Two New MoCo Developments Will Total Almost 3,400 Acres, Have No Detention Ponds

Two new developments in Montgomery County, Audubon in Magnolia and Country Colony in Porter, will have no detention ponds. The two developments total almost 3,400 acres. During heavy rainfalls, they will dump their floodwater directly into local streams.

How Do They Get Away With That?

Sixteen months ago, on the second anniversary of Harvey, Montgomery County commissioners voted to leave open a loophole that lets developers avoid detention pond requirements. They said they would revisit the issue after the San Jacinto River Basin Study was completed. Even though partners shared study results with the public last August, MoCo commissioners have still not revisited the loophole called a “flood routing study,” also known as hydrograph timing.

The commissioners expressed concern in their 2019 meeting about placing economic hardships on developers. Residents complained about the economic hardships caused by flooding. The developers won.

Theory and Problems with Flood Routing Studies

The idea behind flood routing is simple. If you can show you can get your floodwater to the river faster than a flood’s peak arrives, theoretically, you’re not adding to the peak. Therefore, theoretically, you’re not making flooding worse.

However, engineers and hydrologists point out several flaws with this “beat the peak” theory.

  • Flood-routing studies don’t consider the cumulative effects of other developments.
  • They are almost always based on outdated hydrologic models.
  • They assume “ideal” storm conditions.

“If you start with a brand new hydrologic model,” said one county engineer, “the modeling a developer does could theoretically be accurate. But his/her runoff changes the model. That runoff rarely gets incorporated into the model that the next developer uses.” 

And, of course, if everybody rushes floodwater to a river during a flood, that’s the exact opposite of what you want. Holding water back in detention and retention ponds is the best way to reduce flooding.

The two new developments in MoCo exploit this routing-study loophole to avoid the cost of building detention ponds.

Audubon in Magnolia

The first, called Audubon Magnolia will contain 5,000 homes at buildout. It occupies 3,300 acres that drain into Mill Creek, Spring Creek and then the West Fork San Jacinto.

Here is the entire 186-page Drainage Impact Analysis for section one. It also shows project plans and location.

From Audubon’s drainage impact analysis. Note school being placed at edge of floodplain…before new floodplain maps are redrawn based on Atlas-14.

Section 3.1 of the Impact Analysis includes a description of the flood routing study and concludes, “Therefore, the increased flows are able to exit into Mill Creek before the flow from the bulk of the upper drainage basin arrives at the mouth of the stream.”

Correspondence with Montgomery County officials at the front of the document shows their concerns: use of pre-Atlas 14 data; impact on wetlands; building in floodplain; roughness co-efficients used to model speed of water over various terrains; and impact on water surface elevations.

Clearly, the floodplain administrator had major concerns about use of pre-Atlas 14 rainfall data. However, the developer was grandfathered based on the date of the original permit application.

Montgomery County’s new Atlas 14 standards increased the total for a 24-hour, hundred-year rain by 4 inches. The Flood Plain administrator encouraged the developer to model the higher rainfall totals and build to higher elevations. Why? To ensure the likelihood of compliance for those homes in the future.

These documents, dated 2019, are the latest available from Montgomery County. The county engineer’s office indicated that no detention ponds are being planned by the developer or demanded by the County.

Country Colony in Porter

The second development, Country Colony, lies just north of the Harris County/Montgomery County line at the end of West Lake Houston Parkway. Country Colony occupies approximately 80 acres immediately west of the Triple PG sand mine.

Note county line at southern edge of development. Also note how some of the lots are actually in the floodplain of White Oak Creek.
Country Colony. Taken December 7, 2020, looking east toward Triple PG Sand Mine in background.

No detention ponds here either! A big heads up to the people downstream in Walden Woods, Woodstream Forest and beyond.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/12/2020

1201 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.

Daredevils at Triple PG Mine Continue to Push Safety Envelope

Two daredevil sand mining companies, Triple PG Sand Development, LLC and Texas Concrete, have stepped up their efforts to mine sand between pipelines that carry natural gas and highly volatile liquids.

AG Lawsuit Filed in 2019

In October of last year, the Texas Attorney General sued the Triple PG mine in Porter for up to $1 million on behalf of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The original petition in the case cited repeated breaches in the mine’s dikes over a period of several years that let process water and sediment from the mine escape into the headwaters of Lake Houston. Lake Houston supplies drinking water for approximately two million people.

Days after the AG filed the suit, the mine’s owner, Dr. Prabhakar R. Guniganti, a cardiologist from Nacogdoches, tried to shuffle ownership of the mine through a series of trusts controlled by his family. In June of this year, the AG filed an amended petition, naming all the trusts and their officers (both individually and as directors) as additional defendants.

In that amended petition, we learned that a new operator started managing the mine in May of this year. However, Guniganti still owns it, according to the Montgomery County Appraisal District. The new operator is Texas Concrete, the same company that TCEQ fined in Plum Grove on the East Fork – for multiple breaches and other violations.

Both the TCEQ and AG’s office have declined to comment on ongoing legal matters relating to the Triple PG operation. However, while flying over the mine on Monday this week, I saw something very disturbing.

Mining Between Pipeline Corridors

Kinder Morgan has an easement for a natural gas pipeline through the mine. You can see the pipeline path on the left in the photo below. Their pipeline was exposed during Harvey by erosion and had to be buried deeper. Luckily, no explosions or fires resulted.

Looking NW. Mining between pipelines at the Triple PG mine in Porter. Natural gas line on left; HVL lines in utility corridor at top of frame.

Additional pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids run through the utility corridor at the top of the frame. LMI exposed those same pipelines further northwest when it mined on both sides of them. Then erosion ate the sand out from under them.

Now, Triple PG and Texas Concrete are mining sand from between the pipelines. This will increase the potential for erosion in future storms. That could expose pipelines and potentially lead to pipeline ruptures, spills, and/or explosions.

Looking west. Removing additional ground cover makes the pipelines on either side more susceptible to erosion and exposure during floods.
Looking south. Notice on right how mine has run heavy equipment across both pipeline corridors, a dangerous practice according to pipeline engineers.

To adapt a phrase about pilots from the aviation industry, “There are old miners and bold miners.” Those daredevils at Triple PG sure are Bold. With a capital B. As in Boom.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/11/2020

1200 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.

Rivers of Mud: Largest Development in Liberty County Openly Flaunts Drainage Regulations

To prevent erosion that sends sediment downstream, current Liberty County Drainage Regulations specify that developers must:

  1. Plant grass on the banks of ditches
  2. Construct backslope interceptor swales

But aerial photos taken this week show that drainage ditches in the massive Colony Ridge development rarely have grass on their banks. And while criss-crossing the development in a helicopter on Monday, December 7, 2020, I did not see one backslope interceptor swale. This, DESPITE Colony Ridge being the largest development in Liberty County. Or maybe it’s BECAUSE Colony Ridge is the largest development in the county. Perhaps they think they can flaunt regulations.

Colony Ridge is even larger than any of the cities in Liberty County – by far. You would think that would make violations more visible. But apparently, it makes them less so. Much to the detriment of downstream communities.

What Ditches Should Look Like If Regulations Were Followed

Regs in Liberty County are similar to those in Harris County. Here’s a photo of a drainage ditch in Harris. It shows both grass and interceptor swales in use and how they help prevent erosion. Note the swales behind the shoulders of the ditch. Also notice the concrete structures that help pipe rainwater from the swales to the bottom of the ditch. They prevent water from washing down the ditch slopes and causing erosion. Had the developer followed the regs, which represent best practices, his ditches should look like the one below.

Backslope interceptor swales with drain pipes leading to bottom of ditch help prevent erosion. Photographed in Humble in Harris County.

Erosion Control as Practiced in Colony Ridge/Liberty County

Now, compare that to the following 18 photos. I took all of them over Colony Ridge on Monday. Some show newly developing areas subject to the latest regulations adopted in 2019. Others show areas already developed under regulations from 2004. The older regs required grass, but no interceptor swales. The newer regs require both. No attempt has been made to bring the older ditches up to newer standards despite obvious erosion problems.

Note how the developer has a habit of piling dirt next to the ditches. The TCEQ cited the developer for that practice earlier this year because dirt could wash back into ditches during rains. However, the developer obviously doesn’t fear the TCEQ. He’s still doing it. On a grand scale.

Ditch on right has grass on banks but no backslope interceptor swales. Note dirt piled on banks and how it’s already eroding into ditch.
No grass. No swales. Piles of dirt on the ditch’s shoulders.
Again. No grass. No swales. More dirt on shoulders.
Some weeds, but no grass. No swales. And a river of mud.
Another river of mud.
Rio de Lodo. “Lodo” translates to mud, sludge or mire in English.
This ditch has more corrugations than a cardboard factory thanks to the total absence of erosion-control measures.
Ditch in new area without erosion control measures near Highway 99 extension (in upper left of frame). Note eroded sediment already moving down the ditch. See close-up detail below. Regulations say that grass should be planted on ditch shoulders immediately after ditch construction.
Detail from upper right of previous photo.
Note erosion in ditch in foreground and other ditch T-ing into it.
Pipe from resident’s home enters ditch at top, accelerating erosion. Enlargement shows brownish liquid dripping from pipe.
Even newer stick-built homes on left don’t get erosion protection.
Note a wheelbarrow next to the man. Perhaps he’s trying to excavate blockages in the ditch behind his house.
Note how erosion has taken dirt from under fences. Better keep the dog on a leash!
The mud in ditches has made them playgrounds for ATVs, further contributing to erosion.
The mother of all eroding ditches in Colony Ridge. (BTW, note the absence of fire hydrants on the long street left of ditch.)
Baby ditch with another river of mud.
Erosion has created a training ground for mountain goats in Colony Ridge.

Externalizing Development Costs

All this erosion (from approximately 12-13,000 acres) eventually winds up in the East Fork of the San Jacinto and Lake Houston. There, taxpayers must pay to have it dredged and filtered out of the water supply.

Downstream from Colony Ridge. East Fork Mouth Bar after Imelda. After depth in this reach is now 3 feet. It was 18 feet before Harvey.
New Northeast Water Purification Plant at Lake Houston will cost taxpayers $1.4 billion.

The East Fork Mouth bar forms a sediment dam that also has contributed to the flooding of more than a thousand homes.

Meanwhile, the developers cheaping it out are counting their change all the way to the bank.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/10/2020

1199 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 448 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.

Houston City Council Unanimously Approves Motion to Purchase Woodridge Village from Perry Homes

This morning, Houston City Council unanimously approved the purchase of Perry Homes’ 268-acre Woodridge Village tract in Montgomery County.

The 268 acres of Woodridge Village could soon become public property to be used for stormwater detention, parks and wastewater treatment.

The ordinance that passed also included approval of an Interlocal Agreement between the City and Harris County Flood Control (HCFCD) that will govern the use and maintenance of the property as well as the terms of its purchase and development. See below.

As this deal wound its way through city and county political systems for the last 20 months, it morphed several times.

Terms of Deal that City Approved This Morning

Here’s what the City Council approved this morning:

  • Total purchase price = $14,019,316.00.
  • Of that, the City will contribute $4,021,500.00 in cash.
  • And of that, $3,830,000.00 will go toward sole ownership of 73 acres within the 268 acres that the City will use to build a new wastewater treatment plant.
  • The two parties will co-own, co-develop and co-maintain the rest of the property to be used for stormwater detention and parks.
  • The parties will split the cost of the remaining property 50:50 which will be jointly owned, developed, operated and maintained.
  • For its portion of the remaining cost, the City will donate property worth approximately $5,150,000 to HCFCD that the County can then use for flood control projects in areas of the City that flood.
  • The City will also, at a minimum, match Harris County’s detention and fill mitigation requirements.
  • The City will adopt and enforce NOAA’s new higher Atlas-14 Precipitation Frequency standards within the City and in the City’s extra-territorial jurisdiction.
  • The City agreed to require a minimum detention rate of 0.55 acre-feet per acre.
  • All this must happen within 120 days.
  • If the sale falls through, nothing in the terms of the agreement obligates the seller to perform additional flood mitigation.

County Must Now Approve on December 15

Harris County Commissioners Court must still approve the Interlocal Agreement in its December 15 meeting before it becomes effective.

Woodridge Village contributed to flooding hundreds of homes in Elm Grove Village and North Kingwood Forest twice last year, because of insufficient detention.

No Mention of Lawsuits

Nothing in the terms of the sale or interlocal agreement mentions the hundreds of lawsuits that arose out of that flooding. They should not be affected.

Pace of Development To Depend on Speed of Funding

The Parties (City and County) agreed to jointly fund the cost of designing and constructing flood mitigation facilities on the Land and to work cooperatively to secure funding. They targeted completion of the project within five years.

Both Parties agree the Land can stay in its current condition until funds are jointly secured to build the project, which may be built in phases based upon available funding.

Any Project on the Land will involve gravity detention. In other words, no pumps will be involved. Perry Homes has already constructed approximately 60% of the required detention.

Stormwater Detention To Be Based on Current Needs

The amount of the Stormwater Detention allotted to each Party will be based on its pro rata share of costs contributed to the Project. The Parties agree that the Stormwater Detention shall only be used for mitigation of existing flood risks, and not to mitigate the flooding risks of any new developments that arise after the execution of this Agreement.

Martin Thanks Turner for Being Mayor for “All the People”

Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin sponsored the ordinance that council approved this morning and worked to align support. Mayor Turner supported the agreement despite the fact that the majority of Kingwood voted for his opponent in the last mayoral election. In his presentation, Martin specifically commented on that and thanked the Mayor. He said that Turner promised after the election that he wanted to be mayor for all the people. Martin said this was proof that he was good to his word.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/9/2020

1198 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 447 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.

Woodridge Village Purchase on Wednesday’s Houston City Council Agenda

Houston City Council will consider two items Wednesday that could ultimately pave the way for the purchase of Woodridge Village from Perry Homes. Woodridge Village twice contributed to the flooding of hundreds of homes in Kingwood’s Elm Grove Village last year. For more than a year, the City, Harris County Flood Control and Perry Homes’ subsidiary Figure Four Partners, LTD have discussed purchasing the property and turning it into a regional flood-control detention basin.

268 acres currently owned by Perry Homes could be turned into a regional floodwater detention basin if the purchase is approved by Houston City Council tomorrow and Harris County Commissioners Court on December 15.

If successful, the City and HCFCD would work together to reduce the volume of water flowing out of the headwaters of Taylor Gully.

$4 Million in Cash from City Plus Land

The two agenda items are #59 and #65. They call for an interlocal agreement between the City and HCFCD to jointly purchase the property. According to an article in the Houston Chronicle, the purchase price would total approximately $14 million. The City would pay approximately $4 million of that in cash. However, in the past, the City has also discussed the contribution of land to make up its 50% of the purchase price.

The City has also said in the past that it hopes to acquire a portion of the site outright in order to consolidate several wastewater treatment facilities in Kingwood outside of the San Jacinto floodplain. Presumably, the City’s cash would go toward the purchase of that part of the site. Both sides previously agreed to share equally in the purchase, operation, development, and maintenance of the rest of the 268 acres.

Requirements Imposed by Draft ILA from May

Earlier this year, I obtained a draft copy of the interlocal agreement by a FOIA request, which the State Attorney General partially redacted. In May, the City provisionally agreed to:

  • Adopt Atlas-14 precipitation frequency tables
  • Require a minimum detention rate of 0.55 acre-feet per acre of detention for any new development on tracts one acre or larger in size
  • Prohibit the use of hydrographic timing (flood-routing studies) as a substitute for any detention requirements, unless the project emptied directly into Galveston Bay.
  • Enforce these provisions both within the City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction.

The volume of detention ponds currently on Woodridge Village is about 40% short of what the new higher Atlas-14 requirements dictate. The current detention was approved and construction started before Atlas 14 became effective in Montgomery County.

The use of flood-routing studies in Montgomery County to avoid building detention ponds has long been a controversial practice that downstream residents have fought.

Next Steps in Terms of Flood Mitigation

If Council approves the money and ILA tomorrow for the Woodridge Village purchase, Harris County Commissioners would take up the issue at their next meeting on December 15. Approval by both bodies certainly would make Christmas much merrier and more hopeful for hundreds of Kingwood families devastated by flooding last year.

Kudos to Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin for pushing this forward.

The outcome of the votes could affect projects considered in the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis. If the purchase goes through, it could reduce or eliminate the need for widening and deepening Taylor Gully itself. It is not immediately clear whether the City and County have set deadlines for the design and construction of the detention basin.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/8/2020

1197 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 446 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.

Merry Christmas from Colony Ridge

In my lifetime, I’ve taken more than half a million pictures. I spent four years photographing in Chicago’s Uptown neighborhood, which was the poorest neighborhood in that city at the time. I’ve also photographed in Appalachia and the poorest parts of Central America. But in the heartbreak department, nothing compares to a photo I took this afternoon while flying over Colony Ridge in Liberty County. The developer there has reportedly foreclosed on 1900 properties so far this year.

Colony Ridge home, December 7, 2020.

Plastic Sheeting for a Roof in 40 Degree Weather

The photo in question: a mobile home with plastic sheeting for a roof. Duct tape held down the sheeting. The temperature last night fell into the low forties. It’s hard to believe that this is probably someone’s dream home. But everything is relative. And I have no idea where the owner came from. This could be a step up.

Capturing this photo took 1/8,000th of a second. But I’ve stared at it for hours since downloading it. I can’t take my eye off the crib and the children’s toys strewn around it. Nor the breakfast table with a cup of coffee and a half eaten meal.

It’s hard to believe that people live in conditions like this. To be fair, most homes in Colony Ridge don’t approach this level of poverty. But it’s not unusual for the development.

A Reminder at Christmas

I hope this image serves as a reminder this Christmas that despite our wealth, tremendous need exists in our midst. Please support the charity of your choice this year if you can.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/7/2020

1196 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.

Colony Ridge Ditches Violate Liberty County Drainage Standards

Drainage ditches in Colony Ridge appear to violate Liberty County drainage standards from both 2004 and 2019.

  • Both 2004 and 2019 regulations require developers to plant the slopes of ditches with grass to control erosion.
  • In addition, 2019 regulations require backslope interceptor swales, another erosion-control measure. These prevent stormwater from running down the sides of ditches.
  • According to residents, the developer has made little effort to do either or to bring older ditches up to current standards.

The violations contribute to sedimentation of the East Fork San Jacinto and its tributaries, and flooding from Lake Houston to Plum Grove.

Soil-Stabilization Violations

2004 Liberty County Road and Drainage Standards for Subdivisions and Development stipulate in Section 3.72 on Page 28 that, “All channels, and adjacent area, which has been disturbed by construction equipment shall be seeded with Bermuda grass or other grass as approved by the Precinct Commissioner or Designated Agent at the rate of eight pounds per acre (8 lb/ac). Seeding shall conform to Item 164 Seeding for Erosion Control of the “TxDOT Standards”.

Note erosion on sides of ditches. Colony Ridge 6/16/2020

Liberty County’s Subdivision and Development Regulations, revised January 2019 contain the identical language on slope stabilization. See Section 40.9.11 Channel Excavation (Page 91).

Backslope Interceptor Swale Requirement

2019 regulations also mandate additional erosion-control measures. The section on Erosion Control on page 100 states: “All drainage facilities must be designed and maintained in a manner which minimizes the potential for damage due to erosion. No bare earthen slopes will be allowed. Various slope treatments, including turf establishment, concrete slope paving, and rip-rap, are accepted. Flow velocities should be kept below permissible values for each type of slope treatment. Interceptor structures and backslope swale systems are required to prevent sheet flows from eroding the side slopes of open channels and detention facilities.” [Emphasis added.]

The emphasis on “All” and “maintained” would seem to require developers to bring all ditches up to the 2019 standard, but that clearly has not happened.

Colony Ridge 6/16/2020. Note severe erosion, lack of grass on slopes and absence of backslope interceptor swales.

What Backslope Swales Look Like

Liberty County regulations don’t provide schematics of backslope interceptor swales, but Harris County Flood Control regulations do. See below. At the top of the ditch embankment, a notch is cut into the horizontal area. This notch collects rain and channels it to a series of corrugated metal or HDPE drains that empty into the bottom of the channel. This prevents water from pouring over the banks of the channel and eroding them.

Courtesy Harris County Flood Control District. For photo, see second to last image below.

Stark Contrast Between Regulations and Reality

As you look at the pictures below, see if you can spot the:

  • Backslope swales (notches)?
  • Drain pipes?
  • Grass-lined banks?

You can’t. They aren’t there.

Colony Ridge 6/26/2020. Note severe erosion on banks. This ditch was built in 2015.
Colony Ridge 6/26/2020
Colony Ridge ditch draining into Maple Branch. 4/25/2019.
Colony Ridge 6/14/2020 in newly developing area.

Properly constructed backslope interceptor swales constitute a best management practice (BMP). They can prevent the type of erosion you see above. This educational PowerPoint explains how these structures work as well as the dangers of not building them correctly.

But construction technique does not seem to be the problem in Colony Ridge. They simply have not been built. That’s why erosion on the sides of the channels is so rampant.

Consequences of Erosion

All this eroded sediment has to go somewhere. And it did.

Between Kingwood and Huffman, the East Fork Mouth Bar downstream from Colony Ridge grew 4000 feet during Harvey and Imelda. Average water depth through this area decreased from 18 feet to 3 feet.

Colony Ridge isn’t 100% responsible for ALL this sedimentation. Natural erosion and sand mines also contributed. But substandard drainage practices in a 12-13,000 acre development had to play a large role.

The City of Houston is still dredging the West Fork Mouth Bar, more than three years after Harvey. Cost to taxpayers to date: more than $100 million. No one yet knows how much it will cost to remove the East Fork Mouth Bar.

Plum Grove residents have also documented clogged streams and bayous that they say have contributed to local flooding. Plum Grove is suing the developer. The TCEQ found construction practices bad enough to affect human health.

It seems like prevention would be more effective than correction.

The Right Way

Ironically, Harris County has regulations similar to Liberty County’s that govern construction of drainage ditches. But the results are much different when and where people actually follow the regulations. See below.

Backslope interceptor swale on Taylor Gully in Harris County. 12/4/2020
Taylor Gully in Harris County 9/7/2020.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/5/2020

1194 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 453 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.

New Video Shows How Flood Protection Plan Would Transform Galveston Bay

Twelve years ago, Hurricane Ike leveled the Bolivar Peninsula as it roared into Galveston Bay. Had Ike come onshore 10-20 miles west, Houston would be a very different place today. Most of Houston’s industrial might would have been on the dirty side of the storm instead of the dry side. Refineries, tank farms, and ships could have been destroyed with their chemicals poisoning the Bay. Ever since then, people and think tanks have advanced ideas to avoid such a possibility.

Park Would Protect Populated Areas in Larger Storms

One of the most novel and affordable is a complement to the Army Corps’ Coastal Protection Study. It’s called the Galveston Bay Park Project.

Still Frame from Galveston Bay Park Plan Video. Click here to see video.

While the Corps’ plan would reportedly protect the west side of Galveston Bay in a Category 1 or light Category 2 storm, critics worry that it wouldn’t be enough for a Cat 3, 4, or 5 storm. That’s where the Galveston Bay Park Plan comes in. It would form a natural barrier that helps protect industrial facilities from League City to Deer Park from storm surge driven into and across the Bay.

Recreational and Wildlife Potential

The Galveston Bay Park Plan would also create recreational opportunities for people within the Bay, while creating additional natural habitat for the area’s abundant birds, fish and shellfish.

Architects of Plan

The Severe Storm Prediction Education & Evacuation from Disaster (SPPEED) Center at Rice University conceived the plan and Rogers Partners of New York and Houston designed it.

Materials for Construction

The Park would be constructed by widening the Houston Ship Channel from its currently proposed 700 feet to 900 feet. The excavated clay will help build a 25-foot levee along the ship channel from Houston Point in Chambers County to the Texas City hurricane levee in Galveston County.

Additionally, with the disposal of the dredged material, the Galveston Bay Park Plan will create usable park space within Galveston Bay which will also include constructed wetlands as well as other bird habitats.

Award Winning Plan and Video

The GBPP was recently chosen as one of the top designs in the Houston 2020 Visions Competition. This competition sought creative ideas focused on making Houston more resilient. 

According to Houston City Council Member David W. Robinson, FAIA, “This video is a must-watch for those concerned about the future of our region and the critical need for ongoing disaster preparedness. Hurricane storm surge is the sleeping giant of flood issues. This project is vitally necessary for our success in the 21st Century and will be a valuable asset for the region for many generations to come.”

View the video here. It’s divided up into three segments:

  • Intro by Marvin Odum, former president of Shell Oil and Chief Harvey Recovery Officer for City of Houston
  • Recap of Ike that sets the stage for the plan
  • Description of the plan

The plan itself is almost too audacious to describe. You need to see it. Part 3 starts at 6:32 in and runs to 10:55.

The video was produced by filmmaker Jeffrey Mills of Io Communications of Houston. Barbara Mills provided animation and other special effects.  

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/4/2020

1194 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 12 years since Ike

HCFCD Raises Questions about Army Corps’ Buffalo Bayou Interim Report

In October, I reported on the Army Corps’ 210-page Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries Resiliency Study (BBTRS) Interim Report.

First look at Corps’ alternatives to reduce flooding on the West Side of Houston

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) provided eight pages of detailed comments on it. HCFCD shared concerns expressed by the public about certain alternatives such as the widening of Buffalo Bayou. HCFCD also expressed that they hoped the Corps would not prematurely rule out some alternatives. The biggest: a flood tunnel.

HCFCD felt the Corps needed to put a sharper pencil to tunnel cost estimates and weigh those against the environmental impact/costs of widening Buffalo Bayou.

High-Level Concerns

Flood Control expressed six high-level concerns:

  1. The Corps seemed to ignore a wealth of studies conducted by HCFCD on the study area and arrived at different conclusions.
  2. The Interim Report presents benefits only in terms of annualized monetary values. “Water surface elevation reductions, numbers of structures benefitted, and the locations of benefits are curiously absent in the main report.” HCFCD believes some cost estimates should be revisited. “In particular, we believe the Interim Report overestimates stormwater tunnel costs and underestimates costs, both environmental and economic, of large-scale conveyance improvements to Buffalo Bayou.”
  3. Estimated project costs are so high, and their benefit/cost ratios so low, that HCFCD anticipates funding challenges on both the federal and local levels. The 2018 Flood Bond did not allocate money for any of the alternatives proposed by the Corps. “However, smaller scales of the alternatives could be more affordable and acceptable to the public, and as a result, are more likely to be funded and implemented. These variations, both for structural and nonstructural alternatives, warrant more attention moving forward.”
  4. The District recommends that “the full array of alternatives be consistently evaluated for environmental impacts, both beneficial and adverse. For example, we see opportunities for habitat restoration associated with the Addicks and Barker excavations…” But “…environmental impacts associated with the Buffalo Bayou channel improvement alternative are underestimated…” HCFCD believes that closer environmental inspection, right-of-way evaluation and public opposition, Buffalo Bayou expansion will not be deemed plausible.
  5. The Corps’ report acknowledges that a non-structural alternative exists to improve water control operations at the existing reservoirs and to update the reservoir’s Water Control Manual. Unfortunately, the Corps does not elaborate much on these alternatives, but HCFCD believes “Operational changes could reduce the scale of alternatives necessary to achieve the desired level of resilience. Plus, modified operations alone could reduce flood risks and mitigate erosion and slope failures along Buffalo Bayou downstream of the reservoirs, both of which are problems that the study aims to address.”
  6. Purchasing additional property upstream of the current reservoirs would require non-federal cost sharing. The Flood Control District questions the rationale for “commingling ownership responsibility with the Corps.” The District says, “We need to more fully understand why the Corps feels it is our responsibility to participate financially should this alternative move forward.”

Detailed Concerns

The report then goes into eight pages of amazingly detailed comments in a spreadsheet format. Most amount to requests for more information or clarification.

For instance:

Buffalo Bayou Widening: Costs vs. Benefits

“What are assumed costs for stream habitat loss associated with deepening Buffalo Bayou 11‐12 feet? How many acres of land would have to be acquired for this alternative, at what cost? How many parcels and/or structures? Please also summarize benefits of this alternative?”

HCFCD comments also include several suggestions:

Excavating Reservoirs: Way to Reduce Costs

Re: additional excavation of the Barker and Addicks reservoirs to increase their storage capacity, HCFCD said the following. “We feel there is an opportunity to further value engineer this alternative by stockpiling material within the reservoirs to create hills which will help limit haul costs.”

Tunnel Cost Estimates Too High; Need to be Weighed Against Tradeoffs

Re: the construction of tunnels to create an alternate route for floodwaters to Galveston Bay, HCFCD said this. “The tunnel cost is shown as $6.5B to $12B. This is significantly higher than estimates prepared during the District’s Phase 1 tunnel study…” The District estimated that a tunnel capable of conveying 10,000 cfs from the reservoirs to the Houston Ship Channel would cost $3 to $3.5 billion including a 50 percent contingency. That’s about a half to a third of the cost estimated by the Corps.

HCFCD fears that tunnels may have been prematurely eliminated from evaluation. Especially because environmental impacts associated with widening Buffalo Bayou were not considered in the decision to drop the tunnels from consideration.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/4/2020

1193 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Defendants, Plaintiffs Latest Legal Wrangling in Elm Grove Lawsuits

When last I checked on the lawsuits brought by Elm Grove residents against Perry Homes, et. al., it was early August. The plaintiff’s lawyers had added Concourse Development to the lawsuits and the defendants’ lawyers were blaming everyone in sight, including the flood victims, for their problems.

In September, 2019, residents on Village Springs Dr. in Elm Grove we’re still living in trailers from the May 7th flood when they were struck again. Woodridge Village is immediately to the right, just out of frame. Shown here: sheet flow coming from Woodridge.

Since August, both defendants and plaintiffs have filed another 122 documents, totaling hundreds of pages on the Harris County District Clerk’s website. Some make entertaining reading.

Now, for instance, the defendants’ lawyers argue that they shouldn’t be forced to produce resumes for people being deposed because experience has nothing to do with qualifications.

So here’s what’s happened since the last update.

Key Developments in August

  • Double Oak Construction moved to quash plaintiffs’ “notice of intent” to take the oral depositions of ten individuals (8/17/2020)
  • Figure Four Partners, LTD, PSWA, Inc., and Perry Homes, LLC moved to quash deposition notices and subpoenas duces tecum (subpoenas for documents) (8/18/2020)
  • Concourse Development, Rebel Contractors, LJA Engineering, and Texasite LLC made similar but separate motions (8/19/2020)
  • Plaintiffs’ move to compel depositions (8/20/2020)
  • Defendants then requested an emergency status conference to discuss the motion to compel.
  • Judge Lauren Reeder denied the emergency conference (8/24/2020)
  • Defendants then contacted the plaintiff to set up depositions (8/25/2020). Depositions for 7 of 10 defendant employees were set up
  • Plaintiff’s lawyers sent a letter to the court revoking the request to compel depositions for those 7 individuals (8/27/2020)
  • Figure Four Partners objected to defendants’ request for production of documents, arguing among other things that the defendants had not adequately defined the word “person.” (8/31/2020). The defendants requested, among other things to see the defendants’ (plural) Joint Defense Agreement.
  • Defendants fired off a blistering response the same day (8/31/2020). They argued that Figure Four previously admitted that defendants had a joint-defense agreement, that Figure Four was engaged in a “blatant attempt to mislead the court,” and that Figure Four had not found one mutually agreeable deposition date since April 1.

September Developments

Double Oak moved to transfer venue out of Harris County. They claimed third parties, not they, produced plaintiffs’ damages. (9/11/2020)

Plaintiffs filed “responses to the responses” of Double Oak, Rebel Contractors, Concourse Development, Figure Four, PSWA, and Perry Homes. Plaintiffs, for the most part, allege that defendants failed to be specific in their responses. For instance, when defendants’ alleged that plaintiffs’ damages were the result of prior or pre-existing conditions, they failed to specify what those pre-existing conditions were.

Defendants also alleged that, because they “acted with due care” and “complied with all applicable federal, state, and local law,” defendants’ claims should be barred. Plaintiffs took exception to that claim. They pointed out that defendants do not name “one statute, regulation, or common law requirement that they complied with so that Plaintiff’s claims would be barred.”

October Developments

On October 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed a seventh amended petition with 14 exhibits totaling 273 pages.

One of the major changes: the inclusion of “trespass” as a cause of action. Paragraph 54 under Count 7 on page 23 says, “A defendant commits trespass to real property where there is an ‘unauthorized entry upon the land of another, and may occur when one enters—or causes something to enter—another’s property.’” Barnes v. Mathis, 353 S.W.3d 760, 764 (Tex. 2011).

Other sections of the amended petition appear to have minor changes and updates that address issues raised to date during the case. Rather than try to summarize them all here, I’ll simply provide a link to the amended petition.

Separately, Figure Four objected to the subpoena duces tecum for Richard Hale. Defendants had requested his resume and legal documents to prepare for his deposition (10/19/2020). Lawyers for Figure Four claim Mr. Hale’s experience is not relevant. That seems to asking defendants to take a lot on faith! Figure Four lawyers also claim that by asking for papers that Mr. Hale used to prepare for his deposition that defendants are violating attorney/client privilege.

Figure Four also filed an objection to Taylor Gunn’s subpoena duces tecum. They claimed the subpoena wasn’t a subpoena, that his experience was not relevant, and that the request violated attorney/client privilege.

Rebel and Double Oak also objected to documents they were expected to produce, claiming they didn’t have enough notice (10/26/2020).

November, December Developments

In November, not much happened. Defendants filed documents showing that they had a “Rule 11” agreement with Concourse. rule 11 agreement refers to Rule 11 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedures. Rule 11 says that an agreement between lawyers in a case is enforceable if the agreement is: A) in writing and B) filed in the papers of the court or C) unless it be made in open court and entered in the record.

In December, LJA filed an objection and response to the plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum for Taylor Baumgartner. LJA also argued that the subpoena violated attorney/client privilege. However, Baumgartner agreed to bring his resume to the deposition.

Status of Depositions, Discovery, Start of Trial

Both sides have done significant written discovery. Estimates range upwards of 20,000 pages of documents produced to date.  Depositions reportedly started in late October. Lawyers will schedule more in January/February.

The trial still appears to be scheduled for the two weeks beginning September 20, 2021. But that could be pushed back by COVID concerns.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/2/2020

1191 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 440 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.