Full Text of SWCA’s Request for Romerica Extension and Army Corps’ Withdrawal of High-Rise Permit Application

Last Christmas, the Army Corps issued a public notice about Romerica Investment’s permit application to build a high rise development in the floodplain and floodway of the San Jacinto West Fork. Almost immediately, people and groups began writing protest letters. By the end of the public comment period, the Army Corps had received 727. That didn’t include letters from other government agencies such as the TCEQ and US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Computer rendering showing proposed high-rises in an area soon to be reclassified as the floodway of the San Jacinto.

Record Number of Protest Letters

The number of protest letters set an Army Corps record. Due to the large number of responses, SWCA, Romerica’s environmental consultant, requested a suspension of the permit. Instead, the Army Corps withdrew the application without prejudice and invited Romerica to resubmit a new application at a later date.

Status: Start Over

SWCA expressed concern about starting the process over again. But according to Janet Botello, because of the large number of comments and the fact that much of the survey work will need to be redone, a new public notice and another public review are almost a certainty.

I finally received a return phone call from Leah Manlove Howard of Manlove Marketing and Communications. Ms. Howard acts as Romerica’s spokesperson. She said that Romerica and its team of consultants were meeting this week to determine whether they wanted to climb that mountain again. I do not yet have an answer to that question.

Full Text of Letters

Under the Freedom of Information Act, I requested both SWCA’s request to the Corps and the Corps’ response to the developer.

People familiar with Corps processes tell me that the Corps rarely rejects an application outright. However, regulations can and do occasionally make it so hard to receive approval that applicants give up. Romerica is the fourth or fifth developer to try to develop this land. It has been sold and resold numerous times, but never developed, in part, because of the history of flooding and difficulty of permitting.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/16/2019

626 Days since Hurricane Harvey

high water rescue truck

LJA Engineering Report Says “No Adverse Drainage Impacts” to Neighboring Developments or Taylor Gully

“No adverse impacts.” Really? Really! That’s what they say. Read the full report here.

Street flooding in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest…
… turned into home flooding when sheet flow from the Woodridge Village was added to the street flooding on May 7 flood
Taylor Gully near the peak. Shortly after this shot was taken it overflowed into the park on the opposite bank, upper right.
Scene along Village Springs in Elm Grove after the May 7 flood. At least 196 homes in the neighborhood flooded.
Abel Vera now lives in a world without walls.

It May Be Time to Rethink That Assertion, LJA!

In the conclusion of the cover letter of the report dated 8/28/18, Phyllis Mbewe, the project manager of hydrology and hydraulics for LJA Engineering guarantees Dan Wild, Montgomery County’s assistant engineer, that there will be:

  • No downstream impacts to Taylor Gully water surface elevations
  • No adverse drainage impacts to neighboring communities (such as Elm Grove or North Kingwood Forest).

She says, “…the proposed development of the 268-acre tract creates no adverse drainage impacts for events up to and including the 100-year event.”

So What Went Wrong?

Was it:

  • Bad Assumptions?
  • Bad Plans?
  • Bad Execution?
  • Bad Project Management?
  • Bad timing?
  • Worse rainfall than they planned for? Or…
  • One or more of the above?

Harris County’s meteorologist, Jeff Lindner estimates that, at most, last Tuesday’s rain was a 50-year event in this area.

Plea for Expert Advice

If you are an engineer or hydrologist, please help. Review these plans and give me your thoughts. You may remain anonymous if you wish. Please email me through the contact page of this web site. 196 families really need your help. The house you save may be your own…the next time around.

Posted by Bob Rehak on May 16, 2019

625 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Engineering Diagrams for Woodridge Development Reveal Crucial Detention Not Installed Before Elm Grove Flood

Late yesterday, I received engineering and drainage plans for the new development north of Elm Grove called Woodridge Village. They show that the developer had planned detention that was not yet installed when last week’s heavy rains hit. This helps explain why water overflowed into the streets of Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest instead of staying on the developer’s land – where it should have been – until it could be released at a controlled rate into Taylor Gully.

Figure Four Partners, LTD, a subsidiary of PSWA Inc. and Perry Homes, is the developer of approximately 262 acres. Rebel Contractors completely clear cut the entire area before building required – and as it turns out, crucial – stormwater detention.

Plans Differ from Execution

Plans clearly show a huge detention/retention pond that should have been in the southeast part of the property near Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest. Its purpose: to capture runoff from the north and west. The plans also show a diversion of water from the existing ditch that borders the eastern side of the property into the non-existent detention pond.

This isn’t the only detention missing on the property. The northwest pond is also non-existent at this writing.

Photographs taken last week after the rains show that the southwest ditch overflowed where it narrowed down into a two foot pipe. Water then rushed overland into North Kingwood Forest on the east side and Elm Grove on the west. Where the detention pond should have been, one could see large erosion channels approximately one to four feet deep.

Here’s how the drainage works for the entire development.

Note that the direction of flow is generally from north to south and west to east.

Here’s a close-up of the area where a large concrete detention pond should have been. See red circle.

Not-yet-constructed detention pond was designed to capture water from the north and release it through a culvert into Taylor Gully. Approximate area for detention pond was 2 acres. Plans show pond was intended to be 15 feet deep. Thus, this one pond could have and should have retained approximately 30-acre feet of runoff, much of which wound up in the streets of Elm Grove.

Storm Hits Approximately Six Months after Clearcutting

Here’s what the area of the not-yet-constructed detention pond looked like after the storm.

Looking southwest toward the culvert. Abel Vera’s home is just beyond the tallest tree on the left. He and his neighbors up and down Village Springs suffered extensive damage from the water that was not retained on this site.

Below is what it looks like from the opposite direction, when you stand with your back to Elm Grove and Vera’s home.

According to the plans, almost everything between the camera position and the telephone poles in the background should be a 15-foot deep detention pond.

This discovery raises a question. Why did developers wait so long to install the proper detention? Satellite images from Google Earth show that this portion of the site was cleared sometime between 10/28/17 and 12/22/18. Residents say it was substantially cleared by November of 2018.

Developer’s Own Plans Contradict Its Statements

That means it sat clearcut without the required detention for about six months.

Figure Four Partners, LTD said in a statement released after the flood that their detention was installed AND that it functioned as planned. Figure Four’s own plans and these photos tell a different story.

Figure Four’s statement also said the rainfall was as so intense that it should be called an Act of God. Harris County Flood Control later released a statement saying the rainfall was between a two and 50-year event.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/15/2019, with a heads-up from Jeff Miller

524 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Thoughts and conclusions expressed in this post of my opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statutes of the Great State of Texas.