On January 9, 2023, FEMA released a Simplified Procedures policy for Public Assistance grants to speed up recovery for applicants. Small projects are now defined as those up to $1 million.
The new policy should reduce administrative burdens and enable communities to recover more quickly after presidentially declared events by streamlining documentation requirements.
FEMA will accept estimates with summary information and the applicant’s certifications for damage and work, instead of requiring applicants to provide full or detailed documentation.
FEMA Press Release
FEMA conducted a review in 2020. It showed that if a $1 million threshold were applied, 94 percent of projects would be considered small and help put additional recovery dollars in the hands of applicants faster and accelerate closure of projects.
FEMA intends to continue adjusting the threshold annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. It also intends to review the base threshold every three years.
The new policy is not directly aimed at individuals, but at state and local governments and certain types of private nonprofit organizations. Public Assistance grants cover such things as:
Disaster-related debris removal
Emergency protective measures
Repairs to damaged or destroyed infrastructure (i.e., roads).
FM1010 Washout during Harvey at Rocky Branch in Plum Grove near the East Fork. Still not repaired after 5.5 years.
Depending on repair cost and other factors, the road washout above is an example of the type of project that might benefit from the new policy. However, it’s not clear whether the simplified procedures apply retroactively to damage from past disasters or only future disasters. More details will follow.
Applicant has legal responsibility to perform the work
Cost is reasonable.
Once FEMA and the state review and approve the government agencies’ or nonprofits’ RPAs, applicants work with their FEMA representative to develop a damage inventory.
FEMA obligates funds to the state once a project meets Stafford Act eligibility requirements. The state is the official recipient of FEMA federal assistance. The state is then responsible for disbursing the money to applicants.
FEMA will hold a series of webinars in coming weeks to explain more about the simplified policy. Additional details are not yet available.
Getting aid to people faster after a disaster is necessary. This is a very complex subject. I wish all forms of disaster relief, including hazard mitigation, could be simplified. We’re still waiting on the Harris County, the GLO and HUD to agree on a plan for spending $750 million in mitigation funds related to Hurricane Harvey – 5.5 years after the event!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/12/23 based on a FEMA Press Release
1962 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/20201025-DJI_0919.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2023-01-12 13:04:432023-01-12 13:20:54FEMA Simplifying Procedures for Small Public Assistance Grants
Harris County Commissioners Court approved a motion on 1/10/23 that will change the formula for scoring future flood projects. It gives two thirds of a potential project’s score to population density, building density and social vulnerability, but only 20% to flood risk and nothing to actual flood damage.
Stacking the Deck
The new formula could be used both to compare and eliminate projects. With only 20% of a project’s score determined by flood risk, fixing minor flooding inside the Beltway could soon take precedence over fixing severe flooding outside the Beltway. The formula provides only the illusion of transparency and fails to ensure fairness.
Chart showing feet above flood stage of 33 gages on misc. bayous in Harris County during Harvey.
During Hurricane Harvey, the highest flooding in the County occurred outside the Beltway along the San Jacinto River, Spring Creek and Cypress Creek.
North Shore evacuation route during Harvey. Photo by Jim Balcom.
Regardless, despite being the largest watershed in the county and one of the most heavily damaged, few flood-mitigation dollars have come to the San Jacinto Watershed.
Since Harvey, 4.6 more flood-mitigation dollars have gone to the Brays watershed than the county’s largest, the San Jacinto.
Brays is the county’s most populous watershed. It’s also where Commissioner Ellis lives. Could that have anything to do with the factors and weights in the new formula for scoring future flood projects? They include:
45% Project Efficiency
15% Resident Benefits
30% Structure Benefits
20% Existing Conditions
20% Social Vulnerability Index
5% Long Term Maintenance Costs
5% Minimizes Environmental Impacts
5% Potential for Multiple Benefits
This new formula omits consideration of damage, risk reduction and partnership funding. Partnership funding has provided approximately one third of all Flood Control District funding since 2000. The new formula gives the most weight to building and population density incorporated in the Project Efficiency formula (project cost divided by # residents and structures benefitted). This 15-page PDF explains how projects are scored within each category above.
Other Problems with Formula
The formula for scoring future flood projects, proposed by Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis has many other problems. It also:
Does not differentiate between types of structures while giving them almost a third of the weight. Thus, a mobile home counts for as much as a hospital or college.
Gives no weight to protecting critical infrastructure such as bridges, hospitals, grocery stores, wastewater treatment plants, etc.
Gives 20% weight to social vulnerability, but ignores the severity of flooding. Thus a low-income home with one inch of flooding counts as much as an entire condo complex swept away by 22-foot deep floodwaters.
Makes awards more subjective because HCFCD has no way of estimating how many people live in apartment buildings or homes. HCFCD can count buildings in satellite photos, but the number of residents benefitted will always be a guess. Census tracts do not follow floodplain boundaries.
Undermines efforts to prevent flooding, as opposed to correcting it after people are damaged. Prevention, such as HCFCD’s Frontier Program, is always more cost effective in the long run.
Places 45% of the weight on cost data that has not yet been determined when deciding whether to explore projects further.
Ellis’ proposal passed 3-1 yesterday. Commissioners Rodney Ellis, Adrian Garcia, and Lesley Briones voted for it. Commissioner Tom Ramsey voted against. County Judge Lina Hidalgo was absent. Commissioner Ellis ran the meeting.
To see the discussion on Ellis’ proposal, click on “Departments 2 of 2” in the meeting video and scroll forward to 3:03:53. The discussion lasts 16 minutes. Below is a summary of key points and their time codes.
Summary of Debate with Video Timecodes
Ellis positions his proposal as a “transparency measure.” 3:04:10
Dr. Tina Petersen, head of the Flood Control District describes it as a “clear, consistent and equitable basis” for comparing projects that the flood control district is undertaking. 3:04:53
Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey says “criteria and frameworks are not necessarily a bad thing,” but then expresses a list of concerns about the proposal, none of which are addressed later in discussion. 3:06:19
Petersen responds that it’s “not perfect.” She says, “there’s no reason we can’t continue to refine this tool.” It’s very “general.” It let’s us “use what we have as a basis for comparison and continue to look forward to opportunities to refine” the tool.
Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia asks whether the proposal will add costs or time to projects. 3:11:00
Petersen says no. “The framework should not require additional costs as long as we don’t look back.”
New Precinct 4 Commissioner Asks Probing Questions
New Precinct 4 Commissioner Briones then asks “how often will it be updated?” 3:13:20
Petersen replies, “We’re not considering making any changes to the framework.” She describes the primary uses as: comparing projects and determining which are eligible for funding from the Flood Resilience Trust.
Briones asks whether the framework incorporates “severity of flooding.”
Petersen points to the “efficiency” metric as the closest thing because it incorporate the number of people and structures benefitted. But Petersen sidesteps the point of the question about “depth of flooding” raised by Ramsey earlier. 3:14:25
Briones questions why partnerships are excluded.
Petersen responds that the framework was designed for use with the flood resilience trust, on projects where partnership dollars were no longer considered a possibility. “It was intended to be a backstop for projects that do not have partnership funding.” Petersen does not mention $750 million in HUD/GLO dollars pending final approval.
Briones next asks whether the framework will provide a threshold for making go/no-go decisions on projects. 3:15:40
Petersen replies, “I want to be clear. It will be used for determining whether a project is eligible for flood resilience trust funds.”
At 3:19:30, Ellis quickly closes debate before someone asks for clarification. The measure passes.
Debate Filled with Unresolved Contradictions
Petersen sidestepped Brione’s tough questions about severity of flooding and the eliminating projects. At one point, Petersen said it was “only a point of comparison.” Later, she said it would determine project “eligibility.”
She also equivocated in her response to Ramsey’s concerns. At first she implied the framework was a first step. Later she said that she didn’t plan to change it. Even though the framework is intended for future projects, most of Petersen’s answers related to the past.
Bellwether Vote
Only one thing is certain.
We’re in for four more years of fog described as transparency!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/11/2023
1961 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Balcom-Evac.jpg?fit=1200%2C793&ssl=17931200adminadmin2023-01-11 15:13:312023-01-11 16:46:45Commissioners Approve New Formula for Scoring Future Flood Projects
Three areas in northwest Humble are in various stages of development. Parts or all of these areas flooded during Hurricane Harvey. The flooding was deep enough that reportedly one of the developers is not even going to try to raise the area. Instead, he said he will raise the homes 6-7 feet. Let’s hope that’s enough.
The numbers in the satellite image correspond to the groups of photos below. I took all shots on 1/3/23.
#1 will become light industrial. #2 will become single family residential. #3 will become single- and multi-family residential.
Area #1 – Light Industrial
According to a 2016 map by Skymark, the developer, the first area will become light industrial.
A four-lane divided road leads from the NW corner of Townsen Boulevard to Spring Creek on the north. By Skymark Development.The road abruptly stops before reaching Spring Creek and the Spring Creek Nature Trail.
The unpaved area between Spring Creek and where the road ends is owned by another developer (Pacific Indio) who also owns the land on the far side of the creek.
The Spring Creek Nature Trail cuts through the woods near the creek and follows it north toward I-45.Reverse angle shot looking SE toward Deerbook Mall shows large cleared area with stormwater detention basin.
Area #2 – Single Family Residential
Contractors are in the process of building roads into an area west of Target and Kohls. Saratoga Homes reportedly plans to build 357 homes and townhomes on this location.
Looking S from over Townsen Blvd. we can see two large stormwater detention basins (lower and upper left) Same area, but looking east toward Kohls and Target.
The closer shot below shows that not all the roads have been built yet.
Saratoga plans to build elevated homes here.
Area #3 – Single- and Multi-Family Residential
Looking south toward Sam’s with Townsen Blvd West on right, we can see a large stormwater detention pond that already has grass growing. This area will become single- and multi-family residential, some of which will be dedicated to seniors.
Note last of trees in center foreground being cleared and shredded for mulch. Spillway from detention basin seems to have a detour built into it. The purpose? Likely to slow the water and avoid erosion at the base of the utility poles.The long ditch on the left will drain Areas 2 and 3.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/20230103-DJI_0559.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2023-01-09 13:31:172023-01-09 13:39:27Development Update on 3 Areas in NW Humble
Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis has placed an item on the Commissioners Court agenda for 1/10/23 with far reaching ramifications for flood control in Harris County. It would change the way every future project is prioritized using a formula that gives almost half the weight to population and building density. Meanwhile, it ignores the amount of damage, severity of flooding, danger to infrastructure, historical underinvestment, and the difficulty of accurately estimating population in flood zones. Ellis’ recommendation could be used to permanently deny projects to heavily flood-damaged areas like Lake Houston.
Text of Motion
In Agenda Item #250, Ellis seeks: “Request for approval to direct the Harris County Flood Control District (“District”) to assign prioritization scores using the adopted 2022 Prioritization Framework for the Allocation of Funds from the Harris County Flood Resilience Trust to all new flood risk reduction projects funded by the District when requesting Commissioners Court approval to initiate the project, and to transmit those scores as quartiles to Commissioners Court.”
So what is that framework and why do we need it?
History of Recent Efforts to Prioritize Projects
Before the 2018 flood bond, Harris County flood control looked primarily at clusters of repeat damage to define and prioritize projects. That damage also formed the basis for obtaining partner funding in many cases.
However, when the perpetually underfunded Flood Control District received the huge infusion of cash from the 2018 flood bond, a problem arose. Which of the many worthy projects would be launched first? There simply weren’t enough qualified contractors to handle all needs simultaneously.
The text of the 2018 flood bond approved by voters contained a sentence that said, “…Commissioners Court shall provide a process for the equitable distribution of funds…” (See Paragraph 14-G). That became the key to the answer…with some verbal legerdemain by Ellis that turned “distribution” into “prioritization” and “equitable” into “equity.”
20% Existing Conditions (Drainage Level of Service)
20% Social Vulnerability
10% Project Efficiency
10% Partnership Funding
5% Long Term Maintenance Costs
5% Minimizes Environmental Impacts
5% Potential for Multiple Benefits
Total 100%
Commissioners, including Ellis, repeatedly affirmed their intent to complete all projects originally identified as part of the bond. The framework simply prioritized their start dates.
Commissioners also talked a lot about prioritizing “the worst first.” It was a nice sound bite, but never defined. Were the worst areas those with the most damage, deepest flooding, poorest residents, highest risk, or some combination of the above? Notice that the formula above omits flood damage, the traditional way of prioritizing funds and “ground-truthing” flood-risk estimates.
At this point, all of the projects in the bond have started. Their natural lifecycles and complexity will determine their order of completion. So, the debate has shifted from the flood bond to other sources of funding and future projects.
2021 Changes Applied to Flood Resilience Trust
In 2021, Commissioners created a Flood Resilience Trust using Toll-Road funds to backstop potential shortfalls in flood-bond partner contributions. The weighting used to allocate funds from the Trust changed significantly.
25% Structures Benefitted
20% Flooding Frequency
20% Social Vulnerability
10% Cost Per Structure
10% Partnership Funding
5% Maintenance Cost
5% Environmental Impact
5% Secondary Benefits
Total 100%
Flood Control used this formula only to prioritize the use of backstop funds in the Trust. Note this version of the formula eliminated both damage and risk reduction from consideration.
2022 Changes
In April, 2022, Commissioners modified the 2021 weights within the Prioritization Framework – still only for Flood Resilience Trust Funds – as follows:
45% Project Efficiency
15% Resident Benefits
30% Structure Benefits
20% Existing Conditions
20% Social Vulnerability Index
5% Long Term Maintenance Costs
5% Minimizes Environmental Impacts
5% Potential for Multiple Benefits
This 2022 formula omits consideration of damage, risk reduction and partnership funding. But it gives weight to population density (project cost divided by # residents benefitted). This 15-page PDF explains how projects are scored within each category above.
2023 Proposal
Commissioner Ellis now proposes applying the 2022 Resilience Trust formula to ALL FUTURE HCFCD PROJECTS.
Problems with Proposal
Flood Control would now use Ellis’ formula to decide which projects make the list, not just which go first.
Thus, the so-called “equity” formula once used to schedule projects could now be used to eliminate projects altogether.
Two thirds of the weight goes to density and social vulnerability. Only 20% relates to flooding.
The projects most likely to be eliminated would be outside the Beltway – in less dense areas that have traditionally received the least funding. In a post-bond, financially constrained environment, the weight given to density will put every project outside the Beltway at a disadvantage.
But the Ellis formula has many other problems, too. It:
Does not differentiate between types of structures while giving them almost a third of the weight. Thus, a mobile home counts for as much as a hospital or college.
Gives no weight to protecting critical infrastructure such as bridges, hospitals, grocery stores, wastewater treatment plants, etc.
Gives 20% weight to social vulnerability, but ignores the severity of flooding. Thus a low-income home with one inch of flooding counts as much as an entire condo complex swept away by 22-foot deep floodwaters.
Makes awards more subjective because HCFCD has no way of estimating how many people live in apartment buildings or homes. HCFCD can count buildings in satellite photos, but the number of residents benefitted will always be a guess. Census tracts do not follow floodplain boundaries.
Undermines efforts to prevent flooding, as opposed to correcting it after people are damaged. Prevention, such as HCFCD’s Frontier Program, is always more cost effective in the long run.
Forces Flood Control to judge projects before the District has engineering and cost data in hand that would help determine whether the projects are worth pursuing. That’s because “ALL FUTURE PROJECTS” include preliminary engineering projects.
Suggestions For Improvement
Below are several suggestions to improve the formula.
Define “worst first.” While the sentiment is noble, in practice, the term has no practical definition. (Ditto for equity.)
Incorporate measurements for severity of flooding and amount of damage. These really define worst.
Prioritize critical infrastructure such as bridges whose loss can jeopardize the economic vitality of the region.
Include partnership funds. They help stretch flood-mitigation tax dollars by almost a third. Even if people sometimes must wait longer to line up partner funding, partner funding helps more people in the long run.
Publish level-of-service data, used in the “existing conditions” calculation, for all streams in the county. It seems to be secret. I’ve been trying to get it for a year. Keeping it secret undermines trust in government. How do we know money is really going to the areas with the greatest risk?
Publish a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan similar to the City of Houston. Let people see what is coming, when, and for how much. That way we can hold HCFCD and Commissioners accountable. Plus, we can see their “formula” in action.
Be fair to all. The proposed formula is like playing cards with a stacked deck.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/7/23
1957 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Ellis.jpg?fit=1200%2C809&ssl=18091200adminadmin2023-01-07 19:13:032023-01-08 10:27:15Ellis Trying to Change How All Flood-Control Projects Prioritized
The first leg of the three-mile route starts near the entrance to River Grove Park at the south end of Woodland Hills Drive in Kingwood. It used existing residential streets and new trails to snake its way to the Forest Cove Community Center. Then construction paused until demolition of the flooded townhomes on Aqua Vista, Timberline, and Marina Drives finished.
The second leg (dark purple below) follows existing streets through the old townhome site. However, contractors narrowed the streets to one lane. That accommodates bicycle and foot traffic, but limits most vehicle access.
Route of West Fork Greenway between River Grove Park and Edgewater Park.
The newest portion of the trail now extends from the Community Center to Hamblen Road via Timberline Pass, Timberline Drive, Aqua Vista and Burning Tree Court. The last street terminates at Hamblen, just west of the old Forest Cove Golf Course.
A final leg will extend west to Precinct 3’s Edgewater Park, paralleling Hamblen Road, but south of it (light purple).
Timing and Connections
Timing for the final leg has not yet been determined. Houston Parks Board eventually hopes to connect multiple waterways and adjacent hike and bike trail systems in the northern part of Harris County.
The pictures below, taken on 1/3/23, show the state of the most recent construction.
Landscaping along new trail (formerly part of Aqua Vista Drive. The trail is half the width of the old street. It should accommodate both hikers and bikers.Construction on Marina Drive and Timberline Pass. Forest Cove Community Center and Pool in upper left.Looking East.Reverse angle.Looking south from over Forest Cove Pool.Looking west from the former turnaround at the end of Aqua Vista.Facing west at trail connecting old Forest Cove townhome complex with Burning Tree Court. The latter turns north (right) and terminates at Hamblen Road.
More News to Follow When Plans Become Clear
The Parks Board plans to use some of the areas in the old townhome complex for parking. The fate of other streets remains unclear. Likewise, Harris County Precinct 3 has not yet announced plans for the long-awaited Edgewater Park. Harris County Flood Control District which bought out the townhome properties said it plans only to let the area return to green space.
Edgewater Park and this trail were one of the first good things to come out of Harvey. I just hope I live long enough to see them finished! Eventually, they will make a tremendous community asset.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/6/23
1956 days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/20230103-RJR_5433.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2023-01-06 14:45:262023-01-06 14:45:29Next Leg of San Jacinto West Fork Greenway Now Hike- and Bikeable
The excavation rate of a sixth detention pond on Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) Woodridge Village property increased during the last month of 2022. That brought the total for the year to 73,745 cubic yards of soil removed under Sprint Sand and Gravel’s Excavation and Removal (E&R) Contract.
The reported total at the end of November was 67,529 cubic yards. That means the total for December was 6,216 cubic yards, the most for any month since last July. Compare the previous totals below.
Weekly totals through November
Excavation under E&R contracts varies depending on demand for fill dirt. Sprint’s contract with Harris County Flood Control District lets it take dirt basically for free and then sell the dirt on the open market to make its money.
The work could more than double the stormwater detention capacity on the site that flooded Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest twice in 2019.
According to HCFCD, E&R agreements provide an opportunity for making progress in advance of future basin construction. These agreements essentially provide a head start in the excavation process before the detention basin is designed and constructed. In these agreements, an excavation company agrees to remove soil from a basin site during an agreed upon time period for minimal compensation. This is a cost-effective way for the material to be removed and it also provides significant savings by minimizing trucking and disposal fees.
Pictures Taken 1/03/23
Looking west toward the site entrance on Woodland Hills Drive.Contractors appear to be leaving some existing concrete culverts in place that will allow the new pond to drain into the old one at the top of frame.Looking NE. The pond could eventually extend as far as the grove of trees in the distance.
HCFCD expects that Sprint will excavate the full 500,000 cubic yards stipulated in their contract. That will expand the current stormwater detention capacity by 166%. The property only needed 40% more to meet Atlas-14 requirements. So this will provide a considerable margin of safety.
Other improvements include:
A concrete-lined, low-flow channel within the existing channel to expand conveyance from 350 feet downstream of Creek Manor Drive to 1500 feet downstream of Mills Branch Drive. The concrete portion would be four feet deep and 20 feet wide.
A new clear-span bridge at Rustling Elms to replace the current bridge over two culverts.
1955 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 1204 since Imelda
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/20230103-DJI_0594.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2023-01-05 11:53:522023-01-05 11:58:00Woodridge Village Excavation Rate Ticks Up
According to its new website, the controversial Laurel Springs RV Resort near Lakewood Cove plans opening in January 2023. Recent aerial photos show workers putting the finishing touches on the “resort.” Even though the City of Houston permitted 182 spaces, the website advertises 226.
The photos below show the status of construction on 1/3/2023. The portion closest to camera in the first shot, looks ready to go. But workers are still scurrying about the northern portion of the site.
Looking N from southern end of property.Plans for the park claimed only 66% impervious cover.Last remaining dirt work in NW corner of detention pond.That triangular space comprises the resort’s dog park. Dachshunds and chihuahuas fit in the narrow end.Trees planted just before Christmas will soon brush up against utility wires.Water still ponds in the area below where the resort buried pipes through the dike.
The permit plans stipulate that the site’s detention basin must have a dry bottom within 48 hours of a storm. It hasn’t had a dry bottom in quite a while.
The resort’s website calls the basin a “retention pond.” Retention ponds are designed to hold water permanently.
The Resort’s new typo-plagued website has about as much attention to detail as its permit applications did. RV owners can only hope they do better with invoices. See below.
A scrolling banner on the website trumpets the Resort’s marketing theme – “Join the Adventure.” It promises to be exactly that – an adventure…right next to the railroad tracks, which the owners forgot to mention.
Posted by Bob on 1/4/23
1954 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/20230103-DJI_0520.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2023-01-04 11:55:042023-01-04 12:10:26Laurel Springs RV Resort Plans Opening This Month
After more than eight months of clearing, grading and drainage prep, The Residences at Kingwood, a 19.7 acre apartment complex on West Lake Houston Parkway between Upper Lake Drive and Kings Park Way, is finally under construction. The developer’s website says the complex will feature 240 Garden Apartments and 49 Townhomes.
The photos below show that carpenters have started framing buildings on the south end of the property and are working their way north.
Looking S. West Lake Houston Parkway on right. Upper Lake Drive in lower right.Closer shot of construction at south end of property.Detention basin seems to be functioning. Harris County specifies a minimum detention rate of .65 acre feet per acre for sites this large.
Although neighbors have complained of mud on West Lake Houston Parkway and surrounding streets, I have received no complaints of flooding yet.
Location
The map below shows the location of two parcels on West Lake Houston Parkway that comprise the new development. They are approximately halfway between the West Fork at the top of the frame and FM1960 at the bottom.
From HCAD.The cul-de-sac at the south end of the property (right)will be called Kings River Commercial Drive.
About the Developer and Project
The developer, High Street Residential, is a wholly-owned operating subsidiary of Trammell Crow Company.” In the last 15 years, High Street Residential has completed more than $2.7 billion with a current pipeline of more than 4,500 units.
The Residences at Kingwood will offer homes ranging in size from one to three bedrooms and will feature stainless steel appliances, in-unit washers and dryers, custom cabinetry, and nine-foot ceiling heights. Select units will also offer walk-in closets, private outdoor space, and one- or two-car garages. The development will feature:
A resort-style pool
Grilling areas
Fitness center with a yoga & Pilates studio, and an outdoor workout area
Resident lounge with an art gallery and an entertaining kitchen, along with a conferencing and remote-work suite
Pet grooming center
On-site storage
Putting green, bocce courts, pickle ball court
Multiple outdoor dining areas
Connection to the Kingwood Greenbelt trail system.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/20230103-DJI_0641.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2023-01-03 14:25:382023-01-03 14:29:27240 Apartments, 49 Garden Homes Going Up on West Lake Houston Parkway
The problem: Changes affect both water quality downstream and land development upstream. That’s why the rules change so often. Competing interests! Public health and safety vs. economic expansion.
The Cuyahoga River caught fire a total of 13 times dating back to 1868. It is still rated one of the most polluted rivers in America by almost every group that compiles lists. Photo: Cleveland State University Library.
The photographers took about 81,000 images, more than 20,000 of which were archived. At least 15,000 have been digitized by the National Archives. They form a time capsule showing the way things were.
Warning: These images are disturbing…for people on both sides of the political net.
Why the Changes This Time?
The AP article by Jim Salter and Michael Phillis says, “The Trump-era rule, finalized in 2020, was long sought by builders, oil and gas developers, farmers and others who complained about federal overreach that they said stretched into gullies, creeks and ravines on farmland and other private property.”
However, the writers continued, “…the Trump rule allowed businesses to dump pollutants into unprotected waterways and fill in some wetlands, threatening public water supplies downstream and harming wildlife and habitat.”
They quoted Kelly Moser, Senior Attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Clean Water Defense Initiative. She said, “Today, the Biden administration restored needed clean water protections so that our nation’s waters are guarded against pollution for fishing, swimming, and as sources of drinking water.”
At Issue: Definition of “Waters of the U.S.”
Meanwhile, courts at various levels are still pondering the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” At issue: How far up in the branching structure of a river may the government enforce regulations? As far as it’s navigable? One level up from that? Two? Three? Infinitely? And do the rules apply to desert areas the same way they do to subtropical areas like SE Texas?
The Biden administration decision is a setback for various industries. It broadens which wetlands, streams and rivers can be regulated under the Clean Water Act.
But given the impacts to public health and the immense economic interests at stake, this won’t be the last time we see the rules change. An army of lobbyists is likely mobilizing right now.
Local Impact
Several developments in the Lake Houston Area contained wetlands affected regulation changes. Consider, for instance, the case of Woodridge Village. The Army Corps ruled that it contained wetlands, but that the wetlands didn’t fall under their jurisdiction because of rules in effect at the time. So there was no violation of the Clean Water Act. Hundreds of homes in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest flooded, partially as a result of the environmental destruction.
Confluence of Spring Creek and West Fork by 59 Bridge. TCEQ found that Liberty Mines discharged 56 million gallons of white waste water into the West Fork.Repeated and multiple breaches atTriple PG mine discharged sediment-laden water directly into Caney Creek. This one lasted for months.
Searching on the word “breach” in ReduceFlooding.com pulls up 116 stories, many of which show multiple breaches.
But mining isn’t the only upstream issue at stake. So is sediment pollution from new development.
Drainage ditch in Artavia.March 2020 in West Fork watershedEroding ditch in Colony Ridge (East Fork Watershed) due to lack of backslope interceptor systems and grass.
Making Private Expenses a Public Cost
The EPA lists sediment as the most common pollutant in rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs. It has contributed to flooding thousands of homes in the Lake Houston Area.
West Fork mouth bar almost totally blocked the river where it meets Lake Houston.East Fork Mouth Bar grew 4000 feet in two years between Harvey and Imelda.
Both mouth bars above have since been dredged at great public expense, but abuses continue. I just wish we could all find a way to live together. This should not be a case of health and safety vs. economic development. We need all three for communities to prosper.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/2/23
1952 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/RJR_4154-e1775771233982.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2023-01-02 11:04:302023-01-02 11:49:14Biden Changes Trump’s Changes to Water Regulations
On November 21, 2022, the U.S. Government filed a 70-page motion for a summary judgment in the Addicks-Barker Downstream Cases. In 2020, Judge Loren A. Smith dismissed the downstream cases, ruling that the plaintiffs had no right to sue the government for “taking” their property in what he called a 2,000-year storm. However, in June 2022, a federal appeals court reversed Judge Loren’s decision, re-opening the case. The appeals court ruled on a number of procedural issues and remanded the case back to Loren’s court for further consideration.
Both appellants and the government had urged the appeals court to order a summary judgment. But the appeals court declined. It noted that “due to the fact-intensive nature of takings cases, summary judgment should not be granted precipitously.”
In summary, the government contends that the Addicks and Barker dams:
Historically prevented far more damage ($16.5 billion through 2016) than the release of water during Harvey caused
Reduced plaintiff’s level of flooding by up to 7-8 feet
Did not “cause” – in a legal sense – the plaintiffs’ flooding
Further, the government contends that plaintiffs’ claims are based on a single, extraordinary, catastrophic event and any action undertaken by the Corps during the event does not constitute a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment.
Dams Modified in Response to Downstream Development
The original design from the 1930s included a downstream channel with a capacity of approximately 18,000 cubic feet per second (CFS), and 4 ungated and 1 gated outlets on each dam. They permitted a combined, uncontrolled discharge of floodwater into Buffalo Bayou of approximately 15,700 cfs.
In 1948, the Corps constructed gates on two additional conduits on each dam so that three of the five conduits were gated. This design reduced the combined uncontrolled discharge into Buffalo Bayou to approximately 7,900 cfs, which was considered at that time to be the capacity of that channel.
“However, increasing urban development along Buffalo Bayou in the 1940s and 1950s created a potential flood threat from uncontrolled releases at that level,” says the motion.
The Corps then added gates to additional conduits in the early 1960s to provide more protection to developing downstream areas. With all conduits gated, “[t]he total of all releases, plus local runoff downstream of the dams, would start at 4,000 cfs and be gradually increased to 6,000 cfs except under emergency conditions.”
Later, the motion states, “Continued residential development along Buffalo Bayou downstream of the reservoirs resulted in channel encroachment and by late 1970, water flows in excess of 3,000 cfs in the unimproved channel below the dams would begin to threaten the first floor elevations of some residences, and release rates of 2,500 to 2,800 cfs would produce nuisance type flooding of flower beds, trees and lawns in some areas along Buffalo Bayou and its tributaries.”
Causation Argument
Plaintiffs claimed that the opening of the dams’ gates during Harvey caused their flooding. But the government argues that the plaintiffs must demonstrate what would have happened if the government had not acted at all. In other words, the government argues that “causation” must be “based on the entirety of government actions.” See Page 26. That includes construction of the dams! And without them, the government says on Page 42, “properties along Buffalo Bayou would have experienced much greater flooding.”
“Plaintiffs have not alleged—let alone identified any evidence to prove—that their properties experienced more flooding than they would have experienced if the Corps had never constructed the Project, their claims fail,” the government argues.
Doctrine of Relative Benefits
The government also invokes a legal principle called the “relative benefits doctrine.” Under the relative benefits doctrine, “[e]ven if a causal relationship exists between the Government’s action and plaintiff’s damage . . . no liability attaches if the Government’s conduct bestowed more benefit than detriment on plaintiff’s property.”
The motion then alleges that the benefits to downstream properties far outweigh the Harvey-related damages. A 2016 study the government quotes alleges the dams reduced/avoided damages to downstream properties by $16.5 billion. That total is updated annually and based on a with/without the dams comparison.
Comparison of Peak Inflows/Outflows
The government motion cites the following statistics of the two reservoirs during Harvey:
Addicks peak inflow: 70,000 cfs
Addicks peak release: 6,500 cfs or 9.3% of the peak inflow.
Barker peak inflow: 77,000 cfs,
Barker peak outflow: 4,821 cfs or 6.3% of the peak inflow.
Peak flow rates downstream along Buffalo Bayou ranged from 13,800 cfs to 36,400 cfs. The government alleges that at those levels, plaintiffs properties would flooded regardless of discharge from the dams. The government also alleges that without the dams, flooding in Piney Point would have been 7 to 8 feet higher.
The Corps calculated after Harvey that the dams prevented 30,000 structures from flooding.
In this section of the motion, government lawyers point out that plaintiffs’ properties would have flooded in previous floods such as Tax Day and Memorial Day had it not been for the dams.
What Constitutes a Taking?
In conclusion, the government argues that the flooding during Harvey did not constitute a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment.
It was not intended.
It resulted from an extreme hurricane with unprecedented rainfall.
The government’s role in any flooding of downstream properties was secondary to the severe rainfall.
The dams were designed and built decades before the plaintiffs’ properties.
Releases during Harvey were designed to protect the integrity of the dam.
Flooding of plaintiffs’ property is not frequent enough to rise to the level of a taking.
The failure of government to take certain actions alleged by plaintiffs would constitute a tort a most, not a taking.
A tort is a failure to take action that results in damage to someone.
I will let you know how the plaintiffs’ lawyers respond later this month.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/1/2023
1951 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/20210520-RJR_6640.jpg?fit=1200%2C725&ssl=17251200adminadmin2023-01-01 14:12:402023-01-01 14:22:49Government Again Moves for Summary Judgment In Addicks-Barker Downstream Cases
