Harris County Flood Control District’s final report on the May 7, 2019, storm indicates that 415 homes flooded in all of Harris County. It also indicates that 380 of those bordered Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village development across the county line in Montgomery County.
That’s a whopping 91.5% of all flooded homes in the most populous county in the State. And the third most populous in the nation.
Report Cites Sheet Flow from Woodridge Village as Potential Cause
The heaviest rain that day fell on northeast Harris and southeast Montgomery Counties. However, the report also cited “large volumes of sheet flow” from Woodridge Village as the potential cause of flooding for those bordering the development. A jury in Harris County will decide the cause in two months.
At the time, Perry Homes’ contractors had clearcut virtually the entire 268-acre development but had only completed about 7% of the detention ponds.
High-water rescues in progress the night of May 7, 2019, on Shady Maple in Elm Grove Village, Kingwood. About one block south of Woodridge Village.
For official reports on this and other storms, see the Reports Page of this website. Click on the Major Storms tab.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/8/2020
983 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 367 Days after the May 7th Storm
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Waist-e1588946935147.jpg?fit=1200%2C1057&ssl=110571200adminadmin2020-05-08 09:34:062020-05-08 10:04:56One Year Ago: 415 Homes Flooded in All of Harris County; 380 of Those Bordered Woodridge Village
May 7th is the anniversary of the first large-scale flood in Elm Grove history. On that day, more than 200 homes flooded on the streets south of Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village and the Montgomery County line. Homes that did not flood, even during Harvey.
According to the gage at West Lake Houston Parkway and the West Fork, it started between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. Then it picked up again between 11 a.m. and 12 p.m. when we got about 2.5 inches of rain. Then we got slammed between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. when we got another 2.2 inches. Altogether, we got 5.64 inches before midnight.
Rainfall one year ago today.
Atlas 14 rainfall figures for Kingwood area.
The bulk of the rain, about 5.5 inches, fell in about a 12 hour period. That would make May 7th about a 5-year storm. The one-hour peaks during the storm never significantly surpassed the one-hour peaks during Harvey. Yet Elm Grove did NOT flood during Harvey and flooded disastrously on May 7th.
And that helped trigger hundreds of lawsuits. Over the next year, hundreds of posts would piece together a series of missteps by the developer that turned a heavy rain into a disaster. Contributing factors included:
All of these factors would come into play when Elm Grove flooded again during Tropical Storm Imelda on September 19.
The judge in the lawsuits set a trail date for July 13, 2020. But COVID may delay that. Meanwhile, Harris County is trying to buy Woodridge Village from Perry Homes with the help of the City. We should have a final answer on that within two weeks.
Images from That Awful Day
While we wait, here are some pictures of that awful day and the immediate aftermath.
High-water evacuation in middle of night on Shady Maple DriveHFD High-Water RescueHumble ISD school bus attempting to return kids home as sun started to set.Erosion where S2 detention pond should have gone.Log spearing warning sign at north end of Village Springs in Elm GroveDumpsters filled driveways for blocks as people gutted their homes.Keyframe from Jim Zura drone video showing where S2 detention pond should be. Instead, only a muddy river.Families carted precious belongings to the curb.
Keith Jennings bewildered dog as flood waters rose in his kitchen.
Encore Performance Just as People Moving Back Into Homes
As tragic as all these images are, the whole scene would repeat itself again in September, just as many people were moving back in to repaired homes. Except in September, 2x-3x more homes flooded.
Since then, many people have waited to repair their homes a second time until they can be sure that the source of the flooding has been fixed.
The hearts and prayers of the entire community go out to those who flooded so needlessly.
Posted by Bob Rehak on May 7, 2020 with images from flood victims
982 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 366 since last May 7th
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/2019/05/Escape-e1588895116724.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2020-05-07 18:30:022020-05-07 18:46:02One Year Ago Today, Streets of Elm Grove Turned into Rivers for First Time
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has assessed a penalty of $19,063 against the Texas Concrete Plum Grove Plant at 7530 FM1010 in Cleveland, TX. The complaint stems from three incidents in 2019 and alleges unauthorized discharge of 40 million gallons of process wastewater; failure to keep proper and accurate water sampling records; and lack of soil stabilization at the site before abandonment. The complaint also alleges that one breach in the mine’s dike was 20-feet wide.
Unstabilized soil at abandoned Texas Concrete Mine. Photo taken April 21, 2020.Comparison with satellite images shows equipment has not moved since 12/1/2019.
Terms of “Proposed Agreed Order”
A “Proposed Agreed Order” dated April 14, 2020, spells out the basis for the alleged violations. Such orders represent a way for both Texas Concrete and the TCEQ to avoid the cost of litigation. The goals of the order: to reach a fair settlement under Texas law and force Texas Concrete to take corrective actions.
Unless Texas Concrete signs the order and pays the fine within 60 days, TCEQ will forward the case to its litigation division. The settlement offer then becomes void.
More Recent Alleged Violations
The enforcement action is in addition to a more recent investigation launched on April 28th of this year. The investigation alleged unauthorized discharge of water and lack of stabilization at the site. A TCEQ letter in response to an inquiry by State Representative Dan Huberty indicated that the investigator could not gain access to the site because no one was there. However, the investigator made limited visual observations from the property boundary. No processing activity was noted. There is no signage. And portions of the Site appear overgrown with vegetation.
The letter also indicates that TCEQ has tried to contact the site’s owner to gain access to the property for a proper investigation.
However, all communication efforts since April 28 have been unsuccessful.
Case Demonstrates Need for Performance Bonds for Reclamation
Calls to Texas Concrete’s headquarters in Houston by ReduceFlooding.com received a similar response. The person answering the company phone claimed they had no plant in Plum Grove. The person also said that she had never heard of Mr. Somaiah Kurre, the person listed as President of Texas Concrete Sand and Gravel, Inc. on the company’s permit. The phone of the plant’s manager had been disconnected.
The company’s web site indicates the Plum Grove Plant is still in operation, even though equipment on the site has not moved since December 1, 2019.
Ironically, Pit & Quarry magazine, and industry trade publication, featured the Texas Concrete Plum Grove Plant as a model for how to adapt to change. The article was dated January 16th of this year.
In the meantime, the plant represents a safety hazard to area children. The gate presents no real barrier to someone intent on trespassing. Pits on such mines can be 90 feet deep according to industry sources. And perimeter roads often collapse.
Such problems underscore the difficulty of getting operators to reclaim a mine when it becomes unprofitable. That’s why Texas should establish performance bonds that guarantee reclamation before the State grants a permit to begin mining.
“We will make sure they fix this,” said State Rep. Huberty. Huberty’s staff is already drafting more sand mining legislation for the session next year.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/7/2020
982 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/20200421-RJR_1225.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-05-07 13:03:272020-05-07 13:03:50TCEQ Levies $19,063 Fine Against Texas Concrete Plum Grove Plant
In the last week, contractors have finally started excavating the N1 detention pond at Woodridge Village. Work on the excavation of N2 continues. It also appears that they may have started prep work for excavating the N3 pond. See photos below.
The next Commissioners’ Court Meeting is set for May 19. The agenda for that meeting should be posted May 15.
Excavation Begins on N1 Pond (First Pond on Northern Section)
On May 5, 2020, Jeff Miller, an Elm Grove resident, noticed excavation activity near the Webb Street entrance to Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village. Engineers designated this area for the N1 (first northern) detention pond.
Photo Courtesy of Jeff Miller from Webb Street Entrance in Porter taken on 5/5/2020 shows excavation beginning on N1Closer photo by Miller from Webb Street Entrance also taken on 5/5/2020Wider shot by Miller on same date shows additional prep work on N1 site
Miller also shot this video on 5/6/2020, showing the progress contractors have made on the excavation in one day.
Video by Jeff Miller, Elm Grove resident on 5/6/2020.
N2 Excavation Continues
I took the shot below on May 1 with a telephoto lens from the north end of Village Springs in Elm Grove. It shows excavation work continuing on the N2 pond.
Excavation work on N2. Photo taken on 5/1/2020.
Additional Work in Area of N3 Pond
Additional work near area of N3. This excavator was loading up three dump trucks on May 1, 2020. The dump trucks hauled dirt back to the soupy portion of the Woodridge Villages northern section, then circled back.
On May 5th, Jeff Miller photographed the N3 area from a closer vantage point. It appears only the surface layer has been scraped off so far.
Photo of N3 area courtesy of Jeff Miller taken on 5/5/2020.
Putting New Work in Context of Entire Project
Here’s the layout for the five Woodridge Village Detention Ponds. Contractors finished work on the two southern ponds earlier this year.
Woodridge Village has five detention ponds at various stages of completion.Northern ponds are now under construction. Southern ponds are completed.At the time of last year’s May flood, only S1 was complete. S2 was substantially completed by September’s flood. The northern ponds had not yet been started.
When the northern detention ponds are complete, the detention system will still not be fully functional because there are no streets or storm drains yet to funnel water into them. Still, some detention is better than no detention with hurricane season three weeks away and an above average season predicted.
The County hopes to meet with the City next week to discuss the donation of land. The County also reportedly feels that the four days between Perry Homes’ extended deadline (May 15) and the next commissioners’ court meeting (May 19) will not present a problem if the the City meets the conditions.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/6/2020with thanks to Jeff Miller
981 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/2020/05/Detention-Ponds-Numbered-copy.jpg?fit=1500%2C1191&ssl=111911500adminadmin2020-05-06 17:23:192020-05-06 17:48:30Contractors Begin Excavation of N1 Detention Pond at Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village
Much of Romerica’s land lies between the Barrington in foreground and San Jacinto River in background. All 283 homes in Barrington flooded during Harvey.
Of the ten concerns listed in a letter to the permit applicant, only one had to do with flooding. And that came from Harris County Flood Control, not the City. Nine other concerns had to do with street spacing and layouts or labelling.
Half of Land in Floodway
Half of Orchard Seeded Ranches is in the floodway (below red line) of the San Jacinto West Fork. That line will shift north on new flood maps.
Half of the land lies in the floodway of the West Fork. The other half lies in the hundred-year floodplain. The development would be built on the same property that Romerica tried to get approved last year. The company wanted to build a series of high rises and 5,000 condominiums. That proposal drew a record 770 letters of protest to the Army Corps. Despite all that…
The Planning Commission document indicates that the City Engineer had no comments on the proposal.
Only Harris County Flood Control Raises Serious Objections
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) recommended deferral of any approvals until the master drainage plan for the development is reviewed. HCFCD also said, “This area has historically been prone to flooding with numerous home buyouts immediately to the west. The Flood Control District, City of Houston, Montgomery County, and San Jacinto River Authority are working on a planning study to reduce flood risk in this area.”
Part of that plan will include new flood surveys. They will likely show the floodway expanding to take in an even greater percentage of Romerica’s property.
Gear Up for Another Lengthy Fight
It should not take the developer much time to address City’s concerns. It’s unclear at this time whether the City will heed the HCFCD’s concerns.
As a result, this controversy could wind up back in the hands of the Army Corps and/or the US Fish and Wildlife Service again. Last year, the Fish and Wildlife Service wrote an uncharacteristically frank recommendation to the Corps, urging the Corps to deny Romerica’s permit. Their reasoning had to do with the value of wetlands on the property and the presence of American Bald Eagles, a protected species.
Bald eagle photographed adjacent to Romerica property in February, 2020.
In the meantime, the developer may realize that it still faces an uphill struggle even with City approval. Perhaps they will come to their senses and sell this land to a group or groups that wish to preserve it as green space for flood control and recreation.
Light pole by westernmost Romerica property as Harvey receded. Photo by Jim Balcom.
As if to underscore the value of that proposition, the Bayou City Initiative today announced a virtual meeting to discuss the difficulty of mass evacuations and sheltering during the hurricane season as the COVID crisis continues. Remember that most of this land was under 20+ feet of water during Harvey.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/5/2020
980 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/20191104-RJR_4025-2.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-05-05 18:27:402020-05-05 18:46:04Planning Commission Concerns About Romerica Land Seem More Procedural than Flood-Related
More than one engineer has told me that sand mine dikes appear as though they are designed to fail. Part of the problem is that the State sets no standards for their construction; the State simply says they must be “effective.” But there are only minor penalties if they prove ineffective.
How Sand Mines Use Water
Mines use water to separate sand from silt by spinning the mixture through a centrifuge. The large sand particles go to a stockpile. The smaller silt particles return to a settling pond. If left long enough, the water clarifies and can safely be released.
Water and silt go one way, sand the other. The constant inflow of silty water in the settling pond creates a deltathat raises the water level.
Constant Battle Against Silt and Water
The problem, however, is the buildup of silt and water over time.
The fine sediment often does not have enough time to drop out of suspension before water in the settling pond begins to overflow. That’s when dikes often break and sediment laden water is released into the river.
Sadly, this is not an isolated problem. I have documented breaches in most San Jacinto River mines.
Road Disappears as Dike Gets Higher
Since then, aerial photos show that LMI is building dikes higher to prevent future releases. But as the thin dikes made out of sand/silt get higher, they also get narrower. They seem designed to fail at some point.
Process waste water leaks through them into surrounding wetlands and the West Fork. To keep the dikes from failing, the mine even appears to be pumping water out of its pit into the wetlands.
A large rain could easily overwhelm these dikes and cause another failure. As a starting point, review the satellite photo below from Google Earth. It was taken about a month after a major breach from another part of the mine. Note the perimeter road around the entire pond. It disappears in aerial photos taken a few months later.
Satellite photo from 12/1/2019 shows a drivable road around the entire eastern perimeter (right) of the LMI Moorhead mine.
Now compare that to this series of helicopter photos taken on 4/21/2020. The series starts in the upper right of the satellite photo and heads south (toward the bottom of the satellite image). This area of the mine is far from public view, except from a helicopter..
Note the difference in elevation between the pond in the mine and the pond outside of it.Note the partially buried pipe between the two ponds. A siphon?Looking south along the eastern perimeter. you can see how the road now disappears and the wall of the dike gets thinner. Zooming out, you can see how the far this condition existsand why I ask the question, “Are these dikes designed to fail?”Tracking south to the next grove of trees, you can see water leaking through the narrow dike as it approaches the top. Comparing the dike to nearby tree trunks, I estimate the dike is no more than 2-3 feet wide.
Where 56 Million Gallons Allegedly Entered River
The same condition exists on another pit at the same mine. The dike shown in the foreground is the one that the TCEQ says failed last year. Note water ponding on the narrow road. See photo below.
Note the difference in the color of the water in the pond and in the river in the photo below. The pond color has not changed during the eight months I have been documenting these sand mining operations from the air.
Same dike, photographed from a different angle, looking north. West Fork is in foreground. A newArtavia drainage ditch in the background now funnels water from more than 2000 acres straight toward mine.The mine blames Artavia for the November discharge.
No Texas Regulations Govern Dike Construction
Unfortunately, the State of Texas has no regulations that address construction of dikes.
No standards exist for height, width, composition, compaction, or reinforcement.
I asked Ramiro Garcia, head of enforcement for the TCEQ, this question. “Does Texas have regulations for sand mines that affect the width, height, slope, compaction, and materials used in perimeter dikes or barriers?“
His reply: “The Industrial Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit requires the use of pollution prevention practices that can effectively protect the water quality in receiving waters, or that are necessary for remaining in compliance with the general permit. The GP states that “the permittee shall evaluate and use appropriate measures and controls to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation in areas of the facility with demonstrated or potential soil erosion and sedimentation” (Part III.A.4(c)). There are no specific requirements for width, height, slope, compaction, or materials for dikes or barriers.“
So the permittee gets to determine what’s “appropriate”!
Designed to Fail?
The lack of regulation is how we get strips of sand a couple feet wide holding back hundreds of millions of gallons of waste water. One big rain, a flood, and the wastewater buildup is gone. Conveniently!
If the TCEQ discovers an unauthorized discharge, the mine pays a “slap on the wrist” fine. They average about $800. That’s why I ask, “Are sand mine dikes designed to fail?” It seems cheaper and easier to pay the fine than build earthworks that protect the source of drinking water for 2 million people.
State Rep. Dan Huberty tried to implement effective sand mining regulations during the last legislative session. Unfortunately, most of the mining bills he sponsored died in committee. I’m using the time before the next session to document mining practices on the San Jacinto. Hopefully, we’ll be able to make a better case next year.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/4/2020
979 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/2020/05/20200421-RJR_0878.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-05-04 13:04:422020-05-04 13:23:31Are Sand Mine Dikes Designed to Fail? State Sets No Standards
Here’s an update to last week’s watchlist. It includes seven Lake Houston Area developments – four from last week and three new.
Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village
On April 28, 2020, Harris County Commissioners approved the purchase of Woodridge Village from Perry Homes with two conditions: 1) that the City of Houston would defray half the cost by contributing $7mm worth of land that HCFCD needed for other flood control costs, 2) that the City would adopt new Atlas-14 rainfall statistics.
The next day, Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin discussed the deal on a Facebook live “virtual lunch” with the Lake Houston Area Chamber. At about 26:20 into the video, he said that the stipulations had already been agreed to. He said the City had already identified 11 pieces of property, 6 of which were presented to the County during its consideration of the deal in executive session the previous night. He also said the City would divert water from Taylor Gully to the Kingwood Diversion Ditch and build a barrier between Elm Grove and Woodridge, while the county built a regional detention facility.
Perry contractors went back to work the next day before Martin spoke. They continued working all week. They worked near Mace in Porter, on N2 (the large detention pond in the middle of the western border), and N3 (another detention pond on the eastern border).
A reliable source who needs to remain anonymous told me that the work was at the request of Perry’s lawyers. The source said that Perry and its contractors were simply complying with their contract.
This week marks the anniversary of the first storm (May 7th) that landed Perry in hot water. And forecasters predict an above-average hurricane season, which starts in four weeks. The lawyers may have had that on their minds, too. As they say in legal circles, “The third time is the pen.” Woodridge contributed to flooding Elm Grove twice last year, in May and September.
Excavator working near Mace in Porter on April 29, 2020.
Romerica’s “Orchard Seeded Ranches”
This is the 331-acre project formerly known as the Heron’s Kingwood. It wound around the Barrington and River Grove Park. Romerica is now trying to develop the same land under a different name, “Orchard Seeded Ranches.”
However, on Thursday, 4/30/2020, the Houston Planning Commission deferred approval of the developer’s General Plan.
General Plan of Orchard Seeded Ranches in Kingwood Texas
The Commission then asked the developer to consult with the City Engineer; the Planning and Development Department; and Harris County Flood Control before bringing further requests back to the Commission.
That should send a strong signal to the developer that rough waters lie ahead. Any proposal will likely be debated publicly when/if the developer returns.
The development is still listed in CoH’s PlatTracker. So we will continue to watch this one.
Holley’s Kingwood Cove Golf Course Redevelopment
A review of the City of Houston’s PlatTracker Plus Map indicates that Holley has not yet applied for any permits on the golf course in Forest Cove. City of Houston confirmed that via a FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act).
Note how golf course on left is unshaded. That indicates no activity with the Planning Commission. Compare that to the purple area on the right for Romerica’s property. That indicates approval of a General Plan is still pending.
A review of the Harris County Appraisal District website indicates a limited liability company in Pittsburgh, PA, actually owns the golf course.
Harris County Appraisal District info for property at 805 Hamblen, aka Kingwood Cove Golf Course.
It’s not unusual for developers to use other people’s money. I shall continue to watch this. Holley says his engineer is reworking plans based on input from people surrounding the course.
Ryko Property Near Confluence of Spring Creek and West Fork
This property is in Montgomery County and the City of Houston’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction. The Montgomery County Engineers office says the company has not yet filed any plans that have been approved. The City of Houston PlatTracker Plus Map also shows the owner has not yet filed any applications.
US FWS Wetlands Map shows wetlands throughout the Ryko property between Spring Creek and the West Fork.
New Caney ISD High School #3
Dark green area in center between Sorters Rd. and 59 is future home of New Caney ISD High School #3.
The New Caney Independed School District plans to build a third high school south of the HCA Kingwood Medical Center and behind the car dealerships that front US59. I don’t know much more about this except that they plan to extend roads into the area that is now forest. High schools usually have large parking lots. And that means rapid drainage. It is unclear at this time whether MoCo will require detention ponds.
Northpark Woods
Looking northwest at Northpark Woods from over Sorters/McClellan Road. The drainage ditch on the left parallels Northpark Drive. Sand mines and the West Fork are in the background.Photo 4/21/2020.
This high-density development along the West Fork San Jacinto River in Montgomery County is now about one-third to one-half built. Construction continues.
The Colonies in Plum Grove
North of SH99 in Plum Grove and east of the East Fork in Liberty County, lies one of the largest developments in the Houston region without detention ponds.
Formally known as Colony Ridge, some locals call it “The Colonies.” Colony Ridge bills itself as a “master-planned” community with six major subdivisions: Sante Fe, Camino Real, Grand San Jacinto, Rancho San Vincente, Montebello, and Bella Vista. Together they comprise 30,478 lots on approximately 10,000 acres at present. And they’re still growing!
The Colonies currently cover an area almost as large as Kingwood. Photo 4/21/2020.Drainage empties into the East Fork San Jacinto. While flying over the area, I did not see one detention pond. Mobil homes make up most of the housing stock.Note open-ditch drainage.
Colony Ridge advertises itself as “an escape from the city, land on which to grow and build a home, no restrictions and easy credit.” Aerial photos reveal people scratching out hardscrabble lives on barren lots.
This is a blue collar neighborhood. The developer says his target market is poor Latino laborers. They see this as a step up from apartment living and a chance to own a part of the American dream.
But while flying over it, I did not see one detention pond.
As SH99, the Grand Parkway, pushes east from 59, this area will boom. Without better drainage regulations, Liberty County and Plum Grove will heap their drainage problems on those downstream.
FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer shows East Fork Flood Plains relative to Colony Ridge (right).
The good news is that Liberty County has joined with seven other counties to form a Southeast Texas Drainage District. The bad news is that Harris County is not one of the seven.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/3/2020
978 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/20200421-RJR_1204.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-05-03 10:41:082020-05-03 11:00:12Development Watchlist: Perry, Romerica, Colony Ridge and More
Since the National Flood Insurance Plan’s (NFIP) inception in 1968, additional legislation has been enacted to strengthen the program, ensure its fiscal soundness, create better maps, and tie rates closer to risk. Next year, FEMA will transform the NFIP with something called Risk Rating 2.0, a major change.
FEMA says that with Risk Rating 2.0, NFIP is leveraging industry best practices and current technology to deliver rates that are fairer, easier to understand, and better reflect a property’s unique flood risk.
That last part is code for “we lost a lot of money.”
Unsustainable NFIP Losses
NFIP continues to pay claims in excess of revenues, and borrows increasingly from the U.S. Treasury.
Last October, Michael D. Berman wrote an article titled “Flood Risk and Structural Adaptation of markets: An Outline for Action” in the Federal Reserve Board’s Community Development Innovation Review. In it, he says, “On September 22, 2017, after borrowing $5.825 billion to fund claims from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, the NFIP had reached its maximum U.S. Treasury borrowing authority of $30.425 billion in program debt. On October 26, 2017, Congress cancelled $16 billion of NFIP debt—the first time in the history of the NFIP that has occurred. Then on November 9, 2017, the NFIP borrowed another $6.1 billion to fund additional 2017 losses, including additional losses from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria.”
Rating Flood Risk at Property Level
Berman claims, “The NFIP is clearly not properly pricing flood risk, nor is it adequately influencing prudent behavior by property owners and municipalities to sufficiently reduce or otherwise mitigate this risk…This new rating system, known as Risk Rating 2.0, is expected to include repricing of premiums based on flood risk at the property level.”
What Risk Rating 2.0 Involves
FEMA says its current risk-rating methodology has not fundamentally changed since the 1970s. It is now heavily dependent on the 1-percent-annual-chance-event (100-year floodplain).
Risk Rating 2.0 will incorporate a broader range of flood frequencies, new mapping data, and new technologies, more individual rating characteristics, such as:
• Distance to the coast or another flooding source; • Different types of flood risk; and • The cost to rebuild a home.
By reflecting the cost to rebuild, the new rating plan will also aim to deliver fairer rates for owners of lower-value homes.
Rates that Promote Mitigation Efforts
FEMA also plans to offer mitigation credits to help incentivize risk-reduction efforts and reduce the cost of future flood events. Risk Rating 2.0 will initially provide credits for three mitigation actions:
Installing flood openings;
Elevating onto posts, piles, and piers; and
Elevating machinery and equipment above the lowest floor.
FEMA is not yet saying how many premiums will increase or decrease, or by how much. Two things ARE clear though.
6:1 Payback on Flood Mitigation Investments
First, the old system is broken and unsustainable. Flood maps were outdated and based on data decades old in many cases. They contained many unmapped areas and the mapped areas were strongly influenced by local politicians and developers. Maps also did not reflect the effects of upstream development or more intense, frequent storms.
Second, the new system has a chance to incentivize risk-reduction. The old system encouraged people and communities to rebuild things the way they were after a disaster. We need a new system that encourages more prudent behavior.
FEMA cites a recent study by the National Institute of Building Sciences. Looking back over 23 years of data, the study found that for every dollar that the federal government invests in flood hazard mitigation, taxpayers save an average of six dollars of future disaster recovery spending.
Rebuild to Fail or Rebuild to Adapt?
The current federal flood insurance program promotes rebuilding in flood prone areas. Hopefully, the new system will promote adaptation to help mitigate increased risk.
Flood insurance rates that better reflect risk may promote more prudent behavior by developers, lending institutions, property owners, buyers, and real estate agents who will all “follow the money.”
In early April, the Coastal Water Authority (CWA) quietly finalized the scope of work for engineers working on adding more gates to the Lake Houston Dam. Engineering firm Black & Veatch’s contract was approved. And their work has now begun. Here’s what it involves.
Looking upstream at the Lake Houston Dam. Photo taken 11/4/2019.
The current gates on Lake Houston’s dam have one fifteenth the discharge capacity of Lake Conroe’s – 10,000 cfs vs. 150,000 cfs.
Additional gates could help synchronize the release rates of the two dams and thus reduce flood risk. More/bigger gates could lower the Lake Houston faster in advance of a storm and add width to the spillway during a storm. Both help reduce flooding.
Avoiding Unnecessary Releases
Currently, it takes several days to lower Lake Houston enough to significantly reduce flood risk. During that time, approaching storms can veer away or dissipate. So a conservation angle exists here, too. More gates release water faster. That lets CWA wait until weather-forecast certainty is higher before lowering the lake. And that, in turn, helps avoid unnecessary discharges and conserve water.
18-Month Project Starting from April 8th
The addition of gates is a three-year project broken into two 18-month phases.
Phase 1 involves preliminary design of conceptual alternatives, selecting the “best” based on criteria described below, and permitting.
The clock for Phase 1 started ticking on April 8, 2020, the day Black and Veatch’s contract was approved. Phase 1 should conclude in September 2021.
Phase 2 involves final design and construction. Assuming all goes well, we could have more discharge capacity at the Lake Houston dam by March 2023 at the earliest. However, there will be an evaluation period between the two phases that could push the completion date out further. Also…
Phase 2 Depends on Outcome of Phase 1
One objective of Phase 1 is to prove up the concept, the budget, and the benefit/cost ratio.
Proceeding to construction in Phase 2 will depend on the outcome of Phase 1. In Phase 1, engineers will examine several possible designs to determine the most effective alternative. They will consider flood reduction benefits, downstream impacts, cost, environmental impact, constructibility and more.
Then FEMA will evaluate the benefit/cost ratio of the winning design to ensure it meets or beats initial projections in the grant request.
If it does, FEMA will release money for Phase 2, the final design and construction.
If it doesn’t, the whole project could die.
FEMA does not guarantee Phase 2 funding at this time.
What Happens Now?
The scope of work document reveals who will do what in the next 18 months on the Lake Houston Spillway Improvement Project (LHSIP).
Objective: To relieve upstream flooding by increased discharge capacity that supports pre-releases.
Modifications could include (but are not limited to):
Additional crest gates on or adjacent to the existing dam or…
New, as-yet-unspecified hydraulic structures that provide for releases elsewhere on the embankment
The project will consider both upstream benefits and downstream impacts.
Looking downstream over the Lake Houston Dam in foreground gives you some idea of the courage that it requires to live or work below a dam.
After defining alternatives and constraints, the contractor, Black & Veatch, will analyze the alternatives to quantify and compare costs and benefits of each configuration.
Five Major Tasks in Phase 1
Preliminary engineering involves five major tasks:
Management plans
Hydrology and Hydraulic Modelling
Permitting
Field Investigation
Development of alternative concepts
Let’s look at each.
Management Plans
Black & Veatch will begin Phase 1 by developing project-, quality-, and risk-management plans.
H&H Studies
Hydrology and hydraulics (H&H) studies will evaluate the ability of the various concepts to reduce upstream flooding and downstream impacts. Black & Veatch will develop H&H models that combine both the San Jacinto River and Buffalo Bayou basins to evaluate downstream impacts of any dam.
The combined model will extend all the way to Galveston Bay and evaluate design alternatives for up to nine events:
2-, 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year storms
Extreme historic events (e.g. Harvey, Ike or Memorial Day), including at least one with storm-surge effects
A hypothetical Probable Maximum Precipitation event.
The process includes collecting, reviewing, adjusting and validating existing models before performing simulations.
Permitting Gauntlet
To save time, permitting will begin concurrently with design. The permitting schedule is aggressive and may spill over into Phase 2 as details are refined. Permitting includes (but is not limited to) coordination with federal, state and local agencies for:
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Impact Statement
Wetland delineations
Threatened and endangered (T&E) habitat assessment
T&E species-specific surveys
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) surveys
Freshwater Mussel survey
Stormwater pollution prevention
Clean Water Act
Flood Plain Construction
The environmental team will also consider:
Topography and Soils Construction Impacts
Land Use
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
Geology, Hydrology and Drainage
Sediment Quality
Vegetation
Air Quality
Invasive Species
Coastal Zone Management Wildlife and Endangered Species
Essential Fish Habitat
Existing Facilities and Utilities
Noise Quality
Socioeconomics
Traffic and Circulation
Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands
Environmental Justice
Cultural Resources (historical and archaeological)
Recreation
Floodplains
Visual/ Aesthetic Appeal
Water Quality
Hazardous Materials
Field Investigations
Black & Veatch will also conduct site surveys and a geotechnical investigation, complete with borings, to evaluate soil conditions, depth-to-water, permeability, and seepage control.
A bathymetry team will measure water depth and develop contour maps for an area that extends 500 feet upstream from the dam.
Preliminary Engineering/Conceptual Design
Finally, preliminary engineering will develop conceptual layouts and site plans for several alternatives.
This exercise will also evaluate areas of impact, site access and utilities, staging and borrow areas, dewatering extents, existing structure tie-in, general facilities layout, and downstream channel alignment.
These site plans will be used for costing and evaluating the feasibility for each alternative.
Criteria for Choosing Best Alternatives
The engineers will also develop an evaluation matrix that includes, but is not limited to:
Ability to meet project goals
Environmental clearance
Construction costs, including any environmental mitigation
Long-term operation and maintenance costs
Benefit/cost analysis
Risks in design, construction, and operation.
From all the feasible options, engineers will then chose the three best based on:
Cost
Upstream impact
Downstream impact
Environmental impact
Permitting requirements
Constructibility
Timing on Phase 2
Assuming we get to Phase 2, the second 18 months may not start immediately. FEMA will need time to evaluate Phase 1 results. And the CWA will need to develop bid specs, bid the job, select a winner, and develop a contract with a scope of work, just as they did for Phase 1. That could talk several months and push completion well into 2023.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/20191104-RJR_4790.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-05-01 12:22:242020-05-01 15:57:06Preliminary Engineering Starts for Adding More Gates to Lake Houston Dam
Have you ever been flooded by a new development? Did you learn about the development AFTER bulldozers started knocking down trees? There’s a much better way. The City of Houston offers several tools to help you track applications for new developments long before the bulldozers start belching diesel fumes.
City of Houston PlatTracker map for Northeast Houston and Lake Houston Areaas of 4/30/2020
If someone has applied for a permit to develop a piece of land, it will show up on the map. Notice the purple areas along the West Fork west of the Kingwood Country Club. That’s how I learned about the reactivation of Romerica’s plans.
The color of the parcels corresponds to the stage of the application. Clicking on the parcel pulls up an information panel that gives you more history including the date the developer submitted the application, when it will be reviewed, the review stage, and more.
Zoom in and out as wide as you want. Just be aware that the wider you zoom, the longer it takes the screen to refill with all the plat information. There’s a lot more of it!
As I zoomed out around Kingwood, the number of new developments that I was unaware of shocked me. If you want to see humongous changes, look south of Humble, east to Huffman, west to Spring, and north to Porter and New Caney. Kingwood is a relative island of quiet in a sea of change.
Other Related Interactive Maps
The PlatTracker Plat Map is just one of thirty other interactive maps that you can use to explore and monitor the City around you. They include, but are not limited to:
Land use
Water flood hazards
Governmental boundaries
Demographics
Annexation history
Address and Permit Information
PlatTracker Agenda/Spreadsheet
Once you have identified a development you are interested in, another site can help you learn more about when the Houston Planning Commission will consider applications related to the site. It will also give you:
Subdivision plat name
Application Number
Date Submitted
Subdivision type
Variance requests
Location on the Commission’s agenda
County
Council district
Precinct
Census Tract
Zip Code
School district
TIRZ (tax increment reinvestment zone) if any
Superneighborhood Council
Land Use
Number of Lots
Acreage
Appraisal district numbers
Developer Name
Applicant Company
Applicants Name
Phone Number
You can even download the latest documents related to the application.
Wow. Everything you need to put your mind at ease. Or stage a protest. All at your fingertips.
These are great tools for concerned residents and citizen activists.
I’m sure a lot of Elm Grove residents wish they had known about these tools before the bulldozers started knocking down trees in Woodridge Village.
For future reference, I’ve added links for these sites within ReduceFlooding’s Links Page under the Community heading.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/30/2020
975 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/PLATTRACKER-LAKE-HOUSTON.jpg?fit=1200%2C743&ssl=17431200adminadmin2020-04-30 19:43:042020-04-30 20:10:15Tools to Track Permit Applications for Developments Near You
