On August 12, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Commissioners voted unanimously to initiate a rule-making process that would establish best management practices for commercial sand mining in the San Jacinto River watershed.
Meer feet separate the Hanson Aggregate mine from the San Jacinto West Fork. The integrity of dikes and setbacks from the river have become a major point of contention between the public and miners since Harvey.Photo taken late June.
Joint TACA/Lake Houston Area Request
In June, 2020, both TACA and the Lake Houston Area Grassroots Flood Prevention Initiative presented petitions to have the TCEQ establish best practices. Though the two sides have not agreed on important provisions, such as setbacks from the river and reclamation, the start of the process is a positive step.
After the commission secretary announced the agenda items, Mr. Josh Leftwich of TACA spoke on behalf of the measure. Mr. Leftwich took over as president and CEO of TACA on June 15, from David Perkins. (Mr. Perkins joined Lehigh Hanson, an aggregate company, as the Vice President of Government Affairs.)
No one for the Lake Houston Area spoke on behalf of the proposal.
Rebecca Vialva, executive director of the TCEQ Water Quality Division explained that both sides of this debate submitted separate but similar petitions in June. They requested the agency to establish a rule making process with stakeholder involvement to ensure adequate environmental protection. Ms. Vialva explained that her Water Quality Division supported that.
Vic McWherter, from the Commission’s Office of Public Interest Counsel, also supported the idea.
No one asked questions.
Rule-Making Process Not Same as Adopting Specific Rules
Before taking a vote, Jon Niermann, Chairman of the Commission, explained that initiating a rule-making process was not the same as adopting specific rules. It does not commit to any specific rules or outcomes. It simply starts a public dialog.
All three commissioners, Jon Niermann, Emily Lindley, and Bobby Janecka, voted to start the process.
Model for Rest of State?
Both Mr. Janecka and Mr. Niermann expressed wishes that Best Management Practices for the San Jacinto Watershed could become a model for the rest of the state.
Lake Houston Leaders Urge Public to Engage
Dave Feille and Bill McCabe, leaders of the Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Initiative, sent out an email this morning. In it, they called the TCEQ decision “a major step forward.” However, they were quick to add, “Not surprisingly, the Petitions differed in some key areas and these will be addressed and consolidated in the rule-making stage of the process.”
“We would encourage all stakeholders to become involved in the rule-making process by following the progress of our Petition at: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/rules/participate.html,” said Feille and McCabe.
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/2019/12/Liberty-Breach-12.3.19.jpg?fit=1200%2C913&ssl=19131200adminadmin2020-08-16 19:33:422020-08-16 19:53:37TCEQ Commissioners Vote to Start Rule-Making Process for Sand Mining Best Practices in San Jacinto Watershed
In June, the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) filed a 102-page complaint to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) through Austin attorneys about the San Jacinto River Authority’s (SJRA) policy of seasonally lowering Lake Conroe. The SJRA’s purpose for the lowering: to lower flood risk for downstream residents.
Also, the policy threatens the area’s water supply.
“In summary,” says the complaint, “SJRA and Houston are only authorized to divert or release and use water from Lake Conroe for municipal, industrial, mining, and agricultural purposes. Any other use of surface water from Lake Conroe is not authorized by the Amended Certificate, and thus, is a violation of the Amended Certificate and state law.”
The complaint fails to mention flood control in that last list (prominently mentioned in the SJRA’s enabling legislation). To follow the LCA’s arguments to their logical extreme, SJRA would not have been allowed to release water during Harvey. Every home on Lake Conroe would have flooded.
“TCEQ does not have jurisdiction over future water supply strategies or State and Regional Water Planning.”
“Both SJRA and the City have adopted Water Conservation Plans that comply with TCEQ’s Chapter 288 rules.”
“Therefore, these diversions, which are in compliance with the terms of the Certificate and the Conservation Plan, are not a waste of water under the law.”
The law firm acknowledged in its supplemental complaint that the lowering would only amount to 2.75 inches. However, the firm also claimed the water would be needed in a drought. Then it showed a Texas Water Development Board Drought Map as evidence. But map showed that no drought near the San Jacinto watershed.
In the End, Mother Nature, Not SJRA, Lowers Lake This Year
After all of that, evaporation alone took Lake Conroe down to the SJRA’s seasonal lowering target of 200 feet. It took Mother Nature an extra week to get there, but…
SJRA RELEASED NO WATER from Lake Conroe to achieve its August target level.
SJRA still has not released any water since the early spring.
Lake Conroe dashboard as of 4pm Saturday, August 15, 2020. Source: SJRA.net.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/20200220-RJR_8690.jpg?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=11200800adminadmin2020-08-15 16:37:462020-08-15 17:11:16Lake Conroe Association Complains to TCEQ about Seasonal Lake Lowering
Clarification: General plans, as described below, are primarily about street layouts. However, many people have been trying to raise awareness at the Planning Commission that street patterns are affected to a significant degree by the volume and and layout of drainage and detention features. And, of course with Atlas 14 that is more true than ever. Danny Signorelli, CEO of the Signorelli Companies, took issue with this post. I offered him an opportunity to print a rebuttal verbatim. He refused the offer.
According to residents in other parts of the Commons, Signorelli tried to develop this property before and reportedly wanted to add 4-6 feet of fill to the floodplain. It’s not yet clear what they have in mind for this iteration of the project. However, comparing the general plan to FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer shows that parts of the development are still in the flood plain. (See below.)
No Detention Ponds Shown on Plans
The general plan filed with the planning commission also shows that the developer shows no plans for detention ponds on the property. A best practice to reduce flooding is to “retain your rain.”
Here are satellite and close-up views of where the new subdivision would be relative to the the surrounding area and existing parts of the development.
Crossing At the Commons of Lake Houston is in the Huffman area opposite Lake Houston Park and East End Park on the west side of the East Fork.Crossing at the Commons of Lake Houstonrelative to existing streets in the Commons. From General Plan inset.
Floodplain Issues
Parts of the proposed development will be in the floodplain. And those floodplains will soon expand to include even more homes. See the two dotted lines below.
Close up of PDF above shows how 100-year floodplain (dotted line on left) and 500-year (dotted line on right) would impact proposed homesites.Note the drainage easement in the lower left.FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer shows parts of the proposed new 75.3-acre subdivision would be in the 100- and 500-year floodplain.
Ironically, just last night, the City of Houston and its partners (Harris County Flood Control, Montgomery County and the SJRA) presented a draft of the findings of the San Jacinto River Master Drainage Plan. In it, they recommended avoiding flood plain development to keep people out of harm’s way. See slide below from their presentation.
Slide from San Jacinto River Master Drainage Plan Draft Report shows how adding fill to flood plains can affect other homes in area.
The presenter also discussed how the floodplains were expanding due to revisions of flood maps based on new hydraulic and hydrologic modeling not yet been shared with FEMA.
The 100-year floodplain in many areas will likely expand well into the 500. And the 500-year flood plain will likely expand into areas previously not shown in ANY floodplain.
San Jacinto River Master Drainage Plan Draft Report 8/13/2020
Thus, the number of homes affected by floods could greatly expand beyond the number shown above.
Drainage in Commons Already a Problem
Plans also show that homes will be built very close to a drainage easement. Yet existing ditches in the Commons are eroding badly due to lack of maintenance. Below is a picture of one taken in January last year. Residents say the trees are still there and the erosion became much worse during floods in May and Imelda.
Commons drainage ditchphotographed last year.
Less Than One Fourth of Property Now Under Consideration
The tract is 332 acres, but only 75.3 is proposed for development at this time. It is entirely located within the incorporated limits of the City of Houston. The entire tract is adjacent to COH flooding easements for Lake Houston.
How to Voice Concerns, If You Have Them
Here’s how you can voice concerns, if you have them. The City Planning Commission will hold virtual meetings until further notice. So it’s very easy to make public comments. You can sign up to speak by going to the Planning Commission Home Page.
The next Planning Commission meeting is Thursday, August 20, 2020. If you’d like to speak, you must sign up at least 24 hours before the meeting.
Speakers have only TWO MINUTES. Key points to consider:
Floodplain will officially be expanding soon.
Some of these homes are already in it.
Many more soon will be.
That could require fill.
And fill will make flooding worse for other homes near the river on both sides.
No detention ponds or drainage plans are shown.
The Planning Commission should consider these things.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/14/2020
1081 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/GE-screenshot.jpg?fit=949%2C708&ssl=1708949adminadmin2020-08-14 17:45:352025-03-24 20:12:08Developer Seeks City Approval to Expand Commons of Lake Houston into Floodplain – Without Detention Ponds
I can’t urge you enough to watch the San Jacinto Watershed Master Drainage Plan Meeting tonight at 6:30.
Flooded Street during Harvey. Photo by Julie Yandell.
Updating of River Models Leads to New Insights
I previewed the presentation this morning and was extremely impressed. The study partners have updated or created hydraulic and hydrologic models for 535 miles of major streams in the river basin. They’ve also integrated the models and accounted for new developments across 3000 square miles in seven counties.
As a result, we now have a much better understanding of:
Where water comes from
Which areas have the highest potential for flooding
Where large regional detention basins can be placed to reduce flooding.
Other strategies to reduce flooding.
New Flood Maps, Sedimentation, Better Warning Systems
You don’t want to hear about this stuff second hand. The presentation also includes discussions of:
How much flood plains have really expanded compared to current FEMA maps.
Sedimentation and strategies to reduce it
Improving flood warning systems
If you’re flooded, or are concerned that you might, don’t miss this. This study will be the cornerstone of grants applications to mitigate flooding in the region.
Cornerstone of Lake Houston Area Mitigation Efforts
Two years ago, before the flood bond vote, community opinion coalesced around a three-part solution to flooding in the Lake Houston Area.
Reduce/delay the input by increasing upstream detention
Increase the throughput by dredging blockages
Speed up the output with additional gates on the Lake Houston Dam.
Tonight, you will get a chance ask questions of the people who have been studying those options and others for 18 months. Here’s how to log in:
Or by phone at 855-925-2801 with Meeting Code: 9742
Order the pizza now.
This study is a cooperative venture of FEMA, Harris County Flood Control, SJRA, City of Houston and Montgomery County.
Posted by Bob Rehak on August 13, 2020
1080 Days after Hurricane Harvey
00adminadmin2020-08-13 16:43:272020-08-13 16:43:38San Jacinto River Watershed Virtual Meeting Tonight Will Unveil Specific Recommendations to Reduce Flooding
Judge Lina Hidalgo, Commissioner Adrian Garcia and Commissioner Rodney Ellis voted FOR the measure despite every speaker complaining about some aspect of it. Even those who had lobbied for a year to create the task force spoke against the final bylaws.
Two Vote AGAINST; Cite Timing, Procedural Issues
Commissioner Radack voted against it, citing a soon-to-be-released Army Corps study that could make the task force obsolete.
Commissioner Cagle also voted against it. He cited some troubling procedural issues having to do with public notice. The motion was placed on an emergency agenda late in the day on Friday – without backup. That meant the public could not see what it was about.
Then the task force bylaws changed several times over the weekend. And even during the meeting. This gave commissioners no time to review the measure they were voting on or to consult affected constituents.
Ambush Agendas Undermine Transparency
Cagle’s concern highlights a growing trend in Commissioner’s Court these days: ambush agendas.
The emergency agenda is posted late in the day on Friday. This increases the chances that people will miss it and reduces their time to respond or request explanation before the court takes action. Some might say that it’s being used as a tactic to minimize opposition.
Likewise, this administration uses supplemental meetings the same way. Hidalgo called a meeting on August 3rd at 4 pm to consider changing the election process. Without posting any explanation.
Such meetings also catch opponents off-guard. Between special meetings and emergency agendas, the public had only ten days for comment on the task force proposal that will guide $2.5 billion in spending. That is not enough to study an idea, understand it, and mobilize protests (if called for).
During testimony on the measure, it became apparent that those who favored the motion received revised bylaws over the weekend. However, those speaking against did not.
Such steamroller tactics make a mockery of transparency. Especially when there is no need to rush the measure through after so long.
A New Form of “Co-Government”
During the discussion, Judge Hidalgo’s comments made it clear that she sees the task force as a:
New form of “co-government”
Tool to oversee and overrule professionals in her own Flood Control District
Way to identify “the next big thing” in flood control.
Pattern for similar task forces in other departments, such as Transportation and Elections.
Avoiding Geographic Representation When Solving Geographic Problem
I previously posted about this subject more than a year ago. I spoke against the measure based on the fact that it represents only some people, not all. It excludes representatives from each watershed in Harris County, in favor of poor communities and communities of color – regardless of how much floods have damaged other communities.
Also, instead of having flood experts, the task force has equity and resilience experts.
Only three of the 17 people on the task force would have scientific or technical expertise, but they would be overseeing scientists, engineers and technical experts.
Both equity and resilience have been redefined to favor the “socially vulnerable.”
Index to Meeting Video
Video of the meeting shows how this went down. I urge you to look at it instead of simply accepting my summary. However, for easy reference, here is a recap of key thoughts with approximate time codes.
5:16: 53. Hidalgo summarizes the process, which started a year ago. She mentions other cities with similar task forces, and describes this one as a “best practice.”
15:17:31 Hidalgo describes the function of the group as oversight – to ensure that projects go according to the prioritization schedule approved by the three Democrats.
15:17:40 “Most importantly,” she says, “It will help the county look forward and tell us what the next big thing is going to be.” She claims they had multiple comments from hundreds of people and distilled their input.
County Judge Lina Hidalgo conducting discussion in online meeting.
5:18:07. She tells commissioners they got an edited version of the task force bylaws because she still doesn’t know which department the group will go in.
5:18:28. She says, “But I don’t want to hold this any longer just because we haven’t settled on the place.” (That’s the closest explanation we have as to why this appeared on the emergency agenda.)
5:18:40 Garcia congratulates Hidalgo for “engineering” the proposal.
“Which Version Are We Voting On?”
5:19:43 Cagle interrupts to ensure “we’re voting on the right version.” He complains about getting material over the weekend, which was then revised during the meeting they are now in.
CEER Calls Proposal “A Step Backward”
5:20:30. First speaker, Iris Gonzalez of CEER (Coalition for Environment Equity and Resilience) says the proposal addresses “communities that have been left behind.” But then she says, “We’re really disappointed in the language.” She also asserts that other groups in her coalition are also disappointed. She concludes by stating the bylaws fail to implement the full intent of the resolution passed a year ago. “This seems like a step backward,” she says.
5:23:18: The President of Katie Prairie Conservancy complains about one issue after another. She wants:
“Direct access to commissioners court on a regular basis”
“Supervision of flood management activities.”
“Membership of task force to represent the diverse communities that make up Harris County.”
Nature-based solutions for generations to come.
She says, the task force could be effective, but only if it has authority.
5:26:25 Radack thanks the Conservancy for its work.
5:29. Garcia does, too.
Residents Against Flooding Says Task Force Needs More Specialists
5:32:30 Cynthia Neely, from Residents Against Flooding, said she got copy of the revised bylaws Sunday afternoon. (Even though people speaking against the proposal, like me, did not). The task force, she says, needs more members of groups like Residents Against Flooding. She also demands specialists representing green infrastructure, natural sciences, soil, wildlife, etc.
Sierra Club Voices “Deep Concerns”
5:56 The Houston Sierra Club said it “…has very deep concerns about the Infrastructure Resilience Team and Task Force.” Specifically, it has no one with a background in green infrastructure, green space, natural sciences, or wildlife. The speaker proposes amendments to the language.
ReduceFlooding Complaints
5:38:55 Bob Rehak (me) speaks for ReduceFlooding.com. I complain that the task force bylaws:
Represent some, but not all people
Allow diversions of bond money to non-flood issues
Define the words resilience and equity in a self-serving way that’s contrary to common understanding.
I also request that the measure be killed or put on the ballot in to November to give voters a chance to confirm that they agree with the new, unconventional definitions of resilience and equity that skew distribution of flood bond dollars unequally.
Cypress Creek Complains About Representation, Balance
5:42:31 Jim Robertson, Cypress Creek Flood Coalition, wanted representatives for each watershed and better balance between community and technical representation. He also wanted more than ten days of public comment and input.
Radack Complains about Timing
5:45:31. Commissioner Radack expresses concern about what a new Army Corps report coming out soon will say. He worries that it could “devastate” some members of the task, so he advocated not doing anything at this time.
Historical Discrimination Against Lake Houston Area
5:49:48 Rehak (who was cut off before commissioners could ask questions) comes back to answer one from Cagle. Cagle asks why I felt the Lake Houston area has historically been discriminated against in the allocation of flood dollars.
5:50:15 Rehak replies that in the entire history of the flood control district, the Humble/Kingwood area has never received one federally funded HCFCD project. Also, “The Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium reported that the San Jacinto River Watershed has 3% of the region’s population, historically has received 0% of the region’s flood mitigation funding, and yet sustained 14% of the region’s damages during Harvey. We received 4 to 5 times more damage per person than other parts of Harris County, in large part, because of this historical neglect. That’s why the Humble/Kingwood area voted overwhelmingly for the flood bond when we saw the equity language in it. In fact, we had five of the top eight precincts in the county in terms of turnout. Now we’re being neglected again with these bylaws because of very unusual definitions of equity and resilience that help only a few, not everybody.”
Hidalgo Wants Model for “Co-Governing”
5:51:45 Hidalgo thanks everyone and says, “We’re trying to create a model for co-governing which everyone can see is like being passed around like a hot potato a little bit. I don’t want to keep holding this up.”
5:52:24 Hidalgo runs through comments received during the process because there “are so many different perspectives.”
“We wanted this to be a community task force.” But then, “We decided against including someone from each of the 22 watersheds because it would have become too large.”
“We have this huge charge to reimagine our flood future.”
“We need to move away from piecemeal approaches and be able to answer the question “What is success?” (Editorial Comment: To me, success is NOT flooding.)
Hidalgo Planning for Next Bond Election, Transforming Government
“We need people to help us PLAN for the NEXT bond election and the next big thing, she says.
“We could keep debating this forever, so I propose we vote on this today. It’s impossible to make everybody happy.”
“We also need to create community groups like this for Elections and Transportation.”
“This is the best shot we’ve got,” she says.
5:58:23. Ellis asks which department will house the task force?
5:58:30 Hidalgo talks about the options, but concludes it “doesn’t need to be decided today.”
Ellis Takes Credit for Equity Bias
6:00:16 Ellis says he favors the proposal. He claims he put the equity language on the bond ballet because of FEMA’s cost/benefit language. It supposedly favors rich neighborhoods (though statistics don’t back that up). “We know which neighborhoods have been neglected historically,” he says. Meaning HIS.
Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis taking credit for redefining equity.
6:01 Ellis says, “There are some who would advocate just dividing 2.5 billion equally among the four precincts. Well, that’s not equity.”
“So I was glad to put that language on the ballot.”
“This was a worst/first strategy. I’m proud to implement it.”
6:02 Ellis seconds Garcia’s motion to adopt the Task Force Bylaws.
Final Wrangling
6:02:15 Hidalgo restates the motion on the agenda.
6:03:20 Hidalgo calls for a vote.
Garcia, Hidalgo and Ellis vote YES.
Cagle and Radack vote NO.
Cagle again complains about not getting enough notice.
Hidalgo says “We sent an email Sunday with the backup. So it’s just not accurate to say it was a surprise.”
6:04: Motion to create task force is approved.
Re-Purposing Government On the Fly
If you care to watch the entire meeting you will witness county government being re-purposed before your eyes. And it’s a real eye opener.
Remember this when they try to push the tax increase through. It will come up again in September. Will it be on an emergency agenda over the weekend with little public notice and no backup? Will we have more non-elected representatives determining how public funds are spent?
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Ellis.jpg?fit=1200%2C809&ssl=18091200adminadmin2020-08-13 14:42:532020-08-13 15:48:50Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia Approve Community Flood Resilience Task Force Even As Supporters Turn Against It
In January, the City hired DRC Emergency Services, LLC (DRC) to begin mechanical dredging of the San Jacinto West Fork Mouth Bar. I’ve provided periodic updates on that. According to Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin, DRC has now officially completed 60% of that project.
In the meantime, other related dredging projects, including East Fork dredging and long-term Lake Houston maintenance dredging are reportedly taking shape. Here’s how pieces of the puzzle fit together. But one piece is still missing – long-term funding to pay for the maintenance dredging.
Two-Phase Program
DRC’s scope of work has two distinct phases:
Phase One will remove accumulated materials near and at the mouth bar on the West Fork of the San Jacinto River.
Phase Two will remove accumulated materials in the East Fork of the San Jacinto River AND other locations in Lake Houston.
West Fork Mouth Bar as of late June 2020.
During Phase One, 400,000 cubic yards of material will be removed over twelve months. To date, DRC has removed approximately 240,080 cubic yards of material. (See photo above.) That’s 60% in approximately 60% of the allotted time, so that part of the project is on schedule.
East Fork Mouth Bar as of May 2020. This areas went from 18 to 3 feet deep during Imelda, according to boater Josh Alberson. The above-water portion of this sand bar has grown three quarters of a mile since Harvey.
Phase Two of the project will consist of:
Hydrographic surveys of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River, the East Fork of the San Jacinto River, and Lake Houston to determine dredge material volumes
City of Houston advertising and awarding a dredging contract to the lowest responsive bidder
Phase Two will run simultaneously with Phase One to expedite dredging.
Dave Martin, Houston Mayor Pro Tem
Mayor Pro Tem Martin did not provide an update on where Phase Two currently stands. But residents have reported seeing survey boats on Lake Houston, and the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto.
Mouth bar forming at Rogers Gully on Lake Houston. Example of kind of projects being considered for Phase 2.Photo late June, 2020.
Long-Term Dredging Plan in Development
Additionally, during Phase Two, City of Houston and its partners will develop a long-term dredging plan for Lake Houston. City of Houston or the Coastal Water Authority will execute the plan.
The intention: to fund dredging operations in perpetuity.
This phased approach will obligate the full grant funding before the 87th legislative session in 2021. This grant funding was made possible thanks to State Representative Dan Huberty (District 127) through the passage of Senate Bill 500.
Mayor Pro Tem Martin credits Huberty for his dedication to the long-term maintenance dredging activities on Lake Houston. “Representative Huberty has been a champion for his residents and a great ally in seeing these additional dredging efforts come to fruition,” said Martin.
$40 Million Project
The total project is valued at $40 million (except for the perpetuity part). Funding for the immediate dredging projects comes through a combination of:
City of Houston Harvey Disaster dollars provided by Governor Greg Abbott
Grant dollars from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB)
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) Bond Program.
Long Term Funding – Still A Missing Piece of Puzzle
Lake Houston, a City of Houston asset, is losing capacity. Everyone has recognized that fact for decades. But as silt filled the rivers, inlets and lake, maintenance was deferred, reportedly for budgetary reasons. In 2017, during Harvey, the problem became so big that no one could ignore it anymore. Flooding was the immediate problem. But loss of water capacity is an even bigger, longer-term problem.
It’s one thing to have a long-term maintenance dredging plan and another to put it into action. But where will the money come from?
A tax on sand mines? Won’t work. Most aren’t in the City. Or even in Harris County.
Some have suggested creating a taxing district for lakefront homeowners. That won’t work either. Not enough of them. And it would create a stampede for the Oklahoma border. Moreover, it hardly seems fair; the lake is part of a City system that provides water to two million people and generates revenue.
The logical solution seems to be increasing the cost of water. Adding just a fraction of a penny per 1000 gallons should do it. Dredging isn’t just about reducing flooding. Or preserving views for lakefront homeowners. It helps preserve the lake’s capacity. And that benefits everyone.
As we develop a long-term dredging plan for the lake, we also need to consider a sustainable source of financing.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/12/2020based, in part, on a release by Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin
1079 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/20200306-RJR_9786.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-08-12 13:45:302020-08-12 16:03:12Long-Term Lake Houston Dredging Plan in Development; West Fork Mouth-Bar 60 Percent Completed
Harris County Flood Control District, Montgomery County, City of Houston, and San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) will host a virtual public meeting on August 13, 2020. Purpose: to provide information about work to date in the San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan (SJMDP) and give you a chance to provide input.
Light pole near River Bend in North Shore as Harvey receded. Note the “wet marks” several feet up on pole. Photo by Jim Balcom.Water was so high that rescue boats had to dodge electrical wires.
About the Study and Its Goals
The study began in April 2019. Its goal: to reduce flood risks to people and property throughout the San Jacinto River regional watershed by identifying future flood mitigation projects for the near- and long-term. The SJMDP study area covers nearly 3,000 square miles in seven different counties and includes approximately 535 miles of stream.
The SJMDP team has updated and integrated hydraulic and hydrologic models for all the major streams in the watershed. This provides the technical basis for identifying vulnerabilities. It also allows the team to estimate impacts to existing infrastructure from future growth.
Meeting Details
Community engagement is an important component of the Bond Program. Feedback from residents helps “ground truth” models, assumptions and plans. So please attend the virtual meeting, ask questions, and volunteer feedback.
Or by phone at 855-925-2801 with Meeting Code: 9742
You can register now, download a reminder for your calendar, submit questions, and sign up for future updates on this important study.
The meeting will begin with a brief presentation to share project updates, followed by a moderated Q&A session with Flood Control District team members. Residents will be able to submit questions and comments throughout the presentation. Any comments not addressed during the Q&A session will receive a response after the event.
A recorded version of the meeting will be available on the Flood Control District’s website and YouTube channel after the event.
Funding for Study
A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Planning Program funds 75% of the study. The four local partners contribute equally to the rest.
For More Information
For questions, please contact the Flood Control District at 346-286-4152, or complete the online comment form. Comments may also be mailed to the Harris County Flood Control District, 9900 Northwest Freeway, Houston, Texas 77092, Attn: San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan. For more information about the San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan, visit www.sanjacstudy.org.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/12/2020
1079 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/image4-1-e1553198926707.jpeg?fit=966%2C1400&ssl=11400966adminadmin2020-08-12 08:51:022020-08-12 08:56:59San Jacinto River Watershed Master Drainage Plan Meeting Thursday at 6:30 p.m.
Since August 1, the level of Lake Conroe has hovered around 200 feet. As of this writing, it stands at 199.95 feet, virtually at the target level of the seasonal lowering for the month. That’s three hundredths of a foot above its seasonal average for the last 46 years and five hundredths of a foot below the target level. Yet the Lake Conroe Association appears to be gearing up for another fight to end the program.
Lake Conroe level as of 8/10/20 at 4:30 pm. Source: SJRA.net.
Seasonal Averages
Lake Conroe seasonal levels by month. Source: SJRA
History of Strategy
The SJRA started seasonally lowering the level of Lake Conroe in 2018 after Governor Abbott directed the SJRA to develop strategies to help protect downstream communities from flooding. Due to a slight drought in late 2019, the lake level did not recover quickly. The Lake Conroe Association (LCA) then organized protests as the SJRA reconsidered the strategy for this year.
SJRA Seasonal Release on 4/15/2020. One tainter gate open six inches releases a slow, steady stream of 529 cfs. No one flooded downstream last Spring during the release.
Ultimately, the strategy adopted by the SJRA represented a compromise. During September/October, the lake will remain a half foot higher than in previous years (200 vs 199.5).
Here’s how the current and previous targets compare to what Mother Nature provides through rainfall and evaporation.
In August, little manual lowering should be needed. In September and October, much less lowering will be needed compared to the previous plan adopted in 2018.
SJRA’s Plan for Fall Lowering
SJRA’s current official policy reads as follows.
“Beginning August 1, release only an amount of water from Lake Conroe to create a one foot capacity to catch rainfall and storm runoff (from 201’ msl to 200’ msl). After September 1, increase capacity an additional six inches (from 200’ msl to 199.5’ msl). If a named storm is predicted to impact our region, the COH may initiate an additional release of six inches (to 199’ msl) by notifying SJRA in writing of their call for release. Recapture beginning October 1.”
Compared to the seasonal average, the plan really only amounts to lowering the lake 2 to 3 inches in September and October.
Lake Conroe Association Gearing Up for Another Fight?
Regardless, the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) is reportedly gearing up for another fight.
Community Impact newspaper reported in its August 2020 issue that LCA filed a complaint with the TCEQ on June 30 to end the seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe.
On August 7, they sent an email out to requesting Lake Conroe residents to donate money to the Lake Conroe Association so that it could “replenish the reserve funds spent to oppose the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) lake lowering program.”
In the next paragraph, they ask Lake Conroe residents to provide comments to the Sunset Commission reviewing the SJRA.
Screen Capture of LCA Communication on 9/7/2020. Links not active.
Neither of those two actions is a threat. But juxtaposing them like that is certainly walking up to the firing line … with the chamber loaded.
There sure is a lot of energy expended over two or three inches of water.
Lake Conroe people claimed last winter, when the SJRA was reconsidering the policy, that the lowering would not help Lake Houston Area residents. Lake Houston Area residents, still feeling the pain of Harvey, want all the help they can get.
Enough said.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/10/2020
1077 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Lake-Conroe-Level-8.10.20.jpg?fit=1200%2C642&ssl=16421200adminadmin2020-08-10 17:22:252020-08-10 18:39:35Lake Conroe Lowered to Target Level for August; LCA May Be Gearing Up For Another Fight
Defendants in the Elm Grove flood lawsuit have filed more than 20 new documents with the Harris County District Clerk since mid-July. The big news: The addition of Concourse Development, LLC to the lawsuit has pushed back the trial date from March to September next year. It has also triggered more victim-blaming plus claims and cross-claims among the defendants.
Background
In 2019, runoff from 268 clear-cut acres under development by Perry Homes contributed to flooding in Elm Grove, not once, but twice. Victims sued two subsidiaries of Perry Homes who were developing the property. They also sued several contractors, and LJA, the engineering company.
Screen capture from video taken by Cogdill family during May 7th flood of 2019 shows water streaming out of Woodridge Village into Elm Grove.
Perry Homes is the parent company of subsidiaries PSWA and Figure Four Partners, who were originally sued.
Many Elm Grove Families had to be rescued.
Concourse Development bought the property now known as Woodridge Village on 1/12/2018 and sold it to Perry Homes six days later.
Five developers owned the Woodridge Property before Figure Four Partners, LTD, a Perry Homes subsidiary.Concourse owned it for six days before flipping it to Figure Four. Source: Montgomery County Appraisal District.
The addition of Concourse to the lawsuit prompted multiple requests by Concourse and other defendants to delay the trial again – until September 20, 2021. Concourse said it didn’t have enough time for discovery and preparation. Given that the case was already almost a year old, Concourse claimed it had a lot of catching up to do. In their response to the plaintiffs’ sixth amended petition, Concourse also pointed some fingers at other defendants. One then filed a cross-claim against Concourse (see below).
Concourse Blames Victims and Almost Everyone in Sight
Concourse then lists eight pages of defenses. They repeat the phrase “Pleading further, and in the alternative, if such be necessary and subject to the foregoing pleas and without waiving same…” a grand total of twenty times. That means, “If the general denial doesn’t work, we reserve the right to claim X. And if X doesn’t work, we reserve the right to claim Y. Etc.”
More Than 20 Defenses Asserted
With that as a preface, Concourse also pleaded that:
Concourse was not the immediate or sole cause of the flooding and damages.
“Acts, omissions, fault, negligence and other conduct of the Plaintiffs” were the immediate and sole cause, in whole or in part, of the flooding and their damages. (They do not explain why they believe that, though.) Said another way, the victims caused their own damages.
Other defendants caused the damages.
New and independent third parties caused the damages.
Other people caused the damages.
Concourse had no obligation to the victims.
Concourse’s conduct was reasonably prudent.
The flooding was an unavoidable accident.
Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages.
Their contract (presumably with Perry) gives them indemnity.
Any payments made by other parties (not a part of the litigation) to Defendants should offset any liability Concourse may have. (Presumably, they’re talking about insurance companies.)
Any award against Concourse must be reduced by the percentage of fault attributable to others, including the Plaintiffs themselves, and third parties.
Flooding was caused by an intervening, but unspecified cause.
Plaintiffs’ claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
To the extent that Plaintiffs allege lost wages or loss of earning capacity, recovery should be limited to post-tax earnings or net earnings.
Plaintiffs’ damages resulted from prior or pre-existing conditions over which Concourse had no control and did not cause.
God caused the damages.
Any punitive damages awarded in the case should be reduced in proportion to Plaintiffs’ own negligence.
Plaintiffs’ claims should be barred because Concourse acted with due care and complied with all laws and regulations.
Plaintiffs’ assumed the risk that resulted in their “alleged” damages.
Punitive damages violate the Due Process and Equal Protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US. Constitution and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Punitive damages violate Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the Texas Constitution, and the United States Constitution.
Prejudgment interest should be limited under Texas Law.
Plaintiffs have not fulfilled all the conditions necessary to maintain the lawsuit.
The One Satisfaction Rule should govern any awards.
The last point means that a plaintiff should only recover once for a particular injury. It applies when several defendants commit the same act or when multiple defendants commit different acts that result in one injury.
Defendants Now Fighting Among Themselves
If many of those points sound contradictory, they are. But Concourse has covered all its bases.
In #3 above, Concourse pointed the finger of blame at other defendants in the case. Evidently, Double Oak Construction, Inc., one of the other defendants didn’t like that. So…
On 8/6/2020, Double Oak filed a cross-claim against Concourse. Double Oak alleges that Concourse should be held directly liable to plaintiffs for any and ALL damages they suffered. Double Oak also wants a jury to decide Concourse’s percentage of liability.
Why is that? Double Oak alleges that “…the Developer Defendants hired Concourse on May 8, 2019, the day after the extreme weather event on May 7, 2019, to inspect the Development and that Concourse did not advise the Developer Defendants to make any changes to the detention.” Nor, they claim, did Concourse advise Double Oak or the other Contractor Defendants to make any changes to their work after the inspection.
Therefore, Double Oak further alleges, Concourse is liable to Plaintiffs for damages and any award levied against Double Oak.
Double Oak Objects to Concourse Production of Documents
In its response to the Plaintiffs, Concourse also gave “notice to all parties that any and all documents produced during discovery may be used against such parties at any pre-trial proceeding and/or trial … without the necessity of authenticating the document.”
Double Oak objected to this. Double Oak claims it doesn’t know what specific documents Concourse intends to use, therefore Double Oak is handicapped in its defense.
Trying to anticipate every single document produced by any party would cause an undue hardship, claims Double Oak. Double Oak reserved its right to authenticate any and all documents that Concourse produces as part of discovery.
The Woodridge MUD claims that the Plaintiffs’ subpeona is “overly broad and seeks to inquire into matters subject to the attorney-client privilege.” They also claim that some of the requested documents involve matters discussed during executive sessions of the Woodridge MUD board.
The MUD also refuses to produce documents anywhere other than at the offices of its counsel.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/10/2020
1077 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/2020/08/Rescue-Truck.jpg?fit=1500%2C729&ssl=17291500adminadmin2020-08-09 18:51:242020-08-09 23:29:49More Delays, Denials, and Victim-Blaming in Elm Grove Lawsuit
Tuesday, Harris County Commissioners Court could vote on a proposal to create a Community Flood Resilience Task Force (CFRTF). The Task Force has the potential to shift billions of flood-bond dollars from Republican-controlled Precincts 3 and 4 to Democratic-controlled Precincts 1 and 2. It should be noted that resilience appears nowhere in the flood bond language that voters approved, so this may not even be legal.
County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Commissioner Rodney Ellis and Commissioner Adrian Garcia are using the committee and unusual definitions of “equity,” “equitably,” and “resilience” to justify the shift. Their efforts could kill much-needed flood-mitigation projects in areas such as Elm Grove and the wider Lake Houston Area. Mr. Ellis especially has been openly hostile toward helping Elm Grove.
Secrecy Surrounds Creation of Task Force
The CFRTF proposal has been placed on the Emergency/Supplemental portion of the agenda with no public explanation of what commissioners would actually vote on. See Item #8. It reads only: “Request by the County Judge for discussion and possible action on reconstituting the Harris County Flood Control Task Force as the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force and amending the bylaws accordingly.”
The current version of the Task Force by-laws is not posted online, but I have obtained a copy via a FOIA request. The wording of the bylaws has changed from the version posted on July 24. A distinctive bias runs through the wording that’s contrary to the wording approved by Harris County voters in 2018.
2018 Flood-Bond Election Called for Equity
Because not one joint USACE/HCFCD project had ever been conducted in the area, Lake Houston Area leaders actually argued to include this language in the flood bond. It is now being turned against the area.
Harris County voters approved the flood bond in 2018 with the understanding that flood-bond dollars would be distributed “equitably.” The approved language specifically required that. Since then, however, Commissioner Rodney Ellis has led a concerted effort to redefinethe word equitably so that flood-bond dollars can be shifted disproportionately to low-income “communities of color.”
Recognized Definitions of Equitable and Equitably
Most people likely define equitably as fairly or impartially.
Webster’s Third International Dictionary defines it as equality – “without prejudice or favoritism.”
The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “unbiased, impartial.”
Roget’s Thesaurus lists two pages of synonyms, most centered around the idea of “a level playing field.”
Black’s Law Dictionary has pages of definitions, most centered around the idea of “fairness.”
Ellis’ Definition of Equity
Mr. Ellis defines equity as righting the wrongs of the past, especially in regard to racial injustice. His definition relates to fairness only if you define equity, not in terms of the present, but of the past. He talks a lot about reparations for slavery. However, he ignores:
Judge Hidalgo, Commissioner Ellis and Commissioner Garcia intend to use this supposedly impartial task force to advise them on flood-control decisions. However, the flood-control experts and engineers don’t get to vote. They will only advise 17 political appointees. The appointees must have, according to the proposed bylaws, “a demonstrated knowledge of or interest in equitable approaches to flood resilience and the socioeconomic, demographic, and environmental factors that affect the relative resilience of communities in response to flooding.”
Of the 17 members:
At least two must represent low-income communities.
At least two must represent communities of color.
At least three must have expertise in flood resilience.
At least one will be a City of Houston representative with responsibilities related to resilience.
The task force will also include at least one person from each of eight competency areas, six of which are based on the idea of equity (See appendix A, page 12):
Housing equity
Health equity
Equitable infrastructure
Equitable urban planning and transportation
Environmental equity
Equity and social justice
The other two competencies are:
Flood risk mitigation
Authentic connections to local communities with “lived experience” (whatever that means).
A minimum 14 out of the 17 positions on the task force will ensure Hidalgo’s, Garcia’s and Ellis’ definitions of equity and resilience based on “social justice” are implemented.
Article II (Definitions) Paragraph 3 even spells out what’s meant by the term “equitable resilience.” It “takes into account issues of social vulnerability,” say the bylaws.
The bylaws then go on to say equitable resilience “…starts from people’s own perception of their position within their human-environmental system and accounts for their realities and their need for a change of circumstance to avoid imbalances of power into the future.”
Talk about political double speak! What does that even mean?
I think they’re saying that decisions will be made on subjective, not objective, criteria.
Also note Definition #6 – Flood Resilience Projects. The word mitigation (as in flood mitigation) appears nowhere in the definition.
In fact, the phrase “flood mitigation” appears nowhere in the entire 12-page document. Neither does the word “equal.” However, resilience appears 63 times. But “resilience” never appears once in the bond language that voters approved.
Resilience, like equity, does not apply to the entire county. Most people probably see resilience as a positive word that helps everyone. It doesn’t. The Ellis/Hidalgo/Garcia definition helps only a subset of people.
More Double Speak
A footnote on page 3 says “It is not within the scope of the CFRTF to alter or re-prioritize 2018 flood bond projects, except that the CFRTF should evaluate and provide feedback on whether those projects are being implemented in accordance with the [Harris County Commissioners] court-approved equitable prioritization framework and schedule.”
In other words, the task force can only make sure the equity priorities that Ellis, Hidalgo and Garcia approved are being implemented. These aren’t advisors; they’re enforcers.
Troubling Questions
Why are technical experts on flood mitigation being replaced by “equity” experts?
Why is the judgment of experts on flood mitigation being replaced by political appointees who don’t represent the spectrum of views in Harris County?
Why are changes that could fundamentally alter the nature of government and the allocation of tax dollars being considered on an “emergency” agenda?
Why has the voter-approved definition of “equitable” been replaced by one that’s inequitable?
Why are hundreds of millions of tax dollars moving to Precincts One and Two, denying other precincts their fair share?
If the Community Flood Resilience Task Force is so important, why is it not being put on the ballot for November?
Of all these questions, perhaps the last is the most critical. Voters deserve a say in how their $2.5 billion is spent. Not just a subset of voters. All voters.
Please email the county judge (CRTF@cjo.hctx.net) before Tuesday’s meeting and demand that creation of the resilience task force be put on the ballot for November. We need to clear up any confusion about what we approved in the flood-bond referendum of 2018 and how voters want bond dollars allocated.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/9/2020
1076 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Equitable.jpg?fit=1200%2C220&ssl=12201200adminadmin2020-08-08 22:57:592020-08-11 09:06:42Harris County Could Shift Billions of Flood-Bond Dollars Tuesday without Public Vote
