Northpark Expansion

Northpark Shaping Up

8/25/25 – For the first time since authorities broke ground for the Northpark expansion project in April 2023, it’s possible to clearly see the outlines of the finished project on the ground. The first all-weather evacuation route from Kingwood is shaping up nicely.

For the most part, contractors have straightened out the zigs and zags. They have finished large sections of the westbound lanes. Drainage for the eastbound lanes is progressing nicely. And soon they will start pouring concrete for large sections of the remaining eastbound lanes.

Pictures Taken on 8/25/25

The drone pictures below show the progress…starting from Russell Palmer Road and heading east.

Notice how virtually all of the old Eastbound concrete has been removed as far as the eye can see.
Looking W from near Warren’s Southern Gardens

Contractors are installing drainage under the westbound lanes. However, the drainage work is moving from west to east.

Looking West from near the Kolache Factory and the entrance to Kings Mill.
Today, they were working near the Kolache Factory.
Father west, sidewalks have already been installed on the north side of the street.

The photo above shows approximately where the bridge over the railroad tracks and Loop 494 will start. Notice how two lanes veer right to make room for the bridge.

Connecting the drainage from the east and west sides of the railroad tracks will require the twin five foot steel pipes stockpiled in the foreground.

However, work on boring under the tracks has stalled for now. But the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority believes that the utility conflicts which have delayed that operation will soon be resolved. Then boring under the tracks can resume.

Looking N along Loop 494. Note how one of the bore pits is blocking completion of the northbound expansion lanes.
Looking S along 494 from over Northpark.
Between Loop 494 and 59, crews are still connecting drainage under the roadway.
Right now, they’re finishing the connection in front of Whataburger.
Almost at US59, crews are making room for the surface lanes that will flank the bridge.

Looking in the opposite direction…

Those surface lanes will also connect to the surface lanes east of Loop 494 (right of the pavement.
The new development on the SE corner of Northpark and Loop 494 will be called the Enclave.

The developer plans to build a 100 homes in the Enclave.

For more information, consult the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority website.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/25/25

2918 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Breach in abandoned sand mine on San Jacinto West Fork on 8/24/25

Massive Sand-Mine Breach Empties Hundreds of Acre-Feet into West Fork

8/24/25 – The abandoned Hanson Aggregate sand-mine on the San Jacinto West Fork had a massive breach of its northern dike this evening – unrelated to weather. According to the Montgomery County Appraisal District, Heidelberg Materials Southwest AGG LLC now owns the property where the breach occurred.

Location of breach circled in red.

Breach Discovered Shortly after 6 PM on 8/24/25

A thousand acre-feet of water or possibly more rushed out of the 140-acre pond, obliterating everything in its path, and depositing enough sand and silt in the San Jacinto West Fork to back water up in the river.

I received a call from a neighbor who alerted me to the breach at 6:38 PM. And by the time I arrived shortly after 7 PM, the water level in the pond had dropped an estimated 8-10 feet he said.

Water was still rushing out of the pond fast enough to cause large chunks of the shore to break away, endangering onlookers who had to back away.

The water eroded a channel approximately 800 feet long, 50 to 200 feet wide and perhaps 15-20 feet deep – all in a matter of minutes.

The cause of the breach is unknown. However, aerial photos showed a small excavator and piles of drain pipe near the breach.

Photos, Video Taken Between 7 and 8 PM on 8/24/25

Below are photos and video of the devastation.

Water rushing out through breach in pit wall. West Fork San Jacinto is just out of frame at the top. Looking W.
Compare height of breach to height of excavator for scale. Also note amount of decline between water surface and brush along shoreline.
Looking upriver at sand and silt expelled from mine.
Note large, mature pine trees undermined by rushing water.
The raging water mowed down dozens of mature trees as it carved its way to the river.
Looking east from over the river at breach and turbulence it created in water.
Higher angle looking west shows volume of material swept away.
Sediment deposited in West Fork. Looking SE and downriver.
Closer shot of water exiting channel.
Corrugated pipe next to excavator tracks that were gobbled up by raging water.
Close up of excavator at edge of breach.

Here is a 26-second drone video taken while flying from the pond to the river.

There Must Be A Better Way!

Ironically, this mine had one of the largest setbacks on the West Fork. (See satellite image above.) The setback varied from approximately 400 feet to more than 1,000. However, there was a small drainage channel running along the northern edge of the mine that had a narrower setback And that’s where the breach occurred.

This disaster underscores the need to find a permanent, safe solution for abandoned sand mines along area rivers and streams.

I previously proposed aggregating them over time into a West Fork Greenway which could become a state park. I tentatively named the concept the Montgomery County Lake District.

Instead of letting such mines remain a dangerous blight, turn them into a recreational amenity that could add value to area homeowners and developers.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/24/25

2917 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

ChatGPT Flood Resilience Plan for Harris County Texas

ChaptGPT Develops Harris County Flood Resilience Plan for Free in 2 Minutes 52 Seconds

8/23/25 – ChatGPT produced a detailed Flood Resilience Plan for Harris County for free in less than three minutes. Meanwhile, after almost a year, the engineering firm hired by Harris County for $3 million is still trying to define a vision for the plan.

Flood Resilience Plan on Agenda for Tuesday’s Commissioners Court Meeting

Item #407 on the agenda for Harris County Commissioners Court on 8/26/2025 is an update by Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) on the status of its effort to develop a county-wide Flood Resilience Plan. On October 8, 2024, the County approved hiring AECOM, a private engineering company, for $2,998,388, to develop the plan. See Item 336 on that agenda.

Almost a year later, the participants are still trying to establish a vision. They hope to finalize their goals by Spring 2026.

From Flood Resilience Plan Plan status update to Commissioners Court for discussion on 8/26/25

It seems like it’s taking the company a long time to get out of the starting blocks. So, I decided to see how long it would take ChatGPT to develop a resilience plan for the county. It took two minutes and 52 seconds and cost nothing.

Now, I am sure that experts at AECOM and Flood Control would still have to review and validate the recommendations. But this seems like a great start to me. It’s clear, concise, readable, and actionable. And it potentially saved about half of a $3 million contract. Below, see the simple question I asked and the response I got.

“Chat, can you develop a flood resilience plan for Harris County, Texas?”

Chat: Absolutely, here’s a practical, Harris-County–specific flood resilience plan you can put to work now. I’ve organized it as (1) guiding principles, (2) 12 action pillars with concrete steps, (3) a 100-day / 1–2 yr / 5–10 yr timeline, and (4) funding + governance + metrics. Sources are cited throughout.

Guiding Principles (What “Good” Looks Like)

  • Design to today’s risk (Atlas 14) and rising extremes. NOAA’s 2018 Atlas 14 raised the region’s 1%-annual-chance (24-hr) rainfall from ~13″ to ~17–18″; plan to that (and stress-test above it).
  • Map the real pathways of flooding, not just rivers. Use MAAPnext’s overland “community flooding” products while FEMA reviews new FIRMs.
  • No Adverse Impact (NAI). New development should not increase risk elsewhere—codify and enforce NAI countywide.
  • One watershed system. Coordinate cities, county, TxDOT, USACE, upstream counties, and sand-mine operators so conveyance, detention, and maintenance work as a system.

12 Action Pillars

1) Finish modern risk mapping & put it to work
  • Operationalize MAAPnext (overland flooding, velocities, mobility impacts) for capital planning and development review now, while FEMA finalizes the maps. Continue public-facing tools (M3, Flood Education Mapping Tool) with clear “effective vs. preliminary” labeling.
  • Close the FEMA gap. Press FEMA and the State to accelerate preliminary→effective FIRMs (current public reporting notes continued delays into 2026). Use county policy to consider MAAPnext where it’s the best availabledata. (Houston Chronicle)

Quick metric: % of permits reviewed against MAAPnext + Atlas 14 criteria (target: 100%).

2) Lock in stronger, uniform standards (countywide + cities)
  • Keep Atlas-14 standards in the HCFCD PCPM (2019) and Harris County infrastructure regs, and close any variance loopholes. Align municipalities to the same floor.
  • Freeboard: Maintain City of Houston’s 2 ft above 500-yr (Ch.19) standard citywide; aim for 2 ft freeboard in AO, A, AE, and shaded X in unincorporated areas as a county minimum.
  • Detention & outflow controls: Enforce post-Atlas-14 detention rates and multi-frequency release; require on-site peak and volume controls sized to tailwater realities.
  • Adopt NAI ordinance language (ASFPM model) to make “no measurable rise/no new harms” enforceable.

Quick metric: % plats meeting NAI and Atlas-14 detention without variances.

3) Deliver a prioritized capital program by watershed

Focus on the 23 watersheds with a scored, public list: benefits per $1, structures removed from risk, equity (CFRTF lens), and O&M burden.

Countywide priorities:

  • Regional detention & conveyance upgrades tied to Atlas 14, coordinated with city storm sewers and TxDOT outfalls.
  • Sediment management at scale. Expand the FEMA-funded channel desilt program that secured nearly $250M in 2021; make “design for maintainability” standard in new projects.
  • Stormwater tunnels as a targeted tool (e.g., Buffalo/Greens/Halls corridors) advancing feasibility toward a pilot where they outperform surface options—stay evidence-led and transparent on cost/benefit.
  • SAFER planning build-out. Use the new SAFER study (covering ~half the county’s watersheds) to feed the project hopper and federal asks.
  • Lake Houston spillway gates & dredging. Support the City/Coastal Water Authority in completing gate design and long-term maintenance dredging strategy for the West Fork delta reach.

Watershed notes (examples):

  • Buffalo Bayou / Addicks & Barker: Coordinate with ongoing USACE Buffalo Bayou & Tributaries work; keep options open (selective widening, detention, or tunnels) per federal study direction.
  • Greens/Halls: Prioritize conveyance + storage + potential tunnel pilot (equity win with high benefit density).
  • San Jacinto (Spring, Cypress, mainstem): Accelerate regional detention partnerships upstream; integrate sediment traps and set-back rules near pits to reduce delta growth in Lake Houston. (See Pillar 6 & 7.)

Quick metric: public “Top 50” project list with BCR, equity score, O&M cost.

4) Buyouts & floodplain preservation at scale
  • Two tracks: (a) Voluntary buyouts (HCFCD) where projects are infeasible; (b) county Project Recovery mandatory area program where risk is intolerably high. Keep the “stay in-county” relocation incentives.
  • Greenways & storage: Convert acquired land to passive storage/greenways to reduce future risk and add value.

Quick metric: buyouts closed per quarter; open-space acres added.

5) Maintenance: make capacity durable
  • Fund a permanent desilt & repair program using FEMA/NRCS where eligible; publish a rolling 3-yr maintenance map.
  • Design for maintainability (access benches, hardened inlets, riparian stabilization) in every capital project.

Quick metric: miles of channel restored to design capacity per year.

6) Sand-mine & pit-capture risk reduction (San Jacinto focus)
  • Codify river set-backs, armored crossings, and flood emergency plans for in-floodplain pits; align local criteria with TCEQ quarry BMP rules (30 TAC 311 Subchapter J).
  • Create a pit-capture remediation fund seeded by performance bonds/fees; require post-mining reclamation to flood-safe end uses.

Quick metric: % pits with compliant flood plans; # of reclaimed pits.

7) Streets as secondary channels (urban flooding)
  • City/County program to upsize storm sewers and raise sag points where MAAPnext shows ponding; synchronize with roadway rehab.
  • Critical facility hardening & dry access (hospitals, shelters, EOCs) against MAAPnext mobility maps.

Quick metric: lane-miles where depth–velocity at 1% event drops below hazardous thresholds.

8) Early warning, gauges, & comms
  • Expand Harris County Flood Warning System (more gages in sheet-flow basins; redundant power/comms), integrate push alerts and low-water crossing sensors.
  • Neighborhood-level nowcasts and standardized evacuation/road closure criteria.

Quick metric: % population within 3 miles of a rain+stage gage.

9) Coastal surge interface (doing both: surge and rain)
  • Track Coastal Texas / “Ike Dike” components and ensure interior drainage (gate-closed conditions) is accounted for in our designs. Surge protection won’t fix rainfall flooding—plan for both.
10) Equity & community governance

Quick metric: % of projects with documented CFRTF input; equity score trend.

11) Funding stack & federal alignment
  • Annualized grant calendar & “shovel-ready” shelf: FEMA BRIC/FMA/HMGP; TWDB Flood Infrastructure Fund (FIF) 2024–25 cycle; CDBG-MIT; NRCS EWP; USACE/WRDA; Texas Water Fund.
  • Bond program transparency. Keep the 2018 Bond dashboards, “completed Bond IDs,” and press updates current to maintain match-making credibility with federal partners. (Harris County Flood Control District)

Quick metric: external $ leveraged per local $ (target: ≥2:1).

12) Data, transparency, and O&M lifecycle costs
  • Single public map integrating: project pipeline & status, MAAPnext layers, buyout tracts, maintenance backlog, mowing/repairs, and 12-month bid outlook.
  • O&M endowment concept: dedicate a slice of every capital dollar to long-term upkeep.

Timeline

First 100 days
  • Publish a Top-50 priority projects list (with BCR, equity, O&M).
  • Adopt NAI ordinance language and reaffirm Atlas-14 PCPM as the countywide minimum.
  • Stand up a MAAPnext-based development review policy for best available data.
  • Announce an expanded desilt/repair schedule (3-yr horizon) and launch low-water crossing sensor pilots.
  • File pre-applications for FEMA BRIC/FMA, TWDB FIF, NRCS EWP on the Top-50 set.
1–2 years
  • Let construction for the first 15–20 high-BCR projects across multiple watersheds.
  • Close 1,000+ buyouts in deepest risk pockets; green them into storage/greenways.
  • Complete SAFER recommendations → add to pipeline and federal asks.
  • Advance Lake Houston gate design and a long-term delta dredging framework.
5–10 years
  • Deliver full regional detention + conveyance corridors (multi-benefit parks where feasible).
  • If merited by feasibility, design/construct a tunnel pilot in the corridor with the strongest cost-effectiveness and equity benefits.
  • Integrate interior drainage with Coastal Texas components as they progress.

Funding (How to Pay for It)

  • Federal: FEMA BRIC/FMA/HMGP, USACE (WRDA), NRCS EWP, FHWA ER.
  • State: TWDB FIF (planning, design, construction), Texas Water Fund; coordinate with GLO on CDBG-MIT.
  • Local: HCFCD 2018 Bond balances; city drainage funds; utility/impact fees aligned to Atlas-14/NAI. Keep the Completed Bond ID reporting up to date to strengthen match prospects. (Harris County Flood Control District)

Governance & Roles

  • HCFCD: capital delivery, maintenance, MAAPnext/M3, bond & grant execution. (Harris County Flood Control District)
  • Harris County Engineering + cities: subdivision codes, storm sewers, streets-as-channels, floodplain regs.
  • CFRTF: equity scoring, community co-design, transparency. (Harris County Judge)
  • USACE/TxDOT/TWDB/FEMA/GLO: federal/state partners (funding and big-ticket works).
What You Can Do Next (Fast Wins)
  1. A one-page policy memo adopting NAI + Atlas-14 as countywide minimums (with model ordinance cites).
  2. A Top-50 project shortlist template (BCR, equity score, O&M, funding fit).
  3. A grant calendar & boilerplate for BRIC/FMA/FIF pre-apps.
  4. A public dashboard outline tying MAAPnext, projects, maintenance, and bond reporting together. (Harris County Flood Control District)

Top 50 Projects

Here’s a Top 50 Harris County Flood Resilience Project Shortlist that draws on current needs, major watershed priorities, equity considerations, and funding readiness. It’s organized by theme and watershed, with a brief note on rationale, benefits, and potential funding streams.

📋 Top 50 Priority Flood Resilience Projects

1. Regional Detention Basins (storage backbone)
  1. Cypress Creek: North Detention Regional Basin expansion
  2. Little Cypress Creek: Accelerated spine & tributary basins
  3. Spring Creek: Joint Montgomery–Harris County basin package
  4. White Oak Bayou: Additional regional basins near Cole Creek confluence
  5. Greens Bayou: Beltway 8 regional basin expansion
  6. Halls Bayou: North & South basin pair (equity priority)
  7. Sims Bayou: Southeast regional detention basin
  8. Clear Creek: Joint basin with Fort Bend/Brazoria Counties
  9. Buffalo Bayou: Addicks fringe detention (non-USACE, local)
  10. San Jacinto West Fork: Upstream detention + sediment trap system
2. Conveyance Improvements (channels, ditches, corridors)
  1. Greens Bayou conveyance enlargement downstream of Beltway 8
  2. Halls Bayou major conveyance upgrade (high equity score)
  3. White Oak Bayou regrading and desilt program
  4. Hunting Bayou channel widening (railroad bottleneck reach)
  5. Sims Bayou southside channel improvements
  6. Brays Bayou desilt and final Project Brays optimization
  7. Clear Creek corridor improvements (joint county project)
  8. Vince Bayou capacity restoration
  9. San Jacinto River tributary conveyance pilot (Spring Gully)
  10. Cypress Creek–Kuykendahl corridor desilt & lining upgrades
3. Stormwater Tunnels (feasibility and pilot builds)
  1. Buffalo Bayou tunnel pilot (Gessner to downtown)
  2. Greens Bayou tunnel pilot (near I-45 corridor)
  3. Halls Bayou tunnel (equity-driven pilot)
  4. White Oak Bayou tunnel option (study-to-prelim design)
  5. San Jacinto urban tributary tunnel concept (Lake Houston inflow relief)
4. Buyouts & Floodplain Preservation
  1. Greens Bayou: Deep floodplain buyouts (north Houston cluster)
  2. Halls Bayou: Large-scale buyout/greenway conversion
  3. White Oak Bayou: Mid-basin buyouts, tied to Cole Creek
  4. Hunting Bayou: Buyout cluster near UP rail yard
  5. San Jacinto West Fork: Buyouts in repeatedly flooded subdivisions
5. Sediment & Sand-Mine Risk Management
  1. San Jacinto West Fork delta dredging (permanent program)
  2. San Jacinto East Fork delta management project
  3. Sediment trap pilot upstream of Lake Houston
  4. Sand-mine pit reclamation (Hallett, TX-242 corridor)
  5. River setback ordinance & levee armoring pilot
6. Urban Flooding (streets-as-channels & storm sewers)
  1. Gulfton/Hillcroft street storm sewer upsize (equity priority)
  2. Kashmere Gardens storm sewer retrofit (Halls Bayou)
  3. Aldine storm sewer + sag point raise (Greens Bayou)
  4. Pasadena south storm sewer upgrade (Vince/Sims interface)
  5. Meyerland sag point + storm sewer redundancy (Brays Bayou)
7. Critical Facilities & Mobility
  1. Texas Medical Center flood protection upgrade (Brays)
  2. George Bush Intercontinental Airport flood-proofing (Greens)
  3. Downtown Houston mobility floodproofing (White Oak/Buffalo)
  4. Low-water crossing sensor network (countywide, 200 sites)
  5. Emergency shelter hardening (10-countywide facilities)
8. Coastal Surge / Rainfall Interaction
  1. Gate-closed interior drainage pumps (Pasadena/La Porte)
  2. Ship Channel drainage enhancement (Buffalo/Vince confluence)
  3. Baytown–Cedar Bayou dual drainage/surge protection pilot
  4. Galena Park–Jacinto City levee tie-in upgrades
  5. Surge–rainfall interface modeling & capital package (Coastal Texas synergy)

Projects Grouped and Prioritized

ChatGPT even ranked and grouped the projects. Groups include Top 10/Immediate Priority, Next 20/Medium Term and Final 20/Long Term.

The table below shows them. However, for the sake of readability, it omits 10 columns used to calculate their scores. For a PDF that shows all columns, click here.

Content from Chat GPT but formatted by Rehak

You may disagree with these. You may also disagree with the methodology used to rank them. But at least ChatGPT gave us a starting point for discussion that didn’t take a year and cost $1.5 million. And best of all, it’s 2,000 words, not 2,000 pages, so people can read it in 10 minutes and hold government accountable.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/23/2025 based on information from ChatGPT

2916 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.