LSGWCD Rejects Subsidence Limit as Any Part of Desired Future Conditions

The Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGWCD) thumbed its nose at the rest of Southeast Texas when it rejected any mention of subsidence limitations in “desired future conditions (DFCs)” for Montgomery County. The statement came two hours, seven minutes and 15 seconds into a Groundwater Management Area (GMA) 14 meeting last month.

“At this time we can’t support the use of DFCs for subsidence in Montgomery County,” said James Beach, an engineering consultant for LSGWCD.

It’s unclear who authorized the consultant to make this statement. Those who follow LSGWCD meetings cannot remember the board discussing such a statement in any open meeting.

Bad Timing

This comes two months before a deadline to finalize DFCs for the entire GMA and two years after the debate about subsidence started. Since 2018, LSGCD and GMA 14 partners have debated various groundwater withdrawal/subsidence scenarios.

Run D was the most popular scenario for a long time. It called for leaving 70% of groundwater in place and causing no more than 1 foot of subsidence. However, withdrawing 30% of groundwater produced far more subsidence in Harris County.
The same models showed 2.5 feet of subsidence in south Montgomery County.

GMA 14 covers most of southeast Texas. It includes 19 counties clustered into 7 groundwater conservation districts. Rules adopted by the group apply to every conservation district and county in the area.

Members of GMA 14

LSGWCD has argued in favor of virtually unlimited groundwater pumping ever since its board became elected. Quadvest, a large, private water producer in Montgomery County successfully backed candidates running for the LSGWCD board on a platform of “restoring affordable water.” Both the Board and Quadvest have argued ever since – contrary to scientific evidence – that subsidence is not an issue in Montgomery County. They even produced a study (Phase One) to prove the point. It basically amounted to a survey of scientific literature mashed up with public comments.

HARC Study Points Out Limitations of LSGWCD Study

However, a report issued today by HARC calls several of the report’s conclusions “misleading” regarding:

  • Compaction data of various aquifers in Montgomery County.
  • Not mentioning well-known limitations on use of models for Montgomery County aquifers.
  • Focusing more on subsidence in Harris and Galveston Counties than on subsidence in Montgomery County.

The HARC Study also points out limitations on the use of data in LSGCD’s Phase One study. For instance, the latter was:

  • Primarily a survey of scientific literature, not conditions in Montgomery County.
  • It didn’t discuss drought.
  • Nor did it discuss oil and gas production.
  • It drew unjustified conclusions from limited data.
  • The language was imprecise and subjective.
  • It relied more on public comment than scientific data.

To read the full Phase 1 report and an Executive Summary, follow the links at the bottom of their Subsidence Page.https://www.lonestargcd.org/subsidence

Two Subsidence-Related Items On LSGWCD Agenda for Tuesday

LSGWCD will hold a board meeting Tuesday night starting at 6 pm. The agenda contains two related items.

  • 14. 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.
  • 15. 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.

Re: the second point, a water expert I queried said there is no way LSGWCD can opt out of GMA 14. The reference is likely to whether they want to participate financially with other groundwater conservation districts in funding the operations of GMA 14.

How to Attend In Person or Online

In-Person Participation

If you choose to participate in person, you WILL have the opportunity to provide live comments during the designated portion of the hearings or meeting.

Online Participation

If you choose to participate via the Zoom webinar link below, you WILL have the opportunity to provide live comments during the designated portion of the hearings or meeting.

If you choose to participate in the webinar via the Zoom App, you will need to pre- register via the URL meeting link above to get a password emailed to you in advance of the webinar. You will use the password emailed to you during pre- registration when you log into the app to join the webinar. You WILL have the opportunity to provide live comments during the designated portion of the hearings or meeting.

Participation via the videoconference webinar is not required and only necessary if you plan to make public comment during any hearing or the meeting. If you plan to make public comment during any hearing or meeting, please contact the District at (936) 494-3436 or info@lonestargcd.org to register as a speaker during public comment. 

Please indicate whether you would like to make public comment during the management plan hearing, permit hearing and/or board meeting. You must also register as a speaker when logging into the webinar by providing your name and email address. You can pre-register for the webinar. Any person participating in the meeting must be recognized and identified by a moderator before they speak.

Watching or Listening but Not Commenting

LISTENING/WATCHING BUT NO PARTICIPATION IN LIVE PUBLIC COMMENT
If you do NOT want to make live public comment and/or you choose to participate in the public hearings and meeting using the conference call number or live broadcast link below, you will NOT have the opportunity to provide live comments during the designated portion of the hearings and meeting. The conference call phone number is provided for LISTENING PURPOSES ONLY, and the live broadcast link is provided for LISTENING AND WATCHING PURPOSES ONLY.

You can submit written comments in advance to info@lonestargcd.org.

Telephone conference call phone number: +1 346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 886 2954 3383# 
You will then be prompted to enter a participation code or press #. Press #. You do not need a participation code.
Live broadcast of the hearings and meeting via the link below or on the meetings tab on the District’s website at https://www.lonestargcd.org/meetings

Live Broadcast Link:https://lonestargcd.new.swagit.com/views/58

To Learn More About the Implications of Subsidence

ReduceFlooding.com has posted several times about subsidence in south Montgomery and North Harris Counties. See:

Those Who Deny History are Doomed to Repeat It: Subsidence in 1974 and 2019

Someone’s Trying to Tilt Lake Houston Toward Your House

Truth is the First Casualty in Water Wars, Too

MoCo Water War Escalates, Putting Millions in Crossfire

Fault Movement and Property Damage Linked to Aquifer Depletion in Montgomery County

One thing is for sure. The next two months will be exciting.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/8/2021

1259 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.

More Than 140 Missing After Freak Flash Flood in India

The New York Times, Associated Press, France 24 and IndiaToday have reported a freak flash flood in northern India. It happened near the Himalayas after a portion of a glacier broke away and released pent up water.

The Times said, “Unconfirmed videos on social media showed violent surges of water heading down mountain gorges, washing away bridges and what looked like hydroelectric structures.”

Associated Press reported that the flood killed at least 9 people. They reported 140 missing. “The flood was caused when a portion of Nanda Devi glacier broke off in the Tapovan area of the northern state of Uttarakhand on Sunday morning. A video shared by officials and taken from the side of steep hillside shows a wall of water surging into one of the dams and breaking it into pieces with little resistance before continuing to roar downstream,” said the AP story.

To see a video shared on YouTube by France 24, a French public broadcast service, click here or on the image below.

France 24 video shared on YouTube.

A longer video on IndiaToday shows roiling water splashing hundreds of feet up on canyon walls.

Rescue teams from India and Tibet have rushed to the scene. Towns and villages downstream are being evacuated.

While we don’t have any glaciers in Texas, we do experience flash flooding. This dramatizes how flooding anywhere can change lives in an instant.

To learn more about different types of flooding, view this presentation by the National Weather Service.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/7/2020

1258 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Three Kingwood Flood-Mitigation Projects on Harris County Commissioners Court Agenda Next Tuesday

Harris County Commissioners posted their agenda for next Tuesday and it has three Kingwood flood-mitigation projects on it.

  • Preliminary engineering and final design services for improvements to:
    • Taylor Gully
    • Kingwood Diversion Ditch
  • Purchase of Woodridge Village to build a stormwater detention basin in Montgomery County.

In case you plan to watch the meeting, all three items fall under Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD). Unless commissioners take items out of order, HCFCD projects usually come second on the agenda after Engineering. Below: exact text of each agenda item.

Agenda Item Text

Item 79:

Recommendation that the Harris County Flood Control District be authorized to negotiate an agreement for engineering services with IDCUS Inc. to provide preliminary engineering and final design services for improvements to Taylor Gully on HCFCD Unit G103-80-03.1. (San Jacinto River Watershed, Bond ID F-14, Project ID G103-80-03.1-E001, Precinct 4).

Item 82:

Recommendation that the Harris County Flood Control District be authorized to negotiate an agreement for engineering services with Neel-Schaffer, Inc. to provide preliminary engineering and final design services for improvements to the Kingwood Diversion Channel on HCFCD Unit G103-38-00. (San Jacinto River Watershed, Bond ID F-14, Project ID G103-38-00-E001, Precinct 4).

Item 92:

Recommendation that the Harris County Flood Control (District) be given authorization to decree that this District project serve a public purpose and public necessity require that the Harris County Real Property Division be directed to acquire two (2) fee simple tracts for the public project known as Woodridge Village Stormwater Detention Basin on behalf of the District, for the purpose of stormwater detention, in Montgomery County.

Woodridge Village Plan

If purchased from Perry Homes, HCFCD will swap part of Woodridge Village – the northern 77 acres of the 268 total – with the City of Houston. The City wants to build a wastewater treatment plant there and has negotiated with the County to swap land elsewhere in the City that HCFCD can use to reduce the cost of flood mitigation projects. The land reportedly includes parcels along Halls and Greens Bayous. This swap represents a win/win that helps protect more people throughout the City and County.

Woodridge Village
Looking north, at most of the 268-acre Woodridge Village Property. Road connects to Woodland Hills Drive new Kingwood Park High School out of frame on left. City is interested in portion at top of frame. Flood Control would use the rest for mitigation.

Scope of Engineering Studies Still Unclear

Contracts for the engineering studies have not yet been negotiated. However, we do have clues in the Kingwood Area Drainage Assessment final report about what these projects might include. Last October, HCFCD talked about:

  • Widening and deepening Taylor Gully to increase conveyance and/or building the detention pond in Woodridge Village, which empties into Taylor Gully. So Woodridge and Taylor Gully are related; what happens with one will affect the other.
  • Widening the Kingwood Diversion Ditch all the way from St. Martha’s Catholic Church at the county line to the San Jacinto West Fork. The Diversion Ditch project also included building a detention pond to ensure no adverse downstream impacts. Finally, the Drainage Assessment recommended splitting the ditch near Deer Ridge Park. The split would convey part of the floodwaters straight to the West Fork instead of routing all through River Grove Park via a circuitous route that takes them under Woodland Hills Drive which has washed out in the past.
Red line is Bens Branch. White Line is Kingwood Diversion Ditch. Green line shows where Kingwood Area Drainage Assessment recommended splitting flow as it approached West Fork at bottom of frame. Detention pond location not yet finalized.

No Recommendations Certain Yet

Nothing is certain yet. Commissioners Court deferred the Woodridge Village purchase five times last year – in April, May, July, August and September.

And as for the engineering work, a close reading of the text above shows that HCFCD has not yet negotiated contracts. HCFCD simply wants permission to negotiate the agreements. “Once we receive authorization to negotiate the agreements from Commissioners Court, we can meet with the consultants and develop the scope, schedule, and budget,” said Matt Zeve, Deputy Executive Director of HCFCD.

Regardless, this is good news and welcome progress for flood-weary Kingwood residents still struggling with recovery. These projects put us three steps closer to solutions.

For the full agenda, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/5/2021

1256 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 505 After Imelda

Cleanup of Leaking Oil Tanks on Noxxe Lease by Forest Cove Little League Fields Complete

The Texas Railroad Commission has finished the cleanup of leaking oil storage tanks on the Noxxe Oil & Gas lease by the Forest Cove Little League fields. Several tanks remain, but they are empty and not leaking. According to a Railroad Commission spokesperson, another individual wants to take over the lease. That person intends to use the remaining tanks to help operate one or two wells that can still produce.

However, regarding a new producer, Gilbert Herrera, a spokesman for the Railroad Commission said, “I haven’t seen any P4 (transfer of wells) come through on the Noxxe wells in Harris County, so far.”

Before/After Pictures of Two Worst Areas

Worst Area
Worst portion of lease on 1/20/2021 as cleanup started.
Same area 11 days later on 1/31/2021. Tanks on right have been left intentionally for now and are empty.
Second Worst Area
Second worst area on 1/1/2020.
Same area on 1/31/2021 after cleanup. Note that five storage tanks are gone.

Industrial Litter Still Clutters Site

A drilling rig, travel trailers, trucks, drill pipe and more still remain on the site. Peter Fisher, District Director for the Railroad Commission said the Commission planned to salvage/auction those items. However, he could make no promises. “Sometimes we’re successful and sometimes we’re not,” said Fisher. It depends on the market.

Abandoned pipe and more still remains on Noxxe site.

Abandoned Wells Still Not Plugged

Abandoned wells on this site have not yet been plugged. Neither have wells on the western portion of the site near Marina Drive and Aqua Vista. The Railroad Commission says that “depending on well prioritization, approvals, rig scheduling, and so on, we have an estimated time of 14 to 19 weeks” for plugging.

Note oil sheen on ponding water next to San Jacinto West Fork, upper right.
Again, note the oily sheen on the water next to these abandoned wells. The San Jacinto West Fork/Lake Houston (lower left) provide water for 2 million people.

Much Work Still Yet to Do

“All eligible orphan wells for plugging will be submitted to Austin for approval. From there and dependent on the factors mentioned before, we will plug as many of the wells as possible in that area,” said Gilbert Herrera of the Railroad Commission. 

You can view all the “orphan wells” in that area on the Railroad Commission’s GIS map. An orphan well is one left behind by a bankrupt company.

Harvey forced Noxxe out of business. The company could not afford the cleanup. However, the Pew Foundation found that “So-called “orphan” oil and gas wells, which have been abandoned by defunct companies that cannot pay to plug them, are a growing problem in many states thanks to a recent slump in energy prices that has forced marginal operators out of business.”

“Nobody knows how many orphan and abandoned drilling sites litter farms, forests and backyards nationwide. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates there are more than a million of them. Unplugged wells can leak methane, an explosive gas, into neighborhoods and leach toxins into groundwater,” said Pew.

How many wells are there around the Humble salt dome? Hundreds, if not thousands. See below.

Screen capture of Railroad Commission GIS database showing oil and gas wells in the Humble/Kingwood area. Note the circular outline that matches the shape of the Humble salt dome.

The Railroad Commission GIS database lets you toggle software switches to see which wells are active, dry, plugged, orphaned, etc. Hovering your cursor over a dot shows the current status of the well.

Drillers frequently find oil and gas around salt domes. Salt, which is buoyant within the earth, fractures surrounding rock. Oil and gas seep into those fractures where it collects in commercial quantities. Is there any doubt why this area was so attractive to oil companies over the years? Here’s a history of the Humble Oil field which was discovered in 1904.

Once again, thanks to State Representative Dan Huberty for working with the Railroad Commission to accelerate cleanup of this area once the problems became known.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/3/2021

1254 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Mobilization Begins for Next Phase of Ben’s Branch Restoration

Last week, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) began mobilizing for the restoration of the Ben’s Branch drainage ditch between Kingwood Drive and Rocky Woods. The work will involve removing accumulated sediment that has diminished the conveyance capacity of the ditch.

Engineers measure conveyance in terms of “level of service.” A 100-year level of service means that a ditch will convey a 100-year rain without overflowing. The Kingwood Drainage Analysis performed last year by HCFCD revealed that sediment had reduced the conveyance of Ben’s Branch to a 2-year level of service in places. This project will restore the ditch to its original contours.

Looking north toward Rocky Woods. Most of the land between the two roads on either side of the ditch will be removed. Photo taken January 31, 2021.
Looking WSW toward intersection of Kingwood Drive and West Lake Houston Parkway. Trucks will exit Ben’s Branch by the cell tower behind the old H-E-B. Note the orange walls of the new H-E-B in the upper left. Also note the new CVS still under construction in the upper right (yellow walls). Photo taken Jan. 3, 2021.
How trucks will exist the project. Looking northwest across two temporary bridges where the two parts of Ben’s Branch come together. Work will focus on the main part on the left. Photo taken Jan. 31, 2021.
Temporary crossing for trucks coming down the west side of Ben’s Branch toward the exit on the east side by by old H-E-B. Photo taken January 31, 2021.

Importance of Project

Along Ben’s Branch, as a result of flooding during Harvey:

  • Kingwood High School immediately to the west of this project flooded badly. The building suffered $67 million in damages. The school lost another $10 million in contents. Four thousand students had to be bused to another school for seven months.
  • Homes along both sides of the ditch flooded.
  • All four shopping centers in Kingwood’s Town Center flooded. Many businesses still have not returned.
  • Thirteen people died, included twelve seniors at Kingwood Village Estates. Six died from injuries sustained during evacuation and six from stress-related illnesses after returning and finding their homes destroyed.
Looking south from northern end of project. Kingwood High School in upper right.

History of Previous Ben’s Branch Projects since Harvey

Previously, HCFCD cleaned out the portion of Ben’s Branch from the YMCA on West Lake Houston Parkway north to Kingwood Drive. This is an extension of that project. HCFCD also cleaned out the portion from Northpark Drive to Kids in Action on Woodland Hills Drive. Flood Control could not obtain permission to excavate anything in the natural portion of Ben’s Branch between St. Martha’s Catholic School and Rocky Woods. However, HCFCD did clean out underbrush to let water flow faster through that area.

Scope of Current Work

For the current work between Kingwood Drive and Rocky Woods, HCFCD will start at the downstream end and work its way north. The work should take about five months. It involves removing more than 22,000 cubic yards of sediment, restoring the original banks of the ditch, and replacing a number of outfall pipes that have become blocked or damaged over time.

Once the work begins in earnest, HCFCD contractors will enter the northern side of the project at the end of Cedar Knolls and move south toward Kingwood Drive. There, they will exit the project behind the old H-E-B store. Crews will work around Kingwood High School start/stop times to reduce traffic snarls.

HCFCD considers this a maintenance project, not a capital-improvement project.

Related Projects in Kingwood

The Kingwood Drainage Analysis identified two much-needed capital improvement projects in Kingwood:

  • Expansion of the Diversion Ditch that runs from the new St. Martha Church down to Deer Ridge and River Grove Parks where it eventually enters the West Fork. The purpose of the Diversion Ditch project: to further reduce the flow of water into Ben’s Branch.
  • A project to reduce flooding along Taylor Gully. Two options have been discussed:
    • Widening and deepening Taylor Gully itself
    • Establishing a regional detention pond on the land owned by Perry Homes’ subsidiary Figure Four Partners.

HCFCD has not announced a timetable yet for either of those projects. Any work on Taylor Gully would depend on whether Harris County and the City are able to negotiate the purchase of Woodridge Village from Perry. Woodridge Village is the aborted development that twice flooded Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest Villages in 2019.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/3/2021

1253 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Kingwood Drive Closed at Loop 494 from February 4-6

This is off-topic but it affects thousands of readers who may be delayed on their way to work or medical appointments this week. Kingwood Drive will shut down in both directions at Loop 494 from 9 a.m. on Thursday, February 4 to 7 p.m. on February 6. North-South traffic on Loop 494 will remain open.

Purpose to Widen KWD and Add Sidewalk

TXDoT and Union Pacific Railroad have agreed on the closure to accommodate roadway widening and new sidewalk. The railroad track crossing at Kingwood will also have to be widened and replaced. TxDOT can stop all train traffic to perform the work during that window.

Detours

To detour the closure, consider Northpark Drive or Hamblen Road.

Closures Subject to Change Depending on Weather

All closures are subject to change due to inclement weather. TXDOT is asking drivers to be cautious in the construction area.
For more information, contact Emily Black at (713) 802-5022.

Colony Ridge Developer Sues Critics For More Than Million Dollars Based on Questionable Allegations

(Updated 2/2/2021 at 8PM) In the “lawsuits-are-stranger-than-fiction department,” Colony Ridge developer Trey Harris has filed yet another lawsuit against the Plum Grove City Council and Plum Grove’s former Mayor Leann Walker. This time, Harris wants more than a million dollars. Among other things, the suit alleges that by hiring Wayne Dolcefino, they attempted to smear Harris. But in the next sentence, Harris trumpets “Their smear tactic was not successful.” So where was the damage?

More Questionable Allegations

Dig a little deeper and you’ll find several more equally questionable allegations. For instance, he alleges that elected officials acting in their official capacity can be sued as private citizens. To support this assertion, Harris alleges that council members had personal vendettas against him when they tried to defend residents from road damage, flooding and more.

Harris also alleges that:

  • The City Council doesn’t represent the public’s interest. Yet Colony Ridge issues have been front and center in multiple elections during the last decade.
  • Harris is a citizen of Plum Grove although he reportedly lives in Huntsville.
  • Defendants “trespassed” on his property, presumably by driving on a public road.
  • The Council refused Harris’ offer to help repair roads when, in fact, they accepted his $25,000.
  • Stopping road damage and flooding has “nothing to do with what is in the best interest of the public.”
  • Defendants do not like Harris.

Geez! When does a City Council have an obligation to like someone who they believe has destroyed the homes, roads and safety of City residents?

History of Disputes with Multiple Parties Contradicts Vendetta Claim

A long history of legal and political disputes between Colony Ridge and Plum Grove under different councils and mayors contradicts Harris’ claim that current criticisms are “personal vendettas.”

Harris previously sued Walker and lost in 2015. The judge ordered Harris to pay Walker’s legal fees. Harris also sued the City, which was under a different mayor at the time, and reportedly settled.

Numerous Plum Grove residents have complained about Colony Ridge to Liberty County officials for years. Resident’s concerns have included destruction of wetlands, inadequate detention pond capacity, damage to roads, public safety issues, violation of county regulations, plat irregularities and more.

Downstream residents in neighboring counties have also expressed concerns about flooding and road damage related to Colony Ridge construction practices.

TCEQ has repeatedly investigated Colony Ridge contractors and found multiple sewage leaks and substandard construction practices that jeopardize human health. Erosion caused by piling dirt next to ditches has clogged Plum Grove creeks with sediment and contributed to repeated flooding.

Colony Ridge Drainage Ditch Photographed on January 1, 2021, months after the TCEQ warned that such practices could adversely affect human health.
Sediment coming down the East Fork (right) from Colony Ridge on Jan. 1, 2021.

Rumor also has it that the Army Corps in Galveston has an open investigation into wetland mitigation issues in Colony Ridge.

Finally, last year, Plum Grove sued Colony Ridge to get the developer to repair roads his trucks have damaged. Could Harris’ recent suit simply be a countersuit designed to intimidate Plum Grove into dropping its suit? Possibly. But there’s something else going on, too.

Enter Wayne Dolcefino, Investigative Journalist

Having found no way to get Liberty County to enforce its own regulations in Colony Ridge, last October, Walker and the City Council hired Wayne Dolcefino, one of the country’s leading investigative journalists. They hired him to help shine a light on problems there. And for the first time ever, Liberty County started paying attention.

Dolcefino offered to show video evidence of problems at Colony Ridge, but commissioners refused to view it, then claimed there was no evidence.

In January, Dolcefino’s reports forced Liberty County officials to investigate irregularities related to engineering reports that may have been falsified and alleged violations of County drainage/development regulations.

A short while later, Harris filed his latest lawsuit.

Intimidating People into Silence

Harris seeks more than a million dollars from the tiny city of Plum Grove. On Page 4 of the suit, Harris alleges, “This action [the hiring of Dolcefino] was not taken with the public’s best interest in mind. It was taken as a calculated and vindictive action in an attempt to harm Plaintiff.” But in the very next sentence, Harris also claims, “Their smear tactic was not successful.” So if he wasn’t damaged, why is he suing? To intimidate people into silence?

I’m not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but the State’s Anti-SLAPP statute (AKA, the Texas Citizens Participation Act) may help Walker and the council members as individuals without governmental immunity. The act protects free speech on matters of public concern. If a legal claim is dismissed under the Texas Anti-SLAPP statute, the Court must award attorneys’ fees and may sanction plaintiffs from bringing improper lawsuits in the future.

But like the boxer he was, Harris has come out swinging. Things will soon get interesting.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/1/2021 and updated on 2/2

1252 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 490 Days 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.

Based on new information obtained on 2/2/2021, mention of the Texas Municipal League paying for legal costs was deleted.

Scientists Quantify Flood-Damage-Reduction Benefit of Texas Wetlands

A study by Samuel D. Brody, Sammy Zahran, Wesley E. Highfield, Himanshu Grover, and Arnold Vedlitz called “Identifying the impact of the built environment on flood damage in Texas” quantifies the flood reduction benefits of wetlands along the Gulf coast. The authors studied property damage in 423 floods between 1997 and 2001. They identified the effect of several built-environment issues, including wetland alteration, impervious surface and dams on reported property damage while controlling for biophysical and socio-economic characteristics.

Their statistical results suggest that naturally occurring wetlands play a particularly important role in mitigating flood damage. But how much? The results vary by location, of course, but in one county, they discovered that a 3.4X increase in wetland alteration permits correlated to a 10X increase in flood damage.

Wetlands adjacent to San Jacinto East Fork upstream from Lake Houston

Importance of Understanding Causes of Flooding

Floods damage more property than any other type of natural disaster in America – billions of dollars every year. However, the author’s say, there is lack of research on the relationship between the built environment and flood impacts in the eastern portion of Texas. Say the authors, “Such information is critical given the continued development of coastal areas and the increasing vulnerability of human populations to inland coastal flooding.”

What Study Correlated and How

The authors correlated flood property damage (total dollar loss adjusted by the consumer price index) to variables such as:

  • Precipitation (day of flood)
  • Precipitation (day before flood)
  • Percentage of county in 100-year floodplains
  • Duration of flood
  • Dams
  • Percent impervious surface
  • Wetland alteration
  • FEMA Community Rating System
  • Median Household Income

They measured everything by counties. Watershed data would have been better for floods, but damage is not often aggregated by watersheds.

Researchers measured “wetland alterations” by counting wetland permits issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers in Galveston under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. They simply counted the number of permits issued up to the day of any given flood. This enabled them to measure the cumulative impact of wetland alterations over time.

FEMA’s Community Rating System encourages city and county leaders to promote responsible development over time. The more an area reduces flood damage through regulations, mapping and 18 flood mitigation measures, the higher the discounts that residents earn on flood insurance.

The researchers used multivariate regression analyses to find which factors most influenced the degree of flood damage in eastern Texas. Multivariate regression identifies the degree of influence that multiple variables have over each other. It measures correlation, not causation.

Major Findings

Specific characteristics of the human-built environment in eastern Texas have an important influence on property damage resulting from floods, even when controlling for biophysical and socio-economic factors. Below are four major findings from the study.

First. the amount and duration of precipitation associated with a given storm flood largely governs flood damage.

When looking at biophysical variables, timing of precipitation is particularly important. “Heavy precipitation the day before the actual flood event is by far the strongest predictor of total property damage,” say the authors. This may be because of the delay in the rise of water or the saturation of soil. “It is important for decision-makers and the public to understand that heavy precipitation followed by sunny skies can still result in significant flood damage the next day.”

Second, the most important built-environment indicator of flood damage is the the alteration of naturally occurring wetlands.

“Impervious surfaces have long been criticised for their contribution to increased flooding and associated damage. However, the most significant impact may not depend solely on the total amount of imperviousness in a watershed or drainage basin, but rather on where exactly these built surfaces are placed. Altering or removing a wetland to construct car parks, roads and rooftops, for instance, effectively eliminates its ability to capture, hold and store water run-off.”

For example, comparing two identical rainfalls four years apart in De Witt County showed a 10X increase in damage. During that time, the number of wetland permits granted increased from 5 to 17 – 3.4X.

Similarly, comparing two 1.5 inch rainfalls in Wharton County, damage doubled while the number of wetland-alteration permits increased from 17 to 26.

Incredibly, Galveston County experienced a 20X increase in flood damage based on two 0.09 inch rainfalls three years apart. During that time, the number of wetland permits increased from 546 to 921.

“Developments initially believed to be safe from flood threats become an unexpected target of expensive flood damage over time,” say the authors. “The planning goal in this situation is to allow development to proceed without reducing the hydrological function and value of wetland systems.”

The authors suggest that achieving this objective will involve identifying and protecting wetlands through local land use policies. They include zoning restrictions, land acquisition programs, clustered development, density bonuses and more. Net economic benefits to a locality may result by reducing costs related to repair of damaged structures and mitigation solutions.

Third, wetlands may be more effective than dams in mitigating property loss over time.

Dams are extremely costly mitigation alternatives. And they can encourage development in flood-prone areas out of a false sense of security. See more below.

Fourth, FEMA’s Community Rating System reduces property damage.

Communities ranked high by FEMA for mitigation measures experience significantly lower amounts of flood-related property damage. “In fact, CRS participation appears to reduce community-wide flood damage more than dams, which are far more costly,” the study claims.

Economic Tradeoffs

In comparing the relative effects of various variables on flood damage, the authors also assessed economic tradeoffs of various mitigation measures.

For instance, they compared the cost in property damage in a flood to the price of wetland permits and dams. They found that 129 wetland alteration permits cost as much property damage per flood as one dam saved.

“Given the expense of building dams, their negative environmental ramifications, and the possibility of structural failure, protecting naturally occurring wetlands may be a more rational policy alternative,” says the study.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/30/21 based on a study by Samuel Brody, et. al.

1250 Days since Hurricane Harvey


Texans for Responsible Aggregate Mining Release Video Showing Statewide Nature of Problems

Texans for Responsible Aggregate Mining (TRAM) released a new video today demonstrating statewide issues with aggregate production operators (APOs). Just in time for the 2021 legislative session, the 12-minute video calls the concerns non-partisan, but says they requiring bi-partisan support. Their goal: to find the right balance between economic growth, public health, environmental preservation and regulation.

The group’s research found that Texas is one of seven states without comprehensive APO regulations. That leaves APOs in Texas largely unchecked and out-of-control.

Video Examines Six Major Concerns

Excessive sedimentation that leads to flooding is not the only issue associated with aggregate mining as practiced in Texas. The video shows APO operations across the state and addresses six major concerns:

  1. Air particulate emissions
  2. Water quality and availability
  3. Surface and groundwater contamination, and flooding
  4. Rapid development of APOs with adequate regulatory oversight
  5. Truck traffic, safety, and road repairs plus their costs
  6. Nuisance issues such as noise and light pollution, plus blasting

This vividly demonstrates some of the issues discussed in the House Interim Committee’s Report on Aggregate Production Operations released earlier this week.

Screen capture courtesy of TRAM. Click to play video.

Packed with Fascinating Factoids about Aggregate Mining

The video is packed with eye-opening factoids. Did you know, for instance, that:

  • One 80,000 pound truck creates the wear and tear of 9600 cars?
  • Texans subsidize truck damage to roads to the tune of $.23 cents per mile driven for every fully loaded commercial vehicle?
  • APO contract vehicles typically operate on a per-load basis, often leading them to push the safety envelope to carry more loads?
  • APOs can reduce property values by 5% up to 3 miles away and more than 25% within a quarter mile?

Screen Capture Courtesy of TRAM. Click to play video.

Relationship Between Regulation and Growth

In case you want to do your own econometric analysis on the relationship between growth and aggregate regulation, TRAM offers a good starting point. This link shows a state-by-state breakdown of regulations. Who has comprehensive mining regulations, who has partial and who has none?

Of the ten fastest growing states, three have no comprehensive mining regulations; six do, and one has partial regulation. Net: the proposition that lax regulation of APOs creates fast growth is dubious.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/29/2021

1249 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.

San Jacinto Master Drainage Plan Uses Gage UPSTREAM from Sand Mines to Estimate West Fork Sedimentation

Appendix F of the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Plan discusses the sediment contribution to Lake Houston of various tributaries. It asserts that Cypress Creek, Spring Creek, and West Fork sub-watersheds are the highest contributors of suspended sediment to Lake Houston, contributing an estimated 38.7 percent, 26.8 percent, and 13.0 percent of the total sediment load, respectively.

However, to measure sediment on the West Fork, the study team used a gage at I-45 – UPSTREAM from virtually all West Fork sand mines. This explains a huge disparity between measured data and visual observations. But the report never even acknowledges the visual observations.

I have previously posted about the 3600-page master plan. In many respects, it is a masterpiece that contains good and valuable information that will help mitigate flooding throughout the watershed. The comments in this post relate ONLY to Appendix F on sedimentation, which in my opinion contains a serious flaw.

Misleading Impressions

The problem with using the gage at I-45: it rules out certain contributions to sedimentation that the report barely acknowledges.

Cypress Creek and Spring Creek combine before merging with the West Fork. Thus, you would expect five times more sediment coming from Spring and Cypress Creeks than the West Fork, based on their findings. Yet almost every time I photograph the confluence of the West Fork and Spring Creek, I see more sediment coming from the West Fork, despite the fact that Lake Conroe blocks sediment coming from the upper part of the watershed. See below.

Confluence of Spring Creek and West Fork San Jacinto. Each shot taken in a different month and from a different angle. But the siltier stream in each case is the West Fork where virtually all the sand mines are.

Location of West Fork Gage Never Fully Specified in Report

The West Fork gage number is listed on page 114 of Appendix F. But the description says only, “W Fk San Jacinto Rv nr Conroe Tx, Gage #08068000.” At another point (page 115), it lists the gage near Lake Conroe. To find the exact location of the gage, one must go outside the report to a USGS site. Then to see where the gage sits relative to West Fork sand mines, one must back up to page 61 of Appendix F. Most readers will just assume, given the scientific nature of the report, that the authors used a gage at a representative location, not one that ruled out sediment from sand mines.

Even a careful reader of the report could conclude that the contribution of sand mines to sedimentation is minor in the grand scheme of things. TACA would welcome such a conclusion.

The report ignored thousands of photos posted on ReduceFlooding.com as well as TCEQ reports citing sand mines for non-compliance.

The implications of measuring sediment upstream from sand mines, overlooking visual evidence, and ignoring official reports calls into question some of the report’s recommendations. For instance, #2 suggests using “existing [emphasis added] stream gage data” … to “inform where higher suspended sediment is originating within each sub-watershed.”

Sorry, you can’t get there from I-45. And if sand mines are an issue, neither can you get there from LIDAR surveys taken every several years, which the report also recommends. Sand mine discharges happen frequently and sporadically, often under the cover of darkness.

Sand Mining Not Seriously Considered as Possible Source of Sedimentation

The report, for the most part, blames sedimentation on new development and stream bank erosion. It does not consider:

Un-permitted river mining and lax enforcement
Intentional pumping over dikes
Pipes buried under dikes
Breaches and pumping into surrounding wetlands that drain into the West Fork
Repeated breaches at the same location
Breaches in abandoned mines
Breaches into drainage channels just a few yards upstream from the West Fork
Intentional breaches. Note the backhoe tracks and sharp edges to the breach in this video.

Sedimentation Report Needs More Gages

You can’t document the volume of such breaches and illegal pumping from a helicopter. However, you can’t overlook such practices either.

What we really need is a sediment gage downstream from the sand mines just before the West Fork joins Spring Creek. A gage at that location would go a long way toward calculating the volume of sediment escaping from sand mines.

Report Also Needs Revision Before Legislative Committees Meet on Sand Mining

The authors also need to amend this report quickly. The amendments should highlight the location of the West Fork gage, the implications of that, and limitations on the use of the data – especially by the legislature.

My biggest fear is that sand miners will attempt to use this report to defeat reasonable legislative reforms of the industry. They have used similar reports in the past to do exactly that. I have personally testified in four House and Senate committee hearings about sand mines only to have TACA trot out figures from the 2000 Brown and Root Study. B&R drew similar conclusions because it used the same West Fork gage at I-45.

To protect the scientific integrity of its report and the validity of its recommendations, the authors need to act quickly. The legislature is considering new sand mining regulations at this instant. Such regulations could protect downstream residents from excess man-made sedimentation, huge dredging costs and potential flooding.

The Master Drainage Plan, including Appendix F on sedimentation, is intended to guide flood mitigation efforts for the next 50 years and help inform the expenditure of potentially billions of dollars during that time. The larger report has many good points. But Appendix F is seriously flawed. I hope the partners – City of Houston, SJRA, Montgomery County, HCFCD and their consultants – fix it before lasting damage is done.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/28/2021

1248 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.