News Archives - Page 211 of 275

More Delays on Fixing Perry Homes’ Drainage Debacle Increases Risk of Yet More Elm Grove Flooding

At the current rate of work, Perry Homes could easily take 3-4 years to complete the detention ponds on its Woodridge Village development. The chances of getting another rain event like May 7th during that period? 27.1% if it takes Perry 3 years and 34.4% if it takes 4.

Perry has moved only a few shovels full of dirt since early August to expand detention capacity. That’s when construction activity came to a virtual standstill.

Despite an October 17th letter from Perry Homes’ lawyer to the City Attorney promising to accelerate work on detention ponds, the company has not.

This significantly raises Perry Homes’ legal liability if Elm Grove floods again.

How to Determine Cumulative Probabilities

How do you compile those statistics? Start by classifying the storm. The May 7th storm that flooded approximately 200 homes was a 10-year event, according to USGS, NOAA and National Weather Service statistics below.

*Hourly rainfall totals for the USGS gage at US59 and the West Fork. Whether you consider six inches in six hours or 3.6 inches in one hour, May 7th storm still classifies as a 10-year event.*

Next, figure the cumulative probability of it happening again during a given time period. If you ask, “What are the chances of another May 7th happening in any year,” the answer is always 10%. But if you ask, “What are the chances of another May 7th happening in the next three-years,” the answer is different.

You calculate the cumulative probability using the following formula:

Probability of at least one 10-year storm in next 3 years = 1 – (9/10)3rd = 27.1%. Four years equals 34.4%.

The possibility exists that the rainfall rate may have been slightly higher in Elm Grove on May 7th. But these are official statistics and conservative for the purposes of estimating risk. They don’t even include the chances of getting hit by even larger storms in the same year (as we did with Imelda).

Legal Risk of Not Mitigating Flood Risk

Perry Homes has shown little desire to mitigate flood risk by expanding detention capacity at Woodridge – even after promising the City of Houston it would do so.

After clearcutting virtually the entire site, Perry had installed only 7% of the required detention ponds when the May 7th flood hit and only 23% by the time Imelda hit on September 19. Since then? Virtually nothing!

*Where three detention ponds should be on the northern portion of Woodridge Village. 77% of detention capacity is still missing after four months of inactivity.*

What Perry Homes Has and Hasn’t Done

Since the October 17th letter laying out a 26-month timetable for completing work on Woodridge detention ponds, Perry Homes HAS:

Removed several brush piles from their northern property (shown above)
Slightly widened 300 feet of Taylor Gully
Concreted a portion of the 300 feet (see below).
Moved a small amount of dirt from the S2 pond that eroded into it back up onto the banks (see below).
Spread some grass seed on the northern portion of the development (see two photos below)

*Perry Homes moves eroded dirt from S2 detention pond back onto banks on 12/3/2019.*

*The area where the N3 detention pond should be now has a small amount of grass.* *Photo by Jeff Miller.*

Perry Homes has NOT:

Finished work on the S2 detention pond.
Started work on other detention ponds.
Managed to keep ponding water from reducing the volume of S2.
Established grass on pond banks to reduce erosion as regulations require.
Finished the spillway into S2 from Taylor Gully.
Fenced in their detention ponds as regulations require.
Installed maintenance roads around the ponds as regulations require.
Released its internal investigation into the causes of Elm Grove flooding as it promised Channel 2 news.

*Section 7 of Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual shows many items still missing from Perry Homes’ existing detention ponds.*

*Close up of spillway into S2 pond and its north bank as of 12/5/2019. Photo courtesy of Jeff Miller.*

Perry Homes Increases Risk to Residents and Itself

Since August when Perry Homes virtually stopped working on Woodridge, the company has done nothing to allay the major causes of flooding: clearcutting and lack of detention. It has slow-walked this project. Whatever its motivation, Perry Homes has significantly increased the risk of flooding Elm Grove residents again. In doing so, it also increases its own risks.

If Perry Homes does flood Elm Grove again, its slowdown and disregard for the promises it made to the City in its October 17th letter could prove the difference between negligence, gross negligence and punitive damages.

According to the Sawaya Law Firm, “Gross negligence is the extreme indifference to or reckless disregard for the safety of others. Gross negligence is more than simple carelessness or failure to act. It is willful behavior done with extreme disregard for the health and safety of others. It is conduct likely to cause foreseeable harm.”

Kathy Perry Britton knows that slow-walking the expansion of detention capacity will increase the risk of another major storm hitting Elm Grove before she finishes. But I doubt her lawyers are telling her that risk could be as high as 34%.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/15/2019 with help from Jeff Miller

838 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 87 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.

Last Chance to Vote for Mayor is Saturday

No matter whom you like in the Mayor’s race, if you have not yet voted, I hope you vote in the runoff election Saturday. The Mayor’s office sets policies, priorities and budgets. So if you’re not satisfied with the pace of flood mitigation, speak now. At the ballot box.

Don’t know where to vote? Check HarrisVotes.com.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/13/2019

836 Days after Hurricane Harvey

YouTube Video Shows Grand Harbor Boating Problems on Lake Conroe Predate SJRA Lowering Policy

At the 12/12/2019 San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) Board Meeting, several people talked about problems getting boats in and out of Grand Harbor, a waterfront development on Lake Conroe. They used this to argue against the lowering of the lake. No doubt, the temporary seasonal lowering policy of the SJRA Board makes recreation more difficult for these folks several months out of the year.

However, the seasonal lake lowering policy is just one of many Grand Harbor problems. And the navigation problems did not start with seasonal lake lowering.

Maintenance Issues Dating Back Years

Matt Newsom, a Grand Harbor resident, has produced several videos on waterfront issues associated with the development. In May of 2018, before the lake lowering policy ever started, he produced a video detailing maintenance problems in Grand Harbor. In it, Mr. Newsom describes the origins of Grand Harbor’s problems. They include:

Developer problems
Shallow excavation (6 feet)
Subsequent siltation
Unsold lots without bulkheading that let hillsides collapse into canals
Lack of maintenance
No planning for maintenance assessments
Broken spillway
Builders dumping debris into canals
POAs not accepting responsibility for maintenance
Homeowners unwilling to fund repairs

*Screen Capture from Mr. Newsom’s May 2018 video detailing causes of Grand Harbor navigation problems.*

Now Problem is Lake Lowering, Not Lack of Maintenance

Mr. Newsom also produced the YouTube video below in November of 2019. It discusses how seasonal lake lowering will affect lakefront property owners in Grand Harbor. It’s based on information provided to Mr. Newsom by the Lake Conroe Association. I reviewed this video last month. It makes no mention of the maintenance problems discussed in the May 2018 video, 18 months earlier, before lake lowering started.

Problems Go Far Deeper than Lake Lowering

I can’t fault Mr. Newsom for fighting for extra water. He appears to be a sincere community activist trying to rally support to tackle a tough problem. I admire him for that. If every community had leaders as committed and as articulate as Mr. Newsome, the world would be a much better place.

I just wish that in his second video he acknowledged that the problems go far deeper (no pun intended) than the lake lowering policy. Lake lowering worsens boating problems. But…

Had the problems outlined above been addressed in a timely way, lowering Lake Conroe would likely not have been the problem for Grand Harbor residents that it is today.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/13/2019

836 Days after Hurricane Harvey

SJRA Board Meeting Packed by “Stop the Drop” Protesters

More than 150 red-shirted “Stop the Drop” protesters packed the SJRA board meeting at the Lake Conroe Dam this morning. Lake Conroe lakefront homeowners came to protest the seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe. According to SJRA Board Member Mark Micheletti, two and a half busloads of additional angry protesters had to be turned away because they exceeded the building’s capacity.

Five Lake Houston area residents came to speak. However, they were outnumbered by more than 30 to 1. The Lake Houston Area residents made good presentations, but on the basis of numbers alone, the well organized sea of protesters overwhelmed them. The disparity in numbers between the two sides sent a not-so-subtle message to SJRA board members.

*People protesting the Lake Conroe seasonal lowering policy packed the SJRA board meeting on 12/12/2019. Photo taken before meeting shows only half the room.*

Goal of Policy

The SJRA designed the temporary lowering program to provide downstream residents with an extra cushion against flooding until flood mitigation measures in the Lake Houston Area are completed. The measures include dredging and the installation of additional gates on the Lake Houston Dam. This year, the SJRA lowered the Lake Conroe one foot during the rainiest part of Spring and two feet during the peak of Hurricane Season.

Since the policy started in the second half of 2018, no downstream or Lake Conroe residents have flooded because of releases from Lake Conroe.

Misperceptions Abound

Organizers had fed protesters false information. For instance, many protesters claimed:

Dredging in the West Fork is done. It isn’t. State Representative Dan Huberty is organizing a follow-on program to supplement the Army Corps program which finished around Labor Day.
Because some Kingwood East Fork residents flooded during Imelda, it proves that Lake Conroe has nothing to do with Kingwood flooding. The East and West Forks (which includes Lake Conroe) are in different watersheds. During Imelda, the East Fork received 20 inches of rain while Lake Conroe received only 2.
Lake Conroe releases during Harvey comprised just 15% of the water flowing into Lake Houston and that was not a large enough percentage to affect flooding. The statistic may be literally true. But it’s misleading. It has nothing to do with the flooding on the West Fork. And that’s where the vast majority of all damage occurred. Lake Conroe releases comprised ONE THIRD of the water coming down the West Fork. Furthermore, they came at the peak of the flood.

Two More Board Meetings Before Vote

The SJRA board meets again in January and February before voting on whether to extend the seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe another year. The next meeting will be at the The Lonestar Convention & Expo Center so more people can attend.

The board was afraid that if it chose a Lake Houston venue for the meeting, it would look as if they were trying to stifle dissent.

Watch for more details in January about the next board meeting.

Another meeting like this could mean the end of Lake Houston’s only flood protection measure at the moment.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/12/2019

835 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 82 since Imelda

Pipeliners Vs. Sandminers: An Update

The expansion of sand mines into easements occupied by pipelines puts both the public and the pipelines at risk – not to mention sand mine employees. In the last week, we have seen two areas where erosion triggered by sand mining undercut and exposed pipelines. Here’s an update on how the industry and regulators have responded.

Pipelines in general are the safest form of transportation known to humankind, even though they often carry highly flammable gases or liquids. However, undercutting and exposing them increases the risk of explosions, leaks and fires. It felt comforting, therefore, to see that the pipelines were aware of the problems and working to address them.

Exposed and Threatened Lines at Triple PG Mine In Porter

After posting the story about the exposed natural gas pipeline at the Triple PG mine, I received three calls from Kinder Morgan managers between 12 and 3 a.m. Saturday morning. I received another at 8 a.m. on Monday morning.

This satellite image shows the relative locations of the gas and HVL pipelines that cross the Triple PG property. It also shows the progression of erosion after Harvey but before Imelda. See post-Imelda erosion below.

Exposed Pipeline Now Replaced by One Buried 75-Feet Deep

Hurricane Harvey first exposed the natural gas pipeline in question shortly after Triple PG started mining right next to it. Water flowed through the mine from Peach and Caney Creeks (top to bottom above) during Harvey. It created severe erosion that left the pipeline hanging in several places. See below.

*Exposed by erosion during Harvey and Imelda, this pipeline at the Triple PG sand pit in Porter is now “abandoned.”*

After Harvey, the company immediately stopped the flow of gas through that pipeline and spliced in a new 2,000 foot section. It now runs 75-feet beneath Caney Creek and the erosion. Kinder Morgan filled the old section with inert gas and covered it up. However, Tropical Storm Imelda uncovered it again. But the pipe above has technically been abandoned. It no longer poses any danger to the public.

Kinder Morgan has not re-buried the pipeline because the Triple PG owners have not repaired the road to the pipeline.

At this mine, erosion has not yet reached the other five pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids (HVLs). But it is close.

*Looking NW shows how close erosion and pits are to both sides of pipeline corridor.*

*Looking southeast at Triple PG mine and the massive erosion that occurred during Harvey and Imelda. Note pipeline corridor in bottom left.*

During Harvey and Imelda, this erosion extended more than 1,700 feet (approximately 1/3rd of a mile) toward the HVL pipelines. The next large storm could take it across the corridor, exposing more pipelines.

Exposed and Undercut Pipelines in Conroe

Farther northwest in Conroe – up this same utility corridor – the HVL pipelines HAVE become exposed through headward erosion.

Mining here has moved toward the utility corridor in the foreground from the San Jacinto West Fork in the background.

Liberty Materials operates this mine. That’s the same company cited by the TCEQ for allegedly discharging 56 million gallons of a milky white substance into the West Fork from another mine last month. The other mine is about a mile south of this one. These are just two of nine facilities that Liberty operates in the area according to the TCEQ.

*Looking south across the utility corridor and one half of the mine toward the West Fork. Notice water and sediment trying to drain to the river. See close up below.*

Stormwater running across the utility corridor has undercut and exposed five pipelines. This process started in 2014 when the operator mined next to the utility corridor and triggered headward erosion..

Railroad Commission Response

In Texas, the Railroad Commission regulates pipelines. Jennifer Delacruz of the Texas Railroad Commission (TRRC) received several complaints and is aware of this situation. She told Josh Alberson, one of the complainants, that four of the five pipelines are interstate and therefore regulated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. TRRC forwarded the complaints to them.

*Wide shot of same area looking south across utility corridor to southern half of mine.*

Mustang operates the one intrastate pipeline. According to Alberson, Delacruz had already discussed the situation with Mustang before he and she talked. Delacruz told Alberson that Mustang and the other operators had filed a lawsuit against the mine operator for damages and repairs, but it seemed to be going nowhere. The pipeline told her that it and the other pipeline operators are currently working together to protect the pipelines. They plan to start construction of earthworks or a concrete bridge in January. TRRC intends to closely monitor this going forward.

However, the depth of the pits on either side of the corridor may make bridging the erosion difficult because of soil instability. See below.

*Note depth of newly excavated pit on north side of corridor.*

As the northern pits get deeper and approach the utility corridor in the middle, the erosion under the pipelines will also get deeper. This seems like a losing battle for the pipelines. And there’s no guarantee that another area won’t wash out.

Industry Response

A pipeline manager at one of the world’s largest oil companies looked at these photos and said, “You could try to limp along with supports and erosion control, but Mother Nature will eventually ruin most anything that can be installed.” He felt that temporarily shutting the lines down and drilling under the mine would be the safest alternative, much like Kinder Morgan did at the Triple PG mine.

Legislative Response

Given the wholesale expansion of sand mining on the West Fork, and the unwillingness of the mines to keep a safe distance from pipeline easements, pipelines need to figure out a new strategy. To date, the state has refused to impose any meaningful setback regulations on sand mining.

TACA, the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association, killed legislation that might have done that earlier this year. They lobbied heavily against developing best practices for sand mining. The bill died in committee. As a consequence, we now have worst practices.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/11/2019 with help from Josh Alberson

834 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.

Buzbee Has a Chance to Succeed with Flood Mitigation; Turner Blew His

I’m voting for Tony Buzbee on Saturday. It’s not just that Buzbee has a chance to succeed with flood mitigation; it’s that Sylvester Turner blew his.

833 Days after Hurricane Harvey, it’s hard to tell what the City of Houston has accomplished in terms of flood mitigation or even what the City hopes to accomplish. That’s not to say no work has been done. Or that I don’t appreciate that work.

I just can’t find a comprehensive list of projects and where they stand that matches what Mayor Sylvester Turner has promised the Lake Houston Area.

Turner Not Getting Job Done, Not Committed to Transparency

I did find two City web sites that catalog flood mitigation projects.

“City of Houston Harvey Relief” lists four flood mitigation projects, none of which involve the Lake Houston area. Worse, that page has not been updated in two years, even though other parts of the site have frequent updates. There’s not even a way to link to that page from the site’s navigation! You can only find it through search engines.
City of Houston Public Works also operates a site called “BuildHoustonForward.Org”. It shows no projects in the Lake Houston Area or the San Jacinto Watershed. (See below.) In fairness, the site does say they are still uploading projects. But really! After 833 days! The map below shows where the City’s priorities are. Just look at the concentration. There’s nothing in Kingwood, around Lake Houston or ANYWHERE in the entire San Jacinto watershed!

*Screen Capture from Build Houston Forward on 12/10/2019 at 6pm.*

Net: I believe the Lake Houston Area is a low priority for Mayor Turner.

Worse, he has accepted $5,000 from Kathy Perry Britton, whose company, Perry Homes, contributed to the flooding of hundreds of Kingwood homes. The timing of the contribution, after the City’s cease-and-desist letter to Perry, looks like a brazen attempt to buy influence. Turner’s acceptance of the contribution speaks volumes about his priorities yet again. Meanwhile, Perry missed it’s own first deadline, exposing residents to more flood risk. And there was nary a word from Turner.

What Happened to All the Projects Turner Promised?

I have lost faith in Mayor Sylvester Turner to get the job done. Flood mitigation is complex. It requires partnerships and funding from multiple sources. Those partners must trust each other. And it’s not clear we can take Mayor Turner at his word. What happened to Lake Houston Dam Gates, maintenance dredging on the San Jacinto, storm drain repairs, and clearing the mouths of drainage ditches around the lake? What happened to the drainage repairs that Turner promised us Perry would make in Woodridge Village?

Buzbee: A Fresh Start and Fresh Approach

The final day to vote for mayor of Houston is this Saturday. It’s time for a fresh start. I have been meeting with Tony Buzbee re: his priorities for flood mitigation as have many other Lake Houston area flood mitigation leaders. I am refreshed by his openness, willingness to talk, and commitment to transparency and accountability. No doubt, the man has fire in his belly. He’s not a career politician; he’s down to earth and plain spoken.

Buzbee has made many visits to the Kingwood area. He waded onto the mouth bar like a Marine at Normandy (he is a Marine BTW). He witnessed the May mine breach at the Triple PG sand mine on the West Fork and made it a central part of his campaign for Mayor.

*Tony Buzbee, on banks of Caney Creek at Triple PG Sand Mine Breach in May.*

Buzbee has specified – in detail – his commitments to flood mitigation projects in the Lake Houston Area, as well as Houston in general.

Buzbee’s open letter to the Lake Houston Area includes provisions that address best practices for sand mining and developers; removing sediment from the river and lake; working across political boundaries; openness; transparency; drainage improvements; professional project management and much more. See below.

He has put those commitments in writing. And he has signed the document. I urge you to read it before going to the polls on Saturday. I have reprinted the text below for ease of viewing on portable devices.

Signed Buzbee Commitments

Commitments by Tony Buzbee to the Lake Houston Area Community that he will put in place, if he becomes Mayor of Houston from the runoff election in December, 2019.

If some of these measures are already in place, Tony will improve them as stated below. If these measures are not already in place, Tony will put them in place by the time frame stated. Tony agrees to work with local community groups, such as the Lake Houston Area Long Term Recovery Task Force, to identify and flesh out details of these plans.

First 100 days:

Have fully operational a Website that will have fundamental info on the additional gates on Lake Houston project, C.I.P.# S-000890, (project manager, engineering & environmental studies contractors, identified project milestones, etc.). This Website shall also have project reporting, updated every month on the status of reaching those milestones or not, plus explanations of why not, if that is the case, and subsequent plans to correct any delays to get the project back on schedule. This includes a commitment from Tony that this project will stay on schedule to be completed by fall of 2022.
Announce what City of Houston (COH) department and individual will lead the responsibility for the City of Houston in taking the significantly expanded leadership role with other government agencies (HCFCD, SJRA, CWA, FEMA, USACE, Montgomery, Liberty & other surrounding counties, State of Texas and Texas Agencies, and other government and non-government entities (NGOs) as necessary) in achieving world-class flood protection projects & policies for the San Jacinto Watershed. This COH department shall be given significant and proper resources to function as a world-class agency to provide the expected world-class results.
- Some potential milestone difficulties that have been questioned specifically for the Lake Houston Gates project, that may need particular scrutiny are the necessary buyouts of property downstream of the Lake Houston Dam and associated mitigations problems identified in any environmental study, including Superfund sites.
Continue to fund and execute the complete removal of the blockage area in the West Fork of the San Jacinto River commonly referenced as “the Mouthbar” and stay committed to the removal of sediment in both the East and West Fork Rivers to restore the conveyance of these rivers to the levels of when the Lake Houston dam was built. It is not expected that the removal of the Mouthbar and other sedimentation areas will be completely removed in 100 days, however there will be a show of progress, commitment to remove these areas and identify a maintenance plan with a funding source that will ensure conveyance is maintained in the future.
Release plans on how the COH, in it’s new expanded leadership role, will work with the appropriate government agencies (HCFCD, SJRA, State of Texas, Federal Government, etc.) and appropriate non governmental entities to remove sediment & debris from all the inlets & canals that feed storm water runoff into Lake Houston. This removal process shall be done within nine months of sediment removal of the Mouthbar at a rate consistent to the levels of reduction of the Mouthbar, subject to appropriate right-of-way agreements being in place.

Projects that Will Take Longer than 100 days

For these projects Tony will release his plans of how he will achieve these goals, dedication of staff and resources and a time line for each activity. These plans will be listed on a Website with milestones and reporting progress every month in the same fashion as the website described above.

Within six months, identify and prioritize removal of major and minor system restrictions including debris and sediment on the East and West Fork of the San Jacinto River and Lake Houston in partnership with the SJRA, CWA, The State of Texas, the US Federal Government and other governmental and NGOs as necessary for a plan of a long-term maintenance plan to manage the constrictions and storage reductions that sediment and debris is causing for the Lake Houston region, that may include long term maintenance dredging if that is determined to be the best solution. These plans shall contain projected dates of the start of execution.
Provide guidance and support to Harris County Commissioner Court and HCFCD to prioritize and fund projects that increase the capacity of the Bayous through partnerships with HCFCD to allow for water to efficiently move into the Gulf of Mexico.
Identify a plan for routine maintenance for overgrown and sediment filled ditches within COH ROW. Prioritize by complaints filed via 311, and/or potential 311 Website, as well as investigate flooded areas identified by the above referenced community groups.
Ensure completion of the projects that Public Works SWAT team has identified and forecast out future projects.
Identify a work group to outline a plan for the creation of dynamic storm water models that are integrated with HCFCD Bayou/creek models to ensure we understand how the system is draining. This will identify areas that an integrated sewer/ditch and bayou improvement plan is needed.
Re-evaluate the storm drainage/curb and gutter criteria to align with current Best Management Practices (BMPs). Identify a plan with projected costs to design and improve existing open ditch systems to the concrete top elevations criteria.
Strongly encourage developers in the San Jacinto Watershed to leverage the Houston Incentives for Green Infrastructure Plan http://www.houstontx.gov/igd/ which launched in Aug 2019. Evaluate the success of the program and identify opportunities for improvement. Support Public Works incorporating Green Infrastructure design as a storm water management approach with projects.
The COH shall exercise its expanded leadership role by:
- Lobbying and advocating to the State of Texas (SoT) that the Aggregate Production Operators (APOs), commonly known as the Sand Miners, that operate in the San Jacinto Watershed, shall use SoT approved Best Management Practices (BMPs).
- Lobbying and advocating to the State of Texas (SoT) and all the counties that have the San Jacinto Watershed in their boundaries for developers to use SoT recognized BMPs in storm water control.

Publishing Own Report Card

Tony commits to publish on a Website available to the public all of his stated plans published on https://www.tonybuzbeeformayor.com/issues/ as of 12/9/2019. Also published on this Website will be a Report Card reporting on the progress of all of his promised plans updated every month. There will be a phone number for you to call and a Website to ask questions about any of Tony’s plans and you will get answers.

Signed: (Tony Buzbee – see original above)

Dated: December 10, 2019

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/10/2019

833 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Critical Pieces of Union Pacific Bridge over West Fork Now in Place

The Union Pacific Railroad has removed two of the five large cranes used for the reconstruction of its bridge over the West Fork of the San Jacinto. During Harvey, floodwaters damaged the bridge. The narrow supports caught floating trees that dammed the river and backed water up, making the flood worse. The new bridge will have much wider supports that allow trees to pass through. But the wider supports also require U-shaped steel trusses that help bear the weight of crossing trains.

Where Union Pacific Project Stood in November

Here’s how the project looked in early November. Note the giant cranes poised to lift the steel supports into place.

*Union Pacific Railroad Bridge over the San Jacinto West Fork. Photo taken on November 4.*

December Status of UP Project

Here’s how it looked on December 3rd. The first thing you notice is that all of the steel trusses are now in place and that two of the largest cranes have been removed.

*Looking southeast toward the east side of the UP bridge over the San Jacinto West Fork. Note all of the **old** bridge supports still in place between the new ones.*

*Looking south, you can see that a steel truss system now completely spans the river. The steel truss system supports the extra stress created by the wider concrete supports.*

*Eight new concrete supports now replace the dozens of steel posts that it once took to bridge the width of the San Jacinto.*

*The wider supports will allow trees to flow through the bridge in future storms. During Harvey, uprooted trees formed a dam at the base of the bridge that backed water up.*

Still Remaining: Removal of Old Supports

It now appears that workers are starting to remove some of the old supports between the new ones. From US59 today, I noticed that the supports are no longer even touching the bottom of the bridge. It may not be long before UP wraps this project up.

That will eliminate one more barrier that has slowed the progress of Harris County’s new Edgewater Park near this same location. In lake 2018, the county hoped to begin construction by the fall of 2019. Construction, changing plans, and coordination with the Houston Parks Board have all contributed to delays on the project.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/10/2019

833 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Don’t Dig Near Pipelines: A TACA Safety Moment

The Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association (TACA) brags that its members uphold the industry’s highest standards for safety. Or did they mean daring? Let’s have a safety moment.

Myth Meets Reality on the West Fork

To shine a light on the difference between the myth and reality, I’ve taken up a new hobby: sand-mine photography from a helicopter. On my December flight up the West Fork of the San Jacinto, I flew over this mine. Note the wetlands and utility corridor in the middle. Also note the trench leading through the trees on the right to that open gap in the tree line along the utility corridor.

I was curious about that gap. So I asked the pilot to go closer and got the photo below. How strange, I thought! The pipeline corridor has washed out, like at the Triple PG Mine. But this was a little different. The mine appeared to be draining the wetlands. Note the river of muck in the photo below.

Enlargement Shows Makeshift Supports

Someone had rigged “supports” under five pipelines. See the enlargement below. I put supports in quotes because they don’t seem to be working very well; note the sagging. Some look more like clotheslines than pipelines under pressure.

Pipelines Carry Highly Volatile Liquids

Investigation showed this is the SAME utility corridor bisecting the Triple PG mine miles to the southeast in Porter. These are the same five pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids (HVL). This mine, however, lies on the West Fork of the San Jacinto in Conroe near 242.

The channel under the five pipelines is up to a 100 feet wide.

Historical Images in Google Earth Show How This Happened

An investigation of historical satellite images in Google Earth shows that erosion has been a problem in this area at least since 1995 – the date of the earliest available image. Water overflowing the wetlands tried to make its way to the river on the other side of the utility corridor. The problem was manageable, however, as long as the land was flat. That was until 2014.

In 2014, when the mine first started excavating next to the corridor, a process called headward erosion started. Water flows from top to bottom. Notice how much deeper and wider the erosion is below the corridor than above. See explanation below.

In 2014, two things happened. The mine started excavating right up to the edge of the pipelines (just as Triple PG did).

Next, three back-to-back-to-back monster storms in 2015, 2016 and 2017. They were “perfect storms” where the right combination of circumstances came together: Heavy rain. Exposed, loose soil. Steeper gradient.

How “Headward Erosion” Happens

The fact that miners had excavated up to the pipeline corridor with some very deep pits created a steep drop at the edge of the pipelines. That meant water crossing the corridor tended to accelerate and erode the sandy soil beneath the pipelines faster. The soil then sagged into the pit, much as you see in the pictures above. This process is well documented and has a name: headward erosion.

Here’s an illustration of how the process of headward erosion works

*From Arizona’s Pinal County Dept. of Public Works, Page 123.*

Here’s a 43-second YouTube video showing the process in action in a table-top flume experiment.

Makeshift Repairs Not Working All That Well

Trying to make the best of a bad situation, it appears that either the miners or the pipeliners tried to shore up their pipelines with supports. But it’s not working. They keep trying to plant grass. They keep using erosion control blankets. The supports keep sinking. And the pipelines keep sagging. Here’s an even bigger blowup.

It looks as if some of these supports are anchored in quicksand. Notice the extreme difference in their heights. The cross braces supporting the weight may be adjusted as the supports sink. But not on this day.

Another factor here: What if a tree washes down this chute during a torrential rain? It happens. Regularly.

I have a hard time imagining the stress on these pipelines. An engineer calculated a range of weights for me. He made some assumptions about the thickness of the pipes and the weight of liquids inside them. Then he calculated the weight of 100 feet. The range: 20,000 to 30,000 pounds. No wonder they’re sagging. That’s more than I weigh after a dinner at Carrabbas!

Probably No Imminent Danger, But Just in Case…

They’re probably not an imminent danger. But what happens in the next big storm? We’re overdue. It’s been more than two months!

Hundreds of thousands of gallons of flammable liquids. Under high-voltage electric lines. Pipes under stress. Erosion that widens with every storm. This should be a wake up call. But…

TACA has resisted all attempts at sensible regulation. They don’t even want to define and publish best practices. And it has long been known that you can’t legislate common sense. So I guess we are just stuck living on the edge with connoisseurs of edge work.

Where to File Complaints

If you would like to complain to someone, these people may be willing to listen.

TCEQ

Mine Safety and Health Administration (this puts miners at risk)

Texas Railroad Commission (responsible for pipelines in Texas)

US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Location of exposed pipelines: 30º11’56.63″N, -95º21’57.78″W

Office on 18214 East River Road in Conroe, TX

Highly Volatile Liquid (HVL) Pipelines Involved:

Plains Pipeline – Red Oak Pipeline (20”) moving crude
Enterprise Products Operating – Chapparral System (12.75”) – HVL Liquid (probably crude)
Mustang Pipeline – GLPL System (6”) – HVL Liquid
Enterprise Products Operating – Texas Express Pipeline System (20”) – HVL Liquid
Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC – 8″ Products Pipeline

That concludes our safety moment.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/9/2019 with help from Josh Alberson

832 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 80 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.

The Perfect, Perpetual Production-Consumption Cycle

The taxpayer-funded Grand Parkway (State Highway 99) extension will make many people happy. Proximity to transportation drives home-buying decisions. People eager to “get away from it all” will find the lure of saving 10 minutes on a longer commute irresistible. They will marvel at all the trees around them and speak with pride about their growing community in the forest.

It will also make the sand miners happy. It takes lots of sand to make concrete.

Developers and homebuilders will take advantage of lax regulations in Montgomery County to boost their profitability.

And the flooding, caused by all the environmental destruction, means that downstream residents get to remodel their homes. Or move farther out to avoid future flooding. At which point the cycle will repeat itself in a few years.

*Elm Grove Home below Perry’s Woodridge*

From a marketing point of view, it’s a perfect, perpetual production-consumption cycle. How could you possibly improve it?

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/8/2019

831 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 79 Days after Imelda

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

From Erosion to Explosion: Why It’s Dangerous to Mine Sand Near Streams and Pipelines

Mining sand near pipelines can expose the public to danger through erosion. We’ve seen this at the Triple PG sand mine in Porter where a potentially lethal combination of circumstances came together. 1) MINING 2) in a FLOODWAY 3) too close to PIPELINES 4) created EROSION 5) that undermined and EXPOSED the pipeline 6) to FLOATING DEBRIS and 7) the FORCE of floodwater.

Excavating pits in floodways causes erosion to move upstream and downstream during floods. When the pit is too close to infrastructure, such as bridges (or pipelines), erosion can then threaten their foundations.

Predictable Phenomenon

Headward erosion is a PREDICTABLE phenomenon. It’s as certain as gravity causing dirt to fall into a hole. Except in the case of the Triple PG sand mine, floodwater gave gravity an assist. It pushed the dirt into the hole. The hole, in this case, is the sand pit on the left below. The floodwater came from the top of the frame.

*Headward erosion cut right through the pipeline crossing that paralleled what used to be a road* *around the mine.*

This doesn’t happen every day. It’s sporadic. It happens during floods. But that makes it no less predictable.

How Triple PG Grew Toward, Between and Past Pipelines

The images below show the growth of the Triple PG Sand Mine northward into Montgomery County. In 1995, the mine was 2,000 to 3,000 feet away from the pipelines.

1995

2017 Pre-Harvey

The mine kept expanding to the west and north. Just before Harvey, notice how Triple PG had mined right up the pipeline and beyond it, into the danger zone between the pipeline corridors.

Then came Harvey.

2017 Post-Harvey

During Harvey, headward erosion took out about a 200-foot wide section of earth supporting the natural gas pipeline (also seen in the helicopter photo above). Harvey also elongated the lake in the middle of the pipeline corridors.

Then in 2019, this area had a major flood in May and Tropical Storm Imelda in September. The major breach widened and the lake elongated even more.

2019 Post-Imelda

Imelda widened the Harvey breach so wide and deep that it exposed more pipeline. (See photo below).

Exposed pipeline has no protection from floodwaters carrying trees, cars, houses or other debris downstream. A major collision could cause an explosion. But that’s not even the biggest potential catastrophe at the Triple PG mine.

Now … For the Real Disaster Scenario

Looking at a wider satellite image (below), we can see that the mine is now closing in on the HVL pipelines from the south AND the north. It brackets them.

Water flows from top to bottom in the image above. Note how Caney Creek bends near the white line above. During Imelda, floodwater cut through that area into the big northern pond at this bend instead of following the natural stream bed. See below.

Without constant repairs like you see above, Caney Creek could soon reroute itself through the big pit on the left below. Erosion on both sides of the utility corridor could expose the HVL pipelines – just as it did the natural gas pipelines. Not likely, you say?

*A breach on the left would reroute Caney Creek right across the pipelines buried in the utility corridor on the right.*

In the last three years, the two ponds along this line have grown closer together by more than 1000 feet. The ponds now are within a few feet of actually touching the pipeline corridor on both sides. Continued erosion could soon threaten the HVL pipelines in the middle if nothing is done to stop it.

Why is This Potentially MORE Dangerous?

Compared to exposing a natural gas pipeline, exposing liquid pipelines is far more dangerous.

When a natural gas pipeline explodes it creates a fireball that could kill anyone near it.

But when HVL pipelines rupture, they spew poisonous liquids. And if those pipelines rupture during a flood, those poisonous liquids will flow right into the source of drinking water for two million people – Lake Houston. This is why sand mining in floodways near pipelines is a bad idea.

Most of us have seen news footage of pipelines that ruptured on the San Jacinto River. Floodwaters swept away barges that collided with pipelines and caused them to explode. Could something comparable happen here with trees or cars floating downstream?

Enter James Cameron stage right.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/7/2019 with help from Josh Alberson

830 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 79 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.