SJRA Applies for TWDB Grant to Study Feasibility of Flood Control Dams in Spring Creek Watershed

The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) has applied for a $500,000 grant from the Texas Water Development Board’s Flood Infrastructure Fund to study the possibility of building two flood control dams in the upper Spring Creek Watershed.

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.

Feasibility Study Would Build on Basin-Wide Study

The proposed project builds on a Spring Creek Siting Study, currently underway as part of the San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan project. The latter should be released this fall.

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 application
Draft 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.

To review the complete grant application, click here.

Next Steps

This is an abridged application. TWDB reviews abridged applications to rank the most important projects and ensure they have funding for them. If the abridged app is approved, SJRA must complete a more thorough application. TWDB will pass judgement on those before the end of the year.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/10/2020

1046 Days after Hurricane Harvey

SJRA Board to Meet Friday in Closed Session on Pending Harvey Litigation

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
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

  1. CALL TO ORDER (OPEN SESSION)
  2. 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.
  3. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION – The Board of Directors will reconvene in Open Session.
  4. 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:

3 Firms, 9 Lawyers Defending SJRA

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 the judge does NOT dismiss the case, and if COVID allows, the trial will proceed in 2021.

Pleas NOT Good Bedtime Reading

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.

Details of SJRA Application to TWDB for Grant to Develop Sand Traps

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?

West Fork 90% Blocked After Harvey

After Harvey, the Army Corps documented that the West Fork had become 90% blocked by sediment in places. That contributed to the flooding of thousands of homes and businesses. It also triggered a massive dredging program that is still ongoing. Finally, it launched a search for solutions that stretched all the way to Austin (plus, interestingly, Kerrville and San Antonio). See more below.

SB1824 Opens Door for Sand Traps

House Bill 1824 was introduced by State Rep. Murr from Kerrville and sponsored by Senator Flores from San Antonio. Approved last year, it allows SJRA and Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) to remove material from the San Jacinto River and its tributaries to restore, maintain, or expand storm flow capacity without the need for “state permitting” or royalty payments to the state.

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.

Freese & Nichols Already Underway with Phase 1

The first phase of the project, Freese & Nichols’ conceptual design, is currently underway. It includes:

  • 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.

Timing

If this abridged application succeeds, SJRA will need to submit a more detailed application. TWDB won’t report results on that until late this year.

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?

Scientific literature and news reports on sand traps generally indicate mixed results.

I will withhold judgement until I learn more.

To review the abridged application, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/9/2020

1045 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Details of SJRA Grant Application for Flood Early Warning System in San Jacinto county

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

HCFCD About to Start Next Phase of Kingwood Diversion Ditch Repairs

On Monday, July 13, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) plans to begin more repairs to the Kingwood Diversion Ditch. In June, HCFCD repaired severe erosion near Walnut Lane between Trailwood and Forest Cove. The new repairs will begin farther down the ditch between Forest Cove and Deer Ridge Estates, just north of Deer Springs Drive. See map below.

Area of new repairs outlined in red. For reference, Kingwood’s Deer Ridge Park is in upper right. The outlined area shows where trees will be removed and is approximate.

Ditch To Be Straightened, Erosion Repaired

HCFCD plans to straighten the ditch and repair erosion. That will require the removal of trees which have grown up in the ditch and along its banks. See below.

In the area to be repaired, erosion and vegetation have made the ditch deviate from its normal course over time. The red line indicates the original path. The purple line indicates the current patch. Source: HCFCD.
Severe erosion threatens trails, safety and homes on both sides of the ditch.
Trees have grown up in the ditch, reducing its conveyance and blocking floodwaters.
To repair erosion and restore ditch, trees will need to be removed.

Bird Survey Finds No Nests Impacted

HCFCD has not specified the number of trees it will remove. However, the District has conducted a Bird Survey to ensure repairs will not impact any active nests near the portion of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch undergoing repair.

Protecting Homes from Future Erosion

“We will work to minimize the impacts to trees and nature, but we need to be able to get our equipment in to make repairs,” said Beth Walters, a spokesperson for HCFCD. “We do not know exactly how many trees will need to be removed. Unfortunately, it will be noticeable, but the repair will protect fences and homes from future erosion.”

Property threatened by diversion ditch erosion. Photo from January 2019.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/8/2020

1044 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Details of Proposed Lake Houston-Lake Conroe Reservoir Joint Operations Grant

On June 15, the SJRA submitted an abridged application to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). The SJRA wants to develop a joint operations plan for Lake Houston and Lake Conroe reservoirs. The grant assumes that FEMA approves construction of additional gates for Lake Houston after completion of preliminary engineering in the second half of next year. The addition of gates could potentially make a pre-release strategy for Lake Houston more viable and that could be a game changer for operations of both dams.

If the floodgates on the Lake Houston spillway are upgraded to discharge as much water as Lake Conroe’s, there will be a definite need to rethink how these two dissimilar dams can work together.

About the TWDB Application Process

The TWDB website explains the application process and eligibility requirements for grants from the Flood Infrastructure Fund. State Senator Brandon Creighton’s SB7 made the Flood Infrastructure Fund possible in 2019.

The Flood Infrastructure Fund applications are a two-step process: Abridged Applications provide the TWDB with information needed to prioritize projects. Applicants whose projects rank within the program’s available capacity are invited to submit full financial-assistance applications at a later date. Those provide more detailed financial, legal, engineering, and other information. Once the full review process is complete, the TWDB will consider project funding.

The two stage process ensures:

  • Projects meet criteria before applicants invest the vast majority of their time and effort
  • TWDB has enough money to fund the most worthy projects

It’s much like getting a commitment letter from a bank before you fill out a full mortgage application.

Why Joint Operations Plan Needed

Widespread flooding in the Lake Houston Area during Hurricane Harvey underscored the need for a joint operations plan with Lake Conroe. Many downstream residents reported they thought the flood threat had passed. Then the SJRA opened its flood gates and started releasing up to 79,000 cubic feet per second. By itself, that would have been the 9th largest flood in West Fork history.

Those who flooded question the timing and volume of the release, and whether a pre-release strategy could have reduced downstream damage.

Once additional gates are in place at Lake Houston, says the SJRA in its application, a joint operations plan will benefit both water supply and flood mitigation.

Objective of Plan

The main goal of the plan is to determine:

  • The most efficient and safe operation of the two reservoirs…
  • … in series …
  • … by evaluating multiple individual components of operational strategy.

Components of Joint Plan

Informing Future Protocol for Lake Houston Gates

SJRA suggests that information and strategies developed as part of this effort could impact the development of CWA’s operating protocol for the future Lake Houston gates.

Joint Notification Protocol Development

The river authority also says that it is important that both reservoir operators develop joint notification protocols and public communication strategies. These must be consistent with the requirements of House Bill 26 passed during the 86th Texas Legislative Session. During Harvey, many downstream residents claim they received no warning of the SJRA release or the need to evacuate.

Forecasting Tools

Another major part of the grant covers forecasting tools. SJRA is currently developing a reservoir forecasting tool for Lake Conroe, funded partially via a grant from TWDB. It will predict lake levels and release rates from the Lake Conroe dam based on:

  • Weather forecasts
  • Observed rainfall
  • Lake levels
  • Other data.

A similar tool for Lake Houston could help synchronize forecasting for both reservoirs including the entire Lake Houston watershed (approximately 3,000 square miles). This could provide scientific data that governs pre-release at either reservoir and operations at Lake Houston.

Average Monthly Household Income in Project Scoring

Much of the application discusses demographics of the watershed. The TWDB scoring process gives preference to rural and low-to-moderate income areas. References to AMHI refer to Average Monthly Household Income. Unfortunately (for grant purposes), the AMHI for this watershed is 164% of the state average.

That limits the maximum amount of a grant to 50% of the project cost. A social vulnerability index also acts as a tie breaker.

Next Steps in Application Process

  • The TWDB is currently screening and prioritizing abridged applications for projects.
  • Before the end of the summer, TWDB will invite extended applications for the high priority projects.
  • Extended applications are due this Fall.
  • TWDB will begin making financial commitments this winter.

For the full text of the abridged grant application, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/7/2020

1043 Days after Hurricane Harvey

One Year Ago Tonight, Flooded Townhomes Burned for Third Time Since Harvey

On July 4, 2019, 10 pieces of fire equipment responded to a fire at the Forest Cove Townhomes on Timberline Drive. It was the second fire that week and the third that year. Unfortunately, the townhomes that burned that night still stand.

Remnants of fire one year ago still stand today.

The once-beautiful townhomes, in the floodway of the West Fork, were designed to have first floors that flooded. But Harvey’s raging floodwaters reached well into the second floors. 240,000 cubic feet per second raging down the West Fork didn’t leave much. After Harvey, structural instability made these townhomes unsafe and uninhabitable.

Townhomes on Aqua Vista in Forest Cove that were demolished by Harvey and then HCFCD.

Then came the squatters, looters, illegal dumpers and graffiti artists. FEMA made these townhomes the centerpiece of a 2018 video. Little has changed since then, a stain on the Agency’s reputation.

Almost three years after Harvey, little has changed except for the accumulation of discarded mattresses and couches that grows larger every week.

Buyout of Townhomes Slow and Cumbersome

Today, Harris County Flood Control (HCFCD) has bought out and torn down several of the buildings within this complex. But the process is slow and cumbersome. HCFCD can tear nothing down until all units in a building have been bought.

Without pointing a finger at anyone, the entire process, which stretches from Marina Drive to Pennsylvania Avenue is a logistical nightmare. Such eyesores lower property values and drag down communities.

In some communities, burned homes can be condemned and torn down within 30 days. But the eyesore below has stood for a full year. It has attracted illegal dumping and and anti-social graffiti.

After viewing the image above, HCFCD said it would accelerate these buyouts. Resolution can’t come too soon for my taste. They serve only one purpose at this point – as a stark reminder not to build near a river.

Posted by Bob Rehak on July 4, 2020

1040 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Details of Four SJRA Grant Applications for TWDB Flood Infrastructure Funds

Yesterday, I ran an article about Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Flood-Infrastructure-Fund Grant Applications. It incorrectly stated that the City of Houston had applied for six flood infrastructure fund grants. However, five of those listed were actually submitted by other entities, such as the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA). Below is more information about those grant applications.

Elm Grove Project Correctly Attributed to City

The City did apply for a grant to fund construction of a detention basin on the Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village Property north of Elm Grove Village in Kingwood. It was correctly attributed.

Four Projects Should Have Been Attributed to SJRA

The SJRA submitted four of the five applications that were incorrectly attributed.

  1. San Jacinto River Sand Trap Development
  2. Spring Creek Watershed Flood Control Dams Conceptual Engineering
  3. Upper San Jacinto River Basin Regional Sedimentation Study
  4. Lake Conroe-Lake Houston Joint Reservoir Operations Study

Mayor Pro Tem and District E Council Member Dave Martin personally supported those projects, hence the confusion. TWDB rules for Flood Infrastructure Fund Grants place a premium on support by all affected governmental entities within a watershed. Those include cities, counties, MUDs, river authorities, townships, etc.

Details of SJRA Grant Applications

Here’s more information about those four proposals.

  1. The Sand Trap Study currently underway has to do with identifying acceptable locations for the sand traps. Once identified, the new grant would cover the cost of their detailed design. The proposed study would extend work currently underway.
  2. The Spring Creek Watershed Flood Control Dams Conceptual Engineering Grant would cover the cost of partially designing dams. The San Jacinto River Basin Study identified locations for the dams. But it did not look at construction details. The new study would look at things, such as environmental impacts, utility conflicts, height of embankments, size of reservoir, etc. It continues work to date in the Spring Creek Watershed. San Jacinto River Basin Study partners have not yet released the locations.
  3. The Regional Sedimentation study builds on KBR’s work in 2000. KBR studied portions of the watershed that drain into Lake Houston, but not the East Fork, Caney Creek and Peach Creek. The new study has two objectives: understand where sediment is coming from and what can be done to reduce it. For instance, if the sediment is coming from new developments or sand mines, there may be a need to look at regulations that affect those.
  4. The Lake Conroe-Lake Houston Joint Reservoir Operations Study would look at the best ways to operate the two dams under different storm scenarios. It would assume the construction of additional floodgates on Lake Houston. It would also model storms approaching from different directions. The study will answer questions, such as “What would the effect of pre-releasing water into Galveston Bay be on Cities such as Baytown if a hurricane approaches from the south?” The deliverable: an operations plan.

Sedimentation and Its Role in Flooding

Two large sources of sediment: sand mines and new developments. Here the drainage for the Artavia development tries to find a path to the West Fork, through or around two sand mines. One of the mines was cited by the TCEQ for discharging 56-million gallons of sediment-laden wastewater into the West Fork.
The City, County, State and Federal Government are still working to remove the West Fork Mouth Bar, 1040 days after Hurricane Harvey. This bar is partially the result of excess sedimentation. During Harvey, this bar formed a partial dam that contributed to the flooding of more than 4000 homes and businesses.

More East Fork Gages in San Jacinto County

In addition, the SJRA has applied for a grant to purchase several more stream gages in San Jacinto County. San Jacinto County lies between Cleveland and Lake Livingston.

San Jacinto County partnered with the SJRA on that grant and would provide ongoing maintenance and operations if the application is successful.

Benefits of Additional Gages

Those additional gages would extend the flood-warning time for people in the East Fork Watershed. Such information is crucial for developing evacuation plans in emergencies.

The gages would also help inform the gate operations at Lake Houston. During Imelda, the East Fork received ten times more rain than the West Fork, but the West Fork has far more gages. That hindered understanding of where the danger was coming from and when it would strike.

As news becomes available about other grant applications in the San Jacinto Watershed, I will post it here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/4/2020

1040 Days after Hurricane Harvey

City Applies for TWDB Grants to Turn Woodridge Village Into Detention Basin and More

Correction on 7/4/2020: The article below was based on a City of Houston District E newsletter. It inferred that the City “applied for” five grants (in bullet points below). Other entities, such as the SJRA, applied for those. Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin personally supports them.

The City of Houston has submitted several applications to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for Flood Infrastructure Fund dollars. Among the projects was one for Taylor Gully Flood Damage Reduction. It consists of evaluating flood reduction alternatives plus design, permitting, and construction of a detention basin located on a 278 acre site to the north of the Elm Grove subdivision.

Looking SW at Woodridge Village as of 6/16/2020

Woodridge Project One of Six Apps

Other applications include:

  • San Jacinto River Sand Trap Development
  • Spring Creek Watershed Flood Control Dams Conceptual Engineering
  • Upper San Jacinto River Basin Regional Sedimentation Study
  • Lake Conroe-Lake Houston Joint Reservoir Operations Study
  • Harris County MUD #153 Siltation Reduction

“All of these projects submitted for funding promote regional resiliency and future sustainability in an effort to protect life and property from future flooding,” said Mayor Pro Tem and District E City Council Member Dave Martin. “The ability to submit these projects to the TWDB for funding would not be possible without State Senator Brandon Creighton’s writing of Senate Bill 7. We continue to applaud the Senator for his forward thinking and hope to receive funding for these projects. State Representative Dan Huberty has also been a vocal proponent for resiliency within our area and just beyond the City boundary. We are thankful to have him as a local engaged leader.”

Looking NW from US59 (foreground) over San Jacinto West Fork at the confluence of Spring Creek (left) and the West Fork (right). Spring Creek splits off to left. Its watershed contains several natural areas that might make candidates for flood control dams.

Neither Martin, nor his office, provided additional details on any of the grant applications.

However, from the wording of the release, it sounds as though state leaders are fully aligned and engaged to support the projects.

Woodridge Village Project Has Long History

The grants, if approved, could help reduce flooding throughout the Lake Houston Area.

The Taylor Gully/Woodridge Village project is the most urgent. Homes around the troubled development flooded twice last year. At a Kingwood Townhall meeting in February, Martin said the County should pay for 100% of that project. But then the County demanded that the City should pay for half of the purchase price of the land. And at the next Commissioners’ Court meeting, Commissioner Ellis changed the deal again. He demanded that the City pay for half of the construction costs also.

Both the City and County have been silent on any deal since then. The County refused a Freedom of Information Act request to release the text of the motion, which was approved in a public meeting. They even protested release of the information to the State Attorney General.

Putting Application in Historical Context

The following is speculation, but speculation based on the historical context. It appears that when County Commissioners voted to demand that the City come up with half the the purchase AND construction costs, the City found it hard. The grant application, if successful, is a way for the City to help the people of Elm Grove, who flooded twice last year after Perry Homes cleared 268 acres of adjacent land.

At the time of the floods, less than 25% of the planned detention pond capacity was in place. Perry has since developed additional detention ponds that provide the other 75%.

However, even that probably won’t be enough to absorb a 100-year rain. That’s because Perry Homes rushed to have the project approved before NOAA’s new Atlas-14 precipitation frequency tables went into effect. The new Atlas-14 standard would require about 40% more detention capacity. And that’s what the purchase is all about.

Rumor has it that political forces are aligned to accelerate this particular request.

Observations on Other Grant Applications

Of the other applications, two surprise me.

A joint reservoir operations study seems necessary. Currently, FEMA is funding a preliminary engineering study to add additional gates to the Lake Houston Spillway. If FEMA also approved the money for construction of the gates, they will be a game changer.

The Spring Creek Watershed flood control dams would provide additional upstream detention. Community leaders identified that as a high priority after Harvey. They would reduce the amount of water coming downstream during a flood.

Harris County MUD #153 contains Lake Houston shoreline where silt from Rogers Gully has accumulated. Earlier this year, Harris County Flood Control cleared a large part of the Gully, but the part owned by the City remains clogged with a mouth bar.

Sand bar blocking mouth of Rogers Gully has backed up water and contributed to flooding. Photo taken 6/16/2020.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/3/2020

1039 Days since Hurricane Harvey

How TACA is Winning the Battle to Continue Pillaging Your Environment and Polluting Your Water

In March, as the pandemic spread across America, the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association gave a presentation to a convention of industry producers in Las Vegas. The title: “Be Prepared: Protect your Operation from New Tactics in Community Opposition.”

Use of Internet Seen as New Tactic

As far as I can tell from the presentation, the new tactic is the use of the Internet. Wowsers! That’s quite an insight!

In the presentation, they specifically mentioned ReduceFlooding.com. I’m sure I anger these people as much as they anger me. I have met with them five times now. None of the meetings resulted in any change of industry practices. Or even a genuine willingness to explore them.

The Boy Scout Connection

In Austin during the last legislative session, a House committee member (evaluating a bill to establish best management practices for the industry) asked whether TACA had engaged with communities they affected. Mr. Rob Van Til (a mine owner and TACA spokesperson) looked at me waiting to testify, and said, “We’d prefer to talk to the Boy Scouts.” And just like that, the bill died in committee.

TACA sees people trying to protect their communities as the enemy. Instead of engaging with “the opposition” and trying to reform damaging mining practices, they rally support among neutral third parties.

TACA’s presentation in Las Vegas talked about:

  • How concrete supports Texas’ growth by providing essential infrastructure materials
  • Why “WeRTexas”
  • Teacher and school workshops they sponsored
  • Legislative and staff tours they promoted
  • Chamber of Commerce mixers
  • Quarry Days

They also patted themselves on the back for bicycle donations to a children’s charity in San Antonio.

Millions in Back-Door Political Contributions

TACA has also donated millions of dollars to legislators and state officials through a back-door political-action committee called TACPAC. Meanwhile, TACA has refused to acknowledge damaging practices and resisted all attempts to develop meaningful best management practices that address them.

Delivering Air Cover for Members

It’s tough for trade associations to tell members what to do. Loss of members means loss of funding for the association. For the most part, members want air cover from associations. And that’s what TACA delivers.

Communication experts on controversial issues divide the world into three camps: pro, undecided, and anti.

Conventional wisdom says you target messaging to pro and undecided groups. And that’s exactly what TACA is doing. Because you rarely swing anti’s.

For the record, I like concrete. I DON’T LIKE the irresponsible production of it. And what TACA never shows people and avoids talking about. So I will redouble my efforts. And continue advocating for responsible aggregate and concrete production.

Explain These to The Boy Scouts and Kids Clubs

Below is a tiny sampling of more than 10,000 aerial photos I have taken in the last eight months along the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto in southern Montgomery County.

Let’s turn these into murals at the State Capitol for TACA Day next year. Just so legislators get the full picture.

20 square miles of sand mines to the left up the West Fork.
One of eight breaches at Triple PG in October 2019. This one on Caney Creek.
Second of eight breaches at Triple PG in October 2019. This one on White Oak Creek.
Pumping wastewater into the West Fork
Confluence of West Fork (right) and Spring Creek on 11/4/2019.
The Day the West Fork Ran White. TCEQ traced this back to the LMI Mine upstream.
More pumping into the West Fork.
One part of a double breach at the Hallett Mine that blew out the sand bar on the opposite side of the West Fork.
Five pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids undermined at the LMI River Road mine.
Massive breach barely patched and ready to let loose again.
Equipment abandoned in floodway
LMI Moorehead mine. TCEQ traced white-water incident to here.
River Aggregate Mine on West Fork
LMI River Road Mine pouring into surrounding wetlands.
Pipe that automatically sends wastewater from mine into surrounding forest when level gets high enough.
Wastewater from LMI River Road mine leaking across neighbor’s property…
…where it enters sewer system under road and then empties into West Fork.
LMI Moorehead Mine pumping wastewater into surrounding forest where it can’t be seen by road or river. Eventually this drains back into West Fork…
…which can be seen here (top) where it joins Spring Creek at 59.
Ditches or small streams go along the sides of every mine on the East and West Forks. Breaches and pumps are common along these. They make a secluded way to send water to the river.
River mining without a permit at Spring West Sand and Gravel on West Fork
That blue water is either high in chlorides or cyanobacteria.
Another wastewater leak from LMI River Road mine where it enters West Fork.

Unsolicited Advice to TACA

Dear TACA. If you want to protect your organization from community opposition, start cleaning up your act. That would be a new and truly effective tactic.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/3/2020

1039 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.