LSGCD Finally Approves Phase II of Subsidence Study, Only One Problem…

At its April 13, 2021 board meeting, the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) finally approved Phase 2 of its Subsidence Study. Approval of the study had been on the agenda for months, but kept getting postponed. It was only after Groundwater Management Agency 14 (GMA-14) insisted on a subsidence metric in its Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) last Friday, that LSGCD finally approved the study this Tuesday.

Samantha Reiter, General Manager of LSGCD, has repeatedly stated for months that subsidence is not a limiting factor in Montgomery County, so it shouldn’t be included in DFCs for Montgomery County. She made three motions in the GMA-14 meeting last week that would have let LSGCD avoid a subsidence limitation that she claimed did not apply.

The study – which might or might not support that conclusion – will take 60 weeks to complete. But the Texas Water Development Board deadline for DFCs from all groundwater management areas is January 5, 2022 – in 38 weeks.

The study will cost $122,700 and arrive 22 weeks after the train leaves the station.

For the full details of the study scope of work, costs, and timetable that LSGCD approved last night, click here.

Scope of Work to Focus on MoCo

A thorough reader will also note that while LSGCD has been trumpeting “subsidence is not a limiting factor here,” the scope of work acknowledges that Phase One of the study was basically a literature review of pre-existing studies. Most of those were based in other counties.

The ostensible purpose of the Phase Two study is to develop data specific to Montgomery County and LSGCD (see pages 1/2). So it appears, they may not really obtain data to prove or disprove their claim until long after DFCs must be finalized by statute.

Lone Star Still Hopeful It Can Avoid Subsidence Metric

To her credit, Ms. Reiter admitted later in the board meeting that GMA-14 rejected her three alternative motions to make a subsidence DFC optional. However, during that discussion, she also said she thought part of the pushback came because she circulated her motion(s) for review at 11 p.m. the night before the meeting. That angered some people who said they had been begging for motions to review, even if only in draft form, for months.

Reiter stated last night to her board that she hoped those GMA-14 members would reconsider her motions in October. That would happen after the public comment period on the DFCs adopted last Friday. However, making a major change at that point might trigger a second 90-day public comment period. That’s going to be tight. Only 91 days exist between October 6th (the next GMA-14 meeting) and January 5, the state’s mandatory deadline.

Two Potential Issues with Study Scope

First, LSGCD said it plans to review the DFCs with stakeholders. But many of the people impacted are outside Montgomery County and they aren’t considered “stakeholders.” For instance, models show that at the rate LSGCD wants to pump groundwater, it would cause approximately 3 feet of subsidence in the Kingwood, Humble, Atascocita and Huffman areas but only 1 foot of subsidence at the Lake Houston Dam. That would essentially bring floodwaters two feet closer to upstream homes in Harris County. But we’re not considered LSGCD stakeholders.

Subsidence in Harris County that could be triggered if Lone Star pumps as much water as it voted to.
Lake Houston Dam During Harvey had five times more water going over it than goes over Niagra Falls on an average day. More than 16,000 homes and 3,300 businesses in the Lake Houston Area flooded during Harvey.

Second, the scope of work for the Lone Star subsidence study says, “we will evaluate logs up to 10 miles beyond the Montgomery County boundary to aid in constraining the interpolation of surfaces within LSGC.” Said another way, it appears that they won’t evaluate their impact on Harris County. The purpose of a groundwater management area is to bind all the people of a region together in a common cause. But that doesn’t seem to be happening here.

Fortunately, Harris County residents will still have an opportunity to provide input directly to GMA-14 or the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.

People must stay engaged on this issue. We should not assume it is behind us simply because GMA-14 adopted some proposed DFCs for public comment.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/14/2021

1324 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.

GMA-14 Adopts Desired Future Conditions, But Not Without a Fight from LSGCD

On Friday, April 9, 2021, Texas Groundwater Management Area-14 (GMA-14), which comprises 21 counties in Southeast Texas, finally adopted metrics for Desired Future Conditions (DFCs). These define how much groundwater each conservation district can pump from aquifers and how much subsidence they will tolerate until 2080.

However, Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) continued to fight a subsidence metric even though they repeatedly claimed subsidence was not an issue for them. They fought to make the subsidence metric optional in Montgomery County. When that failed, discussion shifted to how much flexibility LSGCD has to implement goals adopted by the group.

Below, I summarize meeting highlights. The time codes below will take you to the relevant portions of the video. You can access it by clicking this link. It will take you to a registration page. Fill in your name and email, and click register to view the video.

Opening Comments

Public comments, a motion to approve minutes from previous meetings and a request by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for feedback on the state water plan took up the first twenty and a half minutes.

General Discussion of DFCs

At 20:33, the group started discussing Agenda Items 7 and 8 regarding the DFCs. For the next half hour they discussed, in general terms:

  • What happens if GMA-14 and Lone Star disagree on DFCs (18:30)
  • The process of evaluating proposals (25:30)
  • What DFCs mean (30:30)
  • Which goals are most relevant where (32:00)
  • Limiting factors within each district and how each gets to decide the best way to achieve goals in its Groundwater Reduction Plans (37:15)
  • DFCs considered by the group in previous months (38.30)
  • The importance of measuring subsidence (41:30)
  • How Lone Star wants the flexibility to determine which metrics apply to itself, i.e., not measuring subsidence (46:20)

First Motion

Having laid the groundwork for voting on DFCs, at 50:30, the group began making motions. The first was to adopt Resolution 2021-04-09. This is resolution features multiple metrics based on the Houston Area Groundwater Model approved by the TWDB. Specifics include:

  • No less than 70% of available drawdown will remain in wells by 2080 (defined by the average height of water columns in wells to well bottoms).
  • One foot of additional subsidence on average across a county
  • A pumping increase of no more than 30,000 acre feet per year
Cover page of first motion to be approved, complete with “whereas’s”

John Martin, the chairman of GMA-14, stated that he believes this is the “most centrist” of the different scenarios the group had been examining. (52:30)

Samantha Reiter, general manager of the LSGCD in MoCo, said that she had quite a few issues with this motion. Her board did not approve it, therefore she opposed it. She also stated that she believed “each county should be able to adopt its own metrics. That’s critical.”

At 56:20, members vote. The motion carried 4 to 1. Only LSGCD voted No. Everyone breathed half a sigh of relief. But it didn’t end there.

Second Motion (LSGCD’s First)

At 57:20, Reiter made the first of three alternative, rapid-fire motions. She requested members adopt a resolution that she sent to them for review at 11 p.m. the previous evening. This motion gave groundwater conservation districts the flexibility to adopt metrics that work best for them. Reiter claims “subsidence is not a limiting factor” in MoCo, so she “can’t support it.”

Editorial comment: She’s saying in essence, “Subsidence is irrelevant because it won’t come into play. Then she argues tooth and nail against including the metric as she has for months. Why? It makes one suspicious.

Bob Rehak

At 61:30, she recapped key elements of her motion. They included:

  • Leave 70% of groundwater in place by 2080 for those counties where that’s a limiting factor
  • No more than 1 foot average subsidence for those counties where that’s a limiting factor
  • Each district can adopt the metric it chooses based on “Model Run D.”

During the discussion, Reiter also claims, “This doesn’t impact anyone else.” A critic points out that that is false. He also points out that Model Run D was not in the written resolution she submitted.

The motion fails: 2 FOR, 3 AGAINST.

Third Motion (LSGCD’s Second)

When that motion failed, Reiter immediately made another at 1:07:15. Key elements included:

  • Leave 70% of groundwater in place
  • Optional subsidence metric.

This motion also died.

Fourth Motion (LSGCD’s Third)

At 1:11:30, Reiter immediately made her third alternative motion: “That we approve two alternative motions, the one already approved and the one I just laid out” (with an optional subsidence metric). She wants to put BOTH out for public comment.

At 1:12:50, the representative from TWDB says, “I don’t see a provision under Chapter 36 for competing proposals.” He adds, “That’s not what the GMA is tasked with doing.”

A lawyer observes at 1:17:30 that the motion needs to be clear enough for people to provide public comment. He also worries that if one of the alternatives is substantially modified after public comment, that they might need a second round of public comment.

Reiter then modifies the motion at 1:19:30. She stripped from her proposal the wording of the previously approved, written resolution. She also suggested that they vote only on the metrics which are virtually identical to those approved in the very first motion. Then she calls on Stacey Reese, Lone Star’s legal counsel, who chimes in at 1:21:30. Reese explores the nooks and crannies of legal nuance with the other lawyer and the TWDB. She asserts that:

  • They don’t need to vote on a full resolution with explanatory text.
  • They can make two proposals.
  • If you propose multiple alternatives for public comment, it’s no violation of the rules. Therefore, there would be no need to go back out for public comment a second time.

Members attempted to clarify the motion at 1:19. Basically, the “resolution” turned into a statement of metrics from the very first motion (minus the “whereas’s”).

They never do circle back to whether a subsidence metric would be optional.

At 1:24:30, Martin asks what the purpose of all that was. That question remains.

At 1:28:30, the motion passes unanimously. The cost of not printing a lengthy legal notice in newspapers appeals to some of the members. This apparently superseded the first motion; but that was never clarified.

Next Steps

GMA-14’s technical consultant will craft language to be specific about what the motion does or doesn’t include. (1:30:30). According to Martin, at a minimum, the statement of Proposed DFCs will include two metrics:

  • No less than 70% median available drawdown remaining in 2080
  • No more than 1 additional foot of average subsidence between 2009 and 2080.  Then they set the next meeting for the first Wednesday in October and adjourned.

Then the statement will be put out for public comment. More news to follow.

How those metrics were explained in the first resolution adopted earlier.

LSGCD Meeting 6 PM Tonight

The regularly scheduled April meeting of the LSGCD board is tonight. It will be interesting to see how Reiter spins the results of the GMA-14 meeting. Here’s the agenda and background information. Pay particular attention to Items 9 through 12. They include discussion of the second phase of a subsidence study, results of the GMA-14 meeting, and a discussion of the legal implications. Here’s how to watch it live. If you want to make public comments, see the instructions in the agenda. The fun starts at 6 p.m.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/13/2021 (Updated at 6pm to revise time codes per newly posted video).

1323 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.

How to Support House Bill 2525 and Additional Dredging for Lake Houston Area

State Representative Dan Huberty has introduced House Bill 2525. It would create a Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District within Harris County. That would include the headwaters of the lake on the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto. The District would have the power to remove sediment and debris on an ongoing basis in perpetuity.

Rogers Gully Mouth Bar
Rogers Gully Mouth Bar. Many ditches and streams around the lake are blocked like this one.

The District would NOT have the power to levy taxes or condemn land, but it COULD enter into interlocal agreements with political subdivisions and corporate entities to help cover expenses and repayment of bonds. The Mayor of Houston and the Harris County Judge would appoint a board to govern the District.

House Bill 2525 would take effect immediately if receives a two-thirds vote of both houses. Otherwise, it would take effect on September 1, 2021 if signed into law by the governor.

Brandon Creighton has filed an identical companion bill in the Senate, SB 1892. Neither bill has passed through committees yet.

Public Hearing Scheduled for Tomorrow Morning

The House Natural Resources Committee will hold public hearings on HB 2525 Tuesday morning, 4/13/2021. You can support the bill three ways at this point:

  • Testify in person
  • Testify via Zoom.
  • Submit a public comment via the House website.

For in-person witness registration, see: https://mytxlegis.capitol.texas.gov/HWRSPublic/About.aspx. Instructions related to public access to the meeting location, and health and safety protocols for attending this meeting are available at: https://house.texas.gov/committees/public-access-house-committee-meetings/

A live video broadcast of this hearing will be available at: https://house.texas.gov/video-audio/

Texas residents who wish to electronically submit comments related to agenda items on this notice without testifying in person can do so until the hearing is adjourned. See: https://comments.house.texas.gov/home?c=c390

Huberty’s office is not sure what order the committee will call the bills up. But the hearing will begin at 8 AM. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/schedules/html/C3902021041308001.htm

The House convenes at 10 AM and the committee will reconvene upon adjournment. “If we do not get to the bill in those first two hours,” said Casey Christman, Huberty’s assistant, “it may be last afternoon before it gets heard. It could end up being a very lengthy day.”

Key Points to Make

All things considered, I chose to register my support via the house website. It could not have been easier and only took a couple minutes. The site is extremely well organized. The key points I made included:

  • Maintenance on the lake has been deferred for decades.
  • The removal of accumulated sediment will reduce flooding and increase lake capacity.
  • This will support the economic vitality of the region.
Even though most of the above-water portion of the West Fork Mouth Bar have been removed by now, this chart of depth soundings shows that an underwater plateau still exists that can force flood waters up and out of the channel.

Please support House Bill 2525. To learn more about sediment and debris buildups around the lake, see these posts:

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/12/2021

1322 Days after 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 Legislation that Could Affect Lake Houston Area Flood Control

New legislation has been introduced in the 87th Texas Legislature that could affect the future of Lake Houston Area flood control. Here is a list that shows the current status of key bills. It includes a high-level summary, plus links to the text of the bills, and their authors. If you wish to testify on a bill, contact the author or the committee hearing it. Below is a brief summary of the most important (in my opinion) bills.

HB 2525: Perpetual Dredging for Lake Houston Area

Dan Huberty’s bill would create a dredging and maintenance district for the Lake Houston Area. It would dredge perpetually to reduce flood risk and help maintain the capacity of Lake Houston. The Natural Resources Committee will hold a public hearing on 4/13/2021.

HB 4478: Sand Mine Reclamation

Dan Huberty’s bill requires restoration plans for sand mining operations in the San Jacinto watershed. It lays out the requirements for such plans and also requires filing a performance bond to cover the cost of reclamation when mining is complete. If the mine abandons the property without restoring it, the bond would be enough to cover the cost of the work. It’s currently in the Natural Resources Committee. A hearing has not yet been scheduled.

HB 767: Best Practices for Sand Mines

HB 767, another Huberty bill, would require the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to develop and publish best management practices for sand mining consistent with all applicable environmental laws and regulations. The bill has been referred to Environmental Regulation, but a hearing is not yet scheduled.

HB 4341: Transfer of Regulatory Responsibility for Sand Mines

Kyle Biedermann introduced a bill to transfer regulatory responsibility for sand mines from the TCEQ to the Railroad Commission of Texas. The Environmental Affairs Committee has not yet scheduled a hearing.

HB 2422: Regulation of Sand Mine Locations

HB 2422 by Erin Zwiener would allow county commissioners with populations greater than 500,000 to regulate the location of sand mines in certain circumstances based on proximity to residences, schools, places of worship, hospitals, and land platted for residential development.

HB 1912: Air and Water Quality Permit Requirements for Concrete Plants

Terry Wilson’s HB 1912 would raise the bar for Concrete Plants attempting to get air and water quality permits. It would require them to establish monitoring equipment. It would also affect blasting, lighting, noise generation from trucks, and restoration among other things. It’s in Environmental Regulations, but no hearing has yet been scheduled.

HB 3116: Nominations for SJRA Board

Will Metcalf’s HB 3116 would allow Montgomery County commissioners to nominate board members for the SJRA which the Governor could then accept or reject. It also sets the term for directors at 6 years and changes the number of board members from 7 to 6, contrary to the state constitution. It’s in the Natural Resources committee but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

CSHB 4575: Election of SJRA Board

Another Metcalf bill, HB 4575 would allo election of SJRA officers. Sounds democratic, until you realize that only those within the District would vote and Harris County is defined elsewhere as outside the district. We have all seen, as with the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District, how private entities can easily take over a board in low interest, low turnout elections and then act in a way contrary to public interest (as in voting to virtually double groundwater pumping and ignore subsidence).

CSHB 3801: Handling of Unreasonable Desired Future Conditions for Groundwater

CSHB 3801 is a committee substitute bill. It defines how the Texas Water Development Board must handle petitions protesting “unreasonable” desired future conditions (DFCs) in groundwater management plans. The language in this bill is opaque. Even the analysis is.

SB 314: Notification of Flood History to Renters

SB 314 by Joan Huffman mandates that people renting properties would receive the same notification as people buying properties. The bill affects properties in the floodway, 100-year floodplain, 500-year floodplain, and any property that has flooded within the previous 5 years. If the tenant is not given proper notice, tenant may recover damages, one month’s rent, and attorney fees. Referred to Business & Commerce committee but no hearings set yet.

HB 531: Disclosure of Flood History and Floodplain Status to Renters

HB 531 by Armando Walle is similar to SB 314, but has already passed the House. It does not include the 500-year floodplain, but does include flooding from streets and ditches. This is the bill to watch. It has considerable traction and six co-authors.

HB 1059: Disclosure of Floodplain Status for Properties under 15 Acres

HB 1059 by Phil Stephenson requires sellers to disclose whether any part of a property smaller than 15-acres is in a flood plain. Bill was reported favorably as substituted but substitute has not yet been posted. SB 461 by Lois Kolkhorst is an identical companion bill in the senate.

HB 1949: Requires State Agencies to Reflect Climate Changes in Strategic Plans

Jasmine Crockett’s HB1949 would require certain state agencies such as TCEQ and TWDB to reflect weather and climate changes in their strategic plans. SB306 is the companion bill in the Senate. The State Affairs committee has not yet set a date for public hearings. Other representatives filed similar or identical bills, too: Michelle Beckley (HB 1956), Eckhardt (SB 306), Thierry (HB 2017), Reynolds (HB 3246), and Fierro (HB 4178).

HB 1681: Prohibiting Construction of Assisted Living Facilities in a 500-year Floodplain

Sam Harless’ HB 1681 prohibits construction of assisted living facilities in a 500-year floodplain. Human Services will hear public testimony on 4/13.

SB 865: Study of Statewide Disaster Alert System

Brandon Creighton’s SB 865 calls for a study on the efficacy of existing mass notification deployments by local governmental entities throughout this state and the feasibility of establishing a statewide disaster alert system. It would also study how to overcome barriers such as power outages in disasters. The Business and Commerce committee approved it unanimously, but the Senate has not yet voted on the bill. HB 655 is the companion bill.

SB 859: Continuing Virtual Meetings for Water Planning Groups

SB 859 by Charles Perry would allow Regional Flood Planning Groups to continue the practice of holding meetings virtually after the Covid crisis passes. The Businesss and Commerce committee approved it unanimously and it is headed for a vote on the uncontested calendar. Volunteers staff regional flood planning groups and the regions can span several counties. This places an undue travel burden on volunteers who already have a heavy workload. HB 2103 is a companion bill.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/11/2021

1321 Days after 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.

Colorado State Experts Predict Another Hurricane Season Like 2001, 2008 and 2017

Researchers at highly respected Colorado State University (CSU) issued their hurricane season forecast for 2021 last week. Like the University of Miami, AccuWeather and others, they predicted an above-average season based on sea-surface temperatures, the presence of La Niña, and historical analogs. CSU used data and models going back 40 years. Factors considered also include: where sea surface temperatures are warmer/cooler, sea level pressures, vertical wind shear levels (the change in wind direction and speed with height in the atmosphere), accumulated tropical cyclone energy, and more.

CSU Forecast Compared to Others

Here’s how CSU’s hurricane season forecast looks compared to historical averages and other predictions.

Year(s)StormsHurricanesMajor Hurricanes
1981-2010 (Old Average)1263
1991-2020 (New Average)1473
2020 Actual30136
2021 Predicted by AccuWeather16 to 207 to 103 to 5
2021 Predicted by Colorado State1784
Major Hurricanes are Cat 3 or higher with sustained winds of 111 mph or greater.

Striking Recent Parallels

According to CSU, so far, the 2021 hurricane season is exhibiting characteristics similar to 1996, 2001, 2008, 2011 and 2017. “All of our analog seasons had above-average Atlantic hurricane activity, with 1996 and 2017 being extremely active seasons,” said Phil Klotzbach, research scientist in the Department of Atmospheric Science and lead author of the CSU report.

In case you’re new to the Houston area and the significance of those bold-faced years escapes you:

  • 2001 was Tropical Storm Allison which dumped 38 inches of rain on Houston, so much that it caused flood maps to be redrawn. The storm meandered over Houston for 4 days due to slow movement and weak steering currents.
  • 2008 was Hurricane Ike which destroyed tens of thousands of homes on the Bolivar Peninsula. It killed 195 people, came ashore as a Cat 4 storm with winds of 148 miles per hour, came straight up Galveston Bay, went right over Kingwood, and knocked down so many trees that the Lake Houston Area lost power for 3 weeks. It did $38 billion in damage and ranks as the sixth costliest storm in US history.
  • 2017 was Hurricane Harvey. HCFCD’s report on the storm says it all. At the peak of Harvey, five times more water went over the Lake Houston Dam than goes over Niagra Falls on average.
Bolivar Peninsula after Hurricane Ike in 2008. Photo Courtesy of NOAA.
In 2019, NASA captured Dorian and this string of tropical cyclones lined up across the Western Hemisphere.

But 2011 was the opposite end of the spectrum. It was the driest year ever for Texas and the start of a drought that lasted through 2014.

Playing the Percentages

The CSU team predicts that 2021 hurricane season activity will be about 140 percent of the average season. By comparison, 2020 was about 170 percent. The 2020 hurricane season had six landfalling continental US hurricanes, including Category 4 Hurricane Laura which battered southwestern Louisiana.

The report also includes the probability of major hurricanes making landfall:

  • 69% for the entire U.S. coastline (average for the last century is 52%)
  • 45% for the U.S. East Coast including the Florida peninsula (average for the last century is 31%)
  • 44% for the Gulf Coast from the Florida panhandle westward to Brownsville (average for the last century is 30%)
  • 58% for the Caribbean (average for the last century is 42%)

Keep your fingers crossed and make sure you’re prepared. It only takes one storm to make your life miserable if you are not prepared. And remember, Allison happened on June 4th…just three days after the start of hurricane season.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/10/2021 based on a report by Colorado State University

1320 Days since Hurricane Harvey

MoCo Judge Dismisses Lake Conroe Association Suit to Block Seasonal Lake Lowering

It has been a busy ten days at the Montgomery County Courthouse. On March 31, the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) filed a lawsuit to block the seasonal lowering of the lake. But a hearing was not set until April 19. Meanwhile, the SJRA and City of Houston initiated a release of 450 cubic feet per second on April 1. That prompted the LCA to request an immediate order to stop the release on April 6. And that may have backfired on the Association. It forced the judge to look at the case sooner. And today, the judge dismissed the entire suit with respect to the City of Houston for lack of jurisdiction. Co-defendant SJRA has yet to file its response in the case, so the judge could not rule on that.

Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In its initial response to the LCA suit, the City argued what lawyers call a “plea to the jurisdiction.” The City claimed that LCA lawyers relied on outdated case law, that the City enjoyed governmental immunity, and that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The arguments re: immunity are complicated and technical. Briefly, Texas law gives governmental entities broad immunity. Plaintiffs must challenge the validity of a statute under which a government took action to challenge the government’s action. But, says the City, the seasonal lake lowering policy is not a statute or ordinance; it is simply a policy. Thus, “Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action is barred by governmental immunity.”

More Hail Mary’s

To stop the seasonal release once it started, Plaintiffs then filed their first supplement to the Application for a temporary restraining order. They also filed a Supplement to their Original Petition. And a second supplement. The filings claimed that the release of 450 CFS was:

  • Causing irreparable harm
  • A public nuisance
  • A “taking” of their property
  • An unreasonable loss of water
  • Diminishing their enjoyment of the lake

The City of Houston answered these allegations one by one in a seven-page brief filed on 4/7/2021. I’ll dispense with the legal arguments; you can read them for yourself. They discuss whether the allegations have merit and meet the legal definitions involved.

Even without a law degree, it appears on the surface that the only claim with validity is the enjoyment claim. But balanced against the City’s property rights (in the water), plus the potential flood-reduction and property-protection benefits, it pales.

Judge’s Ruling

Suffice it to say, that around 9 a.m. today, the judge agreed with the City of Houston’s Plea to the Jurisdiction. “The Court having considered the Plea and the response, if any, is of the opinion that it should in all things be SUSTAINED.”

“IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED that City of Houston’s Plea to the Jurisdiction is SUSTAINED and that Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Judge in LCA Case

Altogether, plaintiff’s filed 86 pages of legal briefs so far. I’m glad I’m not a Lake Conroe homeowner paying the bill for that!

Irreparable Harm? Really?

Some LCA claims stretched credulity. A 1-foot reduction causing irreparable harm? Really?!! During public testimony before a special SJRA Board meeting this morning, Lake Conroe callers mentioned that sales tax receipts are up, boaters are enjoying the lake, and home values are also up substantially since the seasonal lake lowering policy started.

Boats on Lake Conroe during last year’s seasonal lowering in the Spring.

Homeowners around Lake Conroe should demand to learn what and who is really behind this exercise.

Effect on SJRA

To date, the City of Houston has taken the lead on various pleadings. That makes sense because the lake lowering program involves its water.

The judge’s order this morning did not affect the SJRA. That’s because SJRA has not yet filed any answer, pleadings, or briefs in the case. The extent of SJRA activities on this case so far was to brief its board this morning and get its support to engage outside legal counsel. The board approved hiring two firms. Expect more from the SJRA in the coming days.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/9/2021

1319 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.

LSGCD Votes to Almost Double Groundwater Pumping, Treat Subsidence as PR problem

The Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) board voted Wednesday in a special meeting to throw caution and conservation to the wind. In a long-delayed vote, the board unanimously agreed to adopt “Desired Future Conditions” (DFCs) that allow groundwater pumping to increase from approximately 60,000 acre fee per year to 115,000. This was the third of three alternatives they considered and the one that caused up to 3.5 feet of subsidence in southern MoCo. The board also voted unanimously NOT to include a subsidence metric in their DFCs and to hire an Austin PR firm, The Mach 1 Group, to handle the PR fallout.

Still No Action to Initiate MoCo Subsidence Study

For the third meeting in a row, the board also took no action to initiate Phase II of its subsidence study. The LSGCD Phase I report stated that Phase II would assess subsidence and flooding. However, having decided to ignore subsidence, the fate of Phase II remains unclear. (As of this writing, the board has not yet posted its agenda for the regularly scheduled April 13 meeting, nor has it posted the video of the April 7 meeting.) (Update: as of 4/12 at noon, video of the meeting was still not posted.)

Stage Set for Showdown

All of these decisions set the stage for a showdown at the Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA-14) meeting this Friday at 9 a.m. Approval of LSGCD’s DFCs requires a two-thirds vote. Because GMA-14 has five voting groundwater conservation districts, approval will require at least three others.

GMA-14 will meet tomorrow at 9 a.m. to discuss its options. See meeting details below if you wish to participate.

More Troubling Contradictions Emerge from Meeting

Those who follow this debate have noted many troubling contradictions on the part of LSGCD and yesterday’s meeting was no exception.

The virtual meeting started 14 minutes late due to connectivity issues. The few hardy souls who persisted through the delays and poor audio quality, were treated to lengthy presentations that covered old ground and several contradictory comments from staff and board members.

For instance:

  • LSGCD claimed at the last GMA-14 meeting that it needed another month to hold stakeholder meetings before they could vote on DFCs. But last night’s reports on the stakeholder meetings did not mention subsidence, only the need to improve communications. This set the stage for the motions to ignore subsidence in DFCs and to hire a PR agency. It would be interesting to learn whether stakeholders expressed concerns about subsidence that weren’t reported.
  • QuadVest, which reportedly funded the campaigns of current board members, previously threatened to sue everyone in sight if they didn’t get their way. However, in yesterday’s meeting, they claimed they now had no plans to sue anyone. (Note: Previous to voting on yesterday’s motion, the board discussed litigation in executive session.) Winning through intimidation!
  • The board claimed it could not measure subsidence, although tools to do so are cheap and readily available. And the LSGCD staff was told so in the last GMA-14 meeting.
  • The board also insisted its problems were based on misinformation, but failed to acknowledge one example. Neither did they acknowledge their own role in spreading disinformation.
  • For instance, LSGCD claimed Harris County had no subsidence metric in place, ignoring the facts that the goal of the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District is to eliminate subsidence and that HGSD has extensive regulations in place to get people off of groundwater.
  • The key argument seemed to be that aquifer decline, not subsidence, was the only limiting factor on groundwater pumping. But modeling showed that at the pumping rate they adopted, subsidence would exceed three feet in places.
  • The board also argued that pumping in Harris County affected subsidence in MoCo. While true in certain cases, that ignores the fact that they approved an increase in MoCo pumping while pumping in Harris County is declining.
  • They talked a lot about property rights, but never specified whose. QuadVest believes they have a right to pump water from beneath your house.
Modeled subsidence in MoCo if pumping reaches 115,000 acre feet per year.

Who Benefits?

QuadVest gets to pump more water, the raw material of its business. QuadVest previously backed efforts to get the LSGCD board elected rather than appointed by local regulated entities. QuadVest then reportedly backed a slate of candidates promising to “Restore Affordable Water.” However, according to MoCo residents who get QuadVest water and have contacted me, water rates have not come down.

Who Loses?

Consequences of subsidence are widespread. Differential subsidence measured over wide areas can alter the gradient of ditches, pipelines, streams, rivers and lakes. For instance, models show that the subsidence associated with pumping 115,000 acre feet per year in Montgomery County would cause 1 foot of subsidence at the Lake Houston Dam but 3 feet in Kingwood and Huffman. That would put tens of thousands of upstream residents 2 feet closer to floodwaters.

Rescue efforts in Kingwood on Valley Manor during Harvey flood in 2017. Almost two miles from West Fork of San Jacinto.
Rescue efforts in Kingwood on Valley Manor during Harvey flood in 2017. 2.1 miles from West Fork of San Jacinto. 110 homes in this subdivision flooded. Imagine if water were 2 feet higher.

Subsidence can also crack roads, foundations, walls, ceilings, and roofs, especially near fault lines which are plentiful in southern MoCo and northern Harris Counties.

Subsidence triggered by groundwater pumping at a Woodlands home near a fault line.

Avoiding Checks and Balances

If subsidence isn’t really a danger as the LSGCD board contends, why not include a subsidence metric in its DFCs? Aquifers can rebound over time, but subsidence is forever. Over-pumping could cause irreversible damage as you see above.

GMA-14 Meeting Details

The GMA-14 meeting is April 9, 2021 at 9 a.m. To make a public comment, sign up here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on April 8, 2021

1318 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.

Last Chance to Support Petition Limiting Subsidence

TownshipFuture in the Woodlands is presenting a petition to Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA-14) that would limit proposed increases in groundwater pumping that could lead to subsidence.

Last night, TownshipFuture held a panel discussion with representatives from San Jacinto River Authority, Woodlands Water Agency and Harris-Galveston Subsidence District. They all confirmed that lower aquifer levels, caused by over-use of groundwater pumping, leads to subsidence.

You need not live in the Woodlands to sign this petition. Excessive groundwater pumping will affect much of Montgomery and Harris Counties. See the maps modeling subsidence below. Note the 3.75 feet in southern MoCo and 3 feet in northern Harris.

Subsidence if 115,000 acre feet per year are pumped in Montgomery County, depleting aquifers by 30% (leaving 70%).
Subsidence in Harris County if private utilities are allowed to deplete aquifers in MoCo by 30%, leaving 70%.

Note how projected subsidence is 1 foot at the Lake Houston Dam but 3 feet in Huffman and Kingwood. This would tilt Lake Houston back toward the north by 2 feet.

YOUR ACTION NEEDED NOW

Please sign TownshipFuture’s petition to GMA 14 opposing increased groundwater pumping!  You can find it at:

https://townshipfuture.org/home/our-advocacy/petition-to-limit-groundwater-pumping-in-montgomery-county/

The petition will be sent to GMA 14 AT 5PM TODAY and having your name included will go a long way to help persuade GMA 14 to minimize groundwater pumping. As of 2PM, over 200 people have added their names to the petition. Talk to your neighbors who might be interested in adding their names.

This is something that needs to come from our whole community, because it impacts ALL of us! Act NOW! Please share with all of your friends, neighbors and relatives.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/7/2021 at 3:45 PM

1317 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.

Crucial Week for Future of Subsidence, Flooding

Three meetings will make this a crucial week for subsidence and flooding for large parts of Montgomery and Harris Counties. For months now, the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) has adamantly opposed any mention of subsidence in its Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) while it argues for increased groundwater pumping. But LSGCD must get the other members of Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA-14) to approve its DFCs before they can allow increased pumping. And opinions regarding those DFCS are far from unanimous. GMA-14 members are pushing for a metric that limits subsidence; LSGCD is fighting that.

TownshipFuture Meeting Tuesday

With that in mind, a group called TownshipFuture will host a Zoom webinar featuring experts from the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA), the Houston-Galveston Subsidence District (HGSD), and The Woodlands Water Authority (WWA). Says Robert Leilich, president of Woodlands MUD #1 and a steering committee member of TownshipFuture, “The meeting will explore how the cost of water is related to the potential for more flooding and what you can do about it. Upcoming proposals from the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District could lead to increased subsidence, causing residents to pay more for water. These proposals could also increase the risk of physical damage to homes and the risk of flooding in flood-prone areas of The Woodlands.”

The TownshipFuture Meeting is Tuesday, April 6, at 7PM. The Zoom webinar is free and all are invited. To register, go to https://forms.gle/GYcG1Q1uekCGbrCz6. You will be sent an email with instructions how to sign into the webinar.

TownshipFuture has also launched a petition opposing the desire of the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District to increase groundwater pumping. To view the TownshipFuture petition to the GMA 14 Board of Directors, click here or go to https://townshipfuture.org/home/our-advocacy/petition-to-limit-groundwater-pumping-in-montgomery-county/.

GMA 14 has the authority to approve or disapprove any increase in LGGCD’s groundwater pumping. To support the petition, add your name at the bottom.

LSGCD Meeting Wednesday

Then, on Wednesday, April 7, at 4PM, the LSGCD will hold a special board meeting. According to the agenda, the board will go into executive session immediately after public comments to consider litigation. (However, they don’t disclose the nature of the litigation.) They will then take up two matters:

  1. Proposed Desired Future Conditions for GMA 14.
  2. Hiring a PR firm.

LSGCD staff recently finished a series of stakeholder input sessions. But the agenda does not list a report to the board on staff findings.

The hiring of a PR firm is a highly unusual move for a group of this nature. According to some observers, it indicates that LSGCD failed to convince scientists of their position on subsidence and is now taking its case to the public. One insider, though, claimed the board just feels “misunderstood.” They feel they are the victims of “misinformation.”

The LSGCD meeting will also be a Zoom webinar. To register, visit https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_cxsukkSBSg2VQE9uiUayRA. For other participation options or to make public comments during the meeting, see the instructions at the start of the agenda.

GMA-14 Meeting Friday

On Friday, April 9 at 9AM, GMA-14 will take up the matter of DFCs. It has a statutory deadline to meet to finalize DFCs: no later than January 5, 2022.

However, GMA-14 has a May 1 deadline to formulate proposed DFCs for 14 counties. So if LSGCD and the other members can’t reach a suitable compromise this week, they will need to schedule another meeting before the end of the month. And they are already pushing up against a public notice requirement for a second meeting.

Between May and January deadlines, GMA-14 must solicit public comments for 90 days on the proposed DFCs; review and publish the comments; adopt or modify the DFCs; and submit them to the TWDB. Final adoption of the DFCs requires a two-thirds vote of all the members of the groundwater management area.

At the last GMA-14 meeting, LSGCD requested more time to meet with stakeholders and its board before finalizing a DFC statement. The big questions are, “Will LSGCD request more time to finalize a proposed DFC statement for Montgomery County?” And if so, “Will it include a mention of subsidence?”

You can attend the GMA-14 meeting via the GoToMeeting App. Register here. Click here for the meeting agenda. And click here if you wish to make a public comment.

How Subsidence Relates to Flooding

USGS is a non-political, scientific agency. It states in its research that the “land subsidence in the Houston-Galveston Region … partially or completely submerges land”, “disrupts collector drains and irrigation ditches”, and “alters the flow of creeks and bayous which may increase the frequency and severity of flooding.” To read the full research on Texas Gulf Coast Groundwater and Land Subsidence, please visit: https://txpub.usgs.gov/houston_subsidence/home/

Other scientists have also documented links between subsidence, flooding, and other damages. Check out these studies.

Subsidence exposes inland areas to increased risks of flooding and erosion by altering natural and engineered drainage-ways (open channels and pipelines) that depend on gravity-driven flow of storm-runoff and sewerage. 

Expected subsidence in Harris County if GMA-14 lets Montgomery County pump 30% of its aquifers (70% remaining). The assumption going in was that this could cause up to 1 foot of subsidence, but modeling shows it creates far more.

Differential subsidence, depending on where it occurs with respect to the location of drainageways, may reduce or enhance preexisting gradients. Gradient reductions decrease the rate of drainage and thereby increase the chance of flooding by storm-water runoff. See https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1182/pdf/07Houston.pdf.

Other studies show that:

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/5/2021

1315 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.

Another Above-Average Hurricane Season Predicted

This is the time of year when meteorologists start predicting how many hurricanes we will experience in the Atlantic Basin. Frank Billingsley at Click2Houston.com issued his prediction for an above-average hurricane season Friday. He also predicts that other meteorologists will predict the same. Here’s why.

Official Averages Out of Date

The official window used to calculate the average number of storms has been 1981 to 2010. But when Brian McNoldy of the University of Miami looked at the more recent 30 years from 1991 to 2020, he found an increase in the number of storms. Also, AccuWeather has already come out with its prediction, showing a substantial increase.

Year(s)StormsHurricanesMajor Hurricanes
1981-2010 (Old Average)1263
1991-2020 (New Average)1473
2020 Actual30136
2021 Predicted by AccuWeather16 to 207 to 103 to 5
Sources: Brian McNoldy, AccuWeather, NHC

Other Contributing Factors

Sea-Surface Temperatures

Sea-surface temperatures are slightly above normal for this time of year. Despite the polar outbreak in February which cooled the Gulf somewhat, the Caribbean and Atlantic remain higher than average. See anomaly map below from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center.

Seven day average as of 4/3/2021
La Niña

Billingsley’s prediction also takes into account La Niña, which is part of ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation).

NOAA describes El Niño and La Niña as the warm and cool phases of a recurring climate pattern across the tropical Pacific. The pattern can shift back and forth irregularly every two to seven years, and each phase triggers predictable disruptions of temperature, precipitation and winds.

The El Niño phase usually means fewer hurricanes in the Atlantic.

Typical influence of El Niño on Pacific and Atlantic seasonal hurricane activity. Map by NOAA Climate.gov, based on originals by Gerry Bell.

The La Niña phase usually means more hurricanes in The Atlantic.

Typical influence of La Niña on Pacific and Atlantic seasonal hurricane activity. Map by NOAA Climate.gov, based on originals by Gerry Bell.

Why? In short, the warm, wet air of El Niño in the tropical Pacific produces stronger vertical wind sheer which discourages hurricane formation in the Atlantic. The cool, dry air of La Niña produces less wind sheer which lets hurricanes form more easily.

National Hurricane Center

The real question is: How long will La Niña last? La Niña was strong last year. That meant one of the busiest hurricane seasons ever. (See table above.) But will it fade by the start of this hurricane season or the end? The Texas Water Development Board predicted it would begin to fade after this month. But some models show it lasting through the end of the year.

Bermuda High

AccuWeather predicts three to five hurricanes will make a direct hit on the United States this year. That’s partially due to another factor – the position of the Bermuda High. A weak Bermuda High means storms forming in the Atlantic would most likely aim at the Eastern Seaboard as opposed to coming into the Gulf.

Bottom line, “Be prepared. Anyone who has been through a hurricane can tell you it only takes one.”

Frank Billingsley, Click2Houston.com

Valuable Resources During Hurricane Season

For the full AccuWeather forecast, click here.

Colorado State University’s hurricane forecast comes out next week. It’s one of the most respected in the world.

During the season, the National Hurricane Center provides the most frequent updates of storm activities. They will start issuing tropical updates on May 15. And their reports will have more features than ever this year. See the list of new features including storm surge inundation values, weather forecasts for “blue-water” mariners, wave heights, cumulative maximum winds over 5-days, and more.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/3/2021 based on information from Click2Houston, AccuWeather, and NOAA

1313 days since Hurricane Harvey