News Archives - Page 131 of 279

Harris County Making Another Attempt to Shift Flood Mitigation Funds

Harris County is making another attempt to shift flood mitigation funds from outlying neighborhoods toward the city center. Here’s the latest proposal that will be considered by the Community Resilience Flood Task Force at a noon meeting today.

Key Concerns About Proposal

This proposal attempts to establish new rules for the Equity Prioritization Framework adopted by commissioners in 2019 and changed several times since. These new rules were provided to Task Force members only within the last few days even though the document is dated December 14, 2021, more than a month ago.

The rule changes apply mostly to the distribution of Trust Fund money established to supplement the flood bond if partner funding did not materialize as expected. However, the proposed changes could affect the distribution of flood bond funds that voters approved by 86% in 2018.

Proposal #1:

Place more emphasis on number of people, using structures as a proxy for people. Benefit = efficiency.

Observation:

This may disadvantage LMI neighborhoods as those projects tend to cost more and the neighborhoods have more apartments. They also have large numbers of homes crowding channels and floodplains. So, buyout costs will be higher. And historically, buyouts cost almost as much as construction. Also, apartments cost far more than single family homes. We need time to look at data on this.

Proposal #2:

Potential partner funding should not be considered in prioritization for use of trust funds.

Observation:

What if you could make trust fund dollars go nine times further? Typically, HUD grants require only a 10% match.

Proposal #3:

Use trust funds for projects, like street flooding, not even mentioned in the bond.

Observations:

The County proposes using FEMA damage data back to 1977 to determine “Existing Level of Service.” This is a blatant attempt to tilt the playing field toward the inner city. In 1977, Beltway 8 and Intercontinental airport were still under construction. US59 was a 2-lane blacktop road. Outlying neighborhoods like Kingwood barely existed. This makes it impossible for any outlying neighborhoods to qualify for help with Trust Funds.
Choosing 1977 as the starting point ignores 45 years of flood mitigation spending totaling approximately $5 billion.
We don’t have enough money in the trust fund to complete all the bond projects. So, if we spend trust fund money on projects not in the bond – without partner help – it will mean cancelling bond projects somewhere else.
Implementing this proposal will make it very difficult to get voters to approve future flood bonds.

street flooding — Street flooding is often caused by blocked drains. Rains can’t get to channels and streams. Fixing ditches has historically been the job of cities and precincts. HCFCD funds have focused on channels and streams. Street ditches were never mentioned in the bond.

How To Be Heard

Here is a presentation that the Community Resilience Flood Task Force will review at noon today. It provides a little more detail than the County Administrator’s description.

If this proposal concerns you, please send your comments to: CFRTFpubliccomment@gmail.com.

To view the meeting online, register at Cfrtf.harriscountytx.gov. It goes from 12-2 today.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/19/2022

1604 Days since Hurricane Harvey

RV Resort Pumping Stormwater Into Edgewater Park, Bringing in Fill

Lakewood Cove residents reported yesterday and today that contractors at the Laurel Springs RV Resort are pumping stormwater from their detention pond into Precinct 4’s Edgewater Park. The reports are true. And it’s a permit violation.

I also found contractors bringing in fill from the outside that I thought was going to be “cut” from the detention pond. All photos below were taken on 1/18/22.

Pumping From Pond onto Neighboring Property

The approved permit plans clearly state that “Stormwater runoff shall not cross property lines.”

*Stamp on many pages of approved Laurel Springs RV Resort plans.*

I guess at some point the water in the pond ceased being runoff. Now it’s just a nuisance. The plans said pond water would be pumped into the City storm sewers. Hmmmm.

*Photographed from Laurel Springs Lane looking west.*

*Here’s an aerial photo looking toward Laurel Springs Lane.*

*Check out all the muck being washed into the woods. Those woods belong to Harris County Pct. 4. That’s part of new Edgewater Park.*

Note the lack of silt fences in the two photos above. Plans clearly state that silt fences will be installed to keep silt from escaping the property. Double Hmmmm!

Bringing in Fill instead of Moving It From Within the Site

As I photographed the pumping, I noticed a parade of dump trucks bringing in fill, dumping it, and leaving as a bulldozer spread it out and another machine quickly compacted it.

*Looking NW toward Lowes in top center. Note dump truck depositing fill – one of many that I watched.*

*The area where they deposited fill just north of the pond corresponds to the plans. See below.*

*Detail from mitigation plan showing NW corner of pond and fill area. For full plan, click here.*

From text on the image above, I assumed that the job was to be a routine “cut and fill” operation. Maybe I shouldn’t have assumed.

Cut and Fill is an industry standard in floodplains. It means you move dirt from one part of the site to another. So, there is no additional fill brought into the floodplain. The fill area above appears to be in the .2% annual chance floodplain, according to the old FEMA map below. However, the developer did not mark the .2% chance floodplain on plans.

*FEMA floodplain map. Aqua = 1% annual chance. Brown = .2% annual chance.* *It appears the northern part of the detention pond (not shown on this old satellite image) cuts between the aqua and brown areas.*

For the record, Chapter 19 of Houston’s Code of Ordinances currently does not prohibit bringing fill into the .2% annual chance floodplain. See Section 19.34.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/18/2022

1603 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.

Post-Harvey Regulatory Update: Mixed Results to Date

Here’s a regulatory update on the synchronization of flood regs in cities and counties throughout the region.

Harris County can spend billions on flood mitigation, but if upstream communities keep sending more water downstream, we may never see improvement. That’s why Harris County Flood Control and Harris County Engineering launched an initiative to harmonize regulations in 2020. The program is still active but has had mixed results to date.

The red barrier marks the limit of Harris County. Woodridge Village in Montgomery County on the far side contributed to flooding hundreds of homes twice in five months during 2019. This image underscores the need for cooperation. Photo courtesy of Allyssa Harris.

Five Upgrades Recommended

The departments identified five key measures that they asked surrounding cities and counties to implement:

Use Atlas 14 rainfall rates for sizing storm water conveyance and detention systems.
Require a minimum detention rate of 0.55-acre feet per acre of detention for any new development one acre or larger. However, a single-family residential structure and accessory buildings proposed on an existing lot is exempt from providing detention.
Prohibit the use of hydrograph timing as a substitution for detention on any project unless it directly outfalls into Galveston Bay.
Require no net fill in the current mapped 500-year floodplain, except in areas identified as coastal zones only
Require the minimum Finished Floor Elevation (FFE) of new habitable structures be established at or waterproofed to the 500-year flood elevation as shown on the effective Flood Insurance Study.

The county used partnership agreements as a lever. Communities/counties that didn’t update their regulations were not eligible for partner funds from the flood bond. The pitch worked well in some cases, partially in others, and not at all in a few.

Where Adoption Stands

The table below shows where things stand in different communities. The three columns represent those who:

Already finished upgrading regulations to minimum standards.
Identified updates but have not yet made them
Have not taken any action to update their ordinances or regulations.

*Cooperation status as of December 2021*

EHRA is an engineering company working with Harris County to analyze current regulations and identify which areas need updates. In the last column, municipalities/counties either didn’t respond, chose not to participate, or refused. Waller, Brazoria County and Galveston County did not respond. Montgomery County said it would not participate. The other four didn’t request the free EHRA analysis when offered.

According to the Harris County Engineering Department, an analysis only takes a month. And some cities have updated their regulations within a month of completing the analysis.

In fairness, it’s important to note that some jurisdictions, such as Montgomery County, have adopted Atlas 14 standards, even if they haven’t adopted the other recommendations.

Ways to Help

Please help address the holdouts. Do you know influencers in communities that have not yet updated their regs? Can you leverage industry connections willing to show support? Spread the word within your community? Generate some buzz online? Write an email to your county commissioner or judge? Enlist the help of friends or relatives in neighboring communities?

The further we get from the pain of Harvey and Imelda, the less motivated people seem to be to adopt regulatory reforms. So please act soon.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/17/2022

1602 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.

Editorial: Need More Disclosure, Education About Flood Risk

Who teaches young home buyers about flood risk? No one in my experience.

More than forty years ago, I bought a new house next to a creek in a Dallas suburb. The trees and the view attracted me. Before I put money down, I asked about flooding and was assured that the home was two feet ABOVE the hundred-year flood plain. The homebuilder even showed me a survey and a drainage study, and pointed to the engineers’ stamps. I pulled out my checkbook and made the most tragic, costly decision of my young life.

Within a year, other developers just upstream from me built the Collin Creek Mall and Plano became the fastest growing city in America. With each passing month, rains made the creek swell higher. Then one day after a modest rain, I saw a pickup truck floating down the creek and the water creeped into my house.

Alarmed, I called the City Engineer. He convened a task force that included Garland, Richardson and Plano City Engineers. They asked the Army Corps of Engineers to re-survey the creek. The Corps found that…

…instead of being two feet above the 100-year floodplain, we were now 10 feet below it.

Had I known such dramatic change could happen so quickly, I never would have bought the home. I decided to sell, disclosed the flood risk, and lost a pile of money.

Costly Lessons Learned

That experience taught me several lessons.

Flood forecasting is a very inexact science. Changing conditions – such as upstream development, climate and political priorities – make it so. They are beyond the ability of engineers to predict.
Developers use the surveys and analyses that engineers produce to obtain building permits.
Their documents do not reflect the potential for future change.
Homebuilders, nevertheless, use the engineering documents to reassure future buyers that they are safe.

All along the way, people throughout the value chain make expensive binary decisions based on documents that don’t reflect future flood-risk. Permit or don’t? Invest or don’t? Build or don’t? Lend or don’t?

Flood Risk is Non-Binary, Flood Education Non-Existent

Professionals understand the flood risks involved. Members of the public rarely do. And that’s a powerful argument for flood-risk education and fuller disclosure.

But buy a house with a view of a river! You’ve achieved the American Dream, paid a premium, and the only information people volunteer along the way is a reminder to buy flood insurance.

It’s as if the chance of flooding equals the chance of getting hit by lightning.

According to the CDC, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are only around 1 in 500,000.

But the odds of flooding in a “500-year rain” are 1 in 500 – a thousand times greater. But most home buyers don’t worry about that. So builders keep building in flood plains. And buyers keep buying.

Everyone along the way – land owners, developers, public officials, engineers, and home builders – is financially incentivized to “make the sale.” Growth is good – especially to the people who enable it.

Example: Need for Flood-Risk Education

Below is a photo that shows part of a new development in Porter between Sorters-McClellan Road and the San Jacinto West Fork. At the start of 2019, it was all woods and wetlands bracketed by streams and a drainage ditch. Wetlands and the proximity to floodways increase flood risk.

*New woodless Northpark Woods development in the floodplain of the San Jacinto West Fork.*

However, FEMA’s current flood map (see below) was developed in 2014. That was before Harvey. It shows about half of the development (outlined in red) to be in the 100- or 500-year floodplains. But those floodplains will soon expand based on data collected after Harvey. The new flood plains will likely cover most of the site. But is anyone disclosing the current or potential flood risk?

*Northpark Woods highlighted in red. Floodplains delineated based on 2014 map which is now being revised and will be released soon.* *Cross-hatch = floodway. Aqua = 100-year floodplain. Brown = 500-year floodplain.* From FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Viewer.

Selling the Dream vs. Disclosing Risk

Young, first-time home buyers will mortgage themselves to the hilt to get a nice home with a water view. But there’s less risk disclosure on this developer’s website than on the back of a candy bar.

New homes here range from $225,000 to more than $300,000 with estimated mortgages starting at about $1,000 per month. The developer claims, “Our homes are where memories are made, families are raised and stories unfold. Our mission is to create thriving, enduring neighborhoods by building new homes with lasting livability.”

The developer’s website also boasts of “close proximity to the West Fork San Jacinto River where locals enjoy swimming, fishing, boating and skiing…” And they brag about nearby championship golf courses, owner financing, online buying, and $95 down. But they never mention flood-risk or even flood insurance once the website that I could find.

A home in the 100-year floodplain has, on average a 1-in-4 chance of flooding during the life of a 30-year mortgage. And keep in mind that those floodplains are shifting targets. Even a home in the 500-year floodplain has a 6% chance of flooding in 30 years.

All up and down the West Fork, East Fork, Bens Branch, Spring Creek, Peach Creek, White Oak Creek, Luce Bayou, Tarkington Bayou, and other area watersheds, similar developments are sprouting up in risky places.

People put their life savings in these homes and there’s less disclosure than on a candy bar.

Realistically, that’s not going to change. So “Buyer Beware”! People must educate themselves about flood risk. Start by referring friends and relatives in the market for a home to these posts. They explain where to find reliable, objective information about flooding and flood risk.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/16/2022

1601 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.

Townsend Reserve, Splendora Crossing Drainage Analyses Omit Mention of New Flood Maps

A week ago, I posted about two large parcels of land being cleared south and west of Splendora High School on FM2090 in Montgomery County. At the time, I thought they might be part of the same development. Since then, I have learned that two different companies own the parcels: Townsend Reserve Ltd. and Forestar USA. However, both used the same companies – Elevation Land Solutions and WGA – for engineering.

*Parcel owners and sizes. Green = land being cleared. Red = not yet clearing land. From: Montgomery County Appraisal District.*

This post will focus primarily on Townsend Reserve. A previous post discussed Forestar’s property, Splendora Crossing.

WGA developed the drainage impact analyses for both developments using 2014 flood maps (see Townsend’s below). New maps are currently in development, but neither analysis mentions that. In fairness, WGA did attempt to calculate new flood elevations using its own measurements. But illustrations showing the old floodplain outlines, without mention of coming changes, may mislead potential buyers.

*Townsend Reserve Map showing* *floodplain outline in white is based on 2014 map.* *Homes in dark shaded area will be elevated.*

Elevation Land Solutions developed the construction plans for Townsend. It disclosed flood risk more fully.

*Disclosure found on virtually every page of construction plans by Elevation Land Solutions.* *Note second paragraph.*

It’s unclear at this time whether Montgomery County itself will attempt to update flood maps based on data acquired since Harvey. That could help buyers, but hurt builders.

Townsend Owned by Camcorp Management

I found little information about Townsend Reserve online except a certificate of formation on the Texas Secretary of State website.

It shows that Townsend Reserve, Ltd. was formed in September 2020 by general partner, Camcorp Management Inc. Both show addresses at 10410 Windermere Lakes Blvd., Houston, TX 77065. Camcorp was formed in 1993 and is associated with several developments in the region, including Brooklyn Trails in Porter. Executives of Camcorp Management are also officers in several homebuilding companies.

High-Density Development

Like Brooklyn Trails, construction documents show that Townsend Reserve will be a high-density development.

*Townsend Reserve will contain many long, skinny lots with little room between homes.*

*Diagram of detention pond layouts from Townsend Reserve’s Drainage Impact Analysis.*

Photos of Land Clearing To Date

I took the two photos below on 1/6/2022. They show the extent of current clearing and drainage mitigation.

*Looking west along FM2090 at northern portion of Townsend Reserve*. That square of trees in the middle of the shot will eventually become a small retail center serving the development.

*Looking SW over FM2090 at southern portion of Townsend Reserve*

Drainage Analysis Claims “No Adverse Impact”

The drainage impact analysis for Townsend Reserve concludes that the proposed project and associated drainage features will result in “no adverse impact” to existing flood hazard conditions along Gully Branch for storm events up to and including the 100-year event. “No adverse impact” is the gold standard. Engineers must certify it before Montgomery County will approve their plans.

Engineers do this by showing that the estimated runoff after development is no greater than the runoff before development. Detention ponds and channels supposedly hold back the increased peaks due to faster runoff...if all their assumptions and calculations are correct.

The 115.7-acre initial phase of Townsend Reserve’s development include a bypass channel and stormwater detention basin located along the south side of Gully Branch. You can clearly see both in the photos above.

The ultimate development will include the construction of two additional storm water detention basins.
WGA Drainage Impact Analysis

For both Phase 1 and ultimate development, portions of the site will be elevated using fill from excavation of the bypass channel and detention basins. Engineers call this practice “cut and fill.” They do not bring fill into the flood plain. They just move the dirt around. So there’s no reduction of floodplain capacity.

Portions of this fill will be located within the 1% annual chance floodplain based on the 2014 map. WGA’s Drainage Impact Analysis claims, “The proposed project results in lower flood profiles throughout the project reach, and an overall reduction in floodplain storage volume. However, the proposed drainage features provide a more efficient use of the available floodplain storage volume, resulting in no increase in peak flows downstream.”

Analysis Based on Atlas-14 Rainfall, but Old Flood Maps

New post-Harvey flood maps due to be released within months will reportedly show the 100-year floodplain expanding into the 500-year floodplain in most places. That could dramatically alter some of the assumptions above. However, I can find no references to new maps in either WGA analysis for Splendora Crossing or Townsend Reserve.

Montgomery County Atlas-14 requirements are slightly lower than those in the Lake Houston Area because of slightly less rainfall. Therefore, the proposed drainage features for Townsend will result in slightly less detention capacity.

*168 acre feet of detention equals .57 acre feet per acre. If this development were in Harris County .65 acre feet per acre would be required.*

To see Townsend Reserve’s entire entire drainage impact analysis, click here.

In fairness to developers, they can’t put their plans on hold indefinitely while new flood maps are drawn and approved. However, in fairness to buyers, you would think the engineering documents would at least disclose the potential of new maps. Likewise, what are man-made and natural factors that increase flood risk, as Elevation Land Solutions pointed out above?

The standards for disclosure in engineering seem lower than the standards for many other industries. I’ve read fuller disclosures on an aspirin bottle.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/15/2022

1600 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.

Photos of Kingwood’s First RV Resort after Heavy Rains Last Weekend

One thing became immediately clear after reviewing aerial photos of the Kingwood area’s first RV resort last Monday. The heavy rains created a mud pit. After removing every tree and blade of grass on these 20 acres, the owners of this project will have to pave over virtually the entire site to make it useable.

I took all photos below on Sunday morning 1/9/22 after heavy rains stopped, but between sporadic light rains.

Laurel Springs RV Resort after Heavy Weekend Rains

*Looking NW from over Laurel Springs Lane at Kingwood’s first RV resort and its detention pond after a 5.5 inch rain.*

*Silt seems to be piling up along silt fence on right, an indication of how site is sloped.*

*Contractors are starting to build roads. But look at ponding on either side of first one.*

*Looking SSE across RV resort from over UP railroad tracks at Lakewood Cove.*

*Rains can delay construction by making it difficult to work the ground.*

*Note drainage running down Centerpoint utility corridor.*

*Note heavy erosion and debris in detention pond.*

*Currently lip of detention pond is below road level. Overflow from pond will likely go into Edgewater Park’s cypress ponds below hill.*

Bad News, Good News

Most of the initial fears that Lakewood Cove residents had about this site remain valid. Railroad noise. Traffic safety. Road destruction. School impact. And more.

However, after seeing the response of the site to last weekend’s heavy rains, I’m less concerned about the site flooding Lakewood Cove if the southern lip of the detention pond remains at its current height.

Presently, the pond lip is much lower than the road as you can see in the photo above. If it stays that way, overflow stormwater will go down the hill west of Laurel Springs into what will soon become Precinct 4’s new Edgewater Park.

It’s important to keep in mind that last weekend’s storm was a 2- to 5-year storm, according to Jeff Lindner, Harris County’s meteorologist. So this wasn’t a very big test of the resort’s drainage systems. A hundred year storm would drop three times the rainfall.

The pond currently has half the required capacity to meet current rainfall standards. Still, last weekend was significant. Kingwood was among the hardest hit areas in Harris County.

However, there’s also a significant amount of dirt piled on the northern lip of the pond. It’s unclear where contractors will put that. If they use it to build up the southern lip, that could change the game.

Clearly, the owners lucked out with the timing of this storm. They substantially completed the detention pond before the storm. Otherwise, this could have turned into another Woodridge Village/Elm Grove situation.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/14/2022

1599 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.

HCFCD Report Shows Kingwood Tornado was Widest, Longest, Strongest

Today, Jeff Lindner, Harris County’s meteorologist issued a report on last weekend’s (1/8/22 – 1/9/22) storm. One of the more interesting findings: According to the National Weather Service, the Kingwood tornado was the widest, strongest and longest of five that touched down in Harris County. See below.

EF stands for Enhanced Fujita Rating Scale, a table used to compare tornado winds. All these tornadoes ranked on the low end of the scale which goes up to EF-5. The scale considers 0 and 1 as weak tornadoes.

Wealth of Detail Beyond ReduceFlooding Reports

Lindner’s report confirms my “after-action” reports, but adds a wealth of details.

For instance:

Rainfall rates of 2-3 inches/hour were common in the slow-moving training thunderstorms.
That led to rapid and significant street flooding, and rises on area creeks and bayous.
The highest measured discharge (streamflow) rate was in Greens Bayou at Mount Houston Parkway – 7,067 cubic feet per second.

Lindner found that certain areas experienced 2- to 10-year rains based on Atlas-14 exceedance probabilities. Based on 1- to 3-hour rainfall rates, those included middle Buffalo Bayou, Luce Bayou, middle and upper Halls Bayou, middle Greens Bayou, middle and lower White Oak Bayou, and the lower portion of the East Fork of the San Jacinto River. However, based on 12- to 24-hour rates, all impacted watersheds experience 2- to 5-year rains.

Because the storms trained perpendicular to the direction of most bayous, the rainfall within their watersheds varied greatly. For instance:

Greens Bayou received on 0.9 inches at Mount Houston Parkway, but 6.2 inches at US59.
Buffalo Bayou received 5.2 inches in places and 0.2 in others – a 26X difference.

Like all of the work that comes out of Lindner’s department, the documentation is meticulous.

House Flooding Estimates

Contrary to previous reports, some house flooding did occur. It happened along Brickhouse Gully on the west side of Bingle Rd. Approximately 6-8 structures experienced flooding to depths of 4.0-6.0 inches.

Says Lindner, “Other isolated structures may have flooded in portions of Spring Branch due to the intense rainfall rates overwhelming street and local drainage systems. A few houses also flooded along Valley Stream downstream (east) of I-45 along Halls Bayou.”

Alarms Triggered

Unfortunately, Lindner doesn’t offer much more information about the Kingwood tornado at this time. Nor does he cover flooding in surrounding areas, such as Liberty County. However, the storm did set off a number of alarms.

The storm triggered 26 rainfall alarms when gages received more than an inch of rain in 15-minutes.

Rising water triggered 14 flood warnings when streams reached 3 feet below bankfull.

For detailed maps, rainfall rates, and exceedance statistics at dozens of locations, see Lindner’s full report. Note: on major storms, Lindner often issues an immediate report and a final report several weeks later. This report falls into the “immediate” category. For future reference, you can also find this report under the Major Storms tab on the reports page.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/13/22

1598 Days since Hurricane Harvey

City Starts Tornado Debris Pickup, How to Help

Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin announced debris pickup has started for the tornado that struck Kingwood and Forest Cove Sunday morning, 1/9/22. Here’s how you can help.

Help Requested

Houston Public Work’s Emergency Operations and District E staff are working with the Solid Waste Management Department to identify locations and the scope of debris pickup needed. But in case they miss something…

Report the need for residential debris pickup by calling (713) 837-0311. Make sure you report the issue as “STORM DEBRIS.”

And if you see any trees blocking roadways or if any street lights need to be reset again, call Houston 311 or (713) 837-0311.

Instructions

Crews began debris pickup Tuesday.

Residents should separate piles when placing debris at the curb.
Please keep roadways clear, so crews can maneuver in and around affected areas more easily.
Have contractors haul off materials from their repairs.

*Palmetto Lane in Forest Cove is narrowed to one lane making it difficult for crews to work as residents try to maneuver around them.*

Numbers to Call, How to Follow Up

Please continue to utilize Houston 311 to make your initial report for “storm debris” and follow up by sending your service request number to districte@houstontx.gov. Put “Storm Debris” in the subject line. This will let the District E office track cases to make sure they are handled expeditiously.

Should you have any questions please contact the District E office by emailing districte@houstontx.gov or call (832) 393-3008.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/12/22 Based on Information Provided by District E

1597 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Woodridge Village Detention Ponds Passed Sunday Test, But…

On Sunday morning, Jeff Miller, an Elm Grove resident who lives near Woodridge Village, reported 5.5 inches in his rain gage. That compares to a 6.24 inch rain that fell on Woodridge on May 7, 2019, when hundreds of homes in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest flooded. Also, Woodridge falls about 40% short of current Atlas-14 standards required to hold back floodwater from a 100-year storm.

So you can understand how nervous Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest residents felt, especially considering that excavation of additional detention ponds on Woodridge Village has not yet started. Regardless, Woodridge did not flood homes across the county line this time. Here’s why.

Important Factors to Consider

Other important factors came into play last weekend that should relieve some of residents’ anxiety and help explain what happened.

First, remember that on May 7, 2019, Perry Homes’ contractors had clearcut 268 acres, but had barely begun work on detention ponds. Only one of five was complete.

Second, the intensity of the May 7, 2019 rain was higher than last weekend’s. On May 7, 6.24 inches fell in 5 hours. Last weekend, 5.5 inches fell in 9 hours.

Third, in 2019, the S2 detention area had been partially excavated but didn’t have any outflow control restrictions installed yet. So it didn’t really function as a detention pond.

Fourth, contractors had destroyed a berm between Elm Grove and Woodridge, and filled in a natural stream on Woodridge. Both have since been replaced.

Fifth, by current standards, last weekend we had a 5-year storm. But the detention ponds were designed to hold what today would be classified as a 25-year storm.

Photos Taken Sunday Morning

I took the photos below Sunday morning between periodic sprinkles, several hours after heavy rain stopped. They show how the current Woodridge Village detention handled the storm. All ponds were well within their banks. One was empty.

*The triangular pond on the left is N2. N1 is out of sight above it. The two ponds on the right are S1 (foreground) and S2 beyond it. N3 is out of sight at the top of the frame.*

*S2 was about halfway to two-thirds full.*

*The tail of S2 is already silting in but had plenty of room to spare.*

*N3 Pond on eastern edge of property was supposed to have had an outflow control device but never got one.*

*The Junction where water from all five ponds comes together before flowing into Taylor Gully. N3 is at top of frame.*

*Reverse angle shot of the Junction with Taylor Gully in the background. Note how high the detention ponds are compared to the gully.* *The areas that flooded so badly in 2019 are just beyond the ponds.*

*Water coming from the big trianglar N2 pond now has to go through these twin culverts which were almost completely inundated.*

*Wider shot shows volume of water backed up in N2.*

Only N1 in the NW corner of Woodridge was totally dry. The outflow capacity is much greater than the inflow. So this pond provides no detention benefit whatsoever. Local resident Jeff Miller says he has NEVER seen standing water in this pond.

Big Test and Additional Excavation Yet to Come

So the Perry-installed detention passed another test. But it was far from what college students would call a final exam.

Flood Control purchased this site last year and plans to turn it into a regional detention basin by more than doubling the detention capacity. However, the excavation contract lets the contractor take the dirt when it can be sold, while only meeting minimum monthly requirements which have not yet kicked in.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/11/2022

1596 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.

Despite Heavy Weekend Rains, Most Area Channels and Streams Stayed Within Banks

Despite heavy weekend rains, with a few exceptions, streams and channels stayed within their banks. There are several possible explanations.

Soil was dry before the rains.
Rainfall came in two waves separated by several hours, allowing the first peak to start working its way through the system before the second hit.
The amount of rainfall was within the designed capacity of most channels.
The heaviest storms occurred under relatively narrow bands of training supercells.
Harris County Flood Control has been actively working on channels!

Rainfall Map of Heavy Weekend Rains

In the image below, note how much higher the rainfall totals are near the red line compared to areas farther away. Most upstream areas received less than an inch or two, limiting the amount that traveled downstream.

*Red line indicated path of supercells that tracked across the center of the county* last weekend. *Note how highest rainfall totals parallel line.*

Heavy But Not Harvey

If you were under one of those supercells, you probably received 5-8 inches of rain between Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning – a little more than a 12-hour time span. Consulting NOAA’s Atlas-14 Rainfall Probability table for this area, you can see that those totals correspond to 2- to 10-year storms. Heavy! But not Harvey!

atlas 14 rainfall probabilities — *NOAA’s Atlas-14 rainfall probabilities for the Lake Houston Area*

Storms Tracked Perpendicular to Most Watersheds

In Harris County most watersheds track from NW to SE. But the storms tracked perpendicular to that. That limited the amount of water dumped in most watersheds. It might have been very different had the storms tracked parallel with bayous.

Here was the channel status report from Harris County Flood Control on Sunday shortly after noon. It shows that virtually all channels were well within their banks. Only the gage at Luce Bayou and SH321 in Liberty County indicated flooding was a possibility near Lake Houston (warning triangle in upper right).

Despite receiving the highest rainfall total in the area (8.56 inches)…

…Luce Bayou never did come out of its banks at that location. See below. As of today, Luce is falling.

Halls Bayou near 45 briefly came out of its banks, but no structures were reported flooded. Same for Greens Bayou at 59. Water briefly got up to the feeder road there.

Brickhouse Gully, White Oak and Buffalo Bayous were also briefly in danger of coming out of banks in places, but receded quickly according to a HCFCD source. They were all back in banks before I could get there with a camera.

Photos of Area Streams and Bayous

At the East Fork and FM1485, I found a high water caution sign on the road Sunday afternoon. But again, the river was well within its banks. The closest it came to flooding was 2 feet from the top of bank three hours before I took this photo.

Here’s how some other local streams and channels fared in the heavy weekend rains.

*A tributary channel of Bens Branch between Woodridge Forest and Northpark Drive next to Kingwood Park High School.* *That cleared area is the new Preserve at Woodridge that will offer 660 SF homes.*

*Bens Branch looking E (downstream toward Woodland Hills Drive. CVS on Northpark Drive (left). This was the highest part of the highest stream I found.* *Notice how it’s almost coming out on the left.*

*St. Martha’s School Parking lot flooded again a little farther downstream on Bens Branch.*

*Looking west at Bens Branch toward West Lake Houston Parkway. Note debris line on the left* *bank in the sun.*

*The debris line in Taylor Gully shows water never got more than halfway up the bank. Looking upstream from the Maple Bend bridge.*

*Kingwood Diversion Ditch north of Walnut Lane in distance just hours after tornado ripped through area.*

*Confluence of East Fork San Jacinto (right) and Caney Creek (left). Note docks still above water on right.*

No Reports of Flooded Structures in Harris County

As of 8 PM Monday, Harris County Flood Control had not received any reports of structures flooding from the heavy weekend rains.

Storms of this magnitude are common in Houston, but not for January. Jeff Lindner, Harris County’s meteorologist remembered two in the last decade.

“We had comparable totals on 1-9-2012 in the Brays Bayou watershed (6.6 inches peak in 12 hours). On 1-18-2017, we also had several 4-7 inch gage readings on Brays and 7.0 inches in 12 hours on Lower White Oak Bayou.”

For now, most Harris County residents can chalk this one up in the “close-call” column. But let’s remember that people in Plum Grove DID flood. And pray for the tornado victims in Humble, Kingwood and Forest Cove.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/10/2021

1595 Days since Hurricane Harvey