Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin announced a meeting Thursday, July 8, 2021, at the Kingwood Community Center (4102 Rustic Woods) to provide updates on adding more floodgates to Lake Houston. The program to discuss the Lake Houston Dam Spillway Improvement Project will start at 6:00 p.m. The event will conclude at 7:45 p.m.
Floodgate enhancement was one of the three essential elements of the flood reduction strategy after Harvey. The other two were dredging and additional upstream detention.
At the CWA March meeting, directors also approved $4.4 million to begin Phase II of the project. Phase II calls for Black & Veatch to proceed to final engineering of the floodgates and a coffer dam to protect the work area during construction.
Lake Houston Spillway current conditionsPreliminary engineering called for crest gates to be added to the first 1000 feet of this spillway.
Additional Protection for 5,000 Structures, 35,000 Residents
The spillway improvement project will increase outflow capacity of the Lake Houston Dam, bringing it closer to that of the Lake Conroe Dam. Faster releases from Lake Houston floodgates in advance of storms will prevent or reduce upstream flooding, protecting about 35,000 residents and 5,000 structures.
This project is part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. A FEMA grant provides $4.3 million for the initial phase and positions the city to receive $42.7 million for construction.
Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin, Houston Public Works, and Coastal Water Authority have been working together under the direction of Chief Recovery Officer Stephen Costello to plan this public forum to discuss the progress of the floodgates.
Format of Meeting
Black & Veatch, the project engineers, will make a brief presentation followed by a short Q&A session and breakout sessions. The breakout session will let the community engage directly with project management staff and engineers in small groups to ask more detailed questions.
For more information, please contact the District E office at (832) 393-3008 or districte@houstontx.gov.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/8/2021 based on information from Dave Martin
1379 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/LakeHoustonDam-e1775832315715.jpg?fit=1100%2C593&ssl=15931100adminadmin2021-06-08 12:55:092021-06-08 13:04:28Save the Date: Floodgate Meeting on July 8, 6 PM at Kingwood Community Center
The conceptual feasibility study includes the design of two dams with three alternatives for each. One potential site will be along Birch Creek and another along Walnut Creek.
Spring Creek forms the Harris/Montgomery County Line for most of its length. It also bridges precincts 3 and 4 in Harris County.
Dry Dams with Fixed Height Spillways and Low-Flow Culverts
The San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Plan originally identified both sites. And both would feature “dry dams.” That means, they would contain no permanent water. Specs call for building the dams high enough to hold back a hundred year flood.
Each would contain a permanent fixed-height spillway. Water would flow over the spillway when it reaches 100-year level as defined in Atlas 14. The dams would also contain low-flow culverts allowing water lower than the spillway to drain slowly after a flood, as it would from a detention pond. None of the potential designs will consider gated structures.
Initial estimates in the SJR Master Drainage Plan released last year suggest that:
A 41-foot-high, 0.7 mile long dam on Birch Creek could contain 7,731 acre-feet of water in a hundred-year storm. That’s a foot of rain falling over a 12-square-mile area.
Likewise, a 46-foot-high, 1.2 mile long dam on Walnut Creek could contain 12,159 acre-feet. That’s a foot of rain falling over a 19-square-mile area.
Identifying ways to minimize or avoid environmental impacts
Soil surveys with borings up to 75 feet deep
Spillway design
Conceptual recommendations for dam design at each site
Estimating probable construction costs
Estimating land needs and costs
Identification of potential utility issues, such as pipeline crossings
Plans for raising or relocating roads, cemeteries and utilities outside the Atlas-14, 100-year floodplain
Estimating total project costs, financing costs, annual operations and maintenance costs
Developing a benefit/cost ratio based on reductions in flood damages over a 50-year period.
SJRA would lead the Spring Creek feasibility study. The local partners are seeking up to $1 million in matching funds from the Texas Water Development Board’s Flood Infrastructure Fund.
One Part of an Upstream Detention Solution
The big question is: How much benefit would people downstream in the Lake Houston Area get from Spring Creek dams? The answer is “some, but not as much as you might think.” That’s because, as you move farther downstream, the dam blocks a smaller percentage of the watershed. Think about it. Right below the dam, everything less than a 100-year storm would be intercepted. But by the time you get down to US59, you’re also getting water from Cypress Creek, Lake Creek, the West Fork and dozens of smaller streams and ditches.
So while the Spring Creek Dams could be part of a solution to offset future releases from the Lake Conroe Dam, it’s not the total solution for the Lake Houston Area. Regardless, it still would help many homes and businesses upstream along Spring Creek. Exactly how many? We’ll have to wait to see until we get the study results.
For the full text of the proposed interlocal agreement that Commissioners will vote on Tuesday, click here.
Cost of the study to local partners will depend on the match supplied by TWDB, which has not yet been finalized.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/7/2021 based on draft of a proposed Interlocal Agreement and the SJR Master Drainage Plan
1378 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/20210607-Screen-Shot-2021-06-07-at-1.39.44-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C693&ssl=16931200adminadmin2021-06-07 17:32:092021-06-07 17:38:10Harris County Commissioners Vote Tuesday on Feasibility Study of 2 Dams on Spring Creek Tributaries
The time for sitting on the sidelines of the subsidence debate is over. Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA-14) has finalized its proposed desired future conditions (DFCs). Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) is fighting them. It wants to exclude any mention of subsidence. So if you disagree with that point of view, speak up now or live with the consequences. LSGCD will hold a board meeting Monday at 2 pm to hear public comments. You can also register your opinions in writing until July 19, 2021.
See more below about the background of this crucial debate including a discussion of the issues; pros and cons; how you can make your voice heard and where you can get more information.
How GMAs Set Goals
GMA-14 comprises most of southeast Texas. See map below. It includes five groundwater conservation districts and two subsidence districts and four counties that have neither.
Every county in Texas belongs to a Groundwater Management Area. SE Texas belongs to GMA-14.
One purpose of a GMA is to bind the people of a region together to meet common goals. Significantly, if one county wants to abandon surface water and pump unlimited amounts of cheaper groundwater, it must first get permission from the other members of the GMA. That’s because pumping groundwater has consequences. It can cause neighboring wells to go dry, leaving rural ranchers without options.
It can also cause subsidence, in which one area sinks relative to surrounding areas. That can alter the gradient of rivers, causing water to move slower and back up more. Subsidence can also trigger geologic fault movement, disrupt pipelines, damage homes, and crack pavement.
In setting goals, GMAs also consider factors such as economic development and population growth. They typically plan 50 years or more ahead to ensure adequate water supplies.
Proposed Desired Future Conditions for GMA-14
GMA-14 has debated its next set of desired future conditions (DFCs) since 2016. At its last meeting, members finally adopted the following statement.
In each county in GMA 14, no less than 70 percent median available drawdown remaining in 2080 and no more than an average of 1.0 additional foot of subsidence between 2009 and 2080.
“In each county” means the numbers below represent county-wide averages or medians.
“70% median available drawdown remaining in 2080” means counties cannot draw down their aquifer(s) more than 30%. Seventy percent must remain at the end of the period – 2080. Each district controls this by monitoring aquifer levels and adjusting annual well permits to meet the goal.
“No more than an average of 1.0 additional foot of subsidence between 2009 and 2080” defines 2009 as the starting point for measuring subsidence and 2080 as the end.
Lone Star GCD Tries to Break Away
LSGCD has used a variety of arguments to fight the subsidence metric in DFCs. All failed to convince other GMA-14 members. Now LSGCD claims it will reach the drawdown limit before it reaches the subsidence limit, so subsidence should not be included in the limits.
Many observers have repeatedly commented on this position. “If it’s not a limiting factor, why fight it so hard?” they ask. LSGCD keeps repeating the argument without offering a satisfactory answer or showing proof. That raises even more suspicions. It’s like when your kid comes home and brags how well (s)he did in one class and refuses to discuss grades in others.
Pros and Cons
Surface water costs more than groundwater for several reasons. In this part of the world, surface water must be trapped in man-made lakes, treated extensively, and then shipped to users via canals or a pipeline network. In contrast, wells can be drilled near users on very little land.
But if everyone used well-water exclusively, aquifers would deplete rapidly, wells would run dry, and subsidence would kick in.
Aquifers can eventually recharge if you leave them alone long enough. But subsidence is forever. It occurs when “clay lenses” get smashed due to dehydration. Rehydrating them is impossible. One water professional used this analogy: Imagine smashing a brownie and then pouring water on it. It won’t return to its original state.
Also consider that the proposed subsidence limit is an average. In its sparsely populated northern reaches in the Sam Houston National Forest, MoCo has little water demand. However, in southern MoCo is growing by leaps and bounds.
Subsidence has already proven to be an issue there. It has triggered faults and cracked home slabs. Many feel they are now more susceptible to flooding because their homes sit in bowls between faults.
Critics of LSGCD’s move to eliminate a subsidence metric point out that without it, groundwater pumpers could exceed the drawdown limit and simply claim that aquifers would magically recharge in the last few years of the plan.
When The Woodlands began using more surface water in 2016 after completion of a surface water pipeline from Lake Conroe, the rate of subsidence dropped 75%.
Some neighborhoods in The Woodlands ALREADY SUBSIDED BY ALMOST A HALF FOOT BETWEEN 2009 and 2019. And four of those years followed a conversion to surface water that reduced the rate of subsidence 75%. So it’s real.
A return to the old rate of subsidence in The Woodlands would result in another 4-foot of drop by 2080.
Modeling also shows that Kingwood and Humble could subside 3 feet because of excessive groundwater pumping in MoCo while the Lake Houston Dam subsides only one foot. That could raise water floodwaters at the top of Lake Houston another 2 feet relative to the spillway at the dam.
Projected subsidence in MoCo with 70% of water in aquifers remaining.
Projected subsidence in Harris County with 70% remaining in aquifers by 2080
What Happens Is Up to You
Some people may prefer cheap water today and not care about the future or downstream neighbors.
The irony is that SJRA already built a surface water treatment plant, which some now advocate abandoning.
What’s more important to you? Short- or long-term savings? Leveling a foundation; repaving your driveway; repairing cracked walls and ceilings; and recovering from a flood cost far more than a few dollars a month on your water bill.
How To Register Your Concerns
Submit comments to LSGCD by:
Email:info@lonestargcd.org with the subject line “DFC Comments” no later than 11:59 p.m. on Jul. 19, 2021.
In Person: 2PM AT THE LONE STAR GCD OFFICE IN THE JAMES B. “JIM” WESLEY BOARD ROOM, 655 CONROE PARK NORTH DRIVE, CONROE, TEXAS 77303.
If you pre-register via the URL meeting link above, a password will be emailed to you in advance of the webinar. If you use the password to log, you WILL have the opportunity to provide live comments during the meeting. Use Webinar ID: 861 0914 6147 Password: Received via pre-registration.
You can also find several articles on this website. The easiest way to find them is by going to the index page and searching for GMA-14, Groundwater Management Area 14, Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District, LSGCD, or subsidence.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/6/2021
1377 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.
00adminadmin2021-06-06 18:32:062021-06-06 18:39:32LSGCD Hearing Public Comments 2 PM Monday on Desired Future Conditions, Subsidence
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) finalized nine investigations into Colony Ridge construction practices this week. Eight of the nine found violations. And six of the eight scolded Colony Ridge for lack of best management practices relating to erosion controls. The other two cited Colony Ridge for operating without a permit.
Summary of Violations
The TCEQ meticulously documented the findings with dozens of photos and supporting documents. The nine investigations total 2,341 pages. Below is a summary of the investigation numbers, subdivisions and violations:
#1699286, Sante Fe #6, operating without a permit
#1704908, Long Branch, best management practice (BMP) violations
#174909, Sante Fe #5, failure to meet final stabilization requirements, large bare areas of unstabilized soil
#1704912, Sante Fe #8, erosion control measures not installed
#1404914, Sante Fe #9, erosion control measures not installed
#1704916, Sante Fe #10 and #11, erosion control measures not installed
#1704918, Sante Fe #10 and #11, no violation
#1707467, Sante Fe #10 and #11, operating without a permit
The best management practices and erosion control measures cited above are designed to prevent the rivers of mud seen coming from Colony Ridge. The mud has partially plugged local creeks in Plum Grove, contributing to flooding. It has also contributed to sediment buildup farther downstream near the mouth bar of the San Jacinto East Fork.
Six of the TCEQ violations relate to best management practices and erosion control. For instance:
Planting grass can stabilize soils.
Silt fences can prevent dirt from entering ditches.
Rock gabions can reduce the velocity of water, thus reducing erosion.
But the investigations found little evidence of any such practices. And when they did, the measures were often ineffective due to lack of maintenance. For instance, water eroded around and under silt fences, rendering them useless.
Dirt piled on sides of ditches. No silt fences, grass, or gabions. Photo taken May 26, 2021.
When you clear thousands of acres at a time, erosion control is important to protect downstream neighbors.
Two of the other investigations found Colony Ridge operating without a valid permit.
Conditions For Obtaining Permits
The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requires developers to formulate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) as a condition of obtaining their permits. The plans should:
Control the perimeter of the site
Protect receiving waters adjacent to the site
Follow pollution prevention measures
Protect slopes and channels
Stabilize the site as soon as possible
Minimize the area and duration of exposed soils at any one time
Part of Colony Ridge expansion area covered in TCEQ investigations. Photo taken March 3, 2021.
The goals of pollution prevention plans include:
Retaining sediment on the property
Selecting, installing, inspecting, and maintaining sediment control measures in accordance with good engineering practices
Removing offsite accumulations of sediment that escapes the property at a frequency sufficient to minimize offsite impacts
Preventing litter from becoming a pollutant source in stormwater discharges
Accumulations of litter on banks of Colony Ridge ditch – definitely not a best management practice. Photo taken March 3, 2021.
Penalties Unclear at This Time
It’s unclear at this time whether the TCEQ violations will result in any fines for Colony Ridge. Typically, the TCEQ gives regulated entities a chance to remedy violations before levying fines. However, the recurring nature of these violations may call for a new approach. TCEQ has warned Colony Ridge about similar issues in the past, saying that Colony Ridge violations could adversely affect human health. However, violations continue.
Clearly, the ability to fix problems without a fine – after silt has been discharged into bayous, streams and rivers – seems like an incentive to ignore, not obey, regulations. Violators can simply fix problems if caught and, if not, take their profits to the bank.
Looking south. Photo taken May 26, 2021. Colony Ridge continues to push north with same construction practices.
Conclusions of All Nine Reports
The reports comprise almost 650 megabytes. They are far too large to post in a forum like this. However, I have captured screen shots of the reports’ conclusions for those who wish more detail.
#1699286: operating without a permit
#1704908: failure to maintain and properly install BMPs
#1740909: failure to achieve final stabilization requirements, large areas of bare soil
#1704910: Failure to maintain BMPs, install them properly and stabilize drainage channels.
#1704912: erosion control measures not installed
#1704914: failure to install even minimum erosion controls.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/5/2021, based on TCEQinvestigations
1376 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/20210526-RJR_8409.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-06-05 14:50:582021-06-05 15:04:04Eight TCEQ Investigations Reprimand Colony Ridge Construction Practices
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has joined an aggregate company it regulates in appealing a judge’s decision that voided an air-quality permit issued to the aggregate producer.
Photo of blasting used in limestone quarries. Courtesy of Stop 3009 Vulcan Quarry. According to the group, “Quarry blasting, crushing, and hauling operations emit high levels of carcinogenic particulate matter.”
Much at Stake
On March 5, 2021, two Texas Hill County environmental groups, Stop 3009 Vulcan Quarry and Friends of Dry Comal Creek won a lawsuit voiding the air-quality permit issued to Vulcan Materials. Vulcan needs the permit to turn a former ranch in Comal County into a 1500-acre open-pit limestone quarry and rock crushing plant. The property is in the middle of residential developments. It also sits atop the recharge zone for the Edwards Aquifer. That aquifer supplies drinking water for 2 million people.
The court battle between residents, Alabama-based Vulcan and the TCEQ has raged since June 2017 when Vulcan initially applied for a TCEQ air-quality permit. The groups objected. An administrative judge first supported the TCEQ and Vulcan. But District Court Judge Maya Guerra-Gamble overturned that decision. The most recent legal filing is an appeal of the appeal.
Response from Environmental Groups
In response, Stop 3009 Vulcan Friends of Dry Comal Creek said, “Unsurprisingly, TCEQ and Vulcan Construction Materials are filing a legal appeal, attempting to overturn the decision rendered by Judge Guerra-Gamble vacating Vulcan’s air permit. The appeal will be heard by the Third Court of Appeals.”
“While Vulcan’s motivations seem transparent, it’s a bit puzzling that TCEQ is spending taxpayer dollars and agency resources ostensibly supporting an out-of-state corporation, and in visible opposition to hundreds of Texans they are supposed to protect!”
Gist of Judge’s Ruling
I first reported on this issue on March 18, 2021. 459th Civil District Court Judge Guerra-Gamble ruled that:
TCEQ’s assertion that the quarry would not harm human health or welfare was not supported by evidence.
Vulcan’s emissions calculations were not representative and not supported by substantial evidence.
Vulcan’s air quality analysis did not account for cumulative impacts or emissions from the quarry and roads.
Vulcan’s choice of background concentration was arbitrary or capricious.
In the contested case hearing, the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) judge erred in allowing Vulcan to hide behind “trade secret” claims.
Plaintiffs were denied due process when the SOAH judge allowed Vulcan to conceal data using the “trade secret” excuse and did not allow plaintiffs to cross-examine Vulcan.
The TCEQ describes its mission as protecting the state’s public health and natural resources consistent with sustainable economic development. Its goal is “clean air, clean water, and the safe management of waste.”
Finding Balance Between Over-Regulation and Under-Protection
If Texas is to continue to grow, it must find the right balance between over-regulation and under-protection. We must also find ways to live with the legacy of 3-mile-wide quarries, such as the one Vulcan proposes – if that is, indeed, the only way to grow.
Below is a picture of the San Jacinto West Fork. Twenty square miles of sand mines ring the river between I-69 and I-45. This area will be scarred forever.
The giant Hallett aggregate mine on the West Fork of the San Jacinto is almost 2 miles east to west and 2 miles north to south.
Concrete lasts a few years, but the giant pits and the equipment concrete producers leave behind last forever. We must protect the environment that provides quality of life in order to attract new residents.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/4/2021
1375 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/blasting-dust-1.jpg?fit=900%2C600&ssl=1600900adminadmin2021-06-04 14:16:292021-06-04 14:24:21TCEQ Joins Aggregate Company in Appealing Revocation of Air-Quality Permit
The National Weather Service released this map around 7 a.m. Houston time this morning. It shows Houston in the bullseye with another 4 to 6 inches of rain predicted in the next five days. Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist, warns that flash flood watches may be needed by Friday into the weekend.
Houston Area is in the Bullseye and could receive another 4-6 inches of rain in the next five days.
Atmosphere Moisture Levels Support 1-3 Inches Per Hour Later Today
Yesterday’s active weather pushed down toward the coast overnight. The local air mass stabilized by Thursday morning. But afternoon heating and a rapid influx of Gulf moisture favor the development of numerous thunderstorms later today over the region.
Moisture levels in the atmosphere support heavy rainfall with hourly rainfall rates of 1-3 inches per hour possible under the strongest cells. Lindner notes that we saw this yesterday evening throughout the Lake Houston area.
Heaviest Rains Expected Friday
However, the main storm system will begin to move slowly into southwest and west TX on Friday. It will dominate local weather through the weekend, according to Lindner, as several disturbances rotate around around it and feed off the near-continuous stream of rich Gulf moisture over the area.
Expect widespread showers and thunderstorms Friday through the weekend with frequent rounds of heavy rainfall.
Jeff Lindner, Harris County meteorologist
Upper level winds will support cell training over the area this weekend. Flash flooding will be a concern.
Rainfall Amounts, Impacts
Additional rainfall amounts of 4-6 inches will be possible over the next 5 days. Much of this will fall during periods of heavy rainfall. Isolated totals could be significantly higher under any areas of sustained training. Hourly rainfall rates of 1-3 inches will be possible, which could support rapid street flooding.
Ground Still Saturated
Grounds are still saturated from heavy rainfall in May. And some watersheds are still elevated from the rainfall yesterday evening. Rainfall over the next several days will likely generate run-off into local watersheds resulting in rises. Any areas of sustained heavy rainfall will increase the threat for channel flooding given the delicate groundwater situation currently in the area.
Posted by Bob Rehak on June 3, 2021, based on info from the NWS and HCFCD
1074 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/image001.gif?fit=800%2C561&ssl=1561800adminadmin2021-06-03 11:53:592021-06-03 11:54:12Houston in Bullseye: NWS Predicting Another 4-6 Inches of Rain in Next 5 Days
The 2019 Federal Briefing (page 56) separates Brays improvements into two areas:
Upstream (west of Sam Houston Tollway)
3 detention basins: 595 surface acres; 9,623 acre-feet of storage – enough to hold a foot of water falling over 15 square miles (13% of entire watershed)
3.7 miles of channel conveyance improvements, including control structures, from Old Westheimer Rd. to SH 6
Downstream (east of Sam Houston Tollway)
17.5 miles of channel conveyance improvements from the mouth to Fondren Rd.
1 detention basin: 252 surface acres; 1,865 acre-feet of storage – enough to hold a foot of water falling over 3 square miles
30 bridge replacements/modifications, and/or channel conveyance improvements under bridges (16 due for completion this year)
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) manages, designs, and builds the projects; buys land, easements, rights-of-way; relocates utilities; adjusts bridges (except for railroads); and operates and maintains the channel after construction.
Benefits and Costs
After completion, upstream improvements should give residents a 100-yr. level of flood protection (1% annual chance).
Likewise, downstream improvements should reduce the number of structures:
In the 4% or 25-year flood plain from 3,520 to 50.
In the 100-year flood plain from 16,800 to 1,800.
Total Cost Estimate: $480M though 2019 (Source: 2019 HCFCD Federal Briefing, Page 45)
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 7.0 (Source: 2019 HCFCD Federal Briefing, Page 56)
The size of the cost in conjunction with the benefit-cost ratio makes these numbers impressive. The primary requirement for the ratio is that it exceeds 1.0, i.e., that the benefits exceed the costs.
Brays’ watershed includes 114 square miles. That makes the cost per square mile a whopping $4.4 million throughout the watershed. However, one must also consider that the population of Brays is the largest of any watershed in Harris County – more than 700,000 of which (57.5%) qualifies as low-to-moderate income.
The map below, taken from a 2020 HCFCD grant application to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), shows the distribution of income throughout the watershed. Areas such as West University and the Medical Center in the middle (blue) rank higher in income than areas east and west (tan/red).
LMI quartiles within Brays Bayou Watershedas of 2020.Source: HCFCD HUD grant application.
Possible Reasons for Large Investment
You could justify this extraordinary level of investment any number of ways. By the:
Large population
High population density
High benefit/cost ratio
Protection of critical infrastructure, such as the Texas Medical Center
Number of homes and businesses flooded historically – also the largest in Harris County: 32,194 structures since Allison (Source: 2019 Federal Briefing: Pages 16-21)
Length of time projects have been in the pipeline (most before Harvey and some even before Allison)
Proximity to older, central part of county
Do not underestimate the last two points. Funding for many flood-mitigation projects can take decades.
Disproven Theories
Regardless of the reasons why Brays has received so much investment, one can also look at what this example does not show. It does not support the “equity” narrative propounded by some. That narrative asserts low-to-moderate-income neighborhoods receive less flood-mitigation funding because of lower home values compared to more affluent neighborhoods. Those affluent neighborhoods theoretically get more flood-mitigation funding because they allegedly support higher benefit-cost ratios (BCRs).
Home Value Alone Does Not Determine Benefit/Cost Ratio
The 7.0 BCR in Brays proves that low-to-moderate income neighborhoods are not automatically disadvantaged. Population density can offset lower property values. A whole apartment complex can sit on the same amount of land as one suburban home, yet the apartments would have higher value.
Direct Physical Damages to Buildings, Contents and Inventory
Essential Facility and Critical Infrastructure Serivce Loss
Human Impacts
Economic Losses
Environmental Benefits
Provisioning Services
Regulating Services
Supporting Services
Cultural Services
Social Benefits
Recreational Benefits
Health Benefits
Aesthetic Benefits
Economic Revitalization
Brays Watershed Investment Not Suffering From Discrimination
The Brays watershed cuts across racial, ethnic and socio-economic boundaries. Flooding has been recognized as a problem here for decades and HCFCD has successfully obtained many grants during that time. HCFCD has also invested more in Brays than any other watershed. Like Halls Bayou and Greens Bayou, the narrative re: Brays is far more complex than some acknowledge.
Photos of Improvements in Bray’s Bayou Watershed
On May 26, I flew from Beltway 8 West to the Ship Canal east of downtown along Brays Bayou. Out of more than 1100 images, here are 16 that represent what you see along the way. Lots of detention ponds, channel improvements, and new bridges. The bridges are higher and often wider, with wider supports to avoid constrictions and blockages. New bridges never have more than two supports in the water flow; some old ones had seven.
Arthur Storey Park at Beltway 8 West and Bellaire Blvd. Looking N toward Westchase District.
Southern part of same park. Looking NE across BW8 West.
Looking NNE at Hilcroft and North Braeswood Blvd.
Looking WSW across same new bridgeat Hillcroft.Note wide spans and wings designed to prevent erosion.
Looking north at new bridge over Brays at Chimney Rock
SW Corner of Loop 610 looking toward downtown in upper right.
Same intersection south of Galleria area. Note complexity where seven streams of traffic intersect.
Looking east toward downtown along Brays just inside of Loop 610 at detention pond. Note sewage treatment plant across bayou.
Looking north across new bridge over Brays along Buffalo Speedway toward Greenway Plaza in background.
Looking NE toward downtown in background along Main Street. Medical Center is in middle of frame.
Looking NE toward downtown where Fannin St. crosses Brays at UT Health Science Center.
Looking NE toward Med Center and downtown in background across another new bridge over Brays. Note the electrical infrastructure next to the bayou.
288 and Brays. Bridge construction on Almeda.
New Bridge over Brays at South 75th.
Looking NE across Brays at new railroad bridge near Tipps Street.
Downstream end of Brays near Buffalo Bayou. The ship canal and Port of Houston are in background.
As these pictures show, flood mitigation funding isn’t all about home value. Brays traverses some of Houston’s most critical infrastructure, job centers, rail lines, diverse neighborhoods and employment centers.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/20210520-RJR_6999.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-06-03 10:53:512021-08-24 15:07:33Brays Bayou Received Approximately Half Billion in Flood Mitigation Funding In Last 23 Years
Ever since Harvey, Cypress Creek residents near I-45 have been caterwauling that the southbound feeder road is cattywumpus. For those who may not speak fluent Texan, that first word means “screaming” and the second means “skewed” or “out of alignment.”
So on my latest helicopter flight, I flew over the bridge to see what was up. Or down. Actually, the road bed appears level. And nothing has yet fallen into the creek.
However, aerial photos indicate that the bridge panels are indeed cattywumpus. Note how the side guardrails seem to be out of alignment. Also note uneven gaps in the bridge panels (tight on one side, wide on the other). Finally note the vegetation growing or stuck in the cracks, and the un-level bridge support – at bottom of center oval in row of three.
This image taken on 5/26/2021 and cropped from image below.I-45 Southbound Feeder Road at Cypress Creek
For now, the bridge seems to be holding. But I’m not sure I would want to be the first one to drive over this after the next big flood.
During Harvey, residents say, this bridge went completely underwater. It appears that the force of the water lifted and twisted the bridge panels as much as 6 to 10 inches. However, TxDoT, the responsible authority in this case, has not yet fixed the issue.
Repairs Delayed
According to resident Frank Adamek, TxDoT originally said it would fix the bridge in 2020. Now, says Adamek, TxDoT says they hope to bid the job by the end of 2021 and start construction in March of 2022.
The bridge has other issues, too. Adamek says, the supports under the main lanes are 110 feet across. That allows trees swept downstream in floodwaters to pass through. However, the supports under the southbound feeder road are only 26 feet apart. Adamek says that they have caught trees and backed water up toward homes in the area.
Extreme events, such as Harvey, tend to reveal problems we didn’t even realize existed. Once you see them, though, they’re hard to forget. I, for one, intend to stay off that feeder road.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/2/2021
1373 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/20210526-RJR_7724-4-copy.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-06-02 11:55:212021-06-03 13:55:47I-45 Feeder Over Cypress Creek Is Cattywumpus
Humble ISD’s new North Transportation Center appears to be “dried in,” as they in construction. That means the main building has walls, windows and a roof. Photos taken on 5/26/21 show construction equipment still in front of the building indicating they have moved to the “interior buildout” phase of construction.
Humble ISD’s new north transportation center is nearly 100% concrete except for the large detention pond on the far left, much of which is out of frame.
When complete, the property will store buses for a large portion of the District’s 14,000 students who use them.
The property at 24755 Ford Road encompasses about 12 acres. The target opening date for the new transportation center: sometime in 2021. It certainly looks, at this point, as if the District will accomplish that goal.
Having an additional transportation center will save an estimated $2 million in operating costs due to shorter routes and improved response times, according to Humble ISD. It will also free up space at the district’s main transportation center to accommodate growth in the southern part of the District.
The groundbreaking ceremony for the new North Transportation Center occurred just about 8 months ago on Friday, November 6, 2020.
New Agricultural Science Center Status
About a quarter mile south on Ford Road from the Transportation Center, DT Construction has erected steel to frame out most of Humble ISD’s new ag barn facility. The old one at Deer Ridge Park in Kingwood flooded several times in recent years placing the animals at risk.
The center, measuring 29,000 square feet, will have the capacity to hold 70 pigs, and 70 goats or lamb. Additionally, there are 20 poultry and rabbit pens, along with room for 24 cattle. The new center will also include a practice arena, teacher offices, restrooms, a designated turnout area, comprehensive security measures, and expanded parking. Cost to build the new center totals $4.5 million.
Status of construction at Humble ISD’s new ag barn in Porter as of 5/26/2021.
Target completion date for this facility is also later this year. Although it doesn’t look quite as far along, keep in mind that some of these buildings will be open-air barns that require far less work than the transportation center facilities.
The new 6.9-acre facility sits on higher ground. Although it’s near the headwaters of Mills Branch (wooded area at top of photo above), only a tiny portion of it sits in the 500-year flood plain, according to construction plans. Mills Branch drains through Kingwood’s Royal Brook and joins White Oak Creek downstream. (See map below.)
The ag facility, too, has a substantial detention pond. See the triangular area in the upper right portion of the photo above.
Google Earth shows the pond measures about .53 acres. Harris County Flood Control recommends a new minimum detention rate of .65 acre-feet per acre for properties smaller than 640 acres under new Atlas-14 rainfall rates.
That means this pond would have to be about 8.5 feet deep to comply. I haven’t surveyed it. But it appears to be that deep.
The pond for the transportation center measures about 1.7 acres out of a 12-acre site. Assuming that pond is also approximately 8 feet deep, that appears to offer more than enough detention capacity to comply with the .65 acre-feet per acre rule of thumb also.
The North Transportation Center is in Montgomery County and the Ag Science Center straddles the Harris/Montgomery County line. However, both lie within the City of Houston’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction and the detention ponds would need to meet the City’s requirements which mirror Harris County’s.
It’s good to see the Humble ISD taking a responsible approach to floodwater detention. The Humble ISD 2018 school bond made both of these projects possible.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/31/2021
1371 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/20210526-RJR_8286.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-05-31 13:45:242021-05-31 13:49:42Humble ISD New North Transportation Center and Ag Barn Shaping Up Nicely
It’s that time of year again. Hurricane season officially starts Tuesday and runs through November 30. Here are checklists that can help you prepare for and recover from hurricanes.
Hurricanes can strike anywhere, anytime. The time to prepare is not when one is bearing down on you. It’s now. When you have time. Supplies are plentiful. Internet access is available. You’re calm. And can think things through.
For future reference, you can find these checklists on my Links Page under the Preparedness subhead.
Start reviewing these now. It’s never too early to plan!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/30/2021
1370 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Denise-Faulkner.jpeg?fit=1200%2C899&ssl=18991200adminadmin2021-05-30 12:48:052021-05-30 13:10:03Preparation Checklists for Hurricane Season
