When it comes to communicating “best management practices” (BMPs) for sand mines, Louisiana sets the gold standard. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the Concrete & Aggregate Association of Louisiana, Inc. worked together to develop BMPs. Their goals: to reduce the amount of sediment and turbidity in streams and rivers that result from sand and gravel mining and to improve water quality.
This guide represents a realistic and open approach, which I appreciated. It’s also concise, candid and clearly written. For those who don’t have time to read the entire 41-page document, a summary follows, especially of the parts that talk about sedimentation. I’ve inserted several images from the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto to contrast practices in Texas and Louisiana.
Importance of Sand and Gravel to Economy
The Introduction discusses the importance of aggregate (sand and gravel) to the Louisiana economy. Sand and gravel are essential resources for construction. In fact, they represent Louisiana’s second most valuable non-fuel natural resource.
Almost half (48%) of all the aggregate produces concrete. The second largest use (22%) is as a base material for highways, railways, runways, etc.
Types of Mining
The document then discusses different techniques of mining: dry (by excavation) and wet (by dredging). Louisiana focuses primarily on wet, which is the type of mines we have along the San Jacinto with a few exceptions.
Importance of Storm Water Management
Page 4 contains a discussion of “Non-point Source Storm Water Management.” Non-point essentially means from rain, runoff and flooding. It occurs across an entire area as opposed to a specific point, such as a leaky fuel tank. Some key quotes:
“Sand and gravel mining operations can potentially cause off-site impacts to water quality if site planning and BMPs (Best Management Practices) are not factored into every aspect of the mining operation.”
“Sand and gravel mining operations disturb land and soil…”
“Good site planning and operation can reduce the likelihood of sediments moving off of the operation…”
“The purpose of the BMP Manual is to provide information on the types of BMPs that should be utilized during every phase of the mining operation in order to prevent pollutants from leaving the mining operation.”
Dangers of Not Following BMPs
Page 5 discusses the dangers if miners do not follow best management practices.
“Siltation is considered the highest nonpoint source priority of concern in wetland areas and the second highest priority affecting lakes (1992 Report to Congress). Mining related activities have been estimated to cause 7 percent of the nation’s nonpoint source impacts to lakes and 17 percent to coastal waters. Sediments from mining operations could consist primarily of biologically inert materials which could potentially adversely affect the water body’s designated uses. Inert suspended sediments have the following detrimental impacts to the aquatic habitat:
Sediments smother lower forms of aquatic life in the bottom of a stream. This can destroy the aquatic life in a stream because it kills the food supply. If sedimentation continues with a high concentration of suspended solids, the stream will fail to recover. Sediment deposition may also cover fish eggs and break the life cycle; thereby, destroying the fishery uses of the stream;
A continued cloudy condition of a stream will deter its use for almost all recreational purposes;
Directly or indirectly, it can change the characteristics of a stream channel and in many instances can limit boat usage and cause additional flooding hazards;
In rivers that are utilized for drinking waters, silt creates an additional expense upon the water treatment and purification process for both domestic and industrial users; and
It decreases photosynthetic action and thereby reduces the capacity of a stream to assimilate organic matter.”
Recommendations for Soil Conservation
Page 11 marks the start of the discussion about specific BMPs. The first BMP addresses soil conservation. “Sediment loads discharged to streams must be minimized, if not eliminated altogether,” they say. “There are basically two types of controls: vegetative and structural.”
Streambank BMP Recommendations
Regarding the Streambank Best Management Practice (BMP), they say: “When native vegetation is used to maintain streambanks, there are many benefits provided to the public and environment. Near the waters’ edge, herbaceous and wetland plants help filter pollutants from the water and prevent bank erosion during high flow periods. These plants also provide habitat for fish and natural predators of mosquitoes as well as increasing aesthetical appeal. Spatial balance between native trees and shrubs on the streambank provides stability and shading. Shading from trees lowers water temperature and improves water quality by conserving the oxygen in the water.”
Note the images below. The first represents the ideal and was pulled from the Louisiana BMP guide. The others are from sand mines on the West Fork of the San Jacinto and Caney Creek in Texas.
Image of ideal stream bank from Louisiana Sand Mining Best Practices Guide.
West Fork sand mine that has been been repeatedly inundated. Note dikes which have been breached and repaired.
Another portion of the same mine that has been repeatedly inundated. Note width of dike, steepness of slopes, and lack of vegetation to retard erosion. This area is no longer actively being mined.
West Fork sand mines on 8/30/17, one day after the peak of the Hurricane Harvey flood. Note how flood water breached dikes and flowed through mines on both sides of the river. Photo courtesy of Google Earth.
Reducing Erosion through Vegetation
“Vegetation is an inexpensive and effective way to protect soil from erosion,” Louisiana says. “It also decreases erosion from flowing water by reducing its velocity. Roots hold soil and increase infiltration. Topsoil should be added where existing soils are not suitable for adequate vegetative growth.”
Vegetative controls include:
Maintaining buffer zones between mine and river
Sod stabilization techniques
When installed and maintained properly, sodding can be more than 99 percent effective in reducing erosion.
Protection of trees involves preserving and protecting selected trees that exist on the site prior to development.
Tillage, with lime and fertilizer, to maintain adequate soil pH and nutrient content.
Temporary seeding
Permanent seeding
Erosion & Sediment Control Blankets
Surface Roughening – Creating horizontal grooves across the slope to reduce runoff velocity/erosion and aid the growth of seed.
Structural Ways to Reduce Erosion
Structural controls include:
Diversion ridges, berms or channels of stabilized soil
Silt fences
Straw bale barriers
Sediment basins with banks sloped at 2:1 or less
Dikes – Must be well compacted and vegetated, with an outlet pipe or coarse aggregate spillway
Riprap protection – at the outlet end of culverts or channels to reduce the depth, velocity and energy of water so that the flow will not erode the receiving stream.
Check dams – Small dams less than 2 feet high constructed across swales or drainage ditches to reduce flow velocity and erosion.
Aggregate stabilized site entrances – at least 50 feet long to reduce sediment tracked onto public roads. Tire washing may also be needed.
Good housekeeping practices for fuel, debris, sediment from unstabilized areas, etc.
Post-construction stormwater management measures
Retention ponds
Vegetated swales and natural depressions that filter sediments from runoff with side slopes of 4:1 or less.
Best Management Practices for Land Clearing
Regarding land clearing, Louisiana recommends:
Disturbed areas should be temporarily stabilized or covered as soon as possible to minimize impacts on the environment.
Only clear acreage needed for immediate use. Clearing or grubbing too much land too early in the construction phase of the mining operation will dramatically increase the potential for environmental impacts from surface water runoff and will increase the costs to control runoff.
Allow enough undisturbed buffer at property boundaries to provides sufficient lateral support of property lines.
A minimum 100-foot buffer zone is required adjacent to perennial streams and water bodies in the State of Louisiana.
In a mine on Caney Creek,this 64-acre area was cleared a year and a half before Harvey, but was not mined. The lack of vegetation made it more susceptible to erosion during the flood. Photo taken 9/14/17, two weeks after Harvey.
Site Reclamation Goals and Best Management Practices
Pages 28-31 describe best practices for site reclamation. Goals include:
Stabilization of inactive mining pit or borrow areas with herbaceous perennial plants
Stabilizing the soil
Preventing wind or water erosion from causing on-site or off-site damage
Improving the aesthetic appeal
Ability of the site to support wildlife
Best management practices include:
Revegetation, mulching
Grading slopes 3:1 to facilitate seeding
Constructing diversions at tops of slopes to divert runoff away from the slope banks to a stable outlet
Constructing aggregate lined chutes or equivalent to conduct concentrated flow of water to stable outlets
Reclamation of abandoned roads by reshaping, recontouring, and resurfacing with topsoil and seeding for vegetative growth
Removal of structures
Removal of sand stockpiles
Removal of debris
Grading property to minimize potential impact to waterways
Abandoned sand mine in Humble, TX. No fencing. No grading. No vegetation on slopes. Note proximity to buildings on adjoining property and road.
Concrete crushing operation once part of sand mine in Humble, TX.
Education Better Than Damage Control
In the conclusion on Page 32, Louisiana states:
“One of the best ways to mitigate environmental impacts from the sand and gravel industry in Louisiana is to establish a set of voluntary best management practices for the industry to adhere. This can be accomplished by initiating good management practices, educating our operators, and taking a more proactive stance in minimizing the problems of the past that have hurt this industry’s image. We, as industry leaders, need to be actively engaged in addressing issues and taking precautions and preemptive measures. Damage control after the fact is destructive. The world is changing and we must be adaptive to these changes – good management practices in an environmentally friendly manner are synonymous with good business practice.”
I’m sure Louisiana has problems just like Texas. But I sure do like the tone of this and what they are trying to accomplish. If Texas has a similar initiative, I can’t find it.
Posted 8/19/18 by Bob Rehak
355 days since Hurricane Harvey
00adminadmin2018-08-19 06:21:512018-08-19 06:41:07Sand Mining Best Management Practices: Louisiana vs. Texas
During the 353 days since Hurricane Harvey, I’ve observed many ironies. Below are my favorites.
Irony #1
We need multi-million dollar studies to figure out stuff a five-year old in a bathtub knows – for instance, to let the water out, you open the drain.
One study suggested that adding more gates to the Lake Houston Dam could let water out faster. Another will tell us that putting sand in the drain causes water to back up. Yet another will tell us to take sand out of the drain.
Irony #2
The state allows sand mining in floodways so that we can have cheap concrete. That encourages upstream development, which causes more downstream flooding, which raises costs to government, which raises taxes on everyone.
Quick. Somebody call an accountant. We need a study on that.
Sometimes it feels that this is the standard Flood-Mitigation Decision Matrix. For a downloadable PDF of this graphic click here.
Irony #3
Disaster mitigation is a disaster.
Let me give you a parallel that illustrates the complexity of the process that we have engineered. Imagine that someone is breaking into your house. You call the police, but the 911 operator tells you to hang tight while the governor and president declare an emergency; Congress appropriates funds; Emergency Management devises a response plan; FEMA reviews your claim; three other agencies hire consultants who conduct an area-wide threat survey; TDEM prioritizes your needs; the Army Corps of Engineers studies bids; and the City works out an inter-local agreement with the County to raise matching funds, so that HUD can provide the money to buy out your house … when you’re dead and buried. Who would tolerate an emergency-response system that responds that way? 325 million Americans. That’s who.
Irony #4
The storm that brought us together is now dividing us.
During Harvey, there was an outpouring of human kindness that inspired the world. A year later, people who didn’t flood want to forget what happened and get back to their normal lives. People who did flood can’t.
Irony #5
The state’s “Rainy Day Fund” was never really for rain.
Even though Austin may soon loosen the purse strings on some of that money, the real intent seems to have been to save enough money to make the state’s balance sheet look better to Wall Street.
Irony #6
Our mothers taught us that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We ignored that advice.
Decades ago, engineers urged us to dredge the San Jacinto to avoid flooding. We didn’t. Billions of dollars in damages later, Mama looks pretty smart. Ain’t no one smarter than Mama!
Irony #7
No one budgets for disasters in an area prone to natural disasters.
When a disaster strikes, everyone goes looking for matching funds. That delays flood mitigation measures, sometimes to the point where we lose our sense of urgency and spend the money on candy instead. What was that Mama said?
Irony #8
We’ll spend hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up a mess that could have been reduced with the stroke of a pen.
Had we only passed some common-sense legislation that prohibited sand mining in floodways!
Irony #9
Cooperation during a disaster turns into cutthroat competition after the disaster.
Fifty counties flooded in Harvey. Now, every county and city along the Gulf Coast is chasing the same matching funds.
Irony #10
Our disaster mitigation process requires groups to fill out an application to fill out an application.
It’s true. The city had to file an application with TDEM to file a FEMA application to fund additional flood gates on Lake Houston.
Irony #11
Some pretend that storms like Harvey are a statistical aberration when experience tells us they are not.
There often seems to be a conspiracy of willful blindness between developers, politicians and home buyers until the next big storm hits. Then developers call it a 100,000-year storm. Home owners look for buyouts. And politicians talk about creating green spaces from land that should have been green space all along. Since 1994 (24 years ago), we’ve had five so-called five-hundred year storms – 1994, Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, and Harvey. Who says grown-ups can’t live in a make-believe world?
Posted on August 17, 2018, by Bob Rehak
353 Days since Hurricane Harvey
00adminadmin2018-08-17 21:34:492018-08-18 05:34:48Ironies That Harvey Revealed
Section 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act states that, “Any discharge of dredged or fill material … where the flow or circulation of navigable waters may be impaired or the reach of such waters be reduced, shall be required to have a permit under this section.”
Hmmmm. Impaired flow? Does that sound like what happened to the San Jacinto as a result of sand deposited downstream of mines during Harvey?
Penalties for Violation Under 404
The law also states that, “Any person who violates any condition or limitation in a permit … shall he subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day of such violation.”
Findings of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The executive summary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Value Engineering Study for its West Fork San Jacinto River Emergency Dredging Project states that, “On 25 August 2017, Hurricane Harvey made landfall along the Texas Coast as a Category 4 storm. Hurricane Harvey created extensive flooding along the West Fork of the San Jacinto River creating a record high flood of 69.22 feet as recorded by the West Fork San Jacinto River gauge on August 29, 2017. This record flooding increased the amount of deposition of sand and silt within the West Fork of the San Jacinto River from areas further upstream.” Below are two examples.
A giant sandbar almost completely blocks the west fork of the San Jacinto River just downstream from River Grove Park.
Yet another giant sand dune has formed at the mouth of the west fork of the San Jacinto. It is not being addressed by the Army Corps dredging project but should be. Thousands of homes upstream from the blockage flooded during Harvey.
Decreasing Amount of Water that Can Pass Through to Lake Houston
The executive summary continues, “This has now reduced the overall depth of the West Fork waterway and decreased the amount of water that can pass through and into Lake Houston. The epic flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey caused 4,139 structures along the West Fork to flood, including 1,621 homes with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) claims totaling over $407 million. In addition, during Hurricane Harvey a number of hospitals along the West Fork (e.g. Kingwood Medical Center, Memorial Hermann Northeast Hospital) were cut-off due to the West Fork flooding which prevented residents from obtaining emergency aid.”
The summary concludes, “Recent heavy rainfall along the West Fork has caused, and may again result in, downstream water levels that present a threat to persons and properties in the Kingwood-Humble-Lake Houston areas due to the inability of the West Fork to carry sufficient water volume. … In the event of another heavy rainfall event there is a near certain likelihood that wide-spread flooding will occur impacting even more homes than before due to the river’s inability to pass heavy volumes of water.”
Cost of Cleanup to Taxpayers
The Corps is currently spending almost $70 million on dredging to restore the carrying capacity of the river in a 2.1 mile section of the West Fork (out of an 8 mile stretch between U.S. Highway 59 and Lake Houston). The cost for cleaning up the rest of the river has yet to be determined. The initial project will not even address the biggest blockage on the river – a sand bar at the mouth of the West Fork that forces water to flow approximately 40 feet uphill before it reaches the main body of the lake.
Need for Stricter Regulations on Sand Mining
One of the possibilities that the Corps examined to reduce such costs to taxpayers in the future was imposing stricter regulations on sand mining operations using 404 permitting. Although the Corps found this outside of the scope of their project, they address the possibility in section C-9 of their report on page 31.
The exact text reads:
“This comment refers to sand mining operations upstream of the US 59 highway bridge that are within the floodplain. During flood events where the boundaries of the sand pits are overrun, the river carries sediment from these pits downstream.
This is potentially a 404 issue/violation and it may be possible to get the mine operators to incorporate some abatement features to minimize the amount of sediment from their operations they discharge into the river.” [Emphasis Added]
This comment could apply equally to sand mining operations on the East Fork, but the East Fork was not within the scope of the Corps’ study.
As always, these are my opinions on a matter of public policy protected under the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great state of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/16/2018
352 Days since Hurricane Harvey
00adminadmin2018-08-16 18:44:062018-08-16 21:53:42Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Sand Mines
Sand Mining Best Management Practices: Louisiana vs. Texas
When it comes to communicating “best management practices” (BMPs) for sand mines, Louisiana sets the gold standard. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the Concrete & Aggregate Association of Louisiana, Inc. worked together to develop BMPs. Their goals: to reduce the amount of sediment and turbidity in streams and rivers that result from sand and gravel mining and to improve water quality.
This guide represents a realistic and open approach, which I appreciated. It’s also concise, candid and clearly written. For those who don’t have time to read the entire 41-page document, a summary follows, especially of the parts that talk about sedimentation. I’ve inserted several images from the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto to contrast practices in Texas and Louisiana.
Importance of Sand and Gravel to Economy
The Introduction discusses the importance of aggregate (sand and gravel) to the Louisiana economy. Sand and gravel are essential resources for construction. In fact, they represent Louisiana’s second most valuable non-fuel natural resource.
Almost half (48%) of all the aggregate produces concrete. The second largest use (22%) is as a base material for highways, railways, runways, etc.
Types of Mining
The document then discusses different techniques of mining: dry (by excavation) and wet (by dredging). Louisiana focuses primarily on wet, which is the type of mines we have along the San Jacinto with a few exceptions.
Importance of Storm Water Management
Page 4 contains a discussion of “Non-point Source Storm Water Management.” Non-point essentially means from rain, runoff and flooding. It occurs across an entire area as opposed to a specific point, such as a leaky fuel tank. Some key quotes:
“Sand and gravel mining operations can potentially cause off-site impacts to water quality if site planning and BMPs (Best Management Practices) are not factored into every aspect of the mining operation.”
“Sand and gravel mining operations disturb land and soil…”
“Good site planning and operation can reduce the likelihood of sediments moving off of the operation…”
Dangers of Not Following BMPs
Page 5 discusses the dangers if miners do not follow best management practices.
“Siltation is considered the highest nonpoint source priority of concern in wetland areas and the second highest priority affecting lakes (1992 Report to Congress). Mining related activities have been estimated to cause 7 percent of the nation’s nonpoint source impacts to lakes and 17 percent to coastal waters. Sediments from mining operations could consist primarily of biologically inert materials which could potentially adversely affect the water body’s designated uses. Inert suspended sediments have the following detrimental impacts to the aquatic habitat:
Recommendations for Soil Conservation
Page 11 marks the start of the discussion about specific BMPs. The first BMP addresses soil conservation. “Sediment loads discharged to streams must be minimized, if not eliminated altogether,” they say. “There are basically two types of controls: vegetative and structural.”
Streambank BMP Recommendations
Regarding the Streambank Best Management Practice (BMP), they say: “When native vegetation is used to maintain streambanks, there are many benefits provided to the public and environment. Near the waters’ edge, herbaceous and wetland plants help filter pollutants from the water and prevent bank erosion during high flow periods. These plants also provide habitat for fish and natural predators of mosquitoes as well as increasing aesthetical appeal. Spatial balance between native trees and shrubs on the streambank provides stability and shading. Shading from trees lowers water temperature and improves water quality by conserving the oxygen in the water.”
Note the images below. The first represents the ideal and was pulled from the Louisiana BMP guide. The others are from sand mines on the West Fork of the San Jacinto and Caney Creek in Texas.
Image of ideal stream bank from Louisiana Sand Mining Best Practices Guide.
West Fork sand mine that has been been repeatedly inundated. Note dikes which have been breached and repaired.
Another portion of the same mine that has been repeatedly inundated. Note width of dike, steepness of slopes, and lack of vegetation to retard erosion. This area is no longer actively being mined.
West Fork sand mines on 8/30/17, one day after the peak of the Hurricane Harvey flood. Note how flood water breached dikes and flowed through mines on both sides of the river. Photo courtesy of Google Earth.
Reducing Erosion through Vegetation
“Vegetation is an inexpensive and effective way to protect soil from erosion,” Louisiana says. “It also decreases erosion from flowing water by reducing its velocity. Roots hold soil and increase infiltration. Topsoil should be added where existing soils are not suitable for adequate vegetative growth.”
Vegetative controls include:
Structural Ways to Reduce Erosion
Structural controls include:
Best Management Practices for Land Clearing
Regarding land clearing, Louisiana recommends:
In a mine on Caney Creek,this 64-acre area was cleared a year and a half before Harvey, but was not mined. The lack of vegetation made it more susceptible to erosion during the flood. Photo taken 9/14/17, two weeks after Harvey.
Site Reclamation Goals and Best Management Practices
Pages 28-31 describe best practices for site reclamation. Goals include:
Best management practices include:
Abandoned sand mine in Humble, TX. No fencing. No grading. No vegetation on slopes. Note proximity to buildings on adjoining property and road.
Concrete crushing operation once part of sand mine in Humble, TX.
Education Better Than Damage Control
In the conclusion on Page 32, Louisiana states:
“One of the best ways to mitigate environmental impacts from the sand and gravel industry in Louisiana is to establish a set of voluntary best management practices for the industry to adhere. This can be accomplished by initiating good management practices, educating our operators, and taking a more proactive stance in minimizing the problems of the past that have hurt this industry’s image. We, as industry leaders, need to be actively engaged in addressing issues and taking precautions and preemptive measures. Damage control after the fact is destructive. The world is changing and we must be adaptive to these changes – good management practices in an environmentally friendly manner are synonymous with good business practice.”
I’m sure Louisiana has problems just like Texas. But I sure do like the tone of this and what they are trying to accomplish. If Texas has a similar initiative, I can’t find it.
Posted 8/19/18 by Bob Rehak
355 days since Hurricane Harvey
Ironies That Harvey Revealed
During the 353 days since Hurricane Harvey, I’ve observed many ironies. Below are my favorites.
Irony #1
We need multi-million dollar studies to figure out stuff a five-year old in a bathtub knows – for instance, to let the water out, you open the drain.
One study suggested that adding more gates to the Lake Houston Dam could let water out faster. Another will tell us that putting sand in the drain causes water to back up. Yet another will tell us to take sand out of the drain.
Irony #2
The state allows sand mining in floodways so that we can have cheap concrete. That encourages upstream development, which causes more downstream flooding, which raises costs to government, which raises taxes on everyone.
Quick. Somebody call an accountant. We need a study on that.
Sometimes it feels that this is the standard Flood-Mitigation Decision Matrix. For a downloadable PDF of this graphic click here.
Irony #3
Disaster mitigation is a disaster.
Let me give you a parallel that illustrates the complexity of the process that we have engineered. Imagine that someone is breaking into your house. You call the police, but the 911 operator tells you to hang tight while the governor and president declare an emergency; Congress appropriates funds; Emergency Management devises a response plan; FEMA reviews your claim; three other agencies hire consultants who conduct an area-wide threat survey; TDEM prioritizes your needs; the Army Corps of Engineers studies bids; and the City works out an inter-local agreement with the County to raise matching funds, so that HUD can provide the money to buy out your house … when you’re dead and buried. Who would tolerate an emergency-response system that responds that way? 325 million Americans. That’s who.
Irony #4
The storm that brought us together is now dividing us.
During Harvey, there was an outpouring of human kindness that inspired the world. A year later, people who didn’t flood want to forget what happened and get back to their normal lives. People who did flood can’t.
Irony #5
The state’s “Rainy Day Fund” was never really for rain.
Even though Austin may soon loosen the purse strings on some of that money, the real intent seems to have been to save enough money to make the state’s balance sheet look better to Wall Street.
Irony #6
Our mothers taught us that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We ignored that advice.
Decades ago, engineers urged us to dredge the San Jacinto to avoid flooding. We didn’t. Billions of dollars in damages later, Mama looks pretty smart. Ain’t no one smarter than Mama!
Irony #7
No one budgets for disasters in an area prone to natural disasters.
When a disaster strikes, everyone goes looking for matching funds. That delays flood mitigation measures, sometimes to the point where we lose our sense of urgency and spend the money on candy instead. What was that Mama said?
Irony #8
We’ll spend hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up a mess that could have been reduced with the stroke of a pen.
Had we only passed some common-sense legislation that prohibited sand mining in floodways!
Irony #9
Cooperation during a disaster turns into cutthroat competition after the disaster.
Fifty counties flooded in Harvey. Now, every county and city along the Gulf Coast is chasing the same matching funds.
Irony #10
Our disaster mitigation process requires groups to fill out an application to fill out an application.
It’s true. The city had to file an application with TDEM to file a FEMA application to fund additional flood gates on Lake Houston.
Irony #11
Some pretend that storms like Harvey are a statistical aberration when experience tells us they are not.
There often seems to be a conspiracy of willful blindness between developers, politicians and home buyers until the next big storm hits. Then developers call it a 100,000-year storm. Home owners look for buyouts. And politicians talk about creating green spaces from land that should have been green space all along. Since 1994 (24 years ago), we’ve had five so-called five-hundred year storms – 1994, Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, and Harvey. Who says grown-ups can’t live in a make-believe world?
Posted on August 17, 2018, by Bob Rehak
353 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Sand Mines
Section 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act states that, “Any discharge of dredged or fill material … where the flow or circulation of navigable waters may be impaired or the reach of such waters be reduced, shall be required to have a permit under this section.”
Hmmmm. Impaired flow? Does that sound like what happened to the San Jacinto as a result of sand deposited downstream of mines during Harvey?
Penalties for Violation Under 404
The law also states that, “Any person who violates any condition or limitation in a permit … shall he subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day of such violation.”
Findings of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The executive summary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Value Engineering Study for its West Fork San Jacinto River Emergency Dredging Project states that, “On 25 August 2017, Hurricane Harvey made landfall along the Texas Coast as a Category 4 storm. Hurricane Harvey created extensive flooding along the West Fork of the San Jacinto River creating a record high flood of 69.22 feet as recorded by the West Fork San Jacinto River gauge on August 29, 2017. This record flooding increased the amount of deposition of sand and silt within the West Fork of the San Jacinto River from areas further upstream.” Below are two examples.
A giant sandbar almost completely blocks the west fork of the San Jacinto River just downstream from River Grove Park.
Yet another giant sand dune has formed at the mouth of the west fork of the San Jacinto. It is not being addressed by the Army Corps dredging project but should be. Thousands of homes upstream from the blockage flooded during Harvey.
Decreasing Amount of Water that Can Pass Through to Lake Houston
The executive summary continues, “This has now reduced the overall depth of the West Fork waterway and decreased the amount of water that can pass through and into Lake Houston. The epic flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey caused 4,139 structures along the West Fork to flood, including 1,621 homes with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) claims totaling over $407 million. In addition, during Hurricane Harvey a number of hospitals along the West Fork (e.g. Kingwood Medical Center, Memorial Hermann Northeast Hospital) were cut-off due to the West Fork flooding which prevented residents from obtaining emergency aid.”
The summary concludes, “Recent heavy rainfall along the West Fork has caused, and may again result in, downstream water levels that present a threat to persons and properties in the Kingwood-Humble-Lake Houston areas due to the inability of the West Fork to carry sufficient water volume. … In the event of another heavy rainfall event there is a near certain likelihood that wide-spread flooding will occur impacting even more homes than before due to the river’s inability to pass heavy volumes of water.”
Cost of Cleanup to Taxpayers
The Corps is currently spending almost $70 million on dredging to restore the carrying capacity of the river in a 2.1 mile section of the West Fork (out of an 8 mile stretch between U.S. Highway 59 and Lake Houston). The cost for cleaning up the rest of the river has yet to be determined. The initial project will not even address the biggest blockage on the river – a sand bar at the mouth of the West Fork that forces water to flow approximately 40 feet uphill before it reaches the main body of the lake.
Need for Stricter Regulations on Sand Mining
One of the possibilities that the Corps examined to reduce such costs to taxpayers in the future was imposing stricter regulations on sand mining operations using 404 permitting. Although the Corps found this outside of the scope of their project, they address the possibility in section C-9 of their report on page 31.
The exact text reads:
This comment could apply equally to sand mining operations on the East Fork, but the East Fork was not within the scope of the Corps’ study.
Clearly, not all the sand above came from mines, but satellite imagery shows that much of it did.
It seems to me that sand mining operations located in the floodway which flood repeatedly would be eager to incorporate “abatement features,” such as the best management practices found in other states and countries. This just might show good faith effort to reduce pollution, mitigate liability under the Clean Water Act, and avoid a revocation of operating permits.
As always, these are my opinions on a matter of public policy protected under the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great state of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/16/2018
352 Days since Hurricane Harvey