TCEQ Cites Sand Mine for Allegedly Discharging 56 Million Gallons of White Pollution into West Fork

After receiving complaints and news reports of bright white water in the West Fork of the San Jacinto, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) launched aerial and ground investigations.

West Fork near US59 bridge. Photo taken 11/4/2019.

They found three mines discharging process water into the West Fork of the San Jacinto.

  • Sorters-Eagle Mine, used as Placement Area #2 by the Army Corps, at 231 McClellan Road in Kingwood
  • RGI Materials at 18185 Hill Road in Porter
  • Liberty Materials at 19515 Moorhead Road in Conroe

The Corps found that the discharge from the Eagle-Sorters mine was related to equipment installed by the Corps which is being removed. Therefore, the TCEQ considered it a permitted discharge and did not issue a Notice of Enforcement.

The other two mines, however, were different stories. The TCEQ issued Notices of Enforcement to both for alleged unauthorized discharges of process water.

Double Breach at RGI

At RGI, TCEQ investigators found that a process wastewater pond breached into a stormwater pond. That, in turn, breached into the West Fork. (Click the link above to see the complete investigation report.) Investigators cited the mine for one alleged violation for failure to prevent the unauthorized discharge of process water. The same mine already had one active notice of enforcement for a violation that allegedly occurred on 10/2/2019.

Loss of 56-Million Gallons of Milky-White Waste Water Goes Unnoticed

At Liberty Materials, TCEQ investigators found a 6′ deep by 30′ wide berm breach still discharging process wastewater when they arrived. The initial burst of wastewater had spread out more than 90 feet and had matted down vegetation for 850 feet. The water then entered a gully which emptied into the West Fork. Investigators say the discharge was milky white in color. They also say that water marks indicate the process pond had dropped approximately 3 to 4 feet!

Unauthorized discharge of white process water by Liberty mine on 11/6. Photographed by TCEQ.

Surprisingly, investigators had to notify the operator of the breach. He professed ignorance of it.

The TCEQ cited the mine for unauthorized discharge of pollutants. Their 124-page report makes interesting reading. The investigators collected numerous samples of water and tested for total dissolved solids.

They found one sample contained almost 25X more than the standard limit for dissolved solids in that part of the river.

From Page 100 of the TCEQ investigation of Liberty Material’s Moorhead Plant on 11/6/2019.

They also estimate that a four-foot water drop in the process pond would have dumped more than 56 million gallons of pollution into the West Fork.

“Not Sure. Don’t Know. No Clue. Duh!”

A “must-read” is the interview with one of the mine’s managers on pages 113-114. Some excepts:

  • When did the berm breach occur? Answer: Not sure.
  • How did it occur? Answer: Not sure.
  • Do you have maintenance logs for berm repairs? Answer: Don’t keep them.
  • What happened to the berm of the missing pond? Answer: No clue.
  • When did the berm go? No clue.
  • How did the berm go? No clue.
  • How much did you discharge? Not sure.

Are we really to believe that a competent manager would not notice the loss of four feet of water in his process pond?

Incident Highlights Two Problems

Nowhere does the report say that the milky white discharge that I photographed further downriver two days before this investigation came from this mine. In that sense, the findings of these investigations probably will not satisfy the public’s passion for closure.

But they do shine a spotlight on two problems.

Problem #1:

This was the sixth alleged violation for the Liberty mine on Moorehead in 2.5 years. They allegedly dumped 56 million gallons of pollution into the West Fork without noticing it and played dumb when investigators caught them in the act. They just do not fear the penalties which have averaged $800 per incident statewide since 2011. At that rate, pollution becomes part of miners’ business plans.

Problem #2:

TACA kills almost all attempts at reasonable regulation by bottling the proposals up in committee every legislature.

Business Friendly Vs. Resident Hostile

I cannot understand how state government allows such flagrant behavior to continue. A teenager who got caught breaking into cars six times in 2.5 years would be heading to Huntsville. Dump 56,000,000 gallons of pollution in a public drinking-water source and you get the equivalent of a speeding ticket. All you have to say to the judge evidently is, “Duh!”, and you’re right back in business.

Go figure. Why does “business-friendly” have to mean “resident-hostile”?

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/1/2019 with thanks to the TCEQ

824 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.

HCFCD Crews Work on Thanksgiving Day to Clear Ben’s Branch

Earlier this week, I reported an improbable meeting in Huffman on the eve of Thanksgiving that showed promise to increase conveyance on Luce Bayou. This story is even more amazing holiday miracle. Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) crews worked on Thanksgiving Day to clear trees blocking Ben’s Branch.

HCFCD has a right to cut trees 50 feet on either side of the centerline of the Ben’s Branch and clearing started Thanksgiving week. Photo courtesy of Thomas Blailock.

I did not personally see them but received an email with images from Thomas Blailock Thursday. Blailock says, “The contractor is UFLGC from Ackerman, MS. They had 7 trucks and around 20 employees clearing on Thanksgiving Day. They have been here for 4-5 days.”

I saw evidence of their work at Tree Lane. The areas on either side of Bens Branch look like they got a haircut.

Such clearing reduces the chances that trees will fall into the creek during storms, get hung up on other trees and form “beaver dams” that back water up into neighborhoods.

Result of One Year of Negotiation

The clearing follows a year of negotiation between HCFCD, Friendswood and Bear Branch Trail Association. The Association owns the greenbelt, but Friendswood still exercises deed restrictions.

The Community had mixed reaction to news of the agreement. Many were thankful for progress. Others felt the agreement didn’t go far enough. Many, like Blailock, hoped the creek could be widened or straightened.

Judging by how difficult it was to work out terms of this compromise, widening or straightening won’t happen any time soon – even as upstream development continues to dump more water faster into the creek.

An Alternative That Could Help

I have heard, however, that HCFCD has examined the possibility of widening the Kingwood Diversion ditch that runs down the western side of Woodland Hills and crosses under Kingwood Drive near the fire station. Preliminary reports from HCFCD indicate that a) their easement includes enough room to widen the ditch, b) no bridges would have to be widened (they were built with enough room under them to widen the ditch), and c) that could divert water from Ben’s Branch that would help reduce flooding along the creek.

Looking south down the diversion ditch from over Northpark Drive. That’s Woodland Hills on the left and Kings Mill on the right.
Looking north along the diversion ditch toward where it intersects with Ben’s Branch in front of the new St. Martha Church. That’s Ben’s Branch crossing left to right, parallel with the power lines.
HCFCD’s easement and the bridges are wide enough to widen the ditch without rebuilding the bridges. Note the extra room under the bridges on the right of the water.

Nothing is final yet. The Kingwood Area Drainage Assessment is not yet complete. So things could change. But don’t be surprised if you see this as a future recommendation.

For a full review of issues along Ben’s Branch from Kingwood Drive north past Northpark Drive and St. Martha’s new church, check out this thorough, thought-provoking presentation by Chris Bloch. It underscores the need to use all means possible to improve conveyance.

For more information about HCFCD work in the Kingwood Area, see this page on their new, updated website.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/30/2019 with help from Thomas Blailock and Chris Bloch

824 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 72 after Imelda

What Went Wrong, Part V: How Woodridge Village “Soiled” Perry Homes’ Reputation

Before Perry Homes bought the ill-fated land now known as Woodridge Village, it hired a company called Terracon to sample soils and submit a geotechnical analysis. Their objective: to see whether the land was suitable for residential development. Perry also hired LJA Engineering to analyze drainage. However, it appears that LJA did not consider Terracon’s findings when it modeled runoff (see Section 1.4 of LJA’s report).

LJA also assumed that “sandy loam” covered the entire site when the National Resources Conservation Service soil database shows sandy loam covers only 60 percent. The Terracon report, however, never even mentions “sandy loam.”

Different Findings Could Have Skewed Runoff Analysis

Both the different characterizations of soils and their extent could have skewed the results of LJA’s runoff analysis.

LJA said the soil was “fine sandy loam,” everywhere, period. Terracon bored holes to 20 feet at four locations and found mostly clay-based soils. Terracon did, however, find “sandy silt” with “clay pockets” in the first foot of ONE of their borings.

According to the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), clay, sand and loam absorb rainfall at vastly different rates that can approach or even exceed 10X.

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA

The NRCS site above does show “sandy loam” on 60% of Perry Homes’ property. However, the NRCS sampling technique usually involves a shovel. They appear to classify primarily surface soils (not surprising for the Department of AGRICULTURE).

That’s why NRCS clearly states that the infiltration rates above only apply to the first two inches of rain during an event. After that, the water may percolate down to another, less permeable layer of soil, such as the clay that Terracon found. At that point, fully saturated ground could force additional rainfall hitting the surface to pond or, if the land slopes, run off. That’s exactly what happened on May 7th and September 19th this year when Elm Grove flooded from Woodridge Village runoff.

According to NRCS, “Soil survey interpretations are rarely suitable for such onsite evaluations as homesites without further evaluations at the specific site.” 

But Terracon’s preliminary investigation sampled only four widely spaced spots at the perimeter of the property. None coincided with the locations of planned detention ponds, known wetlands, or streets. Only one even came close to a future home site. And the Montgomery County Engineer’s office has no record of Terracon performing additional work on the Woodridge site.

Terracon’s sample locations.

Also note that while NRCS shows sandy loam on 60% of the site, LJA assumes uniform distribution everywhere. That could also have skewed LJA’s computer modeling. NRCS showed that another 33% of the site (see below) contained soil consistent with wetlands. Wetlands don’t typically absorb water, often because of clay underlying them.

Wetland-Type Soils on ONE THIRD of Property “Overlooked”

A top geologist retired from one of the world’s largest oil companies sampled the soil at one of Terracon’s borehole sites shortly after the May 7th storm and confirmed Terracon’s findings as to surface soil type – mostly clay.

He also says, “The presence of clay close to the surface can cause water to pond and lead to the formation of wetlands wherever you find depressions in the land.” And in fact, the USGS National Wetlands Inventory shows extensive wetlands on the northern portion of the site.

USGS National Wetlands Inventory map of Perry Home’s site.

It’s not clear where LJA found its soil information; they don’t specify. But if it was from NRCS, they should have been alarmed by the presence of hydric topsoils on ONE THIRD of the property. Hydric soils are one of the defining ingredients of wetlands. Compare with map below, taken from the NRCS site. SosA and SouA are soil types typical of wetlands.

SosA, Sorter-Tarkington complex, 0 1 percent slopes {Hydric, with inclusions that are non-hydric} and SouA, Sorter-Urban land complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes {Hydric, with inclusions that are non-hydric} comprise approximately 29% and 3.6% of the site respectively.

Building homes over wetlands is dangerous because shifting soil can crack foundations. Wetlands also typically serve as collection points for water.

But LJA never mentions wetlands and the Terracon borehole sampling sites came nowhere near the wetlands on the property. Terracon spaced them widely around the perimeter as you can see from the site map with the red lines above.

Groundwater Levels Not Mentioned In LJA Drainage Analysis

LJA, had it read the Terracon report, might have also been concerned by the discovery of ground water at 15 feet, more than a half mile from Taylor Gully. At Taylor Gulley, contractors hit ground water at about 10 feet when excavating the S2 detention pond. But the pond was supposed to hold 15 feet of runoff. That means ground water reduced its capacity by a third. Even worse, a pond by N3 has had standing water near the ground SURFACE for months!

Note the man-made rectangular pond in the upper right. It has been that full since it first appeared in Google Earth satellite images almost a year ago. That’s not a good sign for another area designated to hold a major detention pond (N3).

That means these ponds will never be able to achieve their promised detention capacities with their current dimensions. There just isn’t enough depth. Engineers measure detention capacity from the top of any standing water, not the bottom of the pond.

More Curiosities Re: Testing and Reports

How strange that LJA’s drainage analysis never once mentions the words “water table” or “groundwater”! Especially when detention ponds are a central feature of the report and mentioned 42 times. LJA never mentions “retention” ponds once, although J. Carey Gray, the high-powered litigator representing Perry Homes, called the ponds that in his letter to the City. For the record, detention ponds have no permanent standing water; retention ponds do.

The first thing you notice about the Terracon report: the title says PRELIMINARY. Terracon also put “preliminary” at the top of every page. And repeated it 35 times within the report. Sometimes as many as three times in a single paragraph. Terracon also specifically recommended several followup tests. But if they were done, the Montgomery County Engineers office says it has no record of them.

Five Previous Developers Sold Site Rather than Develop It

At Thanksgiving Dinner yesterday, we had three engineers at the table. I posed the question, “Do you ever reach a point in projects when you say to yourself, “We shouldn’t do this,” as opposed to “How can we do this?”

The general consensus: There’s always a way to engineer a solution…if you don’t consider cost.

I wonder if that’s why five previous developers who owned this site didn’t do anything with it. They included Lennar, Kingwood 575, Reddy Partnership/Kingwood, Woodbridge 268, and Concourse Development.

It could be that they were just holding it and hoping to flip it at a higher price. Land generally appreciates faster than the rate of inflation. But it could also be that they investigated the cost of developing it more closely than Perry Homes did.

Below: the sales histories for the two major pieces of land that comprise Woodridge Village.

Source: Montgomery County Appraisal District
Source: Montgomery County Appraisal District

Of all the curiosities associated with this development, the sales history ranks near the top. Concourse held the property for less than a week before selling it to Perry Homes’ subsidiary, Figure Four Development LTD.

Perry Homes even commissioned and received Terracon’s Geotechnical report BEFORE Concourse bought the property. But that’s the subject for another post at another time. What was that about?

The important thing to note for now: When you’re selling dirt, it pays to know what kind of dirt you’re selling.

As Perry Homes Drags Out Court Case, It Could Incur More Liability

The once-proud Perry Homes is now buried under a mountain of law suits alleging that their actions flooded hundreds of homes…not once, but twice…in six months.

As Perry Homes drags these lawsuits out, Kathy Perry Britton could expose her father’s company to enough liability to bring it down. Can you imagine how a jury would react if Elm Grove flooded a third time when so many regulations have been flaunted? And when Perry has made no further attempt at mitigation since early August? I can.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/29/2019 with help from Jeff Miller

842 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 71 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.

Triple PG Sand Mine Agrees to Stop Dredging Until Trial Next June

Triple PG Sand Development, LLC and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton agreed to a temporary injunction on Friday, November 25, 2019. The giant mine between Caney and White Oak Creeks agreed to stop dredging while it finds a way to engineer permanent fixes to its dikes. The dikes have breached repeatedly in numerous places. And the mine has left some breaches open for years.

Triple PG Sand Mine dike breech into White Oak Creek. This is the third time this year.

Triple PG’s process wastewater has poured into the drinking water supply for two million people. The State is suing the mine for more than a million dollars.

Triple PG Trial Set for Next June

The judge has set the trial for June 22, 2020. That should give Triple PG time to engineer a fix. It should also give time a chance to test the repairs.

Terms of Triple PG Injunction

Read the full text of the agreed temporary injunction here.

Under terms of the injunction, this dredge will remain idle until trial in June 22nd of 2020.

Key elements of the agreement:

  • No dredging.
  • No discharges of process wastewater.
  • Defendant must hydraulically isolate industrial waste with berms.
  • Berms shall be constructed to halt influx of water from adjacent creeks.
  • Defendant will hire a professional engineer to ensure berms prevent future discharges during rain events.
  • Defendant agrees to comply with Texas Water Code 26.121 (unauthorized discharges).
  • Make sure the berms work or reclaim the dredge ponds.
  • Provide a proposed plan to TCEQ within 90 days.

Good News for East Fork Residents

All this represents good news for the people on Caney Creek and the East Fork. Recent storms have left both clogged with sand, at least some of which washed out of the mine.

Sand inundated thirty acres of East End Park for the second time in two years and destroyed about a mile of trails. Repair costs could exceed $80,000 for just a portion of the trails. KSA will abandon the Eagle Point trail permanently.

People directly south of the mine in Walden Woods should rejoice. They may finally get the protection from this mine that they should have had all along.

Reportedly, Triple PG is dry-mining frack sand and working down its stockpile to stay in business while it makes repairs.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/28/2019

821 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 70 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.

Giving Thanks for Committed People on Thanksgiving

Tuesday afternoon at 4 p.m., most of America had already physically or mentally checked out for the long Thanksgiving holiday. Those still at work were making shopping lists or travel arrangements. Those still trying to DO work, found it harder and harder. Clients had left for vacation. Telephone calls went unanswered. Suddenly the calculus had shifted. What you could accomplish at work paled in comparison to what you had to do at home.

An Improbable Meeting on the Eve of Thanksgiving

So it surprised me when Kaaren Cambio, Congressman Dan Crenshaw’s field representative, invited me to a meeting near Luce Bayou in Huffman. But I knew many people had flooded there during Imelda, so I went.

When I arrived, I discovered I was at the flooded home of Dr. Tom Kelchner and his wife Laura. Most of the group had already gathered in Tom’s front yard. It turned out this would be a stand-up meeting. There was no place to sit. The Kelchner home was still under repair. Harvey and Imelda hammered them.

Like so many others in different places around Lake Houston, they worried about repetitive flooding. They saw sediment and dead trees building up in the Bayou and worried about backwater effects that could flood them again. As they explored ways to get the trees and sediment removed, they discovered they had fallen into a black hole.

Fallen trees, such as these, can form “beaver dams” that back water up and flood homes.

No one governmental entity, it seemed, had responsibility for the maintenance of Luce Bayou. The Inter-Basin Transfer Project had thrown it into a bureaucratic black hole. Harris County, Flood Control, the Coastal Water Authority and the City of Houston would all have to collaborate to fix the problems on Luce Bayou.

Thanksgiving Miracle #1

Now here’s where we get to the holiday magic part of the story. Rather than let these residents labor indefinitely under the threat of more flooding, Ms. Cambio called representatives of all the groups together. AND THEY ALL SHOWED UP! That was the first miracle.

Left to Right: Laura Kelchner, Dr. Tom Kelchner (Property Owners); Nick Dragon, Property Manager, Tetra Tech; Kaaren Cambio, Field Representative, Office of Congressman Dan Crenshaw & Board Member, San Jacinto River Authority; Layne Yeager, Property Manager, Harris County Flood Control District; Shane Hrobar, Urban Forester,  Harris County Flood Control District; Dr. Reynaldo Guerra, Capital Improvement Program Manager, Harris County Commissioner – Precinct 2; Jeremy Phillips, Senior Director of Infrastructure,  Harris County Commissioner – Precinct 2; Mike Lykes, Chief of Staff,  Harris County Commissioner – Precinct 2; Maria Martin, Property Owner; Anthony Bowie, Deputy Director-Operations, Solid Waste Management Department, City of Houston.

After handshakes and introductions, the meeting moved from the front to the back yard where you could see Luce Bayou and some of the problems. For more than an hour, the group discussed technical and organizational issues. Everyone who needed to be part of the solution was there. And before the meeting ended, all participants knew exactly what they had to do.

In one hour, the problems went from “What’s this meeting about?” to “Let’s do this.”

The ad hoc “team” discusses needs and possible solutions.
Layne Yeager from Harris County Flood Control and resident Maria Martin discuss where the issues are.

Thanksgiving Miracle #2

There was no bureaucratic jealousy. No egos got in the way. No “This is not my problem.” And no “Death by PowerPoint.” That was the second miracle.

It reminded me that thousands of public servants like these join government to make a difference and, in this case, I suspect they will. This Thanksgiving season, I’m thankful for committed people like these.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/21/2019, with thanks to the committed staff at Congressman Dan Crenshaw’s office

821 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 70 since Imelda

What Went Wrong, Part IV: Perry Homes Develops Flood Plain That Wasn’t

Chapter 9 of the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual discusses development in flood plains. Perry Homes and LJA Engineering somehow “overlooked” many of the points in this chapter. A flood plain ran through the property, but FEMA had not yet mapped it. LJA used that as an excuse to claim none existed.

Notice how flood plain mapping stops at county line. Perry Homes has the undeveloped property along and above the county line. Color code: Cross-hatched = floodway; aqua = hundred year flood plain; brown = 500-year flood plain. Source: MoCo Maps

Unfortunately, physical boundaries of flood plains do not observe political boundaries. Taylor Gully bisects this property, if you look at the flood maps, it magically defies flooding on the MoCo side of the county line.

Montgomery County Regulations Affecting Flood Plains

Below are guidelines from the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual that Perry Homes would have had to follow had the property been mapped.

From Section 9.1.1 Floodplain Regulations:

“No fill or encroachment is permitted within the 100-year floodway which will impair its ability to discharge the 100-year peak flow rate except where the effect on flood heights has been fully offset by stream improvements.” [Emphasis added.]

“Placement of fill material within the floodplain requires a permit from the County Drainage Administrator. Appropriate fill compaction data and hydrologic and hydraulic data are required before a permit will be issued.”

From Section 9.1.2 Floodplain Development Guidelines and Procedures

“Construction within the floodway is limited to structures which will not obstruct the 100-year flood flow unless fully offsetting conveyance capacity is provided.”

  • “The existing designated 100-year floodplain and floodway should be plotted on a map of the proposed development.”
  • “The effect of the proposed development and the encroachment into the flood plain area should be incorporated into the hydraulic model and the resulting flood plain determined.”
  • “Careful consideration should be given to providing an accurate modeling of effective flow areas taking into account the expansion and contraction of the flow.”
  • “Once it has been determined that the proposed improvements adequately offset the encroachment, a revised floodway for the stream must be computed and delineated.”
From Section 9.2 Downstream Impact Analysis

“Pursuant to the official policy for Montgomery County, development will not be allowed in a manner which will increase the frequency or severity of flooding in areas that are currently subject to flooding or which will cause areas to flood which were not previously subject to flooding.”

What LJA Said About Perry Homes’ Project

On Page 1-2 of its Drainage Analysis, LJA Engineering explicitly states, “As shown on Exhibit 3, the proposed development is outside the 100-year floodplain.”

Phyllis Mbewe, P.e., CFM, LJA Project Manager – Hydrology and Hydraulics
LJA Exhibit 3 shows the floodplain stopping at the county line. LJA also did its best to make the .2 percent risk area blend into the area of minimal flood risk. This visually minimizes the amount of floodplain bordering MoCo, so the abrupt stoppage at the county line becomes less visible. Source: LJA.

Ms. Mbewe then states in her conclusion, “Based on these findings, the proposed development of the 268-acre tract creates no adverse drainage impacts for events up to and including the 100-year event.” [Emphasis added.]

What Does “No Adverse Impact” Really Mean?

People often twist the definition of terms you think are self evident. Especially in legal, technical, and political contexts.

To me, “No Adverse Impact” should mean, “Downstream people who didn’t flood before won’t flood after development.” That’s what section 9.2 states explicitly.

But when I talked to a flood professional, I got a different answer. To that person, “no adverse impact” meant, “the amount of water flowing across the property did not increase after development.” Much narrower! And seemingly contradictory to the spirit of 9.2.

“Floodplain” Definition Shocked Me

But that person’s definition of floodplain really shocked me. To me, floodplain means “the area adjacent to a stream that fills with floodwater after a very heavy rain.” But the professional told me I was WRONG. To the professional, a floodplain was “an area on a map that FEMA designated a floodplain for insurance purposes.”

In that person’s mind, because FEMA had never mapped the area in question, a floodplain did NOT EXIST. Whether or not the area flooded!

To me, that’s like saying an apple is something you see in a Kroger’s flyer, not something you eat. We’re talking about the difference between a symbol of something and the reality of it.

This discussion proved once again that words and phrases have different meanings that depend on the social context of usage.

In the minimum compliance environment of Montgomery County, LJA and Perry Homes argued that there was no floodplain. They found someone in the county engineer’s office who agreed with them…or was told to agree with them.

FYI, the official FEMA definition says, “Any land area susceptible to being inundated by floodwaters from any source.”

Consequences of Overly Narrow Definition

So did Elm Grove flood because Perry Homes, LJA and Montgomery County did not enforce the floodplain regs in section 9.2 of the Drainage Criteria Manual?

  • They certainly did not offset peak flows with stream improvements.
  • They did not plot the REAL-WORLD floodway and floodplain on a map of the proposed development (see above).
  • LJA did not incorporate encroachment into the floodplain in its hydraulic modeling, because they denied a floodplain existed.
  • Neither did LJA provide “an accurate modeling of effective flow areas taking into account the expansion and contraction of the flow.”
  • Finally, LJA did not compute, revise and delineate the floodway for the stream.

Had they done all these things, perhaps people would have seen that downstream homes that had never flooded were now subject to greater flood risk. But that’s really something for the jury to decide. And it would require FEMA to model the floodplain after the fact.

But like the narrow definition of floodplain, this whole discussion symbolizes a bigger problem.

How Do You Fix a Permissive, Minimum-Compliance Environment?

LJA had an obligation to its client and a higher one to the public that it ignored in my opinion.

Perry Homes could have demanded honest answers from its engineers, not the ones they wanted to hear.

FEMA could label areas like Woodridge Village “UNMAPPED”. This would send a signal to potential home buyers if sellers tell them they’re NOT in a floodplain. That might make developers think twice.

Home buyers need to demand integrity in this process. They need to ask better questions. They need to learn more about flooding.

But at the end of the day, Montgomery County Commissioners must define the kind of future they want. Do they want constant flooding? Or not. Because right now, they’re competing with other areas for new development on the basis of willful blindness and self-serving definitions.

Thirty years down the road, when it’s too late to fix the infrastructure problems they ignore today, MOCO residents will be paying the price. Some, who have flooded repeatedly, might argue they already are.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/26/2019 with help from Jeff Miller

820 Days after Harvey and 69 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.

A Simple Proposal to Fix NFIP, Reduce Elm Grove’s Flood Risk, Save Taxpayer Dollars, and Force Perry Homes to Follow Rules

This morning, I was talking to a friend, John Knoezer, about flooding in Elm Grove when he suddenly blurted out, “You know, the National Flood Insurance people should sue Perry Homes and turn that Woodridge Village into a giant detention pond.”

I knew John had a genius for heating and air conditioning. But I had no idea he also had a genius for politics, too. Boom. There it was. One simple idea to fix multiple problems. The NFIP budget deficit. Flood mitigation. Mushrooming tax bills. And rogue developers who ignore flood regulations at others’ peril. And all it requires is getting NFIP to act like any other insurance company.

Get NFIP to Behave Like a Normal Insurance Company

If the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) sued the people responsible for flooding Elm Grove, North Kingwood Forest and Porter, it could likely recover enough payouts to fix the lack of detention in Woodridge Village, Perry Homes’ troubled development in Montgomery County.

All we’re really talking about is getting NFIP to behave like a normal commercial insurance company. For instance, if someone rear-ends your car, your insurance company sues the person who did it (or their insurance company) to recover the amount of your claim. But not NFIP, according to everyone I’ve talked to.

Elm Grove after the May 7th storm, where block after block, homes were being gutted. Several feet of water from Perry Homes Woodridge Village development inundated homes that had never flooded before.

NFIP currently carries a $20 billion debt to taxpayers. Going after egregious companies that contribute to repeat flooding could reduce that amount.

It might also get those rogue companies to behave more cautiously and responsibly in the future. That could reduce future claims and NFIP’s overhead.

Imagine all the taxpayer dollars that could have been saved if Elm Grove, North Kingwood Forest and Porter had never flooded.

NFIP has already paid out twice this year to hundreds of flooded homeowners. And those homeowners could easily flood again and again. Because Perry Homes is doing NOTHING to reduce future flooding! Nothing incentivizes Perry Homes to reduce flooding.

NFIP has created no deterrent to flooding neighbors. So why would developers care if they do?

Another Benefit: Recovering Money in Court to Fix the Problem

If the repair costs downstream from Perry Home’s Woodridge Village total $100 million and just half the people had NFIP insurance, that’s $50 million that NFIP might recover from Perry Homes in court.

That money could easily buy the Woodridge Village land and construct a massive detention pond that would prevent future flooding.

Such lawsuits, if won, could also help reduce future taxpayer-subsidized flood-mitigation expenditures, most of which the federal government helps underwrite in some manner. But that’s just for starters.

Get Developers to Stop Pushing the Flood-Risk Envelope

Going after flagrant developers might help in another way, too. It might change the economics of pushing the flood-risk envelope. Right now, the economics favor those who push it hardest and furthest.

Developers have no disincentive to keep pushing these envelopes. NFIP bears all the flood risk; developers make all the profit.

Virtually all the incentives in this process foster behavior that worsens flooding.

We’re giving a competitive advantage to developers who worsen flooding. If NFIP were to sue a developer occasionally, it might change that.

Create Incentives to Follow Rules

In this case, had Perry Homes followed the rules and developed Woodridge the way it said it was going to, hundreds of homeowners would likely not have flooded.

Before Perry started developing the property, Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest flood victims had weathered many storms as bad as May 7 and Imelda without flooding. So had people in Montgomery County on the western edge of the development where block after block of homes flooded that had never flooded before. See map of that area below and note the number of homes that flooded during the Harvey, Memorial Day, Tax Day and 1994 floods – ZERO!

According to residents, not one home flooded in this neighborhood west of Woodridge Village flooded before May 7, 2019. However, on May 7th, the vast majority of homes did flood…after Woodridge Village contractors altered the drainage going out of the subdivision. Flood data from Montgomery County. Flood Story Map hosted by ESRI.

So far, we’ve found numerous instances where Perry Homes did NOT follow Montgomery County or State of Texas regulations. People downstream paid the price.

More than 200 homes in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest flooded in May and more than 300 again in September.

For details, see installments to date in these “What Went Wrong” posts:

  • Part I – Overview
  • Part II – Lack of Erosion and Sediment Controls
  • Part III – The Detention Pond Catastrophe

If NFIP successfully sued the developer, the precedent might encourage all developers everywhere to follow the rules instead of bending them.

Save Tax Dollars

The precedent of NFIP suing a developer might also deter other developers in the future from pushing flood-prone projects or developing them in ways that contribute to flooding. So it could further reduce NFIP payouts and overhead. That could save even more dollars for this taxpayer subsidized program.

Bypass County Commissioners Who Refuse to Enforce Their Own Regulations

Another benefit of John’s brilliant suggestion: it eliminates a political battle with Montgomery County Judges and Commissioners – which may be unwindable for people in another county. Just get NFIP to make an example of a high-profile developer, such as Perry Homes. That might change some developers’ behavior who operate under the protective cover of local politicians. Those politicians compete for development dollars by not enforcing their own regulations. And that’s a huge part of the problem. Especially when a county line divides the perpetrators and victims as it does in this case.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/26/2019, with inspiration from John Knoezer

819 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 68 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.

HCFCD Buying Out Low-Lying Homes In Northshire Near Deerbrook Mall; Humble Considering Pocket Park

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) reports that it is buying out a handful of low-lying homes on Fieldtree Drive in Northshire where the City of Humble could soon build a pocket park. The area flooded badly during Harvey. Northshire lies between Deerbrook Mall and the San Jacinto River west of the hotels that line US59.

A drive down Fieldtree reveals several homes at the bottom of the hill that have already been demolished and others that look abandoned.

Area under discussion on 8.30.17 after peak of Hurricane Harvey.

HCFCD Buyouts in Progress

Several lots that head down the hill on Fieldtree have been cleared.
Several others appear as though owners have abandoned them and would make good candidates for buyouts.

Impact of Flooded and Abandoned Homes on Tax Base

For the most part, modest but well-maintained homes line Fieldtree. The street slopes sharply and all of the vacant or abandoned lots lie at or near the bottom of a hill near Glencreek Drive.

Harris County Appraisal District shows that home market values took a beating in this neighborhood after Harvey. Appraisals for homes at the top of the hill went down about 15%. The farther down the hill you went, the farther down appraisals went – from 20% to 30% or more. The house above even lost a whopping 65% of its market value.

Currently, the abandoned homes seem to be dragging down values of homes that didn’t flood on higher ground. However…

Pocket Park Could Help Reverse Downward Trend

According to Humble City Manager Jason Stuebe, Humble is considering building a pocket park once buyouts in this area are complete.

A pocket park could make a nice residential amenity that helps home values in the neighborhood bounce back. Proximity to parks can help improve home values more than 20% according to a Texas A&M survey of more than 30 different studies. The increase in home values can even pay for the park according to the A&M study. The park could even be an amenity that helps attract guests to hotels across the street.

This could be a win-win for everyone involved.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/25/2019

818 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Lake Conroe Lowering Benefits MoCo Residents, Too; More Than 1100 Flooded on West Fork During Harvey

Lake Conroe residents organizing opposition to the SJRA’s lake lowering policy have found it easy to “blame” Kingwood for their inconvenience. Kingwood is an affluent community in another county. But the Lake Conroe people ignore more than 1100 homes between Kingwood and Lake Conroe in Montgomery County (MoCo) that also flooded.

The lake lowering reduces downstream flood risk by creating extra capacity within the lake during months with the heaviest rainfall. It is a temporary measure until flood mitigation measures can be completed that help protect the Lake Houston Area.

ESRI GIS Database Shows Counts of Damaged MoCo Homes

ESRI operates a Montgomery County GIS (geographic information system) database called the Harvey Story Map. (Unfortunately, this may not work with all versions of Safari. Try Chrome if you have trouble.) Clicking on Section 12 shows the location of homes that flooded during Harvey in MoCo.

As you to zoom, you can see counts of flooded structures within the visible area. For instance, around Lake Conroe, 292 homes flooded during Harvey. The map below shows the location of those homes.

292 homes flooded on Lake Conroe during Harvey. Lake lowering gives them an extra buffer against flooding.

If you continue to zoom in, you can even see how individual houses fared in other floods as well.

Below are six screen captures that give you a sampling of what you will find. This first area is just below the Lake Conroe dam where 30 homes flooded during Harvey.

Below is River Plantation, just downstream from I-45. Put your water wings on, Bucko! The count here: 527.

Here are four more subdivisions farther downstream.

The West Fork subdivisions shown above had 1159 flooded structures during Harvey. But more homes flooded than in these six images. For starters, there were the 298 homes around Lake Conroe itself.

So, to the 4,484 homes that flooded in Kingwood, Humble and Atascocita on the West Fork, add these and more.

I’m not sure how many people have waterfront lots on Lake Conroe, but is their boating convenience really worth risking the possibility of flooding even a subset of these homes again?

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/24/2019

817 Days after Hurricane Harvey

FAQs About Lowering Lake Conroe to Reduce Downstream Flood Risk

At its February 2020 board meeting, the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) Board of Directors will consider NOT lowering Lake Conroe during the spring and fall rainy seasons. Lake Conroe residents have mobilized to protest the lowering which they see as a costly inconvenience. They have started spreading disinformation about the policy. The SJRA Board has reportedly already received more than a hundred letters protesting the policy.

Reason for Lowering and Current Status

The strategy of lowering Lake Conroe on a seasonal basis reduces the risk of flooding downstream residents by increasing the capacity of Lake Conroe to store water. The SJRA Board of Directors and City of Houston review the strategy annually. Both entities own water rights in Lake Conroe.

The gates at Lake Conroe can release water at up too 150,000 CFS but are currently releasing 0 CFS. Lake lowering ended October 1st.

This year’s seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe ended October 1st. However, as of this morning, the lake level is down to 198.77′ MSL (mean feet above sea level). That’s 2-3 inches below the target level for the fall lowering. The lower level is due to evaporation and low rainfall; the SJRA stopped releasing water on October 1.

After Hurricane Harvey, the State of Texas called on the SJRA Board of Directors and the City of Houston to participate in regional strategies to reduce flooding. The temporary lowering of Lake Conroe has reduced  releases from Lake Conroe during storms. SJRA and downstream communities realize and understand the inconvenience that the strategy can create around Lake Conroe. We ask for understanding for the duration of this temporary mitigation strategy.

Seasonal Lake-Lowering FAQs

Who Decides?

The City of Houston and the SJRA collaborate on the decision to temporarily lower Lake Conroe for flood mitigation because it effects the water supply of both entities.

How Long Will It Continue?

Seasonal lake lowering is a temporary flood mitigation initiative to increase the capacity of Lake Conroe to catch rainfall and runoff while long-term and short-term flood mitigation strategies are implemented downstream.

The motion made by the SJRA Board states that the intent of the proposal is to provide “a near-term, temporary flood mitigation benefit while more permanent mitigation strategies, such as dredging of the lower West Fork, are completed.” 

When Does It Happen?

Seasonal lake lowering occurs twice annually – first in April/May and second in August/September.

How Much is It Lowered and for How Long?

In the spring, releases begin on April 1st. SJRA gradually reduces the level of Lake Conroe to 200’ mean feet above sea level (msl)—one foot below the normal Lake Conroe pool level of 201’ msl. Starting on June 1st, SJRA recaptures flows to restore normal lake elevation to 201’ msl. 

In the fall, releases begin on August 1st. SJRA gradually reduces the level of Lake Conroe with a goal of reaching 200’ msl by August 15th. After August 15th, gradual lowering continues with a goal of reaching (and maintaining) 199’ msl—two feet below normal pool—by August 31st. Starting October 1st, SJRA begins to capture flows to restore normal lake elevation to 201’ msl.

What If The Lake Is Already Down?

If the lake level has already dropped to the target elevation due to evaporation, no releases are made.

What if It Rains While the Lake is Already Lowered?

If a storm enters the forecast while seasonal releases are being made to lower the lake level, releases are stopped and the river is allowed to drain out until rainfall is out of the forecast.

Is There Science Behind This Policy?

Two engineering reports by Frees & Nichols from early 2018 show the benefits in terms of flood mitigation and the potential negative impacts to water supply. These reports as well as additional information about seasonal lowering can be found at: https://www.sjra.net/floodmanagement/.

Has it worked? Is there real value in terms of flood mitigation?

Yes. Looking at recent rainfall events, seasonal lowering resulted in both lower peak lake levels during storms and lower release rates from the dam.

For example, the spring 2019 seasonal lowering created an additional one foot of storage space to capture rainfall in early May 2019 when storms hit the Conroe and Lake Houston areas. Lake Conroe caught significant rainfall and runoff during the storms causing the lake to rise more than a foot. If Lake Conroe had entered this event at or near full, the peak release rate would have been higher thereby increasing the peak flow in the West Fork of the San Jacinto River. 

Is There a Benefit to Lake Conroe?

Seasonal lowering also reduces the peak Lake Conroe level during storms, which reduces negative impacts around the lake such as damage to docks and other personal property. During Harvey, several hundred homes around Lake Conroe flooded.

Data for the May event, and for all releases from the dam, including those during seasonal lowering periods, can be monitored by visiting SJRA’s home page at www.sjra.net. Click on the “Lake Operations and Rainfall Dashboard.”

What is the cost of the release?

Lake Conroe was built as a water supply reservoir in the 1970s through a partnership between SJRA and the City of Houston. Two thirds of the water in Lake Conroe belongs to the City of Houston and one third to SJRA. The City of Houston can call for the release of its water at any time, and water supply reservoirs are built to fluctuate as demands or operational needs dictate. 

Releases such as those made for dam repairs and seasonal lowering are not charged to any particular customer, therefore it is not possible to assign a value to the water released. In addition, temporary, non-customer releases do not reduce long-term water supplies, therefore they are not considered lost revenue. 

To be considered as lost revenue, releases would have to happen at a time when the SJRA could not meet demand with water from Lake Conroe. But that has not happened.

And most important, if the water supply in Lake Conroe were ever threatened, say from drought, the SJRA would not be releasing water anyway. The lake level would already be far below the target level, making a release unnecessary.

Is This a Permanent Program?

No. Seasonal lowering is a temporary flood mitigation strategy that must be reconsidered each year by the City of Houston and the SJRA Board of Directors while more permanent mitigation strategies, such as dredging of the lower West Fork, are completed. 

How Do I Make my Opinion Known to the Board?

The SJRA Board of Directors welcomes input regarding the seasonal lake lowering strategy. If you would like to contact the Board please visit: https://www.sjra.net/about/board/ or email floodmanagementdivision@sjra.net. 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/23/2019

816 Days since Hurricane Harvey