A tropical depression or tropical storm is likely to form over the NW Caribbean Sea. However, at THIS TIME, it poses no threat to southeast Texas.
Could Become Tropical Storm Zeta
Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist says, “A slow moving tropical wave over the NW Caribbean Sea is becoming better organized. A tropical system will likely form in the next 24 hours. The system will move generally slowly toward the NW over the next 48 hours and into the southeastern Gulf of Mexico.”
Conditions currently favor some development, but upper level winds over the Gulf of Mexico may become hostile for additional development by early to mid next week. The overall track is in the general direction of the central or eastern Gulf of Mexico over the next 4-5 days.
Too Early To Predict Landfall
It’s too early to tell where this will make landfall. But NOAA’s satellite images show it definitely becoming better organized.
This shows circulation starting to form. Note the bands of clouds starting to dance around each other.
The National Hurricane Center gives this system a 90 percent chance of becoming a tropical depression or storm in a day or two. If it becomes a storm, it would be Zeta.
Most models currently take the storm east of us.
What Climatology Says
This is a reminder that we still have five weeks left in the 2020 hurricane season.
At this time of year, storms are most likely to track toward Florida, but as you can see above, the western Gulf is also a likely target.
Posted by Bob Rehak on October 24, 2020 with thanks to Jeff Lindner and the NHC
1152 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/two_atl_5d0-3.png?fit=900%2C665&ssl=1665900adminadmin2020-10-24 10:29:192020-10-24 10:29:23New Tropical System Has 90% Chance of Developing in Gulf
After Harvey, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made $1.3 billion in disaster recovery funds available for housing assistance to the City of Houston through the Texas General Land Office (GLO). The City kicked off several disaster recovery programs with great fanfare in January of 2019. However, in almost two years, the City has only helped 1.4% of eligible applicants for assistance and an estimated 0.5% of those who flooded without insurance. The second figure includes flooded homeowners who could have applied, but didn’t.
City of Houston Housing and Community Development on January 14, 2019. Mayor Turner said, “Thousands of Houstonians who were affected by Hurricane Harvey have been waiting for this day.” Most are still waiting.
Programs Announced in January 2019 Quickly Fall Behind Schedule
The programs were primarily designed to repair and reconstruct single- and multi-family homes, and to reimburse owners for repairs they made. However, almost from the outset, the program failed to reach its own goals and has fallen progressively farther behind.
A HUD audit in November of 2019 panned the City for failure to staff the program adequately. It also expressed concerns about the City’s lack of transparency, not posting plan documents online, not bidding contracts competitively, failure to follow HUD rules, and failure to meet objectives.
GLO Attempts to Help Rebuffed by City
The GLO, which is responsible for overseeing the program and ultimately for the money itself, sent a “strike force” to assist the City, train employees and get the programs back on track. However, the Director of the City’s Housing and Community Development Department, which conducts these programs, told the GLO’s strike team they were not welcome and told them to leave the Department’s office, according to Brittany Eck, a GLO spokesperson.
As the City fell further behind schedule in 2020, the GLO tried to take over some of the programs. Eck says GLO wanted to help the City focus on those where it had more success. However, the City also rebuffed those efforts. The City filed a lawsuit to prevent the GLO from taking back the programs. Ultimately, HUD stepped in and approved an “Action Plan Amendment” that resulted in cancelation of the City’s contract.
Other programs for reconstruction, repair and rehab expire in 2024. But it takes time to design, permit, bid and construct homes. And it takes even more time to get approvals through the City, GLO and HUD. So…
According to the GLO, even the 2024 deadline is in jeopardy at this time.
Reimbursement Program May Come Back to City
The GLO reportedly may give the reimbursement program back to the City. With only two months left before the deadline, GLO doesn’t have time to get program changes approved through HUD, transfer files, and still reimburse flood victims who paid out of pocket for reconstruction.
But it’s unclear whether the City will commit to meeting all of the GLO’s performance benchmarks and deadlines. No one at the City will comment publicly. Eck said no commitments had yet been made, but might come as early as the end of today.
Reasons for Clawback of Some Programs
We’ve all heard the news reports about the City’s performance or lack thereof. But aside from the small number of homes completed, reports don’t go into much detail. Eck, the GLO’s spokesperson, spent hours explaining the complexities behind published numbers.
First, let me say, it’s difficult to compare the State’s numbers with the City’s. The two entities refer to programs differently. And they sometimes reflect different time periods or different stages of completion.
Plus, the City generally reports numbers for itself that are higher than the GLO’s numbers for the City. However, the differences are so small in the grand scheme of things that they get lost in rounding. So to eliminate charges of political bias, I have simply accepted the City’s numbers in almost all cases for the analysis below, except where the City does not supply numbers.
High-Level Findings
The deeper you dig, the more several things become clear:
1151 days after Hurricane Harvey, less than 1.5% of eligible recipients in Houston have received help so far. And that may be a generous overstatement.
Houston has repeatedly failed to meet its own projections.
Let’s address the first point and cover the others in later posts.
Application Process Started with Pre-qualification Survey
First, you need to understand the two-step application process. First, the City conducted a survey to screen applicants. Second, those who appeared to qualify were invited to apply for aid.
21,156 households took the survey. Of those, the City estimated 16,651 qualified for some kind of aid. See the screen capture below taken from the City’s website.
Many Still Waiting for Invite to Submit Application
Many families who qualified are still waiting to be invited to submit an application. The last “situation and pipeline” report posted on the City’s website shows 6,541 households “Pending invitation” as of 8/31/2020 (see page 6).
On the right side of the diagram above, the City also says that it sent out “Notices to Proceed with Construction” for another 149 homeowners. Those notices covered almost another $32 million. Those average $214,765 per household. But construction has not yet finished on all of those.
So that’s roughly 100,000 homes without flood insurance (a major qualification for HUD grants).
The City has half the population of the county. So, let’s assume that approximately 50,000 householdsflooded in the City that could have theoretically applied for assistance. But according to the City graphic above, only 21,000 households took the survey. And the City says 16,651 of those were eligible (about a third of flooded homes without insurance).
But regardless, if you accept the City numbers, they have helped 231 families so far (82 + 149) out of 16,651 eligible survey respondents. And that doesn’t even include another 30,000 families that didn’t take the survey!
So, in almost two years, the City has only helped 1.4% of eligible survey respondents. And roughly 0.5% of those who flooded without insurance.
Calculated from data supplied by City of Houston and Harris County Flood Control District
$800 Million in Disaster Relief Remains Uncommitted At This Point
When you add in the number of projects in the pipeline (identified and under contract), the percentages look somewhat better. However, that cannot obscure the fact that the reimbursement program will expire in two months, and almost $800 million remains uncommitted (see circle diagram below). Now the City did not allocate all of that for reimbursing people who fixed their own homes. But they did allocate more than $400 million for homeowner assistance (see table on right below).
By the City’s own projections at the time, it should have expended $261 million by now ($1.275 billion minus $1.014 billion). However, the GLO says the City has only drawn down $24.6 million, according to Eck. That’s less than 10% of the projection the City made 16 months ago.
STATE ACTION PLAN, PAGE 254
The GLO says that the City has pushed deadlines back month after month, always using the excuse that they’re right on the cusp of turning over a large number of applications for approval.
Future Aid At Stake
Sources familiar with how HUD works indicate that non-performance on this contract could jeopardize future HUD aid to the City.
Meanwhile, I know one applicant for reimbursement who completed the City’s survey the very first day it was available. Her application still has not been processed. But, she says, the City hopes to work on it soon! That’s better than the 6,541 people still waiting for the City to invite them to submit an application.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/23/2020
1151 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Screen-Shot-2020-10-21-at-4.25.48-PM.png?fit=1654%2C904&ssl=19041654adminadmin2020-10-23 11:57:302020-10-23 12:11:51Disaster Recovery Disaster: Part 1
In three years of writing about flooding, this is one of the most dramatic case studies I have seen about the value of wetlands. It starts with a developer clearing wetlands and ends with the developer at war with a neighboring town.
Wetlands as Protectors
Michael Shrader lived in a modest home in Plum Grove in Liberty County. It was an idyllic, rural lifestyle in many ways. He did tech work remotely while raising animals on his small plot of land near the East Fork of the San Jacinto and Maple Branch. Shrader never flooded for the first 29 years he lived in Plum Grove despite living on a creek. Not in 1994. Not in Allison. Not in Rita. And not in Ike.
Forests filled with wetlands surrounded him. Water ponded during heavy rains. Much of it soaked in and was absorbed by tree roots. The creeks ran clear.
Before Colony Ridge
In this 2008 Google Earth image, you can see the vibrant greens. And if you look closely enough on a desktop display, you can even see the ponds and wetlands east of FM1010.
Note area east (right) of FM1010.
For those reading on smaller displays, here’s the same image, but with data from the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory superimposed.
The bright, solid greens represent wetlands in the national inventory. Superimposition courtesy of Michael Shrader.
Then Came the Bulldozers
In 2016, the developer of Colony Ridge started clearing land and replacing wetlands with ditches that fed into Maple Branch. It runs right behind Shrader’s home. As the developer filled in more and more of the wetlands, water started getting higher in the creek after every rain, according to Shrader. Harvey, May 7th, Imelda: those were the high-water marks. And the low points in Shrader’s life. He flooded all three times.
By last year, the developer had replaced virtually all the wetlands by this.
By 2/23/19, most of the wetlands had been turned into streets with ditches in the world’s largest trailer park. Shrader lives on a stream that cuts across the NW portion of the grid.
Since the satellite image above was taken, even more forests and wetlands farther east and north have been replaced by what is now the world’s largest trailer park.
Eastern area in June, 2020.
Slash and burn development practices at Colony Ridge. Photo June 2020.Note how contractors are draining wetland area on left.
Lives Disrupted
With the wetlands gone, Shrader’s house flooded in 2017 during Harvey (admittedly an extreme event), and twice in 2019. Not only did his house flood, so did most of Plum Grove, including the City Hall. Now, Shrader says, many homes are vacant.
The fence below, immediately downstream from the Camino Real Subdivision in Colony Ridge, was pushed over three times by the increased flow of floodwaters coming down Maple Branch. The owners of the red-roofed house bought this property just before the first of three floods.
Flooded Plum Grove home near Maple Branch and Colony Ridge. Owners stopped repairing the fence after the second flood.
At least one investigative journalist is exploring alleged predatory lending practices.
Allegations of corruption in Liberty County politics abound.
Commissioner’s Court and City Council meetings have degenerated into heated shouting matches.
Soon, Hollywood screenwriters will develop screenplays based on the Plum Grove experience and pitch them as “the next Erin Brokovich.”
Eroded drainage ditch in Colony Ridge that blew out FM1010 at far end. Three years after Harvey, the road still had not been repaired, much to the dismay of residents.
FM1010, one of the main roads into and out of the development, destroyed by out-of-control stormwater.The loss of this road has led to massive traffic jams on alternate access routes, such as FM2090.
Sadly, a little more respect for Mother Nature could have easily prevented all that trouble for the developer. One wonders whether the engineers and environmental consultants whom he hired to obtain permits served him well.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/22/2020
1050 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 398 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/20200616-RJR_3713.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-10-22 01:54:072020-10-22 09:38:22How Loss of Wetlands Led to War
The Diversion Ditch project would help address several potential problems. Expanding it would remove 62 structures from inundation areas and another 586 structures would benefit from improved local drainage. In addition, the project:
Can divert floodwater from Ben’s Branch, which will be a much more complicated project, taking more time.
Has a 300-foot right-of-way, of which only half is being used
Has bridges that already span the entire 300 feet.
Will help carry floodwaters from rapidly growing south Montgomery County.
History of Diversion Ditch
In the early days of Kingwood, Friendswood Development Company built the Diversion Ditch to reduce water flowing into Ben’s Branch. But since then, upstream development and larger rains have stressed the capacity of both Ben’s Branch AND the Diversion Ditch. Engineers estimate that peak flows have doubled since 1985.
Most of Ben’s Branch is Natural Channel
Ben’s Branch cuts diagonally through the heart of Kingwood. See red lines below. More than half its length – between Woodland Hills and Rocky Woods Drive is natural channel. Widening it will be complicated and take much time.
Red Line indicates approximate path of Ben’s Branch through Kingwood.
Ben’s Branch Now at 2-Year Level of Service
However, areas on both sides of Ben’s Branch are threatened by flooding as you can see in the image below from FEMA’s Flood Hazard Viewer.
Ben’s Branch once had a 100-year level of service, meaning it had enough carrying capacity to prevent homes from flooding in everything but a 100-year rain. Models based on new Atlas-14 rainfall probability frequencies indicate that the channel’s capacity is now down to a 2-year level of service. That means it will flood in minor rains, exactly as St. Martha School did last year.
Worse yet, Ben’s Branch has decreased to a 2-year level of service throughout its length.
HCFCD Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis
Source: Fema’s Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Cross-hatched equals floodway, aqua = 100 year floodplain, brown = 500-year floodplain.Floodplains shown above are based on pre-Atlas-14 rainfall probability statistics. An Atlas-14 hundred-year rain is about 30-40% higher than the old hundred-year rain.
When flood maps are updated based on Atlas-14 statistics, those floodplains will likely expand…unless we do something to handle more floodwater before then.
However, Ben’s Branch will not move to preliminary engineering right away.
How to Protect Against Bigger Rains and More Upstream Development
The Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis sought to understand what we need to do to restore a 100-year level of service to all ditches and streams based on Atlas 14. Of the 19 ditches and streams studied, nine need improvement. The level of service for some, including Ben’s Branch, has been reduced to 2 years.
Expanding the Diversion Ditch is the fastest way to take pressure off of Ben’s Branch.
The Diversion Ditch intersects Ben’s Branch at the new St. Martha Church. It then flows south to Deer Ridge Park and then winds through River Grove Park. See the white line below.
Kingwood Diversion ditch (white line) intersects Ben’s Branch near the new St. Martha Church.
Expansion Capacity Already Built into Diversion Ditch
Engineers foresaw the day when Kingwood would need more drainage capacity due to upstream development in Montgomery County. They built the Kingwood Diversion Ditch to handle the extra stormwater. They also made the bridges over the diversion ditch wider than they needed at the time. Finally, they dedicated a flood easement on both sides of the ditch that was wider than they needed, so they could expand the ditch later without encroaching on neighboring properties. Here’s how it looks from the air.
Looking north across Northpark Drive toward Bens Branch, which cuts diagonally from left to right through the middle of the frame. Note the ample clearance under the bridge and the wide shoulders of the ditch. St. Martha Church is in the upper left.
Looking south toward Kingwood Drive at the Diversion Ditch. King’s Mill is on right in foreground.
Both Kings Mill and Kings Manor now drain into the Diversion Ditch. But they came long AFTER Diversion Ditch construction. Other new upstream developments that drain into the Diversion Ditch and Ben’s Branch include Brooklyn Trails and Woodridge Forest, both in Montgomery County.
As a result, the Diversion Ditch itself has decreased to a 2- to a 25-year level of service in places. However, it still offers a 100-year level of service in others.
Looking NE toward Deer Ridge Park from over Hamblen Road. A corner of Deer Ridge Estates is on the left. The diversion ditch cuts in front of the park (upper left to lower right) and goes into an area largely undeveloped on its way to the river (out of frame to the right).
Impact on River Grove Park
Once the Diversion Ditch passes through the area shown in the photo above, it enters wetlands and winds through River Grove Park. Two questions arise. How do we protect, from additional flow:
The park?
People downstream on the West Fork?
The first question is simple: split the flow in two. Take part through the undeveloped area west of the park. See the green below.
Green Line represents one possible route for diversion of the diversion ditch.
The second question is more complicated. We need a retention basin to hold the extra stormwater until the peak of any flood passes on the West Fork. But where? The closer you get to the river, the lower the elevation. Because of that, the basin could fill with floodwater from the river before it fills with floodwater from upstream. Fortunately, some large tracts of land exist on higher ground that could be purchased. HCFCD estimates the need at 1248 acre-feet. Preliminary engineering should start soon to address these issues.
Upstream Development Not Addressed by Analysis
Unfortunately the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis did not address upstream development issues in Montgomery County. That was beyond the scope of work. Regardless, such issues must be addressed somehow, someday soon. Otherwise, even the improvements we invest in today could soon be overwhelmed by additional floodwaters.
In that sense, these channel improvements represent a stopgap measure. The real solution lies in making everyone in the region realize that we are all in this together.
The ten remaining channels/streams already offer a 100-year level of service. Therefore, no improvements are needed. HCFCD felt Taylor Gully should be the next priority after the Diversion Ditch. But the possible purchase of Woodridge Village may require re-thinking project requirements. Specifically, if Woodridge turns into a giant detention basin, the channel may not need as much deepening or widening.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/20/2020
1148 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RJR_4304.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2020-10-20 21:09:102020-10-21 09:32:19HCFCD Recommends Expanding Diversion Ditch as First Priority in Kingwood
The Harris County Flood Control District has released a Report Summary of results from the 600-page Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis. HCFCD will hold an online community meeting Tuesday night to discuss the results. It may help to review this summary or HCFCD’s before the meeting.
Objective: Protect Homes/Businesses from Bigger Rains
The objective of the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis: to provide the knowledge needed to protect homes and businesses from flooding in a 100-year (1% chance) rain as defined by the new, higher Atlas-14 Rainfall Probability Statistics. Said another way, the engineers want to make sure that if you bought a home outside the 100-year flood plain, that you STILL won’t be flooded in a 100-year rain. Engineers call that “the 100-year Level of Service (LOS).”
Steams, ditches and channels evaluated as part of the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis. Please note ditch numbers for any comments you make as the flood control district identifies them by that number.It will help communication.
What Study Included
To accomplish their objectives, engineers:
Evaluated historical floods and mapped flood damage
Created hydrologic and hydraulic models to quantify flooding risks along streams, channels and open ditches
Identified drainage issues associated with storm sewers and streets
Performed an overland flow analysis
Used LiDAR, record drawings, previous surveys and data collected in the field
Incorporated the impact of potential storm sewer improvements on channel capacity
Quantified detention capacity needed to prevent increasing flows into Lake Houston
Determined how many structures would benefit from each improvement (or planned future improvement)
Researched rights-of-way and flowage easements
Recommended channel-capacity improvements
Recommended bridge and culvert improvements
Developed preliminary cost estimates
Recommended construction sequencing
In places where ditches provide less than a 100-year level of service, storm sewers cannot empty into them during a 100-year rain. When that happens, water backs up into streets and can flood homes. So engineers are looking at the performance of the drainage system from end to end in conjunction with the City of Houston.
Limitations: What Study Does NOT Include
The study does NOT:
Include new topographic surveys
Evaluate improvements for greater than 100-year events
Examine Montgomery County issues except for North Park Drive
Identify sites for detention basins
Duplicate the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Plan or associated sedimentation and sand trap studies
No construction is included as part of this project. This project will only lay the groundwork for subsequent construction projects.
Study Identified Nine Channels That Need Improvement
Not surprisingly, the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis found that many channels do not need improvements. Said another way, they already provide the required level of service. However, engineers identified nine channels that DO need improvement to protect homes and businesses.
Six of those nine have rights-of-way controlled by HCFCD. They include:
For summary sheets of each recommended Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis project, click on the associated links. The Taylor Gully project will need to be re-analyzed if the Woodridge Village purchase goes through; that area could turn into a regional detention facility.
This table contains a summary of streams, channel types, ownership, current level of service, improvements, rights of way needed, cost estimates and detention estimates for all the projects considered in the Kingwood area.
Two Projects Recommended Immediately
Based on the results of the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis, HCFCD recommends two projects: G103-38-00 (Kingwood Diversion Ditch) and G103-80-03.1B (Taylor Gully) move to the next phase: engineering design. Additionally, HCFCD recommends the Taylor Gully project be reanalyzed to determine how the use of Woodridge Village for detention could modify the recommended plan.
These two projects were chosen because:
They help the largest number of people.
HCFCD owns land to expand and deepen the Diversion Ditch.
Diversion Ditch enhancement will immediately take pressure off Ben’s Branch, and help flooding there.
Thus, these two projects address the three biggest needs. The remainder will have to wait for Capital Improvement funds.
First Step of Many
The Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis is a feasibility study that helped identify the problem areas. As you can see from the lifecycle diagram below, it represents the first step of several. The Flood Control District included $10 million in the bond fund (See F14) for Kingwood projects. That can be local-match seed money for attracting state and federal grants.
HCFCD will hold an online meeting Tuesday night. Engineers will describe the project and recommendations in more detail. You will also have a chance to interact with team members, make suggestions, and ask questions.
Or by phone at 855-925-2801 with Meeting Code: 9541
Please login a few minutes early. The Flood Control District has a brief survey on the login page that will help them track your concerns.
What the Flood Control District Needs from You
The Flood Control District needs to know about local issues that they may NOT have identified near you.
For example, culverts under Kingwood Drive for a ditch near me are almost totally blocked by sediment. That could have affected their analysis. And the stream may have correctable issues that could easily prevent future flooding.
Another example. The recommendations include taking out the low water crossing near Bear Branch Elementary School. Many kids use that to walk or bicycle to school. Removal without replacement would create a major inconvenience. It might also negatively affect downstream bridges damaged in previous storms.
A final example: the study did not recommend any changes to the bridge over Taylor Gully at Rustling Elms. However, many Elm Grove residents identified that as a major issue in two floods last year.
The Rustling Elms Bridge is a road over twin culverts, not a true open bridge like the one farther downstream in the background.
Please join the meeting Tuesday night and be prepared to discuss such issues. Volunteer your local knowledge. Speak up now or live with the results.
Credits
The Kingwood Area Drainage analysis cost $700,000. Funds from the 2018 Harris County Flood Bond and TIRZ 10 paid for this study.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/19/2020
1147 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/hvr7ksjet8llq3oonj3l.jpeg?fit=1599%2C1188&ssl=111881599adminadmin2020-10-19 16:50:002020-10-20 20:26:12Sneak Peak at Results of Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis; Review Before Meeting Tuesday Night
On Friday, October 16, 2020, stakeholders in the Lake Houston Spillway Improvement Project met at the dam to review gate alternatives and progress on the project. The main item of interest: a review of options still under consideration to increase the outflow during major storms, such as Harvey.
Phase One includes preliminary engineering and environmental permitting. It should take 18 months and is on schedule at this point. A key deliverable for phase one is verification of the benefit/cost ratio. But, of course, to determine that, you need to know the cost.
Alternatives Still Under Consideration
FEMA allotted 18 months for Phase 1. We’re six months into that. Work to date has focused on determining the optimal alternative. Five remain:
Expanding the existing spillway by adding new tainter gates
Adding a new gated spillway within the east embankment
Creating a new uncontrolled spillway within the east embankment
Building crest gates within the east embankment
Developing crest gates within the existing spillway
Tainter gates lift up from a radial arm. The tainter gates on Lake Conroe have 15X more release capacity than the lift gates on Lake Houston.
Above: the current conditions at the Lake Houston Dam.Looking slightly upstream. East is on the right.
The east embankment is a solid earthen area 2800 feet long east of the spillway and existing gates. Water cannot get over it in a storm. By adding various structures in this area, engineers could widen the current spillway capacity, allowing release of more stormwater.
One main benefit: additional gates would reduce uncertainty associated with pre-releases. Operators could wait longer until they were certain an approaching storm would not veer away at the last minute. That would avoid wasting water.
Reverse angle.Note the difference in height between the east embankment (left) and the spillway (right).Looking downstream toward Galveston Bay.Looking west toward Beltway 8. This shows the major segments of the dam.
Benefit/Cost Ratio Must Be > 1.0
The lake-level reduction benefits of these gate alternatives during major floods range up to roughly 8x. The costs also vary by roughly 4x. Those are order-of-magnitude, back-of-the-envelope estimates and far from final. Much hard work remains to develop tighter costs and tighter estimates of flood-level reductions. The latter will determine flood-prevention savings in a storm. And the benefits divided by the costs will determine the benefit/cost ratio.
In FEMA’s eyes, the benefit/cost ratio must exceed 1.0 to justify the project. Said another way, it must produce more benefits than it costs.
FEMA allotted 18 months for phase 1. We’re six months into that phase with a year left. Project partners expect results of the alternatives analysis before the end of the year.
Benefit/Cost Calculation
Given the ballpark costs of some of these gate alternatives, we will need very tight estimates of the benefits.
Potential Benefits include:
Upstream flood risk reduction
Reduced maintenance (debris management) for CWA
Improved Water Quality (post storm)
Potential Impacts include:
Increased scour and erosion potential to wetlands downstream
Increased water surface elevations to structures downstream
Calculating Benefits
Benefit Cost Ratio = (Net Present Value of Benefits)/(Project Costs)
Project Costs = (Capital costs) + (Net Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs)
Major Tasks Remaining in Phase 1
Barring surprises, the preliminary engineering report is due in February 2021 and environmental permitting should be complete by the Fall of 2021. Other tasks that must be completed by then include:
Hydrologic modeling of flows into and out of Lake Houston using the latest Atlas 14 data
Hydraulic modeling of Lake Houston, its Dam, and the San Jacinto River downstream of the dam to Galveston Bay
Calibration of models to historic storms
Examination of upstream benefits to residents/businesses removed from flood impacts
Examination of downstream impacts associated with additional flow release scenarios
It’s important to understand that not everyone who flooded in the Lake Houston Area did so because of the lake level. Some on the periphery of the flood flooded because water backed up in streams leading to the lake. If you got two feet of water in your living room, it doesn’t automatically mean a lake level reduction of two feet would eliminate your flooding by itself.
Congressman Dan Crenshaw (left) reviews the project with team members at the Lake Houston Dam and listens to their needs.
Phase 2 Still Not Certain
Assuming all goes well in the planning, accounting, and conceptual validation, FEMA will make a go/no go decision on construction at the end of next year or the beginning of the following year. Construction should take another 18 months.
Credits
Funding for this project comes from FEMA, Texas Division of Emergency Management, City of Houston and Harris County Flood Control. Other stakeholders include the Coastal Water Authority, Harris County, Fort Bend County, Baytown, Deer Park, and other communities adjacent to Lake Houston.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/17/2020
1145 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 394 since Imelda
A seven-month-long TCEQ investigation of Colony Ridge construction practices resulted in a 184-page report that confirmed allegations of erosion and silt flowing uncontrolled into ditches and streams. The investigation resulted in a “notice of enforcement.”
TCEQ Alleges Permit Violations Affecting Human Health
TCEQ found the Colony Ridge developer in violation of its Construction General Permit for failure to install even minimum controls such as silt fences and vegetative buffer strips.
As a result, the report says the developer failed to prevent discharges that “contribute to a violation of water quality standards” and that have “a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment.”
Investigators found unstabilized and unprotected drainage channels connecting 3,678.69 acres of disturbed land to unprotected streams and creeks. Sediment now almost completely fills some of those streams. They lead to Luce Bayou and and the East Fork San Jacinto River, which empty into Lake Houston, the source of drinking water for 2 million people.
Lack of Construction Best Management Practices
Colony Ridge’s Construction General Permit does not authorize discharges into Texas surface waters. Yet investigators found:
Drainage ditches with unstabilized soil on their sides
A drainage ditch with completely destabilized sides
Sediment deposition in multiple creeks
One creek channel almost completely filled by sediment
Culverts blocked with sediment
A washed out road
Water samples with elevated levels of dissolved and suspended solids as high as 1370 milligrams/liter (suspended) and 6360 (solid)…
...All tied to inadequate or non-existent best management practices
See photos below.
Self-Reports in Stark Contrast to TCEQ Report
In contrast, the construction superintendent’s own inspection checklists (pages 51-78) rated virtually all erosion-prevention measures that the company did employ as “acceptable.” However, he also indicated that the company did not use most common protective measures, such as vegetation, sod, silt fences and detention basins; claiming they were “not applicable.” His report on 2/19/20 contained a note indicating the construction site “Looks good.” His last weekly report before the complaint that triggered the investigation found no “action items.”
Below is a sampling of ten photos from the report. The TCEQ investigator took them all on 6/16/2020. He also provided the captions. Page numbers refer to the full TCEQ report.
Downstream view of Rocky Branch Creek. Washed out road in background. Photo 2 out of 57. Page 141.
Destabilized banks along Long Branch Creek and sediment deposition in creek channel. Note: the creek channel almost completely filled in by sediment. Photo 17 of 57. Page 146.
Unstabilized drainage channels in Section 7 that are tied into Long Branch Creek. Photo 20 of 57. Page 147.
Area surrounding Long Branch Creek destabilized with no BMPs installed around the creek. Note unstabilized sediment piles next to the creek. Photo 30 of 57, Page 151.
Area surrounding Long Branch Creek destabilized with no BMPs installed around the creek. Note unstabilized sediment piles next to the creek. Photo 32 of 57, Page 151.
Sediment and debris in cement culvert that allows Long Branch Creek to flow underneath Section 5 entrance road. Photo 40 of 57. Page 154.
Sediment and debris in cement culvert that allows Long Branch Creek to flow underneath Section 5 entrance road. Photo 41 of 57. Page 154.
Inadequate BMPs in drainage ditch that leads to Long Branch Creek. Note: Undercut silt fence. Photo 44 of 57, page 155.
Sediment deposition in unnamed creek channel right before Long Branch Creek. Note sediment line on cree. Sediment line is demarcated by pocket knife in red circle. Photo 48 of 57. Page 156.
Sediment in a drainage ditch that is tied into an unnamed creek. Note over-capacitated silt fence. Photo 53 of 57. Page 158.
Personal Observations Corroborate Report
Based on personal observations, I don’t think the investigator exaggerated. On the contrary, he may not have captured the full scope the hazards. Some can only be seen from the air. As luck would have it, I flew a helicopter over Colony Ridge on the same day the investigator captured his photos. Here are two from the air and one from the ground.
Washed out ditches abounded.
The developer was clearing more land before previously developed areas could be stabilized.
Silt fence being propped up to allow raw sewage to flow underneath it into Luce Bayou, which empties into Lake Houston.
Other Strangeness
Colony Ridge hired Merit Professional Services in Flower Mound, a Dallas/Fort Worth suburb. Merit obtains stormwater pollution prevention permits and also provides stormwater inspection services. However, according to the complainant in this case, Merit claimed they only provided the permit, but not inspection services. Lack of local oversight may have been a large part of the problem.
Ironically, Double Oak Construction is a defendant in the Elm Grove lawsuits against Perry Homes and its contractors on the Woodridge Village project in Montgomery County. That case involves many of the same issues involved in both the TCEQ report and the City of Plum Grove’s lawsuit against the developer of Colony Ridge. The report does not mention exactly when Double Oak started working for Colony Ridge.
1144 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 393 After 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Screen-Shot-2020-10-16-at-4.52.08-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C942&ssl=19421200adminadmin2020-10-16 18:26:302020-10-16 18:36:06TCEQ Blasts Colony Ridge, Says Construction Practices Could Adversely Affect Human Health
The City of Plum Grove on the San Jacinto East Fork has sued the developer of Colony Ridge over alleged breaches of an agreement that governs development in the City’s extra territorial jurisdiction. Colony Ridge is the world’s largest trailer park. Specifically, the City claims that Colony Ridge:
Allowed stormwater runoff from the development to flood the City
Failed to contain sewage that overflowed into neighborhoods and waterways
Parallels with Elm Grove Lawsuit against Woodridge Village Developer
This lawsuit has many parallels with a lawsuit by Elm Grove Village homeowners in Kingwood. They are suing Perry Homes, its subsidiaries and contractors for flooding hundreds of homes last year. Similarities include:
Neighboring homeowners vs. a developer that…
Clearcut land
Filled in wetlands
Without allegedly installing adequate detention or drainage
More than $1 Million in Damage to City Hall, Roads and Other Property
Plum Grove seeks damages for Colony Ridge’s “repeated and serious damage to City-owned or maintained buildings, roadways and other property.” The City claims more than $1 million in damages to date. But the City is not seeking compensation for damages. It wants the developer to fix the problems that are causing repeated flooding and sewage spills.
Causes of Action
Lawyers for Plum Grove cite several “causes of action” to support their claims and damages:
Breach of Contract
Negligence
Private Nuisance
Violation of Texas Water Code § 11.086
Trespass
Breach
“The fundamental breach of the Agreement arises from the fact that Defendant has paved over wetland area and/or diverted the flow of surface water without construction of adequate drainage or detention facilities. Because of developments by Defendant without conforming to applicable drainage standards and regulations, Plum Grove and the surrounding area are now experiencing significant flooding after major rainfall events,” says the lawsuit on pages 6 and 7.
From Liberty County Stormwater Regulations. Plum Grove’s agreement with the developer specified that the developer had to comply with these regulations.
Negligence
A defendant’s actions rise to the level of negligence under Texas law if 1) the defendant “owed a duty” to plaintiffs (had an obligation); 2) the defendant breached that duty; and 3) the breach caused the plaintiff’s damages.
Nuisance
Private nuisance is a condition that substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of land by causing unreasonable discomfort or annoyance. In that regard, the suit mentions both flooding and the repeated overflow of sewage into creeks, ditches and property.
Water Code Violation
The Texas Water Code, Chapter 11.086, prohibits a person from diverting the natural flow of surface water in a manner that damages the property of another.
“Because of the increased stormwater runoff from Defendant’s developments during significant rain events like Hurricane Harvey, Tropical Storm Imelda, and the May 7, 2019 storm,” says the suit, “City Hall was flooded, City-owned/maintained roads, and residential areas have been inundated and City-owned/maintained bridges and culverts have experienced significant damage. Defendant’s actions constitute the wrongful diversion of surface water onto City property.”
Plum Grove residents allege that Colony Ridge cleared forests, filled in wetlands and re-routed runoff without adequate detention. And as a result, flood risk has increased within tiny Plum Grove which has only several hundred residents left. Many have been driven off already.
Trespass
The most interesting legal theory is that the stormwater “trespassed” on neighbor’s property. A defendant commits “trespass to real property,” claims the suit, “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.”
Problems Became Apparent in 2015
Further, the suit alleges that Colony ridge was aware of drainage violations since at least 2015 (Page 7). Finally, it alleges that had Colony Ridge followed County regulations and standards as required by the agreement with Plum Grove, that flooding and its impact on the City and nearby properties would have been significantly reduced.
Long-Time Resident Verifies City Claims
Resident Michael Shrader says that his property never flooded before Colony Ridge started clearing land upstream from his home on Maple Branch. He has lived in Plum Grove since 1987 and weathered huge storms in 1994 and 2001 (Tropical Storm Allison) without flooding. “The extreme flooding in my yard and home during more recent storms,” said Shrader, “was clearly a result of the Camino Real Colonia’s stormwater run-off that’s all directed to the head of Maple Branch that then runs behind my back yard. Colony Ridge is the only major change to the landscape since I’ve lived here. All the wetlands that were there are now gone!”
Area the way it existed in 2011, before Colony Ridge
Same area in 2019. Colony Ridge is still expanding today.See area at right.
Shrader’s house as water was still rising during Harvey. Shrader says it eventually got up to the windows in the foreground.
Maria Acevedo, another local land owner and activist has seen firsthand the construction practices at Colony Ridge. “Their lack of Best Management Practices has sent silt downstream. That silt as clogged drains and ditches, causing water to back up and overflow. The TCEQ has documented these practices. The longer such abuses continue, the more pushback this developer will get from Plum Grove residents and also residents of Colony Ridge.”
“We are not going away until they comply with the law.”
Maria Acevedo
More on that TCEQ report tomorrow. It’s 184 pages long and deserves its own post.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/15/2020
1143 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 392 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Front-Yard-Aug-27-2017.jpg?fit=1336%2C752&ssl=17521336adminadmin2020-10-15 18:17:332020-10-15 18:53:49Plum Grove Sues Colony Ridge Developer Over Floodwater, Sewage Leaks
When Noxxe Oil & Gas declared bankruptcy in February of this year, the company left behind dozens of pump jacks, tanks, trucks and other pieces of oilfield equipment that Harvey destroyed in Forest Cove. The Texas Railroad Commission (TRRC) seized the assets but has been slow to clean up the mess. As a result, thieves and TRRC are now engaged in a low-stakes game of tug-of-war – to the victor goes the scrap metal. But the TRRC says it will soon start a cleanup of this site.
Vultures Picking Over Noxxe’s Bones
I ran a story several weeks ago about this heating tower on Marina Drive in Forest Cove. I’ve nicknamed Marina Drive “The Boulevard of Broken Dreams.” That’s because of the dozens of townhomes destroyed there by Harvey.
Towers like the one below separate oil, gas and water. I had photographed it several times. Then, about a month ago, I noticed it toppled.
The 23-foot tower in question before it toppled. Abandoned after Harvey, it became property of the stateafter Noxxe’s bankruptcy.
I thought the tower had “fallen.” But an astute TRRC investigator pointed out the steel wire draped over the top of the tank below.
It did not fall down. Someone pulled it down and attempted to drag it off. Photo taken in mid-September.
23 feet of 1.5 inch steel
After a couple cases of beer, I’m sure Jim Bob and Bubba felt this would be pretty light work. But the tower is made out of solid steel that is 1.5 inches thick – about the thickness of Jim Bob’s and Bubba’s brains put together. They had to abandon their efforts – until they got more beer.
Tower in a Tug of War
The thieves later came back and managed to drag the hefty tower into the middle of Marina Drive. See below.
It should be easy tracking down the thieves. Just look for oil stains on the carpet.
But according to the Railroad Commission, the tower weighs 6-8 tons.
Close up shot from the other direction.
“Think that will fit into the trunk, Jim Bob?”
The tower weighs more than two F150s plus a dozen rib dinners from Dickey’s. Translation: that ain’t fitting in the trunk…or a U-Haul, no matter how much beer they brought along. It would squash the tires like roaches.
When notified that the unit was blocking the Boulevard of Broken Dreams and putting dopers in danger, TRRC returned with a tractor and a winch. They tried to haul it off, too, but gave up when it nearly broke the winch. They determined that only a crane will lift it. So they pushed the heater treater back near its original pad. See below.
Back where it started. Photo taken 10/13/2020.
Art of Jungle Warfare Elevated
TRRC then mined the area with thousands of razor-sharp brambles; sweet-gum balls; and twisted, torn chain link fencing. Steel-toed shoes are no match. These defenses could even take out the tires of a dually.
Someone may yet steal this steel. But they will pay a heavy price. TRRC has taken jungle warfare to the next level. Ho Chi Minh could have learned a thing or two from the Railroad Commission.
Forest Cove Cleanup Now Named a Priority Project
According to Dean Southward, the TRRC District Cleanup Coordinator, Noxxe’s Forest Cove Properties have been elevated to the status of a priority project. The Commission’s budget has recycled and Southward says he will soon start bidding the cleanup. Forest Cove homeowners and Little League players will rejoice. Maybe we will hear the Hallelujah Chorus playing by Christmas.
In the meantime, folks, unless you have a very good chiropractor, stay away from the Noxxe Lease.
Thanks to Dan Huberty for his help in getting the TRRC to name this a priority.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/14/2020
1142 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/20201005-DJI_0817.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2020-10-14 15:15:342020-10-14 15:15:44Railroad Commission To Start Bidding Cleanup of Forest Cove Oilfields, Even as They Battle Thieves
On 8/11/2020, Harris County Commissioners Court approved creation of a new Community Flood Resilience Task Force (CFRTF). The first five of 17 appointments to the Task Force have been made by the County Judge and each of the four Commissioners. The first five will select the remaining members.
I seldom insert myself in a story. But it will be impossible not to in this case. Read on.
Purpose of Community Flood Resilience Task Force
According to the bylaws approved in commissioners court, the purpose of the CFRTF is to serve in an advisory capacity to the County’s Infrastructure Resilience Team and the Harris County Commissioners Court. The CFRTF will promote collaboration among stakeholders. The Task Force will also encourage equitable resilience planning and flood resilience projects that:
Support holistic, innovative, and nature-based solutions to building flood resilience and mitigating flood risks;
Achieve multiple short- and long-term benefits for as many Harris County communities as possible;
Take into account the needs and priorities of the community and promote equitable community-level outcomes in the face of flooding; and
Protect communities, homes, and businesses across Harris County from flood-related hazards.
US59 during Harvey. Photo by Melinda Ray.
Task Force Objectives
CFRTF objectives include:
Provide feedback on the development and implementation of flood resilience planning efforts.
Strengthen flood resilience.
Evaluate implementation of the existing flood-bond project prioritization framework and schedule.
Identify and develop funding strategies for flood resilience efforts.
Provide oversight and encourage transparency in the development and implementation of Harris County’s future flood-resilience planning efforts.
Improve community engagement. Obtain feedback from the community on flood resilience planning efforts and projects.
Rundown on Five Initial Members
The five members appointed by the Judge and Commissioners include:
Remaining Members Will Be Selected by the End of the Year
The remaining 12 members of the Task Force will be selected by the five members above. To date, there have been no official meetings as the final member, Rehak, was approved today.
Composition of the final 17 member task force must include at least:
Two members from low-income, flood-prone communities
Two members from communities of color impacted by flooding
Three members with scientific and/or technical expertise related to environmentally sustainable flood resilience or flood-risk mitigation
One City-of-Houston employee with responsibility for flood resilience
One member from each of eight competency areas below (who may also represent categories above)
Competency Areas
Public Housing
Public Health
Engineering/Construction
Urban Design/Planning
Flood-Risk Mitigation
Environmental Sustainability
Grassroots Community Organization
Equity and Social Justice
Remaining members should be selected by the end of this calendar year.
A Personal Note
I didn’t seek this position. Precinct 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle nominated me. I accepted his nomination and feel honored. I promise to make the proceedings of this group as open and transparent as possible. That is one of the core objectives. And ReduceFlooding.com provides an ideal platform to help achieve that. If you have input that could help the task force, please feel free to email me through the Contact Page on this web site. In the meantime, I will continue posting as I have since Harvey about the causes of flooding and ways to mitigate it.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/13/2020
1141 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Melinda-Ray-Harvey.jpg?fit=900%2C1200&ssl=11200900adminadmin2020-10-13 18:15:272020-10-13 23:01:46First Members of Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force Appointed, Rehak Among Them
