Lake Conroe Association Fighting Seasonal Lowering in Advance of SJRA Vote to Reconsider Policy

Efforts have started already to lobby against the seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe again next year. They seem to be organized and inspired by the Lake Conroe Association again. I understand that the lowering inconveniences some Lake Conroe residents, especially boaters who live in areas like Grand Harbor where the water depth is shallow to start with. However, the inconvenience pales in comparison to the damages suffered in the Lake Houston Area. The lowering helps provide a buffer against downstream flooding during the wettest months of the year. The SJRA will vote on whether to extend the lowering policy at its February board meeting.

A Campaign of Misinformation

The Lake Conroe Association and its proxies are deliberately spreading falsehoods to rile up people against the lowering. The same misinformation contained in the Lake Conroe Association presentation on their news page, is repeated in the website Stop Draining Lake Conroe (https://www.stopdraininglakeconroe.com) and the Grand Harbor YouTube video below.

For the Record…

StopDrainingLakeConroe.com states that:

Lake Houston dredging is complete and completely out of funding. Four fifths of the mouth bar on the West Fork remains in place. Harris County Flood Control has allocated $10 million to help dredge it. See item CI-61. The State of Texas allocated $30 million in SB500. Plans for that project should be announced next week according to State Representative Dan Huberty. The City of Houston has also filed for another FEMA Grant for additional dredging.

Lake Conroe homes are being damaged by the lake lowering. Really? How does that work? Is it the same as 250,000 CFS coming through your living room? That’s what happened to 81 townhomes in Forest Cove. See below.

One of 81 empty townhomes on the West Fork in Forest Cove after the Lake Conroe release. Note the bulk-heading. Harris County Flood Control demolished this building earlier this month. Many others remain, affecting property values around them.

Lake lowering is damaging bulk-heading around Lake Conroe. How does that work? Does evaporation destroy the bulk-heading? See the bulk-heading along the West Fork above.

There is no science to support the original action by the board, or for continuing this action plan. See these engineering reports by Frees & Nichols.

Downstream residents are trying to turn this into a permanent plan. Please tell me who. I’m not aware of any organized effort. The plan has always been to reconsider the lowering every year until flood mitigation measures such as dredging were complete.

SJRA is throwing away $5.33 million of water revenue. It would only be throwing away the revenue if it could sell the water. But there’s no unfilled demand due to water shortages in the lake. And the water replenishes itself as rain falls from the sky.

Water level of Lake Conroe is at 198. That’s an exaggeration to rile up the people in Grand Harbor, who normally only have four feet of water. The lake level is normally at 201′ and currently at 198.82′. That’s 198 and ten inches. So those Grand Harbor people have half their normal water, not one quarter. Current release rate is 0.

Lake Conroe only provided 15% of the water that flooded Kingwood. Lake Conroe only affects the West Fork, but the statistic includes the East Fork. During Harvey, West Fork flooding caused the vast majority of the damage. The Lake Conroe release comprised ONE-THIRD of the water coming down the West Fork through the highly populated Humble/Kingwood corridor where virtually 100% of the businesses are located. Lake Conroe released 80,000 CFS of the 240,00 CFS coming down the West Fork. So the 15% statistic is extremely misleading.

Video Makes Many of Same False Claims And Some More

The video includes many of the same false claims and a few new ones. Let me focus on the new ones.

The video states or implies that:

Describing the lowering as Seasonal rather than Temporary implies we are trying to make it Permanent. I’m not sure how you get from either of those words to “permanent.” This is a logical fallacy. It’s a falsehood designed to inspire fear.

Recent events show that Lake Conroe is being unfairly blamed for downstream flooding. Kingwood still flooded during Imelda “even though we didn’t release anything” during Imelda. Please! The vast majority of all Kingwood flooding during Imelda was street flooding or related to Woodridge Village. Some homes did flood on the East Fork, but I can’t believe any of those residents would blame it on a fictional release from Lake Conroe that wasn’t coming down the West Fork.

There was an “organized effort” in Kingwood to send an unspecified number of “letters” to the SJRA board thanking them for not releasing during Imelda. So what is it? Are we allegedly blaming you for flooding us during Imelda or thanking you for not flooding us? Show me the letters. I’m not aware of any such organized effort. See the comment above.

Kingwood is trying to increase the lowering to 3 feet and Kingwood is winning that fight by a large margin. I’m aware of no effort to increase the lowering and no fight that we’re winning by a large margin.

Wading birds that require shallow areas are being destroyed. Duh! They’re saying birds need shallow water, but they want to make the lake deeper. So if water depth had something to do with destroying birds, who would be destroying them?

Boating Vs. Flooding

Let’s face it. The big reason Lake Conroe residents don’t want to see their lake lowered is that it makes boating more difficult. No argument there.

But the big reason Lake Houston area residents want more dredging is not boating. It’s to reduce flood risk. The mouth bar forms a sediment dam behind the dam that reduces the conveyance of the river through the heavily populated Humble/Kingwood corridor. And until it’s dredged, we need the help of Lake Conroe residents. The lake lowering strategy gives us the only effective way to mitigate flooding for now.

After the Army Corps removed 500,000 cubic yards of sediment from the West Fork mouth bar, Imelda promptly redeposited much of it. Here’s what it looked like after Imelda.

700 yards south of the mouth bar, RD Kissling, a kayaker, photographed himself in 1 foot of water AFTER the Corps finished dredging and after Imelda.

Compare These West Fork Damages

Tens of thousands living north of the West Fork who used I-69 for commuting experienced massive traffic jams every day for 11 months while TxDoT reconstructed the southbound lanes after Harvey. Photo taken 6/19/2018.

We are certainly sensitive to Lake Conroe lifestyle considerations. But during Harvey, Lake Houston Area damages on the West Fork alone included:

Gear Up for a Fight

More on this in future posts. Lake Houston Area residents need to gear up to fight the falsehoods and ensure that Lake Conroe seasonal lowering policy remains in place for another year.

Harvey knocked out the Union Pacific Railroad bridge over the San Jacinto River near I-69 and disrupted rail traffic for months. Photo taken 9/14/2017.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/22/2019

815 Days since Hurricane Harvey

What Went Wrong, Part III: Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village Detention Pond Catastrophe

Note: This is the third in a five part series about What Went Wrong in Woodridge Village that may have contributed to flooding in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest. It focuses on Detention Ponds.

Section 7 of the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual cautions, “The introduction of impervious cover and improved runoff conveyance serves in many cases to increase flood peaks quite dramatically over those for existing conditions.” And that’s exactly what happened in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest in May and September of this year. Two subdivisions that had never flooded before were inundated with several feet of water from Woodridge Village.

Perry Homes failed to observe numerous regulations in the Drainage Criteria Manual including provisions for:

  • Erosion control measures such as pond linings, revegetation, backslope swales
  • Maintenance roads
  • Increases in downstream flooding
  • Geotechnical reports for detention ponds
  • Drainage of detention ponds

Critically, they also failed to construct all the detention ponds they promised.

Less than a Quarter of Detention Ponds Built

When listing factors that contributed to the flooding, the absence of several promised detention ponds should rank near the top.

  • Before the May flood, only one of five detention ponds (S1) was substantially complete and it provided only 7% of the promised detention capacity.
  • Before the September flood, contractors substantially completed a second detention pond (S2) that added another 16% of promised detention capacity.
  • Since then, no work has been done on additional excavation to protect against flooding.
While clearcutting ALL of the land, Perry Homes installed only PART of the detention.

According to LJA Engineering, Perry Homes was supposed to develop the project in two phases and clearcut only 30 acres in the northern section during Phase 1. However, something changed. Instead, Perry Homes clearcut the entire northern section. And they still haven’t excavated any of the three detention ponds there.

By May 2019, only S1 was substantially complete. By September, S2 was also substantially complete, but overwhelmed.

Had Perry Homes installed all the detention that it promised, the site should have detained a foot of rainfall. But it didn’t. When Imelda came along, it was like trying to pour 100 gallons of water into a 23 gallon jug. Water spilled out of the development into adjacent streets and homes.

Erosion Control Measures Missing for Detention Ponds

Section 7.2.7 of the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual details Erosion Control Measures for Detention Facilities. It states:

“The erosion potential for a detention basin is similar to that of an open channel. For this reason the same types of erosion protection are necessary, including the use of backslope swales and drainage systems (as outlined In SECTION 6), proper revegetation and pond surface lining where necessary. Proper protection must especially be provided at pipe outfalls into the facility, pond outlet structures and overflow spillways where excessive turbulence and velocities will cause erosion.” (See page page 123 of pdf, numbered 113 in doc.)

Revegetation?
Not much grass in S1 (right of the road) or the area that drains into it. All aerial photos below taken on 11/4/2019.
Not much grass on the slopes of S2 either, although Perry Homes did make an ineffective attempt to hydromulch the south (right) border.
No Protection for Overflow Spillway
Perry Homes quality! This spillway from Taylor Gully (right) was supposed to have a grass lining, but still does not. Picture taken 11/4/2019. As of 11/21/19 work still had not started on the lining. Perry Homes has done virtually no work on this pond for three months. However, they did start lining the channel on the right today.
Backslope Interceptor Swales?
The northern edge of the S2 pond has no backslope interceptor swale. As a consequence, water from Taylor Gully at the top of this frame flows over the edge of the pond and erodes it. This may not be a sustainable solution. In the long run, the Gully could erode its way into the pond from the north (top of the frame).

Maintenance Road Missing at Critical Point

Section 7.2.8 talks about Maintenance of Detention Facilities. It states, “A 30-foot wide access and maintenance easement shall be provided around the entire detention pond.” The most critical place in the entire chain of detention ponds, the final outflow culvert into Taylor Gully, has no room for a maintenance road. That’s because when they installed the required backslope interceptor swale, the only place left for it was the maintenance road. That’s planning for you!

S2 has no maintenance easement or road at final outfall into Taylor Gully. The backslope interceptor swale takes up that space.

No Increase in Downstream Flood Levels Allowed

Section 7.3 talks about DETENTION DESIGN PROCEDURES. It clearly lays out the design goal when it says…

No increase in downstream flow rates or flood levels will be allowed.

Further down in this section, the regulations state: “The maximum 100-year water surface elevation in all detention facilities shall be a minimum of 1 foot below the minimum top of bank elevation of the basin.”

Judging from this video shot by Edy and Ricki Cogdill during the May 7th storm, I would say Perry Homes didn’t meet that objective. It reminds me of that slime show on Nickelodeon, but in this case, the innocent bystanders got slimed.

No Geotechnical Report for Groundwater Level at Pond Sites

Section 7.5 discusses GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS. It says, “Before initiating final design of a detention pond, a detailed soils investigation by a geotechnical engineer should be undertaken.” Regulations state that the ground water investigation must be “at the proposed site.” Montgomery County has no record of such an investigation or report.

A company called Terracon prepared a Preliminary Geotechnical Report for Perry that addressed issues pertaining to utilities, road pavement and residential foundations. But it makes no mention of detention ponds.

The company took four widely spaced borings around the perimeter of the site that managed to miss all the detention pond locations. Significantly, they missed all the wetlands, too.

Page 17 of Terracon Report. Red lines added to improve visibility of locations.

MoCo Claims It Has No Further Geotechnical Reports

If Perry Homes did additional investigations into ground water on this site, Montgomery County says it doesn’t have them.

If no further investigations were conducted, this could be a fatal flaw affecting the economics of the entire development. Note the presence of standing water in the photo below.

S2 Pond (left), Taylor Gully (center), and area where N3 pond will go (right) all have standing water that will reduce their rated capacity.

The presence of standing water reduces the rated capacity of detention ponds and channels. Only the area above the standing water counts as capacity. Regulations say that these ponds should drain completely (see below).

Thus, S2 likely has lost a third of its designed capacity. N3, when eventually built, could fare worse. Note how close the water is to the surface in the small pond on the right.

If you can’t go deep to get your detention pond capacity, you have to go wide. And that will mean fewer homesites than the 896 they planned. This site might not even make economic sense for building homes.

Problems with Homes Built Over Wetlands

The presence of wetlands in the northern section, which the Terracon report never mentions, would also significantly reduce the site’s suitability for building homes.

This article describes the problems with homes built on wetlands. The title: “Caution: Building in a Wetland Can Be Hazardous to Your House.” A biologist for the US Fish and Wildlife service who investigated filled wetlands in Pennsylvania warned: “Build your house in a wetland, and you’ve got a hobby for the rest of your life. You will be fighting that water forever.” He discusses cracked foundations and also warns, “When wetlands are filled, the water that made them wet has to go somewhere. … the water likely is leaking into formerly dry homes of downstream property owners.”

I’m sure Perry Homes would divulge the presence of former wetlands to the future buyers of homes on this site. It’s the only ethical thing to do and Kathy Perry Britton, CEO, has standards to maintain.

Incomplete Drainage of Detention Ponds

Section 7.6 of the Drainage Criteria Manual addresses GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DETENTION POND CONSTRUCTION. It states:
“A pilot channel shall be provided in detention facilities to insure that proper and complete drainage of the storage facility will occur.” (Emphasis added.)

Complete drainage will likely never occur in S2 and N3 because of the high water table.

To excavate S2 to the required design depth, contractors had to continuously pump water out of it as they worked. It still retains water to this day.

Photo by Jeff Miller on June 2, three days after contractors started digging to the final depth. No surface linings were ever added to this portion of the pond per Section 7.2.7 of the MoCo Drainage Criteria Manual.
Photo taken on June 3 shows contractors were pumping water out of pond as they continued excavating.

If Perry Homes continues its Woodridge Village venture using its current plans, chances are, the company will never provide enough detention capacity for real world conditions. When modeling, their engineers did NOT use the current Atlas-14 rainfall statistics from NOAA.

The new statistics would require 40% more capacity to ensure downstream safety.

Where Does Perry Homes Go from here?

After ignoring regulations, hundreds of homes flooded. And they will flood again. Owning this site is like hanging a millstone around one’s neck. It could drown the entire company in perpetual litigation and debt.

Future Posts in this series will look at:

  • Contradictions in Perry Homes’ Plans
  • The Dirt on Perry Homes’ Soil Test
  • The Floodplain that Wasn’t

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/21/2019 with help from Jeff Miller

814 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 63 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 Moment of Tranquil Splendor at Otter Point

Dr. Charlie Campbell, a master of functional medicine, jogs 22 miles a week in East End Park. He tries to time his jogs so that he arrives at Otter Point every morning for moments like this.

Sunrise at Otter Point by Dr. Charles Campbell. Used with permission.

If that won’t make you feel good, you’re a spiritual crustacean.

Years ago, I remember meeting a man meditating at Otter Point almost every day. I asked him what he found in it. He told me his story. The man was on chemo, fighting cancer. He said that the natural beauty gave him sustenance and the will to keep on fighting.

East End Park does that for many people in many different ways. Especially Otter Point. Whether you’re a cancer survivor or a flood survivor. If you’re not familiar with the park and the place, you should be. They are rare ecological gems inside the fourth largest city in the country. And something worth fighting FOR.

This is why we live here.

Trail repairs from Imelda are underway now and should be complete soon.

As a postscript to this story, Dr. Campbell sent me another picture taken this morning.

Photo by Dr. Charles Campbell, used with permission.

If you want to get your kids interested in physics, ask them why sunrises and sunsets are red. Here’s the answer.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/21/2019, with thanks to Dr. Campbell and Mother Nature

814 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 63 since Imelda

What Went Wrong, Part II: Lack of Erosion and Sediment Control Worsen Elm Grove Flooding

On May 7th and September 19th, sediment-laden runoff from Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village development in Montgomery County flooded the streets and homes of Elm Grove Village and North Kingwood Forest. On September 26, the City of Houston wrote a cease and desist letter to Perry Homes, its subsidiaries and contractors. The letter alleged that runoff damaged the City’s sewer system and residents’ homes. It demanded that Perry Homes’ proxies stop sending sediment into the City.

After Imelda, Abel Versa had to grab his car to avoid slipping in ankle-deep sediment on Village Springs. The sediment came from Woodridge Village right behind him.

Sediment Control Measures Not Followed in Subdivision Rules and Regs

If Perry Homes and its contractors had followed all the construction regulations affecting drainage, the flooding of Elm Grove would not have happened and the letter would not have been necessary. So what went wrong? I previously reviewed the sediment control measures in the Montgomery County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Perry Homes received seven strikes. Among the worst apparent violations:

  • They clearcut 268 acres when the rules say no more than 10.
  • They are supposed to plant temporary vegetation but haven’t.
  • They were supposed to make provisions for increased runoff during construction, but didn’t.

In fact, they have substantially completed only 23% of the permanent detention ponds for the whole subdivision despite clearcutting all 268 acres.

The southern section of Woodridge Village has been cleared, filled and graded since last summer. Grass could have reduced the runoff during Imelda. Photo taken on 11/4/2019.
The northern section has also been mostly cleared for months, though workers are still removing piles of dead trees. This shows the area where they filled wetlands. Because no detention exist for the northern section, runoff from 188 acres is supposed to funnel through a 3′ pipe. That’s not working well in heavy rains. You can see how much loose sediment is exposed to floodwaters.

More Regulations in Drainage Criteria Manual Not Followed

Perry Homes also overlooked many provisions in the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual. Twenty-two of the 175 pages also discuss erosion and sediment control (see Section 6 starting on page 85). Among the more serious omissions:

Channel Slopes Severely Eroding

Section 6.2.1 on Grass Establishment states that: “A good grass cover must be established on all areas within the right-of-way (except the channel bottom) disturbed by channel improvements or by any type of construction. An adequate grass stand on the banks helps stabilize the channel and minimize erosion caused by overbank flow and high velocities in the channel. Establishing a good grass cover requires preparing the seedbed, seeding properly. keeping the seed in place, fertilizing, and watering regularly.

The LJA Engineering report never mentions erosion or sediment control by those words. However, it does mention grass-lined and concrete-lined channels and spillways. Only one problem. The channels are not grass lined and most of the areas designated for concrete lining have yet to be lined.

The banks of detention ponds should be lined with grass. They are not. As a result, sediment is slumping to the bottom of the ponds where it is carried downstream by floodwaters.
This closeup shows how severe the erosion is.

Channel Turns Not Protected

Section 6.2.3 on Minimum Erosion Protection Requirements for Bends specifies that bends in drainage ditches must be protected from erosion by grass, rip-rap, or concrete. The material depends on the radius of the curve, the type of soil, average water velocity and maximum water velocity.

Despite funneling 188 acres of sheet flow into Taylor Gulley, which narrows down into a 3-foot pipe, Perry Homes has done little to increase the channel capacity or detention for that area. Worse, the channel design which may have been adequate for forested wetlands, can no longer handle high volume overland sheet flow.

The most obvious needs are on the eastern side of the development. There, Taylor Gully makes a 120-degree turn, then two quick 90 degree turns and two 45-degree turns, all within two hundred yards. Getting dizzy? The floodwater turns 390 degrees in this area!

At each turn the banks take a beating. The full force of the floodwater slams against the far bank and erodes it.

Photo taken on 11/4/2019 along eastern boundary of the southern section of Woodridge Village. That’s North Kingwood Forest on the right and Elm Grove on the bottom. Little wonder that this was the area hardest hit by flooding in May and September.
Where the channel on the right narrows down into the black 3-foot pipe, contractors built an overflow channel into the detention pond on the left but still have not lined it with concrete. Note the severe erosion. Also note the erosion and sediment coming into the pond on the left just below the flow-constricting device in Taylor Gully. Clearly, there isn’t enough channel capacity to handle the volume of water. Photo taken on 11/4/2019, looking north.

Straight Drop Spillway Not Installed

Section 6.2.5.3 states that a straight-drop spillway should be installed in drainage channels to adjust channel gradients which are too steep for design conditions. 

LJA specifies one between where detention pond N3 will be and the 120-degree turn shown above. However, neither the detention pond, nor the spillway have yet been installed. So water from the north comes barreling down the ditch on the right unchecked. The high velocity increases erosion. Here’s what it looked like after May 7th.

Same area shown above but from ground level and looking south toward Elm Grove. Rain did a lot of the excavating for Perry Homes. But unfortunately, the sediment wound up in flood victims’ homes and the City storm drains.

Yesterday I posted about how Perry Homes was supposed to cut only 30 acres of trees on the northern section but cut 188. Still to come in this “What Went Wrong” Series:

  • More Things Perry Homes Didn’t Do in the Montgomery County Drainage Manual
  • Contradictions in Perry Homes’ Plans
  • The Dirt on Perry Homes’ Soil Test
  • The Floodplain that Wasn’t

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/20/2019 with help from Jeff Miller

813 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 62 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.

What Went Wrong: First in a Five Part Series about Woodridge Village and Elm Grove Flooding

On May 7th and September 19th, floodwater poured out of the 268 clearcut acres of the Woodridge Village development in Montgomery County. It poured into the streets and homes of people who lived in Kingwood’s Elm Grove Village and North Kingwood Forest. That should not have happened if everything had gone according to plan and by the book. This is the first in a series about what went wrong.

Clearcutting 188 Acres Instead of 30

Let’s start with paragraph 2 of the Drainage Impact Analysis letter from LJA Engineering to the Montgomery County Engineering Department.

In it, LJA promised that PHASE 1 would only include 30 acres on the northern part of the site. But contractors clearcut the ENTIRE northern section instead. That was approximately 188 acres. Without installing any detention ponds there.

The 30-acre mention is buried in the middle of a long paragraph. Frankly I read it several times and never snapped to its significance until Jeff Miller, an Elm Grove activist, rubbed my nose in it.

And, by the way, the 30 acres should have had 12.1 acre feet of detention, according to the plan. (See bottom of page 2 of the letter.) That equals the triangular area in the bottom left of the northern section. But in the May flood, there was nothing there to detain the water. That triangle is actually owned by Montgomery County and was excavated in 2006. One flood expert suggested that the area was already counted as detention for some other area, so it really shouldn’t count for Woodridge.

Of the three Woodridge sections outlined below, Phase One was supposed to include 58 acres in the southern (middle) section and 30 in the northern.
The northern section dwarfs the others.

Gone: Everything that Could Have Slowed Runoff

Gone were the trees, underbrush and wetlands to soak up and slow down runoff. Contractors cleared six times more than LJA Engineering planned. That was a game changer. Plus those 188 clearcut acres had the steepest grade on the property. And the drainage all funneled toward the homes that flooded. Oops! Or should I say, “Duh”?

Map of original drainage on site shows which way water funneled.

It might have been a good plan. But you have to follow the plan for it to work.

Act of God or Act of Man?

Perry Homes claimed the flooding was an Act of God. Funny, the word “bulldozer” never appears once in the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, Torah, or Bhagavad Gita.

Next in “What Went Wrong” Series

Next up in this series:

  • Contradictions in Perry Homes Plans
  • Things Perry Homes Didn’t Do in the Montgomery County Drainage Manual
  • The Dirt on Perry Homes’ Soil Test
  • The Floodplain that Wasn’t

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/19/2019, with thanks to Jeff Miller

812 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 61 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.

KSA Parks Committee Votes to Dredge River Grove Park Boat Ramp and Boardwalk

At its November meeting, the Kingwood Service Association (KSA) Parks Committee voted to dredge the boardwalk and boat ramp areas of River Grove Park. The work, when done, will finally restore the park to full function.

Harvey Nearly Destroyed Park

Hurricane Harvey nearly destroyed River Grove Park. Thanks to KSA, the park has made a remarkable comeback. Harvey deposited sand five feet high in the parking lot. It left a wall of sand 12 feet high and a quarter mile long that blocked the drainage ditch that runs through the park and empties the western third of Kingwood. In the process, it also blocked the park’s boat ramp, only one on the West Fork. Finally, the storm deposited sand in the lagoon by the boardwalk and across the southern end of the soccer fields.

By the time the park is fully restored, repairs will have taken more than two and a half years.

Boat Ramp After Harvey

The Army Corps spent weeks opening up the drainage ditch that contains the boat ramp. Contractors dredged a 250-foot wide opening in the bar. Here’s how that area looked then and now from a satellite and helicopter.

Google Earth image from October 2017 shows the massive sand bar blocking the boat ramp and drainage ditch that empties the western third of Kingwood.
How the sandbar looked from a helicopter two weeks after Harvey.

Sand Bar After Dredging

Image from 2/2019.
Boats can now get through the bar, but the area immediately in front of the boat ramp is still filled with sediment. Photo taken October 2, 2019.

Even though boats can get by the sand bar now, they can’t get in and out of the water. Sediment remains around the ramp area and must be dredged. The Corps dredge was too big to maneuver in the tight space around the dock.

The Corps asked KSA not to open its boat docks in the name of safety while dredgers were still working the West Fork. Now, with dredging done and all the dredge pipe removed, KSA can work on reopening the dock.

Lagoon Also Filled with Sediment

The lagoon opposite the boardwalk filled with sediment during Harvey, too. Here’s what it looked like two weeks after Harvey.

The lagoon next to the boardwalk totally filled in with sand deposited by Hurricane Harvey. Photo also taken two weeks after Harvey.

Since then, vegetation has grown on the sand.

River Grove boardwalk area two years later.

Timetable for Dredging

KSA is now applying for a permit to remove the sediment from both the boat dock and boardwalk areas. KSA will use mechanical rather than hydraulic dredges.

The Association has already located a placement area for the spoils far from the river and any flood plain.

If permitted, removal of the sediment around the dock and boardwalk would begin in January.

Removal should take 6-8 weeks. Sediment will be placed on the parking lot to drain and dry. Then it will be trucked to the placement area in Humble.

The park could be fully functional again as early as March next year.

Public Soccer Fields Now Available

While working to prepare this project, KSA also restored the soccer fields which had been covered with sand several feet thick. All fields are now playable and KSA has designated two as public fields.

All in all, it’s been a remarkable comeback for a park that Harvey all but destroyed.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/19/2019, with grateful thanks to Dee Price and KSA

812 Days since Hurricane Harvey

TCEQ Goes After Texas Concrete Mine With Four Breached Dikes, Unstabilized Soil and Lapsed Permit

In October, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) issued a notice of enforcement (NOE) to a Texas Concrete Plum Grove sand mine for discharging wastewater into the East Fork. During Imelda, the mine’s dikes breached in at least four separate places. The TCEQ also issued another NOE for failure to stabilize soil in the mine before letting its permit lapse.

No Activity at Plant for Months

TCEQ investigator Christian Eubanks says they saw no activity at the plant for two months before the investigation after Imelda. No one at Texas Concrete answered phone calls to discuss their intentions for the mine.

Citizen Complaint Leads to Investigation

When floodwaters swept through the mine, sediment and industrial wastewater washed into the East Fork. Shortly thereafter, Josh Alberson, a Kingwood resident, noticed a distinct difference in the color of water coming off Caney Creek and the East Fork while boating. His personal investigation led to the mine at 7530 FM 1010 Road, Cleveland in Liberty County. After seeing the breaches, he then filed a complaint with the TCEQ which conducted a formal investigation.

12 Allegations of Unauthorized Discharges in 4 Years, Then This One

Texas Concrete Sand and Gravel, Inc. has a troubled history at its Plum Grove location. TCEQ investigated the operation nine times in the last four years for 17 alleged violations. Twelve involved unauthorized discharge of industrial waste. Then came this investigation, adding to their home run count.

Previous alleged violations included failure to:

  • Prevent unauthorized discharge of industrial waste (7 investigations plus 5 complaints)
  • Renew registration
  • Document steps taken to address benchmark exceedances
  • Comply with record keeping and reporting requirements
  • Maintain compliance with permitted numeric effluent limitations
  • Sample at designated outfalls.

Four Breaches Photographed At Texas Concrete Plant

TCEQ investigators photographed four breaches in the 70-acre mine‘s dikes.
Breach 1. This and all photos below were taken by Christian Eubanks of the TCEQ.
Breach 2
Breach 3
Breach 4

Failure to Meet Final Stabilization Requirements

On October 1, 2019, the mine allowed its permit to lapse. A TCEQ overflight on that same day found that large portions of the plant consisted of exposed soil. However, before the mine can legally terminate its permit, it must stabilize soil on the property.

TCEQ defines final stabilization as: “All soil disturbing activities at the site have been completed and a uniform (e.g. evenly distributed, without large bare areas) perennial vegetative cover with a density of 70 percent (%) of the native background vegetative cover for the area has been established on all unpaved areas and areas not covered by permanent structures, or equivalent permanent stabilization measures (such as the use of riprap, gabions, or geotextiles) have been employed.”

TCEQ photo from flyover on 10/1/2019. Note exposed soil circled in red.

Stabilizing soil helps prevent erosion and water pollution. Pollution that could escape through breaches in the mine’s dikes and affect water quality all the way down to Lake Houston.

Need for Greater Setbacks of Mines from Rivers

Since Harvey, I have campaigned to increase the setback distance of mines from rivers to prevent this type of tragedy. Texas has no minimum setbacks. Most other states require at least 100 feet and Alaska requires 1000 feet.

Texas Concrete underscores the need to establish minimum setbacks that would keep dikes from breaching. Once the owners of this mine are gone, who will be there to repair the dikes after the next flood?

Kudos to Josh Alberson for having the curiosity to investigate a problem he saw and the tenacity to follow through. People like Josh make this community great.

For the full text of the TCEQ Report, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/18/2019, with appreciation for Josh Alberson and the TCEQ

811 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 60 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.

Possible Penalties for Wetlands Violations

The Army Corps of Engineers has acknowledged that neither Perry Homes, its subsidiaries nor its contractors sought a “jurisdictional determination” before filling the wetlands at the Woodridge Village construction site. Further, the Corps is now investigating whether those wetlands do fall within its jurisdiction and would have required a permit to fill.

We are a long way from determining whether there was any wrongdoing in that case and I am not alleging any.

But, in general, what could possible penalties be in wetlands cases and how are they determined? Several documents found on the EPA website give insight into how they think and assess penalties. Below is a summary plus links to the documents and several additional useful pages on the EPA enforcement website.

Corps and EPA Share Responsibility for Enforcement

The Corps of Engineers and EPA share responsibility for enforcing Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which covers wetlands. Both civil and criminal penalties can apply to wetlands violations depending on circumstances. This page on the EPA’s site explains the shared authority.

Goals of Enforcement Program

EPA’s Section 404 enforcement program has three goals:

  • Protect the environment and human health and safety
  • Deter violations
  • Treat the regulated community fairly and equitably. 

Factors Considered in Initiating an Enforcement Action

A wide variety of factors determine whether EPA initiates an enforcement action. They include:

  • Amount of fill
  • Acres of wetlands filled
  • Environmental significance
  • Discharger’s compliance history

Largest Criminal Action in EPA History

At one end of the spectrum, you have criminal cases. Since enactment of the Clean Water Act, EPA and the Corps have used their criminal enforcement authorities sparingly, only for the most flagrant and egregious Section 404 violations. The most significant case ever:

  • On February 25, 2005 in the Southern District of Mississippi, a jury convicted Robert J. Lucas, Jr., his daughter, Robbie Lucas Wrigley, and his engineer, M.E. Thompson, Jr., on all 41 counts of an indictment which charged violations of Sections 402 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, mail fraud and conspiracy.
  • Lucas developed and sold hundreds of lots in the Big Hill Acres subdivision that impacted approximately 260 acres of wetlands without Corps of Engineers’ permits.
  • In developing the lots, Lucas filled wetlands for the construction of driveways and septic systems. The construction persisted after Lucas was ordered to desist by EPA and other agencies.
  • Wrigley sold lots and otherwise participated in the conspiracy knowing that the lots were saturated and could not support septic systems. 
  • M.E. Thompson, a professional engineer, wrongfully certified that the lots were suitable for septic systems, even after being told by the local health department to the contrary. 
  • In December 2005, the District Court sentenced Lucas to 108 months in prison and Wrigley and M.E. Thompson, Jr. to 87 months apiece.  The court fined each of the Defendants $15,000, assessed restitution of $1,407,400 for each Defendant and fined Lucas’s two companies Big Hill Acres, Inc., $4,800,000 and Consolidated Investments, Inc., $500,000.
  • The case represents the most significant criminal wetlands case in the history of the Clean Water Act.
  • The Decision was affirmed on appeal and the Supreme Court refused to consider it.

Factors Considered in Assessing Fines

At the other end of the spectrum, you have civil penalties with fines that can range from slaps-on-the-wrist to substantial.

This document explains how the agencies determine penalties. They use multiple factors, each with weighting, that are fed into a formula. EPA designed the formula to:

  • Require violators to promptly correct violations
  • Remedy harm caused by violations
  • Recover any economic benefit that accrued to violators, thereby assuring a level playing field for those who obey the law
  • Deter future violations
  • Promote fair and equitable treatment nationwide
  • Promote expeditious resolution (fast settlement)

Section 309 (d) of the CWA sets penalty factors for judges to use when determining the appropriateness of civil penalties.

  • Seriousness of violations
  • Economic benefit resulting from violations
  • History of violations
  • Good faith efforts to comply
  • Economic impact on violators
  • Other matters as justice may require

They refer cases to the Department of Justice when court ordered injunctive relief is necessary to remedy a violation, or when the violator has failed to comply with an administrative compliance order or consent order.

Formula Used in Assessing Fines

When calculating minimum settlement penalties, they use the following formula.

Penalty = Economic Benefit + (Preliminary Gravity Amount +/- Gravity Adjustment Factors) – Litigation Considerations – Ability to Pay – Mitigation Credit for Supplemental Environmental Projects

This determines the minimum penalty amount that the government will accept in the settlement of a case, in other words, “the bottom-line penalty” amount.

Economic Benefit Component Explained

Persons who violate the CWA by discharging dredged and/or fill material without Section 404 permit authorization or in violation of a permit may have obtained an economic benefit by obtaining an illegal competitive advantage (“ICA”), or as the result of delayed or avoided costs, or by a combination of these or other factors.

The objective of calculating and recovering economic benefit is to place violators in no better financial position than they would have been had they complied with the law.

Gravity Component Explained

The “gravity” component of the calculation considers whether the discharge endangers the health and welfare of persons. The greater the threat, the higher the weight. If the discharge has resulted in an imminent and substantial endangerment, they will apply the highest value for this factor.

Other Considerations

Secondary or Off-Site Impacts such as the extent to which discharges caused erosion and downstream sedimentation problems are considered.

Judges also consider the duration of violation. That’s the length of time that fill material has remained in place. Generally, the longer the duration, the higher the weight assigned to this factor.

Judges can also apply a Recalcitrance Adjustment Factor. The “recalcitrance” factor may be used to increase the penalty based on a violator’s bad faith, or unjustified delay in preventing, mitigating, or remedying the violation in question.

As distinguished from culpability, recalcitrance relates to the violator’s delay or refusal to comply with the law, to cease violating, to correct violations, or to otherwise cooperate with regulators.

Classes of Penalties

Section 309(g) of the Clean Water Act establishes two classes of administrative penalties. They differ with respect to maximum assessment for violations.

A Class I penalty may not exceed $11,000 per violation, or a maximum amount of $27,500.

A Class II penalty may not exceed $11,000 per day for each day during which the violation continues, or a maximum amount of $137,500.

EPA may also seek:

  • Injunctive relief
  • Criminal penalties (fines and/or imprisonment),
  • Civil penalties through judicial action.

Criminal Vs. Civil

When the Agency refers cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for civil and/or criminal enforcement under Section 309(d), EPA may seek civil penalties of up to $27,500 per day for CWA violations including the unauthorized discharge of fill.

Criminal prosecution in wetlands cases usually involves someone who knowingly or negligently discharges fill, makes false or misleading statements on permit applications, or endangers other people.

For More Information and Exact Text

The discussion above summarizes 32-pages of technical/legal EPA and Army Corps documents. I urge you to consult the sources directly for their exact wording.

Other useful links, for those seeking even more information, include:

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/18/2019

811 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.

Text of Ben’s Branch Agreement Between Bear Branch Trail Association, Friendswood and HCFCD

Rumors of a Ben’s Branch agreement between Bear Branch Trail Association, Friendswood and Harris County Flood Control District have circulated for weeks. On Wednesday, November 13, 2019, the deal became official when Diane Trautman, the Harris County Clerk, recorded the easement. Here is exactly what the easement does and doesn’t allow the various parties to do along Ben’s Branch.

Ben’s Branch below St. Martha’s Catholic School is characterized by hairpin turns and trees growing right down to and into the stream.

49-Page Ben’s Branch Easement Finally Signed

The easement is like a contract that spells out the rights, obligations and limitations of each party.

Here is the complete text of the 49-page document. Below is a summary.

Bear Branch Trail Association Rights and Obligations

This is an agreement between three parties that modifies the original deed of gift between Friendswood and the Bear Branch Trail Association (BBTA).

BBTA:

  • Gives Harris County Flood Control the right to operate in an area 100 feet wide, 50 feet on either side of the creek’s centerline.
  • Retains the right to maintain and operate existing trails, bridges, low water crossings.
  • May construct, install, maintain and operate new trails in the easement area as long as they don’t obstruct water flow, cause erosion or hinder HCFCD’s “de-snagging” efforts. De-snagging is the removal of trees that have fallen or are falling into the creek.
  • Must share plans for new trails, bridges, etc. with HCFCD and HCFCD must approve them before any construction begins.
  • Acknowledges that HCFCD equipment may damage trails and agrees not to hold HCFCD liable for repairs.
  • Remains solely responsible for the safe condition and maintenance within the easement area and for repairs to any damage.
This low water crossing north of Bear Branch Elementary may not be removed according to the terms of the easement. Some observers have noted trees “spearing” into the narrow culverts and backing water up. But HCFCD cuts trees into small enough sections to let them pass through such openings.

Harris County Flood Control Rights and Obligations

HCFCD may:

  • Perform de-snagging operations related to flood control and drainage.
  • Clear, cut, drop, stack and stockpile trees, shrubs, vines, and vegetation for the sole purpose of flood control.
  • Grade and stabilize banks to protect against erosion and maintain drainage.
  • Plant grass, or use rip rap or man-made materials to reduce bank erosion.
Trees constantly fall into Ben’s Branch because of bank erosion. When floating trees catch on other trees or roots during floods in the narrow channel, they can form “beaver dams” that back water up into adjoining streets, homes and businesses.

HCFCD can/will NOT:

  • Widen, deepen, enlarge, straighten or smooth the channel in such a way as to increase channel capacity.
  • Maintain or repair trails or bridges, but may repair erosion that threatens them.

HCFCD has no responsibility to repair or replace storm sewer outfalls or to repair erosion around them.

Friendswood Agrees to All of Above Plus…

Friendswood agrees to all of the above. Friendswood also agrees that the terms of the easement will not trigger the automatic reversion of ownership from BBTA to Friendswood that the original deed of gift specified.

Signatories

John Hammond of Friendswood signed the easement on Monday, November 11, 2019.

Kathryn Palmer, president of BBTA signed it on Tuesday, November 12, 2019.

Diane Trautman, the Harris County Clerk signed and recorded it on November 13, 2019.

Roadblocks to Flood Control Maintenance Now Removed

This means that Flood Control can now begin de-snagging and other maintenance activities within 50 feet of either side of Ben’s Branch. The area affected lies between Woodland Hills Drive and Kingwood Drive.

Geographic Limitations

North Park, Woodland Hills, Kingwood Drive and West Lake Houston Parkway define the boundaries of BBTA.

Other community and commercial associations control the creek outside of those boundaries. But those areas are already channelized and maintained by HCFCD for the most part.

Note: Those who don’t live within these boundaries may be confused by the names. Ben’s Branch is the name of the creek that runs through Bear Branch Village, Kings Forest and Hunters Ridge. The Bear Branch Trail Association overlaps all three of the community associations, but technically has nothing to do with them. BBTA is solely responsible for the greenbelts and greenbelt trails. It has nothing to do with swimming pools or deed restrictions. This can differ in other parts of Kingwood.

Compromise Between Natural Aesthetics and Flood-Risk Reduction

Everyone should realize that this easement represents a compromise. Any loss of natural aesthetics is the price of reducing flood risk to their neighbors. The three parties worked on this for more than a year.

Parts of the greenbelt will be thinned out, but you shouldn’t see wholesale widening of the creek into a massive channel. As a consequence, people who live along the creek should realize that this doesn’t offer the highest degree of flood protection. But it does help protect both greenbelts and property owners much more than before.

St. Martha Catholic School, Kids In Action, and homes on either side of the creek that flooded should be optimistic about this agreement.

The densely forested nature of the preserve along each side of the creek will look less dense. However…

The Ben’s Branch greenbelt is a minimum of 300 feet wide. In most places, it’s 400-600 feet wide. And in some places, it measures as much as 800 feet wide. This agreement affects only 100-feet.

Thus, two-thirds to seven-eighths of the natural area will remain the way it looks now. That sounds like a reasonable price to pay for helping to protect neighbors and property values in the entire neighborhood.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/17/2019

810 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 59 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 Demolishes More Townhomes in Forest Cove

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has demolished more bought-out townhome complexes in Forest Cove in the last few weeks. Contractors leveled the areas circled in white below and carried away the debris.

HCFCD has already demolished the complexes circled in white. Part of the complex on Timberline burned during the week of July 4th earlier this year.

That means HCFCD has removed approximately 40% of the total units already.

According to Flood Control, buyouts in a situation like Forest Cove are complex. They can take longer than normal because HCFCD must close on EACH unit in a complex before they can demolish ANY.

Going, Going, Gone

Architects designed the lower floors of these units to flood. But during Harvey, water reached well into the second floors.

Residents once labored over homes now reduced to rubble.
They could soon make way for a linear park, being proposed by the City of Houston Parks Board.

Future Plans for Area

When HCFCD completes the buyouts and demolition process for each complex, the area will revert to some kind of green space. It could return to nature or it could turn into a park. The Houston Parks Board has made several presentations to KSA and the Forest Cove Property Owners Association about building a linear park. The park would connect the Kingwood Trail Network to the Spring Creek Greenway via the Bevil Jarrell Memorial pedestrian bridge over the San Jacinto River.

From Buyouts to Beautiful

If the Parks Board, City and Harris County can pull this off, it would turn a negative into a positive. I don’t mean to disrespect the memories of the proud people who once carved out beautiful lifestyles near the river. But since Harvey, the flood-ravaged townhomes became a haven for looters, squatters, graffiti artists and illegal dumpers. It’s best to let go of the memories and move on at this point. HCFCD has a process for turning areas like this into recreational amenities.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/16/2016

809 Days since Hurricane Harvey