Almost 40 years ago, when I moved to Houston, I fell in love with the extraordinary beauty of this City. And nowhere in Houston is more beautiful than the Lake Houston Area. The pictures below show why it’s worth fighting for.
Nature in the Lake Houston Area isn’t a place you go to visit. You don’t have to drive or fly to it. It’s all around you. Step out your back door and you’re already there. You’re breathing it. You’re being it.
Harvey Was an Eye Opener
Right up until Hurricane Harvey, I felt, on balance, this was the most perfect place in America to raise my family. Houston offers career opportunities found in few other cities. And the Lake Houston Area, in particular, offers the things my family and I value.
Harvey didn’t change my mind about those things. But it did open my eyes to some things I should have paid closer attention to. All around us, that perfect environment was quietly and steadily being eroded for decades.
It’s not gone. But it is threatened. Every day. More than a thousand other posts on this web site amply chronicle those threats. I won’t dwell on them here. Nor will I dwell on how “the greatest flood ever” kept being replaced by the new “greatest flood ever.”
What We Need to Fight For
I would like, instead, to share several images that show it’s not too late to preserve what we have. But to do that, we have to fight for it.
We need to fight for:
Responsible aggregate mining.
Better development practices that respect nature.
Upstream floodplain regulations that reduce flooding.
Flood mitigation efforts that keep the 100-year floodplain a 100-year floodplain.
Why We Need to Fight
I took all of the pictures below in the last three months. They show what we need to save. All were shot inside America’s fourth largest city, which makes them even more unique.
The Kingwood Country Club’s Lake Course.Can you spot the thousands of homes around it?West Fork of the San Jacinto with Lake Houston on the horizon. Looking SE.For decades, development preserved nature.This is the result.Looking north at Lake Houston across the spillway.Looking south over the Lake Houston Dam toward the industry that powers America and the world.Looking east from the West Fork toward the East Fork of the San Jacinto with Royal Shores between them.Looking north along the East Fork. Kingwood’s East End Park is in the center and Huffman is on the right.Looking SE. FM1960 cuts across Lake Houston and through Huffman in the foreground Looking Southwest in the opposite direction from over FM1960, with Lake Houston in background.Looking East across FM2100 and Huffman toward Kingwood on the other side of the lake.Looking West. The Luce Bayou Interbasin Transfer Project where it enters into Luce Bayou and the headwaters of Lake Houston.Looking north from the Commons on Lake Houston toward where the new Grand Parkway is circling Houston (out of sight) near the top of the frame.This entire area could soon be developed.Looking southeast across Kingwood Park High School. Kingwood, where 70,000 people live, is almost invisible, hidden among the trees between the school and Lake Houston at the top of the frame.Looking north over Forest Cove, toward I-69 and Insperity, Kingwood’s $4 billion company, all hidden in the trees.Looking NW from the confluence of Spring Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork.All of this land has been bought by a developer.Fishing from your back door.
If this isn’t worth fighting for, I don’t know what is.
Bob Rehak
Please join the fight. There’s another legislative session starting in six months.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/15/2020
1051 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/20200616-RJR_3539.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-07-15 21:33:202020-07-15 23:00:01Worth Fighting For
How do we break the process of building in floodways and then repairing flooded homes with taxpayer-subsidized flood insurance as many as forty times?
A 66-page study by Erica Vilay and Phil Pollman, two candidates for Masters Degrees in Public Policy from Harvard, examines the broken buyout process for flooded homes in Houston floodways. The study also makes recommendations to improve the process. But they won’t revolutionize it. And that may be what this process needs.
The merit in this study is that it takes a holistic view of buyouts and examines them as one of many alternatives available to flood victims living in floodways. From the public’s perspective, buyouts have unquestionable and compelling safety and financial benefits.
Buyouts produce $7 in benefits for every $1 invested. And they take people out of harm’s way.
Speedier Options Available to People In Time of Need
But the process is slow. People have options. And, according to the study, they almost always prefer those other options. In fact, the rate of buyouts is so slow that it will take the City 60 years to meet its 10-year objective, claim the authors.
The paper cited one property that had been repaired a record 40 times. So why is it so difficult to get people to move out of a floodway into housing that won’t jeopardize their lives or lungs?
Vilay and Pollman examine the reasons. The incentives, they say, all favor rebuilding or selling to developers rather than accepting government buyouts.
Tax-subsidized National Flood Insurance Policy premiums remain affordable, offset risk, and usually reimburse homeowners within 60 days after a storm.
Selling to a developer/investor can happen within days or weeks.
Consummating a buyout through the maze of Federal, State, County and Local government agencies can take years.
Federal funding is slow, inflexible, and extremely complex to manage effectively and efficiently.
At the current closing rate, it would take nearly 60 years to buy out the 7,000 habitable structures in Houston floodways, says the study. But Houston-area realtors sell that many homes in a typical MONTH, according to the Greater Houston Partnership! Even in the middle of a pandemic.
“This is a No Brainer”
So one of the big reasons people are reluctant to be bought out is speed. Their lives have just been destroyed in a flood. They need a place to live. Then along comes the government saying, “Let me buy you out. I’ll get you your money in 2-3 years. Or you can just repair your home for the fortieth time and we’ll pay for it immediately.” This is a no-brainer, say the authors.
How hard are buyouts? The authors claim that “As of January 2020, HCFCD has used $3 million out of a $10 million bucket of federal funding allocated to the City for flood events that occurred in 2015.”
Barriers Beyond Slowness
But degree of difficulty and process slowness aren’t the only reasons people shun buyouts.
People get attached to neighbors and neighborhoods.
They may have family living nearby.
There may be a shortage of affordable housing elsewhere.
Alternative housing may be farther from their work.
They may want to stay within a school system.
Goals: Slow Inflow, Speed Outflow
The authors define two goals. They say we need to:
All of these recommendations are solid and, to a large degree, self-explanatory. They are hard to quibble with if you are trying to improve a process.
Incremental Improvements vs. New Concept
The authors never really address, however, whether incremental improvements will achieve the stated goals. Or whether we need to nuke the process and start over with a revolutionary, new concept.
As I read this study, I kept wondering what Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, or Elon Musk would recommend. That’s a pretty steep burden to impose on grad students. But we shouldn’t forget that Fred Smith had the idea for Fedex while still a student at Yale.
Each of those people made the world a better place by designing new products or services that leapfrogged incremental improvements in existing systems and made the old way obsolete.
Inside-the-Box Thinking for an Outside-the-Box Problem
Insi-e the-box thinking will certainly produce incremental improvements. But in the estimated time it will take government to buy out 7,000 homes, Houston realtors will sell more than 5 million. That’s 70,000% better. Which would you rather have in your employ?
So I would ask these questions. What if you:
Privatized this process?
Offered flood victims an “instantaneous home SWAP” as they were ripping out sheetrock?
Made flood insurance reflect its true cost?
If ever there was a need for “business process re-engineering,” this is it.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/14/2020 with appreciation and admiration for Erica Vilay and Phil Pollman
1050 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/20200627-RJR_0059-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-07-14 18:18:182020-07-14 20:23:45New Harvard Study Examines Barriers to Buyouts; Will Process Improvements Be Enough?
In a court document filed today, Perry Homes LLC has answered Elm Grove flood victims and says the damages suffered by flood victims were their own fault.
Last month, lawyers for flood victims named Perry Homes LLC as an additional defendant. (Previously, only Perry’s subsidiaries and contractors had been named as defendants.)
Perry Homes is asking the Court to enter a judgment and let the Plaintiffs take nothing. The company claims plaintiffs’ allegations are not true and has issued a general denial.
In addition, Perry claims that:
Plaintiffs’ damages are a result of pre-existing conditions.
Damages resulted from an act of God.
Damages resulted from independent causes for which Defendant is not legally responsible
Damages were caused by acts, omissions, or negligence of third parties over which Defendant had no control
Plaintiffs shared the fault and therefore Perry shouldn’t be held wholly responsible.
Plaintiffs claims should be barred because Perry acted with care and complied with all laws.
Plaintiffs’ claims should be barred because plaintiffs somehow failed to mitigate their own damages (presumably decades before the damages occurred).
Plaintiffs have not fulfilled all conditions necessary to maintain the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs’ recovery, if any, should be subject to the one-satisfaction rule. (Under Texas law, the one-satisfaction rule states that a plaintiffs can only recover damages once. For instance they can’t recover total damages from Perry and then again from LJA Engineering, which was also named as an additional defendant).
Plaintiffs’ claim for pre-judgment interest is limited by the dates and amounts set forth in Chapter 304 of the Texas Finance Code. (The law specifies that the prejudgment interest rate is equal to the post-judgment interest rate applicable at the time of judgment. It also specifies that interest may not compound and when interest charges may start.)
Again, even if they are at fault, Perry should not be fined for exemplary or punitive damages. Exemplary and punitive damages, they claim, violate:
The Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution
Article 1, Sections 3 and 19 of the Texas Constitution
Due process and equal protection under the law
In regard to the last point, Perry Homes makes no mention of the laws that allow exemplary or punitive damages. Nor do they reference cases that point to standards of proof for exemplary or punitive damages.
Pleads “Further and In the Alternative” Thirteen Times
The lack of specificity in Perry Homes’ filing makes it difficult to decipher what the claims actually mean. However, Perry uses the phrase, “Pleading further, and in the alternative, and without waiving the foregoing…” 13 times. Basically that means, “If the judge or jury won’t buy X, we still reserve the right to plead Y.”
This is more than a shotgun defense; it’s a blunderbuss defense. But why would lawyers who get paid $1000/hour want to get to the point, tip their hand, or limit their client’s options?
Victim Blaming At Its Finest
There’s an undercurrent of victim blaming in much of Perry Homes’ points.
Perry subsidiaries have previously claimed that many Elm Grove homes were in the floodplain. Claiming victims should have somehow prevented flooding in homes that were built 40 years earlier – when they never flooded until Perry clearcut land immediately upstream from them – is the height of chutzpah.
I use that term in the sense of “brazenness” or “audacity.”
It’s like pleading that the shooting victim was at fault because he failed to get out of the way of the gunshot.
It ignores the fact that someone pulled a trigger. Collectively, Perry, its subsidiaries and contractors violated Section 9.2 of the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual.
Section 9.2 states that “Pursuant to the official policy for Montgomery County, development will not be allowed in a manner which will increase the frequency or severity of flooding in areas that are currently subject to flooding or which will cause areas to flood which were not previously subject to flooding.”
Perry Homes’ victim blaming shows how Perry now thinks. Their bizarre logic – and the hollow claim that they followed all laws – explain a lot about why Elm Grove flooded. Perry today is a far cry from the company that Bob Perry founded in 1968.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/13/2020
1049 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 298 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/2019/09/Elm-Grove-9.19_68.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2020-07-13 16:51:432020-07-13 18:49:45Perry Homes Blames Elm Grove Flood Victims
Texans for Responsible Aggregate Mining (TRAM) is a statewide coalition of member groups seeking to work with lawmakers, state agencies, and good-faith industry operators. Their goal: to create state standards for best management practices in the rapidly expanding Aggregate Production Operation (APO) industry, and adopt those standards into law.
You can also visit the sand mining page or the index page of this web site to review information on APOs and sand mining specifically in the Houston region.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/13/2020
1049 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/TRAM-Counties.jpg?fit=1200%2C927&ssl=19271200adminadmin2020-07-13 12:14:442020-07-13 12:25:23Statewide Group Called TRAM Has Formed to Lobby for Responsible Aggregate Mining
It was a cosmic coincidence. Last week, I was downloading pictures of townhomes devastated by Harvey in Forest Cove, when I received an email by a Kings Harbor resident. She was worried about identical townhomes now under construction in Kings Harbor.
According to former Forest Cove townhome resident Jennifer Parks, Harvey swept five of those buildings into the West Fork. Yet the new Kings Harbor townhomes are up to FIVE times closer to the river.
Here We Go Again
The new townhomes are going up less than 200 feet from a river that destroyed everything in its path less than three years ago with 240,000 raging cubic feet per second.
Five of the Forest Cove townhomes were swept into the river during Harvey. Harris County Flood Control is buying out and tearing down the rest which have become uninhabitable.
Now we have new townhomes going up in Kings Harbor – based on an identical design.
New townhome construction near the Kings Harbor parking garage.That’s the West Fork and the West Lake Houston Parkway bridge in the background.Every apartment building, townhome and business within two miles north of this location flooded during Harvey.Twelve seniors died at Kingwood Village Estates 1.2 miles north of here as a result of injuries sustained during Harvey evacuations or the heartbreak of losing their homes.Some new construction has been elevated to the 500-year flood plain (brown). But many new units are in the 100-year flood plain (aqua), about 190 feet from the floodway (cross-hatched). Source: FEMA national flood hazard layer viewer.
Cautionary Tale Just Upriver
The Forest Cove townhomes you see below were the lucky ones. Harvey’s floodwaters swept five off their foundations and into the river, according to former resident Jennifer Parks, who flooded eight times in five years.
Almost three years after Harvey, many Forest Cove townhomes have yet to be bought outand demolished, including those that subsequently burned.Floodwaters reportedly reached 17 to 22 feet into these townhomes, to the second, and in some cases the third floor.They left little but mold and reminders of a distant past.Today, the units that remain have become dumping grounds that the City cannot keep up with.Is this the future of Kings Harbor after the next big flood?
Chinese-Controlled Company Behind New Kings Harbor Townhomes
Foreign investors may be unfamiliar with the flooding history of such properties and even less familiar with the resources to investigate flooding history. Therefore, they may be especially vulnerable. Current residents have heard that the investors likely have no intent to live here and that they will rent the properties out.
The Trick to Permitting
After Harvey, how can owners possibly get permits to construct such properties? Turns out it’s simple. Even under the City’s new “stringent” Chapter 19 regulations. People will not live on the ground floor; that space is reserved only for vehicles.
Entire ground floor taken up by garages.
A spokesperson for the City of Houston said that, to get permitted, the first living floor needs to be at least two feet above the 500 year flood plain. Putting cars on the ground floor evidently creates the elevation needed.
Ironically, the people in Forest Cove thought that living one floor up made them safe, too.
Tangled Web of Chinese-Controlled Companies Behind New Construction
Wan Bridge is part of a tangled web of Chinese-controlled companies
Interestingly, Wan Bridge Group also has an interest in The Villas At Kings Harbor – just a block away from the townhomes shown above. There, Wan Bridge urges prospective tenants to Tour the Property Virtually AND Sign a Contract Virtually. That’s a convenient way to avoid answering difficult questions.
New Wan Bridge construction at Villas at Kings Harbor. Note elevation relative to street.
I spent half a day trying to untangle this web of companies and feel as though I just scratched the surface. More to follow.
Only one thing is certain at this point. If floodwaters ever ravage these townhomes and apartments the way they did in Forest Cove, the people responsible for constructing them will be well insulated. From a legal point of view, at least.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/11/2020
1047 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/2020/07/20200706-RJR_0115.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-07-11 19:41:432020-07-11 19:42:05Why We Fail to Learn the Lessons of History: Money Has a Short Memory
SJRA has applied for a $375,000 grant from the Texas Water Development Board’s (TWDB) Flood Infrastructure Fund to study sedimentation in a six county area:
Liberty
Waller
Grimes
San Jacinto
Harris
Montgomery
The City’s of Conroe and Houston also support the effort.
Sedimentation Known to Limit Floodway Conveyance
Sedimentation in the Upper San Jacinto River Basin says the SJRA, “…is known to impact floodway conveyance capacity.”
SJRA Grant Application
In order to create a plan for implementing potential sediment solutions, this study will develop “sediment budgets” by evaluating the input, output, and storage of sediment for the entire basin, as well as for sub-watersheds within the basin.
Identifying Largest Problem Areas
This process will identify which sub-watersheds in the basin:
Produce the most sediment
Store the most sediment.
With this information, the SJRA says it can prioritize locations for improvements, mitigate loss of floodway conveyance, and develop best management practices. In regard to the latter, changes of regulations could be considered.
Much Has Changed Since Last Study
KBR conducted the last study on this issue in 1998. Since then, we’ve seen exponential growth of sand mining and development in this watershed. Both have the capacity to change conclusions from the KBR study. So a new study is highly warranted.
Confluence of Spring Creek and West Fork. TCEQ alleges that Liberty Mines discharged 56 million gallons of white waste water into the West Fork.
What’s Included in Study?
Specific tasks anticipated to be included in the scope of work include, but are not necessarily limited to:
Upper San Jacinto River Basin watershed characterization
Inventory of available existing data
Annual sediment output determination
Annual sediment storage determination
Sediment transport modeling
Individual sediment source or storage locations determination
Individual site investigations
Key stakeholder and permitting agency coordination
Development of conceptual solutions and overall implementation strategy
Development of Upper San Jacinto River Basin sediment management plan
If approved, the grant would also include development of cost estimates, preliminary exhibits, and preliminary permitting requirement evaluation.
All identified projects, efforts, and practices will be ranked and included in an implementation plan. Ultimately all information will be compiled into a regional sediment management plan, which can guide mitigation efforts in the future.
Building on Other Recent Efforts
The project will take advantage of data and tools developed recently as part of the San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan project (SJRWMDP) now nearing completion.
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) leads that project. It utilizes Atlas 14 rainfall. The project will also utilize data developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Harris County while dredging sediment from the mouth of Lake Houston.
SJRA feels the proposed project will increase benefits gained from state and federal dredging efforts which total approximately $125 million.
Finally, this project will also build on a sand trap development project currently being performed by SJRA in coordination with HCFCD along the West and East Forks of the San Jacinto River. SJRA already submitted a separate abridged application for the next phase of the sand trap development project.
FOUR YEARS to Complete!@#$%
SJRA anticipates that this study will take 4 years to complete! It says the work will only take 18 months or less, but budgeting uncertainties related to COVID-19 will delay the start of the project. With seven partners, the matching funds demanded from each would only about to about $50,000.
However, this delay, says the SJRA, will allow completion of the sand trap preliminary design study so that the SJRA can use that information as input for the sedimentation study.
While this grant application covers only planning and study, it will identify sedimentation solutions, and guide future sedimentation reduction projects, efforts, and practices.
Helping Preserve Water Storage Capacity in Lake Houston
Any sedimentation reduction activity in the Upper San Jacinto River Basin (Lake Houston watershed) should reduce the sediment load entering Lake Houston. That would help preserve volume for water storage. Lake Houston is the main water supply reservoir for approximately 2 million people.
Until SJRA identifies sedimentation solutions, it cannot quantify sedimentation reduction benefits. One of the main goals, however, would be to restore, maintain, or expand storm flow capacity, which could potentially remove structures from the floodplain.
Flood mitigation provided by these future projects/efforts/practices could benefit areas impacted by Hurricane Harvey and Tropical Storm Imelda as well as other major storms such as Hurricanes Ike and Rita, and storms in 1994, 1998, 2015, and 2016.
The only thing I don’t like about this study is the three year delay due to COVID. It’s already been three years since Harvey.
Of five recent grants that SJRA applied for, this is the only one that mentions such a delay.
If six counties, the Cities of Conroe and Houston, and the SJRA can’t come up with $50,000 each in matching funds, something’s seriously wrong. It would take more than that to repair ONE flooded home in each of those municipalities and counties. And that makes me wonder whether hidden hands are intentionally delaying this important study.
West Fork Sand Mine cited by TCEQ for unauthorized discharge of 56 million gallons of sediment-laden waste water into West Fork San Jacinto.
If you get in a helicopter and fly around for a day, it’s pretty obvious where the problems are.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/11/2020
1047 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/20200421-RJR_0898.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-07-11 13:38:322020-07-11 14:37:37Details of SJRA Grant Application for Upper River Basin Sedimentation Study
Spring Creek enters the West Fork and Lake Houston at US59. The watershed extends west from there and covers portions of Montgomery, Harris, Grimes, and Waller Counties. Spring Creek itself acts as the county line between Harris and Montgomery Counties.
The Siting Study, still in draft form, has identified two potential locations. One is along Walnut Creek and the other on Birch Creek.
Both have potential to mitigate flooding in the watershed. SJRA anticipates the Master Watershed Drainage Plan will recommend them for implementation. See draft spec sheets below.
Draft Walnut Creek spec sheet supplied as part of grant applicationDraft Birch Creek spec sheet supplied as part of grant application
Notice that neither of these projects comes close to competing with the Barker or Addicks Reservoirs in terms of acre-feet of storage. At roughly 20,000 acre feet combined, they are roughly one twentieth the size of Barker and Addicks combined. That said, the proposed reservoirs could each still reduce flooding by up to half a foot for 25-40 miles downstream.
Grant Covers Everything Up Through Costing
The next phase of efforts related to the reservoirs will require, at a minimum:
Environmental due diligence
Site investigations
Literature and mapping review
Permitting requirement investigations
Desktop surveys/assessments
Preliminary coordination with permitting agency
Conceptual design of dams to determine feasibility – geotechnical borings, alternative configurations development, H&H modeling analysis, etc.
Cost estimate development – dam construction costs, as well as costs related to land acquisition, utility conflicts and relocations, environmental mitigation, O&M, etc.
Update benefit/cost ratios (BCR) from SJRWMDP using data developed as part of this effort.
Completion of these tasks will determine feasibility and cost-effectiveness. The grant will also help determine what should proceed to preliminary engineering, final design and construction.
Upstream Benefits of Project
Spring Creek watershed flood mitigation will benefit all areas impacted by Hurricane Harvey, as well as storms in 2016 (Tax Day and Memorial Day), 1994, Tropical Storm Imelda and other recent and historical events.
The most substantial benefits would accrue to structures within the Spring Creek Watershed. SJRA estimates the Birch and Walnut Creek reservoirs could remove 918 and 1,412 structures, from the 100-year floodplain based on Atlas-14 data.
Preliminary benefit/cost ratio (BCR) estimates range from 0.55-0.83 for Birch Creek to 0.78-1.06 for Walnut. However, SJRA feels the combined BCR of the two reservoirs could increase to 2.7 if social benefits typically allowed in FEMA grants are also included.
Downstream Benefits
Project benefits also extend farther downstream. In the event of major storms, the dams could delay water migrating downstream. That would help protect thousands of homes and businesses in the Lake Houston convergence zone. Remember the Plea for DDG (Detention, Dredging and Gates)? Adding to upstream detention was one of the three main strategies advocated by Lake Houston Area leaders after Harvey to reduce flooding.
The proposed dams will likely be earthen embankments with minimal permanent storage (i.e. “dry bottom” reservoirs) with and uncontrolled discharge structures and spillways.
Therefore, they will provide no water supply benefit. However, they could collect and trap sediment, which would otherwise flow into Spring Creek, the West Fork, and ultimately Lake Houston. That would reduce the loss of water storage in Lake Houston.
Timing and Partners
SJRA says it can complete the study within 18 months, but future design and construction will take longer.
SJRA will submit a separate application for an Upper San Jacinto River Basin Regional Sedimentation Study. If funded, it could help determine how much sediment the proposed dams could remove.
SJRA has not yet identified funding for operations and maintenance. This grant will not cover land acquisition, but will ultimately be required to implement construction.
For this specific application, SJRA received input from HCFCD, Harris County Precinct 4, Harris-Montgomery Counties MUD 386, Montgomery County, and Woodlands Water Agency.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Birch-Dam.jpg?fit=981%2C1200&ssl=11200981adminadmin2020-07-10 18:29:582020-07-10 18:30:10SJRA Applies for TWDB Grant to Study Feasibility of Flood Control Dams in Spring Creek Watershed
Friday, July 10, at 11 a.m., the San Jacinto River Authority Board of Directors will meet in a closed session to discuss pending Harvey litigation with their lawyers and consultants.
Kingwood Greens Evacuation During Harvey by Jay Muscat
Special Meeting with No Action on Agenda Items
A meeting notice put out by the SJRA says they will hold the “special” meeting via telephone conference call due to COVID. The notice also said:
There are no items on the agenda for action by said Board of Directors. Accordingly, there will not be an opportunity to provide public comments during the meeting.
The notice provided a phone number for LISTENING PURPOSES ONLY.
(936) 588-7199, Conference ID is 660572
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER (OPEN SESSION)
CLOSED SESSION – The Board of Directors will adjourn to Closed Session for consultations with the Authority’s attorneys, pursuant to Texas Government Code, Section 551.071, regarding pending litigation related to Hurricane Harvey. No action will be taken during or following Closed Session.
RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION – The Board of Directors will reconvene in Open Session.
ADJOURN
The publication of the phone number meets a technical requirement for public agencies to conduct public board meetings. But it sounds as if they will immediately go into executive session and adjourn the meeting as soon as they come out.
This made me curious about the status of pending litigation.
Cases Slowed Due to Covid
SJRA is fighting several different cases. According to one lawyer following them, the Medina case appears to be the most active. Attorneys in that case just filed an agreed motion to modify the scheduling order. That sets the SJRA’s “plea to the jurisdiction” hearing in November, 2020.
In Texas, a “plea to the jurisdiction” challenges the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Two SJRA pleas argue that the court should dismiss the case, not that venue should change.
For the full text of the pleas, click on these links:
The second plea introduces more arguments and develops them more fully. Three firms and nine lawyers signed the supplemental plea. (And the SJRA complains about legal costs!)
They argue that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a valid claim to which SJRA is not immune.
“Indeed, the evidence conclusively demonstrates,” they argue in their conclusion, “that no constitutional taking occurred. The Court should therefore grant SJRA’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.” [Emphasis added.]
(Aside: No constitutional taking? Did they just agree with plaintiffs’ arguments? Plaintiffs allege UNconstitutional taking. Curious wording there!)
Pillars of SJRA’s Argument
To support the dismissal plea, the SJRA argues, in part, that:
“SJRA’s engineers established a Gate Operations Policy intended to reduce flows in the river.”
The River Authority followed its Gate Operations Policy.
The Policy reduced downstream flows during Hurricane Harvey.
Other sources – over which SJRA has no control – converge with the West Fork San Jacinto River and contributed to flooding.
Very little, if any, of the floodwaters that inundated Plaintiffs’ properties passed through the Lake Conroe Dam.
Plaintiffs cannot prove that flooding on individual properties was caused by SJRA actions.
SJRA did not intentionally take any action certain to flood any plaintiff’s property.
The plaintiffs cannot even show the first element of a “takings” claim – that SJRA’s acts caused damage to their property.
If you flooded during Harvey and want a good night’s sleep, don’t read these documents before bedtime. Here’s just one of the claims that had my brain in turmoil at 3 a.m.
“Texas law makes clear that a dam operator does not commit a taking when it does not release water from the dam in such a way that it increases the flow into the river or negatively changes the character of the flows in the river.”
SJRA Supplemental Plea
The SJRA’s own documents show that it released almost exactly one-third of the water coming down the West Fork between Humble and Kingwood during Harvey. The volume they released at the peak – all by itself – would have been the ninth largest flood in West Fork history … and the sixth largest since Lake Conroe was built almost 50 years ago.
“Very little, if any, of the floodwaters that inundated Plaintiffs’ properties passed through the Lake Conroe Dam.” Really? How can these lawyers refer to their claims as indisputable on page after page?
Hmmmm. I guess that’s why they make a $1000/hour.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/10/2020
1046 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/2019/02/KingwoodGreens-e1551452236612.jpg?fit=1500%2C1038&ssl=110381500adminadmin2020-07-09 20:20:342020-07-10 09:25:58SJRA Board to Meet Friday in Closed Session on Pending Harvey Litigation
In March, the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) awarded engineering firm Freese & Nichols a $250,000 work order for “Conceptual Design” of sand traps. Then in June, SJRA applied for a $200,000 grant from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for “Preliminary Design” of sand traps on the West Fork. What’s this all about? How do the projects relate? Are they worthwhile?
SJRA and HCFCD hope to mitigate flooding by constructing one or more “sand traps.” Their plan calls for partnering with Aggregate Production Operations (APOs) in the vicinity of the sand trap(s) to clean them out periodically. It’s not yet clear whether APO’s would do this for a fee, or do it for the sand. One thing is clear, at this point, however. APO’s don’t want to go far. All the locations under consideration are next to sand mines.
Evaluating potential sand trap locations and trapping effectiveness
Developing conceptual sand trap designs
Determining downstream benefits of potential sand trap solutions
Recommending which site(s) to carry forward into preliminary engineering.
Phase 2 of Pilot Goes Further
The goal: to move forward with preliminary engineering on two sites, with the likely construction of at least one. This small scale effort, involving only one or two sand traps, is intended to act as a “pilot” before a more costly, full-scale program.
Preliminary results in the first phase indicate that the sand traps will likely be located along the West Fork.
However, to move beyond conceptual design, even on the pilot, SJRA needs more money to supplement local match resources.
If successful, the TWDB grant application for preliminary design will cover:
Environmental permitting investigation
Preliminary land acquisition efforts
Survey
Geotechnical investigation
30% design efforts.
Need for Sediment Control of Some Sort
To date, more than 2.3 million cubic yards of material have been removed from the West Fork, at a cost of more than $90 million. An additional $30 million has been dedicated to continue these efforts. SJRA hopes sand traps will help protect that investment.
It seems, though, that reducing sediment coming out of sand mines might be a simpler, less-risky, more cost-effective solution.
Benefits
Long-term benefits beyond the initial sand trap development “pilot” project are anticipated to potentially extend beyond the immediate benefit area.
Benefits include potential reduction of sediment load entering Lake Houston.
Primary benefit area is in purple along West Fork. Secondary benefit area is in green (Lake Houston).
SJRA can not yet quantify the level of flood mitigation provided by the sand trap(s). However, restoring or expanding storm flow capacity could potentially remove structures from the floodplain, they say. The conceptual design phase currently underway will attempt to evaluate downstream hydraulic benefits.
Freese & Nichols should report the results of their conceptual study this September.
SJRA anticipates it can complete the preliminary engineering study in 18 months. However, construction will take longer – up to 36 months.
Next Steps
If results of this pilot project indicate that sand traps are a feasible and effective solution, a larger program in various locations throughout the basin could be implemented.
Preliminary cost estimates will be developed as part of the conceptual design phase currently underway. So SJRA has not yet determined a benefit/cost ratio.
However, the cost of dredging has proved substantial. And the cost of flooding during Harvey proved astronomical. Reducing those costs just 1% could easily justify the cost of this project.
We have too many unknowns at this point to pass judgment.
How much will the project cost?
Will sand traps be effective?
Who will maintain a trap when a sand mine goes out of business?
What will the environmental impact be?
Will the traps accelerate erosion and jeopardize infrastructure such as pipelines and bridges?
Is this the opening volley in an effort to begin large-scale river mining?
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Sand-Trap-Benefit-Area.jpg?fit=1200%2C1210&ssl=112101200adminadmin2020-07-09 15:26:042020-07-09 15:26:28Details of SJRA Application to TWDB for Grant to Develop Sand Traps
The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) has applied for a Flood Infrastructure Fund Grant from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to extend its Flood Early Warning System in San Jacinto county. The abridged grant application covers the cost of three new gages that would measure rainfall and flood height (but not flow rates). SJRA would install the gages on:
Winters Bayou at SH150
San Jacinto East Fork at FM945
Peach Creek at FM3081
Complement to Potential HCFCD
These gages would complement four others that Harris County Flood Control District is considering for San Jacinto county.
Winters Bayou at FM2693
East Fork at SH150
Winters Bayou at Tony Tap Road
East Fork at SH105
Locations of potential SJRA and HCFCD gages in San Jacinto county
HCFCD could display the information from both its own gages and SJRA gages on its Flood Warning System (FWS) website. The FWS site lets residents view data from all gages throughout the region in one location.
Gage Components and Communications Infrastructure
Equipment installed at each location would include break-away mounting pole, box enclosure with antenna mast, rain gage, river/stream stage sensor, and alert transmitter/sensors.
Components of the system susceptible to water damage would be installed above at least the 0.2% annual chance inundation level, based on Atlas 14 data.
SJRA would transmit data obtained from the gages to its ALERT2 network and display it on its Contrail system. This would let San Jacinto County staff and residents easily access and view the data at any time. These gages would become part of a growing regional network of gages.
Extent of Application
The grant application includes:
Verifying that signals can reach SJRA’s repeater tower in Montgomery County.
Site survey work at the proposed gage locations
Installation of the gages
San Jacinto county would provide ongoing maintenance after training by SJRA staff. That would include including twice-per-year inspection, periodic cleaning, and any required repairs or corrective maintenance.
Project Benefits
The intent of the Flood Early Warning System: to provide early warning to downstream residents, businesses, and property owners. The gages will also help county emergency personnel and responders protect life and personal property which can be moved to a safe location with adequate warning (vehicles, valuables, etc.).
The grant, says the SJRA, would benefit the entire population of San Jacinto County (27,819 in 2018). San Jacinto county lies between Cleveland and Lake Livingston.
Properties downstream of the gages would directly benefit by the proposed flood early warning system (FEWS). But other benefits would extend to the rest of the county. For example:
More time to evacuate in advance of a storm could reduce the burden on county-wide emergency services.
It could also give the county more time to close roads and tend to other needs during the event.
The gages could also benefit areas downstream of San Jacinto County. For instance, they could provide advance streamflow data to HCFCD.
Gages Located Near Habitual Road Closures
San Jacinto County says multiple major storms have impacted the areas downstream of the proposed gages, including Hurricanes Harvey, Rita, and Ike, as well as storms in 1994, 1998, 2015, and 2016. All caused road closures, high water rescues, etc. These have historically been low population areas, but are growing rapidly.
Additionally, the proposed gage at Peach Creek and FM 3081 could provide some benefits to a small area of Montgomery County, as Peach Creek runs along the county line between San Jacinto and Montgomery Counties. It is possible that some or all of the gaging equipment may be installed on the Montgomery County side of the county line, depending on site conditions.
Cost and Timing
SJRA anticipates the extension of its Flood Early Warning System can be completed in 18 months.
San Jacinto County participated in the process of developing this project. SJRA anticipates the total project will cost $65,000.
All applications for the TWDB Flood Infrastructure Fund Grants go through a two stage process. This abridged application is step one. If TDWB deems the project valuable enough, and if it has enough money, TDWB would invite SJRA to submit a more detailed application for step two.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/8/2020
1044 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/FEWS-San-Jac-County.jpg?fit=1200%2C915&ssl=19151200adminadmin2020-07-08 16:10:192020-07-08 16:10:43Details of SJRA Grant Application for Flood Early Warning System in San Jacinto county
