Senator Brandon Creighton, author of SB 2126 and Senator Charles Perry, Vice Chair and Chair respectively of the Senate Water and Rural Affairs Committee.
Uncontested but Not Unquestioned Testimony
Testimony started at about 8 pm. Chuck Gilman from the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) and David Perkins from Texas Aggregate & Concrete Association (TACA) spoke FOR the bill. Craig Bonds from Texas Parks and Wildlife Division acted as a “resource” for the committee.
Senator Brandon Creighton, the bill’s author is vice chairman of the committee. Senator Charles Perry is chairman. Only Perry and Senators Lois Kolkhorst, Jose Rodriguez, and Carol Alvarado offered questions or comments. Creighton defended the bill vigorously at every turn.
Senator Perry questioned whether the SJRA was the appropriate entity, given its history, to tackle a project like this.
Senator Kohlkorst raised questions about how this would impact the Lower Colorado River Authority. She also raised concerns brought to her by the Katy Prairie Conservancy about the lack of permitting and possible erosion issues.
Senator Alvarado questioned the impact on water quality and increased treatment costs.
Senator Rodriquez questioned why the State was giving away a profitable, salable resource.
Bill Left Pending in Committee
After almost half an hour of testimony and discussion, Chairman Perry left the bill pending in committee. No action was taken on it. At several points during the discussion, members talked about amending the language. Unless it changes substantially, Senator Creighton may not have the votes to get it out of the seven-person committee.
I will continue to monitor this bill as will most citizen groups in Texas. It’s not dead until the session is over.
49:50 to 53:00 Senator Brandon Creighton lays out the case for the bill.
53:30 to 54:30 Chuck Gilman, Director of Water Resources and Flood Management with the SJRA emphasizes that the bill will use private contractors to remove the sediment rather than paying a public entity like the Army Corps to do it.
55:00 – 55:30 Senator Perry asks whether the SJRA is the appropriate entity to tackle a project like this.
55:30 – 56:00 Gilman responds by talking about “Building places along the lake” (sand traps) where they could capture materials with beneficial market value.
56:00 – 56:35 Perry asks why the bill, which was once limited to the SJRA, now applies to every river authority in the state. “What’s changed?”
56:35 – 57:20. Senator Creighton interjects and asks Gilman to explain his role in flood mitigation.
57:20 – 58:10. Gilman gives his history. Perry’s question about change is never answered.
58:10 – 59:00 David Perkins speaks for the bill. He claims it would improve water quality without creating excessive cost. And says TACA wants to “Participate where we can.”
59:00 – 1:00:00 Senator Creighton asks Perkins to explain how sand miners wanted to be part of the current dredging effort, but were discouraged and why that policy needs to change.
1:00:00 – 1:02:30 Perkins implies that TACA volunteered to help the Army Corps dispose of material, but was rebuffed. Blames Corps for inertia. Implies storage was a major part of the $70 million project cost. Talks about TPWD’s 8% royalty fee for removing sand from river as a disincentive for private companies to take sand out of the river.
1:02:30 – 1:03:00. Senator Kolkhorst expresses concerns about lack of permitting in the bill’s language.
1:03:00- 1:04:34. Senator Creighton volunteers to work with her on wording and exclude other river authorities like the Lower Colorado River Authority, if that makes it more palatable.
1:04:35 – 1:05:50 Senator Kolkhorst says she will work with Creighton.
1:06:00 – 1:06:45 Senator Carol Avarado worries about decrease in water quality and an increase in treatment costs. Her concerns are never really addressed.
1:06:45 – 1:07:00 Craig Bonds introduces himself as a resource witness from TPWD.
1:07:00 – 1:07:30 Senator Perry asks what should be put in the bill to protect the environment.
1:07:30 – 1:09:00 Bonds replied that he would bypass permitting where dredging was needed but not bypass permitting statewide. He said he wanted to require permitting for the Hill Country but was OK to bypass permitting on the San Jacinto. Said other areas of the state were “highly sensitive.” He also stated that he saw impacts from both regulated and illicit sand mining in the Hill Country. However, he claimed “sideboards” could be put on activities to protect the San Jacinto. He never explains what those are.
1:09:00-1:09:30 Senator Creighton asks Perkins to describe what a sand trap is and where it would be located.
1:09:30 – 1:10:30 Perkins talked about the need to assess the river first. He said sand needs to be removed on a regular basis and that it could be used for construction. He never did explain what “sand traps” were. Instead he suggested they would undertake “Excavation activities once a year or once every six months” depending on the rate of sedimentation.
1:10:30 – 1:11:25. Creighton emphasized “no free reign.” Said all stakeholders would have to agree where problems exist and that removal would be science-based.
1:11:30 – 1:14:12. Senator Rodriguez expresses concern about the fiscal impact of giving away sand which would otherwise be sold. Craig Bonds explains that TPWD charges an 8% royalty for sand taken out of a river. But he also admits that this bill would do away with that royalty, resulting in a fiscal impact on the state.
1:14:12 Creighton explains that 8% is such a disincentive that practically no river mining exists and the state is not receiving much in royalties.
1:17:00. Testimony ends. No one spoke against the bill. Chairman Perry closed testimony and announced that the bill would be left pending.
Questions Still Remain
Why do Hill Country rivers deserve protection but not the San Jacinto?
Who will conduct the scientific studies? An independent entity? If so, how would that affect cost?
Senator Creighton keeps emphasizing that the LAKE needs to be dredged to improve conveyance and capacity. But TACA talks about doing it “where it makes sense.” From separate discussions, I’ve concluded that TACA means “next to their mines, on the RIVER.” Those are FAR upriver. Does this seem like a disconnect?
Creighton and Gilman talk repeatedly about “sand traps”, but when Perkins is probed on that issue, he talks about excavating the river. Is that another disconnect? What do they really have in mind?
They never acknowledge that these activities could increase sedimentation. Why?
What is the basis for Perkin’s claim that this program will “improve water quality and reduce costs”?
Senate Bill (SB) 2126 is well intentioned. However, in my opinion, its present wording could have disastrous unintended consequences.
What Bill Does
SB 2126 would allow a “conservation or reclamation district” to take sand from the West Fork and its tributaries in order to “restore, maintain, or expand the capacity of the river and its tributaries to convey storm flows.” The district would not need a permit and could deposit sand anywhere as long as it’s on private land. What’s a “conservation district?” The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA), which supports this bill.
Image showing proximity of sand mines to the West Fork of the San Jacinto. If approved, SB2126 would allow miners into the river, too.
How It Started
The SJRA, concerned about sediment in the river, met with miners to see if they could find a public/private solution. The feelings were:
The river had too much sand
Dredging is very expensive
Miners had the expertise and equipment to remove it at no cost to the public.
Great in Theory But…
It’s hard to argue with any of those points and the cost savings are appealing. But this bill ignores the fact that river mining is actually outlawed in many countries. They include England, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Others strongly regulate river mining including Italy, Portugal, and New Zealand.
Scientific literature abounds with examples of how river mining frequently increases sedimentation downstream. Some causes include:
Loss of riparian vegetation that stabilizes river banks
Channel incision (lowering or widening of river beds)
Lowering of flood plain water tables, which kills more plants on river banks and increases erosion
Disturbance (resuspension) of sediment on the river bottom that gets carried downstream
A reduction of “bedload” that contributes to head cutting and downstream erosion, as seen in this video.
“Sediment starvation” which causes downstream water to pull sediment from banks and beds, often resulting in the loss of private property downstream.
Upstream changes in channel geometry that cause beds and banks to erode downstream, for instance, when rivers go from wide (near sand mines) to narrow (downstream).
The SJRA says that it would provide the necessary oversight to reduce negative environmental impacts of river mining. The bill’s authors cite the need for “continuous dredging” on the West Fork. Further, they say that the bureaucracy for contracting dredging is overly burdensome and that this bill will cut red tape. Here is the analysis of the bill prepared for the Senate’s Water and Rural Affairs Committee.
Opponents Say…
Many environmental groups and scientists see river mining as far more destructive than flood-plain mining. Historically, the shift to flood-plain mining across the U.S. was largely a response to the dangers and excesses of river mining.
Also, the bill makes no mention of any oversight provisions, limitations or public comment. Sponsors even argue that the bill’s purpose is to eliminate the red tape associated with current oversight.
The Bayou Land Conservancy, one of the leading environmental groups in the Lake Houston Area, is sending the following letter to members of the Senate Water and Rural Affairs Committee as well the group’s own members.
Bayou Land Conservancy’s Letter on SB 2126
“On behalf of Bayou Land Conservancy, I urge you to vote NO on SB 2126 when the Water & Rural Affairs Committee meets to consider this bill.
“Bayou Land Conservancy is a non-profit, community-supported, land-conservation organization that preserves land along streams for flood control, clean water, and wildlife. We preserve 14,000 acres in the Houston region, primarily focused on the Lake Houston watershed. This includes the San Jacinto River, cited in 2006 as one of America’s most endangered rivers due to a number of threats, including the high intensity of local aggregate mining.
“SB 2126 would allow operators that are now currently limited to mining away from the river to remove sand and gravel from within the river itself. The river belongs to the citizens of Texas, and the contents of the river do as well. SB 2126 allows operators to remove sand, gravel, and other natural products that belong to the taxpayers of Texas without acquiring a permit or paying a fee.
“Not only would passage of this bill set a dangerous precedent, only a casual understanding of the science is necessary to know it would make sedimentation and flooding on the San Jacinto River even worse. “
“Because of the sandy soils along the San Jacinto, river banks are especially prone to collapse. Furthermore, while dredging in the still waters of a lake or bay can have benefits, mining within the flowing portion of a stream catastrophically destabilizes the river channel, speeding up erosion. Far from the imagined result of less sediment moving down the river, this dredging within a flowing river leads to much more sediment ending up in Lake Houston.
“This watershed-wide disruption of regional stream dynamics could also potentially create a tremendous liability for mining operators. Worst of all, this action would send much greater volumes of water even faster downstream, threatening communities like Kingwood, Humble and others.
“Without prior careful and deliberate study by an independent research organization long before any legislation, this practice should not be allowed. There are too many risks to downstream communities. We urge you to keep the life, health, safety, property of these downstream communities in mind and vote NO on SB 2126.”
This Bill Scares Me
The lack of language pertaining to oversight, methods and limitations in SB 2126 scares me. I was at a meeting in Austin last November when the subject of this bill came up.
I asked a simple question: “What would the solution look like?” I got three different answers from the SJRA, legislators and sand miners. Since then, I have met with all three groups again and still have no consistent answer.
Worse, the bill does not encourage them to find one. I can imagine years down the road (when all the good intentions are long forgotten) how the purpose of this bill could be subverted. Imagine a developer like Romerica saying, “I have a flooding problem. Take more sand out of the river and put it on my property. We don’t need any pesky oversight or public comment. Let’s get on with it. Who cares about flood plains when you can just expand the river?”
While I would like to see flood mitigation speeded up, I recognize that removing regulation can sometimes solve one problem only to create others. In addition to increasing sedimentation, this bill could fuel ceaseless and careless development along river banks that contributes to flooding. Despite its good intentions!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/15/2019
594 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SourceOfWater-e1529593516550.jpg?fit=1300%2C846&ssl=18461300adminadmin2019-04-15 19:52:052019-04-15 20:17:11Caution: SB 2126 Opens Door to Sand Mining in Rivers
Houston City Council Member Dave Martin reminds residents of an upcoming Mobile Hurricane Harvey Recovery Center event taking place in Huffman tonight. Intake specialists will be available to assist families with guidance on recovery programs and resources under the City of Houston Homeowner Assistance Program.
Harvey Damage. Photo courtesy of Melissa Sturgis.
The event will take place on/at:
Monday, April 15
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
May Community Center
2100 Wolf Road, Huffman, TX 77336
Take Survey First: Online, By Phone or In Person
If you were affected by Hurricane Harvey, please take the Harvey Recovery Survey before the upcoming event:
The Recovery Survey directs residents to the appropriate recovery program and helps prioritize those with urgent needs. The survey requires no documentation and takes less than 15 minutes to complete. While priority will be given to low- and moderate-income homeowners, assistance is available to homeowners of all income levels. An Intake Specialist will contact you after you complete the Survey regarding next steps.
If you need assistance filling out the Survey, please call 832-393-0550 or visit one of the stationary HRC’s. The closest is at: Northeast: 9551 N. Wayside, Houston, Texas 77028.
It is open Monday and Tuesday, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Wednesday and Thursday from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Saturday from 9:00 to 3:00 p.m. These centers are closed on Sundays. For a map, please click here.
$1.17 Billion in Assistance Available
The City received the $1.17 billion for housing recovery through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the State of Texas General Land Office. The recovery funds include the HoAP, which offers five program options including:
Reimbursement for completed repairs
Homeowner-managed rehabilitation
City-managed rehabilitation and reconstruction
Buyouts
Interim mortgage assistance.
For more information, regarding this project please contact the Houston Recovery Center by calling 832-393-0550.
Posted by Bob Rehak on April 15, 2019
594 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/IMG_4619.jpg?fit=1500%2C1125&ssl=111251500adminadmin2019-04-15 10:54:222019-04-15 10:55:01Mobile Hurricane Harvey Recovery Center Coming to Huffman April 15
SB 2126 Stalls in Committee
Senate Bill 2126 could open the door to in-river sand mining, but was left pending in the Water & Rural Affairs Committee late last night.
Uncontested but Not Unquestioned Testimony
Testimony started at about 8 pm. Chuck Gilman from the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) and David Perkins from Texas Aggregate & Concrete Association (TACA) spoke FOR the bill. Craig Bonds from Texas Parks and Wildlife Division acted as a “resource” for the committee.
Senator Brandon Creighton, the bill’s author is vice chairman of the committee. Senator Charles Perry is chairman. Only Perry and Senators Lois Kolkhorst, Jose Rodriguez, and Carol Alvarado offered questions or comments. Creighton defended the bill vigorously at every turn.
Bill Left Pending in Committee
After almost half an hour of testimony and discussion, Chairman Perry left the bill pending in committee. No action was taken on it. At several points during the discussion, members talked about amending the language. Unless it changes substantially, Senator Creighton may not have the votes to get it out of the seven-person committee.
I will continue to monitor this bill as will most citizen groups in Texas. It’s not dead until the session is over.
Watch Testimony
You can watch testimony and committee discussion for yourself at this link. Discussion of SB 2126 begins at 49:50 into the meeting and runs 27 minutes. Here are highlights and time codes for people who want to fast forward to certain parts.
49:50 to 53:00 Senator Brandon Creighton lays out the case for the bill.
53:30 to 54:30 Chuck Gilman, Director of Water Resources and Flood Management with the SJRA emphasizes that the bill will use private contractors to remove the sediment rather than paying a public entity like the Army Corps to do it.
55:00 – 55:30 Senator Perry asks whether the SJRA is the appropriate entity to tackle a project like this.
55:30 – 56:00 Gilman responds by talking about “Building places along the lake” (sand traps) where they could capture materials with beneficial market value.
56:00 – 56:35 Perry asks why the bill, which was once limited to the SJRA, now applies to every river authority in the state. “What’s changed?”
56:35 – 57:20. Senator Creighton interjects and asks Gilman to explain his role in flood mitigation.
57:20 – 58:10. Gilman gives his history. Perry’s question about change is never answered.
58:10 – 59:00 David Perkins speaks for the bill. He claims it would improve water quality without creating excessive cost. And says TACA wants to “Participate where we can.”
59:00 – 1:00:00 Senator Creighton asks Perkins to explain how sand miners wanted to be part of the current dredging effort, but were discouraged and why that policy needs to change.
1:00:00 – 1:02:30 Perkins implies that TACA volunteered to help the Army Corps dispose of material, but was rebuffed. Blames Corps for inertia. Implies storage was a major part of the $70 million project cost. Talks about TPWD’s 8% royalty fee for removing sand from river as a disincentive for private companies to take sand out of the river.
1:02:30 – 1:03:00. Senator Kolkhorst expresses concerns about lack of permitting in the bill’s language.
1:03:00- 1:04:34. Senator Creighton volunteers to work with her on wording and exclude other river authorities like the Lower Colorado River Authority, if that makes it more palatable.
1:04:35 – 1:05:50 Senator Kolkhorst says she will work with Creighton.
1:06:00 – 1:06:45 Senator Carol Avarado worries about decrease in water quality and an increase in treatment costs. Her concerns are never really addressed.
1:06:45 – 1:07:00 Craig Bonds introduces himself as a resource witness from TPWD.
1:07:00 – 1:07:30 Senator Perry asks what should be put in the bill to protect the environment.
1:07:30 – 1:09:00 Bonds replied that he would bypass permitting where dredging was needed but not bypass permitting statewide. He said he wanted to require permitting for the Hill Country but was OK to bypass permitting on the San Jacinto. Said other areas of the state were “highly sensitive.” He also stated that he saw impacts from both regulated and illicit sand mining in the Hill Country. However, he claimed “sideboards” could be put on activities to protect the San Jacinto. He never explains what those are.
1:09:00-1:09:30 Senator Creighton asks Perkins to describe what a sand trap is and where it would be located.
1:09:30 – 1:10:30 Perkins talked about the need to assess the river first. He said sand needs to be removed on a regular basis and that it could be used for construction. He never did explain what “sand traps” were. Instead he suggested they would undertake “Excavation activities once a year or once every six months” depending on the rate of sedimentation.
1:10:30 – 1:11:25. Creighton emphasized “no free reign.” Said all stakeholders would have to agree where problems exist and that removal would be science-based.
1:11:30 – 1:14:12. Senator Rodriguez expresses concern about the fiscal impact of giving away sand which would otherwise be sold. Craig Bonds explains that TPWD charges an 8% royalty for sand taken out of a river. But he also admits that this bill would do away with that royalty, resulting in a fiscal impact on the state.
1:14:12 Creighton explains that 8% is such a disincentive that practically no river mining exists and the state is not receiving much in royalties.
1:17:00. Testimony ends. No one spoke against the bill. Chairman Perry closed testimony and announced that the bill would be left pending.
Questions Still Remain
So many questions. So little time. In exactly three weeks, final deadlines start kicking in for this legislative session.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/16/2019
595 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Caution: SB 2126 Opens Door to Sand Mining in Rivers
Senate Bill (SB) 2126 is well intentioned. However, in my opinion, its present wording could have disastrous unintended consequences.
What Bill Does
SB 2126 would allow a “conservation or reclamation district” to take sand from the West Fork and its tributaries in order to “restore, maintain, or expand the capacity of the river and its tributaries to convey storm flows.” The district would not need a permit and could deposit sand anywhere as long as it’s on private land. What’s a “conservation district?” The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA), which supports this bill.
How It Started
The SJRA, concerned about sediment in the river, met with miners to see if they could find a public/private solution. The feelings were:
Great in Theory But…
It’s hard to argue with any of those points and the cost savings are appealing. But this bill ignores the fact that river mining is actually outlawed in many countries. They include England, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Others strongly regulate river mining including Italy, Portugal, and New Zealand.
Scientific literature abounds with examples of how river mining frequently increases sedimentation downstream. Some causes include:
For more background and explanation, see:
Proponents Say…
The SJRA says that it would provide the necessary oversight to reduce negative environmental impacts of river mining. The bill’s authors cite the need for “continuous dredging” on the West Fork. Further, they say that the bureaucracy for contracting dredging is overly burdensome and that this bill will cut red tape. Here is the analysis of the bill prepared for the Senate’s Water and Rural Affairs Committee.
Opponents Say…
Many environmental groups and scientists see river mining as far more destructive than flood-plain mining. Historically, the shift to flood-plain mining across the U.S. was largely a response to the dangers and excesses of river mining.
Also, the bill makes no mention of any oversight provisions, limitations or public comment. Sponsors even argue that the bill’s purpose is to eliminate the red tape associated with current oversight.
The Bayou Land Conservancy, one of the leading environmental groups in the Lake Houston Area, is sending the following letter to members of the Senate Water and Rural Affairs Committee as well the group’s own members.
Bayou Land Conservancy’s Letter on SB 2126
“On behalf of Bayou Land Conservancy, I urge you to vote NO on SB 2126 when the Water & Rural Affairs Committee meets to consider this bill.
“Bayou Land Conservancy is a non-profit, community-supported, land-conservation organization that preserves land along streams for flood control, clean water, and wildlife. We preserve 14,000 acres in the Houston region, primarily focused on the Lake Houston watershed. This includes the San Jacinto River, cited in 2006 as one of America’s most endangered rivers due to a number of threats, including the high intensity of local aggregate mining.
“SB 2126 would allow operators that are now currently limited to mining away from the river to remove sand and gravel from within the river itself. The river belongs to the citizens of Texas, and the contents of the river do as well. SB 2126 allows operators to remove sand, gravel, and other natural products that belong to the taxpayers of Texas without acquiring a permit or paying a fee.
“Because of the sandy soils along the San Jacinto, river banks are especially prone to collapse. Furthermore, while dredging in the still waters of a lake or bay can have benefits, mining within the flowing portion of a stream catastrophically destabilizes the river channel, speeding up erosion. Far from the imagined result of less sediment moving down the river, this dredging within a flowing river leads to much more sediment ending up in Lake Houston.
“This watershed-wide disruption of regional stream dynamics could also potentially create a tremendous liability for mining operators. Worst of all, this action would send much greater volumes of water even faster downstream, threatening communities like Kingwood, Humble and others.
“Without prior careful and deliberate study by an independent research organization long before any legislation, this practice should not be allowed. There are too many risks to downstream communities. We urge you to keep the life, health, safety, property of these downstream communities in mind and vote NO on SB 2126.”
This Bill Scares Me
The lack of language pertaining to oversight, methods and limitations in SB 2126 scares me. I was at a meeting in Austin last November when the subject of this bill came up.
I asked a simple question: “What would the solution look like?” I got three different answers from the SJRA, legislators and sand miners. Since then, I have met with all three groups again and still have no consistent answer.
Worse, the bill does not encourage them to find one. I can imagine years down the road (when all the good intentions are long forgotten) how the purpose of this bill could be subverted. Imagine a developer like Romerica saying, “I have a flooding problem. Take more sand out of the river and put it on my property. We don’t need any pesky oversight or public comment. Let’s get on with it. Who cares about flood plains when you can just expand the river?”
While I would like to see flood mitigation speeded up, I recognize that removing regulation can sometimes solve one problem only to create others. In addition to increasing sedimentation, this bill could fuel ceaseless and careless development along river banks that contributes to flooding. Despite its good intentions!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/15/2019
594 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Mobile Hurricane Harvey Recovery Center Coming to Huffman April 15
Houston City Council Member Dave Martin reminds residents of an upcoming Mobile Hurricane Harvey Recovery Center event taking place in Huffman tonight. Intake specialists will be available to assist families with guidance on recovery programs and resources under the City of Houston Homeowner Assistance Program.
The event will take place on/at:
Take Survey First: Online, By Phone or In Person
If you were affected by Hurricane Harvey, please take the Harvey Recovery Survey before the upcoming event:
The Recovery Survey directs residents to the appropriate recovery program and helps prioritize those with urgent needs. The survey requires no documentation and takes less than 15 minutes to complete. While priority will be given to low- and moderate-income homeowners, assistance is available to homeowners of all income levels. An Intake Specialist will contact you after you complete the Survey regarding next steps.
If you need assistance filling out the Survey, please call 832-393-0550 or visit one of the stationary HRC’s. The closest is at: Northeast: 9551 N. Wayside, Houston, Texas 77028.
It is open Monday and Tuesday, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Wednesday and Thursday from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Saturday from 9:00 to 3:00 p.m. These centers are closed on Sundays. For a map, please click here.
$1.17 Billion in Assistance Available
The City received the $1.17 billion for housing recovery through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the State of Texas General Land Office. The recovery funds include the HoAP, which offers five program options including:
For more information, regarding this project please contact the Houston Recovery Center by calling 832-393-0550.
Posted by Bob Rehak on April 15, 2019
594 Days since Hurricane Harvey