The TWDB (Texas Water Development Board) has completed its first statewide assessment of flooding. The public comment period on the first draft is open now, but closes on October 3. That’s next Wednesday at 5pm. I plan to write about what I believe is an error of omission. You may have other concerns. One thing is certain. If something isn’t in the report, legislators won’t give it a high priority in the next session.
What/who is TWDB?
The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) provides leadership, information, education, financial assistance, and support for planning, conservation and development of water resources throughout the state.
First Draft of Statewide Flooding Study
The TWDB just finished a draft of its first statewide assessment of flood risks, planning, and mitigation, and is seeking public comment.
The cover note on page one says, “Your information and thoughts on flood mitigation in our state are vital to this first comprehensive assessment on flooding in Texas. As such, please consider taking part in the public review and comment period on the Draft State Flood Assessment.”
“Your input will inform decision-making regarding the need for, and benefits of, future flood planning and financial investment.”
The public review and comment period ends at 5:00 p.m. on October 3, 2018. You can email comments to: PUBLIC-COMMENT@twdb.texas.gov.
The executive summary states the main reasons for and conclusions of the report:
Flooding has never been assessed at the statewide level.
Flood risks pose a serious threat to lives and livelihoods.
Much of Texas is either unmapped or uses out-of-date maps, leading to widespread
confusion.
Rainfall drives most flood events in Texas, but the rainfall data used to inform planning
and design are decades old.
Texas does not have a statewide strategic plan to address flood risk management.
Significant funding is required to mitigate flooding in Texas.
Stakeholders identified the need for additional resources directed toward floodplain
management and mitigation.
Sound science and data are the core elements of effective planning and flood mitigation.
Other Key Findings
Several things jumped out at me. One that hit home on page 26 said, “Local hazard mitigation planning … is not sufficiently scoped to provide collaborative, watershed-based strategic flood planning.”
Another on page 26 also resonated. “Only half of stakeholders reported that their jurisdiction has identified flood risk and conducted local planning efforts to develop mitigation solutions.” The Lake Houston area suffers from this problem. We are affected by Montgomery County which has no flood control district. And until recently, the SJRA had no flood mitigation division. The SJRA is trying to launch a watershed-wide study on flood mitigation, but has been trying to cobble together funding for it since March.
On page 32, the report addresses another issue that has plagued our area. It draws the distinction between planning for water supply and flood control, and the confusion between the two. Remember the protestations of the SJRA about Lake Conroe NOT being a flood control reservoir?
Floodplain Mapping, Planning and Sedimentation
The report includes very little discussion of sedimentation and its role in flooding. Chapter 4 discusses floodplains and mapping. In regard to riverine flooding, it states, “The boundaries of a natural floodplain change with each flood event as sediments are scoured and deposited within the river channel and upon adjacent lands.”
Chapter 5 also briefly mentions sedimentation in regard to planning. On Page 26, the report states that TWDB works with farmers to control sediment. However, there is no mention of sand mining in floodways, a major omission in my opinion.
Flood Mitigation
Chapter 6 on page 33 begins the discussion of flood mitigation activities. Generally, they fall into two categories: structural and non-structural. The chart below indicates the type of activities discussed by stakeholders during input sessions. The size of the rectangles indicates the frequency of responses.
Rectangle size represents frequency of responses when asked about flood mitigation activities.
Sadly, there is no mention of sediment control in regard to flood mitigation. Such omissions, represent, in my opinion, the biggest flaw in this first draft and merit public comment.
Anticipated statewide mitigation costs range from $31.5 to $36.0 billion. However, there is a statewide flood funding shortfall of $18.0 to $26.6 billion after subtracting available funds. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
The remainder of this chapter discusses funding issues.
Confusing Roles and Responsibilities
Chapter 7 discusses other barriers to implementing flood mitigation programs. They include:
Lack of access to local match funding sources. Only 20% of communities have a funding source for local match requirements of grant programs.
Confusing funding options. Currently five state agencies and five federal agencies share responsibilities for administering 16 funding programs.
Complicated application processes. 42 percent of stakeholders requested additional technical training and guidance in navigating the complex deadlines, requirements, and paperwork associated with both state and federal funding programs.
Lack of staffing. Stakeholders said insufficient staffing at all levels of government slows down the flood mitigation process. Chokepoints exist at every step of project timelines which exacerbate this issue.
Lack of training. No state-level requirement exists for training or certification of floodplain administrators or others with flood-related responsibilities. This problem is especially acute in rural areas. Respondents from small communities report difficulty in attending classes because of a lack in staff availability, travel funding, or related resource constraints.
Prolonged timelines. Project timelines for flood mitigation grant programs can take anywhere from months to years between the start of an application to the start of construction or project implementation (if non-structural). The more complex the processes, the lengthier the application review and disbursement period. Stakeholders expressed frustration with this aspect of project implementation, requesting more streamlined processes and increased transparency.
Studies like these become legislative guides. If there’s no focus on sedimentation, the problem doesn’t merit debate in the next session. So…
I plan to write and ask them to include a paragraph about how excessive sedimentation contributed to flooding on the San Jacinto and how sand mines in floodways exacerbated that problem.
As always, these are my opinions on a matter of public policy, protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas.
The email address is: PUBLIC-COMMENT@twdb.texas.gov. I would put Statewide Flood Assessment Public Comment in the subject line to ensure your thoughts are filed correctly.
All comments received by the deadline (Wednesday at 5pm) will be considered. For more information, visit www.texasfloodassessment.com. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Mindy Conyers of TWDB’s Surface Water staff at 512-463-5102.
Posted on September 30, 2018 by Bob Rehak
397 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Screen-Shot-2018-09-30-at-12.47.55-PM.png?fit=1524%2C1502&ssl=115021524adminadmin2018-09-30 15:03:462018-09-30 15:03:46Public Comment Period for TWDB State Flood Assessment Closes October 3
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has spread out across the West Fork of the San Jacinto River for its Emergency Dredging Project. Here is a visual status report from a trip up the river on Friday. I went from West Lake Houston Parkway past the US59 bridge to chronicle what has become an amphibious construction project.
The first dredge belonging to Callan Marine, a subcontractor to Great Lakes Dredge and Dock, has taken up position near the high tension power lines that connect Kingwood and Kings Lake Estates.
This is what the entire dredging assembly looks like.
It has been idling in the same position more than a week while pipeline and booster pumps are connected to it upstream.
Here’s what it looks like from the stern where dredged materials will enter the pipeline that takes them back to placement area #1.
This booster pump is required because of the distance to placement area #1 behind the apartments on Townsend near North Houston Avenue just south of the river.
Pilot boat shuttles pontoon with heavy equipment into place.
Heading upriver, more pipeline waits to be connected near the dredging command site.
At the command site, staff scurries to get the second dredge ready to launch before mid-October.
Dredge #2 owned by Great Lakes Dredge and Dock. This electric dredge will pump sediment to placement area #2 and require more booster pumps than the first dredge because of the length of the pipeline, almost five miles. Placement area #2 is on Sorters Road just south of Kingwood College.
Close up of the business end of the second dredge still at the dock. The rotating assembly stirs up sediment which is then suctioned into the pipeline and pumped to a placement area.Workers loading water into pipeline to get it to submerge.
Pontoon with crane and pipeline welding equipment.Sections of pipe waiting to be connected provide a convenient resting place for egrets and other water fowl.
The debris barges will offload their cargo here, where it will be transferred into these trucks and hauled away for processing or landfill.
Meanwhile, another crew scouts a route to placement area #2. Up the West Fork near Kingwood College, the river is so shallow, it may not be deep enough to float pipeline. If dredging in this reach of the river becomes necessary, it could delay the job and increase costs.
From this brief visual trip up the river, you can see that much prep work remains before full dredging can start. The second dredge has not yet launched and no pipeline has reached placement area 2. City officials have stated that the Corps hoped to be in full operation by mid-October. The 270-day clock for this project began ticking on August 19. Two hundred and twenty-nine days remain to the expected completion. Before the project is done, the Corps expected to move 1.8 million cubic yards of sand and sediment out of the river.
Posted by Bob Rehak on September 30, 2018
397 Days since Hurricane Harvey
00adminadmin2018-09-29 22:02:172018-10-21 15:51:08Dredging Status: End of September
Today, I took a much needed rest from floods, sand mines, sedimentation and tax appraisals. A friend took me and two others out on his boat for a day long encounter with nature. We explored the West Fork, East Fork, Taylor Gulley, Caney Creek, Peach Creek and Luce Bayou. It was a cool, overcast day…the kind that’s perfect for nature photography. Diffused light. Saturated colors. Quiet moments. An intense feeling of beauty and oneness with nature. Restful and rejuvenating. It taught me that there are still places on the San Jacinto that haven’t been screwed up yet. Places worth fighting for. Today reminded me of something Ansel Adams once said, “If you want to preserve nature, inspire people with its beauty.” Here’s my humble attempt. I hope you enjoy these moments as much as I did. Most were taken far up the East Fork.
Posted on 9/29/2018 by Bob Rehak with grateful thanks to Josh Alberson, his boat, and the Creator.
396 Days since Hurricane Harvey
00adminadmin2018-09-28 22:37:412018-09-28 22:37:41San Jacinto River at Its Finest: Nature the Way It Was Meant to Be
Public Comment Period for TWDB State Flood Assessment Closes October 3
The TWDB (Texas Water Development Board) has completed its first statewide assessment of flooding. The public comment period on the first draft is open now, but closes on October 3. That’s next Wednesday at 5pm. I plan to write about what I believe is an error of omission. You may have other concerns. One thing is certain. If something isn’t in the report, legislators won’t give it a high priority in the next session.
What/who is TWDB?
The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) provides leadership, information, education, financial assistance, and support for planning, conservation and development of water resources throughout the state.
First Draft of Statewide Flooding Study
The TWDB just finished a draft of its first statewide assessment of flood risks, planning, and mitigation, and is seeking public comment.
Download the 69-page report here.
The cover note on page one says, “Your information and thoughts on flood mitigation in our state are vital to this first comprehensive assessment on flooding in Texas. As such, please consider taking part in the public review and comment period on the Draft State Flood Assessment.”
“Your input will inform decision-making regarding the need for, and benefits of, future flood planning and financial investment.”
The executive summary states the main reasons for and conclusions of the report:
Other Key Findings
Several things jumped out at me. One that hit home on page 26 said, “Local hazard mitigation planning … is not sufficiently scoped to provide collaborative, watershed-based strategic flood planning.”
Another on page 26 also resonated. “Only half of stakeholders reported that their jurisdiction has identified flood risk and conducted local planning efforts to develop mitigation solutions.” The Lake Houston area suffers from this problem. We are affected by Montgomery County which has no flood control district. And until recently, the SJRA had no flood mitigation division. The SJRA is trying to launch a watershed-wide study on flood mitigation, but has been trying to cobble together funding for it since March.
On page 32, the report addresses another issue that has plagued our area. It draws the distinction between planning for water supply and flood control, and the confusion between the two. Remember the protestations of the SJRA about Lake Conroe NOT being a flood control reservoir?
Floodplain Mapping, Planning and Sedimentation
The report includes very little discussion of sedimentation and its role in flooding. Chapter 4 discusses floodplains and mapping. In regard to riverine flooding, it states, “The boundaries of a natural floodplain change with each flood event as sediments are scoured and deposited within the river channel and upon adjacent lands.”
Chapter 5 also briefly mentions sedimentation in regard to planning. On Page 26, the report states that TWDB works with farmers to control sediment. However, there is no mention of sand mining in floodways, a major omission in my opinion.
Flood Mitigation
Chapter 6 on page 33 begins the discussion of flood mitigation activities. Generally, they fall into two categories: structural and non-structural. The chart below indicates the type of activities discussed by stakeholders during input sessions. The size of the rectangles indicates the frequency of responses.
Rectangle size represents frequency of responses when asked about flood mitigation activities.
Anticipated statewide mitigation costs range from $31.5 to $36.0 billion. However, there is a statewide flood funding shortfall of $18.0 to $26.6 billion after subtracting available funds. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
The remainder of this chapter discusses funding issues.
Confusing Roles and Responsibilities
Chapter 7 discusses other barriers to implementing flood mitigation programs. They include:
If this sounds familiar, perhaps its because I blogged about it months ago.
What I Plan to Do
Studies like these become legislative guides. If there’s no focus on sedimentation, the problem doesn’t merit debate in the next session. So…
As always, these are my opinions on a matter of public policy, protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas.
The email address is: PUBLIC-COMMENT@twdb.texas.gov. I would put Statewide Flood Assessment Public Comment in the subject line to ensure your thoughts are filed correctly.
All comments received by the deadline (Wednesday at 5pm) will be considered. For more information, visit www.texasfloodassessment.com. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Mindy Conyers of TWDB’s Surface Water staff at 512-463-5102.
Posted on September 30, 2018 by Bob Rehak
397 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Dredging Status: End of September
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has spread out across the West Fork of the San Jacinto River for its Emergency Dredging Project. Here is a visual status report from a trip up the river on Friday. I went from West Lake Houston Parkway past the US59 bridge to chronicle what has become an amphibious construction project.
The first dredge belonging to Callan Marine, a subcontractor to Great Lakes Dredge and Dock, has taken up position near the high tension power lines that connect Kingwood and Kings Lake Estates.
This is what the entire dredging assembly looks like.
It has been idling in the same position more than a week while pipeline and booster pumps are connected to it upstream.
Here’s what it looks like from the stern where dredged materials will enter the pipeline that takes them back to placement area #1.
This booster pump is required because of the distance to placement area #1 behind the apartments on Townsend near North Houston Avenue just south of the river.
Pilot boat shuttles pontoon with heavy equipment into place.
Heading upriver, more pipeline waits to be connected near the dredging command site.
At the command site, staff scurries to get the second dredge ready to launch before mid-October.
Dredge #2 owned by Great Lakes Dredge and Dock. This electric dredge will pump sediment to placement area #2 and require more booster pumps than the first dredge because of the length of the pipeline, almost five miles. Placement area #2 is on Sorters Road just south of Kingwood College.
Close up of the business end of the second dredge still at the dock. The rotating assembly stirs up sediment which is then suctioned into the pipeline and pumped to a placement area.
Workers loading water into pipeline to get it to submerge.
Pontoon with crane and pipeline welding equipment.
Sections of pipe waiting to be connected provide a convenient resting place for egrets and other water fowl.
The debris barges will offload their cargo here, where it will be transferred into these trucks and hauled away for processing or landfill.
Meanwhile, another crew scouts a route to placement area #2. Up the West Fork near Kingwood College, the river is so shallow, it may not be deep enough to float pipeline. If dredging in this reach of the river becomes necessary, it could delay the job and increase costs.
From this brief visual trip up the river, you can see that much prep work remains before full dredging can start. The second dredge has not yet launched and no pipeline has reached placement area 2. City officials have stated that the Corps hoped to be in full operation by mid-October. The 270-day clock for this project began ticking on August 19. Two hundred and twenty-nine days remain to the expected completion. Before the project is done, the Corps expected to move 1.8 million cubic yards of sand and sediment out of the river.
Posted by Bob Rehak on September 30, 2018
397 Days since Hurricane Harvey
San Jacinto River at Its Finest: Nature the Way It Was Meant to Be
Today, I took a much needed rest from floods, sand mines, sedimentation and tax appraisals. A friend took me and two others out on his boat for a day long encounter with nature. We explored the West Fork, East Fork, Taylor Gulley, Caney Creek, Peach Creek and Luce Bayou. It was a cool, overcast day…the kind that’s perfect for nature photography. Diffused light. Saturated colors. Quiet moments. An intense feeling of beauty and oneness with nature. Restful and rejuvenating. It taught me that there are still places on the San Jacinto that haven’t been screwed up yet. Places worth fighting for. Today reminded me of something Ansel Adams once said, “If you want to preserve nature, inspire people with its beauty.” Here’s my humble attempt. I hope you enjoy these moments as much as I did. Most were taken far up the East Fork.
Posted on 9/29/2018 by Bob Rehak with grateful thanks to Josh Alberson, his boat, and the Creator.
396 Days since Hurricane Harvey