Early voting for the $2.5 billion Harris County Flood Bond Referendum begins August 8. If approved, the County could leverage that money to increase the amount available for flood mitigation. Matching funds from FEMA, HUD, the State, and other sources are available. These grants usually operate on a 75/25 or 90/10 basis, returning $3 to $9 for every dollar put up.
Local Dollars Leverage Matching Funds
If voters approve the $2.5 billion referendum, the bond funds could potentially bring in billions of additional dollars. Here is how funding for Flood Control District projects works. (For a printable PDF, click here.)
Partnership Matching Funds Available for Harris County Flood Control District Projects
Bond money can be used as “seed money” for some types of projects. It qualifies us to receive additional money in the form of grants from other partners such as the Federal Government, State, Coastal Water Authority or the City.
Federal dollars for Harvey flood mitigation efforts are available now, but may go elsewhere if we don’t act. Every city along the Gulf Coast is competing for available matching funds.
Partnership Projects: More Leverage but Less Control
Even though you may not be able to follow all the ins and outs of the diagram above, you should be able to see that many opportunities exist to extend the impact of our own dollars. That’s the good news. The downside is that when you start spending other people’s money, they want to have a say in how you spend it. It’s important that we understand risks as we move forward. To get more money, we must give up some control.
Q: How will projects in the bond proposal be selected and prioritized?
A: Harris County Commissioners Court directed Flood Control District staff to develop list of projects. This is not an exact list of projects that must be or will be built with bond proceeds. It represents a list of projects that would meet the goal of the bond election, which is to both assist with recovery after previous flooding events (including Harvey) and to make our county more resilient for the future.
High on the priority list are construction-ready projects with federal funding partners (such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency) that give the County “the most bang for its flood control buck.”
Q: Can the bond money be used for purposes other than flood risk reduction?
A: No. Under Texas law, bond funds in this election could only be used for the purpose approved by the voters. Bond funds will not be used to fund additional staff positions at the Harris County Flood Control District.
Q: Do bond proceeds have to be used for the specific projects recommended by the Flood Control District?
A: No. Voters will be asked to authorize bonds for flood damage reduction projects, but specific projects may be added to the list of potential projects in the future or projects on the list could be modified based upon public input.
However, officials can only spend bond money on projects supported by the Bond Language. Voters will not be voting on a specific project list, only on the language in the proposal.
Freeing Up Budget to Improve Maintenance
Maintenance is NOT in the bond proposal. Nevertheless, the bond could still improve maintenance in a roundabout way. Here’s how. About half of the Flood Control District’s current $120 million per year budget goes to capital expenditures. If approved, the bond would free up about $60 million currently focused on construction projects.
The other $60 million in the Flood Control District’s budget is devoted to Maintenance and Operations. It is roughly divided as follows: $30 million for salaries and overhead; $10 million for mowing; and $20 million for maintenance.
That $20 million currently devoted to maintaining ditches, bayous and streams, if added to the $60 million that is freed up, would make $80 million that could be devoted to improving maintenance. That means the District’s maintenance budget could quadruple.
Yea or Nay?
On balance, I like how the bond is shaping up and I trust the people in charge of it. I wish that the $50 million allocated for a dredging partnership project was a dedicated $50 million. Then, if the bond proposal passes, we might be able to get the Army Corps to extend the scope of their current dredging to include the giant sand bar at the mouth of the West Fork. Addressing that issue as a change order to the current contract could save years, save dollars, and reduce risk immediately.
Posted on June 23, 2018, by Bob Rehak
328 Days since Hurricane Harvey
00adminadmin2018-07-23 22:54:402018-07-23 22:56:20How County Bond Funds Could Leverage Additional Dollars
Dikes on both sides of the river were breached in the process. In fact, historical images in Google Earth show that they have been breached repeatedly.
During Harvey, floodwaters swept through this complex and breached dikes in multiple locations as the river took a shortcut through the mines.
Highest Risk Scenarios for River Capture
A review of scientific literature reveals that the risk of stream diversion through pits (river capture) is increased by:
Proximity of pits to the river
Increased depth of the pit, particularly where the base of the pit is below the lowest part of the river.
The phenomenon seems common and the consequences well documented.
2014 Survey of Scientific Literature Finds 37 Examples
In 2014, Anthony Ladson and Dean Judd, two Australian researchers, found 37 instances of river capture in a review of scientific literature. They published their findings at the Seventh Annual Australian Stream Management Conference in a paper titled A review of the effect of floodplain gravel mining on river stability.
Advanced economies, they say in their introduction, require large amounts of aggregate (sand and gravel) to sustain growth.Aggregate makes up 80% of concrete and 90% of asphalt pavements.
Many see floodplain mining as a safer way to obtain this aggregate than in-stream mining, but floodplain mining still poses substantial threats to river stability.
Dangers of River Capture
As we saw on the West Fork of the San Jacinto during Harvey, floodwaters take a shortcut through mines that are built on point bars inside meander loops.
Sand bars within sand mine, caused during “river capture” of the mine. These bars prove sand was carried downstream. This photo taken on 10/28/2018 (after Harvey) also shows repairs to mine wall. During floods, the river tries to cut across meanders, runs through the mines and carries sand downstream.
The authors say this can lead to:
River bed degradation
Bank erosion
Channel widening
Infrastructure damage or destruction
Loss of riparian vegetation
Habitat damage
Degradation of water quality.
Their review of local, national and international case studies showed that pit capture and subsequent river channel changes, are a common consequence of floodplain mining.
Changing River Environment and Putting Infrastructure at Risk
In their conclusion, Ladson and Judd state, “Although floodplain gravel mining has been considered a safer option than the direct extraction of gravel from a river, substantial risks to river stability and river health values remain. Floodplain gravel mining can cause change in the riverine environment, both locally and distant to the mining site, and in the short and long term.”
“There are substantial risks to infrastructure if river diversions occur which trigger bed and bank erosion.”
“There may be a role for river management agencies to influence the amount of mining that is undertaken, and the manner in which it is undertaken, in order to mitigate these threats.”
Mechanisms of River Capture
Another study goes into more detail. This second study, was conducted by Jacobs Engineering in 2015, also in Australia. It describes the processes behind river capture, the risks, and how to reduce them. It is titled Risk_assessment_of_floodplain_mining_pits_in_the_mid-Goulburn_Valley, The Golburn River, like the San Jacinto, meanders through relatively flat land. It also has approximately the same number of sand mines that the San Jacinto has.
Jacobs identified three risk scenarios for river capture:
Lateral migration of river channel into the pit
Sub-surface piping into pits and subsequent failure of pit walls
Flow of water into and through the pit and subsequent erosion of the buffer strip between the channel and the excavated pit.
Some San Jacinto Mines Push Recommended Safety Margins
Jacobs assesses (page 19) that 100 meters is the minimum setback to prevent river capture from occurring. In some places on the San Jacinto, dikes are less than 15 meters wide.
Jacobs also assesses that river capture is almost certain (page 19) where the basement of the pit is more than 5 meters lower than the river. San Jacinto sand miners are mining at more than double that depth.
“The physical processes of pit capture have been well documented from case studies: incision upstream and downstream of the pit are expected, with bed adjustments continuing until the river establishes a new equilibrium and grade,” says Jacobs.
Ways to Mitigate Risk of River Capture
Jacobs identified two main ways (page 47) to reduce this risk:
Locate pits out of the 100-year floodplain
Implement controls such as levees, grade-control structures, pit setbacks, depth limits, and waterway diversions.
Sadly, all sand pits on the San Jacinto are already in the 100-year flood plain. Worse, all but one are at least partially in the FLOODWAY, which is defined as the main channel of the river during a flood.
Even more sadly, it appears that none of the measures in the second category are being applied to San Jacinto mines either.
Posted by Bob Rehak, July 22, 2018
327 Days since Hurricane Harvey
00adminadmin2018-07-22 01:46:312018-07-22 01:46:31How Floodplain Mining Can Lead to River Capture
Looking south toward King’s River Estates at the mouth bar blocking the West Fork. This bar is why we need more dredging. The Army Corps will not be removing it. However, it likely backs up water for several miles and increases the rate of sedimentation in the Humble/Kingwood corridor by slowing the velocity of the river.
At the San Jacinto Watershed meeting held on July 10th, many people were told that dredging would NOT be allowed under the bond. Evidently, some county employees did not get the message that it would be included and they gave residents mixed signals.
From Confusion to Clarity
I addressed this confusion in an earlier post, but some residents were still skeptical when they didn’t see dredging on the approved project list. Now it’s on the list which has been officially updated. We can breathe a sigh of relief.
This new list of bond projects clearly breaks out dredging as a separate item and allocates $50 million to it.
Projects for the San Jacinto Watershed are listed on pages 8 and 9. See the last item on page 8. The description of the line item pertaining to dredging says, “Potential partnership project with the City of Houston, Coastal Water Authority, and the State of Texas to permit, design, and complete dredging of the East Fork, West Fork and Lake Houston area waterways to reduce flooding risks.”
Watershed-Wide, Integrated Approach
Note that some projects which benefit us may also be listed upstream in tributary watersheds. Examples: additional detention in Montgomery County, far western Harris County along Cypress Creek, or another location TBD based on the outcome of the San Jacinto Watershed study (which is currently stalled because of lack of funding). The bond could help get that moving, too.
Ditches, Buyouts also Included
Note also that we got more than dredging, detention and gates. If this bond passes, it includes money that will also help improve drainage ditches and buy out homes that flood repeatedly.
What does this mean? In my opinion, it means the Lake Houston area can stop worrying about whether there are projects in the bond that will benefit all of us as opposed to some of us. We can now evaluate the bond on its costs and benefits.
Two Types of Allocations
Each project on the list falls into one of two categories. The first includes projects that will be fully funded directly by bond money. The second includes partnership projects. In the latter category, bond money represents only a percentage of the total cost. For example, bond money might be the seed money to qualify for matching grants from other governmental bodies.
While partnership projects can take longer to get off the ground and have a higher degree of uncertainty surrounding them, ultimately they leverage more local dollars. Depending on the number of partners and the formulas applied, one dollar could turn into four or more.
Total money allocated for San Jacinto Watershed projects exceeds $320,000,000 when matching funds are included. The massive turnout for the Bond meeting at Kingwood Park High School paid handsome dividends.
We can now take this discussion to the next level.
Posted July 20, 2018 by Bob Rehak
325 Days since Hurricane Harvey
00adminadmin2018-07-19 23:31:012018-07-20 21:48:53More Dredging Now Officially Included in Project List for Flood Bond
How County Bond Funds Could Leverage Additional Dollars
Early voting for the $2.5 billion Harris County Flood Bond Referendum begins August 8. If approved, the County could leverage that money to increase the amount available for flood mitigation. Matching funds from FEMA, HUD, the State, and other sources are available. These grants usually operate on a 75/25 or 90/10 basis, returning $3 to $9 for every dollar put up.
Local Dollars Leverage Matching Funds
If voters approve the $2.5 billion referendum, the bond funds could potentially bring in billions of additional dollars. Here is how funding for Flood Control District projects works. (For a printable PDF, click here.)
Partnership Matching Funds Available for Harris County Flood Control District Projects
Bond money can be used as “seed money” for some types of projects. It qualifies us to receive additional money in the form of grants from other partners such as the Federal Government, State, Coastal Water Authority or the City.
Partnership Projects: More Leverage but Less Control
Even though you may not be able to follow all the ins and outs of the diagram above, you should be able to see that many opportunities exist to extend the impact of our own dollars. That’s the good news. The downside is that when you start spending other people’s money, they want to have a say in how you spend it. It’s important that we understand risks as we move forward. To get more money, we must give up some control.
Q: How will projects in the bond proposal be selected and prioritized?
A: Harris County Commissioners Court directed Flood Control District staff to develop list of projects. This is not an exact list of projects that must be or will be built with bond proceeds. It represents a list of projects that would meet the goal of the bond election, which is to both assist with recovery after previous flooding events (including Harvey) and to make our county more resilient for the future.
High on the priority list are construction-ready projects with federal funding partners (such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency) that give the County “the most bang for its flood control buck.”
Q: Can the bond money be used for purposes other than flood risk reduction?
A: No. Under Texas law, bond funds in this election could only be used for the purpose approved by the voters. Bond funds will not be used to fund additional staff positions at the Harris County Flood Control District.
Q: Do bond proceeds have to be used for the specific projects recommended by the Flood Control District?
A: No. Voters will be asked to authorize bonds for flood damage reduction projects, but specific projects may be added to the list of potential projects in the future or projects on the list could be modified based upon public input.
However, officials can only spend bond money on projects supported by the Bond Language. Voters will not be voting on a specific project list, only on the language in the proposal.
Freeing Up Budget to Improve Maintenance
Maintenance is NOT in the bond proposal. Nevertheless, the bond could still improve maintenance in a roundabout way. Here’s how. About half of the Flood Control District’s current $120 million per year budget goes to capital expenditures. If approved, the bond would free up about $60 million currently focused on construction projects.
The other $60 million in the Flood Control District’s budget is devoted to Maintenance and Operations. It is roughly divided as follows: $30 million for salaries and overhead; $10 million for mowing; and $20 million for maintenance.
That $20 million currently devoted to maintaining ditches, bayous and streams, if added to the $60 million that is freed up, would make $80 million that could be devoted to improving maintenance. That means the District’s maintenance budget could quadruple.
Yea or Nay?
On balance, I like how the bond is shaping up and I trust the people in charge of it. I wish that the $50 million allocated for a dredging partnership project was a dedicated $50 million. Then, if the bond proposal passes, we might be able to get the Army Corps to extend the scope of their current dredging to include the giant sand bar at the mouth of the West Fork. Addressing that issue as a change order to the current contract could save years, save dollars, and reduce risk immediately.
Posted on June 23, 2018, by Bob Rehak
328 Days since Hurricane Harvey
How Floodplain Mining Can Lead to River Capture
In a previous post, I showed satellite and aerial images of water sweeping through a West Fork sand mine complex during Harvey. This is part of a process called river capture. In the photo below you can see the West Fork flowing into and through mines on both sides of the river during Harvey.
Dikes on both sides of the river were breached in the process. In fact, historical images in Google Earth show that they have been breached repeatedly.
During Harvey, floodwaters swept through this complex and breached dikes in multiple locations as the river took a shortcut through the mines.
Highest Risk Scenarios for River Capture
A review of scientific literature reveals that the risk of stream diversion through pits (river capture) is increased by:
The phenomenon seems common and the consequences well documented.
2014 Survey of Scientific Literature Finds 37 Examples
In 2014, Anthony Ladson and Dean Judd, two Australian researchers, found 37 instances of river capture in a review of scientific literature. They published their findings at the Seventh Annual Australian Stream Management Conference in a paper titled A review of the effect of floodplain gravel mining on river stability.
Advanced economies, they say in their introduction, require large amounts of aggregate (sand and gravel) to sustain growth. Aggregate makes up 80% of concrete and 90% of asphalt pavements.
Many see floodplain mining as a safer way to obtain this aggregate than in-stream mining, but floodplain mining still poses substantial threats to river stability.
Dangers of River Capture
As we saw on the West Fork of the San Jacinto during Harvey, floodwaters take a shortcut through mines that are built on point bars inside meander loops.
Sand bars within sand mine, caused during “river capture” of the mine. These bars prove sand was carried downstream. This photo taken on 10/28/2018 (after Harvey) also shows repairs to mine wall. During floods, the river tries to cut across meanders, runs through the mines and carries sand downstream.
The authors say this can lead to:
Their review of local, national and international case studies showed that pit capture and subsequent river channel changes, are a common consequence of floodplain mining.
Changing River Environment and Putting Infrastructure at Risk
In their conclusion, Ladson and Judd state, “Although floodplain gravel mining has been considered a safer option than the direct extraction of gravel from a river, substantial risks to river stability and river health values remain. Floodplain gravel mining can cause change in the riverine environment, both locally and distant to the mining site, and in the short and long term.”
“There are substantial risks to infrastructure if river diversions occur which trigger bed and bank erosion.”
“There may be a role for river management agencies to influence the amount of mining that is undertaken, and the manner in which it is undertaken, in order to mitigate these threats.”
Mechanisms of River Capture
Another study goes into more detail. This second study, was conducted by Jacobs Engineering in 2015, also in Australia. It describes the processes behind river capture, the risks, and how to reduce them. It is titled Risk_assessment_of_floodplain_mining_pits_in_the_mid-Goulburn_Valley, The Golburn River, like the San Jacinto, meanders through relatively flat land. It also has approximately the same number of sand mines that the San Jacinto has.
Jacobs identified three risk scenarios for river capture:
Some San Jacinto Mines Push Recommended Safety Margins
Jacobs assesses (page 19) that 100 meters is the minimum setback to prevent river capture from occurring. In some places on the San Jacinto, dikes are less than 15 meters wide.
Jacobs also assesses that river capture is almost certain (page 19) where the basement of the pit is more than 5 meters lower than the river. San Jacinto sand miners are mining at more than double that depth.
“The physical processes of pit capture have been well documented from case studies: incision upstream and downstream of the pit are expected, with bed adjustments continuing until the river establishes a new equilibrium and grade,” says Jacobs.
Ways to Mitigate Risk of River Capture
Jacobs identified two main ways (page 47) to reduce this risk:
Sadly, all sand pits on the San Jacinto are already in the 100-year flood plain. Worse, all but one are at least partially in the FLOODWAY, which is defined as the main channel of the river during a flood.
Even more sadly, it appears that none of the measures in the second category are being applied to San Jacinto mines either.
Posted by Bob Rehak, July 22, 2018
327 Days since Hurricane Harvey
More Dredging Now Officially Included in Project List for Flood Bond
The Plea for DDG has paid off. More detention, dredging and gates are now all officially listed as projects for Harris County’s historic, $2,5 billion, flood-bond referendum. Why detention, dredging and gates? Less in. More through. Faster out. The flood mitigation trifecta.
Looking south toward King’s River Estates at the mouth bar blocking the West Fork. This bar is why we need more dredging. The Army Corps will not be removing it. However, it likely backs up water for several miles and increases the rate of sedimentation in the Humble/Kingwood corridor by slowing the velocity of the river.
At the San Jacinto Watershed meeting held on July 10th, many people were told that dredging would NOT be allowed under the bond. Evidently, some county employees did not get the message that it would be included and they gave residents mixed signals.
From Confusion to Clarity
I addressed this confusion in an earlier post, but some residents were still skeptical when they didn’t see dredging on the approved project list. Now it’s on the list which has been officially updated. We can breathe a sigh of relief.
Projects for the San Jacinto Watershed are listed on pages 8 and 9. See the last item on page 8. The description of the line item pertaining to dredging says, “Potential partnership project with the City of Houston, Coastal Water Authority, and the State of Texas to permit, design, and complete dredging of the East Fork, West Fork and Lake Houston area waterways to reduce flooding risks.”
Watershed-Wide, Integrated Approach
Note that some projects which benefit us may also be listed upstream in tributary watersheds. Examples: additional detention in Montgomery County, far western Harris County along Cypress Creek, or another location TBD based on the outcome of the San Jacinto Watershed study (which is currently stalled because of lack of funding). The bond could help get that moving, too.
Ditches, Buyouts also Included
Note also that we got more than dredging, detention and gates. If this bond passes, it includes money that will also help improve drainage ditches and buy out homes that flood repeatedly.
Two Types of Allocations
Each project on the list falls into one of two categories. The first includes projects that will be fully funded directly by bond money. The second includes partnership projects. In the latter category, bond money represents only a percentage of the total cost. For example, bond money might be the seed money to qualify for matching grants from other governmental bodies.
While partnership projects can take longer to get off the ground and have a higher degree of uncertainty surrounding them, ultimately they leverage more local dollars. Depending on the number of partners and the formulas applied, one dollar could turn into four or more.
Total money allocated for San Jacinto Watershed projects exceeds $320,000,000 when matching funds are included. The massive turnout for the Bond meeting at Kingwood Park High School paid handsome dividends.
We can now take this discussion to the next level.
Posted July 20, 2018 by Bob Rehak
325 Days since Hurricane Harvey