News Archives - Page 160 of 282

Construction of HCFCD Greens Bayou Flood Mitigation Projects in High Gear

One of the largest watersheds in northern Harris County is Greens Bayou. It drains 212 square miles with a population of more than half a million people. It encompasses portions of the cities of Houston and Humble.

Greens Bayou and its tributaries have flooded homes and businesses numerous times in the last two decades. Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 and Hurricane Harvey in 2017 produced devastating floods thanks to large floodplains and high-density development.

An Equity Priority

As a result of high percentages of low-to-moderate income neighborhoods as you work your way east and south along the bayou, flooding in Greens received a high priority in the Harris County’s Equity Prioritization Framework.

Harris County Flood Control District currently has three projects in construction along Greens Bayou with more on the way. One of the three is virtually complete. When I photographed it today, I found contractors doing a final inspection. Here’s a rundown of current and future projects.

Greens Bayou runs roughly parallel with the North Belt before turning south and eventually joining Buffalo Bayou. Projects 1 and 3 are large scale detention projects under construction. Phase 1 of Project 2 is virtually complete.

Project #1: Cutten Stormwater Detention Basin

HCFCD is currently excavating a massive 235-acre stormwater detention basin near Cutten Road and State Highway 249. It will reduce flooding risks in the Greens Bayou watershed by taking in excess stormwater during heavy rain events and then releasing it slowly back to the bayou when the threat of flooding has passed.

*Map of the Cutten Detention site courtesy of HCFCD.*

The project is budgeted at $16.2 million. And it is approximately one-quarter complete. I took the pictures below on 4/20/21.

*Looking SW at the Cutten Basin with the Beltway 8/SH249 intersection in the background. Greens Bayou flows diagonally from the upper right to lower left.*

*Tunnels under Greens Road will let water flow from the northern section to southern*

*Looking NE across Hollister Road toward another section of the basin that will connect to the rest via tunnels.*

*A relentless carousel of trucks carries away one layer of the basin after another.*

Project #2: Aldine Westfield Stormwater Detention Basin

Further down the bayou, the Aldine Westfield Stormwater Detention Basin is located just north of Beltway 8 and east of Aldine Westfield Road. The first phase of this project is virtually complete. It sits in a no-fly zone for drones because of its proximity to Bush Intercontinental Airport. So you will have to make do with a ground-level construction photo stitched together in Photoshop from five separate exposures.

*Looking SE at Phase One of the Aldine Westfield Basin. Contractors have just finished planting trees to stabilize the slopes.* *Phase Two has yet to start. It will be to north (left) of this basin.*

*Phase One has just completed. Phase Two is in permitting.*

South and north segments are being constructed in two phases because of environmental permitting. Eventually, the two basin compartments will connect via a 48-inch pipe and will outfall into Greens Bayou.

The first phase above cost $7.7 million. The second will cost $11.3 million.
HCFCD

Because of the location just south of Bush Intercontinental Airport, this basin will not have a permanent pool. Reason: to avoid attracting waterfowl which could create a hazard to aviation.

The two basins will eventually hold approximately 1,250 acre-feet, or more than 407.3 million gallons, of stormwater that otherwise might flood homes and businesses during heavy rain events. The benefits of this project are best understood as part of a suite of projects – Progress Greens – that will work together to reduce flooding risks within the 213 square miles of the Greens Bayou watershed.

Part of Project Greens

Project Greens is a suite of flood damage reduction projects. The Harris County Flood Control District is taking the lead in some, with grant assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In others, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will design and construct the project, with partnership assistance from the Flood Control District.

All projects under the Progress Greens umbrella will function together to reduce flooding risks and damages for residents and businesses within the 213 square miles of the Greens Bayou watershed.

The Aldine Westfield Stormwater Detention Basin project is and will be funded both through the Flood Control District’s Capital Improvements Program and the 2018 Bond Program. If partnership funds are not available, the project will be funded totally from the 2018 Bond Program as a “Local Only” project.

Project #3: Lauder Stormwater Detention Basin

The Lauder Stormwater Detention basin is another 2-phase project. Phase One, just north of Lauder Road and west of JFK Boulevard, will cost $18 million when complete. Phase Two will cost another $20.5 million and be located west of Phase One in parts of the Castlewood subdivision which HCFCD has bought out. Harris County Commissioners Court accepted the Preliminary Engineering Report and authorized the design and construction of Phase Two of the stormwater detention basin.

*The photos below show the status of Phase One.*

When complete, the Lauder Stormwater Detention Basin will hold at least 1,200 acre-feet, or more than 391 million gallons of excess stormwater. According to HCFCD, the project will reduce risk in more common 10 percent (10-year) floods, but would be overwhelmed in a much larger storm.

While driving around this area, I noticed a new home ten-feet up on stilts, while older homes sat at ground level. Commercial and industrial development around Bush Intercontinental Airport has literally swamped this area. This Lauder Basin is also part of Progress Greens.

The photos below show the status of Phase One construction on 4/20/21.

*Looking north from the construction entrance at Lauder Road.*

*Looking East at the Lauder Basin construction staging area.*

The Lauder Stormwater Detention Basin project is being funded both through the Flood Control District’s Capital Improvements Program (for design) and through the 2018 Bond Program (for construction).

Total Cost for Greens Bayou Projects in Construction

Altogether, construction of these three projects will cost approximately $42 million. Phase Two of Aldine Westfield and Lauder basins will cost another $31.8 for a total of almost $74 million. Phase 2 of the Aldine Westfield construction will kick off this summer. And Phase 2 of the Lauder project will start next winter.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/29/2021

1330 Days since Hurricane Harvey

City Repairing Storm Sewer Outfalls

One of the most often overlooked points of failure in drainage systems is the lowly storm sewer outfall. When rain flows into the storm sewer on your street, it travels through pipes underground until it reaches the “outfall” at a stream or drainage ditch. If the outfall becomes blocked or damaged, it can back water up and contribute to street flooding.

Often, the damage to the outfall is so remote and difficult to find, that unless someone makes it his or her specific mission, it can go undetected.

Chris Bloch Takes on the Mission

Luckily for Kingwood residents, retired engineer Chris Bloch has made it his mission to identify damaged outfalls and bring them to the attention of the City of Houston. In his quest to help the Kingwood community, Bloch has trudged through mud, muck, brambles and underbrush for years. But his persistence has finally started paying dividends.

Recently the City repaired four outfalls that empty into Bens Branch. The repairs coincided with Harris County Flood Control District’s project to restore conveyance of the channel between Rocky Woods and Kingwood Drive. The result: reduced flood risk to surrounding neighborhoods.

*Locations of four outfalls recently repaired by City of Houston in conjunction with HCFCD restoration of Bens Branch*

Below: pictures before and after the repairs.

Outfall #1: Cedar Knolls At Woods Estates

*Outfall #1 before repairs. Severe erosion exposed then partially severed pipe.* *The erosion resulted from churning water behind a logjam in the natural section of Bens Branch.*

*The logjam that created the erosion has since been removed* *by HCFCD.*

*Outfall #1 drained approximately 10.7 acres.*

The outfall repaired by the City was upstream of HCFCD’s Ben’s Branch restoration project. Of the two other outfalls in this photo, HCFCD repaired the one in the foreground and the City repaired the one in the middle. See Outfall #4 for more info on that one.

Outfall #2: Laurel Garden and Bens Branch

*At point #2, drain pipe had cracked and was pushed upward, causing water to back up.*

A sinkhole also developed along this line. That usually results from part of the pipe collapsing in on itself. Dirt above the hole then erodes into the pipe. The City plans to address the sinkhole now that Flood Control has finished its work.

Outfall #3: Wildwood Ridge Near Deerbrook

According to Bloch, this area originally had 22 feet of corrugated metal pipe and another 50 feet of concrete pipe sections that failed. Erosion undercut the pipe and washed it away.

As erosion widened and deepened the area around the destroyed pipe and a manhole, trees fell into the widening “ditch.” The blockages caused the water to churn, creating even more erosion.

Below is the “after” shot. Instead of replacing all the pipe, the City created a wider ditch that will greatly improve street drainage in this watershed.

*The area eroded by the damage to outfall #3 has been replaced by a side ditch. It will provide more than enough conveyance to handle water exiting the 36″ pipe.*

In the picture above, the rocks surrounding the outfall are called riprap. Riprap is a permanent layer of large, angular stone, cobbles, or boulders typically. Riprap armors, stabilizes, and protects the soil surface against erosion and scour in areas of concentrated flow, such as at outfalls.

*The storm sewer outfall #3 services a drainage area of 28.6 acres.*

Outfall #4: East Side of Bens Branch at Rocky Woods and Wildwood Ridge

During a storm, the cover on this manhole blew off. Later, young people threw wood into the open manhole and started fires while they drank beer.

*Before repairs.* *The manhole acted as a chimney that made it easy to have a roaring fire.*

*People also threw beer cans and other debris into the manhole.*

Eventually the sewer line became completely blocked according to the City. As a result, storm water backed further up the line. Increased pressure lifted covers off of all upstream manholes. In addition, the pressure forced storm water out between the concrete pipe joints and created a number of sinkholes.

Due to all of this damage approximately 580 feet of 24-inch sewer line and three manholes had to be replaced by the City. This is probably one of the most expensive cases of vandalism Kingwood has experienced.
Chris Bloch

With the line completely blocked, it was of no use and storm water runoff from this area would flow further down Wildwood Ridge where several homes suffered flood damage.

*Outfall #4 after repairs. Note also replacement of the manhole.* *Not shown: the 580 feet of other repairs including more manholes.*

*The drainage area serviced by this sewer is only 5.6 acres, the 24-inch line was more than adequate for this acreage.*

Kudos to the City and Bloch

These are just four of several repairs underway. More news to follow.

Thanks to the City of Houston, Mayor Pro Tem and District E Council Member Dave Martin, and his staff for coordinating these repairs with the Public Works Department. Residents will sleep much better in the next big storm.

Thanks also to Chris Bloch for his tireless efforts in reporting these issues. If you find similar problems near your home or business, please report them through the contact page on this web site. I’ll make sure they get to Chris who will make sure they get to the people who can help.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/18/2021 based on information and photos collected by Chris Bloch

1328 Days since Hurricane Harvey

HCFCD Completes Removal of Another 10,000 Cubic Yards From Bens Branch

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) contractors have completed removal of virtually another 10,000 cubic yards of sediment that had accumulated in Bens Branch between Rocky Woods Drive and Kingwood Drive. While a little cleanup work and equipment removal remains, we can call this job “well done.”

Scope of Work Completed

HCFCD widened and deepened half mile stretch of the creek/ditch. Flood Control also re-sloped the banks, straightened the flow lines, replaced backslope interceptor drains, restored the original conveyance of the ditch, and replanted grass.

Tens of Millions in Nearby Damages during Harvey

During Harvey, dozens of homes flooded along both sides of this channelized stream. So did Kingwood High School and the old H-E-B shopping center north of Kingwood Drive. The shopping center is still mostly vacant because of flood damage. And the Humble ISD spent $70 million to restore Kingwood High School which flooded to the second floor.

Approximately 1000 Truckloads of Sediment Removed

Given that your average dump truck holds about 10 cubic yards, contractors removed about a 1000 truckloads of sediment during this phase of the Bens Branch project.

While the truck traffic got intense at times, contractors finished months ahead of schedule. They originally scheduled completion for early July.

Before/After Photo Essay

The first photo below was taken in January before the start of the project. I shot the rest on April 16.

*Bens Branch at Rocky Woods in January 2021 before start of clean-out project.*

Bens Branch at Rocky Woods after completion of project on April 16, 2021. The greenish tinge on the slopes is hydro mulch. Hydro mulch is grass seed embedded in a gelatin which can be sprayed on the slopes. Nutrients in the gelatin help ensure that grass will begin to grow in the least amount of time possible, hopefully before heavy rains can erode the slopes.

*In fact, new grass shoots are already poking out of this ground. This new drain at Laurel Garden replaces one that had collapsed and become almost totally blocked*. *The average service life of galvanized corrugated metal pipe is up to 40 years.*

*New entrance to drain behind maintenance road on side of ditch.*

*Note the warning. Waste dumped in these drains blocks them and contributes to neighborhood flooding. Even if waste does not block the drain, it can wind up in Lake Houston or Galveston Bay.*

*Looking back upstream toward the new drain at Laurel Garden*.

*This shot dramatizes the proximity of Kingwood High School to the ditch. Looking downstream. Notice Lake Houston in the background in the upper left.*

*Looking downstream from the middle of the Bens Branch project toward Town Center.*

*Only removal of the temporary crossing and three pieces of equipment (lower left) remain.* *Every building in the background flooded during Harvey.*

No More Bens Branch Projects Scheduled At This Time

This was the fourth and final phase of Bens Branch restoration. Previous projects addressed Bens Branch from:

HCFCD says it has no plans at this time to address the portion from the Y to the West Fork near Kings Harbor.

No one can guarantee that this work will prevent a future flood, but it will certainly make one less likely.

Thanks to the women and men of HCFCD and their contractors who kept the Bens Branch project moving through the pandemic. And to the US Department of Agriculture’s National Resources Conservation Service which provided partial funding.

Thanks also to the Bear Branch Trail Association, Kingwood Service Association and Kings Forest CA. All helped provide access to the project area across their property.

Onward to other projects such as Woodridge Village Detention, Taylor Gully restoration, and Diversion Ditch expansion. More on those in future posts.

Posted by Bob Rehak on April 17, 2021

1328 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Environmental Regulation Committee Taking Public Comments on Three APO Bills

The Environmental Regulation Committee of the Texas House of Representatives will hear public testimony on three bills concerning sand mines/aggregate production operations on Monday, April 19, 2021. You don’t need to go all the way to Austin to testify. You can leave your comments on the Committee’s website. Just remember, there’s a 5000 character limit. See more about the bills below.

HB 767: Best Practices for Sand Mines

HB767 by Dan Huberty would require the TCEQ to establish best practices for sand mines and publish them on its website. Right now, Texas is one of the few states that doesn’t have a codified set of best practices. Granted, though, some are embodied in the terms of permits and federal laws. But the public never sees these. And many best practices common in other states are notably absent in Texas. For instance, there are no setbacks specified for sand mines from rivers in Texas. Companies can mine right up to the edge of rivers…in the floodway. Then when floods happen, dikes collapse and sediment gets washed downstream.

The Bayou Land Conservancy submitted this letter in support of HB 767. Two key points:

Best management practices (BMPs) would provide guidance for the industry and expectations for the community about how these facilities will be managed and the legacy they will leave.
BMPs would aid stakeholders in identifying which companies are interested in working with and protecting nearby communities.

HB 767 is scheduled for public hearings in Environmental Regulation on 4/19/2021. To learn more about the bill, click here. To support the bill, go to this web page and leave your comments. It’s quick and easy.

HB 291: Reclamation Plans and Performance Bonds for Sand Mines

HB 291 by Representatives Murr and Wilson calls for sand mines to file a reclamation plan before they get a permit to start mining, estimate the cost of the reclamation, and post a performance bond in that amount. Every time the mine expands, the owners would have to update the plan. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that miners simply don’t walk away from mines after the last ounce of profit is milked from them. That’s what many do now. The East and West Forks of the San Jacinto are littered with abandoned mines and rusting equipment. This bill also specifies the types of things that would have to go into the reclamation plan. It is scheduled for a hearing in the Environmental Regulation committee on 4/19/2021. To learn more about the bill, click here.
To support the bill, go to this web page and leave your comments.

HB 1912: Limiting Sand Mine Pollution

HB 1912 by Wilson would limit air-, light-, noise-, and water pollution; and soil erosion. It also sets limits, mandates monitoring equipment, and requires financial assurance for handling violations. Aggregate production operations throughout the state have had these problems. To learn more about the bill, click here. To support the bill, go to this web page and leave your comments.

Video Broadcast of Meeting

A live video broadcast of this hearing will be available here: https://house.texas.gov/video-audio/. The meeting starts at 2 p.m. or after adjournment of the House for the day.

Texas residents who wish to electronically submit comments related to this and other bills without testifying in person can do so until the hearing is adjourned by visiting: https://comments.house.texas.gov/home?c=c260.

One Sneaky, Bad Bill to Fight

Representative Harris of Hillsboro, TX has introduced HB 2144. Keep this on your radar. It takes away a private citizen’s right to sue for nuisance. For instance, if a sand mine were spewing silicon dust on your property, polluting your water, or flooding your home, you would have to convince the state to sue them. Good luck with that.

“Only the state or a political subdivision of this state may bring a public nuisance action…”
HB2144

This bill has already passed out of committee. So the only way to fight it now is with amendments or on the house floor when it comes up for a vote. I suggest you contact your representatives and try to get them to fight this bill. To learn more about the bill, click here. It does not have a companion bill in the senate but, if approved in the House, would go there for consideration.

Today, nuisance is the most frequently pled theory of liability under common law tort for environmental litigation. Under public nuisance, a plaintiff, either a government entity or a private individual, may bring suit if there are damages, interference, or inconvenience to the health or safety of the public at large.

HB 2144 would restrict public nuisance law only to cases where a person causes an unlawful condition, namely “an ongoing circumstance or effect … that is expressly prohibited by the laws of [Texas].” Further, the bill specifically provides that persons or entities engaged in “lawful manufacturing, distributing, selling, advertising, or promoting a lawful product” cannot be a public nuisance. This ignores the fact that people and property can be seriously harmed even though no statute or regulation is violated – that’s one of the reasons we have common law causes like nuisance to begin with! HB 2144 would remove the ability for the government or individuals to stop such harms from occurring or to seek redress.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/15/2021

1326 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.

Martin Announces Lake Houston Safety Plan With Color-Coded Zones

Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin announced today a “Lake Houston Safety Plan.” It promotes lake safety by helping boaters better identify their locations on the lake when calling 9-1-1, so help can arrive faster.

*Lake Houston Safety Plan Map courtesy of City of Houston, District E. For a printable high-resolution version, click here.*

Use Colors to Narrow Down Location when Calling for Help

Martin worked with City of Houston’s Planning Department to create a map identifying seven geographic areas by color for residents needing to identify their position on the lake. Martin’s District E Office, Houston Fire Department, Houston Police Department and Lake Patrol Division, Houston Emergency Center, Houston Public Works, and Harris County Sheriff’s Office jointly designed the map.

When contacting first responders, the color coded zones will help reduce response time by narrowing down a boat’s location. The City will provide the safety plan map to all public docks/piers and private launch areas for posting. Dispatchers at Houston’s Emergency Center have already started training based on the map.

Maps have also been provided to all Lake Houston Area first responders. The City of Houston Public Works Department will also place highly visible signs on bridges crossing Lake Houston and the San Jacinto River with the names of roadways by Memorial Day.

For More Information on Safety Plan

District E will conduct outreach events, launch a targeted social-media campaign, and send out a mailer this summer to Lake Houston residents with more information on the Safety Plan.

To receive resources on the Lake Houston Safety Plan or to schedule a member of the District E Team to provide a presentation to your group directly please call (832) 393-3008 or email the District E Office at districte@houstontx.gov.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/15/2021 based on information from Dave Martin’s Office

1325 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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. 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)	Storms	Hurricanes	Major Hurricanes
1981-2010 (Old Average)	12	6	3
1991-2020 (New Average)	14	7	3
2020 Actual	30	13	6
2021 Predicted by AccuWeather	16 to 20	7 to 10	3 to 5
2021 Predicted by Colorado State	17	8	4

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