6/9/25 – While re-reading the final version of the state flood plan recently I came across two images that explain why we need a watershed-wide flood agency. Unfortunately, a bill to create one, HB2068, died in the House Natural Resources committee this session.

Floodplain-Management Practices and Enforcement in Texas

The first image shows the level of (self-reported) floodplain management practices for every county in the state. I’ve circled the general area of the San Jacinto River Basin. Note how most of the counties draining into Harris County (dark blue in center of oval) report lower levels of floodplain management practices than those in Harris County itself.

Now look at the levels of floodplain regulation enforcement. Again, most of the counties draining into Harris County (dark red in oval) report lower levels of enforcement.

Critically, the levels in Montgomery County are “unknown” in both maps.

That doesn’t make them non-existent. It likely means one of two things: 1) they weren’t enough of a priority for the county to respond to the survey. Or 2) the county did not know whether/when Commissioners Court would approve its new drainage regulations.

MoCo still has not adopted comprehensive new drainage recommendations since the 1980s despite some of the fastest growth in the region. The drainage criteria manual currently posted is dated 2019, but contains only minor updates to 1989 regulations.

Valid Reasons for Drainage Regs to Differ

Valid reasons exist for drainage regulations to vary. Take for instance rainfall rates and land use. Rainfall rates generally decline as you go north and west from Harris County. And land use varies from an ultra-dense urban environment to forests, prairie and agricultural.

Regardless, within a river basin, people are inextricably bound together by water that does not respect jurisdictional boundaries. And we need to find ways of living together that respect growth, change and property rights, while also respecting neighbor’s rights to safety.

Society establishes rules that help people live together without destroying each other. Consider rules of the road, property rights and criminal law for instance.

Would you say it’s OK for a neighbor to throw their trash on your property because they don’t want to pay to haul it away?

Most homeowners would say no. But illegal dumping happens all the time. Just like a few bad-apples want to dump their excess stormwater on your property.

Individual Rights vs. Common Good

People don’t want other people telling them what to do. Especially Texans. And that’s why Texas more people live in floodplains than the entire populations of 30 states.

We need to find solutions that respect individual rights and the common good. Philosophers have debated those extremes for more than 2000 years, dating back to Plato and Aristotle. But from a psychological point of view, it’s probably safe to say that it’s usually someone else’s problem … until it happens to you.

And eventually, the way Texas is growing, someday it will. As Houston grows outward, so do our flooding problems. And those problems are almost impossible to fix after the fact. That’s why we need a watershed-wide flood agency.

To educate. And to promulgate sensible solutions in concert with County Engineering Departments or Flood Control Districts. Local authorities would then be free to accept or reject those solutions based on the will of their constituents.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/9/2025

2841 Days since Hurricane Harvey

5/18/25 – Here’s a legislative roundup that includes bills which address dredging, mining, permitting of new developments, and funding of flood mitigation. With only two weeks left in the session, it appears that several bills important to the Lake Houston Area have died in committee including a bill to fund long-term dredging.

Left on the Table

The bills that apparently died include:

HB1532 – which would have created a Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District.

HB1163 – which would have required sand miners in the San Jacinto watershed to develop a reclamation plan that met certain criteria and post a bond to ensure that miners executed the plan.

HB1177 – which would have created a criminal offense for diverting or impounding water in a way that damaged the property of another.

HB2068 – which would have transformed the Harris County Flood Control District with a board appointed by the governor and by allowing surrounding counties to join the District. It would have created regional flood control. But Harris County officials testified against it and it died in committee.

To check the status of any other bills or subjects that interest you, visit the Texas Legislature Online.

Still Alive

The Senate Local Government Committee will hold another hearing on Monday May 19, 2025 to consider a small number of bills that didn’t beat Friday’s deadline.

Among them, HB23 would let developers bypass government oversight during the permitting process by hiring engineers to act as compliance inspectors on their behalf. The bills authors claim it will make housing more affordable. But it has local governments concerned that they might lose oversight.

It certainly does appear to have plenty of potential for conflict of interest. “Dad, I’ve decided to let myself borrow your car tonight.”

Senator Brandon Creighton sponsored the Senate version of the bill. In his civilian job, he works for a developer.

Flood Mitigation Funding Still Up in Air

Flood mitigation funding also took it on the chin. The legislature did not directly allocate any more money to the state’s Flood Infrastructure Fund (FIF) which has been dwindling since 2023. The fund currently has less than a billion dollars left to address $54 billion worth of projects in the State Flood Plan. Plus regional flood groups are gearing up to add more projects to the plan.

This year, the legislature did not commit any funding exclusively to the Flood Infrastructure Fund. However, two bills are still alive that could potentially result in more funding: SB7 and HJR7.

If they somehow become law:

1. The FIF will be moved under the umbrella of the Texas Water Fund (TWF).
2. The TWF will receive $2.5B in one time funding from the economic stabilization fund.
3. A constitutional amendment will be put to the voters in November establishing a permanent source of funding for the TWF to the tune of $1B annually.
4. That $1B might be required to commit 80% to “New Water Supply” if Charles Perry has his way, but others are pushing back, preferring to give the TWDB Board the discretion to distribute as they see appropriate.

Uncertainty Abounds for Future of Flood Mitigation

The uncertainty surrounding State funding for flood mitigation is especially concerning given all the uncertainty surrounding federal funding for flood mitigation.

The uncertainty extends to the local level too. Harris County Flood Control District was supposed to make a presentation to Commissioners Court on the status of Flood Bond Funding on May 22. Commissioners requested the update in late February. However, HCFCD reportedly pleaded for more time and the presentation has been delayed.

Commissioners fear that inflation could mean that a large percentage of the projects promised with the flood bond never get done. They are grappling with a $100 million drainage funding shortfall.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/18/25

2819 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Update: 4/10/25 – After reading this post, the media liaison for HCFCD emailed me to say, “One correction to your post today – Dr. Petersen testified as a resource on the bill, not against it.” Listen to her testimony at the link provided and you be the judge.

4/9/2025 – The Texas House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee heard testimony today on HB2068. HB2068 attempts to reconstitute the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) into one with wider authority to address flooding that originates outside Harris County.

It would also give the governor authority to appoint a board for the reconstituted district that would replace Harris County Commissioners Court, which has severely politicized flood mitigation much to the detriment of those who live on the periphery of the county.

Three people testified in person AGAINST the bill. But 192 provided written comments FOR the bill. Still, the bill’s fate is unclear tonight.

Three In-Person Testifiers All Against Bill

The committee heard live testimony from three people. All spoke against the bill. They included Stephen Costello, the City’s former Chief Recovery Officer under the late Mayor Sylvester Turner. They also included Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD and Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia.

The essence of Costello’s testimony was “HCFCD is working. Don’t mess with it.” He called the District a good partner for the City of Houston. And that may be true in certain areas.

Petersen and Garcia both bragged about HCFCD’s track record under their leadership, including their ability to take politics out of decision making.

Their testimony stood in stark contrast to brutal confrontations in Harris County Commissioners Court during the last two months. Commissioners, including Garcia, have raked Petersen over the coals. They complained bitterly and repeatedly about budget shortfalls totaling hundreds of millions of dollars that have jeopardized their pet projects.

No one seems to know where the current budget or projects stand. And that has made it impossible for commissioners to prioritize projects for any budget remaining.

Regardless, Petersen touted the county’s failed IT systems as a positive. She estimated it would cost the District $75 million to replace them if Flood Çontrol were a stand-alone entity.

Petersen also failed to mention the four-year slowdown in HCFCD activity.

See the entire testimony here. HB2068 starts about 1:18 into the video.

Strange Failure to Address Author’s Claims

Rep. Dennis Paul, the bill’s author, teed up his bill by explaining how much flooding originated outside the county. However, neither Costello, Petersen, nor Garcia addressed that point.

The failure to address such an obvious point may have been a fatal flaw in their arguments. Any casual observer could see the disconnect.

In fact, 10 of the 22 watersheds in Harris County originate outside the county, including most of the largest ones. Excluding cooperative efforts with people in those areas dooms large parts of Harris County to repetitive flooding. Especially those on the periphery of the county.

Electronically Filed Comments Overwhelmingly Support Bill

Many county residents have received virtually no support from HCFCD during Petersen’s tenure because of deliberate diversions of funds to low-income areas. Residents who remain living with high flood risk did not share Petersen’s and Garcia’s appraisals of their own performance, judging by their written comments.

194 people submitted comments electronically. You can read them here. Of the 194, only two were against HB2068. The other 192 strongly favored it. Virtually all of them came from the Lake Houston Area.

However, a number of people from Porter, Conroe, and even as far north as Cleveland also favored the bill. All had been flooded. And all sought the kind of support that an expanded District could provide.

Only one other bill discussed in Natural Resources today received more comments than HB2068. It was a quarrying bill relating to the Lower Colorado River Authority. The rest received only a handful of comments. Most received 0 to 3.

That in itself seems like it would argue for closer scrutiny and debate.

Bill Not Debated in Committee, Fate Up in Air

However, at the end of the testimony, the chairman left the bill “pending in committee.” That could mean they will just let it die. Or it could mean they will debate it and pass it out of committee to the full house for a vote at a future date.

Rep. Paul’s bill does not yet have a companion bill in the Senate.

More news to follow when it becomes available.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/9/2025

2780 Days since Hurricane Harvey

3/29/25 – Every time I fly over the San Jacinto West Fork, I wonder, “What would it take to transform all the wastelands to wetlands again?”

That burning question has guided much of my research for the last eight years. I don’t have all the details worked out, but I would like to share a vision for restoring the area’s:

• Natural beauty
• Recreational potential
• Ability to:
  • Reduce flooding and sedimentation
  • Attract economic development.

The restoration would be incremental and generational. It will not happen overnight. And the timing will, no doubt, depend on how much sand remains.

All the more reason for all parties to agree on a vision that can guide future restoration and redevelopment. So, let me propose a vision to start the debate and stimulate ideas. All of us are smarter than one of us.

The Vision

I would like to see a mile-wide, 20-mile long recreational area between I-45 and I-69 with lakes and ponds, all connected by hike-and-bike trails. It would be called the Montgomery County Lake District. And it would connect to the West Fork and Spring Creek Greenways.

Such an area would feature kayak launches and fishing piers. It would also feature covered pavilions, restrooms and parking lots in the higher elevations near the edges of the preserve.

Constructed wetlands would filter runoff from nearby developments.

Islands in the larger lakes and ponds would attract birds and bird watchers, much like the Houston Audubon Society’s Smith Oaks Sanctuary in High Island.

The floodplains would be planted with native grasses, wildflowers, and flood-resilient trees such as willow and bald cypress.

Some of the pavilions might even have educational exhibits that explain about restoration efforts and the native wildlife.

To put this concept in perspective, Lake Houston Park – not far away on the East Fork – is already the largest urban nature park in North America. The area in the floodplains and floodway of the West Fork between 59 and 45 could be TWO TO THREE TIMES LARGER. Restoring and preserving it could draw national attention to Montgomery County and Houston as a role model.

What Would It Take?

From an exclusively physical point of view, turning old sand mines into sanctuaries would likely require the actions below. (I’ll discuss financial, permitting, legislative and other needs in future posts.)

With effort, the sand pits could be transformed into giant detention basins that hold hundreds, if not thousands, of acre feet of stormwater during floods. They could also intercept sediment carried downstream by the river during floods.

The design would likely incorporate overflow weirs to accommodate flood pulses.

For safety and flood resilience, we would need to regrade the pits. The edges should be shallow and gradual. Avoid sharp drop-offs that could challenge young swimmers or waders.

Gradual slopes also help with replanting native vegetation. We should use dense plantings of native trees and wildflowers to create visual buffers.

The area would also feature educational signage along trails to encourage outdoor activities, environmental awareness and collective action.​

We should collectively buy and preserve any not-yet-spoiled land between the mines also, so trails can be continuous along the entire length of the river.

Make Miners Part of the Solution

Prior to a mine’s closing, miners should re-contour any high, steep pitwalls, overburden piles, or embankments. Slopes should not exceed a 2:1 (50%) grade, with gentler 3:1 slopes preferred to enhance stability and allow vegetation to take hold​.

Avoid long, continuous slopes to reduce erosion and break them up with terraces to facilitate seeding and maintenance.

Where runoff concentrates, install lined channels or rock chutes to convey water safely downslope without gullying​. Use riprap to protect outlets, dissipate energy and prevent scour​.

As mines near the end of their producing life, begin revegetating all areas not occupied by water bodies. Reclaim the land progressively in phases, as production ends in one part of the mine and continues elsewhere. Prompt reclamation prevents abandoned pits from becoming illegal dump sites.

Mines need to demobilize all equipment and remove industrial materials, fuel tanks, maintenance shops, debris piles, etc. The final land surface should be free of trash, waste and equipment.

The goal: a stable site with self-sustaining vegetation, no significant sediment leaving the property, and no uncontrolled discharges into the West Fork or its tributaries.

All these recommendations are consistent with TCEQ Best Management Practices for Sand Mining in the San Jacinto Watershed and case studies from around the world.

Additional Efforts

A vision is just the glue that guides the efforts of many different parties as they work together to achieve common goals. Of course, creating such a transformation takes more than a vision. It takes sweat, money and leadership. So we also need to:

• Identify and Enroll Stakeholders
• Engage Engineers to Develop a Design
• Obtain Permits from Multiple Levels of Government
• Initiate Legislative Efforts to Create a Redevelopment Authority/District
• Raise Funds and Apply for Grants
• Provide for Ongoing Maintenance

I’ll discuss these additional topics in future posts to keep the length of this one manageable.

Please stay with me and share these posts with friends, families and neighbors. Also, please contribute your own ideas through the contact form of this website.

Together, we can turn sand into sanctuaries and wastelands into wetlands again.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/29/25

2769 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.