Special City Meeting Thursday At 2 PM Will Address Multi-Family Housing Flap

City of Houston called a special joint committee meeting for Thursday, October 7, at 2PM between Budget & Fiscal Affairs and Housing and Community Affairs. Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin will chair the meeting.

The agenda is scant. It entails a Housing and Community Development “Financial Update” with three speakers:

  • Keith Bynam, Deputy Director, Housing and Community Development
  • Temika Jones, Chief Financial Officer, Housing and Community Development
  • Andy Icken, Chief Development Officer, Mayor’s Office

I asked Mayor Pro Tem Martin for more detail. He replied, “Fiduciary update on City of Houston Housing, specifically CDBG and DR-17, and the status of the investigation from the City Attorney regarding his decision to bring in outside Firms and appropriate resources to ensure independence and completeness.”

Turner Vigorously Denies Allegations

The last part about the City Attorney refers to a self-investigation Mayor Sylvester Turner launched in the wake of explosive allegations by Tom McCasland, Housing and Community Development’s former director. Turner fired McCasland two weeks ago after McCasland accused the Mayor of improperly influencing the award of a housing grant. The Mayor skipped over the top seven recommendations by McCasland’s department to pick the eighth ranked project. The Mayor’s selection would have delivered one quarter of the affordable housing for basically the same price as the four projects recommended by the Department of Housing and Community Development. It just happened to turn out that the Mayor’s former law partner, Barry Barnes, is also a stakeholder in the eighth ranked project.

Turner vigorously denies any charges of impropriety and asked the City Attorney to investigate. However, the appointment of an appointed official to do the investigation was panned by the media.

Since then, the Texas General Land Office (GLO), HUD and the Harris County Attorney have each launched separate investigations. And now it appears that the City Attorney will also bow to public pressure by appointing an outside investigator.

Documents At Heart of Controversy

I spent the better part of the day reviewing complex documents in this case. I will post them below with some brief comments for those who like to refer to original source materials.

  • The 110-page contract between the GLO and City of Houston for $835 million. This is a subset of the $1.2 billion original contract that became the subject of a lawsuit between the same two parties last year. It lays out the expectations for each party, allocates totals to each program, sets performance goals for each, and lists deadlines. The Mayor signed it on Page 104.
  • A letter from the GLO to Keith Bynam, Interim Director of Housing and Community Development. It requested a review of the City’s Multi-Family Rental Program, starting no later than September 29, 2021.
  • The agenda for a review and a list of requested documents. Some of the acronyms in this may be puzzling. MQA stands for “Monitoring Quality Assurance.” MFRP stands for Multi-Family Rental Program. Page 4 lists the purpose of the review. Page 5 lists the scope. Page 11 lists the items that the City had not yet supplied as of 9/30/2021. Page 12 explains regulations that could penalize the City if it fails to provide the requested records.
  • The 40-page 2021 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) refers to Round 3 of the Disaster Recovery (DR-17) and Multifamily Program. It lays out the ground rules and selection criteria for the controversial Clear Lake apartment complex preferred by the Mayor. This was the “report card” for companies submitting proposals. It told them how they were going to be graded – i.e., what would increase or decrease their chances of success. It includes such factors as “flood resilience,” “experience,” “project readiness,” “cost reasonableness,” “disaster-recovery construction standards,” “location relative to the floodway,” and more.

Significantly, in the last document, the City’s Chief Procurement Officer, Jerry Adams, promises, “Bid proposals will be reviewed, underwritten and scored to select awardees based on a predetermined set of criteria outlined in the NOFA.”

Is There a Contract?

Yes and No.

No, in that a contract has not been signed with the Mayor’s hand-picked developer. The developer has not been paid any money. GLO has not even received a recommendation yet as to the developer. Everything blew up on the launching pad before things got that far.

However, the GLO and HUD contend that the NOFA is a contract. It obligates the City to solicit proposals according to criteria that have been agreed to beforehand.

The documentation calls into question whether bypassing seven higher scoring proposals in favor of a lower scoring project might violate the NOFA and federal procurement process regulations.

Here are some important federal requirements listed in the Code of Federal Regulations under 2 CFR Part 200:

  • Appendix I to Part 200 – Full Text of Notice of Funding Opportunity: “The intent is to make the application process transparent so applicants can make informed decisions when preparing their applications to maximize fairness of the process.” (E. Application Review Information)
  • § 200.319 Competition: “All procurement transactions for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award must be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition consistent with the standards of this section and § 200.320.

Additionally, in CONTRACT NO. 21-134-000-C788 above (section 8.05, page 19), the City of Houston agreed to strictly adhere to sections 318-326 of 2 CFR Part 200.

From that perspective, there was and is a contract. As this controversy plays out, the contract question will likely play a central role. Don’t be fooled if someone says, “There was no contract.” Clarify what that means.

To View Special Meeting Thursday At 2PM

To view the Microsoft Teams Live Meeting, go to: https://tinyurl.com/JOINTMTGBFAHOU.

Presentation handouts may be available at: https://www.houstontx.gov/council/committees/bfa.html. As of this posting, no handouts were available.

This meeting will also be broadcast on HTV, the City of Houston’s Municipal Channel.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/6/2021

1499 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.

Chronicle, ABC13 Report Harris County District Attorney Opens Investigation into Mayor

The Houston Chronicle and Ted Oberg, ABC13’s investigative reporter, both filed new stories Tuesday about the controversy surrounding Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and the City’s troubled Housing and Community Development Department. The story blew up on September 22 and immediately triggered a fraud investigation by the Texas General Land Office and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. According to today’s stories, Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg has also opened an investigation into the multi-family housing deal at the heart of the controversy.

Mayor Recommends Deal with 4X Less Bang for Bucknbg

Tom McCasland, the former department head, accused the Mayor in an open City Council Meeting of unduly trying to influence the outcome of a grant. The Mayor promptly fired McCasland. The deal favored by the Mayor would have sent millions of dollars in business to the Mayor’s former law partners although McCasland explicitly said he was not accusing the Mayor of fraud.

In the “what was he thinking department,” the Mayor also asserted that it was his right to award the project to the firm of his choice and overrule McCasland’s recommendation even though four times more affordable housing units could have been built for the same amount of money had Turner followed the recommendations of McCasland’s department.

Turner Unleashes Firestorm

The Chronicle reported today that an investigator from Ogg’s office was seen knocking at the door of McCasland’s home. When there was no answer, he left a business card with a neighbor. The headline read: “Harris County DA Investigating deal at center of allegations that Turner steered money to developer.”

Oberg’s segment on the evening news led off with, “Harris Co. DA asks for documents on City Hall spending, payments to Mayor’s former law partner.” Oberg said he had obtained a copy of Ogg’s request, though he did not post the document.

Ogg Investigation Reportedly Looks Back into Old Deals Too

Allegedly, the investigation is widening. Oberg’s story said, “13 Investigates has also learned the District Attorney is asking for more – and this time far more detailed information – about contracts, agreements, invoices and all available payment information related to payments to Barry Barnes and Associates in 2018 and 2019.”

Mayor Turner’s office said in a statement, “The City has received no notice of an investigation. The DA asked through an informal request for all city policies and procedures related to procurement and the letting on contracts.” The mayor denies having done anything wrong.

McCasland declined to comment, as did Ogg. “Out of fairness to all involved, we neither confirm nor deny potential investigations into any matter until and if a charge is filed,” said Dane Schiller, Ogg’s spokesperson.

In separate news, the City’s Housing Committee will reportedly hold a hearing Thursday, October 7, at 2 pm on this matter and broadcast the meeting on its internet site. The Mayor is expected to tell his side of the story at that time.

More news to follow.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/5/2021

1498 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.

Recommended Reading: “Holding Back the River” by Tyler J. Kelley

A reader recommended a book recently. I found it so interesting that I’m recommending it to you. It’s called “Holding Back the River: The Struggle Against Nature on America’s Waterways” by Tyler J. Kelley. It’s about the unintended consequences of mankind’s struggle to reduce flooding.

Author’s Voyage of Discovery

Mr. Kelley employs a narrative approach in writing this book. It literally represents a six year voyage of discovery for him that started with a recreational journey down the Ohio River in a small boat. Before the book ends, Kelly takes us along the route of Lewis and Clark up the Missouri River to the Dakotas and Nebraska. He also takes us down the Mississippi from Illinois to to Louisiana and the Netherlands. And on a jaunt through history with the Army Corps of Engineers, French explorers, Mark Twain, William Faulkner, Thomas Jefferson, and Ulysses S. Grant.

Along the way, we learn about dikes, dams, diversions, cutoffs, and other flood-control measures superimposed on the American landscape in a well-intentioned effort to foster commerce and protect people.

Mr. Kelley has a gift for explaining complex engineering projects in down-to-earth ways that non-technical people can easily understand. And he describes those projects through the eyes of hundreds of interviewees whose lives have somehow been affected. It all underscores the difficulty of flood mitigation at the intersection of engineering, politics, and geology.

Unintended Consequences

From oystermen in Louisiana whose catches have been affected by fluctuating salinity to Sioux in Nebraska forced to relocate villages, first due to dam construction and then again due to sediment build up. Kelley’s stories about sediment buildup behind dams reminded me of the challenges faced by Lake Houston Area residents after Harvey living downstream from 20 square miles of sand mines.

Other Parallels

The beauty of Kelley’s book is that even though the lessons learned come from other watersheds, many of those lessons can be applied to our own. As I read it, I found myself thinking back to stories I had reported during the last four years.

From a series of maps produced by the Army Corps Map showing how the Mississippi has changed paths hundreds of times. From a 2018 post about river migration.

Do I flood A or B?

One of Kelley’s more gripping stories was about an Army Corps commander being forced to decide whom to flood during a major storm – the town upstream or the farmers downstream – and the political uproar that ensued. Remind anyone of the Lake Conroe release?

Another gripping story pitted the people on one side of the Mississippi with those on the other. Armed residents on each side patrolled dikes during a major storm, fearing sabotage from someone on the other side. Letting floodwaters escape through one dike would take pressure off the other and thereby prevent flooding on the other side.

Ounce of Prevention Worth a Half Billion $ of Cure

Then there were the stories about the hundreds of millions spent to mitigate flooding when damage to property could have been avoided for free just by building homes in less flood-prone areas. Alas, that would have required some private properties to be conserved for the public good – which led to a discussion of the political will (or lack thereof) to exercise eminent domain.

Those hundreds of millions, of course, turn into a tax on children and grandchildren over time. But expedience being the better part of re-election campaigns, it’s easier for politicians to say, “We’re going to fix it,” rather than “We’re going to take your property to save your neighbors.”

Relocating Problems

But the most tragic parts of this book were the stories about trying to outmuscle Mother Nature and how flood-control efforts in one area often simply relocated problems to another after a while. It made me thankful that one of Harris County Flood Control District’s core values is not flooding one area to save another. Time and again, throughout the pages of this book, you saw that scenario play out.

If you’re looking for insight into the dilemmas that engineers face everyday, this book is for you. It will help you understand the agonizing tradeoffs that professionals often have to make.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/5/2021 based on a book by Tyler Kelley, with thanks to Beth Leggieri for the recommendation

1498 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Despite Heavy Rains, KMS Reconstruction Progressing Nicely

Since my last update, Kingwood Middle School (KMS) reconstruction has progressed nicely despite heavy rains and a tropical storm in the last month. My rain gage, a few blocks away recorded more than 11 inches of rain in the last 30 days – almost triple the average for September.

My last update on August 20 showed that contractors had erected most of the structural steel, but large parts of superstructure were still open. Today, almost the entire roof is on and most of the structure has been walled or glassed in.

It was barely 10 months ago, that this site was nothing but dirt, a dream, and a detention pond.

Photos Showing Status of KMS Reconstruction as of 10/3/21

Here are pictures of KMS reconstruction taken this afternoon with a drone.

KMS reconstruction as of 10.3.21. Looking SE from over Woodland Hills Blvd.
Looking N across roof of old KMS. Woodland Hills Blvd on left. Note how left (western) part of building is already bricked in. When new KMS is complete, the old one will be torn down.

Plans call for reconstructing the athletic fields on the site of the old school and building a permanent, larger detention pond where the circular drive in the foreground is.

It’s hard to tell from this angle, but temporary detention pond had barely emptied from yesterday’s deluge.
Only one small section in lower left remains without roof.
The new KMS will go up instead of out to create the needed capacity for students
As construction moves in phases from NW to SE, you see different degrees of finish.

Humble ISD still expects the school to open for the 2022 school year. For more information about the plans for the building, see the District’s web site. Find updates on other new construction from the 2018 bond here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/3/2021

1496 Days since Hurricane Harvey

TWDB To Vote on Accepting $63.6 million in FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Grants

In its October 7, 2021, board meeting, Texas Water Development Board members will vote on whether to accept $63.6 million in FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Grants. The federal funding comes with some strings attached: a $10.23 million local match.

For this round of funding, the TWDB selected 19 sub-applications from local government entities. After screening, FEMA eliminated 6 and identified 13 “for further review.”

Here’s a summary from the TWDB of what they will vote on.

From TWDB Agenda for October 7, 2021

What are Flood Mitigation Assistance Grants?

FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance Program provides competitive grants to local governments for projects that reduce or eliminate the risk of repetitive flood damage to buildings insured by the National Flood Insurance Program.

FEMA chooses recipients in part based on cost-effectiveness (benefit/cost ratio).

Often, local governments, such as cities or counties, bundle individual applications as MoCo did to buy out Tammy and Ronnie Gunnel’s home and dozens of others as we saw in yesterday’s post. That home flooded 13 times in 11 years and cost NFIP at least three quarters of a million dollars.

In a sense, most of these grants are designed to cut FEMA’s losses.

Summary of Each Local Application

Attachment B to the agenda gives a rundown on each of the projects under consideration. See below.

Harris County Drainage Project in Bear Creek Village

Bear Creek Village is located on the west side of the Addicks reservoir near Highway 6. This is an $11.3 million project of which the federal government would pay $8.5 million.

The Harris County project would mitigate 1,421 structures. The current storm sewer system is designed for a 3-year event and is inadequate to collect and drain extreme event runoff. The proposed drainage improvements are intended to provide an additional flow path, so that excess storm water is contained within street right-of-way to an outfall. The project will incorporate a combination of channel construction, street regrading, and enhancement of outfalls. The project has a positive Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.09.

Harris County Flood Control District Single-Family Home Acquisitions

Total cost = $16.7 million with federal government paying $14.7 million.

Harris County Flood District seeks to mitigate 61 structures: 23 Severe Repetitive Loss structures, 17 Repetitive Loss structures, and 21 at risk of continual future flooding. HCFCD would acquire and demolish structures, then convert the land to open green space. The project has a positive Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.09.

Harris County Flood Control District Commercial Acquisition

This is a $3.7 million buyout with the federal government picking up the whole tab.

Harris County Flood Control District wants to buy out a hotel on the east freeway with a severe repetitive loss history. HCFCD would demolish the property and convert the land to open green space. The project has a positive Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.84. The grant application notes that since 1979, FEMA has paid out $8 million in NFIP claims on this property.

City of Houston Single-Family-Home Elevation Project

Total Cost $1.5 million (all paid by federal government) to elevate 5 severe-repetitive-loss homes ($300,000 each). All would be elevated at least 2 feet above the 500-year floodplain. That would hopefully reduce or eliminate future NFIP claims. The project has a positive Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.1.

Jersey Village Single-Family-Home Elevation Project

Total Cost $4.9 million with federal government covering $400,000.

Jersey Village seeks elevate 16 structures: 10 are Severe Repetitive Loss, five Repetitive Loss and one at risk of continual future flooding. Elevation will raise structures one-foot above Base Flood Elevation per the City’s freeboard requirements. The project has a positive Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.32.

Montgomery County Single-Family-Home Acquisition and Demolition

Total Cost = $12.6 million with federal share of $12.4 million.

Montgomery County seeks to mitigate 40 flood prone structures (31 Severe Repetitive Loss and 9 Repetitive Loss structures) by acquisition, demolition, and the conversion of land to open green space. The project has a positive Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.36.

Tammy Gunnels’ Home in Porter is an example of a Severe Repetitive Loss Home. It flooded like this 13 times in 11 years and was bought out yesterday as part of another Montgomery County grant. Before the buyout, it cost FEMA more than 3 times its fair market value and would have continued flooding had nothing been done.
Pearland Single-Family-Home Elevation Project

Total Cost $500,000, all covered by federal government.

The City of Pearland seeks to mitigate two Severe Repetitive Loss structures by elevation one-foot above the Base Flood Elevation per the City’s freeboard requirements. The project has a positive Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.08.

Taylor Lake Village Single-Family-Home Elevation Project

Total Cost $2.77 million with federal government covering $2.75 million.

Taylor Lake Village wants to elevate eight Severe Repetitive Loss structures and one Repetitive Loss structure one foot above the 100-year flood level. The project has a positive Benefit-Cost Ratio of 3.1.

In each of the projects above, the owners have all voluntarily committed to the elevation or demolition of the structures.

Recommendation of TWDB Staff

The Executive Administrator of the TWDB recommends that his board approve all these grants. This program meets the agency’s objectives of providing financial assistance to communities to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage and to become more flood resilient.

Meeting Details

The Board meeting will be held on Thursday, October 7, at 9:30 a.m. via GoToWebinar  If you wish to address the Board, please fill out the visitor registration form and send it to Cheryl.Arredondo@twdb.texas.gov no later than 8:00 a.m. on October 7. For more information, please visit the TWDB’s website.

Posted By Bob Rehak on October 7, 2021

1495 Days since Hurricane Harvey

MoCo Couple That Flooded 13 Times in 11 Years Finally Gets a Buyout

I first interviewed Tammy Gunnels and her husband Ronnie almost three years ago. They had flooded ten times at that point even though they weren’t in a flood zone. The Gunnels are devout people and prayed for a buyout. Friday, their prayers were answered. Here is the story of how their faith and persistence paid off in the long run. This interview also included Morgan Lumbley, the Disaster Recovery Manager for Montgomery County who guided the Gunnels through the application process. Ironically, the skies unleashed torrential rains just before the closing. But this time, everyone was smiling instead of worrying.

Ronnie Gunnels (left), Morgan Lumbley (middle), Tammy Gunnels (right) at Chicago Title in Montgomery for closing.

Early Frustration

Bob: You flooded 13 times in 11 years. Tell me how you finally got the buyout offer. 

Tammy: After Harvey, one of my cleaning clients who’s an attorney vowed to find a way to get us a buyout. She put me in touch with the Office of Emergency Management for Montgomery County. Initially, they told me there were no open programs available.

Tammy: That was in 2017. Then in May of 2019, we flooded twice – on May 3rd and again on May 7th. Once more, I contacted their office and went to commissioners meetings, begging for a buyout. But nothing happened. After we flooded a third time that year during Imelda, I called their office just to scream and holler and cry into the phone. But this time, Morgan answered. I told her our story and by the end of the conversation, she was crying and promising that she was going to do everything she could.

Patience Finally Pays Off

Bob: And she wrote a beautiful note.

Tammy: She put it on her computer where it stayed until today. It says, “No one before Miss Tammy. Number one priority.” Later, she called back and said, “Look, I’ve found a couple programs. Which do you want to go with?” I said, “I don’t care. The quickest. Just get us out of this house.” 

When Morgan Lumbley came to the Gunnels’ closing today, she brought the note she wrote during her first phone call with them.

Initially, we thought the buyout was going to be done in early 2020. But it kept dragging out. Red tape. Then COVID hit. That changed everything. I would email Morgan nights, weekends, whenever it rained, asking “When?” But never once did she get irritated or say, “I’m doing the best I can.” 

All throughout biblical scripture, it says we do not understand His ways or His timing or His plans. If we had been bought out before now, no way would we have gotten the offer we got. 

We got full current market value. We hoped the county would pay off the mortgage, which was about $60,000 but FEMA covered full market value…$250,000.

Bob: How did you find these programs, Morgan?

FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance Program

Morgan: There are a couple funding programs for buyouts. The one we got the Gunnels in is FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. It is a “cycle funding” opportunity – available every year. But it’s a competitive grant. So, we have to fill out an application that names the homes you want to buy out – and their values – on the front end. The county collected data for “severe repetitive loss” homes. And when we won the grant, those were the people who got offers.

But buyouts are probably the slowest of all the mitigation processes. So, sometimes  people drop out before deals close. And when they do, that opens up room for others. 

Bob: Is that how Tammy and Ronnie got in?

Morgan: Yes. Tammy and Ronnie could also have qualified through a HUD program, but we focused on FEMA’s, because they had a current National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policy. It was also based on their flood losses. They were considered a “severe repetitive loss.”

Active Flood Insurance Key to Buyout

Not counting our own personal funds, NFIP spent three quarters of a million on that property. They could have bought us out five times. 

Tammy Gunnels

Tammy: People said we should just walk away. But we literally had no place to go. When you flood, yeah, you get insurance. But the lien holder on your home gets the money. The lien holder releases it in increments so that you make the repairs. And they inspect the repairs before releasing the next payment. There IS no walking away. Most people don’t understand that. You don’t have money to go anywhere.

We had already drained Ronnie’s 401K and every bit of savings we had. We’re at the age that we’re supposed to be looking forward to retirement. But we don’t. I have nothing left from my kids from when they were growing up. The childhood memories – all those silly little pictures they make for you in birthday cards – I have none of that left. The floods took everything. This has aged us physically and mentally by years.

Ronnie and Tammy as they sign the last of the closing papers.

Ronnie: When we first got insurance, it was fairly cheap and then once we flooded, it skyrocketed. We were just going to handle the losses ourselves. But our neighbor said, “If you’re not insured, you can’t be on any buyout list. That woke us up. We said, “We’ve got to get back on insurance.”

The 13th Time is the Charm

Bob: So Morgan, put this in perspective for me. Flooding 13 times. Where does that rank?

Morgan: 13 is a lot.

Bob: Is it a record?

Morgan: Of those that have come across my desk, it definitely is! Five or six is pretty common, maybe even seven. But 13 is a lot. I think that’s what got me the most. To hear that someone has flooded that many times! 

Tammy: Morgan says she’s the low person on the totem pole, but she’s on a throne in my heart forever.

Home Will Be Demolished and Lot Turned to Green Space

Bob: What will Montgomery County do with the home you just bought?

Morgan: Demolish it. The land will be regraded and then it becomes green space to restore the natural flood function. Nothing else. Another residential structure cannot be built on that land. 

“I just want to be a normal person again!”

Bob: Tammy, where do you go with your life from here? 

Tammy: I don’t think we’ve even thought about it. For the last 13 years, we haven’t been able to plan anything.

Ronnie: We’re just hoping we don’t freak out every time it rains.

Tammy: I just want to go to sleep at night without pacing the floor, wondering when the next flood will hit, and whether the water will come in through the front door, the back door or the patio. I just want to be a normal person again.

Advice for Home Buyers: Research, Ask Right Questions

Bob: What advice would you give people looking for a home to buy?

Morgan: Research! Research is the biggest thing. Diligent research. Too many people take information at face value. They look at the seller’s disclosure. And it asks, “Has the home flooded?” But it doesn’t say when. And it doesn’t say how many times. And no one has to tell you that. Also, the damage amount is not indicated anywhere. And no one has to disclose that either.

If you’re looking at a house, go over to the neighbors. Knock on doors and ask, “Did you flood? Do you know if that house flooded? How high did the water get in your yard? Those are questions that you want to ask.

Ronnie: I’m guilty. I didn’t ask the right questions.

Morgan: A lot of people, when they go looking for their forever home, they’re looking at granite countertops. Is the backyard big enough for the kids? But the questions they really need to ask are, “Am I near a flood plain? Has this house been flooded? How many times? How high? Those kinds of things.”

Tammy: She is exactly right. EXACTLY.

Posted by Bob Rehak on October 1, 2021, based on an interview with Tammy and Ronnie Gunnels, and Morgan Lumbley

1494 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Flood Mitigation Digest: Updates on Nine Lake Houston Area Efforts

Here’s a digest of several efforts relating to flood mitigation in the Lake Houston Area and recent developments.

Subsidence

Groundwater Management Area 14 has another Discussion of Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) on the agenda for its upcoming October 5 meeting. Notice Item #7: “Discussion and possible action regarding the DFCs/Proposed DFCs and the path forward for GMA 14 to accomplish statutory mandates for Round 3 Joint Planning.”

To date, Montgomery County has resisted any mention of a subsidence metric in DFCs for the groundwater management area which includes 14 counties. All must abide by whatever metric the group adopts. The group has been arguing about this metric for years and they’re rapidly approaching a mandatory deadline set by the state.

The Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) Board which regulates groundwater withdrawals in Montgomery County has favored unlimited groundwater pumping and denied that subsidence affects Montgomery County. Both the southern and northern parts have already seen measurable declines.

Here’s a paper that SJRA presented to the LSGCD board that corrects several LSGCD misstatements and misperceptions. It shows charts and graphs dramatizing the amount of measured subsidence.

Sources close to the controversy do not expect GMA-14 members to reach agreement next week. However, John Martin, head of the management area says, “After we convene and discuss the summary reports submitted by each GCD (a summary of the comments received during the public comment period) the Group will have completed all of the necessary requirements that must be completed prior to the adoption of the DFCs. So, a “final” decision (for this round of planning) could be made at this meeting.”  

Projected future subsidence could tilt Lake Houston toward its headwaters because it would affect areas near the county line more than the Lake Houston Dam.

Follow this link to register to attend the meeting on the 5th. That’s next Tuesday from 9:30 AM to 12 PM. GMA 14 uses the GoToWebinar app.

Additional Gates for Lake Houston Dam

The Army Corp’s public comment period for adding 1,000 feet of crest gates to the Lake Houston Dam ended on August 23rd. However, I have not yet found any recommendation from the Corps on their site.

The Coastal Water Authority discusses the project at its monthly board meetings.

Minutes from the September meeting have not yet been posted. However, directors did receive an update in their August 11 meeting. The minutes state that engineers presented their modifications of the spillway to support the gates. Next steps (at the time) were to focus on the cofferdam design and structural analysis of the spillway during demolition, interim construction, and post construction.

CWA has not yet responded to an inquiry about how the September meeting went.

Joint Lake-Operation Plan Development

The SJRA received a grant to develop a joint operation plan for the dams at Lake Conroe and Lake Houston. This will involve the SJRA working with the Coastal Water Authority.

Matt Barrett, SJRA’s flood-management director said, “We have not yet selected consultants for the Joint Ops project. My goal would be to start … joint ops by sometime next summer.  We are coordinating with CWA/City of Houston on the joint ops schedule to ensure that the project merges as seamlessly and effectively as possible with their ongoing efforts related to the additional Lake Houston gates.”

Makes sense. While FEMA has approved construction of the gates in principle, FEMA has not yet approved the plans. Stephen Costello told a community meeting at the Kingwood Community Center on July 9 that he expects all plans and the environmental study to be completed by the summer of 2022.

Schedule for Adding Gates to Lake Houston

Flood Early Warning System

The SJRA also applied for and received a grant to develop a Flood Early Warning System for San Jacinto County.

The idea is to help people better understand how much water is moving down Winters Bayou, the East Fork, and Peach Creek by adding three gages, one on each at strategic locations.

Barrett says SJRA staff is handling most of this work in-house and has already started.

Spring Creek Flood-Control Reservoir

The purpose of this project is to perform a conceptual engineering feasibility study of two potential dams/reservoirs within the Spring Creek watershed.  This is a the next phase of the Spring Creek Siting Study which came out of the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Study.

Locations at both Walnut Creek and Birch Creek have potential to provide flood-mitigation benefits to the watershed. But which to pursue? Here’s the scope of work.

This is another SJRA project. Barrett says, “We recently completed consultant selection and contract negotiation for the Spring Creek project and took the consultant contract to our Board last week (where it was approved).  We are aiming for a mid-October start date.”

Location of MoCo projects in San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Study

Upper San Jacinto River Basin Sedimentation Study

This SJRA study is also an extension of work started in the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Study. The application for this grant from the state’s Flood Infrastructure Fund states, “Any sedimentation reduction activity in the Upper San Jacinto River Basin (Lake Houston watershed) is anticipated to achieve some level of reduction of sediment load entering Lake Houston, which would in turn reduce storage reduction in the lake, which is the major water supply reservoir for the City of Houston and surrounding communities.”

It could also reduce Lake Houston Area dredging costs which Costello estimates will total $222 million. After taking years to dredge the West Fork, the City is now dredging its way to the East Fork.

Barrett has not yet selected a consultant for the sedimentation project. He hopes to get that started by Spring 2022. The Spring Creek and Joint Operations studies have much shorter timetables, so the SJRA started those first.

The grant application states that this study could take up to four years, though the SJRA hopes to complete it faster.

Long-Term Dredging Plan Development

Potential vendors interested in developing a long-term dredging plan for Lake Houston had to submit their qualifications by September 23rd last week.

It’s not clear how many vendors responded or who they were. According to Stephen Costello, “It is my understanding that this information is not available due to the quiet period provisions of the city’s procurement process. The information will not be available until the consultant is selected/contract terms negotiated and the contract is on the city agenda for council action.”

That should happen sometime in November. Stay tuned.

SJRA CDBG-MIT Caney Creek Grant

The SJRA also applied for a HUD Community Development Block Grant for Mitigation from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The purpose was to develop a Caney Creek Reservoir Upstream of FM 1097.

Said Barrett, “The Caney Creek project is on hold due to limitations of the CDBG-MIT funding program. Grants for a single project were limited to $100 million in the first round of applications (and the reservoir project as recommended in the San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan was anticipated to be over $100 million by a decent amount).”

The Texas General Land Office (GLO), which coordinates HUD grants in Texas is committing most of the 2nd round funding to HCFCD after the uproar that followed Harris County’s snub in the first round. Barrett says he is coordinating with appropriate entities to determine how that funding will ultimately be distributed and whether SJRA would be eligible to receive any.

Forest Cove Golf Course Redevelopment

This doesn’t exactly fall into the category of flood mitigation efforts, but Ron Holley today reportedly withdraw his application to the CoH Planning Commission to replat the Kingwood Cove Golf for single family homes. The City of Houston Public Works department requested more details on the drainage analysis which raised many questions.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/30/2021

1493 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.

Sinkholes Often Sign of Damaged Storm Drains

Most of us have seen sinkholes. And most of us have probably given little thought to what causes them.

Retired engineer Chris Bloch, a local flood fighter, measured a 13-foot deep sinkhole near Taylor Gulley earlier this year that had become overgrown with vegetation. Working with the City of Houston and a local homeowner who first reported the problem, they found the sinkhole related to a nearby storm drain.

Bloch lowered this length of PVC pipe into the Taylor Gully sinkhole to measure the depth. Note how the hole had become overgrown with vegetation.

Other things can cause sinkholes, but in this area and in this part of the world, “storm drain gone bad” ranks high on the list of things to investigate.

Corrugated Pipe Commonly Used At Outfalls When Kingwood Built

According to Bloch, when Friendswood built Kingwood, they commonly used corrugated metal pipe (CMP) at storm sewer outfalls. CMP has an expected service life of approximately 35 years, says Bloch. And corrosion commonly causes failure at older outfalls constructed with such pipe.

For example, see the section of pipe below. This photo was taken on Ben’s Branch, not Taylor Gully, but it shows how the pipe rusted, bent, and crimped. Also look just to the right of the wooden posts, and you can even see a large hole in the pipe. It even tilts upward before it reaches the creek.

Corrugated metal pipe replaced earlier this year as part of a project to restore the conveyance of Bens Branch between Rocky Woods and Kingwood Drive. This area also developed a sinkhole near the manhole.

Taylor Gully Sinkhole One of Many In Area

Bloch frequently walks ditches looking for sinkholes to report to the City. He says he’s aware of at least five right now.

The 72-inch outfall to Taylor Gully serviced drainage area G03408-00-OUT which encompasses all of Greenriver Valley Drive and Mountain Bluff Lane as well as portions of Appalachian Trail, Natural Bridge and Echo Falls Drives. That area comprises 33.4 acres. See below.

Service area for damaged outfall encompasses 33.4 acres where several homes flooded.

The transition from a 72-inch concrete storm sewer to the 72-inch CMP outfall is at a manhole on the edge of the Taylor Gully right of way. See below.

Over the years, the CMP at the connection to the manhole failed. The earth above the failed pipe washed into the outfall and then downstream where it helped reduce the conveyance of Taylor Gully.

Repairs Started But Not Complete

The City of Houston has already repaired several storm sewers with failed corrugated metal outfalls. At least five additional storm sewer outfalls with sinkholes have been identified that have not yet been repaired.

Vegetation frequently hides the presence of these sinkholes. In addition to posing a danger to citizens walking along the banks of the drainage channels, the soil that falls into the sewer can be held up by the corrugations of the metal pipe reducing the flow capacity of the sewer, says Bloch.

Even without obstruction from soil falling into a sewer outfall, the rough surface of the corrugated metal pipe generates greater friction than smooth concrete. The friction slows the flow of storm water and reduces flow capacity which becomes critical during high intensity rains that cause street flooding.

Bloch somehow convinced the City of Houston Public Works Department to replace the damaged CMP at Taylor Gully with concrete pipe. See below.

“This upgrade in the outfall piping will significantly improve the flow capacity of the storm sewer system,” says Bloch.

Concrete pipe replaced CMP at the location of the 13-foot sinkhole on Taylor Gully. Installed by City of Houston Public Works Department after HCFCD repaired Gully.

Concrete Better for New Atlas-14 Rainfall Intensities

When Friendswood Development installed stormwater sewers in Kingwood, they met standards which applied at that time. With new Atlas-14 rainfall projections, we now understand that we should expect more rainfall. Several homes along Appalachian Trial suffered flood damage during Tropical Storm Imelda.

How to Report Sinkholes When You Find Them

As they say, it takes a village to reduce flooding. Now that you know the story behind sinkholes…

If you jog or walk along drainage ditches, exercise caution. Look out for developing sinkholes. And report them to 3-1-1 when you find them. They can pose dangers to children and even grown adults. To put that in perspective, Bloch (shown in the first photo) is more than 6 feet tall, but the sinkhole dwarfs him.

For More Information about Sinkholes

I highly recommend:

The US Geological Survey has an in-depth discussion of different types of sinkholes in different parts of the country and how each forms. This is geared toward students in science classes.

This NBC News story on YouTube has some spectacular examples of sinkholes in Florida along with easy to understand animations that show how they form.

Another 7 minute YouTube video from a series called Practical Engineering focuses on how sinkholes form. It contains both real world examples and table-top experiments that bring the processes to life.

Posted by Bob Rehak based on information and photos provided by Chris Bloch

1492 Days since Hurricane Harvey

CoH Public Works Asking for More Details on Kingwood Cove Golf Course Conversion

The City of Houston Planning Commission was to have considered plat approval on September 30th for redevelopment of the old Kingwood Cove Golf Course acquired by Ron Holley and his FLOG Partners. However, I learned late today from District E Councilman Dave Martin’s office that Planning Commission staff is recommending postponing the public hearing until at least the next regularly scheduled meeting on October 14th.

The Planning Department Staff met with Houston Public Works staff. Reportedly, the applicant has not yet provided all the information necessary for Publics Works to review the application.

Drainage Study Reportedly Not Detailed Enough

According to Martin’s office, Holley’s people submitted a drainage study for the Kingwood Cove development. However…

“Public Works indicated that it needed a more detailed analysis.”

Spokesperson for District E Council Member Dave Martin

Therefore, Planning Department Staff will reportedly recommend to the Planning Commission that Commissioners postpone the public hearing. This will likely happen in the meeting itself when the agenda item is called. But a delay is not automatically guaranteed.

As of this afternoon, approval of the Kingwood Cove plats was still on the agenda.

If Delayed, October 14 Next Possible Date

If the applicant were to provide all required information immediately so that staff could review and provide recommendations, the earliest date for reconsideration would be October 14th (the next meeting following September 30).

The Planning Commission posted Holley’s current plans in two places:

  • A 24-page abbreviated version as part of the agenda
  • The 238-page full submission at a special link.

Holley’s plans are #133 on the Agenda. I’ve extracted the 24 relevant pages to make file size manageable (2.5 megs).

The full submission is much larger but I compressed the file size from 75 megs to 50 megs. It includes the drainage analysis.

I haven’t had time to review the entire set of plans yet, so I’m including them all here for you to review. However, I did note several items that may explain why Public Works raised questions.

No HCFCD Check Off Yet

Apparently, no one from Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has reviewed or signed the drainage plans yet. Note how the signature blocks are empty.

Note empty signature blocks on Flood Control approval page. Page #73 of 238-page PDF.

No Public Works Check Off Yet

Also note empty signature blocks on Page 58 of 238 page PDF.

Beat-the-Peak Method Employed in Flood Calculations

The Kingwood Cove engineers apparently used the beat-the-peak hydrologic-timing method to support their claim of “no adverse impact.” They also based their calculations on profiles developed from 2001 LIDAR data and a 2012 model of the river basin.

Harris County and City of Houston have been urging upstream counties to abandon the beat-the-peak methodology for years now, in part because it does not take into account upstream developments since the last models were developed. It also allows developers to understate the amount of runoff subject to detention requirements.

Wrong Detention Ratios Apparently Used

The project engineers say on page 52 of the 238-page PDF that they based their conclusion of “no adverse impact” on a floodwater detention ratio of .55 acre feet of detention per acre. But the City requires .65 acre feet per acre. So does HCFCD. Thus, the capacity of the detention pond appears to be understated.

Detention Pond Just 2.5 Feet Above Normal River Level

All the detention is located next to the floodway, where it could quickly become overwhelmed by rising floodwaters.

According to the Kingwood Cove plans (page 47 of full set) the water surface of the detention pond would be at 47 feet. That’s just 2.5 feet above the normal river level and six feet below the parking lot for the golf course (according to the USGS National Map elevation profiler). It’s also 2.3 feet below the level where West Fork flooding becomes likely, according to the gage data at US59.

Floodway Boundary Will Likely Soon Change

FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer indicates that the boundary of the floodway shown above dates to 2008. Harris County Flood Control’s MAAPNext effort, however, is revising the flood maps. Floodways all over the county are expanding into the 100-year floodplain. So some or all of this detention pond could soon find itself within the floodway.

No Adverse Impact?

The Kingwood Cove engineers claim the detention pond would protect downstream residents in a 500-year storm, but the Harris County Flood Warning System shows, the pond would be under 9.5 feet of water in a 10-year storm. And 22 feet of water in a 500-year storm! I fail to see how the pond would be holding anything back in such situations.

Photo taken from helicopter on June 16, 2020 shows area in middle where Kingwood Cove detention pond would go. Looking SW.

A Grandfathering Play?

Note that Halff engineers submitted their Kingwood Cove drainage analysis on March 17, 2021, and the City implemented its .65 acre feet of detention per acre on March 31, 2021. Holley is just now seeking approval.

If he’s expecting to get a pass because he submitted the plans before a change in regulations, I would submit that we saw how dangerous that can be in the case of Woodridge Village and Elm Grove. Woodridge Village engineers calculated detention requirements based on pre-Atlas 14 data and got it grandfathered by MoCo even though everyone knew the requirements were changing.

There’s certainly lots to think about in these plans. They deserve more close scrutiny.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/27/2021 based on documents downloaded from the City Planning Commission website.

1490 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.

New Interactive Maps Show Flood Insurance Premium Changes With Risk Rating 2.0

Starting Oct. 1, FEMA’s new Risk Rating 2.0 will fundamentally change the way FEMA rates a property’s flood risk and prices insurance premiums. But to what extent will that affect premium changes in your area?

To help answer that question, the American Society of Flood Plain Managers (ASFPM) and The Pew Charitable Trusts recently unveiled new interactive maps. They show exactly where flood insurance premiums will decrease, increase, or remain the same — and by how much.

Risk Rating 2.0 incorporates more flood risk data to more accurately reflect a property’s individual flood risk. Types of data include:

  • Frequency and types of flooding (river overflow, storm surge, coastal erosion, heavy rainfall)
  • Distance to a water source
  • Property characteristics ( elevation, cost to rebuild).

Visual Tools Make Data More Accessible

ASFPM developed the interactive maps to help local leaders better communicate what’s occurring in their communities, but it’s also easy enough for an average person to grasp. 

“There is a fair amount of information available on Risk Rating 2.0. But getting that data out of spreadsheets is challenging. This new tool should help,” said Chad Berginnis, ASFPM’s executive director.

“Floods are this nation’s most frequent and costly natural disasters. And the trends are worsening. It’s important that people know their risk and buy flood insurance to help protect their homes and businesses. It’s equally important that communities take steps to minimize flood risk,” said Berginnis.

ASFPM used datasets from FEMA’s NFIP policyholder information to create the easy-to-use data visualization tool. The data are broken down across four categories. They range from a decrease in premiums to an increase of $20/month or more. A color-coded scale indicates the percentage of policyholders in each category.

Interactive Maps Show Premium Changes By State, Zip

The first interactive map at no.floods.org/rr2changes breaks down projected premium changes for each state and territory.

There are also two interactive maps by zip code:

The data compares a snapshot of policyholder premiums from May 31, 2020 with Risk Rating 2.0 premiums, applying statutory increase limits.

The comparison does not attempt to estimate premium increases that might have occurred without the new Risk Rating 2.0 pricing methodology.

This data won’t tell you what will happen to your premiums. But it will give you a rough idea of the percentages of people in your zip code who can expect increases within certain pricing brackets. The brackets include:

  • Decreases
  • Increases in the $0 to $10/month range
  • Increases in the $10 to $20/month range
  • Increases in the $20+/month range

Zip Codes in Lake Houston Area

The maps for local zip codes showed that the vast majority of all local policies in the Lake Houston area will increase between $0 and $10 per month.

The vast majority of policies in the upper Lake Houston area will see monthly increases of less than $10. This includes homes and businesses.

Clicking on the other tabs at the bottom of the map will show you the percentage of policies that fall into other ranges.

Very few people in these zip codes will see decreases. Almost everyone else will see increases greater than $10 or $20/month.

Looking only at increases for Single-Family-Home policies, about 90% of policies should see a monthly increase in the $0-10 range.

The maps contain far more detail than shown above. When you click on a zip code, areas surrounding the map and within the black pop-up box, display the data in tabular and graphic formats. Make sure you scroll through the data in the black pop-up box. It breaks the highest and lowest categories down into far more brackets. For instance, the $20+ category actually includes brackets up to $90-$100/per month.

Individual policyholders should contact their insurance agent for a personalized quote.

Use this data for comparison purposes to make sure you’re not overpaying. But remember, variations such as your proximity to water, first floor elevation, and the replacement value of your home could skew results from the average in your zip code.

The largest increases in the Houston area will be in Pasadena’s 77507 zip code. More that 50% of the policy holders there will see a $20+/month increase.

First Pricing Update in 40 Years

This is the program’s first pricing update in more than 40 years. 

“Under Risk Rating 2.0, FEMA is fixing longstanding inequities in the NFIP’s flood insurance pricing and establishing a system that is better equipped for the reality of frequent flooding caused by climate change,” said David Maurstad, senior executive of the National Flood Insurance Program. “Risk Rating 2.0 is not just a minor improvement, but a transformational leap forward that enables FEMA to set rates that are fairer and ensures rate increases and decreases are both equitable.”

According to FEMA, only 4% of policyholders nationwide are expected to see substantive increases. In a national rate analysis of current policyholders, FEMA has said:

  • 23% will see premium decreases
  • 66% will see, on average, premium increases of $0-$10/month (which is around what the average is now)
  • 7% will see, on average, premium increases of $10-$20/month
  • 4% will see, on average, premium increases of $20 or more per month. 


Background on Risk Rating 2.0 

Risk Rating 2.0 will deliver rates that are actuarially sound, equitable, easier to understand, and better reflect an individual property’s unique flood risk.

By communicating flood risk more clearly, the new methodology should help policyholders make more informed decisions on the purchase of adequate insurance and on mitigation actions to protect against flooding. FEMA is implementing the program in two phases:  

  • Phase I – New policies beginning Oct. 1, 2021 are subject to the new pricing methodology. Also beginning October 1, existing policyholders are able to take advantage of immediate decreases in their premiums when the policy renews. 
  • Phase II – Renewals of the remaining existing flood insurance policies will be written to the new plan starting April 1, 2022, allowing policyholders an additional six months to prepare for any adjustments.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/26/21 based on a press release from ASFPM provided by Diane Cooper

1489 Days since Hurricane Harvey