If you boat between the San Jacinto East Fork and Lake Houston, perhaps you’ve noticed it’s a little harder getting from A to B lately. The San Jacinto East Fork Mouth Bar has grown approximately four fifths of a mile during the last two storms and the channel depth has decreased 6X.
These three pictures tell the story dramatically.
I took the first after Hurricane Harvey and the second after Tropical Storm Imelda. The third comes from Google Earth BEFORE Harvey.
East Fork Mouth Bar After Harvey
Looking north toward Kings Point from the East Fork of the San Jacinto River after Harvey. Note fresh sand several feet deep everywhere. Photo taken 9/14/2017, two weeks after Harvey.
East Fork Mouth Bar After Imelda
Extent of East Fork Mouth Bar After Imelda. Photo taken 12/3/2019.Note in this photo how much closer the sandy bottom is to the surface throughout the entire area.
Pre-Harvey to Post-Imelda Growth
Satellite image from January 2017 BEFORE Harvey. Yellow line represents approximate growth in East Fork Mouth bar between then and today – about four fifths of a mile.For alignment purposes, note the tip of the Royal Shores Lake in the first aerial photo and Royal Shores in the second.
Boater Josh Alberson says the maximum channel depth in this area decreased from 18 feet after Harvey to 3 feet after Imelda.
Geologic Change on a Human Time Scale
Note how the leading edge of this growing bar is now almost even with the entrance to Luce Bayou. When we get another storm like Imelda, the East Fork Mouth Bar could block the Interbasin Transfer Project from delivering water to Lake Houston.
Changes like these usually happen on a geologic time scale. They happen so slowly, humans can barely perceive them during the course of a life time. However, Harvey and Imelda produced this change in two years. They provide us with a rare glimpse of a living planet in our own backyard.
If you have children, grandchildren or students, please share these photos with them. They make valuable life lessons about the power of moving water and respect for Mother Nature. They may also stimulate curiosity in Earth sciences and engineering.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/23/2019with depth soundings from Josh Alberson
846 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 95 since Imelda
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/20191203-RJR_5829.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2019-12-22 21:30:592019-12-23 08:11:42East Fork Mouth Bar Grows 4000 Feet During Harvey and Imelda
Instead of accelerating completion of detention ponds on Woodridge Village as Perry Homes promised, the company appears to have pulled all excavation equipment from the site. Contractors who were supposed to have been working on detention pond N-1 have gone…BEFORE they finished S2 and BEFORE they finished a berm sealing off the southern portion of the site at Fair Grove Drive.
Equipment Left Site Instead of Beginning On Next Pond
Perry Homes had promised in its letter to accelerate construction, but this will slow it down – if they ever return. The only work being done Friday? Removal of some dead tree piles on the northern portion of the site.
Jeff Miller took all the pictures and videos below on Friday and Saturday. He also monitored work on the site and provided this scouting report.
Looking south toward Taylor Gully and the Harris County Line along the eastern embankment of the S2 detention pond.The channel along the eastern portion of Taylor Gully is now lined with concrete. The spillway into the S2 detention pond has been widened and smoothed. The S2 detention pond is behind the camera position. Looking East.Looking west across S2 detention pond. The dirt that eroded into the pond has been scooped back up onto the banks and compacted.Still no grass on the banks, however, so it could all wash back in with the next big rain.Looking north. The grassy area in the background was supposed to have contained the N3 detention pond. However, contractors have simply excavated a channel from the northern section directly into Taylor Gully so now runoff can accumulate even more quickly.Contractors widened and concreted the Taylor Gully channel along the eastern side of Woodridge Village. But they left the most vulnerable part of the channel without concrete. At the end corner by the telephone poles, water comes from the left. But no concrete protects the area where the water makes a sharp 120 degree turn. Expect water to erode behind the concrete and peel it away in the next big rain.
Woodridge Village Section One Now a Virtual “Ghost Town”
This weekend, Woodridge Village Section One looked like a ghost town, not a bustling construction site with people working against a deadline.
Heavy construction equipment used to be parked by dumpster in the background. Now it’s nowhere on the property. Looking south. Another view of the same area that held construction equipment. It’s all gone and the berm sealing the site off from Fair Grove Drive is missing.
Still Removing Dead Trees/Mulch on Northern Section
On Friday, only smaller equipment turning tree piles into mulch remained.
Perry Homes Intentions Now a Mystery
As of Sunday morning 12/22/2019, no equipment actually working on construction could be seen on the site. The excavators and dump trucks parked at Fair Grove for months have been removed.
Perry Homes is NOT accelerating completion of detention ponds as it promised the City of Houston.
Instead, Perry Homes has thrown a curtain of silence around this job. It’s hard to know what their intentions are. At this point, Perry Homes’ lawyer J. Carey Gray has as much mud on his face as Elm Grove residents had in their homes.
The only thing we can say with certainty: Lowering flood risk for the people of Elm Grove does not seem high on Perry Homes’ priority list.
For Sale And For Lease Signs Serve as Christmas Yard Decorations
Meanwhile, a drive down Shady Maple or Village Springs, the two streets that border Taylor Gully, revealed residents’ attempts to salvage Christmas from the chaos of floodwaters. Dumpsters and debris still line the streets. Some people still live in trailers in their driveways. No apple cider around the hearth for them. They’ll be lucky to find space for a table top Christmas tree. For Sale and For Lease signs outnumber Christmas yard decorations ten to one.
On a street called Right Way in North Kingwood Forest, I found nine For Lease signs in a row. Sad reminders of Imelda and Perry Homes.Only three months ago, these homes were filled with families who flooded for the second time.
Kathy Perry Britton just added another credit to her resume, “The CEO Who Stole Christmas.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/22/2019with reporting and images by Jeff Miller
845 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 94 since Imelda
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/IMG_0679.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2019-12-22 12:09:152019-12-22 12:58:38Perry Homes Pulls Excavation Equipment From Woodridge Village Before Finishing Detention Ponds
The attorney general has had production at the Triple PG mine on Caney Creek shut down and the breaches in the mine’s dikes closed since early November. Also, the Texas Concrete mine in Plum Grove on the East Fork closed. And the TCEQ is forcing them to fix breaches and replant exposed areas before abandoning the mine. It could just be a coincidence, but water clarity on the East Fork and Caney Creek have improved to a shocking degree with both of the major mines out of action. See below. Said Kingwood resident John Knoerzer, “This is the clearest I’ve ever seen the East Fork.”
Photo taken by John Knoerzer on East Fork at East End Park on 12/20/2019.
It’s not Cozumel, but it’s far better than the opaque brown liquid we had.
Return of Eagles
Resident Josh Alberson reports that he’s seen cormorants, pelicans and bald eagles return to the East Fork and Caney Creek. “They were feasting on the white bass.” Says Alberson, “Last Sunday, we saw more birds than we had every seen working. It was National Geographic worthy, but I couldn’t get close enough to get any quality pics or video.” He attributes all the birds to both the bass and the clarity of the water. “It helps the birds spot the prey,” he says.
Only problem: there’s so much sand in Caney Creek that it’s hard to boat upstream. Josh Alberson informs me that his jet boat got stuck on a giant sand bar immediately downstream from the Triple PG mine. Boats with propellers can’t get through at all, he says.
Please Help Document Wildlife and Water Clarity
It seems to me that this change, if it is permanent, is important to document. Any boaters or jet skiers who can make it upstream, please send pics through the submissions page on this web site.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/21/2019
844 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 93 since Imelda
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Clear-Water.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2019-12-21 15:53:042019-12-22 07:49:16East Fork Water Shockingly Clear with Mines Closed
As we enter 2020, keep your eyes on these stories.
Elm Grove Lawsuits and Mitigation
In 2019, Elm Grove flooded twice with runoff from the Perry Homes/Woodridge Village development in Montgomery County. Hundreds of homeowners sued Perry Homes’ subsidiaries (PSWA and Figure Four Partners) and their contractors.
On 12/17/19, attorney’s for the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended petition. Since the original filing, plaintiffs have named Double Oak Construction and Texasite LLC as additional defendants.
The judge set a jury trial date for July 13, 2020. To date, Perry Homes has done nothing to reduce the threat of flooding from their job site.
The 268-acres clear-cut acres that contributed to Elm Grove Flooding.
That brings us to the subject of mitigation.
What can be done to restore the safety of residents?
Perry Homes has demonstrated no interest in reducing the threat to downstream flood victims.
Protecting homeowners will require massive intervention from an outside source. But who? And how?
I recently learned of two new developments in the Ben’s Branch watershed.
A developer intends to build 18 acres of apartments where the woods adjacent to the new St. Martha Church now stand.
Another developer intends to build hundreds of homes on tiny lots on an 80-acre site just north of St. Martha’s.
These two projects represent dozens of others gobbling up farm and forest land in southeast Montgomery County.
This drainage ditch feeds into Ben’s Branch at Northpark Drive. The 18 acres of trees on the other side of the ditch could soon become apartments.
Businesses such as the St. Martha School and Kids in Action already flooded twice this year. So did dozens of homes along Ben’s Branch.
Additional upstream development has the potential to make flooding even worse. This is like death by a thousand cuts. Residents just don’t have the time or energy to monitor each development to ensure that owners follow rules and regulations for wetlands, floodplains, drainage, etc. Neither evidently does Montgomery County. Which brings us to…
Montgomery County Standards and Enforcement
Montgomery County competes for development by touting its lack of regulations. That’s a huge problem for downstream residents.
Montgomery County still bases flood maps on data from the 1980s.
Large parts of the county remain unmapped for flood hazards.
The County last updated its Drainage Criteria Manual in 1989.
Developers ignore many provisions within it.
County Commissioners voted to leave loopholes open that allow developers to avoid building detention ponds.
The County even paid an engineering company to investigate itself for its role in the Elm Grove Disaster.
You get the idea. If you thought some benign government entity watched over new developments to protect downstream residents, think again. Below you can see the 80-acre site I mentioned above.
Source: USGS National Wetlands Inventory.
Note how it was covered in wetlands. Developers did not ask permission from the Corps to remove them. They just decided on their own that they didn’t need to ask.
Below, you can see how virtually half the site is in a flood zone or floodway.
Here’s how it looks in Google Earth. Developers have already cleared the site.
Developers intend to build high-density homes in the floodplains. They will also build their detention pond in the floodway. Those hazard areas will likely expand when and if the County incorporates new Atlas-14 data into their flood maps.
Layout for Brooklyn Trails development in Montgomery County
None of this seems to bother the leadership of Montgomery County. And that’s a bigger problem than any one development.
In 2020, expect more focus on the decision-making process and decision makers who have created a permissive culture of indifference to flooding problems.
Sand Mines
Sand mines operate so closely to the San Jacinto that their walls frequently break and pour polluted process water into the drinking water for 2 million people. If they get caught, they pay a small fine and continue operating with impunity.
Left: Liberty Materials Mine in Conroe that undercut five pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids. Center: Triple PG mine in Porter where erosion during Imelda exposed one natural gas line and threatens 5 more HVL pipelines. Right: Another Liberty Materials mine that allegedly dumped 56 million gallons of white goop into the West Fork.
Upstream Detention
During Harvey, the release of 80,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Conroe added to downstream flooding. The goal: to find enough upstream detention capacity to help offset future releases. The San Jacinto River Basin Study will examine that possibility. It’s unlikely that one reservoir will provide enough capacity. However, multiple smaller reservoirs may.
Luckily, State Representative Dan Huberty sponsored legislation that allocated another $30 million. The Harris County Flood Bond allocated $10 million. The City of Houston allocated $6 million. Plus two more grant requests are still pending that could increase the total even more. And a disposal site for the material has already been permitted.
Mouth Bar of the West Fork. Photo taken 12/3/2019.
Last week, Harris County commissioners voted to proceed with additional dredging. Project managers are studying the most cost effective ways to proceed. We should see more dredging soon.
This money could also be used on the growing mouth bar of the East Fork.
State Highway 99 Extension
The extension of the Grand Parkway (State Highway 99) east and south to I-10 will open up vast new expanses of forest and farmland to high density development. The biggest threat will be to the East Fork watershed as construction moves through southeast Montgomery County and the northeast tip of Harris County into Liberty County.
Eastward clearing for SH99 has reached Caney Creek near Lake Houston Park.
Those are my predictions for the biggest stories of 2020. There’s a lot of good news in the forecast and much to remain vigilant about. Life seems to be a constant struggle between those who would increase and decrease our margin of safety when it comes to flooding.
Posted on 12/21/2019 by Bob Rehak
844 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/2019/12/Slide14.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2019-12-21 12:30:522019-12-21 14:37:12Big Stories to Watch in 2020
Tuesday, at the open house in Kingwood to review work to date on the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Plan, the Plan task force members showed two very interesting posters. Together, they show where the water came from during Harvey and the extent of inundation. They also show the amount of rainfall in different areas throughout the watershed.
When you put these two maps together, one high-level message screams through:
1.5 to 3.5 feet of rain fell over 2,885 square miles. That’s an area bigger than Delaware. And it all drained toward Lake Houston.
Watersheds Within River Basin
Looking at these posters gives you an appreciation for how complex flood forecasting can be, especially for areas like Kingwood where so many watersheds converge. The river basin map below shows the number of square miles drained by each of the major tributaries. The upper right corner inset map shows the same tributaries mapped over the major roads, counties and cities in the region to help you place the streams.
The second poster shows the extent of inundation along each of those major tributaries during Harvey. The upper right inset map shows rainfall across the region. Note how the rainfall was heavier toward the lower and eastern parts of the river basin. As water came downstream and the rain kept falling in those areas, the floodwater just kept building higher and higher.
How Local Factors and Channel Hydraulics Come Into Play
The maps also reveal much about smaller areas within the watershed.
Matt Zeve, Deputy Executive Director of Harris County Flood Control, has studied channel hydraulics for more than 20 years. He emphasized flooding in The Woodlands and Cypress did NOT flood because of water backing all the way up from Lake Houston. Lowering water in Lake Houston faster will not prevent flooding that far upstream, he says. A wide variety of local conditions govern upstream flooding, such as:
Rainfall rate, volume and location
Time of accumulation
Channel width/depth
Gradient
Flatness of terrain
Blockages
Rate and timing of runoff
Time of year
Amount of vegetation vs. impermeable cover
Soil type
Ground saturation and more.
This rainfall and inundation map clearly shows the effect of some of these factors. Notice, for instance, the three pockets of heavy flooding at the west end of Cypress Creek on the left. Also notice how the flooding narrows downstream toward the right. There are a several things going on here, according to Zeve.
The area that flooded so badly was extremely flat. The area used to contain rice paddies. Farmers made the land even flatter.
That area also received more rainfall. Note the small pocket of orange on the rainfall inset map over the area that flooded so badly on Cypress Creek.
As you move east on Cypress Creek, the flooded area gets less wide. That’s because the channel gradient increases. The creek therefore creates a deeper channel and the floodplain narrows.
Rice fields surrounded the headwaters of Cypress Creek in 1989.
As you look at these maps, apply your knowledge of local conditions to see if you can explain similar anomalies.
For Future Reference
These maps still exist in draft form. The river basin survey is only half complete. The maps may change before completion of the study.
For easy reference in the future, I will post the high-res PDFs under the Hurricane Harvey tab in the Reports page.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/20/2019
843 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/EX03_HarveyCalibration-copy.jpg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=112001200adminadmin2019-12-20 16:21:242019-12-20 18:30:29Where the Water Came From During Harvey and Extent of Inundation
With 2019 almost behind us, we should look back to see what we accomplished on flood mitigation. Tomorrow, I’ll take a look at the stories that will likely define 2020.
Limited Dredging
In 2018, FEMA and the Army Corps announced that they would dredge 2.1 miles of the San Jacinto West Fork when they were given authority to dredge 8 miles. Questions immediately started to swirl about why they were not dredging all the way to Lake Houston. The answer was “part of the mouth bar was there before Harvey and we can only spend disaster relief funds on what Harvey deposited.”
The mouth bar as it existed shortly after Hurricane Harvey. Photo taken 9/14/2017.
Regardless, they left the biggest blockage in the river. Imelda washed a tremendous amount of sediment downriver. In mid-October, RD Kissling sent me a photo from his kayak. He as standing in water less than knee deep 700 yards south of the mouth bar. It’s important to understand that sand bars are like ice bergs. You only see the tip above water. Most of the bar exists below water. And much of this mouth bar remains to be removed.
To learn more about this controversy, search this site using the key words “mouth bar.”
Flood Mitigation Legislation: A Big Win
No one budgets for disasters, such as Hurricane Harvey. So after the disaster, cities and counties had to scramble for grant money to even qualify for matching funds from the Federal government. More than two and a half years after the event, money is finally starting to trickle down to the areas that need it to implement flood mitigation projects. That’s thanks in large part to Senator Brandon Creighton who authored Senate Bill 7.
SB7 creates dedicated Texas Infrastructure and Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Funds for flood control planning and the funding of flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects. The Texas Water Development Board is finalizing rules for the distribution of those funds right now. SB500, a supplemental appropriations bill, includes funding for SB7 and an amendment that would dedicate $30 million for dredging at the confluence of the San Jacinto and Lake Houston. State Representative Dan Huberty authored the amendment to SB500 that provides the $30 million.
For more information about legislation affecting this area, see the Legislation page of this web site or search using the key words “SB7” or “SB500.”
Sand Mining Legislation: One Small Gain, Some Big Losses
Activists statewide pushed for legislation to reign in the excesses of an out-of-control aggregate industry. Here in the Houston area, State Representative Dan Huberty introduced HB 907. It passed and doubles the penalties for not registering a sand mining operation. It also increases the frequency of inspection from every three years to two years and established a registry of active sand mines.
Picture of the West Fork of the San Jacinto the day it turned white (11/4/2019). The TCEQ later issued a notice of enforcement to the Liberty Materials mine upstream for dumping 56 million gallons of white goopy pollution into the West Fork.Water samples indicated 25 times the normal amount of suspended solids.
That was the only bill that the high powered lobbyists of TACA (the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association) would allow to pass. That’s mostly because their members are already registered.
However, other important bills died in committee due to the lobbying power of TACA.
HB 908 would have provided for penalties up to $50,000 for water code violations and every-other-year inspections.
HB 909 would have created best management practices for sand mines.
HB 1671 would have extended water quality protections to the West Fork of the San Jacinto currently enjoyed by the John Graves District on the Brazos and attached penalties for non-compliance with best practices defined under HB909.
HB 2871. Would require sand mines and other aggregate production operations to acquire a reclamation permit and to file a performance bond ensuring reclamation.
For more information about sand mining in the Lake Houston area, see the Sand Mining page of this web site. You can also search on the key words “sand mining, TACA, Triple PG, TCEQ, breach, Liberty, and white water.”
Artist’s conceptual drawing of a high-rise development called The Herons: Kingwood.
The tallest buildings would have been 500 feet and located on the edge of the current floodway. That floodway will almost certainly expand in light of new Atlas-14 rainfall data. The developers also announced a marina that would have held 640 40-foot boats and 200 jet skis. There were no evacuation routes that would have remained above water in the event of a flood.
The developer’s web site now says the project is on hold, pending improvements to the West Fork and Lake Houston.
For more information on this development, see the High Rises page of this web site or search for the key words “Romerica, high rises, eagle, or The Herons.”
The $2.5 Billion Flood Bond Equity Flap
When the wording for Harris County’s historic $2.5 billion flood bond offering was worked out in early 2018, leaders from the Humble/Kingwood area in Precinct 4 argued to include the notion of an equitable distribution of funds. Why? Historically the Flood Control District had focused more on projects in other parts of the county, especially Precinct 1, that Precinct 4.
In one meeting after another, Ellis’ ringers showed up in commissioners court to complain about discrimination in the distribution of funds for buyouts, construction spending, and more. Yet in every category, Ellis’ precinct already had the lion’s share of funding.
This is an on-going controversy that affects everyone in the Lake Houston area. Ellis is looting transportation dollars from Precinct 4. You have to hand it to Ellis. Even if he doesn’t know what equity means, he knows how to work the system.
For more information on this topic, search this site using the key words “equity or Ellis.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that the language in the summary of the referendum on the ballot was misleading. It failed to disclose that the money would be raised through a new tax. So the Court ordered a revote.
In 2018, the Mayor “resold” the fee by saying, “If you want a lockbox around the money, vote FOR Proposition A. If you don’t want a lockbox around the money, vote AGAINST it.”
It was another artful dodge. There was nothing in the language of the bill to create a lockbox. The language in Prop A was almost identical to the original bill. But the funding formula was even looser!
Unaware voters once again approved the fee. And the Mayor continued to divert money from the fund. These diversions became a central element in the Mayoral campaign this year after thousands of people flooded in May and again during Imelda.
Nevertheless, the Mayor won re-election.
To learn more about this topic, search this site using the key word “Proposition A.”
10 New Gates for Lake Houston
The flood gates on Lake Conroe can release water 15 times faster than the gates on Lake Houston. During Harvey, that bottleneck contributed to the flooding of thousands of homes. A study showed that additional gates would have lowered the water level by almost two feet in the event of another Harvey. During smaller storms, the gates would also help pre-release water faster to create a buffer against possible flooding.
Lake Houston can shed water at 10,000 cubic feet per second. Lake Conroe can shed it at 150,000 cubic feet per second.
The City of Houston applied for a grant from FEMA and the Texas Division of Emergency Management to add ten new gates. FEMA approved the project. It’s happening in two phases. The first includes design and an environmental survey. The second includes construction. Each will take 18 months. We’re now six months into Phase One.
Details of dam improvement project.
For more information on this topic, search this site using the key word “gates.”
Temporary Seasonal Lowering of Lake Conroe
After Harvey, people in the Lake Houston area started pleading for more upstream detention, dredging and gates. Dredging started immediately. The project to add more gates to the Lake Houston spillway has also started. Upstream detention is still years way. The San Jacinto Watershed Study is only now beginning to identify possible locations.
Many lakefront property owners on Lake Conroe, however, claim the lowering hurts their property values and damages their bulkheads. Buses full of protesters showed up at the December SJRA Board meeting wearing red shirts that say, “Stop the Drop.” So many came that two busloads full of people had to be turned away.
Angry Lake Conroe residents showed up at the last SJRA board meeting in busloads.
Net: the policy to lower Lake Conroe temporarily is under assault. The SJRA will likely vote on whether to continue the policy in February. The SJRA will hold two additional meetings at the Lonestar Convention and Conference Center in January and February to give everyone who wants to provide input a chance to do so.
For more information on this topic, search this site using the key words “lake lowering.”
This is another issue that will carry over into 2020.
For more information on this topic, search this site using the keywords “Perry Homes, Woodridge Village, Figure Four Development, PSWA, Elm Grove, Spurlock, cease and desist, detention, what went wrong, North Kingwood Forest, or drainage criteria.”
There’s your digest of the biggest stories of 2019. 2020 to follow.
Posted by Bob Rehak on December 19, 2019
842 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 92 since Imelda
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Slide11.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2019-12-19 11:45:402019-12-19 12:01:13The Biggest Stories of 2019
Natural Disasters: Examining the Impact from 1953 to 2018
Who is affected? By what type of threat? When? Where? Why? And above all, how? How much did the disasters cost? In dollars? In lives? In property damage? This is an illuminating work of scholarship and well worth the ten minutes it takes to read. When you’re done, you’ll be able to amaze family and friends around the Christmas dinner table. For example, which state leads the nation in disaster declarations for …
… each 1000 square miles? New Jersey
… wildfires, droughts and hurricanes? Texas
… freezing? Florida
… flooding? Iowa
… tornadoes? Georgia
Timing, Type, Location and Impact of Natural Disasters
Which year had the highest number of fatalities? 2005 with Hurricanes Katrina, Dennis and Wilma, California wildfires, etc.
Which year had the highest damage costs in dollars? 2017 with $312.7 billion
Fatalities and Damage Costs by Year from 2003 to 2017.Source: ADT
What type of natural disaster is most likely to damage the nation’s economy? Tropical storms. One-third of the gross domestic product is produced in states along the Gulf and Atlantic coastlines, which are especially vulnerable to hurricane damage.
What’s the most likely type of natural disaster in Texas? Hurricanes.
Top types of natural disaster declarations by state. Source: ADT.
What’s the most likely type of natural disaster in California? Flooding. (But wildfires also rank high).
Who has the most severe storm declarations? Missouri with more than 1200 during the study period.
You’ll be pleased to know that NO county in Texas made the top 20 counties in the nation for FEMA natural disaster declarations. Who was the highest? Balmy Los Angeles County.
Some Results Counterintuitive
Some of these results are obvious and some counterintuitive. The counterintuitive ones (freezing in Florida?) have to do with the lack of disaster preparedness. Other states expect freezing weather and prepare for it.
All in all, ADT produced a fascinating study of natural disasters illustrated with revealing graphics. There’s more. Much more. I have just scratched the surface in this review. It’s well worth the time to read the entire report. Check it out.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/19/2019with help from Jacque Havelka
842 Days since Hurricane Harvey an 91 since Imelda
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/A01.png?fit=800%2C907&ssl=1907800adminadmin2019-12-19 06:14:052019-12-19 06:34:37The Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How of Natural Disasters
Two and a half busloads of additional “Stop the Drop” protesters from Lake Conroe had to be turned away from the SJRA’s December Board Meeting because of capacity issues related to fire safety.Photo courtesy of David Feille.
Special Meetings Called to Handle High Volume of Public Input
Due to the overwhelming response, the San Jacinto River Authority’s (SJRA) Board of Directors will hold TWO SPECIAL meetings.
January 21, 2020, at 6:00 P.M.
February 20, 2020, at 6:00 P.M.
Both will be held at the Lone Star Convention and Expo Center. It has the capacity to accommodate everyone who wants to speak. The center is located at 9055 Airport Road, Conroe, Texas 77303.
The purpose: to hear public comment on the temporary flood mitigation strategy of lowering Lake Conroe on a seasonal basis.
The lowering of Lake Conroe one foot in the spring and two feet in the fall is intended to provide flood mitigation benefits for downstream residents by increasing capacity to catch rainfall and runoff in the lake. The SJRA Board reviews the strategy annually. Both the SJRA and the City of Houston own water rights in Lake Conroe. For full details of the strategy, including timing, click here.
The SJRA Board of Directors will receive a presentation from staff at the January 21st special meeting and listen to public comment.
The board will conduct no other business at these meeting and will not consider the lake lowering strategy at either of its regular board meetings in January or February. Any vote on the strategy will take place at the February 20th special meeting.
Special Meeting Dates, Time, Location
Tuesday January 21, 2020
6 P.M.
Lone Star Convention and Expo Center
9055 Airport Road, Conroe, Texas 77303
Thursday, February 20, 2020
6 P.M.
Lone Star Convention and Expo Center
9055 Airport Road, Conroe, Texas 77303
The SJRA Board of Directors says it welcomes all input regarding its seasonal lake lowering strategy.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/18/2019 with a photo courtesy of David Feille
841 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 90 since Imelda
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/STD-Protesters.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2019-12-18 14:40:492020-01-17 08:55:35SJRA Board Will Hold Two Special Meetings to Discuss Seasonal Lowering of Lake Conroe
Yesterday’s open house at the Kingwood Community Center seemed to be a hit. The SJRA, City of Houston, Harris County Flood Control and Montgomery County – all partners conducting the San Jacinto watershed study – had the subject-matter experts actually conducting the study there. The open house format gave residents a chance to interact with them one on one, tell their flood stories, and discuss possible mitigation scenarios.
Difference Between Listening and Learning
As one resident said, “I got more from 45 minutes here than a dozen town hall meetings.” I appreciate the town hall meetings, but he was right.
Quality one-on-one interaction made the difference between listening and learning.
I suspect the professionals there felt the same way. They came seeking input and they got it.
It felt like a collaboration, not a presentation.
For example, I got to quiz Adam Eaton, one of the engineers working to add more gates to the Lake Houston Dam. Finding hard information about this project has been difficult. But Mr. Eaton provided it. See budget, timeline and project milestones below.
Budget, timeline and project milestones for Lake Houston Dam Spillway Improvement Project.
Engineers hope to finish design and receive environmental approval by mid-2020. From there, TDEM and FEMA will review the plans and then hopefully release funds for construction. I asked Mr. Eaton whether there was a chance construction could NOT be approved. Answer: It’s possible, but very unlikely.
Details in Big Picture Context
I also talked at length with Matt Zeve, deputy executive director of Harris County Flood Control. Zeve, who has studied channel hydrology all his life, helped me understand why upstream communities don’t automatically benefit from projects that decrease downstream flood levels. He also helped me understand big picture issues, some of which weren’t even on my radar yet. For instance, how the extension of Highway 99 could affect flooding in Liberty County and on the East Fork twenty years from now.
David Parkhill, an author of the Brown & Root report published in 2000 was there, too. They called it a Regional Flood Protection Study back then. But it had the same objectives as the SJR Master Drainage Plan: to identify flood mitigation projects that will make a difference. Mr. Parkhill helped put the current effort in historical context. He was both fascinating and helpful!
Huffman Meeting on Thursday, 3-7:30 at May Community Center
If you missed the Kingwood meeting on Tuesday, I urge you to attend the Huffman meeting tomorrow. It will have all the same information and experts that the Kingwood meeting had. And it will be your last chance to visit an open house in this area until the next round of public comments next Spring.
The quality of input you give in this process will determine the quality of output you get.
Thursday, December 19, 2019
3:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
May Community Center
2100 Wolf Road
Huffman, Texas 77336
The open house will include information about the following projects, studies, and efforts:
San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan
Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis
Huffman Area Drainage Analysis
Spring Creek Watershed Planning Study
Luce Bayou Watershed Planning Study
Willow Creek Watershed Planning Study
Jackson Bayou Watershed Planning Study
Cedar Bayou Tributary Analysis
SJRA-led Projects
City of Houston-led Projects
Harris County Permit Office
Harris County Engineering Department – Recovery and Resiliency Division
Hurricane Harvey Repair Efforts
Information about services provided by Harris County Flood Control District, Harris County and Montgomery County
The open house will last from 3:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The format lets attendees arrive and participate at their convenience. No formal presentation will be made.
Provide Input on Master Drainage Plan
You can comment on the plans at the meeting in Huffman and throughout the duration of the study.
If you can’t attend in person, mail comments to:
Harris County Flood Control District
9900 Northwest Freeway
Houston, Texas 77092
Attn: San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan
For more information about the San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan, visit www.sanjacstudy.org.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/18/2019
841 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 90 since Imelda
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/GatesOutlineSml.jpg?fit=1200%2C919&ssl=19191200adminadmin2019-12-18 13:30:342019-12-18 13:45:24Kingwood Residents Go One on One with Flood Experts; Huffman Up Next
Most people have heard about the Coastal Water Authority’s Luce Bayou Interbasin Transfer Project. But few have seen it. Its size makes it impossible to see from the ground. It stretches from the Trinity River to the northeast corner of Lake Houston, where Luce Bayou enters the East Fork. The purpose of the project: to provide additional surface water supplies to end users that utilize water from Lake Houston, especially the new Northeast Water Purification Plant.
Surface Water Capacity to Manage Growth and Fight Subsidence
Studies have shown that Lake Houston and the new plant cannot meet future demand at their current capacity. Transfer of additional raw water supplies to Lake Houston will support future expansion of treatment capacity at the northeast plant and the mandatory conversion from groundwater to surface water to help reduce subsidence.
The City will eventually transport 500 million gallons per day from the Trinity river to Lake Houston through the pipelines and canals you see below.
Connecting Trinity and San Jacinto Watersheds
The Luce Bayou Interbasin Transfer project includes the Capers Ridge Pump Station (CRPS) located on the Trinity River in Liberty County, 3 miles of Dual 96-inch Diameter Pipelines, and 23.5 miles of earthen Canal System. The pipeline will extend west southwest approximately 3 miles along a geological ridge (Capers Ridge). The pipeline will then outfall into the sedimentation basin at the start of the canal. The canal will outfall into the lower reaches of Luce Bayou, which flows into the northeastern corner of Lake Houston.
Originally, engineers considered using a large part of Luce Bayou itself to transport the water and minimize construction costs. However, environmental concerns nixed that idea. Today, they use only the last few hundred yards of Luce Bayou. But the name stuck.
Construction Photos Taken December 3, 2019
The pictures below start at Lake Houston and go about half way to the Trinity River.
The last part of the canal outfalls into Luce Bayou and then Lake Houston in the background. Looking southwest.A semicircle slows the water as it comes out of the canal. Note how sediment is already building up.Looking west toward FM2100. Note the drainage swales on either side of the canal.These “teeth” in the concrete outfall structure break up the water to reduce its erosive power.From the Trinity to Lake Houston, the entire system is gravity driven. The water is pumped up at the Trinity and then flows downhill all the way to lake Houston. The slope is incredibly precise and minute: only .015%. The route contains 22 inverted siphons below drainage features, roads, pipelines and 11 bridges.These are not the smallest pipes, but they’re still big enough to swallow pickups. Even larger pipelines near the Trinity contain welded-steel piping with cement mortar lining and polyurethane coating.Once past Huffman, the canals wind through farmland.The color of the water is partly a reflection of the sky and partly due to the fact that it has gone through a sedimentation basin to remove sediment before reaching this point.In several places, existing streams go OVER the IBTP.The further east you go, the more finished the canals appear.Another natural stream goes over the canal. The earth blocking the canal on either side of these inverted siphons will be removed before the system goes into service.Three million cubic yards of soil were removed to create these canals. That’s enough to fill up the Astrodome almost twice.
For More Information About Luce Bayou Interbasin Transfer Project
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/20191203-RJR_5899.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2019-12-17 21:36:162019-12-17 21:36:25Luce Bayou Interbasin Transfer Project Construction Photos
