were Sunk
When Lake Conroe had to open its gates during Harvey, we were sunk. Literally. Had we had bigger, more modern gates on Lake Houston, we might have been able to lower the lake fast enough to avoid flooding thousands of homes.
11-Foot High Wall of Water Cascaded Over Spillway
Of course, Lake Houston also has a spillway. In fact, the spillway represents the primary way to shed water from the lake. The top of that spillway is at 42.38 feet.
Interestingly, the WAY more gates would prevent flooding was not through pre-release; Harvey would have refilled the lake in a matter of hours and the storm lasted days. Rather, additional gates would have widened the spillway area so more water could move over the dam every second. Think of it in these terms: twice the width, half the height. (That’s an over-simplified example of how the principle works; ten more gates would not actually double the width.)
Is Pre-Release Practical?
The Frees & Nichols study only considered one case – Harvey. For lesser floods, the gates could help make pre-release a viable strategy for the Lake Houston Area. At least in my opinion.
Here’s how.
More gate capacity could help offset the volume of water released from Lake Conroe, to reduce the risk of Conroe flooding Houston again.
More gate capacity could release more water in less time, thus reducing uncertainty when pre-releasing before a storm. That would allow officials to delay releasing water until they were sure they needed to. And that could save precious water in the event that a storm veers off in another direction at the last minute. We may know that a storm will cross the area. But it’s much harder to tell where the heaviest rainfall will occur. For instance, during Imelda, parts of the East Fork received more than 20 inches of rain while Lake Conroe received only two.
In the last year, the City prevented homes from flooding several times by pre-lowering the lake. But the small gate capacity meant that we had to start releasing water DAYS beforehand to make an appreciable difference in the lake level. That has to be nerve wracking for Public Works.
Where the Gate Project Stands
Earlier this year, the City of Houston secured a FEMA grant to design and construct more gates for the Lake Houston Dam. The two-phase grant covers design and construction. Each phase must be completed within 18 months, though extensions are possible. Currently, we are four months into the 18-month design phase. That means we should see more gates by mid-2022.
In the meantime, the photos below give you a feeling for the immensity of the project.
The height of the trees on the San Jacinto River below the dam gives you a feeling for the height of the dam.Looking SE.Repairs are underway to the structures below the Lake Houston dam.Note the trees caught on top of it.Looking west over the Lake Houston Damwhich dates back to 1953.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/14/2019
807 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/RJR_3872.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-11-13 18:38:402020-01-17 10:13:11Aerial Photos of Lake Houston Dam Dramatize Need for More Gates
Provisions Adequate for Ultimate Development Can Be Severely Deficient for Intermediate Stages
The section on Offsite Overland Flow starts out by saying, “Sheet flow from undeveloped areas into an existing or a proposed subdivision can create a localized flood hazard by overloading street inlets and/or flooding individual lots.” This is exactly what happened to Elm Grove Village and North Kingwood Forest in May and September of this year. City of Houston storm drains already taxed to the max became overloaded when water broke out of Woodridge Village and started flowing down the streets of Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest.
Streets of Elm Grove during May 7th Flood show danger of not planning for runoff during intermediate stages of development.
The text in the Drainage Manual then continues. “Any drainage plan for a proposed subdlvision submitted for review and approval by the Montgomery County Drainage Administrator must address the drainage of all adjacent lands. Both under undeveloped and fully developed conditions. A plan which may be adequate under conditions of ultimate development can be severely deficient during intermediate conditions of development due to sheet flow from adjacent undeveloped land. Provisions must be made to divert 100-year sheet flows to a channel system or to the secondary street and storm sewer system.” [Emphasis added.]
Discuss the drainage of adjacent lands, such as Elm Grove.
Discuss intermediate conditions of development; they focus only on fully developed Phase 1 and Phase 2 Conditions.
Mention the phrase “sheet flow” once.
Make provisions to divert 100-year sheet flows.
No Swales to Redirect Sheet Flow
The next paragraph of the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual starts, “Redirection of the sheet flow can usually be achieved through the use of drainage swales located in temporary drainage easements along the periphery of the subdivision.” Perry Homes built no such swales … at least not adequate ones.
No Berms to Block Sheet Flow
Later in that same paragraph, the Manual talks about building berms between the swales and adjoining neighborhoods to prevent the flow from overrunning the swale. Unfortunately, on May 7th, no such berms existed. They did for Imelda, but they proved inadequate to divert the sheet flow and they had gaps in them.
No Additional Storm Sewer Capacity
The next paragraph talks about building “additional inlet and storm sewer capacity … to prevent prolonged street ponding in the (neighboring) subdivision resulting from flow from the undeveloped area.” That didn’t happen either.
No Planning for Rain Before Detention Ponds Fully Built
Perry Homes took none of these precautions. LJA never planned for them (as far as I can see from publicly available documents). Reading LJA’s drainage analysis, one gets the impression that no one ever even conceived of rainfall before they could build all the detention ponds for Woodridge Village. That turned out to be yet another fatal assumption. Despite all the warnings and mitigation advice in Montgomery County’s Drainage Criteria Manual.
Add this to a long and growing list of other things they ignored, underestimated, or mischaracterized.
The list goes on and on. I have barely started. This series could last for weeks. The MoCo Drainage Manual goes on for almost 200 pages. And Woodridge Village is far from the only Perry Homes Development.
Perhaps the biggest question in all of this is for the Montgomery County Judge and Commissioners. How do plans like this get approved?
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/12/2019 with thanks to Jeff Miller
806 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 55 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.
For those who are interested, I have reprinted verbatim the full text of Section 5.3.5 from the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual below.
Sheet flow from undeveloped areas into an existing or a proposed subdivision can create a locallzed flood hazard by overloading street inlets and/or flooding individual lots. Any drainage plan for a proposed subdlviston submitted for review and approval by the Montgomery County Drainage Administrator must address the drainage of all adjacent lands. Both under undeveloped and fully developed conditions. A plan which may be adequate under conditions of ultimate development can be severely deficient during intermediate conditions of development due to sheet flow from adjacent undeveloped land. Provisions must be made to divert 100-year sheet flows to a channel system or to the secondary street and storm sewer system.
Redirection of the sheet flow can usually be achieved through the use of drainage swales located in temporary drainage easements along the periphery of the subdivision. As the adjacent area develops to the point at which the street system can effectlvely handle the sheet flow condition, the temporary drainage swales and easements may be abandoned.. The drainage swales should be relatively shallow, with the excavation spoiled continuously along the subdivision side of the swale to prevent flow from overrunnmg the swale. The swale should have sufficient grade to avoid standing water, but not enough to create erosion problems. Generally, a minimum. grade of 0.1% should be maintained with the maximum grade strongly dependent on local soil conditions.
Such temporary drainage swales may be directed to inlets in the storm sewer system or, preferably, to the appropriate primary outfall channel. lf an undeveloped area is to be drained to a storm sewer, additional inlet and storm sewer capacity must be provided to prevent prolonged street ponding In the subdivision resulting from flow from the undeveloped area. Provisions for this flow must also be included in the design of the street drainage overflow system. The design of temporary drainage swales directed to Montgomery County drainage channels must include adequate provisions to drop the flow into the channel through an approved structure in order to avoid excessive erosion of the channel banks.
Outfalling the temporary swale into the backslope drainage system for the channel is unacceptable because the backslope drainage interceptor structures are not adequate to convey flow from an off-site swale. A typical approved structure is shown in Figure 6.3, With the exception of the pipe dimension. The pipe must be sized to handle the 100-year flow from the off-site area.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SchoolBus.jpg?fit=1500%2C1689&ssl=116891500adminadmin2019-11-12 20:48:302019-11-12 21:32:47Provisions for Off-Site Overland Sheet Flow in Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual Warned Perry Homes of Dangers to Elm Grove
Triple PG Sand Mine Denies Attorney General Claims
Surprise. Surprise. The Triple PG Sand Mine has denied all of the claims by the Texas Attorney General in the state’s lawsuit. The attorney general alleged that breaches in the mine’s dikes allowed wastewater to escape into tributaries of Lake Houston, the source of drinking water for two million people.
One Sentence Denial
When I first read the denial, its brevity shocked me – one sentence. It basically says to the attorney general “prove your case.”
I quote: “…Triple PG generally denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Original Petition, and all amendments and supplements thereto, and demands strict proof thereof by a preponderance of the evidence.”
I called a lawyer to ask whether such brief denials were common. The answer: yes. My next question: Why?
Why the Brief Denial?
Basically, had the defendant made no reply to the claims within 20 days, it could have had a default judgement entered against it. So this blocks a default judgment. This also stops the clock, forces the Attorney General to reveal more of its case, and gives the defendant more time to develop an affirmative defense … if it has one. Triple PG can always amend its reply later.
AG Already Laid Out Evidence
The TCEQ has performed onsite inspections and overflights. The TCEQ report was made public with the AG filing. But the TCEQ isn’t the only entity investigating. So by delaying a settlement, the mine could be opening itself to additional fines. And the discovery of additional evidence.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration is also investigating the mine thanks to complaints from dozens of residents around the mine.
The AG could also amend its suit if new evidence becomes available.
In addition, numerous residents, including Tony Buzbee, candidate for the Mayor of Houston, have photographed the breaches in this mine’s dikes.
The longer they wait to settle this case, the higher per-day fines could go.
Hearing Delayed Again
The hearing scheduled for November 12 on a permanent injunction against the mine has now been rescheduled for November 25th.
Deny This
When I flew over the mine on November 4, 46 days after Imelda, Triple PG was only starting to fix the second of eight breaches. The TCEQ did not even find all of those breaches because many roads within the mine had washed out when they paid their surprise visit. So delays could add to Triple PG’s woes as they also run up legal fees.
Here’s what breach #2 looked like on 11/4/2019.
The Defendant’s response also included a one sentence prayer. They prayed that all charges would be dismissed and that they would be entitled to further relief, which they did not specify. The only other thing the AG sought was a permanent injunction barring the mine from discharging wastewater. But they might seek to recover court costs if found no guilty.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/14/2019
807 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 56 after Imelda
The thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
Aerial Photos of Lake Houston Dam Dramatize Need for More Gates
Before Harvey hit, we knew tremendous rains were coming. But we could do little to prepare Lake Houston for the onslaught. The small gates you see in the photo below release a combined 10,000 cubic feet per second (CFS). That’s nothing compared to the 150,000 from the gates at the Lake Conroe Dam.
We Were Sunk
When Lake Conroe had to open its gates during Harvey, we were sunk. Literally. Had we had bigger, more modern gates on Lake Houston, we might have been able to lower the lake fast enough to avoid flooding thousands of homes.
11-Foot High Wall of Water Cascaded Over Spillway
Of course, Lake Houston also has a spillway. In fact, the spillway represents the primary way to shed water from the lake. The top of that spillway is at 42.38 feet.
But Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) final report on Hurricane Harvey stated that a record pool elevation of 53.1 ft was recorded at the Lake Houston Spillway.
HCFCD estimated that’s 5 times the average flow of Niagara Falls and that the flow rate would fill NRG Stadium in 3.5 minutes.
Ten More Gates Could Have Lowered Harvey Flood by 1.9 Feet
HCFCD commissioned a study by Frees & Nichols about what effect additional gates would have in the event of another Harvey. The study found that ten more gates could have lowered the level of the flood by up to 1.9 feet (about 23 inches). That would have saved thousands of homes from flooding in the Lake Houston Area.
Interestingly, the WAY more gates would prevent flooding was not through pre-release; Harvey would have refilled the lake in a matter of hours and the storm lasted days. Rather, additional gates would have widened the spillway area so more water could move over the dam every second. Think of it in these terms: twice the width, half the height. (That’s an over-simplified example of how the principle works; ten more gates would not actually double the width.)
Is Pre-Release Practical?
The Frees & Nichols study only considered one case – Harvey. For lesser floods, the gates could help make pre-release a viable strategy for the Lake Houston Area. At least in my opinion.
Here’s how.
In the last year, the City prevented homes from flooding several times by pre-lowering the lake. But the small gate capacity meant that we had to start releasing water DAYS beforehand to make an appreciable difference in the lake level. That has to be nerve wracking for Public Works.
Where the Gate Project Stands
Earlier this year, the City of Houston secured a FEMA grant to design and construct more gates for the Lake Houston Dam. The two-phase grant covers design and construction. Each phase must be completed within 18 months, though extensions are possible. Currently, we are four months into the 18-month design phase. That means we should see more gates by mid-2022.
In the meantime, the photos below give you a feeling for the immensity of the project.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/14/2019
807 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Provisions for Off-Site Overland Sheet Flow in Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual Warned Perry Homes of Dangers to Elm Grove
Section 5.3.5 of the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual (Pages 83-84) specifically address flooding of established subdivisions by land under development. For example when Elm Grove was flooded from clearcut land in Woodridge Village. Had Perry Homes, its subsidiaries and contractors followed the requirements in the Manual, Elm Grove might not have flooded.
Provisions Adequate for Ultimate Development Can Be Severely Deficient for Intermediate Stages
The section on Offsite Overland Flow starts out by saying, “Sheet flow from undeveloped areas into an existing or a proposed subdivision can create a localized flood hazard by overloading street inlets and/or flooding individual lots.” This is exactly what happened to Elm Grove Village and North Kingwood Forest in May and September of this year. City of Houston storm drains already taxed to the max became overloaded when water broke out of Woodridge Village and started flowing down the streets of Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest.
The text in the Drainage Manual then continues. “Any drainage plan for a proposed subdlvision submitted for review and approval by the Montgomery County Drainage Administrator must address the drainage of all adjacent lands. Both under undeveloped and fully developed conditions. A plan which may be adequate under conditions of ultimate development can be severely deficient during intermediate conditions of development due to sheet flow from adjacent undeveloped land. Provisions must be made to divert 100-year sheet flows to a channel system or to the secondary street and storm sewer system.” [Emphasis added.]
The LJA Drainage Analysis claimed Woodridge would create “No adverse impacts to neighboring developments or Taylor Gully.” However, the LJA analysis did not:
No Swales to Redirect Sheet Flow
The next paragraph of the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual starts, “Redirection of the sheet flow can usually be achieved through the use of drainage swales located in temporary drainage easements along the periphery of the subdivision.” Perry Homes built no such swales … at least not adequate ones.
No Berms to Block Sheet Flow
Later in that same paragraph, the Manual talks about building berms between the swales and adjoining neighborhoods to prevent the flow from overrunning the swale. Unfortunately, on May 7th, no such berms existed. They did for Imelda, but they proved inadequate to divert the sheet flow and they had gaps in them.
No Additional Storm Sewer Capacity
The next paragraph talks about building “additional inlet and storm sewer capacity … to prevent prolonged street ponding in the (neighboring) subdivision resulting from flow from the undeveloped area.” That didn’t happen either.
No Planning for Rain Before Detention Ponds Fully Built
Perry Homes took none of these precautions. LJA never planned for them (as far as I can see from publicly available documents). Reading LJA’s drainage analysis, one gets the impression that no one ever even conceived of rainfall before they could build all the detention ponds for Woodridge Village. That turned out to be yet another fatal assumption. Despite all the warnings and mitigation advice in Montgomery County’s Drainage Criteria Manual.
Add this to a long and growing list of other things they ignored, underestimated, or mischaracterized.
Stay Tuned for More
The list goes on and on. I have barely started. This series could last for weeks. The MoCo Drainage Manual goes on for almost 200 pages. And Woodridge Village is far from the only Perry Homes Development.
Perhaps the biggest question in all of this is for the Montgomery County Judge and Commissioners. How do plans like this get approved?
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/12/2019 with thanks to Jeff Miller
806 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 55 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.
For those who are interested, I have reprinted verbatim the full text of Section 5.3.5 from the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual below.
Section 5.3.5 Off-Site Overland Flow from the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual (See Pages 83 and 84)
Sheet flow from undeveloped areas into an existing or a proposed subdivision can create a locallzed flood hazard by overloading street inlets and/or flooding individual lots. Any drainage plan for a proposed subdlviston submitted for review and approval by the Montgomery County Drainage Administrator must address the drainage of all adjacent lands. Both under undeveloped and fully developed conditions. A plan which may be adequate under conditions of ultimate development can be severely deficient during intermediate conditions of development due to sheet flow from adjacent undeveloped land. Provisions must be made to divert 100-year sheet flows to a channel system or to the secondary street and storm sewer system.
Redirection of the sheet flow can usually be achieved through the use of drainage swales located in temporary drainage easements along the periphery of the subdivision. As the adjacent area develops to the point at which the street system can effectlvely handle the sheet flow condition, the temporary drainage swales and easements may be abandoned.. The drainage swales should be relatively shallow, with the excavation spoiled continuously along the subdivision side of the swale to prevent flow from overrunnmg the swale. The swale should have sufficient grade to avoid standing water, but not enough to create erosion problems. Generally, a minimum. grade of 0.1% should be maintained with the maximum grade strongly dependent on local soil conditions.
Such temporary drainage swales may be directed to inlets in the storm sewer system or, preferably, to the appropriate primary outfall channel. lf an undeveloped area is to be drained to a storm sewer, additional inlet and storm sewer capacity must be provided to prevent prolonged street ponding In the subdivision resulting from flow from the undeveloped area. Provisions for this flow must also be included in the design of the street drainage overflow system. The design of temporary drainage swales directed to Montgomery County drainage channels must include adequate provisions to drop the flow into the channel through an approved structure in order to avoid excessive erosion of the channel banks.
Outfalling the temporary swale into the backslope drainage system for the channel is unacceptable because the backslope drainage interceptor structures are not adequate to convey flow from an off-site swale. A typical approved structure is shown in Figure 6.3, With the exception of the pipe dimension. The pipe must be sized to handle the 100-year flow from the off-site area.