Correction: Since posting this story two hours ago, I have spoken with an enforcement officer from US Fish & Wildlife Service. He investigated this particular nest and found no droppings or fish bones around the base of the tree. He said you would expect that if the nest was active. He also said the tree was dead, likely a victim of all the sand deposited by Hurricane Harvey along the river. Finally, he said that bald eagles often establish multiple nests in an area and sometimes switch between them. This nest may have been abandoned when the tree began to die after Harvey. The eagle in the photo may have been revisiting it because it was a good perch for fishing. So I have edited the story to remove all mentions of “apparently active.”
Emily Murphy took the shot below on 3/27/19 from her kayak on the West Fork. It clearly shows a bald eagle and a very large nest.
Bald Eagle and Nest on Romerica Property. Romerica hopes to build a series of high rises within 750 feet of this nest.
Ironically, I photographed what appears to be the same nest from the river on January 31, 2019 while on a ride-along with HPD Lake Patrol. My shot appears closer than Murphy’s because I took it with a 1000mm super-telephoto lens.
Photo taken by Bob Rehak on 1/31/19 from West Fork of San Jacinto with 1000mm lens. Note the similarity of the bark stripped from tree opposite the nest. GPS coordinates are embedded in the JPEG and virtually identical to Murphy’s.Location of nest pinpointed and circled below.
The Balcom family, which lives near the river at the western (left) edge of the satellite image above, photographed a pair of bald eagles on their property in December.
Pair of bald eagles outside Balcom residence on River Bend, one mile west of nest site. Photo by Melissa and Jim Balcom.
Boaters, Please Report Sightings
Boaters, please help. Let me know through the contact page on this web site if you see activity in this area. If you see a nest – active or not – do not approach it or disturb the birds in any way. It’s illegal. See below. And do not enter Romerica’s property. That’s trespassing.
Since the original Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act has been amended several times. It currently prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald eagles. Taking is described to include their parts, nests, or eggs, molesting or disturbing the birds. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle … [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof.”[2]
Purpose of Protection Act
The purpose of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection act is to protect bald and golden eagles from disturbance, abuse, and interference with their lifestyle. That includes sheltering, breeding, feeding, and nesting.[3]
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/28/2019
576 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/DSC06075-e1553783700221.jpeg?fit=1046%2C1573&ssl=115731046adminadmin2019-03-28 09:23:172019-03-28 11:26:34Emily Murphy Photographs Inactive Bald Eagle Nest on Romerica Property from River; Active Nests Likely in Vicinity
Five days ago, State Representative Dan Huberty offered an amendment to Senate Bill 500 (SB500). SB500 is the omnibus Senate appropriations bill making its way through the House. It contains appropriations for everything from health care to education to criminal justice and highways and more.
Texas Capitol Building in Austin from the South Grounds
After the first reading, House members could file amendments of their own. They voted on amendments in the second reading. Tomorrow, if the House follows procedures, all members will get a chance to vote on the SB500, as amended by the House. It’s rare that a non-controversial spending bill like this would be voted down during the third reading. Regardless, tomorrow is the Huberty amendment’s SECOND major hurdle.
Conference Committee Next if Bill Approved
Because differences now exist between the House and Senate versions of the bill, the bill will go to a “conference committee.”
The conference committee will then try to reconcile, compromise on or accept differences in the bills approved by the Senate and House. Surviving the conference committee represents the THIRD major hurdle.
Re-Votes in House and Senate, Then On to Governor
Assuming the amendment is still alive at that point, the conference committee version will go back to both chambers for a final vote. According to rules of the Texas Legislature, the final vote on a conference committee bill must be straight YEA or NAY. Amendments may no longer be offered. Those votes in the House and Senate will represent the FOURTH and FIFTH hurdles.
Obtaining the governor’s signature will be SIXTH.
Next Steps
Next stops:
Final vote in the House on March 28
Conference committee
Re-votes on revised bill in House and Senate
Governor’s desk
Mouth Bar!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/27/2019
575 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/capitolc_1024.jpg?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=17681024adminadmin2019-03-27 19:44:032019-03-27 19:44:31Huberty Amendment to Appropriate Money for Dredging Mouth Bar Passes First of Six Hurdles Today
Last week, I reviewed Texas Senate Bill 7 (SB7) which creates a Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund. The fund, if approved, will help local governments by providing grants and low- and no-interest loans for flood mitigation projects in four major categories. Categories include Floodplain Management, Hurricane Harvey, Floodplain Implementation and Federal Matching accounts. A competing bills has emerged in the House called HB13.
Dome of the Texas state capital in Austin
The Senate specified funding for SB7 in SB500, an omnibus appropriations bill. SB500 appropriated $1.65 billion for SB7 from the Economic Stabilization (Rainy Day) Fund. See Section 29a on page 12.
However, when SB500 moved to the House, the House Appropriations committee voted to remove the funding for SB7. The committee report states, “The substitute does not include an appropriation to the comptroller for the Texas infrastructure resiliency fund or certain other provisions relating to that fund.” See the second to the last paragraph on page 9.
Meanwhile, State Representative Dade Phelan from Orange, Tx. filed House Bill 13 (HB13). SB7 and HB13 do many of the same things, but have some important differences. HB13 would provide $3.26 billion out of the economic stabilization fund.
SB7 creates something called the “Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund”; HB13 sets up a “Flood Infrastructure Fund.”
Important Similarities Between SB7 and HB13
Both SB7 and HB13:
Relate to flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects
Could make loans at or below market rates
Could make grants to cities and counties to provide matching funds that make them eligible to participate in a federal program for a flood project
Provide seed money to help attract federal grants
Would likely accelerate flood mitigation.
Differences
The Texas Water Development Board would control grants and loans made under HB13, but SB7 would create a separate board to control and distribute funds.
Compared to SB7, HB13 takes twice as much from the Rainy Day Fund.
Principal and interest payments on loans made under HB13 could be deferred for not more than 10 years or until construction of the flood project is completed, whichever is earlier.
HB13 would give special consideration to cities and counties whose median household income falls more than 15% below the state median.
HB13 encourages regional solutions by requiring cities and counties to demonstrate that they have acted cooperatively with other cities and counties. In other words, they don’t want people passing problems downstream. For instance, adding additional gates to the Lake Houston Dam might flood properties downstream. If so, HB13 could require buying out properties below the dam to avoid flooding them before adding gates to the dam (something that is already happening).
How does HB13 encourage cooperation? By requiring that all political subdivisions substantially affected by any given flood mitigation project: 1) participate in the process of developing the proposed flood project; 2) hold public meetings on proposed flood projects; and 3) compare their impacts versus other potential flood projects for the same area.
HB13 also requires the state to prepare:
A statewide flood plan that must be updated every five years
A 10-year dam and maintenance plan.
What Happens Next?
The full House has not yet voted on HB13. Consideration of SB7 will likely be delayed in the House until HB13 is voted up or down by the House. In the meantime, the House deferred any action on funding for SB7 by taking it out of SB500. It could always be handled separately at a later date in a supplementary appropriations bill.
If the House votes FOR HB13, we will then have two partially approved bills that do substantially the same thing. They would go to a conference committee to forge a compromise bill.
A conference committee consists of 10 people. The leader of each house appoints five. They work with each other to incorporate the best aspects of each bill. When a bill comes out of conference committee, it goes back to the House and Senate for straight up or down votes. Rules do NOT allow any amendments to bills that come out of conference committees.
With the amount of dollars at stake, not to mention the number of flood mitigation projects that depend on those dollars, everyone should closely watch the progress of these bills.
One Concern About HB13
After pondering each of these bills, I have one concern about HB13: the requirement to gain cooperation from all affected parties. In principle, it sounds good. In action, it could delay mitigation projects for years. It assumes political willpower and financial capabilities among multiple jurisdictions that may not exist. Mitigation for tens of thousands of people could be held up by a handful of folks that refuse to cooperate. There needs to be some way to arbitrate in such cases.
For instance, the San Jacinto River touches multiple cities and counties, has two major lakes, and is governed by the San Jacinto River Authority and the Coastal Water Authority. Lining up all those dominos every time someone somewhere wants to improve drainage may represent an impossible hurdle to clear.
The good news: the best minds in the state are all focused on ways to speed up and fund flood mitigation projects. A good compromise will likely emerge
I will continue to follow both of these bills as they work their ways through the House and Senate.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/27/19
575 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/dome2_1024.jpg?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=17681024adminadmin2019-03-27 14:35:162019-03-27 14:40:24Senate Appropriates $1.65 Billion for SB7, But House Omits Funding For It While Considering $3.26 Billion For HB13
Emily Murphy Photographs Inactive Bald Eagle Nest on Romerica Property from River; Active Nests Likely in Vicinity
Correction: Since posting this story two hours ago, I have spoken with an enforcement officer from US Fish & Wildlife Service. He investigated this particular nest and found no droppings or fish bones around the base of the tree. He said you would expect that if the nest was active. He also said the tree was dead, likely a victim of all the sand deposited by Hurricane Harvey along the river. Finally, he said that bald eagles often establish multiple nests in an area and sometimes switch between them. This nest may have been abandoned when the tree began to die after Harvey. The eagle in the photo may have been revisiting it because it was a good perch for fishing. So I have edited the story to remove all mentions of “apparently active.”
Emily Murphy took the shot below on 3/27/19 from her kayak on the West Fork. It clearly shows a bald eagle and a very large nest.
Ironically, I photographed what appears to be the same nest from the river on January 31, 2019 while on a ride-along with HPD Lake Patrol. My shot appears closer than Murphy’s because I took it with a 1000mm super-telephoto lens.
The Balcom family, which lives near the river at the western (left) edge of the satellite image above, photographed a pair of bald eagles on their property in December.
Boaters, Please Report Sightings
Boaters, please help. Let me know through the contact page on this web site if you see activity in this area. If you see a nest – active or not – do not approach it or disturb the birds in any way. It’s illegal. See below. And do not enter Romerica’s property. That’s trespassing.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Although no longer an endangered species, bald eagles are still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) is a United States federal statute.) The statute protects two species of eagle. According to Wikipedia, the bald eagle was chosen as a national emblem of the United States by the Continental Congress of 1782 and was given legal protection by the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940. This act was expanded to include the golden eagle in 1962.[1]
Since the original Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act has been amended several times. It currently prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald eagles. Taking is described to include their parts, nests, or eggs, molesting or disturbing the birds. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle … [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof.”[2]
Purpose of Protection Act
The purpose of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection act is to protect bald and golden eagles from disturbance, abuse, and interference with their lifestyle. That includes sheltering, breeding, feeding, and nesting.[3]
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/28/2019
576 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Huberty Amendment to Appropriate Money for Dredging Mouth Bar Passes First of Six Hurdles Today
Five days ago, State Representative Dan Huberty offered an amendment to Senate Bill 500 (SB500). SB500 is the omnibus Senate appropriations bill making its way through the House. It contains appropriations for everything from health care to education to criminal justice and highways and more.
Huberty filed his amendment last week. Below are the steps required for ultimate passage of SB500 and Huberty’s amendment.
First of Three Readings
Each bill passing through the Texas House or Senate goes through three “readings.” The first reading happened when SB500 arrived in the House. House members got their first chance to read the bill in its final form as amended by the Senate.
After the first reading, House members could file amendments of their own. They voted on amendments in the second reading. Tomorrow, if the House follows procedures, all members will get a chance to vote on the SB500, as amended by the House. It’s rare that a non-controversial spending bill like this would be voted down during the third reading. Regardless, tomorrow is the Huberty amendment’s SECOND major hurdle.
Conference Committee Next if Bill Approved
Because differences now exist between the House and Senate versions of the bill, the bill will go to a “conference committee.”
The conference committee will then try to reconcile, compromise on or accept differences in the bills approved by the Senate and House. Surviving the conference committee represents the THIRD major hurdle.
Re-Votes in House and Senate, Then On to Governor
Assuming the amendment is still alive at that point, the conference committee version will go back to both chambers for a final vote. According to rules of the Texas Legislature, the final vote on a conference committee bill must be straight YEA or NAY. Amendments may no longer be offered. Those votes in the House and Senate will represent the FOURTH and FIFTH hurdles.
Obtaining the governor’s signature will be SIXTH.
Next Steps
Next stops:
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/27/2019
575 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Senate Appropriates $1.65 Billion for SB7, But House Omits Funding For It While Considering $3.26 Billion For HB13
Last week, I reviewed Texas Senate Bill 7 (SB7) which creates a Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund. The fund, if approved, will help local governments by providing grants and low- and no-interest loans for flood mitigation projects in four major categories. Categories include Floodplain Management, Hurricane Harvey, Floodplain Implementation and Federal Matching accounts. A competing bills has emerged in the House called HB13.
The Senate specified funding for SB7 in SB500, an omnibus appropriations bill. SB500 appropriated $1.65 billion for SB7 from the Economic Stabilization (Rainy Day) Fund. See Section 29a on page 12.
However, when SB500 moved to the House, the House Appropriations committee voted to remove the funding for SB7. The committee report states, “The substitute does not include an appropriation to the comptroller for the Texas infrastructure resiliency fund or certain other provisions relating to that fund.” See the second to the last paragraph on page 9.
Meanwhile, State Representative Dade Phelan from Orange, Tx. filed House Bill 13 (HB13). SB7 and HB13 do many of the same things, but have some important differences. HB13 would provide $3.26 billion out of the economic stabilization fund.
SB7 creates something called the “Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund”; HB13 sets up a “Flood Infrastructure Fund.”
Important Similarities Between SB7 and HB13
Both SB7 and HB13:
Differences
HB13 also requires the state to prepare:
What Happens Next?
The full House has not yet voted on HB13. Consideration of SB7 will likely be delayed in the House until HB13 is voted up or down by the House. In the meantime, the House deferred any action on funding for SB7 by taking it out of SB500. It could always be handled separately at a later date in a supplementary appropriations bill.
If the House votes FOR HB13, we will then have two partially approved bills that do substantially the same thing. They would go to a conference committee to forge a compromise bill.
A conference committee consists of 10 people. The leader of each house appoints five. They work with each other to incorporate the best aspects of each bill. When a bill comes out of conference committee, it goes back to the House and Senate for straight up or down votes. Rules do NOT allow any amendments to bills that come out of conference committees.
With the amount of dollars at stake, not to mention the number of flood mitigation projects that depend on those dollars, everyone should closely watch the progress of these bills.
One Concern About HB13
After pondering each of these bills, I have one concern about HB13: the requirement to gain cooperation from all affected parties. In principle, it sounds good. In action, it could delay mitigation projects for years. It assumes political willpower and financial capabilities among multiple jurisdictions that may not exist. Mitigation for tens of thousands of people could be held up by a handful of folks that refuse to cooperate. There needs to be some way to arbitrate in such cases.
For instance, the San Jacinto River touches multiple cities and counties, has two major lakes, and is governed by the San Jacinto River Authority and the Coastal Water Authority. Lining up all those dominos every time someone somewhere wants to improve drainage may represent an impossible hurdle to clear.
The good news: the best minds in the state are all focused on ways to speed up and fund flood mitigation projects. A good compromise will likely emerge
I will continue to follow both of these bills as they work their ways through the House and Senate.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/27/19
575 Days since Hurricane Harvey