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


Update on Harris County Flood Mitigation Efforts

Today, at a meeting of the Harris County Flood Resilience Task Force, Vanessa Toro of the County Judge’s Office and Leah Chambers, Principal of consulting firm Outside Voices presented several slides about flooding and flood-mitigation efforts in Harris County that you might find interesting. Their presentation started with a series of slides that illuminated the history of flooding in Harris County; types of flooding; mitigation challenges, and mitigation efforts currently underway.

Historical Flooding and Mitigation

The first four slides address historical flooding and build on each other.

Selected historical milestones show dates and damage from several major storms in the last 20 years.
The next slide shows the major challenges in each epoch.
The third shows major mitigation efforts over time.
The dotted line shows spending by Harris County to help control flooding.

Different Types of Flooding Throughout County

The presentation then went into examples of the different types of flooding we experience. While river and bayou flooding are important to the Lake Houston Area, in other parts of the county, street flooding is a bigger issue. During high intensity rainfalls, water can’t get to the bayous.

Down in the southern part of the county, coastal flooding from storm surge is the main concern.

Each type of flooding requires different mitigation strategies.

For instance:

  • Flood professionals often address river- and bayou-flooding with detention ponds and channel widening.
  • Street flooding may require better maintenance of ditches, bigger storm drains and wider storm sewers.
  • Coastal flooding may require dikes and better building codes that elevate homes higher.

Key Challenges with Flood Mitigation

The presentation then segued into key challenges we face and how the county is trying to address them.

The first slide in this section discussed incomplete knowledge.

For instance, FEMA’s flood maps measure river, bayou, major channel and coastal flooding, but not street flooding, which is a major problem in the inner city. Hopefully, the next generation of flood maps (See MAAPNext) will help address that.

There’s a feeling that large scale infrastructure projects by themselves will not solve our flooding problems. Various groups within the county are looking at ways to supplement them. The engineer’s office is looking at subdivision drainage. Several other groups are collaborating to explore nature based solutions, flood proofing, and more.

The title of the slide above refers to difficulty of coordinating flood-control efforts across complex jurisdictional boundaries.

Different areas have different priorities, needs and timetables. No one understands that better than those who live near county lines. For instance, upstream counties often use lax regulation and enforcement as a way to entice developers – much to the detriment of those who live downstream.

Flood Resilience Efforts Now Underway

While the 2018 flood bond gets all the publicity, it’s certainly not the only Harris County effort underway to mitigate flooding. The slide below shows the variety of efforts.

They include:

  • The Community Flood Resilience Task Force, a group designed to give voice to communities in developing the next generation of flood mitigation efforts.
  • MAAPNext to update flood maps, incorporate the more data sources, and make flood-risk easier to understand.
  • Resilience Actions Inventory, an ongoing effort to catalog resilience initiatives, projects and programs throughout the county.
  • Infrastructure Resilience Team – an interdepartmental team planning resilience projects. It includes: Flood Control, Engineering, Community Services, Public Health, Emergency Management, and the Toll Road Authority.
  • New departments, such as the Office of Sustainability and the Deputy County Administrator for Resilience and Infrastructure.
  • Structural efforts that fall under the:

All these efforts may not mesh like the gears in a Swiss watch. At least not today. But it’s good to know that efforts are underway on more than one front.

For a high-resolution PDF of the PowerPoint, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/25/2021 based on information from the Harris County Judge’s Office

1788 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Dredging Now Closer to East Fork Than West

On July 9, the City of Houston announced a plan to dredge its way from the West Fork San Jacinto to the East Fork through a narrow channel south of Royal Shores in Kingwood. Since then, I’ve been tracking the progress. Between July 11 and August 28, the dredging moved about 1,200 feet east, or about 200 feet per week. But in the last three and a half weeks, the pace has slowed to less than 150 feet per week.

Dredging Pace Slowed During Nicholas

Hurricane Nicholas likely affected the schedule with the twin needs to secure equipment and lower the lake.

Regardless, when I put up a drone today, I found good news. The dredging is now much closer to the east fork than the west.

Dredging has now reached homes in Royal Shores. Looking south toward FM1960 and Lake Houston.
Looking east toward the East Fork. Dredging should break through in about another 1000 feet, the width of another six or seven homes.

Assuming the City can maintain a pace of 200 feet per week, that would put crews in the East Fork by the end of October.

Distance dredged in three weeks since last update on August 28th.
Looking west. At present, there appear to be two crews working. Note one still way out near the west fork, widening or deepening the channel near where they started in mid-July.
This certainly is one of the most beautiful parts of Houston for those who can afford to live with the flood risk.

Proposals for Long-Range Dredging Plan Due Today

A damage map compiled shortly after Harvey showed that 1290 Harris County homes flooded in the East Fork watershed.

Since then, a significant mouth bar has built up on the East Fork, potentially putting even more homes at risk.

The submission deadline for vendors to submit their qualifications for the development of a long-range dredging plan is today. Stay tuned for more news as it becomes available.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9.23.21

1486 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Blowup Between Mayor and Housing Director Triggers Fraud Investigation over Harvey Funds

Tuesday, City of Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Houston Housing and Community Development Director Tom McCasland got into a verbal brawl over alleged improprieties in the distribution of Harvey relief funds.

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner
Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner photographed in February of 2020.

The trigger was the award of $15 million to build a Clear Lake multi-family housing complex in which the Mayor’s former law partner is a co-developer. (Here is the group’s full application.)

The Mayor overrode the recommendations of McCasland and his staff, who pointed out that $16.2 million could have created four times the number of affordable units in poorer neighborhoods. Those projects all scored higher in the competition for funding.

General Land Office Response

Brittany Eck, a spokesperson for the Texas General Land Office (GLO), issued a statement within hours. She said, “The GLO is looking into the serious allegations of fraud or corruption regarding projects by the City of Houston’s Harvey Multifamily Program. The GLO is responsible for ensuring all money allocated through the Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) are spent appropriately. These projects and funds are intended to be utilized to aid the greatest number of low-income Texans as possible.”

Eck continued: “As such, we will re-review all requests for funding draws allocated to the City of Houston by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The GLO will coordinate with HUD and other investigative entities to determine what actions should follow regarding these allegations. Fraud has no place in helping Texans recover from disaster.”

She concluded, “Anyone with information relating to potential fraud, waste, and/or abuse is encouraged to report it by calling 1-844-893-8937 or emailing cdr@recovery.texas.gov.”

Mayor’s Response

According to multiple news reports and a press release from the Mayor’s Office, Turner denied specific knowledge of the deal with his former law partner. He claimed there was no impropriety, that McCasland had raised no objections to the deal, and that he (Turner) had the right as Mayor to override McCasland’s objections.

The Mayor also asserted he was trying “to place affordable housing projects throughout the City…” Finally, he claimed he severed all ties with his former law partner before assuming his position as Mayor.

McCasland’s Point of View

McCasland insisted this was not the first time the Mayor’s office interfered. The Houston Chronicle, which broke the story, said “McCasland acknowledged the Mayor has the authority to overturn staff recommendations, but McCasland argued that in this case it represented a subversion of a competitive process to benefit one applicant.

McCasland said he was not alleging fraud, but said the pattern of behavior was emblematic of a broader problem in Turner’s administration, a “do-it-because-I-said-so” management style. McCasland did say that drives out public servants dedicated to integrity and breeds a “culture for corruption.”

Further, the Chronicle article quoted McCasland as saying he briefed the Mayor August 17 and again on August 24.

McCasland said the Clear Lake complex (Huntington at Bay Area) ranked 8th out of 12 proposals, and had the lowest percentage (60%) of its units reserved for low income tenants.

Here’s a 77-page document that catalogs nine months of correspondence between McCasland, MST (Mayor Sylvester Turner) and their staffs regarding the controversial project.

Note McCasland’s comments on page 4. He claims “The outcome of that process was predetermined before the funding opportunity was even issued.”

If you don’t read anything else, skip to the last page. It’s an email from McCasland to the Mayor dated September 17. In it, he summarizes all his objections to the Clear Lake deal. That would seem to contradict the Mayor’s claim that McCasland did not register his objections.

Mayor Fires McCasland

McCasland said to City Council, “I am being forced to participate in a charade that this was a competitive process, when I know it was not a competitive process. That’s the problem here and I’m being forced to ask my teammates to participate in that charade and that is not something that we can do and that is not something that we will do.”

According to those who watched the gripping testimony in City Council, it was like watching someone commit career suicide. By the end of the day, the Mayor issued a terse press release. He denied McCasland’s allegations, said he had lost confidence in McCasland, and that it was time to move on.

Why All of a Sudden?

The big question is this: Why now? McCasland and his embattled department have been under fire for years:

Coming forward when he did – as he did – almost felt like a Law & Order episode in which the DA flipped a witness with a promise of immunity. Some veteran City Hall observers felt McCasland was being unusually frank and fearless for someone at the center of such a huge mess. If there was a pattern of ethics violations, why wait years before objecting to them?

Mayor Likely Overstepped Authority

Both McCasland and the Mayor said the Mayor had the right to overturn staff decisions. But Eck pointed out the Mayor did not have the power to “rewrite” the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to favor one applicant; any project selected must meet federal regulations.

She said that had the City written the NOFA to favor affluent neighborhoods, and had HUD and the GLO approved it that way, there would be no problem at this point. However, the City did not do that.

From McCasland’s report and the documentation provided, it appears the City’s award went against the scoring system laid out in the published NOFA, resulting in a competition that was not full, fair and open. The result led applicants to believe their projects would be considered against one criterion when other unknown criteria were actually utilized. 

We now know the City awarded the project to a former partner of the Mayor in a high-income area…ignoring the posted and approved scoring system. In that regard, the Mayor evidently overstepped his authority.

This was not the first time the presence of the Mayor’s former partner in a deal has raised eyebrows and questions. The Houston Chronicle reported in 2018 that several city council members complained about the optics of the partner’s role as a subcontractor for a firm hired to find Harvey victims.

What Next?

The GLO has been in touch with HUD, the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, Gov. Greg Abbott’s office and the Department of Public Safety, according to Eck.

KTRK’s Ted Oberg said DPS would only be involved to investigate criminal matters.

Oberg also reported Wednesday that Chris Brown, the city’s controller, said, “This week’s revelations underscore an ongoing pattern concerning procurement processes and a continued lack of transparency at City Hall.”

Brown, who audits City projects, continued, “In the past several months alone, our office has been denied procurement documents required to conduct an audit of the Strategic Procurement Department and were told to stop all work on a financial transparency project that would bring much-needed insight into the city’s spending practices. Taxpayers deserve a city government that is transparent and above reproach. Unfortunately, recent events suggest that the city is falling short of that goal.”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/22/2021

1485 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.

Humble ISD North Transportation Center Now Complete, New Ag Barn Getting There

Humble ISD’s North Transportation Center adjacent to Woodridge Village on Ford Road is now complete. And the District’s new Ag Barn should be completed by the start of next year.

North Transportation Center Now Fully Operational

As I drove by the transportation center on Ford Road in Porter today, I noticed a steady stream of buses exiting the facility to pick students up from schools. Contractors were still completing the interior buildout just a few months ago. I quickly put up a drone and captured the images below.

Humble ISD’s press office confirmed today that the project is now totally complete and operational.

The property, located at 24755 Ford Road, encompasses about 12 acres.  The new center will save an estimated $2 million in operating costs due to shorter routes and improved response times.

(Looking north) Note the bus exiting the facility toward Ford Road on left.
This large detention pond on the north side of the transportation center will reduce the risk of flooding caused by rapid runoff from all that concrete.
Looking south. The project was completed so recently, that silt fencing from the construction still has not been removed.

Ag Barn Construction Could Finish by Early Next Year

While I had the drone up, I also took several pics of Humble ISD’s new ag barn about a block south. Note the cell tower in the photo above. It’s the same one in the photo below.

According to an Humble ISD spokesman, the contractor has finished exterior construction and is now focusing on interior buildout.

Looking north toward Humble ISD’s new ag barn in Porter. Ford Road in upper left. Transportation center in upper right.
Looking south toward smaller, triangular detention pond next to Mills Branch Road (upper right) and North Kingwood Forest (also upper right).
Wider shot showing location of new ag barn, where Ford Road (right) turns into Mills Branch Road (top) across from entrance to North Kingwood Forest.

Mills Branch (the creek) originates in the woods in the upper left. Mills Branch then goes through Woodstream Forest and Royal Brook before joining White Oak Creek and Caney Creek.

New ag barn is right under the C in Montgomery County. From Harris County Flood Education Mapping Tool.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/21/2021

1484 Days since Hurricane Harvey

New Flood-Insurance Rating System Starts October 1

A new flood-insurance rating system, designed to make rates reflect the true risk to an individual property will go into effect on October 1. FEMA calls it their Risk Rating 2.0 system. They describe it as Equity in Action. It’s FEMA’s attempt to put the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) on a sound actuarial footing and stop the system’s financial hemorrhaging.

Says FEMA, Risk Rating 2.0 is “not just a minor improvement, but a transformational leap forward. Risk Rating 2.0 enables FEMA to set rates that are fairer and ensures rate increases and decreases are both equitable.”

Based on More Data, More Variables

“The new system moves away from basing price primarily on a handful of broadly drawn and often dated flood map zones,” according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. The new rates reflect “a more detailed set of factors, including proximity to and size of a water source, flood frequency and type (such as heavy rainfall or coastal erosion), ground and building elevation, foundation types, and drainage issues.”

Source: FEMA Presentation in MaapNext Meeting
Source: FEMA Presentation in MaapNext Meeting

Sliding Scales not Price Brackets

“The more detailed analysis allows for prices that run along a sliding scale,” says Pew, rather grouping homes into brackets because they’re in the same mapped zone. Thus, low-risk homes will no longer be carrying the freight for high-risk homes.

Under Risk Rating 2.0, policyholders can save through mitigation activities such as elevating mechanical and electrical equipment above flood levels or installing flood openings.

Also, under the old system, all National Flood Insurance policy holders paid the same base rate. However, they could purchase additional insurance at substantially discounted rates. Thus, more expensive homes enjoyed an advantage over less expensive homes. But the new system will attempt to correct that imbalance.

Risk Rating 2.0 also gives policy holders savings for practical mitigation activities, such as elevating mechanical and electrical equipment above flood levels or installing flood openings.

So far, so good. Congress mandated the change to actuarily sustainable rates in 2012. At the time, people thought the rates would also help discourage development in flood prone areas.

Not Everyone Happy with New System

Not everyone is happy with the system, however. The Sugar Land City Council unanimously approved a resolution during an Aug. 3 meeting stating its opposition to Risk Rating 2.0. They expect it to result in increased flood insurance rates for the vast majority of policyholders in Fort Bend County.

A google search turned up many news stories about fears of massive rate increases. However, by law, most new rates may not increase by more than 18% per year, according to FEMA.

Gap Between Policies and Practice, At Least Initially

Still, several insurance companies have pointed out hidden inconsistencies between policy and practice in the new system.

NU Property Casualty 360, for instance, pointed out several hidden inconsistencies that undermine the equity goal. They include:

  • A new artificial rate cap. Under Risk Rating 2.0, regardless of risk, policyholders will never pay more than $12,125 per year. This effectively creates a subsidy that encourages development in the most flood-prone areas.
  • Rates still do not align with risk. Current policy holders will not be penalized for any losses during the past two decades. That said, the artificially low rate will immediately increase to reflect actual risk after the first claim under Risk Rating 2.0. For a period at least, the NFIP provides no way for homebuyers to discover the flood-loss history of a structure.
  • Rate discounts unrelated to specific risk will continue. The NFIP’s Community Discount System will continue to provide community-wide premium reductions regardless of an individual property’s risk. These reductions impact more than 70% of NFIP policies and provide discounts of up to 45% to every structure in the community regardless of actual risk.
  • There are still no refunds for many policyholders who want to trade up. Once an NFIP policy has been in force for more than 30 days, the NFIP will not allow a refund to a policyholder who cancels an NFIP policy and replaces it with private coverage. 

Pushback from Politicians

Several senators and congress people have complained about the new system and asked to delay the rollout to study impacts more closely.

The influential, Washington publication “The Hill” published a scathing op-ed of Risk Rating 2.0 in May. The author, Jainey Bavishi, director of the NYC Mayor’s Office of Climate Resiliency, felt that rising costs would force many to let flood-insurance policies lapse. She called the rollout “rushed.” She claimed, and I quote, the new policy “threatens to transform the National Flood Insurance Program from a financial lifeline into a crippling financial burden for thousands of low-income families in coastal cities.”

Phased-In Changes

Any change this massive was bound to cause political indigestion. FEMA has heard the criticisms and is trying to roll out the new system in a way that minimizes hardships. For instance, existing policies will be on an 18% “glide path” to their full risk rate. Said another way, FEMA will phase in the increases to make them more bearable. They will also give discounts for flood proofing, adding flood vents beneath homes, elevating homes and much more.

For policy holders in multi-floor apartment buildings, FEMA will now consider the actual floor you live on, not just quote a flat rate for everyone in a building. This should benefit renters who live on upper floors.

Timing

PHASE I

New policies beginning Oct. 1, 2021, will be subject to the new rating methodology. Also beginning Oct. 1, existing policyholders eligible for renewal will be able to take advantage of immediate decreases in their premiums.

PHASE II

All remaining policies renewing on or after April 1, 2022, will be subject to the new rating methodology.  

Get a Quote From Your Insurance Agent

In its efforts to make pricing reflect true risk, FEMA will now consider many new data sources and variables. I reviewed an hour-long FEMA presentation on the subject. At the end, I was left with one overwhelming conclusion. Call your insurance agent. Your price may go down. It may go up. It costs nothing to get a quote. But the cost of NOT having insurance when you need it can break the bank as we saw during Harvey and Imelda.

Of the 154,170 homes flooded in Harvey, 64% did not have a flood insurance policy in effect.

And in Tropical Storm Imelda, almost two-thirds of the homes flooded were outside the 100-year floodplain.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/20/2021

1483 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 732 since Imelda

1985 Upper San Jacinto Flood Control Study Prophetic, But Largely Unheeded

This morning, I came across a 1985 study by Wayne Smith and Associates for the Texas Water Development Board and the San Jacinto River Authority. It’s called the San Jacinto Upper Watershed Drainage Improvement and Flood Control Planning Study.

For an engineering study, it’s exceptionally easy to understand and the recommendations were prophetic. It almost reads like a primer for flood control.

Recommendations of specific projects aside, the principal recommendations are as valid today as they were then. Had only someone acted on them.

Make sure you at least read Chapter 5: Conclusions and Chapter 6: Examination and Recommendation of Basic Design Criteria for Watershed. Together, they total just five pages.

Purpose of Upper San Jacinto Study

The Upper San Jacinto study had four main goals:

  • Develop a comprehensive stormwater drainage plan
  • Recommend specific improvements
  • Evaluate/compare alternatives
  • Provide drainage authorities with information necessary to control flooding.

Problems of Rapid Development in Flat Areas

The study begins with a discussion of the problems of rapid development in flat areas. The Upper San Jacinto Watershed covers 1200 square miles. It includes all of Montgomery County and parts of Walker, Grimes, Waller, San Jacinto, and Liberty Counties. For the purposes of this study, the Harris/Montgomery County line formed the southernmost boundary.

Seven major streams comprise the watershed: the West Fork, Lake Creek, Spring Creek, East Fork, Caney Creek, Peach Creek, Luce Bayou and Tarkington Bayou.

The topography changes from rolling hills in the north and west to flat coastal plains in the south and east. The lack of slope in the southern and eastern regions seriously affects the ability of streams to drain stormwater.

The authors warned that as development would move northward, hydraulic “improvements” would alter natural stream patterns by increasing flow velocities and reducing ponding.

Without sufficient retention, development can accelerate runoff, leading to faster, higher peaks that contribute to flooding.

Even before urban development, they said, channels in the Upper San Jacinto Watershed did not have adequate capacity to transport runoff from large storms.

In 1985, at the time of the report, less than 5% of the land area in the watershed was developed. The Woodlands was relatively new and still building out. The report warned that because of development, increases in impervious cover “will require a more efficient drainage system to collect and transport runoff.”

The report lauded the type of development in The Woodlands, where, “discharges are no higher today than they were years ago in the undeveloped stages.” However, the report also cautioned that “…with most of the current development in the southern and eastern extremities of Montgomery County, watershed flooding problems may be greatly enhanced by urbanization.”

The report even prophesied ever greater amounts of subsidence moving north with urbanization.

The chapter which discussed planning said, “Right of way and reservoir land acquisition should occur while the land is open and available.” Sadly, with the exception of Lake Conroe, which had already been built, none of that happened.

Benefit/Cost Ratios of Regional Detention in Undeveloped Areas

The last advice sounds so simple, one wonders why no one acted on it. However, as I read through the economic analyses of alternatives (reservoirs, channel improvements, etc.), the reason became blindingly clear.

So few people lived in undeveloped areas in the Upper San Jacinto Watershed in 1985 that the annual flood damages are minuscule. For instance, there were only 39 structures in four Lake Creek floodplain areas that the authors examined. Annual damages totaled only $9,600. That made the Benefit/Cost Ratios (BCRs) for the various mitigation alternatives that they developed come out to less than .001 in some cases and .09 at most. Benefits equal costs at 1.0. So FEMA usually demands BCRs exceed 1.

But compare the cost of a reservoir then and now. In 1985, the authors estimated the total cost of a Walnut Creek reservoir (a tributary to Spring Creek) to be only $41,000,000. Today, the cost would be $132 million – more than 3X. But it would take many more homes out of the floodplain. So the BCR today could be 1.04 making the project doable (see page 44)…although much more expensive and much to late to help those who flooded recently.

It’s instructive to compare the project costs in the 1985 plan to those in the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Study released last December. Reliance on the BCR in this case seems to dis-incentivize future planning and cost reduction. There’s a major opportunity for improvement.

To get around this problem, the Harris County Flood Control District started its Frontier Program. The program buys up land for regional detention ponds (those that serve multiple developments), and then resells detention capacity back to developers for future use. Because regional detention is usually more efficient than developers building individual detention ponds on their own, it can actually lower developers’ costs while protecting the public and conserving money long term.

Most High-Level Recommendations Still Valid

Page 43 of the 1985 report makes six high-level recommendations (apart from specific projects) that are as valid today as they were then.

  1. Create a central agency to control, monitor, remedy and finance flood control for the entire watershed.
  2. Control development within the 100-year floodplain and prohibit it in the floodway with laws and regulations.
  3. Establish minimum building slab elevations in flood-prone areas.
  4. Limit fill in the floodplain.
  5. Develop procedures to follow when allowing floodplain development, i.e., not obstructing 100-year floods.
  6. Develop specific criteria, procedures and requirements for downstream impact analysis to compare Development A with Development B, and to analyze their combined effects.

Regular readers of this site have heard many of these recommendations before. The surprise, if there is one, is that we haven’t adopted them all already or that we haven’t adopted them consistently. Even where recommendations have been adopted, they are enforced inconsistently.

For future reference, the 1985 report can also be found on the reports page under the SJRA tab.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/19/2021

1482 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 731 since Imelda