Dredging Location as of 10/12/2021. East Fork at Mouth of Luce Bayou on right.From here, pontoons ferry the spoils back to the West Fork opposite Kingwood’s River Grove Park.East Fork Dredging as of 12/3/2021. Photo taken from Huffman side of river looking SW toward Royal Shores and the FM 1960 Bridge in the distance.
Since then, the dredgers have managed to remove about 300 feet of the tip of one sandbar blocking the mouth of Luce Bayou and Red Gully (on the left in the shot above).
Looking upstream. Lots of dredging left to do. Between Harvey and Imelda, the sandbars in this area grew approximately 4000 feet.
Note the sediment plume in the middle of the boat’s wake above. That indicates the shallowness of the river.
According to boater Josh Alberson, the depth through this reach of the river was reduced from 17 feet to about three feet between Harvey and Imelda.
Dredging: A Conveyance Issue
The dredging is far more than a recreational issue. The decreased conveyance of the river creates a sediment dam than backs water up and contributes to the flooding of homes. In fact, I passed by dozens of flooded and abandoned homes while looking for a place to launch my drone.
Mechanical Vs. Hydraulic Dredging
One can only wonder whether the City of Houston is using the right tools for the job. Even Stephen Costello, Houston’s Chief Recovery Officer, called mechanical dredging “unsustainable in the long run” when he addressed a crowd at the Kingwood Community Center on July 9.
But it may come down to a case of slow-go or no-go.
I asked a friend in the dredging business to estimate the costs of mechanical vs. hydraulic dredging. He qualified the discussion by saying that:
To even consider hydraulic dredging you need a pit to pump the material into.
He also suggested that to reduce long-term overhead costs, you want to be able to use the equipment year round and create a perpetual dredging program.
He said the ideal would be to go once around the lake and arrive back at the beginning when it was time to start all over again.
That said, he estimated that hydraulic dredging was 10X faster and one third to one fourth the cost of mechanical dredging.
With hydraulic dredging, the upfront equipment and setup costs are far higher. Mechanical dredging is far slower and more expensive.
I won’t pretend that I have the answer to the question of which is better in this case: mechanical or hydraulic.
Vendor for Long-Range Dredging Plan Due to Be Selected This Month
The submission deadline for vendors bidding on a long range dredging plan for Lake Houston was 9/23. The Request for Qualifications stated that the City hoped to put contract approval on the City Council Agenda for December and start the contract in January. The selected vendor will have two years to complete the dredging plan.
It could easily take that long to finish the East Fork Mouth Bar at the current rate.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/3/2021
1557 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 775 since Imelda
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/20211203-DJI_0925.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2021-12-03 18:28:162021-12-04 07:27:39Slow-Go: East Fork Dredging Still at Mouth of Luce Bayou
Stormwater detention basins work by storing excess stormwater temporarily until channels can safely carry it away. Water enters the basin quickly during heavy downpours. But the basin releases it slowly at a steady rate that channels are designed to carry. This helps reduce the risk of flooding.
Harris County is so flat that dams are not often options. Therefore, virtually all of our stormwater storage has to be excavated.
Harris County Flood Control District
Willow Water Hole Example
The Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) detention basins typically cover several hundred acres and service regions. Willow Water Hole just outside the southwest corner of Loop 610 on a tributary of Brays Bayou is an excellent example.
The 279-acre Willow Waterhole has six compartments. Willow is part of the Brays Bayou Federal Flood Damage Reduction Project (Project Brays), a multi-year, $550 million project that substantially reduces flooding risk in the Brays Bayou watershed. The project is a cooperative effort between the Harris County Flood Control District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Willow Waterhole Detention Basin Complex in SW Houston has six compartments.
Why the Need?
As areas develop, buildings and concrete cover up soil, so stormwater can’t sink into the ground. Water runs off concrete faster than it does from native grasslands. When that water all hits channels, streams and bayous simultaneously from different directions, it exceeds the carrying capacity of the channel. And homes flood.
Many, but not all, new developments use stormwater detention basins to offset that negative effect.
When full, detention basins often resemble lakes. When dry, detention basins look like large excavated open space areas. The Willow Water Hole is normally dry. Yesterday, however, it contained water from recent rains and the low (seasonal rate of evaporation).
Two of the compartments bracket South Willow Drive. See location above. Note the weir (discussed below) leading to the channel.
Some systems have water in them permanently, so they resemble small lakes. These provide flood storage between the normal surface of the lake and the top of the bank. See the difference in the photograph below.
Willow Water Hole southwestern pond. Note extra capacity between the top of the water and the top of the banks.
Detention? Retention? Which is It?
A detention basin normally has a dry bottom. It holds excess stormwater temporarily.
A retention basin always has a wet bottom. It stores water indefinitely. Retention basis normally have no outlet. Evaporation and infiltration usually keep the lake levels manageable.
The Harris County Flood Control District always builds and uses detention basins. Developers more likely will use retention ponds and market the resulting “lakes” as residential amenities.
HCFCD owns approximately 70 large regional detention basin sites throughout Harris County. They supplement hundreds of smaller developer-built basins. Countywide, these basins hold billions of gallons of stormwater during heavy rainstorms.
Two northeastern retention ponds within Willow Water Hole complexon either side of South Post Oak Road.
How Water Gets In
Sometimes HCFCD designs stormwater detention basins with a weir (visible in the first and second drone photos above). The weir, or low dam, lets stormwater rising in the channel spill into the detention basin when it reaches a certain height. Other detention basins have no weirs. They are simply open to a channel. In this case, stormwater fills the basin as it rises in the channel.
But there’s also a third alternative for stormwater detention basins, i.e., those not near a channel. Storm sewers and/or sheet flow fill these detention basins. “Big pipes in – little pipes out” is the rule in this instance. The basin gets the water away from streets and homes quickly. Then lets it drain off slowly.
How Water Gets Out
HCFCD typically designs detention basins to drain by gravity, as opposed to using pumps. This lets basins function when power goes out, a frequent occurrence during floods.
In ponds that drain by gravity, depth of the drain (outfall) is dictated by the depth of the receiving channel. The rate at which stormwater drains depends on the stormwater level in the receiving channel. Typically, stormwater drains out of the detention basin after channel levels recede.
Complex engineering calculations determine the volume of stormwater that a detention basin must hold to protect surrounding homes and businesses. That volume, usually measured in acre-feet, determines the width, length and depth of a basin. The amount of time stormwater stays in a basin depends on levels in the receiving channel and how full the basin got. In Harris County, detention time is usually measured in hours, not days.
How the Process Works
Normal Flow
When there is normal flow in a bayou or channel, the detention basin is generally empty.
Initial Storm Effects
Basins begin to fill as bayous or channels rise, or as surrounding developments drain into them through storm sewers.
Capturing the Flow of a Heavy Storm
As water continues to fill the detention basin, it spreads out into the excavated area. Often culverts connect multiple “compartments” within a larger basin, as above.
Detaining the Flow
By holding water in the detention basin, it does not flood homes and businesses downstream.
Draining Detained Water
As the level of the channel recedes, the channel water level drops and lets the basin drain, but only as fast as the channel can handle it.
Back to Normal Flow
With the water level in the channel normal, the basin is once again empty and ready for the next rainstorm.
End Result
Often, HCFCD partners with local groups, such as the Houston Parks Board, to build trails around these ponds that provide a retreat from busy city life. Areas such as Willow Water Hole also provide habitat for birds. People out for a stroll or a jog may think they are in a beautiful park and not even realize the role it plays in reducing flood risk.
The City of Houston has scheduled a repaving project for West Lake Houston Parkway from Dec. 6-27, 2021. This is a bit off-topic for a flood blog, but it affects thousands of readers. This follows several previous repaving and bridge repair projects on West Lake Houston Parkway. The following is based on a press release by Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin’s office.
Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin would like to make Kingwood area residents aware Houston Public Works will start a panel replacement project on West Lake Houston Parkway beginning Monday, December 6, weather permitting.
The scope of work includes replacing damaged concrete panels along the north and southbound lanes of W Lake Houston Parkway from Kingwood Drive to Magnolia Cove Drive.
The cost of the project is $38,200 and is funded through Mayor Pro Tem Martin’s Council District Service Funds.
Crews will mobilize on-site beginning Monday, December 6 and should finish the project by Monday, December 27, weather permitting.
Construction activities are expected to take place Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Please stay alert for flagmen and orange traffic cones that will help traffic flow through the construction zone. The project may require a one-lane closure at times, but two-way traffic will be maintained at all times.
Businesses and residents will have access to driveways and sidewalks at all times, but may experience an increase in noise levels.
On the Harris County Commissioner’s Court agenda for today are two Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) “transmittals.” One will update commissioners on flood-bond spending to date. The other will update commissioners on the progress of new flood maps (the MAAPnext program). They are items 269 and 270 on today’s agenda.
Transmittals are reports by departments. Commissioners don’t usually discuss them unless one of the commissioners wishes to make comments for some reason. So, I’m calling them to your attention here.
Flood-Mitigation Spending Through Third Quarter Reaches $865 Million
About half of the $865 million spent on flood mitigation since voters passed the bond in 2018 has come from bond funds. The rest has come from grants and local partnerships. See pie chart below on left.
The left pie chart underscores the importance of partnership funding.
The map below shows where flood-bond spending has occurred.
Flood-mitigation spending by watershed since approval of flood-bond in 2018.
The winner in the $weep$take$: HCFCD spent almost $154 million on Brays Bayou.
Other leading watersheds (rounded to nearest million) in flood-bond spending included:
$81 million in Addicks Reservoir
$76 million on Greens Bayou
$76 million on Cypress Creek
$50 million on Little Cypress Creek
$46 million on White Oak Bayou
$32 million on Clear Creek
With a few exceptions, this spending reflects the influence of the Harris County Flood-Bond Equity Prioritization Framework implemented in 2019. That framework gives highest priority to low- to middle-income watersheds with a high social-vulnerability index. Thus, tiny Halls Bayou has received more assistance than the largest watershed in the county – the San Jacinto River. And Brays Bayou has received almost 11 times more assistance than Buffalo Bayou.
Two notable exceptions are:
Vince Bayou which is almost totally inside the City of Pasadena and is therefore primarily Pasadena’s responsibility.
Little Cypress Creek which is part of HCFCD’s experimental Frontier Program. The Frontier Program aims to prevent future flooding by buying up land on the cheap before it’s developed. HCFCD then sells detention basin capacity to developers to help make back its investment.
Other Insights Gained from Report
Most projects are ahead of schedule and on budget. Good news!
More than half of buyouts have been completed and enough funding apparently remains to complete the rest.
Progress continues on the $124 million FEDERAL Flood Damage Reduction project on White Oak Bayou, where six stormwater detention basins will hold almost a billion gallons of stormwater. That’s equivalent to about a foot of stormwater falling over almost 5 square miles.
An earlier version of this report generated some controversy. People in some watersheds didn’t believe the reported expenditures. Members of the Northeast Action Collective questioned whether any projects had started in their watersheds. They demanded immediate cancellation of projects in Kingwood and transfer of Kingwood’s funds, so that projects in Halls and Greens Bayou could start immediately.
That’s, in part, why I wrote “How to Find and Verify Flood-Related Information: Part I.” Flood-mitigation projects are hard to spot from the ground. Construction almost always happens out of sight behind tall fences and dense tree lines. After construction, the projects are often disguised as parks. For those who doubt, I recommend confirming the existence of projects from the air.
I haven’t confirmed every project in the county, but I have spot-checked many. And I have yet to find discrepancies between what HCFCD reports and what I can see from the air.
C-25, a Halls Bayou Detention pond now under construction by HCFCD. The bayou runs through the trees in the foreground.New basin at Hopper and US59 on a tributary of Halls Bayou.Lauder Detention Basin on Greens Bayou as of 10/12/2021. Phase One of a two-phase project is nearly complete.Cutten Road detention basin on Greens Bayou continues its relentless expansion.Phase 1 of the Greens Bayou Aldine-Westfield Basin on left is complete. Phase 2 on right is now beginning.
For more information that includes watershed spending data before the flood-bond, check out the funding page.
MAAPnext Effort About to Be Turned Over to FEMA
Harris County Flood Control (HCFCD) estimates it has completed 86% of its part of the flood-map updates. HCFCD will deliver drafts of the new maps to FEMA in January for review and kick off a campaign of public meetings at the same time. The public will see draft maps in February. A public comment period of 90 days will follow. And FEMA hopes to release preliminary flood insurance insurance rate maps by mid-year next year.
I have had a peek at the new maps and reports. And I must say, the effort should result in a dramatic leap forward in flood-risk understanding. Individualized reports will inform homeowners of their flood risks from a variety of different sources, including street flooding. The prototype of the website is very user friendly.
After receiving preliminary maps from HCFCD, it typically takes FEMA another 18-24 months to release final, official flood maps. That gives affected property owners time to comment and appeal. The process looks like this.
MAAPnext milestones as of the end of 2021.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/30/2021
1554 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/20211130-Screen-Shot-2021-11-30-at-10.31.04-AM-2.jpg?fit=1200%2C836&ssl=18361200adminadmin2021-11-30 12:47:472021-11-30 12:47:51Where Flood-Bond Spending Is Going, When New Flood Maps Will Be Released
This is Part II in a series about how to find and verify flood-related information. Yesterday’s post focused on finding good information about flood vulnerabilities. This second part will focus on reviewing developers’ plans. The second can compound the first.
The very first sentence of the Texas Water Code § 11.086 begins with a warning not to flood your neighbors. It says, “No person may divert or impound the natural flow of surface waters in this state, or permit a diversion or impounding by him to continue, in a manner that damages the property of another by the overflow of the water diverted or impounded.”
The second sentence declares that a person injured by diverted water may sue to recover damages. Of course, at that point the damage has already been done. Lawsuits are expensive and take years. And the defendant, usually a developer, will always point to plans prepared by a professional engineer and approved by a government body. Suing them will require expert witnesses. And the defendant will likely claim that you wouldn’t have flooded except for an Act of God.
Lawsuits are tall, expensive mountains to climb. So concerned residents near new developments are better off closely scrutinizing plans before they’re built and closely monitoring construction to ensure developers follow the plans.
You can’t stop development. But you can ensure developers play by the rules.
But how do you find and verify their plans?
Need to Find and Verify Info
If you notice a large piece of property for sale near you, monitor it closely. Check with the listing agent. Also check Houston’s Plat Tracker website. It’s updated before every meeting of the Planning Commission and shows items on their agenda. Houston also maintains a map-based website that shows projects in various stages of approval throughout the City and its extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Leap into action if you find a potential cause for concern near you. The next step is to obtain the development’s plans, the drainage impact analysis and soil tests. The developer must prove “no adverse impact” to people and properties downstream.
How you obtain those plans and studies depends on the development’s location. If inside a municipality, check with your city council representative. If you live outside a municipality, your best starting point will probably be your county engineer or precinct commissioner.
The plans are public information and must be provided in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests.
Signed, Stamped, Approved and So Obviously Wrong
In every case I reviewed during the last four years where someone flooded because of a new development, something jumped out of the plans that should have raised concerns for reviewers, but didn’t.
For instance, after Colony Ridge engineers apparently mischaracterized soil types, Plum Grove flooded repeatedly. The engineer said soils would let more water soak in than actually could. That meant the developer didn’t have to build as many detention ponds and could sell more lots. But it also contributed to flooding homes downstream.
Concerned citizens must learn how to obtain and review such plans for potential problems or hire a consulting engineer.
Here are some things I’ve learned to look for.
Soil Tests
Are they accurate? Were the samples taken at representative points? Or did they conveniently ignore wetlands? Permeability of the soils will affect the amount of detention needed. The level of the water table could affect the amount of detention provided.
If plans call for a ten-foot deep detention pond, but the soil test encounters a shallower water table, that will compromise the pond’s capacity. Capacity should be calculated from the top of standing water, not the bottom of the pond. If the pond is already half full, that half shouldn’t count.
Floodplain maps in Harris County are currently being revised. That may not be the case in surrounding counties. The lack of updated flood maps endangers current residents, by letting developers build to old and ineffective standards.
Developers often try to beat the implementation of new requirements. This happened in the case of Woodridge Village. It’s also happening in the case of the Laurel Springs RV Park and Northpark South along Sorters-McClellan Road. The entrance to the Northpark development sits in a bowl. A quick check of the elevation profile on the USGS National Map confirmed that. During Harvey, local residents tell me that not even high-water rescue vehicles could get through that intersection. Put the Cajun Navy on standby now.
Wetland Issues
Filling wetlands requires an Army Corps permit for some, but not all wetlands. Whether they fall under the Corps’ jurisdiction depends on how far up in the branching structure of a watershed they are. Those near the main stem are jurisdictional. Three levels up may not be.
The US Fish and Wildlife service has thoroughly documented wetlands in this area. Check their National Wetlands Database and appeal to the Corps if you find a problem. At a minimum, the developer may be forced to buy mitigation credits somewhere nearby, which could help reduce flooding.
Drainage Issues
Is a new development’s detention pond capacity adequate? Is it based on the right percentage of impermeable cover? If the pond(s) fill up, where will the water go?
Calculating detention capacity requires math skills most people don’t have. But you can check the basis for the calculations. Are plans based on new Atlas-14 requirements? Are plans meeting current Houston and Harris County requirements?
Current City of Houston and Harris County Requirements for Detention Pond Capacity
Also see where they’re routing excess water in case of an overflow.
In the case of the Laurel Springs RV Park, the developer said they would route the water to a detention pond near Hamblen and Laurel Springs in anything greater than a two year rain. See below.
Screen Capture from Laurel Springs RV Resort Drainage Impact Report shows that in anything greater than a 2-year rain, overflow water will could threaten homes in Lakewood Cove.
RV Park Site Outlined in White. Overflow described above would presumably follow red path.
Laurel Springs RV Park as of 11/29/21. Detention pond will go in foreground, but overflow will go into pond at top of frame according to text above.
Missing Details from Drainage Impact Analysis
I have requested additional details three times from the City but still have not received them. I suspect they may not exist. All other plan requests have been filled.
So what happens when the Lakewood Cove detention pond fills up? Or gets covered up in a flood? Overflow from the RV park will contribute to flooding someone downstream.
The developer also said excess capacity would get to the Lakewood Cove pond by overland sheet flow. That could threaten homes on the southwest corner of Lakewood Cove – visible in the middle of shot above.
But a City engineer reviewing the plans said overflow would follow the railroad tracks on the western side of the RV park. Hmmmm. Two engineers – one who developed the plans and another who approved them – 180 degrees apart. What’s a concerned citizen to do?
If the engineers who develop and review such plans were always right, no one would ever flood. But we do. So always find and verify those plans.
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/2021/11/20211129-DJI_0877-2.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2021-11-29 19:09:202021-12-08 15:51:19How to Find and Verify Flood-Related Information: Part II
This will be the first of a two-part series on how to find and verify flood-related information. Today’s post will focus on flooding itself. Tomorrow’s will focus on how some developers can affect flooding. Together, they should help you protect yourself whether you are a homebuyer, homeowner, or community activist.
Triangulating on Truth
The world is awash in misinformation. Most of it results from people simply repeating things they’ve heard but haven’t verified. And some of it is intentional, i.e., for political or financial gain.
Getting an accurate picture of the world around you often involves investigation and “triangulating on truth” by looking at multiple perspectives.
Below are sources of information you may find useful. They represent my go-to sources. I often supplement them with interviews, but I usually start with these.
The Harris County Flood Control District’s website, HCFCD.org, is a wealth of information about what’s happening where. It is organized by watershed. Click one to see an overview of issues there, flood mitigation projects that address them, maps, risks, costs, pending grants, and more. Note: Flood Control manages hundreds of projects. Sometimes the projects move faster than website updates. So it’s always good to verify the status of projects by laying eyes on them.
The Harris County Flood Warning System, HarrisCountyFWS.org, gives you real-time information during floods. It also gives you historical information about rainfall, gage heights, and flooding at locations throughout the region. You can use this site to explore when, if, or how often a channel came out of its banks and by how much.
Note: Before 2010 you may find suspicious data because of the type of gages in use during that period. Pressure transducers frequently clogged with floating debris and reported false information. So, if you see a hundred-foot flood that lasted 15 minutes, you’re likely looking at error. Cross check the reading against rainfall at the same gage. Also check the readings immediately up and downstream.
Using this information, you can help narrow down the source of flooding. If a neighborhood flooded, but the channel didn’t come out of its banks, chances are that you’re looking at a street flooding issue. Most storm sewers and roadside ditches in Harris County and Houston are sized to handle a two-year rain. But older ones may have only a one-year level of service. And many become clogged over time. See below.
Drive Around and Talk to Residents
To confirm whether street flooding is your issue, drive around and look at the ditches and storm drains. Even if you clean out your ditch but a neighbor doesn’t, water could be trapped in your neighborhood. The photo below shows ditches in three areas that report frequent flooding: Kashmere Gardens, Trinity Gardens, and East Aldine. They are symbolic of a problem that exists in many other areas..
Ditches blocked by silt in Kashmere Gardens, Trinity Gardens, and East Aldine
Report blocked drains and ditches to authorities. Who you report them to will depend on where you live. Inside the City of Houston or another municipality, report them to the city. If you live outside a city but inside Harris County, report them to your precinct commissioner. The Harris County Flood Control District is not involved in roadside ditches. Flood Control only works on channels, bayous and rivers.
Ditch blocked by garbage in Kashmere Gardens, a neighborhood that experiences frequent flooding.
Drones/Helicopters
It’s often hard to see Flood Control projects from the ground. Construction happens behind tall fences and trees in remote areas. However, you can spot projects easily from the air with drones or helicopters.
Phase 1 of the new Lauder Detention Basin on Greens Bayou is virtually invisible from streets. Yet many Greens Bayou residents are convinced nothing is being done to protect them.
The Harris County Flood Education Mapping Tool at HarrisCountyFEMT.org was developed after Tropical Storm Allison in 2001. It shows channels and watershed boundaries. Zoom in to find your neighborhood. That activates the ponding button. You can then see areas likely to flood from ponding or, alternatively, floodplains. Note: Most of the current flood maps for Harris County are based on Allison but are now being updated.
This particular tool is geared toward coastal areas but also covers all of Harris County. It includes FEMA’s flood hazard layers (see below), plus dozens of other visualization tools, all in one website. It shows development density, wetlands, emergency infrastructure, and much, much more. The site also lets you vary opacity of different layers and save maps.
A one-stop shop for flood preparedness anywhere in Texas. TexasFlood.org brings together local information from all over the state. Check everything from stream gages to the status of evacuation routes. It even lets you see the spread of floodwaters and the structures that will be inundated when a gage reaches a certain height. Hosted by the Texas Water Development Board.
Not exactly a flood map, Texas Watershed Viewer is useful in figuring out where water comes from and how it converges. This also lets you see how streams may have been altered. For instance, a part of North Kingwood Forest that used to drain into Mills Branch now drains into Taylor Gully where hundreds of homes flooded in 2019.
A Texas Water Development Board/USGS site. Click on a river gage, select a flood depth, and see how far the waters would spread. Clicking on a location within the flooded area will also show you the estimated depth at that point. You can also turn on a layer that shows flooded buildings. Unfortunately, however, the number of gages is limited, and most are in northern Harris and southern Montgomery Counties.
FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer lets you zoom into any part of the country. Wait a few seconds. And outlines for the floodway, 100-year flood plain and 500-year floodplains will appear. This website has amazing investigative potential. With it, you can tell how far your home or business is from flood threats.
FEMA’s Flood Map Service Center lets you plug in any address and instantly see where your property stands in relation to floodplains that may exist around it.
The USGS National Map Viewer lets you find elevations and slopes everywhere in the US and works down to the individual property level. Find the elevation of your slab, the slope of your street, your elevation above street level, and more. Best of its kind. Here’s a post that explains more about how to use it. Realtors and people who want to buy homes with minimal flood risk will find this useful.
Want to know if a house was built on wetlands? Check the US Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Mapper. Some developers fill in wetlands to build more homes. But those homes are subject to foundation shifting and driveway cracking. Also, water will often collect in former wetlands after a storm. See below. Also note how the homes are built within feet of a major ditch. These factors should send signals to homebuyers, who may want to request discounts to compensate for increased risk.
High-density neighborhood built over wetlands near East Little York
Enter your address or zip code in NOAA’s Precipitation Data Frequency Server and see the Atlas-14 precipitation frequency estimates for your neighborhood, in graphical or tabular formats. This will tell you what constitutes a 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, 200-, 500-, or 1000-year rain in your area. The rates vary with distance from the coast.
Precipitation Frequency Estimates for 77339. 17.3 inches in 24 hours constitutes a 100-year rain. You can see how storm sewers designed to hold a 1-year rain could easily become overwhelmed in a climate like Houston’s.
If your neighborhood floods on less than the 1- to 2-year amounts shown above, you may need to investigate the cause.
Imelda left a 13-foot high bathtub ring around around East End Park in Kingwood.With this knowledge and the elevation of a home’s slab from a survey or the USGS National Map, you could determine whether a particular home flooded during Imelda.
Other Valuable Sources for Flood-Related Information
Google Earth Pro
Using the History Function in Google Earth Pro (a Free App Download) lets you scroll back through aerial and satellite images of an area at different points in time. With it, you can see how neighborhoods filled in floodplains, rivers migrated, deltas formed, and more. The app also contains powerful measurement tools to calculate area and distance. Using this gives you a greater appreciation for the difficulty of building flood mitigation projects where people build too close to bayous, ditches, and rivers. Whole neighborhoods must be bought out before construction can begin. Check out, for instance, the detention ponds on both sides of US59 at Halls Bayou.
All people are entitled to request government information under the Freedom of Information Act or Texas Public Information Act. Both are valuable tools for getting at information that may not be published. Make sure you put FOIA or TPIA in the subject line of your email and state your request as succinctly as possible. Certain records are exempt (such as personnel files and correspondence with lawyers). But bids, plans, reports, and spending information are all fair requests. Generally, a government agency has 10 business days to respond. Different agencies have different procedures and starting points. So you may want to call or google before submitting your request.
Caveat Emptor
Buyer Beware. The ancient slogan applies to flood-related information as well as homes. The more you know, the safer you are.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NOAA-Atlas-14-Rainfall-Rates-for-Kingwood.png?fit=976%2C828&ssl=1828976adminadmin2021-11-28 17:11:042021-11-30 12:58:53How to Find and Verify Flood-Related Information
Between those two dates, Jennifer Coulter, the victim, contacted the City 17 times to ask if she could file an application.
In every call, no HCDD employee ever told her that she was eligible to apply. In fact, they told her the opposite – that they hadn’t gotten to her “Priority Group” yet. After misleading her, when New Year’s Eve came and went last year, the Harvey Reimbursement Program expired, and Coulter was out. Despite multiple requests to clarify her status and two appeals , HCDD denied aid to Coulter for not communicating with them.
Many others, who were denied aid, experienced variations of her problems. For instance, after two years of being kept in the dark about whether he could submit an application, HCDD notified one man that he could apply just hours before the program expired on New Year’s Eve. HCDD told him that he needed to submit his application by 5PM or lose eligibility. Unfortunately, he was visiting out-of-town relatives and didn’t have access to required documents.
Chronic bad planning, mismanagement, disorganization, understaffing, miscommunication and poor record-keeping at HCDD created a malignant and crippled aid-distribution system after Harvey.
In Coulter’s case and many others, HCDD problems victimized flood victims a second time.
Coulter home after Harvey. The family lived in a travel trailer in their driveway for a year with two adults, two kids, two cats and one dog, while they made repairswith money in their 401Ks and kids’ college funds.
I would say Coulter’s case is one of the saddest stories to come out of Harvey…if so many others hadn’t been denied aid for similar reasons.
A 2019 HUD audit of HCDD found in part that “Staff members worked independently and did not communicate with each other re: applications.” Coulter’s call log vividly brings to life the chaos that flood victims were forced to deal with as they struggled to find assistance from the City.
Audits 2 Years Apart Show Similar Organizational Problems
After Harvey, the City of Houston lobbied the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for approximately $1.3 billion to aid Harvey victims, such as Coulter. But a subsequent 2019 HUD audit showed HCDD was unprepared to manage the money, the caseload or the approval process.
Despite assistance and training by the Texas General Land Office (GLO), which manages disaster relief for HUD in Texas, Houston never got its disaster relief programs in gear. A second audit by GLO released last Wednesday arrived at conclusions similar to HUD’s.
City’s Needlessly Complex Two-Step Application Dooms Program
Among the problems: HCDD set up a needlessly complex application process involving two steps. Victims had to “apply to apply” by filling out an online survey. Based on survey answers, HCDD placed victims in one of six “priority groups.” Group 1 represented highest priority flood victims and 6 the lowest.
HUD and the GLO warned Houston about the two-step application process even before it started. They told Houston it was too complex and would cause delays. They recommended that the City have everyone submit full applications and then sort through them to find enough qualified applicants to match the amount of aid available.
That way, everyone would have had a fair chance to meet the deadlines involved. Delays and miscommunication would not have been a factor. HCDD’s repair program expired last December 31st at 5PM with only a small fraction of the aid distributed.
HCDD initially told Coulter that she was in Group 6, the lowest priority. But on May 14, 2020, HCDD sent her an invitation to submit a full application. The invitation got lost in her email. And Coulter continued to call the City for the remainder of the year. Each time she would ask if she could submit an application and each time she was told, “Not yet,” despite already having been invited.
Even though Coulter called HCDD dozens of times to clarify her status, in 15 months, nobody at HCDD ever told her over the phone to check her email or that she could apply. That’s how bad HCDD’s record-keeping, database systems, and internal communications were!
Sadly, we’ve come to expect and accept stories like this from the City of Houston. HUD and GLO audits repeatedly showed problems in HCDD.
After Reimbursement Program Expired, Mayor Claims Commitment to Improvement
The mayor’s response, after the latest audit and after the program expired, was in essence, “We’ll look into it and fix it if we find problems.” His press release about the latest audit concluded, “The City is committed, as it always has been, to transparency and improving its Housing processes.”
Admittedly, the Reimbursement Program that Coulter applied to is just one of many HCDD programs.
But for the Jennifer Coulters of the world, it’s too late. The HUD money will likely go unused and return to Washington for future grants that may give other victims false hope.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/27/2021
1551 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/2020/05/Cart-in-Living-Room.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2021-11-27 15:48:092021-11-27 16:44:07Harvey Victim Denied Aid for Not Communicating After Contacting City 17 Times
“It is important to note that the GLO previously reviewed the City’s Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) 1, 2, and 3 and took no exceptions. The GLO also reviewed and approved all program guidelines before they were sent to the city council and subsequently approved. The City has operated under the GLO-approved guidelines for all issued NOFAs and will determine if changes are needed.
“Indeed, the report does not identify any violations of law, regulations or contractual provisions, as asserted by the City during the review process. The report found no conflict of interest violations of law or regulation.”
City of Houston Mayor’s Office
In essence, Turner was saying, “We were being constantly reviewed and GLO approved everything we did.”
Difference Between Guidelines and Following Them
If you took that away from the Mayor’s statement, though, you may have drawn the wrong conclusion. It’s one thing to have GLO-approved guidelines – and another to follow them. There’s often a huge difference between the way things should operate and the way they do.
A former high-level employee of HCDD who wishes to remain anonymous, told me, “You need to understand that GLO and HUD provide the only supervision of HCDD. It’s not coming from the City or City Council.”
The relationship between HCDD, the GLO and HUD has been stormy for a long time. HCDD’s Harvey recovery programs got off to such a slow start, that HUD audited them. The audit was so critical that GLO feared the state might lose future funds from HUD; HUD explicitly stated that as a possibility. That caused the GLO to offer help and increase its supervision of HCDD. And that set the tone through 2020 when GLO tried to take back Harvey relief funds – so that GLO could distribute them itself – and the City sued to keep them.
Wednesday’s blowup was simply the latest in a long line. Let’s not ignore that. This relationship has been stormy from the start.
Houston had not drawn any funds from the Hurricane Harvey grants. The city had only submitted two requests for payment to the GLO – totaling approximately $1 million out of more than $1.2 billion. GLO rejected both requests as incomplete.
HUD had concerns regarding “the city’s expenditure progress and overall financial management processes.”
The City’s compliance website did not meet HUD’s requirements.
Houston was operating at half staff (59 full-time employees; 61 more needed) and had turnover in two key positions.
“The city of Houston’s CDBG-DR program is plagued with many staff vacancies (including several key management positions), high staff turnover, slow hiring processes, and lack of effective hiring and onboarding plans for new staff.”
“The city’s procedures do not provide a clear workflow for program implementation and overall management of its CDBG-DR grant allocations.”
The City did not post details on its website of all contracts funded by HUD money as required by law.
HCDD provided inconsistent explanations of the process used to secure a major contract, and verbally confirmed that the selection was not based on a competitive process.
The City tried to seek reimbursement from FEMA for costs of a HUD program, something prohibited by statute.
HCDD did not follow record-keeping procedures for its Hurricane Harvey Homeowner Assistance Program.
Staff members worked independently and did not communicate with each other re: applications. No one individual reviewed an application for completeness.
The Mayor’s Office concluded his press release with the following:
“The City is committed, as it always has been, to transparency and improving its Housing processes.” Really?
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/26/2021
1550 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/2019/03/Turner.jpg?fit=1500%2C1125&ssl=111251500adminadmin2021-11-26 18:02:122021-11-26 22:09:04Mayor Turner Points Finger at GLO in Latest Harvey Relief Dispute
Here’s something to give thanks for on Thanksgiving. Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) announced Wednesday, 11/24/21, that Sprint Sand & Clay could begin excavation of another large detention pond on the Woodridge Village property as early as November 29. Lack of detention pond capacity on the property while it was being cleared contributed to flooding hundreds of homes in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest twice in 2019.
Homeowners evacuating during Imelda.
Not Enough Detention Pond Capacity Existed to Meet Atlas-14 Requirements
Thus, the twice-flooded homeowners have been living in constant fear since then of every storm that passes overhead. PTSD caused some to postpone home restoration or even move away. So this should come as great news to the community.
Sprint Sand & Clay will excavate material as needed under the terms of an HCFCD E&R contract. E&R stands for Excavation & Removal. HCFCD will pay Sprint just $1000 to excavate 500,000 cubic yards. Sprint then has the right to resell the dirt to developers, contractors and road builders at market rates.
The 500,000 cubic yards should more than compensate for the 40% shortfall of detention on the Woodridge site.
Creating Extra Capacity
When Perry left the site, it had constructed 271 acre feet of detention. The site needed another 108.4 acre feet of detention pond capacity to meet Atlas-14 requirements, but will get 310 (the number of acre feet in 500,000 cubic yards). That almost triples the required additional volume and more than doubles the current capacity…all for $1000.
That extra capacity will create a margin of safety for residents in case expected rainfall rates increase again in the future.
It will also create a buffer against future development. For instance, it should help those downstream on Taylor Gully where it joins White Oak Creek. Rapid development continues upstream on White Oak Creek.
Nature of Contract Will Lower Cost, but Could Extend Completion Date
The nature of an E&R contract benefits taxpayers from a cost standpoint. It’s like getting free help. However, there’s also a potential hitch; demand fluctuation could delay the dirt’s removal. The contract obligates Sprint to remove a minimum of 5,000 cubic yards per month. But Sprint can average that, taking 10,000 cubic yards one month and none the next.
Thus, Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest residents might see furious excavation activity one month and none the next.
Regardless, HCFCD checks progress periodically with drones. And if Sprint looks like it is not complying, HCFCD has the right to terminate the contract. Otherwise, removal of the dirt could take up to three years.
The contract gives Sprint the right to sell the dirt anywhere with one condition. The ultimate placement must be outside any known floodplain – including the 500-year/0.02% annual chance floodplain.
This is the first time HCFCD has signed such a contract for work outside of Harris County. Woodridge Village sits in Montgomery County immediately north of the county line.
HCFCD started using E&R contracts all over Harris County long before the Bond. It was a way to show progress on detention basins that HCFCD had no money to build. The Cutten Road, Lauder Road, and Aldine-Westfield basins on Greens Bayou all started with E&R contracts.
Pond Will Go in Southern Section of Woodridge
The detention pond excavation will take place close to Sherwood Trails and Elm Grove to help intercept water coming off the steep northern portion of the site. See the green area below.
The new pond will also border the road that Perry built into the site. That will help facilitate removal of the dirt. See the photo below.
Looking East. Woodridge Village as of November 11, 2021. The new detention pond will go in the big empty area between the road and ditch which leads from upper left to top middle. Sherwood Trails, Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest are inside the trees on the right.
Construction Must Observe Stormwater Quality Requirements
HCFCD emphasized that all normal stormwater quality precautions will remain in effect. Rain that falls during excavation will be pumped into one of the site’s existing detention ponds (on the right in the photo above) to keep sediment from migrating downstream. That’s important because HCFCD just finished excavating Taylor Gully to restore its conveyance. No one wants to see it get plugged up again.
Site Closed During Construction
The construction work involves heavy machinery. Physical barriers and safety signage alerting visitors will be placed at access points. Residents should follow all posted signs and remain clear of the construction zone.
Trucks Will Work Around High-School Schedule
HCFCD has coordinated the contractor’s work schedule with administrators at Kingwood Park High School and Humble ISD to avoid arrival and departure times at the high school.
HCFCD officials emphasized that the final dimensions of the pond could change as excavation proceeds. But dimensions should be determined long before Sprint finishes excavation.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/25/2021
1549 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/20211123-Project-Location-Map-Woodridge-Basin.jpg?fit=1200%2C774&ssl=17741200adminadmin2021-11-24 16:00:312021-11-27 06:13:36Excavation of Additional Woodridge Village Detention Pond to Begin Soon
Two months ago, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) launched a review of Houston’s Housing and Community Development Department (HHCD) after Mayor Sylvester Turner allegedly tried to steer a $14 million affordable-housing contract using HUD money toward his former law partner. The GLO review, released Tuesday, notes both findings and corrective actions required of Houston to ensure a fair, open, and competitive award process in the future.
The GLO review criticized HHCD for five major problems listed below. The City has until December 10, 2021, to address the GLO review’s findings by delivering a Corrective Action Plan. Houston then has another 90 days to implement the plan. Hanging in the wind: the fate of the City’s entire multi-family rental program, Harvey multi-family relief projects in the pipeline, and millions of dollars in past awards now being questioned.
The GLO review was triggered on September 22 when the HHCD’s former Director Tom McCasland accused the Mayor during a City Council meeting of overriding his department’s recommendations. The Mayor recommended a project that would have benefited his former law partner. McCasland alleged that his department’s recommendations could have built four times the amount of affordable housing units in poorer neighborhoods for roughly the same amount of money. McCasland also alleged that he was being forced to participate in what he called a “charade of a competitive process.” The Mayor promptly fired McCasland, leading to multiple investigations. The GLO review was just one.
Summary of Five Main Findings
The GLO never uses the word “charade” in its findings, but one could easily infer a charade from their substance.
The GLO’s objective was to evaluate whether the City had adequate controls in place to meet program and contract requirements for the allocation of $450,050,472. At a high level, the five findings released on Tuesday 11/23/21 require the City to:
Strengthen NOFA/RFP Issuances – GLO found inconsistencies among the way NOFA/RFPs (Notice of Funding Availability/Request for Proposals) were issued, evaluated and scored. Inconsistencies included program content; threshold criteria; and award processes.
Strengthen the NOFA/RFP Scoring Method – GLO found the City does not have controls in place to ensure it follows criteria for awarding projects.
Ensure Documentation Supports Project Awards – GLO found that Houston does not document subjective criteria used by HHCD and the Mayor’s office when evaluating applications.
Strengthen Conflicts-of-Interest Provisions – GLO found the City does not have internal controls that screen out Conflicts of Interest.
Produce Documentation Justifying Award Recommendations – GLO found inconsistencies between grant requirements and recommendations. Subjective factors – not based on the competitive process – were often used to recommend projects without explanation.
Full Text of Findings and Exhibits
Here is the GLO’s entire 11-page letter to HHCD’s Interim Director Keith Bynam, and three exhibits referenced in the letter:
Exhibit 2 – A memo to the Interim Director from an Assistant Director attempting to justify the Mayor’s intervention on a low scoring project
Exhibit 3 – Examples of HHCD responses to appeals from developers. The responses do not document specifics for rejections.
If you read nothing else, make sure you see Page 1 of Exhibit 1. It recommended making an award to one project that 25 other projects outscored. Those 25 higher scoring projects were either wait-listed or not recommended. Hmmmm!
Egregious Examples of Specifics Cited in GLO Report
Here are some of the more serious infractions that support the five major findings.
GLO complained about Houston’s lack of consistency, accuracy and fairness. For instance:
Data for 40% of tested applications was entered incorrectly, resulting in incorrect scoring.
Submission deadlines for some RFPs were shortened in a way that excluded some applications and diminished the quality of others. This resulted in competitive disadvantage for some applicants and presumably an advantage for others.
Conflict of interest disclosures were excluded from some rounds of funding.
9 of 12 applications in two other rounds of funding did not have conflict of interest forms actually signed by applicants or co-applicants.
Some NOFAs contained language giving the Mayor’s office the right to approve or deny applications in accordance with the Mayor’s priorities, but the Mayor was not required to explain why.
The City frequently did not give specific reasons for approving or denying a grant.
ABC13’s Ted Oberg ran this story Tuesday night about the millions of dollars now at risk for poor people who still need help after 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/2021/11/Screen-Shot-2021-11-24-at-7.13.24-AM.png?fit=998%2C708&ssl=1708998adminadmin2021-11-24 07:24:452021-11-24 15:29:50New GLO Review Slams Houston on Five Counts Relating to Harvey Relief
