When I ran last week’s post about Harris County’s new Edgewater Park, I got pushback from several people who feared more green spaces could bring in outsiders and create traffic woes.
Value of Green Spaces in Reducing Flood Damage
Since Harvey, hardly a day goes by that we don’t read about the value of parks and green spaces in protecting us from flooding. So I was surprised at the resistance. How many more homes would have flooded in Kingwood had it not been for greenbelts and parks along the east and west forks? Google Earth shows approximately 3200 acres currently used for golf, parks and greenbelt trails in Kingwood. When floods recede these areas usually require little more than some extra maintenance.
Even after Havey, the repair costs for all of Kingwood’s parks put together was less than one home that I know of near the river.
Plus, consider this. Had you divided those 3200 acres up into typical quarter acre lots and put a home on each, 12,800 additional homes would have flooded. Every single one. And if each suffered a quarter million dollars worth of damage, the total would have exceeded $3 billion dollars.
Kingwood and Forest Cove: 4X the Recommended Green Space
Kingwood and Forest Cove are exceptional in the amount of green space that we have per household. About 20% of our acreage is in parks, golf courses or greenbelts, something that makes us especially attractive to active, younger families with children. It’s one of our distinguishing characteristics and most attractive features.
Floods clearly affect home values in a negative way. A study of 8000 homes in a flood-prone area of North Carolina after Hurricane Floyd in 1999 confirmed this. It found that homes outside of a flood plain had a higher market value than equivalent homes inside the flood plain. Further, the price discount for homes inside the flood plain was significantly greater immediately after the hurricane.
Proximity to Parks Positively Impacts Price
But what is the correlation between home values and proximity to parks. Does the proximity help or hurt (as some people suggested)?
There’s been a fair amount of research on this subject. When I googled it, the search returned 330 million results. Seriously! I scanned the first five pages. Luckily, there seems to be consensus. The answer is, “Yes, there is a positive correlation.”
Would you pay extra to live close to this? Studies show most people would.
Some of the landmark studies on this subject were conducted at Texas A&M. One by John Crompton in 2001 reviewed 30 scholarly articles and found that abutting a passive-use park, such as East End, had a 20% positive impact on property values. Crompton also found that abutting active-use parks (such as ball parks or soccer fields) with large numbers of users had little discernible impact, but that properties a block or two away experienced a 10% bump.
Hedonic analysis is particularly popular in real estate. It focuses on the things that people like most or least about property, in other words, what drives or hurts sales. It gages the influence of various pleasant and unpleasant factors on prices. For instance, proximity to the park might be visually pleasant, but noise created at the park might be unpleasant. The word “hedonic” comes from hedonism, the pursuit of pleasure. In this case, the focus on pleasure is as a component of price. The more pleasure people get from something, the higher the price it commands.
The newer studies also isolate price variance by the type of park (active-use, passive, greenbelt, near water, urban, rural, etc.).
Another review of scientific literature by Sarah Nicholls found that in Austin and Indianapolis, proximity to greenbelts accounted for 0%, 2%, 6%, 12% and 15% of average sale value. The variance resulted from different types of greenways, proximity to access points, maintenance, the beauty of vegetation, and the amount of regulation/protection.
Nicholls also found that, “In no case reviewed by this author to date has an open space been found to have a negative impact on surrounding property values.”
Nicholls concludes that it is possible, using hedonic analysis, “to place dollar values, verifiable using rigorous scientific techniques, on the economic contributions of …(green space) … amenities to local communities.”
Offsetting the Negative Influence of Harvey
As the county buys flood-damaged homes below Hamblen Road, I hope they create a greenbelt between River Grove Park and Edgewater Park. It would reduce repetitive flood losses to FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program. It would protect the community from future development that could exacerbate flooding. And it would turn a negative into a positive impact for surrounding homeowners. The county estimates that its current greenway, which stretches from 59 to 45 along Spring Creek, could extend all the way to Tomball within four years. Connecting that trail to Kingwood’s network, could in my opinion, create the kind of high profile amenity that helps counteract any lingering negative influence of Harvey.
Personally, I can’t wait. It may be what I need to get this old bag of bones back on a bike again.
Posted by Bob Rehak on October 27, 2018
424 Days Since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/EEP-Poster-Small.jpg?fit=3613%2C5405&ssl=154053613adminadmin2018-10-26 23:08:382018-10-26 23:11:46How Parks and Green Spaces Improve Real Estate Values
It’s official. There are now two dredges actually dredging on the West Fork. Dredge #2, owned and operated by Great Lakes Dredge and Dock, moved downriver from the command site on October 16.
Getting 2-foot Pipe Through Water One Foot Deep
However, the company had not yet reached placement area #2 with the pipeline. Great Lakes had to dredge their way upstream through water less than one-foot deep in places to get to the placement area with five miles of pipeline that is 2 feet in diameter.
Next Steps: Patches and Pressure Testing
After reaching the placement area with pipe, Great Lakes then had to test it. During testing, dredgers slowly increase pressure in pipe as they look for leaks. The most common place to find leaks is at the joints, but sometimes they need to replace entire sections of pipe. The dredgers then make repairs in the water from pontoons loaded with backhoes and welding equipment. Backhoes bring the pipe up from the bottom of the river and position it in the welding machines.
After that, the dredging company had to test the booster pumps and throttles as they started them up. They also perform dye tests to calibrate velocity measurements. This helps ensure that water in each stage is moving at the same rate of speed. Great Lakes and its subcontractor Callan Marine will each use up to three booster pumps to keep five miles of sediment-laden water moving upriver to their respective placement areas.
One of three booster pumps that Great Lakes will use. This one can be seen from the northbound 59 feeder road.
While dredge #1, which started the same process on September 20 is diesel, dredge #2 is electric. Electric dredges run quieter, but take longer to warm up. As my source said, “An electric dredge slowly heats up the equipment to drive the moisture out; water and electricity don’t mix well.”
Now Working 24/7 Until Completion
With all those steps complete, dredging is now in full swing. By this weekend, both dredgers will be working 24/7 until completion.
To help jumpstart dredging, Great Lakes hired Callan Marine as a subcontractor. Callan had equipment available earlier and started this same process on September 20. The diagram below shows how both companies plan to work together.
Dredge #1 started at the halfway point and will work its way east to the end point. Dredge #2 started at River Grove Park and is working its way toward the midpoint.
Great Lakes will start at the western edge of the project area and work its way to the middle. Meanwhile, Callan, which started in the middle will work its way to the project’s end point – east of the West Lake Houston Parkway Bridge (by Chimichurri’s).
Callan will send its spoils to placement area #1 while Great Lakes will send its to placement area #2.
No News Yet on Next Phase of Dredging
When City of Houston representatives including City Council Member Dave Martin returned from Austin two weeks ago for a high level meeting about the need to remove the mouth bar, hopes were running high. Decisions makers needed only an environmental survey and a placement area before the mouth bar project could proceed. Reportedly, they had reached agreement in principle on all other requirements including funding. However, the City has made no announcements yet about either the survey or a third placement area.
It took 3.5 months for contractors to fully mobilize for the current project. If FEMA, the Corps, the State, and the City can lock down phase two before mid-April, 2019, taxpayers have a chance to save the cost of another mobilization/demobilization – about $18 million.
It would also save precious time. Without having to remobilize, dredgers would have a chance to cut a channel through the mouth bar before the onset of next hurricane season.
Revised, estimated timeline for first phase of the West Fork Emergency Dredging Project
What About River Grove Boat Launch?
Cutting a channel through the side bar at River Grove will probably be the last thing Great Lakes does as part of this phase of dredging. Dredgers are concerned about boater safety and worry that opening the channel now will increase the number of boats on the river and the chance of accidents.
When I go to various flood mitigation meetings around town, I often hear – with some jealously and resentment – that the San Jacinto River Watershed seems to be getting the lion’s share of flood mitigation funding. This is not true, but it’s a popular misperception. Those who believe they are underfunded tell me constantly how unfair they think it is.
Flood Damage and Mitigation Funding Varies Greatly by Watershed
I wondered if there could be a correlation between underfunding of flood mitigation projects and excessive damage. That led me to another report that lists spending by watersheds in dollars: Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) annual federal briefing. It’s Flood Control’s annual report to the Federal Government about how Federal funds are being spent here. The link above is to the 2018 version, published last March. That was just BEFORE the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers started its West Fork dredging project. Note also, it was BEFORE Harris County passed its $2.5 billion flood bond in August. So what follows is a snapshot of the way things were BEFORE Harvey, not now.
SJR Flood Mitigation Projects Underfunded Until Recently
A re-reading of that Federal Briefing confirmed my suspicions and the findings of the Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium. The San Jacinto River watershed is by far the biggest in Harris County. With the exception of a few buyouts and flood gages, until now, it has received NO federal dollars for flood mitigation projects (at least through the County).
Source: Harris County Flood Control 2018 Federal Briefing. Harris County has 22 watersheds. The San Jacinto appears to be the largest.
Previously, projects were completed for the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, Halls Bayou, Buffalo Bayou, Vince Bayou, Little Vince Bayou, and Cypress Creek. There are no capital projects listed for the San Jacinto River Watershed, past or present.
Sims Bayou had 19% of the budget and 2% of the damage.
Clear Creek had 13% of the budget and 7% of the damage.
Greens Bayou had 8% of the budget and 7% of the damage.
Brays Bayou had 23% of the budget and 18% of the damage.
Hunting Bayou had 8% of the budget and 1% of the damage.
White Oak Bayou had 14% of the budget and 3% of the damage.
With No Budget, SJR Tied for Third Highest Amount of Damage
Compared to the six creeks and bayous above, the San Jacinto River had 0% of the budget and 14% of the damage. Here’s how it looks in graph form, taken from the Flood Mitigation Consortium report.
The Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium Report dramatizes the need for equity in funding throughout the region. For a complete breakdown of all watersheds, see the table on page 25 of the report.
What can we deduce from this?
Flood mitigation spending, without a doubt, reduces damage.
The San Jacinto River watershed is by far the most underfunded compared to others.
Vigilance Needed
People in the Lake Houston Area need to fight future underfunding. We have been too quiet and therefore neglected for far too long. We must remain vigilant in coming years to ensure that the projects we have been promised (additional dredging, detention and floodgates, plus better ditch maintenance) are in fact delivered.
Harris County and the federal government together are spending $1.342 billion dollars on capital projects for Sims Bayou, Clear Creek, Greens Bayou, Brays Bayou, Hunting Bayou and White Oak Bayou. The San Jacinto currently gets only one twentieth of that due to the current Corps dredging project.
Before you call Judge Emmett and your county commissioners, I would like to point out that they have already committed to a more equitable distribution of project dollars from the $2.5 billion flood bond passed in August and that the Lake Houston area should get its fair share in the future. Phone calls at this moment are not necessary. Vigilance is. We can’t change the past, but together we can change the future.
Posted by Bob Rehak on October 24, 2018
421 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/HarrisCountyWatersheds.jpg?fit=1500%2C972&ssl=19721500adminadmin2018-10-24 15:54:112018-10-24 16:03:44San Jacinto River Watershed: Underfunded, Overdamaged
How Parks and Green Spaces Improve Real Estate Values
When I ran last week’s post about Harris County’s new Edgewater Park, I got pushback from several people who feared more green spaces could bring in outsiders and create traffic woes.
Value of Green Spaces in Reducing Flood Damage
Since Harvey, hardly a day goes by that we don’t read about the value of parks and green spaces in protecting us from flooding. So I was surprised at the resistance. How many more homes would have flooded in Kingwood had it not been for greenbelts and parks along the east and west forks? Google Earth shows approximately 3200 acres currently used for golf, parks and greenbelt trails in Kingwood. When floods recede these areas usually require little more than some extra maintenance.
Plus, consider this. Had you divided those 3200 acres up into typical quarter acre lots and put a home on each, 12,800 additional homes would have flooded. Every single one. And if each suffered a quarter million dollars worth of damage, the total would have exceeded $3 billion dollars.
Kingwood and Forest Cove: 4X the Recommended Green Space
Kingwood and Forest Cove are exceptional in the amount of green space that we have per household. About 20% of our acreage is in parks, golf courses or greenbelts, something that makes us especially attractive to active, younger families with children. It’s one of our distinguishing characteristics and most attractive features.
Many cities cannot reach the minimum of 10 acres of park space per 1,000 residents recommended by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). Kingwood has four times that! Truly, we were blessed by a visionary developer.
Floods Negatively Impact Price
Floods clearly affect home values in a negative way. A study of 8000 homes in a flood-prone area of North Carolina after Hurricane Floyd in 1999 confirmed this. It found that homes outside of a flood plain had a higher market value than equivalent homes inside the flood plain. Further, the price discount for homes inside the flood plain was significantly greater immediately after the hurricane.
Proximity to Parks Positively Impacts Price
But what is the correlation between home values and proximity to parks. Does the proximity help or hurt (as some people suggested)?
There’s been a fair amount of research on this subject. When I googled it, the search returned 330 million results. Seriously! I scanned the first five pages. Luckily, there seems to be consensus. The answer is, “Yes, there is a positive correlation.”
Would you pay extra to live close to this? Studies show most people would.
Some of the landmark studies on this subject were conducted at Texas A&M. One by John Crompton in 2001 reviewed 30 scholarly articles and found that abutting a passive-use park, such as East End, had a 20% positive impact on property values. Crompton also found that abutting active-use parks (such as ball parks or soccer fields) with large numbers of users had little discernible impact, but that properties a block or two away experienced a 10% bump.
800% Premium for Proximity to Central Park
Since Crompton’s study, mathematical analysis has become more sophisticated. The results are not as dramatic, but still positive. They often use a statistical technique called hedonic analysis that helps tell us how much of a home’s increase in value can be attributed to a particular factor, such as proximity to a park versus proximity to a park, say, downtown. Having a view of Central Park in New York City (as opposed to your neighbor’s air vent), for instance, bumps a home’s value by a whopping 800%. Furthermore, the 800% increase can be seen up to 1500 feet (about a quarter mile) from the park.
Role of Hedonic Analysis in Pricing
Hedonic analysis is particularly popular in real estate. It focuses on the things that people like most or least about property, in other words, what drives or hurts sales. It gages the influence of various pleasant and unpleasant factors on prices. For instance, proximity to the park might be visually pleasant, but noise created at the park might be unpleasant. The word “hedonic” comes from hedonism, the pursuit of pleasure. In this case, the focus on pleasure is as a component of price. The more pleasure people get from something, the higher the price it commands.
The newer studies also isolate price variance by the type of park (active-use, passive, greenbelt, near water, urban, rural, etc.).
Another review of scientific literature by Sarah Nicholls found that in Austin and Indianapolis, proximity to greenbelts accounted for 0%, 2%, 6%, 12% and 15% of average sale value. The variance resulted from different types of greenways, proximity to access points, maintenance, the beauty of vegetation, and the amount of regulation/protection.
Nicholls concludes that it is possible, using hedonic analysis, “to place dollar values, verifiable using rigorous scientific techniques, on the economic contributions of …(green space) … amenities to local communities.”
Offsetting the Negative Influence of Harvey
As the county buys flood-damaged homes below Hamblen Road, I hope they create a greenbelt between River Grove Park and Edgewater Park. It would reduce repetitive flood losses to FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program. It would protect the community from future development that could exacerbate flooding. And it would turn a negative into a positive impact for surrounding homeowners. The county estimates that its current greenway, which stretches from 59 to 45 along Spring Creek, could extend all the way to Tomball within four years. Connecting that trail to Kingwood’s network, could in my opinion, create the kind of high profile amenity that helps counteract any lingering negative influence of Harvey.
Personally, I can’t wait. It may be what I need to get this old bag of bones back on a bike again.
Posted by Bob Rehak on October 27, 2018
424 Days Since Hurricane Harvey
Second Dredge Starts Dredging
It’s official. There are now two dredges actually dredging on the West Fork. Dredge #2, owned and operated by Great Lakes Dredge and Dock, moved downriver from the command site on October 16.
Getting 2-foot Pipe Through Water One Foot Deep
However, the company had not yet reached placement area #2 with the pipeline. Great Lakes had to dredge their way upstream through water less than one-foot deep in places to get to the placement area with five miles of pipeline that is 2 feet in diameter.
Next Steps: Patches and Pressure Testing
After reaching the placement area with pipe, Great Lakes then had to test it. During testing, dredgers slowly increase pressure in pipe as they look for leaks. The most common place to find leaks is at the joints, but sometimes they need to replace entire sections of pipe. The dredgers then make repairs in the water from pontoons loaded with backhoes and welding equipment. Backhoes bring the pipe up from the bottom of the river and position it in the welding machines.
After that, the dredging company had to test the booster pumps and throttles as they started them up. They also perform dye tests to calibrate velocity measurements. This helps ensure that water in each stage is moving at the same rate of speed. Great Lakes and its subcontractor Callan Marine will each use up to three booster pumps to keep five miles of sediment-laden water moving upriver to their respective placement areas.
One of three booster pumps that Great Lakes will use. This one can be seen from the northbound 59 feeder road.
While dredge #1, which started the same process on September 20 is diesel, dredge #2 is electric. Electric dredges run quieter, but take longer to warm up. As my source said, “An electric dredge slowly heats up the equipment to drive the moisture out; water and electricity don’t mix well.”
Now Working 24/7 Until Completion
With all those steps complete, dredging is now in full swing. By this weekend, both dredgers will be working 24/7 until completion.
To help jumpstart dredging, Great Lakes hired Callan Marine as a subcontractor. Callan had equipment available earlier and started this same process on September 20. The diagram below shows how both companies plan to work together.
Dredge #1 started at the halfway point and will work its way east to the end point. Dredge #2 started at River Grove Park and is working its way toward the midpoint.
Great Lakes will start at the western edge of the project area and work its way to the middle. Meanwhile, Callan, which started in the middle will work its way to the project’s end point – east of the West Lake Houston Parkway Bridge (by Chimichurri’s).
Callan will send its spoils to placement area #1 while Great Lakes will send its to placement area #2.
No News Yet on Next Phase of Dredging
When City of Houston representatives including City Council Member Dave Martin returned from Austin two weeks ago for a high level meeting about the need to remove the mouth bar, hopes were running high. Decisions makers needed only an environmental survey and a placement area before the mouth bar project could proceed. Reportedly, they had reached agreement in principle on all other requirements including funding. However, the City has made no announcements yet about either the survey or a third placement area.
It took 3.5 months for contractors to fully mobilize for the current project. If FEMA, the Corps, the State, and the City can lock down phase two before mid-April, 2019, taxpayers have a chance to save the cost of another mobilization/demobilization – about $18 million.
It would also save precious time. Without having to remobilize, dredgers would have a chance to cut a channel through the mouth bar before the onset of next hurricane season.
Revised, estimated timeline for first phase of the West Fork Emergency Dredging Project
What About River Grove Boat Launch?
Cutting a channel through the side bar at River Grove will probably be the last thing Great Lakes does as part of this phase of dredging. Dredgers are concerned about boater safety and worry that opening the channel now will increase the number of boats on the river and the chance of accidents.
Posted on October 25, 2018 by Bob Rehak
422 Days since Hurricane Harvey
San Jacinto River Watershed: Underfunded, Overdamaged
When I go to various flood mitigation meetings around town, I often hear – with some jealously and resentment – that the San Jacinto River Watershed seems to be getting the lion’s share of flood mitigation funding. This is not true, but it’s a popular misperception. Those who believe they are underfunded tell me constantly how unfair they think it is.
Flood Damage and Mitigation Funding Varies Greatly by Watershed
So I’ve done some research on this subject and would like to call your attention to two reports. The first is a regional report by the Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium called Strategies for Flood Mitigation. It examines equity in funding between different watersheds. It found that the San Jacinto River Watershed has 3% of the region’s population, historically has received 0% of the region’s flood mitigation funding, and yet sustained 14% of the region’s damages during Harvey. That would seem to suggest that San Jacinto River Watershed residents suffered almost five times more damage per capita than other watersheds.
I wondered if there could be a correlation between underfunding of flood mitigation projects and excessive damage. That led me to another report that lists spending by watersheds in dollars: Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) annual federal briefing. It’s Flood Control’s annual report to the Federal Government about how Federal funds are being spent here. The link above is to the 2018 version, published last March. That was just BEFORE the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers started its West Fork dredging project. Note also, it was BEFORE Harris County passed its $2.5 billion flood bond in August. So what follows is a snapshot of the way things were BEFORE Harvey, not now.
SJR Flood Mitigation Projects Underfunded Until Recently
A re-reading of that Federal Briefing confirmed my suspicions and the findings of the Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium. The San Jacinto River watershed is by far the biggest in Harris County. With the exception of a few buyouts and flood gages, until now, it has received NO federal dollars for flood mitigation projects (at least through the County).
Source: Harris County Flood Control 2018 Federal Briefing. Harris County has 22 watersheds. The San Jacinto appears to be the largest.
By far, the vast majority of the money spent goes to capital improvement projects such as channelization and detention. Virtually all of that money is spent in six areas according to the Active Federal Projects Summary in the HCFCD Federal Briefing. They are:
Previously, projects were completed for the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, Halls Bayou, Buffalo Bayou, Vince Bayou, Little Vince Bayou, and Cypress Creek. There are no capital projects listed for the San Jacinto River Watershed, past or present.
Higher Percentages of Budget than Damage
So how did the watersheds fare that are receiving federal funding? According to pages 24 and 25 of the Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium report:
With No Budget, SJR Tied for Third Highest Amount of Damage
Compared to the six creeks and bayous above, the San Jacinto River had 0% of the budget and 14% of the damage. Here’s how it looks in graph form, taken from the Flood Mitigation Consortium report.
The Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium Report dramatizes the need for equity in funding throughout the region. For a complete breakdown of all watersheds, see the table on page 25 of the report.
What can we deduce from this?
Vigilance Needed
People in the Lake Houston Area need to fight future underfunding. We have been too quiet and therefore neglected for far too long. We must remain vigilant in coming years to ensure that the projects we have been promised (additional dredging, detention and floodgates, plus better ditch maintenance) are in fact delivered.
Harris County and the federal government together are spending $1.342 billion dollars on capital projects for Sims Bayou, Clear Creek, Greens Bayou, Brays Bayou, Hunting Bayou and White Oak Bayou. The San Jacinto currently gets only one twentieth of that due to the current Corps dredging project.
Before you call Judge Emmett and your county commissioners, I would like to point out that they have already committed to a more equitable distribution of project dollars from the $2.5 billion flood bond passed in August and that the Lake Houston area should get its fair share in the future. Phone calls at this moment are not necessary. Vigilance is. We can’t change the past, but together we can change the future.
Posted by Bob Rehak on October 24, 2018
421 Days since Hurricane Harvey