News Archives - Page 157 of 275

Eight Bills Introduced in Texas Legislature This Year Affect Sand Mines

Yesterday was the last day for lawmakers to file bills for the 87th Texas legislative session. Eight bills have been introduced to curb abuses of aggregate production operations, which include sand mines. Five address reclamation of mines in various ways.

Huberty’s HB4478: Reclamation and Performance Bonds

Dan Huberty from the Lake Houston Area introduced HB4478 which addresses abandonment of sand mines. Many miners simply walk away from mines leaving abandoned, rusting equipment in place and dangerous conditions. Huberty’s bill would require mines to file a reclamation plan before they start mining and also post a bond ensuring they actually execute the plan. Currently, mines are required to file a plan, but there is no requirement in Texas to execute it. Miners can simply walk away from mines after they extract the last ounce of sand. That can leave scars on the landscape, degrade water quality, and threaten public safety.

Huberty’s HB767: Best Practices

Huberty also introduced HB767, a bill that would require the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to establish and publish best management practices for sand mining. However, it does not require sand mines to follow the practices. While that’s disappointing, it could bring heat to operations that don’t follow the guidelines.

Biederman’s HB4341: Changes Responsibility for Oversight

Representative Kyle Biederman from Fredericksburg introduced HB4341, a bill that would transfer regulation of aggregate production operations from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to the Texas Railroad Commission (TRRC). The bill gives the Railroad Commission the right to conduct unannounced inspections to ensure compliance with water and air quality regulations. Biederman’s bill also mandates reclamation of mines, but includes more specifics than Huberty’s. Finally, it provides criminal penalties for people who knowingly and willfully violate conditions of their permits. The big news: transfer of oversight responsibility from the TCEQ to TRRC. If it passes, it will be a resounding vote of “no confidence” in the job that the TCEQ has been doing in regulating sand mines.

Zwiener’s HB2422: Limiting Location of Mines

Representative Erin Zwiener from Kyle introduced HB2422. Her bill applies to counties with a population of 500,000 or more. It would allow county commissioners to prohibit the construction or expansion of an aggregate production operation at a location less than one mile from a residence, school, place of worship, hospital, or land platted for residential development. The bill would also allow commissioners to establish conditions for the construction or expansion of mines elsewhere in the county.

Murr’s HB291: Reclamation and Performance Bonds

Representative Andrew Murr from Kerrville introduced HB291. It also focuses on reclamation of mines. It would require the grading of banks, revegetation, and removal of equipment upon completion of mining. The bill would also require operators to reclaim mines in stages as extraction activities on different parts cease. It would give miners a deadline for reclamation, too: six months. Finally, it would require a performance bond equal to $2,500 for each acre affected by extraction activities. Upon completion of reclamation activities, the TCEQ would release the performance bond. Cities and counties would have the right to waive the reclamation requirement if reclamation conflicts with proposed future uses of the land.

*Abandoned dredge left at abandoned Texas Concrete Sand & Gravel Mine in Plum Grove on San Jacinto East Fork.* *Photographed 3/3/2021*

Guillen’s HB1544: APO Taxation

Representative Ryan Guillen from Rio Grande City introduced HB1544. It addresses the tax classification of land used for sand mining. The language is confusing and an analysis of the bill has not yet been submitted. However, it appears to state that sand mine, once it meets requirements for reclamation, may revert to a property tax rate associated with open space, such as agriculture. The bill lays out some unique requirements for reclamation not discussed in the other bills here. While this seems to give sand miners a positive incentive to restore land, I’m not sure how much. In Montgomery County, the tax appraiser routinely grants ag exemptions to land used for sand mining.

Wilson/Schwertner’s HB1912/SB1209: Permit Requirements

HB1912 filed by Representative Terry Wilson of Georgetown establishes additional permit requirements for aggregate production operations. They affect air quality, light pollution, noise, blasting, dust, and other operational issues identified by the House Interim Committee on APOs back in January.

State Senator Charles Schwertner from Bryan introduced SB1209. It is an identical companion bill to HB1912. Companion bills increase the chance of passage by broadening the base of support in both houses.

During the 86th Legislature in 2019, TACA beat back all reasonable attempts to regulate sand mining. Let’s hope for the sake of everyone’s health and property values that this session has more success. I will keep you posted.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/13/2021

1292 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Why Does Flood-Mitigation Funding Take So Long?

On Tuesday this week, Harris County Commissioners Court erupted into heated discussion over flood-mitigation funding for Halls and Greens Bayous. Construction delays had to do with the length of time for awarding grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Then, in a cosmic coincidence, yesterday, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) sent out a press release announcing $135 million in HUD flood mitigation grants – for 2016 floods that happened under President Obama.

Ironically, the GLO press release pointed out that 2016 grants were for repetitively damaged areas. And in the five years since the 2016 floods, we’ve also had Hurricane Harvey, Tropical Storm Imelda, and a record-setting 2020 hurricane season.

Reading the release felt like getting hit by three buses while waiting for the ambulance to arrive. That prompted a call to the GLO, which administers HUD grants in Texas. I asked a simple question.

“What Takes So Long?”

When I asked the GLO “Why does flood-mitigation funding take so long”, they referred me to this page. Key takeaways include:

Congress didn’t appropriate money for Disaster Declarations in 2015, 2016 and 2017 until February 9, 2018.
Texas received $4.3 billion from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for all those years.
Before the GLO could distribute those funds, it had to wait for HUD to develop and publish rules in the Federal Register governing the distribution of those funds. That took 1.5 years.
Then the GLO had to develop a state action plan. That required developing another set of rules, holding public meetings around the state, soliciting public comments, responding to the comments, and getting HUD approval of the plan. HUD finally approved the state action plan on March 31, 2020.
Then GLO had to translate the plan into Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, Vietnamese, and Korean before publishing it.
To be fair to everyone across the state, GLO then holds a “competition” to find the most worthy projects. The criteria for “worthiness” include multiple factors. But the biggest in HUD grants are: percentage of low-to-moderate income families being helped, how economically distressed an area is, and total expected benefits for dollars invested. For instance, when comparing applications for a $10 million grant that will help 1,000 families to a grant for the same amount that will help a 100,000 families, the latter would win.
But to determine that kind of information, applicants need to conduct preliminary engineering studies before they can even file applications.
The GLO must wait for all applications to be submitted, evaluate the applications, rank order them, and see how many will fit within available funding. In the case of the grants just announced, the GLO received requests for almost TWICE as much funding as they had available. The average over the years exceeds 3X. For Harvey, it was 5X.
HUD must then review and approve the grants.
GLO distributes the money.
Finally, mitigation projects can begin.

Are All These Steps Necessary?

When you look at the list above, each step sounds reasonable. But there may be ways to collapse steps and speed up the flood-mitigation funding process. Why, for instance, do you need 1.5 years to publish rules specific to these floods in the Federal Register? Why not have a generic set of rules for all floods and adapt the boilerplate as needed?

I also asked if a way existed to shorten the process by eliminating the competition. After all, its easier to approve one application than compare it to hundreds. Their reply: “Competitions are the only fair way to do it.”

Should We Go Back to Earmarks?

The current competition system replaced an earmark system whereby Congress directly allocated funds to certain projects in certain districts. Earmarks sped up construction, but had many problems of their own. For instance, unnecessary projects often went to the districts of congressional leaders. That sometimes deprived other areas with greater needs.

However, the competition system for flood-mitigation funding has obvious problems, too. It has spawned whole industries of grant writers, project managers and people who know how to navigate traps in the convoluted application process.

I talked to one project manager today who told me about a grant that cost more to apply for than the grant was worth.

Hopefully, that doesn’t happen often. But when it does, we have proof that bureaucracy has become more important than the taxpayers it serves.

More about GLO/HUD Grants Announced This Week

For the record, out of the $135 million in grants announced yesterday, Harris County received $10 million for cloverleaf drainage improvements in Carpenters Bayou. City of Houston received $8.2 million for flood mitigation in the Alief Forest Area. Baytown, Freeport, Sweeny, and Jacinto City also received grants.

This table shows where the money went.

*For descriptions of individual projects, please* *click here*.

*Texas Counties Affected by 2016 Floods*. *MID stands for Most Impacted and Distressed Areas.*

Hurricane Harvey Competition Results Not Yet Announced

Winners of the first round of the Hurricane Harvey Mitigation Competition are expected to be announced in late spring or early summer. The GLO received 220 extensive applications totaling more than $5 billion in requests for the $1 billion in available funding (Round 1).

The Hurricane Harvey State Mitigation Competition for flood-mitigation funding is open to cities, counties, COGs, state entities, and special purpose districts. Examples of projects include flood control and drainage improvements, infrastructure improvements, green infrastructure, public facilities, and buyouts. Each proposed project must have a total proposed cost between $3 million to $100 million.

What We Need

Getting disaster relief 5-10 years after the fact is the largest disaster of all. We need Congress to reform the process to speed up the delivery of flood mitigation funding. How many homes and businesses that flooded in 2015, flooded again in 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2020? And what were the associated costs? Did repeat-flooding damages for these years due to funding delays cost more than the amount of mitigation funds appropriated by Congress? Somebody, somewhere has that information.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/12/2021

1291 Days since Hurricane Harvey

What Next for Woodridge Village, Taylor Gully

When Harris County and the City of Houston closed on the purchase of Woodridge Village, flood victims in Elm Grove, North Kingwood Forest and along Taylor Gully were elated. Harris County purchased the land to create a regional floodwater detention basin. That immediately raised questions about what comes next and when?

Public Input

Although an exact date has not yet been announced, the Harris Count Flood Control District (HCFCD) plans to hold community engagement meetings in the near future.

The first will occur early in the development of the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER). The goals: to inform the community of each project’s purpose and receive community input during preliminary engineering.

A second meeting will occur once the final draft of the preliminary engineering report is complete. Its purpose: to present the results to community.

HCFCD will also communicate with local groups such as homeowner associations and the Kingwood Service Association in regularly scheduled virtual meetings as needed. Those will provide project updates and information about other Flood Control District efforts (e.g., buyouts, maintenance projects, smaller capital projects) in the Kingwood area throughout the PER process.

The Flood Control District will also identify opportunities to participate in regularly scheduled meetings and develop project-specific presentations to convey project information and proposed project features.

First Engineering Firm Already Selected

The engineering firm elected to develop the Preliminary Engineering Report for Taylor Gully improvements, IDCUS, will also consider Woodridge Village within its scope of work. IDCUS will consider what detention volume can be achieved on the Woodridge Village property and how that would affect the Taylor Gully project.

The Flood Control District plans to set up a separate project with a different consultant team to provide the detailed design services for the proposed detention basin.

Role of Rustling Elms Bridge in Flooding to Be Examined

Many residents have observed that the bridge over Taylor Gully at Rustling Elms seems to be a choke point that backs water up into surrounding homes. HCFCD will examine the role of the bridge in flooding. But, said Matt Zeve, Deputy Executive Director of HCFCD, “I cannot guarantee that the recommended plan will include any modifications to Rustling Elms.”

*Looking downstream at the Rustling Elms Bridge over Taylor Gully during peak of May 7, 2019 flood. Note how water downstream from the bridge is within banks, but water upstream is overflowing.*

The different heights of water above and below the bridge relate its design. See below.

*Looking upstream at same bridge at later date, you can see how the twin-culvert design severely restricts flow.*

However, retaining more water upstream might eliminate the need to make any costly changes to the bridge. Everything works together. It’s just too early to tell.

Other Changes Being Considered

The Flood Control District is considering a regional stormwater detention basin for the Woodridge Village site. A portion of the property will be owned by the City of Houston for a future wastewater treatment plant.

Looking south across the main portion of Woodridge Village toward homes that flooded twice in 2019. HCFCD will have the southern two thirds of this property (toward the top of the photo) to use for a regional detention basin.

Other amenities could be considered for the site, but would require a partner to construct and maintain those amenities. “The Flood Control District does not design, construct, or maintain amenities such as dog parks, trails, playgrounds, or sports fields,” said Zeve. However, HCFCD expressed a willingness to meet and work with community groups to discuss potential partnerships and make sure that input is included in design considerations.

Atlas 14 Will Form Basis of Design

Perry Homes sized detention ponds currently on the site to meet pre-Atlas-14 requirements. That means their detention capacity will fall about 30-40% short of Atlas-14 requirements. Montgomery County’s Atlas-14 requirements are lower than Harris County’s. When asked about this, Zeve responded, “HCFCD will use Atlas 14 rainfall rates for our designs even if the watershed area is not in Harris County.” That should provide some extra capacity that provides a buffer against additional upstream growth in the watershed.

Could Excavation Start Before Hurricane Season?

The Flood Control District will sometimes starts excavation on sites before final design plans are completed. HCFCD uses this program frequently to get a head start on excavation for large stormwater detention basins. “The District may not have enough time to get that program up and running by June 1, 2021, but we can certainly provide updates on this effort via our website,” said Zeve.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/11/2021

1290 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Is There a Shortfall in Harris County Flood Bond Money? Yes. No. Maybe. It Depends.

The 3/9/2021 meeting of Harris County Commissioners Court started with a presentation by the Harris County Budget Management Director David Berry on the County’s Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Berry asserted early in the meeting that the County had a shortfall of approximately $900 million to $1.35 billion needed to complete projects in the Flood Bond passed by voters in 2018. Is there really a shortfall? It depends on the exact way you phrase any number of possible questions.

Confusing, Unexplained Map Triggers Almost 2 Hours of Discussion

Near the start of the meeting, Mr. Berry put up a very confusing map (below) that frequently heated the next 100 minutes of discussion to the boiling point. The discussion made every front page in town and many of the TV news shows.

The map showed the projected funding shortfalls by watershed as a percentage of the total funding allocated to each in the 2018 flood bond.
The stories featured sensational quotes by Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis (We will have blood on our hands if this stands.) and Precinct 2 Commissioner Garcia (I feel like someone hit me across the back with a baseball bat.)

The map implied that construction had started on projects that the County did not have enough money to finish, especially the ones in yellow and red below.

*Map from Page 16 of Harris County CIP Budget for Fiscal Year 2021/2022.*

Was Flood Control Not Following Equity Guidelines?

To add more context to this discussion, understand that Halls and Greens Bayous rank among the poorest in the county. That they seemed so far behind more affluent watersheds in funding rankled Ellis and Garcia. The two had argued to prioritize flood bond spending by a “social equity” formula that addressed the poorest neighborhoods first. To say that the map above was like waving a red flag in front of two bulls would understate its effect.

So What’s Really Going on Here?

Did prices of flood-bond projects suddenly escalate, causing the shortfall? No.

Did Flood Control underestimate costs? No.

The reason has to do with the delayed arrival of long-awaited federal matching funds.

But Berry did not make that apparent in his setup. Commissioners Garcia and Ellis then peppered Russ Poppe, head of the Flood Control District, with angry, accusatory questions for more than 40 minutes. At one point, they asked 11 questions in a row before they gave Poppe a chance to answer one.

Poppe then explained that Flood Control relies on matching funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for low-income areas. Why? Unlike FEMA which requires a positive benefit/cost ratio, HUD does not. Flood Control is currently waiting for answers on HUD grant applications totaling almost half a billion dollars for mitigation work in the Halls and Greens Bayou watersheds.

Commissioners Court then spent another 40 minutes trying to understand the chances of getting those grants. They also crafted a motion directing the Flood Control District to develop a backup plan in case grant money didn’t arrive by June 30.

Text Of Motion

The motion reads as follows: “To direct the Flood Control District to work with Budget Management in developing a plan by June 30, 2021 to address the funding gap in flood mitigation projects under the 2018 bond while maintaining an equitable approach to the expenditure of funds, including plans to lobby federal, state, and local partners for funding, identification of alternative funding options, a description of projects that are currently stalled due to incomplete funding and how that affects timing of project completion, and a potential timeline for a future potential bond election regarding the funding of current and future flood control projects. If the County is unable to secure funding to complete all proposed projects, the plan should address how the County should prioritize the investment of existing resources to ensure equitable flood protection and comply with the prioritization framework adopted by Harris County.”

The motion eventually passed unanimously at 1 hour and 32 minutes into the meeting.

Answers to Questions About “Underfunding”

Is construction money in Halls or Greens Bayous invested so far at risk?

No. Money spent so far, according to Poppe, has only been for land acquisition and preliminary engineering studies. The County will need both regardless of how it pays for construction. So the County didn’t waste a penny of flood-bond money invested to date. Construction can start later when a path to funding becomes clear.

Did Flood Control try to hide a shortfall?

No. The partial reliance on partner funding now characterized as a “shortfall” was shown in the Bond Program from Day One. The projected shortfall was never greater than on the day voters approved the flood bond. At that point we had secured no partnership funding for those watersheds or any others. We still haven’t for Halls and Greens.

Have we found partnership funding faster in other watersheds?

Yes. Especially in watersheds where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plays a leadership role in construction or where partners could demonstrate a positive benefit/cost ratio for FEMA. In 2018, Poppe estimated Harris County Flood Control could find $2.3 to $2.4 billion in matching funds based on $872 million allocated for seed money in the Flood Bond. But Berry estimates the budget shortfall at $900 million to $1.35 billion. Subtracting one estimate from the other indicates Flood Control has already found a billion dollars or more in matching funds for other watersheds. That’s great work. And that accounts for the differences in colors on the map.

Can Harris County count on the HUD money?

No. The Texas General Land Office (GLO) is still reviewing Flood Control’s grant applications to HUD. We could get some, all, or none of the requested grants.

When will we know how much HUD money, if any, we get?

Initial indications were that we would get answers by late April or early May. Today, I learned from an independent source who requested anonymity that the answer may not come until October.

If the money doesn’t come from HUD, where will it come from?

It depends. Commissioners floated several ideas in the meeting. They included self-funding with another Flood Bond and shifting money from existing sources within Harris County, such as the Toll Road Authority. They could have mentioned Texas Senate Bill 7 (from 2019), but didn’t. Among other things, SB7 provided partial reimbursement for local matching funds for federal grants. The motion approved by Commissioners Court today requires Flood Control and the Budget office to explore all the possibilities and lay out options for consideration.

Another flood bond? Seriously?

Yes and no. According to former Judge Ed Emmett, the $2.5 billion approved by voters in 2018 was always pitched as a “down payment.” Even with partnership funding potentially doubling the size of that, it still would not be likely to solve all of Harris County’s flood woes. So what’s the real total? During the meeting, the Judge and Commissioners tossed out figures ranging from $10-$40 billion. But no one believes another bond is politically feasible. Especially at this time. First, COVID has siphoned off valuable funds. And some of the commissioners have seen fit to redefine equity in the bond language in a way that benefits their constituents at the expense of all others. Now, they may not be able to deliver for their constituents. And they’ve managed to honk off everyone else. Everyone believes the likelihood of passing another bond is zero at this point.

Why is HUD taking so long?

It depends (on whom you talk to). Reportedly, the GLO and HUD have had concerns about the City of Houston and Harris County administering flood-disaster-relief funds to homeowners (separate from mitigation money for flood control projects). Even though Harris County Flood Control wasn’t involved in that program, HUD decided to have the Texas General Land Office (GLO) administer/oversee a giant pot of mitigation money for the entire state instead of sending a portion of it directly to Harris County. That created an extra step. And Harris County must compete with the rest of the state, a process that has inevitably delayed announcements.

Is it worth waiting for a half billion dollars?

Again, it depends. On whom you ask. If your home is flooding and you can get someone else to foot the bill, hell no. If your home is not flooding and there’s still a chance that HUD could come through, why hurry?

Partnership funding maximizes the amount of projects Flood Control can develop, but it can also delay some projects. This is a glass-half-full debate.

Shouldn’t we be captains of our own fate?

It depends on when you ask. When the flood bond passed in 2018, Flood Control was applauded for aggressively chasing all of the Federal funding it could. Yet during Tuesday’s Court meeting, some commissioners criticized Flood Control for going after any partner funds – a complete 180 from just two and a half years ago.

Will funding shortfalls discussed above affect additional gates for the Lake Houston Dam?

No. At least not if the City can prove up its initial benefit/cost ratio. FEMA has already provisionally allocated funds for gate construction.

For More Information

See these links to:

The entire 358-page Capital Improvement Plan

Video of the Commissioners Court Meeting. Click on Departments (Part 1 of 4) and start about 7:36 in.

The final Prioritization Framework for the Flood Bond projects according to “social equity” criteria.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/10/2021

1289 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Harris County Commissioners Approve Final Members and Coordinator for Community Flood Resilience Task Force

At the 3/9/2021 meeting, Harris County Commissioners Court approved the final members and a coordinator for the Community Flood Resilience Task Force. Commissioners established the Task Force last October to ensure “equity” in flood bond spending after months of debate. At the time, Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo and the four commissioners each appointed one member. Those five members then advertised the twelve remaining positions on the task force. More than 120 applications poured in during November and December. During January, the five core members reviewed applications and extended invitations to new members.

*Resilience and ingenuity in the face of flooding.* *Photo courtesy of Denise Faulkner.*

The pool of candidates was exceptionally strong and diverse, making selection difficult. The five core members debated candidates for weeks. They moved candidates in and out of the final group based on credentials, geography, and whom they represented. Ensuring gender, racial, and professional diversity was also a top priority.

Inaugural Task Force Members

Below is a list of the 17 inaugural Task Force representatives approved today in commissioner’s court. Commissioners unanimously approved them. In alphabetical order, including the original five:

Marissa Aho

As the City of Houston representative on the CFRTF, Marissa Aho is the Chief Resilience Officer (CRO) for the City of Houston. She leads the city’s partnership with 100 Resilient Cities, as well as city-wide resilience-building efforts to help Houston prepare for, withstand, and bounce back from the “shocks” –catastrophic events like hurricanes, floods, and cyberattacks – and “stresses” – slow-moving disasters like aging infrastructure, homelessness, and economic inequality, which are increasingly part of 21st century life.

Michael Bloom

Michael F. Bloom, P.E., ENV SP, CFM, directs the sustainability practice of R. G. Miller Engineers, Inc. and is Vice President – Technical of the Houston Branch of the American Society of Civil Engineers. He is a nationally recognized expert in resilient and sustainable infrastructure planning and design with 29 years of professional experience.

Bill Callegari

Bill Callegari is a long-time citizen of Harris County, including 40 years residence on the Katy Prairie. He is a Licensed Professional Engineer, and also served as the Texas State Representative representing Katy and Cypress for fourteen years, from 2001 to 2015.

Dr. Joseph Colaco

Dr. Joseph Colaco holds a Ph.D. in Engineering from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and is President of Colaco Engineers and Professor of Architecture at the University of Houston. Dr. Colaco brings over 50 years of engineering experience related to flood resilience and mitigation and was a founding member of the Hurricane Research Center at Texas A&M. Most recently he served as an expert panelist for the webinar on Hurricanes and Tornadoes through Florida International University.

Yasmeen Dávila

Yasmeen Dávila is a multi-diciplinary non-binary queer artist and organizer in Houston, Texas. Having lived through various hurricanes that passed through Houston, they have set their pursuits to advocate for the neglected neighborhoods that experience floods and chemical exposures before, during, and after hurricane season.

Iris Gonzalez

Iris Gonzalez is the founding Coalition Director for The Coalition for Environment, Equity and Resilience (CEER), an advocacy collaborative working on environmental justice policy solutions in the greater Houston region. She has over 10 years experience in program development, program management, coalition building, grant-making, fundraising, and community engagement.

Lisa Gonzalez

Lisa Gonzalez is President of the Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC), a nonprofit sustainability research organization. Lisa is a longtime resident of East Harris County and as a coastal scientist, focuses on climate resilience and intersections between natural ecosystems and the built environment.

Billy Guevara

Billy Guevara is a member of the Northeast Action Collective, a community organizer, and twice-over flood survivor. He is totally blind and represents the interests of the neighborhoods in Northeast Houston.

Denae King

Dr. Denae King is a native Houstonian and an environmental justice researcher at Texas Southern University. She earned a Ph.D. in environmental science/toxicology from the University of Texas Health Science Center – Houston, School of Public Health and works on environmental health projects in Houston’s underserved communities plagued with cumulative environmental exposures and recurring flooding.

Elaine Morales-Díaz

Elaine Morales-Díaz is a Community Development Officer at LISC Houston, where she manages the GO Neighborhoods and Capacity Building Programs. With a background in Architecture and Community Design, Elaine has worked on equity building initiatives that address affordable housing, disaster recovery and community development issues through participatory design and planning.

Jimmy Morales

Jimmy Morale has long lived in North Harris County. He has worked in the insurance industry for over 10 years, handling a variety of insurance policies which includes flood insurance. He has earned a Bachelor of Business Administration degree with a concentration in Insurance and Risk Management from the University of Houston-Downtown.

Earthea Nance

Dr. Earthea Nance is a published author, scholar, registered civil engineer, and certified floodplain manager with over 30 years of experience. She earned her PhD from Stanford University, and after Hurricane Harvey she served on the Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium.

Mary Anne Piacentini

Mary Anne Piacentini, President and CEO, Katy Prairie Conservancy, coordinates its land protection programs and conservation assistance to landowners, establishes community partnerships and relationships with diverse stakeholders, and oversees the operations and programs of the agency. She has a master’s degree in planning from Harvard University and is currently a board member of the Partnership for Gulf Coast Land Conservation, a member of the steering committee of the Coalition for Environment, Equity and Resilience,a member of the Land Trust Alliance’s Leadership Council, the chairperson of the Stream Corridor Restoration Committee of the Bayou Preservation Association, and previously served on the steering committee for Harris County Flood Control District’s Cypress Creek Overflow Management Plan.

Bob Rehak

Bob Rehak has more than 50 years of experience in communications. After seeing thousands in his area flooded during Harvey, he launched ReduceFlooding.com, a website dedicated to helping people understand the causes of flooding as well as mitigation possibilities.

Tracy Stephens

Tracy Stephens is the President of Sunnyside Civic Club, Gulfgate TIRZ Board Vice Chairman, Infrastructure Rehab and Development Chairman for South Park Community, ACTS Board Research Coordinator, and worked for the City of Houston Public Works and Engineering Specialized Maintenance District Supervisor for Streets, Drainage Construction and Rehab.

Adriana Tamez

Adriana Tamez is a Houston Community College Trustee, and President and CEO for the Tejano Center for Community Concerns (TCCC) providing overall management of the non-profit organization and its nine service programs. Essential to this work has been nurturing and creating partnerships at all levels to meet the needs of our most vulnerable populations in our county.

Kenneth Williams

Ken Williams is a founding director of the Northeast Houston Redevelopment Council, Vice-President of Super Neighborhood 48 Trinity-Houston Gardens, and a community servant/activist/resident.

Congratulations to all. Now the hard work begins.

Task Force Coordinator Also Approved

Commissioner’s Court also unanimously approved the appointment of Holloway Environmental and Communications Services as the task force facilitator. Holloway is a frequent contractor with Harris County Flood Control and helped develop the massive San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Study. The facilitator’s responsibilities will include coordination of the task force and public outreach.

Guiding Values

Work of the task force should now begin in earnest.

The Guiding Values developed by the first five members of the Task Force include:

Diverse Collaboration
Holistic Solutions
Paradigm Shifting
Inclusive Community Engagement
Ethical Foundation
Commitment and Accountability
Social Understanding
Nature and Environment
Emphasis on Action and Momentum

Posted by Bob Rehak on March 10, 2021

1289 Days since Hurricane Harvey

LSGCD to Discuss Issue of Subsidence Tonight

The Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District will meet tonight starting at 6PM. On the agenda are two items of interest for those concerned about subsidence in Montgomery and Harris Counties.

11) Receive information from District’s technical consultants regarding subsidence studies and/or discussion regarding the same – Samantha Stried Reiter and/or District’s technical consultant(s)
- a) Discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve Subsidence Study Phase 2 Scope of Work.’
12) Groundwater Management Area 14 – update the board on the issues related to joint planning activities and development of desired future conditions in GMA 14 –Samantha Reiter and/or District’s technical consultant(s)
- a) Discussion, consideration, and possible action on any items related to Lone Star GCD’s proposal(s) to and/or participation in GMA 14.

A Not-So-Instant Replay of Last Month’s Meeting?

Both sound similar to two items on last month’s agenda. However, the board deferred discussion and action on Phase 2 of the subsidence study because a large number of public comments and excessively long technical and historical presentations by staff. The presentations tried to convince any viewers still awake that LSGCD was still seriously examining subsidence – despite the fact that they had just told the GMA-14 board that they rejected any mention of subsidence in their Desired Future Conditions (DFCs). Since the last LSGCD board meeting, the same presenters again told GMA-14 that they soundly rejected any mention of subsidence…and always had.

Acting Worthy of Hollywood

The Hollywood talent scouts should be tuning in tonight. Acting just doesn’t get much better than this. After all, these are the people who promised to “restore affordable water” but in three years have yet to reduce rates.

John Yoars, a Woodlands resident submitted a three-page letter in tonight’s board packet that is so plain-spoken and common sense that the talent scouts will probably ignore him. But you shouldn’t. See pages 23-25.

Mr. Yoars begins by challenging the board to “own your problems.” Specifically, he defines the B-52 sized fly-in-the-ointment as, “How will the Board control subsidence in southeast Montgomery County?”

*Map showing projected subsidence in Southern MOCO if LSGCD pumps 115,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater.*

Plain-Spoken Recommendations from Woodlands Resident

Yoars advocates:

Acknowledging that 2-3 feet of subsidence in southeast MoCo is not acceptable. It’s an average across the entire county. The average includes 0 subsidence in the northern parts and more than 3 feet in the south. There’s no way to justify the latter.
Dividing southern Montgomery County into three segments to isolate the problem.
- From Magnolia west, there’s no problem, he says.
- The south-central Conroe/Woodlands corridor already has access to surface water and has shown they can acceptably manage subsidence with it … when they aren’t at war with the SJRA.
- Southeast MoCo is where the real problem is. He advocates working with the Porter Special Utility District to bring East Fork San Jacinto River water into their system to reduce the projected 3-3.75 feet of subsidence there.
Pumping groundwater only in the less populated areas where subsidence will not really be an issue in the foreseeable future.
Starting to talk about solutions instead of arguing about irrelevant issues.

That’s the kind of thinking that could help Texans win back their reputation for straight talk. Even if you don’t buy every one of Yoar’s points, his hypothesis is testable and could get us further down the trail than the current crew has.

Porter probably doesn’t not have enough money to build its own surface water treatment plant. Extending the SJRA pipeline from the Woodlands to Porter might be more cost effective. But again, engineers can easily estimate those tradeoffs.

View Discussion Starting at 6PM

LSGCD has three ways for you to participate

Live Broadcast Link (watching only): https://lonestargcd.new.swagit.com/views/58
Participate Via Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_oqaz9Z_5SJyQRd_9dynxwQ Register beforehand. You will then receive a confirmation email with a password. Use the password to join the webinar. You WILL have the opportunity to provide live comments during the designated portion of the hearings or meeting.
Dial in: Call +1 346 248 7799; enter the meeting ID: 854 2178 5781#. You will then be prompted to enter a participation code or press #. Press #. You do not need a participation code.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/9/2021

1288 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.

March Update on Humble ISD Ag Science, North Transportation Center Construction

When Humble ISD began clearing land for its new ag science and north transportation centers in Porter near Woodridge Village, flood-wary residents expressed concern. Woodridge Village had contributed to flooding Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest twice in 2019 and residents feared additional clearing of forests would add to their problems. However, the contractors successfully built detention ponds and installed drainage before any major storms hit. No one has flooded yet due to these projects. A flyover of both facilities on 3/3/2021 showed the state of construction progress on both sites.

Ag Science Center

Humble ISD broke ground for its new seven-acre northern ag science facility last November. The contractor quickly finished clearing the site and building a detention pond. Now, work has started on the underground portion of the project – utilities, plumbing and drainage. Aerial photos taken last week show large amounts of pipe stockpiled near Ford Road. Photos also show concrete forms being staked out for building foundations. Humble ISD says the target opening for the new ag science center is still 2021.

*Looking NNW, you can see trenches for pipe and forms for concrete.*

When complete, this site will replace the ag barn facility at Deer Ridge Park in Kingwood. It flooded multiple times. Each time, students had to move their animals to safety. And one of the barns sustained structural damage. The purpose of this site: to improve safety.

North Transportation Center

Meanwhile, a quarter mile away, the North Transportation Center is taking its final shape. This project started several months before the new ag science center.

Contractors have poured the most of the concrete for building pads and parking lots. A large retention pond has partially filled with standing water. Two buildings have gone up and roofs are being put on. But the contractors have not yet “dried in” the buildings. They still have to install windows and doors before interior finish-work can begin.

*Looking NE at Humble ISD North Transportation Center Construction Progress as of 3/3/2021.*

*Looking south at same site. Note the ag science center in the background at the top of the frame.* *Ford Road on right.*

Target opening for this facility is also the 2021 school year. Humble ISD says the new transportation center will save $2 million per year in operating costs due to shorter routes. Currently, one transportation center in Humble serves the entire district. The center should also improve response times.

Humble ISD financed both projects with its 2018 bond program.

Last week, Harris County purchased more than two thirds of Woodridge Village for a major flood reduction project. Work on that should start soon. With that and the completion of these Humble ISD projects, nearby residents should sleep easier.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/7/2020

1286 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 535 since Imelda

Photo Essay: How “Backslope Interceptors” Reduce Erosion, Ditch Maintenance, Flood Risk

“Backslope interceptors” help prevent erosion that can clog drainage ditches and contribute to flooding. Most people have probably seen them, but never paid much attention to them. Nor do they understand can reduce ditch maintenance costs by lengthening maintenance intervals. This photo essay shows what a difference they can make. All three counties in the Lake Houston Area require them, but Liberty County doesn’t enforce its own regulations. So the visual differences are dramatic.

What Are They? How Do They Work?

We’ve all observed water flowing through drainage ditches. But how does it get into the ditch? Broadly speaking, it can get into the ditch by a) flowing down the banks or b) through pipes. Option A increases erosion. Option B decreases it. B also reduces flood risk and the long-term cost of ditch maintenance.

What is a backslope interceptor? Imagine a small ditch (or swale) parallel to but offset from the main ditch. The swale captures runoff and overland sheet flow before it gets to the main ditch. The swale then funnels the flow into pipes that run under the banks of the main ditch. Keeping large volumes of water off those banks reduces erosion which could otherwise quickly fill the ditch with dirt and reduce its carrying capacity. If erosion reduces carrying capacity enough, water can flood nearby homes and businesses. The illustration below shows how backslope interceptors work.

Real-Life Examples

On 3/3/2021, I flew over three counties: Harris, Montgomery and Liberty. The “with/without” photos below illustrate the difference that properly constructed backslope interceptors can make. I shot the first one over the new Artavia development in southern Montgomery County. Note how the backslope interceptors let the developer establish grass on the banks of the ditch despite construction still in progress.

Ditches WITH Backslope Interceptors

*Artavia ditch in Montgomery County. Note series of backslope interceptors behind the maintenance roads that flank the ditch.*

*Drainage ditch in Atascocita in Harris County. Again, backslope interceptors let grass establish on the sides of ditches, reducing erosion.*

Ditches WITHOUT Backslope Interceptors

The rest of these examples came from Colony Ridge in Liberty County.

*Lack of backslope interceptors has led to severe erosion. Runoff goes straight down the banks of ditch and into the East Fork San Jacinto.*

Role in Establishing Grass

The next two photos show the role of backslope interceptors in establishing grass. By preventing bank erosion from sheet flow, the interceptors give grass time to establish and grow, reducing erosion even more.

*Ditch in Artavia, a still-developing area in Montgomery County, where developer has recently hydromulched to establish grass.*

Liberty County ditch in newly developing part of Colony Ridge, also recently hydromulched. Without backslope interceptors, hydromulch has washed into bottom of ditch and will eventually wash away, leading to more severe erosion.

How Enforcing Regulations Can Reduce Costs, Flooding

Ironically, Liberty County drainage regulations updated in 2019 require developers to install backslope interceptors and plant grass on the banks of drainage ditches.

Page 100 states: “Erosion Control: All drainage facilities must be designed and maintained in a manner which minimizes the potential for damage due to erosion. No bare earthen slopes will be allowed. [Emphasis added] Various slope treatments, including turf establishment, concrete slope paving, and rip- rap, are accepted. Flow velocities should be kept below permissible values for each type of slope treatment. Interceptor structures and backslope swale systems are required [Emphasis added] to prevent sheet flows from eroding the side slopes of open channels and detention facilities.”

Unfortunately, Liberty County does not enforce its own regulations.

When the developer eventually tries to turn Colony Ridge over to Liberty County, the county will inherit as massive maintenance burden because of non-compliance with these regulations. But even before then, the developer is creating rivers of mud that reduce the conveyance of ditches, and thus contribute to flooding nearby residents in Plum Grove.

*This Colony Ridge drainage ditch in Liberty County is rapidly filling in. Residents use it for joy-riding in their ATVs, which further contributes to erosion.*

The sediment also contributes to dredging and water purification costs for people downstream in Harris County.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/6/2021

1285 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 534 since Imelda

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.

Doublespeak Continues to Cloud MoCo Subsidence Debate

Those who watched recent Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) and Groundwater Management Area 14 (GMA-14) meetings were treated to some jaw-dropping, head-spinning doublespeak on the subject of subsidence. On January 20, 2021, at a GMA-14 meeting, LSGCD rejected any mention of subsidence in their Desired Future Conditions (DFCs). Then on 2/9/2021, three presenters told the Lone Star board that they were still considering subsidence. Then on 2/24/2021, the same three presenters told GMA-14 they still rejected subsidence.

Pardon My Whiplash!

As if that wasn’t enough, during the three-hour 2/24 GMA-14 meeting, they also:

Claimed that their groundwater withdrawal plan won’t create subsidence, but insisted on removing subsidence as a measure of their performance.
Believe they are entitled to their fair share of subsidence.
Insisted they should be measured on nine factors (which included subsidence), but then argued to take subsidence out of the mix.

Their main point? In essence, “We reject subsidence as a measure of our performance.”

Why? Samantha Reiter, LSGWCD General Manager, listed four reasons in a six-page, 3716-word letter which she read to GMA-14. I have summarized her arguments below for readability and to make concise responses possible.

Argument #1: Modeling

Modeling shows that projected water draw-downs won’t create subsidence in excess of one foot on average across Montgomery County, so why worry?

Response: Subsidence models have not yet been validated for the aquifer from which Montgomery County would predominantly pump – the Jasper. Moreover, while aquifers can rebound from overpumping, subsidence cannot. Without a subsidence metric as a check, private water utilities, such as Quadvest, could merrily pump as much water as they wanted for 40 years and claim they would make it up in the last ten. But the subsidence damage at that point would be permanent.

Much of the groundwater in Montgomery County used for human consumption is pumped from the Jasper aquifer which also affects Harris and Galveston Counties. However, models predicting subsidence from the Jasper have not been validated as they have for the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers. Source Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.

Argument #2: Can’t Control Harris County

LSGCD can’t control Harris County pumping which affects subsidence in MoCo.

Response: True, but MoCo has already shown that surface water can dramatically reduce subsidence, even where subsidence is worst – in the heavily populated, southern part of the county. Moreover, SJRA’s surface water treatment plant has space to quadruple its capacity. While MoCo is arguing to increase its reliance on groundwater, Harris County is desperately trying to reduce its.

*When The Woodlands began using more surface water in 2016 after completion of a surface water pipeline, the rate of subsidence dropped 75%.*

See more below under “More on Argument #2.”

Argument #3: Unfairness

It’s unfair to limit subsidence in MoCo to an amount less than Harris County experienced.

Response: Is LSGCD really arguing to make the same mistakes Harris County did? Is it really worth damaging peoples’ foundations, walls, doors, cabinets, ceilings, roofs and driveways to make a philosophical point about fairness?

*These front steps in The Woodlands dropped almost 10 inches due to subsidence before conversion to more surface water. Photo courtesy of Mark Meinwrath.*

Argument #4: Measurable Goals

Goals must be measurable and LSGCD does not have enough monitoring sites or equipment to measure subsidence throughout Montgomery County.

Mike Turco, head of the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District answered this in the GMA-14 meeting. You can monitor subsidence with GPS, LIDAR and other readily available technologies for much less than the cost of a network of extensometers.

To see Ms. Reiter’s full text, click here. Her subsidence discussion starts on page 4.

More On Argument #2

Of the four arguments posed above, #2 seems strongest. Excessive pumping in either Harris or Montgomery County can produce subsidence across the county line. So how do you determine who’s causing how much in each location?

This is a question for scientists to answer. However, it seems to me that if one county is reducing its reliance on groundwater and the other is increasing its, any increase in the rate of subsidence should be easy to trace.

And this is precisely the scenario we face. Harris is reducing its dependence on groundwater; Montgomery is arguing to increase its.

In Harris County, the City of Houston is investing heavily to move people off groundwater. The $351 million Luce Bayou Interbasin Transfer Project will bring more water to Lake Houston. And the new $1.4 billion Northeast Water Purification Plant will supply that water to Houston as well as surrounding municipalities, counties and utility districts. Montgomery County already has a lake that’s 3-4X larger and a water treatment plant that can supply its growing population with enough water to reduce subsidence to a negligible rate. With the Montgomery County investment already made, why risk subsidence?

*Expansion of Houston’s Northeast Water Purification Plant will quadruple its capacity.* *It will soon provide 320 million gallons of treated water capacity per day*, *more than three times the entire water demand in Montgomery County.* *Looking NE toward Lake Houston in background.*

We Need Fewer Filibusters, Less Doublespeak, More Debate

I wish the LSGCD would engage in debates, not filibusters. By its own admission, LSGCD has tried to come up with a statement of Desired Future Conditions since 2016. That’s five years! How long does it take to study a problem and write a sentence!

In my opinion, verbose, rambling, repetitive 3-hour meetings filled with doublespeak have been designed to cloud tradeoffs, not find the best balance. It shouldn’t take smart people three hours to articulate a problem. And until we can get at what the real problem is, we will never find a real solution.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/5/2021

1284 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.

Harris County, City of Houston Finally Close on Purchase of Woodridge Village Property

Today, almost two years after Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village development first contributed to flooding Elm Grove Village and North Kingwood Forest in Kingwood, Harris County and the City of Houston finally purchased the aborted, ill-conceived development.

Current plans are for the City of Houston to build a wastewater treatment plant on the northern portion. Harris County Flood Control District will use the southern portion to build a regional floodwater detention center. The latter should alleviate flooding problems adjacent to the development as well as other areas farther downstream on Taylor Gully.

Exact Plans for Additional Detention Capacity Not Yet Developed

It is not immediately clear how much additional detention pond capacity HCFCD will build on the property or where. However, on February 9, 2021, HCFCD hired an engineering company to develop preliminary plans.

A press release issued today by Harris County Flood Control said, “The next step is to undergo an engineering analysis to maximize stormwater detention volume, quantify the benefit to the community and determine project cost and funding. Additional community engagement will be scheduled to gather input from area residents on the proposed project and to present project alternatives.”

History of Flooding

The flooding problems began on May 7, 2019 when approximately 200 homes flooded from sheet flow coming from the development. Two to three times that number of homes flooded on September 19th, 2019 during Imelda.

Contributing factors included:

Eventually, Perry Homes, its subsidiaries and contractors managed to build five detention ponds, but their capacity still fell about 40% short of Atlas-14 requirements. Thus, the development would have posed a risk forever after had Harris County and the City not stepped in.

Photos of Property Just Purchased

Here are pictures of Woodridge Village taken on 3/3/2021 from several different angles.

Woodridge Village looking SW from the NE corner of the property in Montgomery County. The diagonal near the top of the frame and the detention pond is the Harris/Montgomery County line. Ford Road is on left.

*Looking SE from the NW corner over Webb Street in Porter. The land slopes from the corner in the foreground to the detention pond in the background. Taylor Gully starts just beyond the detention pond.*

*Looking west along the northern boundary. The City portion of the property will border the tree line on the left and extend into the small area at the top.*

*Looking east along the southern border.* *Camera position was over Kingwood Park High School.*

*Looking NE from the southern border over Sherwood Trails Village in Kingwood.*

*Looking north up Village Springs Drive in Elm Grove. Taylor Gully starts on the right at the county line just below the concrete junction.*

*Looking NW from over North Kingwood Forest. Taylor Gully is on bottom right. The land slopes toward the camera position.*

More About the Sale

All of the 267.35 cleared acres fall within Montgomery County. But a provision within the 2018 Flood Bond allows Harris County to purchase land in other counties if it helps control flooding in Harris.

The Harris County Flood Control District and the City of Houston jointly purchased the property for approximately $14 million. The Flood Control District is using funds from the 2018 Bond Program (Bond ID Z-02) to acquire the land. The City of Houston contributed approximately $3.8 million dollars for the use and ownership of 73 acres on the northern part of the property.

Reaction from Government Officials

“This is a great example of government doing what government is supposed to do – listening to the people who live in those neighborhoods and working to protect them from future flooding,” said Harris County Precinct 4 Commissioner R. Jack Cagle, who pushed this project through against opposition in Commissioner’s Court.

Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin also worked tirelessly to make the deal happen. It involved trading City land to the County for flood control projects and getting the City to adopt the County’s flood control standards. “This purchase is integral for investment in the future of the Kingwood area as well as many homes along the county line. Collaboration like this is essential in providing a sense of security to residents who have endured so much uncertainty these last few years,” said Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin.

Congressman Dan Crenshaw lauded Cagle, Martin, and community support. “This is an important step forward in building a more resilient community,” he said.

State Senator Brandon Creighton said, “This type of partnership and investment will make Kingwood and surrounding areas better protected.”

State Representative Dan Huberty complimented the City and County for working together. “This is a great example of different areas of government working together to achieve the best outcomes for local residents,” he said.

Additional detention ponds are not yet built, but this is a huge step forward. A big “thank you” and “whew” to all involved.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/3/2021

1283 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 532 since Imelda