Humankind’s Love-Hate Attraction to Water

Two days ago, I posted a story about a community on the Bolivar Peninsula that Hurricane Ike totally destroyed. Owners have virtually rebuilt it. This isn’t a unique story. Around the world, around the county, on coast after coast and river after river, similar stories abound. FEMA calls floods the most common form of natural disaster. The Agency says Americans have a 26 percent chance of experiencing a flood during the life of a 30-year mortgage, compared to a four percent chance of fire. So people obviously love water views despite the risk. They even pay a premium for them. Why is there such an attraction to water?

Pragmatic Attractions

Historically, oceans were our earliest highways and busiest trade routes.

Water attracts us for other logical reasons, too. We need water for drinking, cooking and bathing. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, each person in the United States uses eighty to one hundred gallons of water every day for what we consider our “basic needs.” The United Nations declared, “Safe and clean drinking water is a human right essential to the full enjoyment of life.” We can’t live without it. But given modern technology and our ability to pump water over long distances, pragmatic considerations alone cannot explain our attraction to it.

Oceans and rivers also provide abundant protein year round. Wallace Nichols, author of the Blue Mind, wrote in Salon.com that, “The number of food and material resources provided in or near the water often trumped what could be found on land. The supply of plant-based and animal food sources may vanish in the winter, Eriksen observed, but our ancestors could fish or harvest shellfish year-round. And because the nature of water is to move and flow, instead of having to travel miles to forage, our ancestors could walk along a shore or riverbank and see what water had brought to them or what came to the water’s edge.”*

Biological Attractions

Nichols, also notes that, “Our innate relationship to water goes far deeper than economics, food, or proximity, however. Our ancient ancestors came out of the water and evolved from swimming to crawling to walking. Human fetuses still have “gill-slit” structures in their early stages of development, and we spend our first nine months of life immersed in the “watery” environment of our mother’s womb.”

“When we’re born, our bodies are approximately 78 percent water. As we age, that number drops to below 60 percent — but the brain continues to be made of 80 percent water. The human body as a whole is almost the same density as water, which allows us to float. In its mineral composition, the water in our cells is comparable to that found in the sea. Science writer Loren Eiseley once described human beings as “a way that water has of going about, beyond the reach of rivers.”

Psychological Attractions

Nichols cites the story of researchers at Plymouth University in the United Kingdom. In 2010, they asked forty adults to rate more than one hundred pictures of different natural and urban environments. Respondents gave higher ratings for positive mood, preference, and perceived restorativeness to any picture containing water, whether it was in a natural landscape or an urban setting, as opposed to those photos without water.

One of my close friends and photographic mentors is Gary Faye. Faye is one of America’s greatest living landscape photographers. His images exude serenity and often mystery…as in this shot of a swing in the Salton Sea. At a root level, it says, “This doesn’t belong here.” Much like the homes once destroyed by Ike, rebuilt just feet from the Gulf of Mexico on a dwindling spit of sand barely five feet above sea level.

“Swingset, Salton Sea” (c) 2019 Gary Faye. Used with artist’s permission. All rights reserved.

Years ago, Faye told me that his images showing water outsold his other work by a considerable margin. He has since refined his explanation. “It’s not just the presence of water in the image,” he says. “It’s the sense of peacefulness and serenity that it communicates.”

Indi Maxon writing in Basmati agrees. “Spending time near natural bodies of water instills a feeling of calmness and ease of mind.”

Population Distribution Reflects Attraction to Water

Regardless of the reason, you can see people’s preference for living near water in the world’s population distribution. Recent studies have shown that the overwhelming bulk of humanity is concentrated along or near coasts on just 10% of the earth’s land surface.

In the United States, counties directly on the shoreline constitute less than 10 percent of the total land area (not including Alaska), but account for 39 percent of the total population. From 1970 to 2010, the population of these counties increased by almost 40% and are projected to increase by an additional 10 million people or 8% by 2020. Coastal areas are substantially more crowded than the U.S. as a whole, and population density in coastal areas will continue to increase in the future. In fact, says NOAA…

The population density of coastal shoreline counties is over six times greater than the corresponding inland counties.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s official population estimates, Between 1960 and 2008, the population in coastline counties along the Gulf of Mexico soared by 150 percent, more than double the rate of increase of the nation’s population as a whole.

Eight of the top ten largest cities in the world are located by coastlines.

As of 1998, over half the population of the planet — about 3.2 billion people — lives and works in a coastal strip just 200 kilometers wide (120 miles), while a full two-thirds, 4 billion, are found within 400 kilometers of a coast.

Living and Dying with the Water Paradox

So are people who build homes mere feet from the shoreline crazy? Or are others crazy for thinking they are crazy? It would seem that:

  • Proximity to water is hardwired into our DNA
  • Living near water, which has both benefits and dangers, is the norm.

I call this attraction to living in a danger zone the Water Paradox. What to do about it? You can’t fight it. Maybe we just need to plan and build better. Personally, I’m still searching for answers.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/4/2019

705 Days since Hurricane Harvey

*Excerpted from “Blue Mind: The Surprising Science That Shows How Being Near, In, On, or Under Water Can Make You Happier, Healthier, More Connected, and Better at What You Do” by Wallace J. Nichols. Copyright © 2014 by Wallace J. Nichols. Publisher: Little, Brown. All rights reserved.

Gary Faye teaches at Camera West in Palm Springs, California and photographs throughout the West.

Phase 1 of West Fork Dredging Almost Complete; What Happens Next Could Affect Mayoral Race

Callan Marine should complete its portion of the original Emergency West Fork Dredging Project near Kings Harbor next week. That’s a good thing because Placement Area 1 (PA1) is virtually filled up. Compare these two photos.

20-acre PA1 on 2/23/19 was about one quarter full.
This shot taken on 8/3/2019 shows the entire 20-acre pond is now full with the exception of a narrow strip along the western edge.

Next Phases of Dredging Outlined

The original scope of the emergency West Fork project extended from roughly River Grove Park to just past Kings Harbor. In a town hall meeting last October, Stephen Costello, the City of Houston’s flood czar and chief resiliency officer, called that Phase 1.

He called Mouth Bar dredging Phase 2. Great Lakes, the prime contractor, on Phase 1 has already started dredging 500,000 cubic yards near the mouth bar of the West Fork. The company has completed half of that project, according to Houston City Council Member Dave Martin. That would put them far ahead of schedule.

Costello also indicated that he was pursuing a grant through FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to dredge further upriver between 59 and River Grove. He called that Phase 3.

Next, he talked about potentially dredging the East Fork.

Finally, he talked about the need for maintenance dredging, something the Corps and FEMA have emphasized for more than a year.

Next phases of dredging, proposed by Stephen Costello, City of Houston’s flood czar, at Town Hall Meeting earlier this year.

Phase 3 and Edgewater Park Boat Ramp

Harris County Precinct 4 plans to build a new park and boat launch immediately east of 494 and Hamblen Road starting in October. Construction will go well into 2020, but unless Phase 3 of dredging takes place, the boat launch may have limited value. I was on a ride-along with HPD’s Lake Patrol in January and their boat got stuck on sand bars several times in this reach of the river.

More Dredging Needed at Mouth Bar

The 500,000 cubic yards that FEMA is removing from the mouth bar is just a start.

The City estimated that Harvey deposited at least 1.4 million cubic yards in that area. And that doesn’t even include deposits left behind by previous storms that severely constrict the conveyance of the river.

Neither the City, nor the Corps, have yet divulged plans for restoring the full conveyance. People are so tight lipped, you would think this involved national security. I requested plans from the Corps under the Freedom of Information Act six weeks ago and have still not received them.

Drone photo of Great Lakes Dredge at Mouth Bar with Atascocita Point in background. Photo courtesy of BCAeronautics.

Meanwhile, the partial mouth bar dredging is going much faster than expected. Great Lakes originally said it would take six months to complete the 500,000 cubic yards. However, they’ve finished half the job in six weeks. That’s reportedly because they have not found the submerged trees in that area that they found upstream.

Once again, an early finish could pressure officials. Remobilizing another dredge crew if Great Lakes leaves could prove very costly. Mobilization and demobilization constituted one quarter of the cost of the current job or about $18 million.

Maintenance Dredging Needed, Too

Keeping sedimentation down to a sub-acute level in the future will require periodic maintenance dredging. And that will require a large storage site and annual budgeting.

Beyond the sediment, we also have another reason for periodic river surveys and maintenance dredging. They will help avoid battles with FEMA. After Harvey, the City, Corps and FEMA argued for a year about how much of the sediment in the mouth bar was due to Harvey and how much was due to deferred maintenance from previous years. FEMA can pay for storm damage, but not deferred maintenance. Hence the lengthy debate and delays.

Kingwood Could Swing Mayoral Election

As we head into the mayoral race this fall, we should keep in mind that we have started the dredging, but it will never be finished. Nature and sand mines in floodways will continue to dump sediment in the headwaters of Lake Houston.

I, for one, look forward to quizzing the candidates on their plans for and commitment to maintenance dredging after we restore conveyance between 59 and 1960. In previous years, because the problem was out of sight under water, mayor after mayor deferred dredging to divert money elsewhere. We paid the price during Harvey.

In the last mayoral election, Kingwood could have easily provided enough swing votes to alter the outcome. With so many crucial flood-mitigation issues still unresolved, you can count on much higher turnout this year.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/3/2019 with drone photo from BCAeronautics

704 Days since Hurricane Harvey

City of Houston Receives $3.3 Million FEMA Grant for Design and Permitting of Additional Gates For Lake Houston Dam

This week, FEMA awarded $3.3 million for the design, engineering and environmental permitting (Phase I) of additional gates for the Lake Houston dam. Under the 75:25 matching terms of the grant, local sources including the City and Harris County will contribute approximately another million bringing the total available for Phase 1 to $4.375 million.

FEMA notified Congressman Dan Crenshaw regarding the award who then notified Houston Council Member Dave Martin. The award comes through FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).

Construction Funding Also Committed But Will Require Confirmation of Cost/Benefit Ratio

FEMA also committed funds for construction, but release of those funds is contingent on confirmation of the cost/benefit analysis after completion of Phase I.

The total award for the City of Houston Lake Houston Dam Spillway Improvement Project Phases I and II comes to $47,170,953.

Of that amount, the Federal share comes to $35,378,214.75 and the Non-Federal Share totals $11,792,738.25. City and Harris County shares of the Non-Federal portion have not yet been determined according to Martin’s office.

Lake Houston Area and Downstream Residents Protected

Congressman Crenshaw announced, “Today, FEMA approved $3.3 million for Phase 1 of the gates at the Lake Houston Dam. These gates will increase the flow out of Lake Houston significantly. This money will ensure that the final design will not impact downstream residents and will provide the anticipated relief to the Lake Houston area.  Increasing the conveyance will have positive impacts for the entire San Jacinto watershed including the East Fork and the West Fork. For a community that feels the burden of flooding too often, this is a huge win.”

Mr. Martin has worked to obtain the grant for nearly two years. Martin also played a role in dredging. As part of his press release on the gates, Martin noted that the Army Corps is now half-finished with the 500,000 cubic yards that it intends to remove from the mouth bar between Kings Point and Atascocita Point.

Crenshaw and Martin say they will continue to fight for the removal of even more material from the mouth-bar. They also thanked Governor Abbott, TDEM Chief Kidd, State Senator Creighton, Representative Huberty, Houston Mayor Turner, and Houston Chief Resiliency Officer Costello for their help on the Lake Houston Spillway Dam project.

Martin said, “The Lake Houston Dam gates give us the ability to proactively release water from Lake Houston in an expeditious fashion if needed during an emergency.”

State Role in Two-Step Process

Funding is awarded directly to the State of Texas Division of Emergency Management (our version of FEMA) and will be transferred to Houston in two steps. Phase I gets the project rolling. Once the City successfully completes permitting, engineering, design, and environmental assessment, it will provide a new cost/benefit analysis and to FEMA for review.

This is standard procedure. The initial grant is based on ballpark estimates. With the actual design in hand, the City can more closely estimate the costs.

Assuming FEMA approves renewed cost/benefit analysis, the State will release the additional funds to the City for construction (phase II).

Three-Year Project

The City has not yet chosen an engineering company to design the gates. Nor is it clear how many gates will be added or where they will be located. All that will be part of Phase I.

Martin says the two phases together should take three years once money is received, though an extension may be possible if needed.

Other Grants Also Announced

FEMA also awarded three other grants impacting City Council District E, according to Martin:

  • Lonestar College’s Kingwood Campus won two public assistance grants for Emergency Protective Measures amounting to $6,276,131.22 and $2,502,914.79.
  • Clear Creek Independent School District won a public assistance grant for Emergency Protective Measures amounting to $1,303,060.49.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/2/2019

703 Days after Hurricane Harvey