On May 18, Josh Alberson and I gave Tony Buzbee a tour of sediment and sand mining issues on the San Jacinto River. Buzbee is a candidate for Mayor of Houston and got to witness first hand some of the problems I have been talking about for almost two years now. On Caney Creek, we stumbled across a giant breach in the dike of the Triple-PG mine in Porter. We reported it immediately to the TCEQ.
Massive breach in dike between Triple PG Mine and Caney Creek, May, 2019
Two-Week Discharge
Investigators actually observed the unauthorized discharge of process water from the mine into the City’s drinking water supply. It continued for approximately two weeks.
Not One, But Two Massive Breaches
The TCEQ found not one, but two breaches. The first was on the southwest side of the mine. Water entered the mine from a breach of the dike near White Oak Creek. The water then swept through the mine and exited through a second breach on Caney Creek. That meant the two creeks were actually flushing process water out of the mine into the drinking water supply for two million people.
The TCEQ finished its investigation in July and cited the operation for failing to prevent the unauthorized discharge of process water. The TCEQ told them to repair and widen their dikes. They did. Case closed.
This same mine has been investigated five times in five years by the TCEQ for various problems detailed in this report. The mine is owned by a cardiologist from Nacogdoches named Guniganti. His family operates it.
The basic problem with this mine is its location. It sits at the confluence of two floodways. That’s why the dikes were blown out. That’s why Harvey’s floodwaters swept through it. Continuing to operate this mine is like flying a plane into conditions that you know are unsafe.
No Disincentive for Dangerous Business Practices
Yet there’s no disincentive for dangerous business practices. Investigators told the operators to fix the breaches. They did. Business will go on as usual. Until the next disaster.
As a society, why do we tolerate this?
We even seem to venerate it. How strange that one family’s profit outweighs the health and safety of millions! The legislature had an opportunity to fix this problem this year. However, one bill that would have established best practices for sand mining and another that would have established minimum setbacks from rivers for sand mines never made it out of committee. Likewise HB-908 proposed by State Representative Dan Huberty that would have provided meaningful financial penalties for such bad practices never made it out of committee.
The thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public interest and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Mine-Breech.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-08-23 00:01:462019-08-23 00:19:45TCEQ Observes Triple-PG Sand Mine Discharging Wastewater Directly into Tributary of Lake Houston
Next week will mark the second anniversary of Hurricane Harvey. As we look back and build forward, we should also remember previous storms and how flooding shaped the a city called Houston and the people who inhabit it.
Houston History Magazine
In this regard, a reader forwarded me several links to a fascinating magazine. Debbie Z. Harwell, PhD., is managing editor of Houston History Magazine and a history teacher at the University of Houston.
Dr. Harwell was helping birth a new edition of Houston History focused on industrial accidents when Harvey hit. It was too late in her publication schedule to refocus the issue; she had been working on it for almost a year. So she wrote an introduction that helped put the storm in historical perspective. She wrote it sitting on a couch while Harvey’s rains beat against her windows.
Short-Term Memory Loss of Long-Term Needs
Prophetically, she titled the intro “Short-term Memory Loss of Long-term Needs.” In it, she says, “As a city and as a country we seem to suffer from short-term memory loss. Our memory of the flood is wiped out not by old age but by the next big news story, or even the next tweet. Past floods have similarly faded from the collective memory (until it happens again), with few willing to spend money on the necessary infrastructure to produce real change.”
Houston History also published a photo essay of Houston Floods called “Lest We Forget.” Former Houston Post photographer Joel Draut collected the photos and wrote the accompanying text. Interestingly, one of the most significant floods happened in 1837, one year before Louis Daguerre invented the first commercially viable photographic process, now known as the daguerreotype.
In an August 1836 advertisement, the Allen brothers proclaimed that Houston would become “ …beyond all doubt, the great interior commercial emporium of Texas.” Thirteen months later rains from a hurricane in September 1837 flooded the city’s Main Street to a depth of four feet. This inundation did not deter developers.
As I looked through page after page of forgotten photos from 1929, 1935, 1960, and 1973, I was struck by how similar they were to Harvey images. They were grainier. They were black and white. But aside from that, the images could have been from any one of a hundred more contemporary calamities, such as Katrina, Ike, Rita, or Harvey. Sometimes, even the dates were the same, like the Memorial Day flood of 1929 shown below. The location: Franklin and Milam. The bayou: Buffalo.
Photo courtesy of Houston History Magazine and Houston Metropolitan Research Center, Houston Public Library.
“Lest We Forget” is a short but great and sobering read. I highly recommend it.
Survivors, Volunteers, Responders Tell Their Harvey Stories
Dr. Harwell is also one of the driving forces behind a project called Resilient Houston: Documenting Hurricane Harvey. “We did an oral history harvest at the Kingwood Community Center last October,” said Dr. Harwell, “and excerpts from those interviews appear on the site. Almost half of those are from Kingwood – survivors, volunteers, responders. We will be adding more at the end of the fall semester.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/22/2019with thanks to Dr. Debbie Harwell and Joel Draut
723 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Memorial-Day-1929.jpg?fit=1500%2C993&ssl=19931500adminadmin2019-08-21 23:43:102019-08-22 09:12:56Lest We Forget: Houston’s History of Flooding
ReduceFlooding.com has obtained a copy of the study withheld by the Army Corps that the Corps used to justify dredging only 500,000 cubic yards from the mouth bar of the San Jacinto West Fork. The Corps refused to supply it in response to my Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in June. However, the City of Houston did supply the Corps document in response to a similar FOIA request. Now, thanks to Council Member Dave Martin, the public has an opportunity to compare the two studies side by side for the first time.
Kings River resident near mouth bar wading in knee deep water almost to West Fork channel marker. Caution: do not let children attempt this. Pockets of deeper water may exist that could cause drowning. Picture taken eight days ago. The island being excavated in the distance has since been removed; see last image in post.
After reviewing the Corps document, I can see why the Corps refused to supply it. It has more holes in it than a West Texas stop sign.
History of Controversy
For almost a year, the City and the Army Corps have argued over how much sediment was deposited in the mouth bar of the San Jacinto river by Hurricane Harvey. That determines how much dredging FEMA will fund. Initially, the City recommended working with two Texas Water Development Board sedimentation surveys conducted in 2011 and 2018. But no measurements exist from the period immediately BEFORE Harvey – only AFTER. So the Corps rejected that idea.
The Stockton Protocol combines ultra-high-resolution CHIRP seismic data with core sampling. The seismic identifies layer thickness and the core sampling identifies layer composition. (Note: the process is somewhat like the oil field practice of confirming seismic with core samples from exploratory wells.) The hope: that by analyzing changes in sediment composition (such as color, grain size, roundness, hardness, etc.), researchers can differentiate Harvey sediment from other floods and then measure it accurately.
Core sample from Tetra Tech Study. Different colors and consistencies indicate sediment came from different floods.
The Army Corps recommended a Texas A&M Galveston professor, Dr. Timothy Dellapenna, to do the research. However, the City of Houston and A&M could not agree on contract terms. Therefore, the City hired Tetra Tech, to perform the research that Dr. Dellapena outlined.
At the end of the day, even with 500,000 cubic yards, those two estimates still vary by almost 3X. According to Houston City Council Member Dave Martin, the Corps never explained why they rejected the Tetra Tech analysis.
The Corps simply accepted its own results and started dredging without public explanation or input. The Corps document raises many questions that may or may not have valid answers.
The USGS gauge used by the Corps for its analysis stopped working during the peak of Harveywhen most sediment would have been moving. The Corps report did not acknowledge this.
Corps Analysis Requires Explanations Never Supplied
Why did the Corps:
Base its analysis on a gage at US59 that stopped functioning during the peak of Harvey, when most sediment was moving?
Assume Harvey distributed sediment in the same patterns over the same distances as lesser storms?
Ignore build up of sediment from Tax Day and Memorial Day storms at the mouth bar as a factor that could have increased the percentage of sediment falling out of suspension during Harvey?
Not consider bank erosion downstream from the gage, relying instead on standard charts for “bed-load transport” for sandy rivers?
Ignore approximately 20 square miles of sand mines in the West Fork floodway where loose sand and silt were inundated by 131,000 cubic feet of water per second, unlike previous storms?
Use a 1-D instead of a 2- or 3-D model for this complex environment?
Not publicly disclose model inputs/outputs and data for peer review and validation?
Initially reject the use of two TWDB surveys, then reverse course and base all of their findings on them – without explaining why?
Exclude extreme data from their study, even though Harvey was one of the most extreme rainfall events in U.S. history?
Mislabel all charts, graphs and photos in its report?
Refuse to disclose their report in response to a FOIA request, contrary to official Army policy?
Omit the organization’s name and the author’s name from the report?
Treat the volume that Tetra Tech found related to Harvey in the mouth bar area alone as if it represented the total volume deposited in the entire West Fork by Harvey?
Corps Rejects Use of TWDB Surveys, Then Bases Own Analysis On Them
To estimate Harvey-related volume, the City initially proposed analyzing two Texas Water Development Board sedimentation surveys from 2011 and 2018.
The Corps rejected that idea, suggested the Stockton Protocol, rejected those findings, then based its own analysis on the two TWDB surveys it rejected earlier. This is like following a Three-Card Monte game!
Basically, the Corps tried to estimate the amount of sediment that Harvey’s flow could theoretically carry. That would depend on velocity and sediment size/weight. But the gage at US 59 stopped recording at the peak of Harvey. So they also had to estimate the discharge (volume of flow in cubic feet per second [cfs]). Then they used industry-standard curves to estimate sediment transport based on estimated discharge. But they discarded rates over 45,000 CFS because they produced unexpectedly high values.
They also ignored the presence of mile-wide sand mines upstream. The river ruptured the dikes of those mines and captured the pits during Harvey.
West Fork Sand Mine Complex inundated by Harvey. This reach of the river is normally about 150 feet wide.On this day, the day AFTER Harvey’s peak, the flow was more than a mile wide.
When the industry-standard sediment transport curves yielded unacceptably high results, the Corps resorted to a simple 1-D model (developed earlier for another purpose) to calculate the sediment load, because flows beyond 45,000 cubic feet per second “produced sediment loads far beyond a reasonable range.”
Corps Assumes Harvey Transported Same Percentage To Mouth Bar as Other Storms
One potentially fatal assumption: The Corps assumes that Harvey transported the same percentage of its sediment load to the mouth bar as all other storms between 2011 and 2018. Said another way, they assume that Harvey behaved LIKE all other storms. Yet not all those floods inundated sand mines.
Moreover, had the Corps measured river bank erosion at intervals between 2011 and 2018, they would have found that virtually all of it occurred during Harvey and very little occurred during Tax Day, Memorial Day and other storms.
Quantum Leap in Erosion Not Factored In
Harvey’s erosive power was NOT proportional to other storms, as the photos below show. River banks eroded more than a hundred feet during Harvey in many places. Yet the Corps report never even mentions erosion.
In 2011, the distance from the ridgeline of this home on Riverbend Drive to the West Fork was 326 feet.
On 1/23/2017, after the Tax and Memorial Day Floods, the distance had decreased only 2 feet.
This shows how much shoreline Harvey ALONE eroded. The yellow line is exactly the same length as after the 2016 floods.
After Harvey, the new distance to the river bank was 216 feet – 108 feet less.
The Tax and Memorial Day Floods combined eroded this river bank by 2 feet. Harvey alone eroded it another 108 feet – 50 times more!
Photographic analysis shows similar quantum leaps in erosion related to Harvey elsewhere along the West Fork.
Another home west of River Grove Park lost 27 feet between 2011 and early 2017, but 111 feet in Harvey.
River Grove Park lost 0 feet from 2011 to early 2017, but 74-feet in Harvey.
Romerica lost 62 feet between 2011 and early 2017, but 144 feet in Harvey.
Net: In four days, Harvey eroded from 2X to 75X more sediment than all other storms during the previous six years. It did NOT act proportionally.
The shearing force of 240,000 cubic feet per second coming down the West Fork literally pulled thousands of trees out by their roots and dislodged sediment disproportionately compared to previous floods (see below). The Gallery page of this web site clearly shows the extent of this devastation. It contains 450 images taken from a helicopter on 9/14/2017, two weeks after Harvey.
Hurricane Harvey ripped trees out by their roots to a degree that previous storms did not. This increased erosion exponentially compared to other storms.
Corps Assumes Mouth Bar Growth Did Not Affect Percentage Deposited by Harvey
The Army Corps also assumes that Harvey transported the same fraction of the total sediment load (20%) to the mouth bar that all storms did between 2011 and 2018. That’s a dubious assumption for several reasons:
Previous storms progressively built a wall across the mouth of the West Fork that grew higher and higher during the study period.
As it grew, that wall increasingly slowed water down and likely accelerated the rate of deposition behind it (which helps explain why the Corps had to dredge its way to the mouth bar).
This constant 20% contradicts numerous anecdotal reports from lakeside residents and boaters claiming that Harvey carried vastlymore sediment to the mouth bar (and their yards/docks) than previous storms. The wife of the resident wading across the river in the image above told me that, on a scale of 1 to 5, the Tax and Memorial Days floods deposited sediment in her yard equal to a 1. But Harvey, she said, was a 6. In other words, off the scale.
No wonder the Corps didn’t want the public looking at this!
Taxpayers Deserve Independent Scientific Review
Professionals rarely like to have their conclusions questioned. However, those who have confidence in their conclusions welcome peer and public review. They encourage second opinions and provide all of their data for review. They also welcome the opportunity to explain and defend their results. None of those things happened in this case.
Instead, the Corps concealed its results as if this involved national security, not public safety. Why? That may be the biggest question of all associated with this project.
The Corps has an excellent, hard-earned reputation. This study undermines it.
As mentioned above, the Tetra Tech study may also have flaws, but the Corps never revealed what its concerns were.
Only one thing is certain. Public safety rests on wildly differing studies. Taxpayers deserve an independent scientific review to resolve the differences between these two studies. The City concurs with the findings in this post and also calls for an independent scientific review. The Corps could not be reached for comment; their new public affairs officer does not list her phone number.
Dredging will likely end next week, with the Corps proclaiming it has restored the conveyance of the river to pre-Harvey conditions (when they have no pre-Harvey measurements).
So we need an independent scientific review to happen quickly. Email you Congressmen and Senators immediately.
Corps Plans Still Being Kept from Public
The Corps still has not released its dredging plans, despite a FOIA request made in June when mouth bar dredging started.
If that is an accurate assessment, the Corps would leave a sediment wall under the water approximately 30-35 feet high and 1-2 miles long in the mouth of the West Fork.
Congressman Dan Crenshaw reviews progress of dredging operation on Friday, August 16. Looking southwest towards Atascocita. Notice how the small island in the first image above has now been removed. The mouth bar itself will remain in place, most of it underwater nowwhere it is invisible to the public.
Others Scrambling to Pick Up the Pieces
It may look like the Corps has dredged. But it also looks like the Corps will leave 80-90% of the mouth bar in place. Remember, sand bars are like ice bergs in the sense that what you see above water is small compared to the amount you can’t see below water.
At this point, City, County, State and Federal leaders are scrambling to put together a plan to address the rest of the sediment. Some of that sediment is clearly pre-Harvey. I will discuss options for removal of that portion and maintenance dredging in a future post.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/20/2019
721 Days after Hurricane Harvey
As in previous posts on this subject, I promise the Corps that I will print their rebuttal verbatim if they disagree with any of the points in this post.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/USGS.08069500.140334.00065..20170829.20170830..0..pres_.gif.png?fit=580%2C430&ssl=1430580adminadmin2019-08-20 16:14:592019-08-21 11:07:08Recently Obtained Documents Raise Questions about Amount of Sediment in Mouth Bar Due to Harvey
A November 2018 article appearing in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature found that urban growth can intensify both rainfall and runoff from hurricanes. Further, urban growth can increase the risk of flooding and shift the location of flooding. The article specifically studied the effects of Hurricane Harvey on Houston and found that urban growth increased the probability of such an extreme flood across the basin by 21X.
The Nature study looks at two distinct effects of urbanization. The first is the impact of impervious surface on RUNOFF. The second is the impact of the urban landscape’s surface roughness on RAINFALL.
The Runoff Component
Numerous studies have looked at the relationship between percentage of impervious cover, runoff, and flooding – a well documented phenomenon. Impervious cover accelerates transport of rainfall from neighborhoods to rivers. That raises peak flows rather than spreading them out over time. Dr. William Dupre, professor emeritus from the University of Houston visualized the relationship this way.
Effect of Urbanization on Peak Stream Flows” by Dr. William Dupre, professor emeritus from the University of Houston.
Rainfall Component Much Less Studied
However, the effect of urban growth and a city’s surface topography on RAINFALL from hurricanes is much less studied. The authors say in Nature that, “Urbanization led to an amplification of the total rainfall along with a shift in the location of the maximum rainfall.” (Page 386).
“Much less is known regarding the urban effects on the organized tropical rainfall of a hurricane, in particular during one like hurricane Harvey, which stalled for several days.” They continue, “…experiments (with computer models) clearly show a large increase in rainfall arising from urbanization over the eastern part of the Houston area.”
The authors compared present and past urban landscapes and also modeled a scenario in which the entire region was cropland.
Mechanisms Responsible for Increase Rainfall
To understand the physical mechanisms responsible for the heavier rainfall, they analyzed the vertical convergence of winds and wind fields.
Evacuation During Harvey. Photo courtesy of Jay Muscat.
“The enhanced rainfall … and the shift of rainfall … are tied to the storm system’s drag induced by large surface roughness,” say the authors.
Scientific American explains in more detail. Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who did not work on the study said, “We know cyclones are sensitive to characteristics of the surface—mountains, streams, marshland. This new twist is that cities have become big enough to tangibly alter the storm.” Said Gabriele Villarini, an environmental engineer at The University of Iowa and an author on the study, “We removed the urban areas from Houston and replaced them with cropland.”
“The presence of urban areas enhanced all the things you need to get heavy precipitation,” Villarini, one of the study’s authors says. “A stronger drag on the storm winds, associated with a larger surface roughness length” contributed to the increased rainfall.
Emanuel explained, “First, the artificial ruggedness of an urban area slows air down. Whenever air slows in a hurricane, he says, it gets shunted toward the center of the storm and up into the sky. That increases rainfall everywhere [in a metropolitan area].” He added, “A storm moves particularly slowly over downtown areas where buildings are tallest, but the winds bearing down from outside the city are still moving quickly. So, [the storm] is piling up on the city.”
Impact on and Implications for Houston
This increase in urban growth in flat terrain creates problems from a flood perspective, despite mitigation measures already in place.
Urbanization has increased the probability of an event like the flooding associated with Hurricane Harvey by about 21 times, say the authors in Nature on page 388.
The authors make several high-level recommendations.
Urban planning must take into account the compounded nature of the risk now recognized.
Flood mitigation strategies must recognize the effect of urbanization on hurricanes.
Weather and climate models must incorporate the effects of urbanization to increase forecast accuracy on local and regional levels.
“It is critical for the next generations of global climate models to be able to resolve the urban areas and their associated processes,” conclude the authors.
About the Authors and Models
The authors are:
Wei Zhang and Gabriele Villarini from the Department of Hydroscience & Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
Gabriel A. Vecchi from the Department of Geosciences, Princeton University and the Princeton Environmental Institute, of Princeton, NJ
James A. Smith from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
To date, the role of a city in altering rainfall during tropical cyclones has received very little attention. Houston has had the largest urban growth and the fifth-largest population growth in the United States in the period from 2001–2011. Much of that growth is now on the periphery of the city. The two fastest growing parts of the region are Fort Bend and Montgomery Counties.
Also, the new NOAA Atlas-14 (rainfall measurements updated after Harvey) does not consider forward-looking urban growth effects. The precipitation frequency data in NOAA Atlas 14 was determined by a statistical analysis of historical rainfall, a key input for FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) modeling. With all that uncertainty, we need to err on the side of caution in flood planning.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/KingwoodGreens-e1551452236612.jpg?fit=1500%2C1038&ssl=110381500adminadmin2019-08-18 20:39:572019-08-19 02:39:01Study Suggests Large Cities Like Houston Can Intensify Rainfall and Runoff From Hurricanes
A developer mysteriously installed two small culverts with grates in the ditch that runs on the west side of Loop 494. I say “mysteriously” because there was no apparent reason to install them. The developer also built a road over the culverts. But the road led nowhere. So there was basically no need for the project.
Picture taken last December. The Porter Dam, an undersized culvert and an unnecessary road, backed water up for blocks.The offending culvert and grate restricted flow in the ditch. Also from last December.The Road to Nowhere crosses a ditch only to end at a detention pond. Photo taken December, 2018.
Residents and businesses speculated that the real purpose of this project was to slow the flow of water from the north to speed up the flow of water from the south where a large shopping center and an apartment complex exist. While the small culvert worked wonders for those developments, it backed water up into businesses and homes for several blocks to the north.
As a result, Mike Eberle, owner of Mike’s Hobby Shop, Lakeside Plumbing and the Gulf Coast Raceway got an unwelcome early Christmas present last year. Here’s what the situation looked like before Christmas, 2018. Not good for a hobby shop!
Photo by Mike Eberle, December 2018.
Photo by Mike Eberle, December 2018.
Photo by Mike Eberle, December 2018.After the flood, Eberle complained to TxDot. Within days, a backhoe began lowering the road over the culvert. By lowering the road, the developer hoped to increase the conveyance of the ditch without removing the culvert.
First Attempt at Porter Dam Mitigation Failed
However, that attempt at mitigating the Porter Dam failed. Within five months, the same area flooded again.
Last week, a reader, Dan Monks, sent me this photo. It looks like the developer is trying a third time with bigger culverts AND a lower road.
Bigger culverts now installed under the Road to Nowhere.Photo 8/14/2019, courtesy of Dan Monks.
Let’s hope this attempt works better than the last and gets things back to normal. These culverts appear to match the size of those farther up the ditch.
Please Help Shine a Public Light on Similar Problems
Hundreds of people, businesses and even a church were damaged by this thoughtless, careless project.
If you see situations that contribute to flooding, please send photos via the submissions page of this web site. By shining a public light on problems, we can encourage people to fix them.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/17/2019with photos courtesy of Dan Monksand Mike Eberle
718 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/loop494culverts3.jpg?fit=640%2C579&ssl=1579640adminadmin2019-08-17 22:57:532019-08-17 22:58:04Cross Your Fingers: Porter Dam Replaced by Two Large Culverts Under Road to Nowhere
If you missed the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) state flood planning seminar in Tomball, you still have three more options to participate.
Example of Q&A at Tomball Meeting
TWDB Planning Process
The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) will offer two webinars to discuss and solicit input on state flood planning and financing programs established during the last legislative session.
The TWDB will launch the presentation screen approximately five minutes before the start of each webinar. Questions and comments will be addressed live during each webinar; you may email your questions and comments to FloodWebinar@twdb.texas.gov throughout the presentations.
The last in-person meeting will be held on Friday, August 23rd at Houston City Hall.
Houston City Hall
Council Chamber,
2nd floor
901 Bagby St.
Houston, TX 77002
9:30-11:30 a.m.
The complete meeting schedule may be viewed on the TWDB website.
If you ever wanted to influence the way $800 million is spent, here’s your chance.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/16/2019
717 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Types-of-Proj_01-copy.jpg?fit=1460%2C684&ssl=16841460adminadmin2019-08-16 22:48:162019-08-16 22:48:27TWDB to Host Two State Flood Plan Webinars on August 19
Just three months ago, on May 7th, water poured out of Woodridge Village and into the streets and homes of Elm Grove. More than 200 flooded homeowners are suing the developer and contractor for negligence. Meanwhile, before the case has even gone to trial, contractors are pouring concrete. Let’s hope the drainage plans do the job. Because they are literally setting those plans in “stone,” so to speak. Here’s what’s happening north of the MoCo border.
Woodridge plans 5 detention ponds, 3 in the northern and 2 in the southern section. The two in the southern section are now at total depth. However, excavation still has not started on the three northern ponds, despite ideal construction weather.
Elevation Raised Compared to Elm Grove
Looking east along the southern border with the detention pond S1 out of frame on the left and the culvert that leads to Taylor Gully in the upper left. Village Springs in Elm Grove can be seen through the trees on the right.
The new development has been built up about four feet above Elm Grove and Woodland Hills Villages. It gives the hood a split level look.
At the top of that hill, along the perimeter, the contractor bulldozed a v-shaped notch. That’s called a backslope interceptor swale. The swale or depression collects rainwater that would otherwise drain straight into detention ponds. In theory it provides additional storage for rainwater. It also reduces the potential for erosion along the banks of the pond. That’s because water collects in the swale and drains through a pipe into the detention pond.
S2 detention pond above Village Springs in Elm Grove. Photo courtesy of Jeff Miller. Miller says that the pond looks 3 feet below the mouth to the culvert on Taylor Gully. So it will hold water constantly.
Detention Pond S1 Now Lined with Concrete
Contractors have also begun lining detention pond S1 with concrete. That should reduce erosion. It will also accelerate runoff.
Woodridge Village Detention Pond S1 which is north of Woodland Hills Village. The ditch has reached its total depth and is now being lined with concrete.Photo courtesy of Jeff Miller.
Roads Going In
Contractors have also poured the main road through the southern part of the subdivision. It is within feet of connecting to Woodland Hills Drive on one end. It will soon cross Taylor Gulley about in the middle of the subdivision and eventually connect to the northern half of the development.
Looking east from Woodland Hills in front of Kingwood Park High School.
It looks like this from the opposite direction.
Looking southwest toward Woodland Hills from the northern side of the southern section of Woodridge. Main road in distance will soon cross Taylor Gully.Photo courtesy of Jeff Miller.
In Other News
Jeff Miller says it appears that the contractor has nuked all of the trees separating the northern and souther section. Says Jeff Miller who supplied many of these pictures, “As Peter Townseand of the Who sang, ‘I can see for miles and miles.’” The song now applies to the view from Elm Grove looking north. There’s little to see but brush piles.
Nothing but brush piles for miles and miles. Photo courtesy of Jeff Miller
Risky Business: No More Detention Ponds Heading into Peak Hurricane Season
Contractors have not yet started excavation on any of the detention ponds for the northern section: N1, N2, or N3. That’s a risky strategy given months of ideal construction weather behind us and the peak of hurricane season fast approaching. Those Perry Homes subsidiaries are definitely connoisseurs of edge work.
Peak of hurricane season is less than a month away. This is when things usually start to heat up.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/16/2019with thanks to Jeff Miller
717 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Road_01.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-08-16 21:39:402019-08-17 21:01:03Woodridge Village Plans Being Set in Concrete…Before Case Goes to Trial
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) needs your help. Hold your fire. Someone is shooting up their equipment on Taylor Gully. The District is performing a clean-out of the ditch to restore its conveyance so people won’t flood again, as they did on May 7th.
Harris County Flood Control is now trying to restore the conveyance of Taylor Gully, but vandals are shooting up their equipment.
Slowing Down the Job, Raising Expenses
Sandra Musgrove, Director of HCFCD’s Infrastructure Division, reports that at night, Flood Control places metal sheets over the windows of their equipment to prevent vandalism. But now, instead of throwing rocks, vandals have taken their game to the next level. They’re SHOOTING out the windows.
Harris County Flood Control asked me to communicate that this adds to the cost of jobs and slows them down. That increases people’s flood risk. Plus it’s just not neighborly. So please help.
Lock Up Your Guns, Report Suspicious Activity
Keep your eyes and ears open for suspicious activity. Chances are, anyone you see packing on Taylor Gully late at night is hunting for heavy equipment. However, I have noticed some Texas-sized bullfrogs now and then in Taylor Gully.
Seriously. It’s a crime to discharge a firearm within the City. And if caught, something like this could ruin a young person’s life.
So lock up your guns. Hold your fire. And please report suspicious activity to 911.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/15/2019
716 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Backhoe.jpg?fit=1500%2C840&ssl=18401500adminadmin2019-08-14 21:37:242019-08-14 21:37:33“Hold Your Fire! It’s Flood Control!”
Great news! Tuesday, Harris County Commissioners Court approved a $700,000 contract with Neel-Schaffer, Inc. for a Kingwood Area drainage study. The engineering firm will identify flooding sources in the Kingwood area and develop potential solutions.
Data shows that portions of Kingwood have potential for significant offsite flows from Montgomery County as well as ponding locations due to inadequate overland flow conveyance. Said another way, new upstream development is taxing Kingwood’s drainage infrastructure. This project will help ensure that a 100-year flood plain remains a 100-year flood plain, and doesn’t turn into a 10-, 20- or 50-year flood plain.
Area of investigation outlined in red.
Drainage Study Details Outlined in Contract
The contract for the work indicates its scope and details. Discussion of those begins in Appendix A on page 14. The goal of the study is to identify mitigation strategies that will return 12.4 miles of existing drainage ditches and streams within Kingwood to their originally designed 100-year service levels.
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) entered into an interlocal agreement with TIRZ 10 (Kingwood) to perform a drainage study of five main Kingwood streams to their confluence with the West and East Forks of the San Jacinto River. The five include:
G103-33-00 Bens Branch – From Rocky Woods Drive to WFSR (Length= 3.1 miles)
G103-33-01 – From North park Drive to the confluence with Bens Branch (Length= 1.3 miles)
G103-38-00 (Kingwood Diversion Ditch)- From Harris County Boundary to WFSR (Length = 4.0 miles)
G103-80-01 (Green Tree Ditch) – From Woodland View Dr to the EFSR (Length= 1.5 miles)
G103-80-03.1B (Taylor Gully)- From Harris County Boundary to Whiteoak Creek (Length= 2.5 miles)
Flood Control Will Fund Remainder of Streams/Ditches
In addition to the interlocal agreement, Harris County Flood Control District will also study all remaining streams and ditches within the Kingwood Area. Those include another 19.9 miles:
G103-33-00 Bens Branch – From Harris County Boundary to Rocky Woods Drive (Length = 2.2 miles)
G103-33-02 – From North park Drive to the confluence with Bens Branch (Length= 0.2 miles)
G103-33-03 – From Hidden Pines Dr. to the confluence with Bens Branch (Length= 0.1 miles)
G103-33-04 – From W Lake Houston Pkway to the confluence with Bens Branch (Length= 1.2 miles)
G103-36-00 (Bear Branch)- From Woodland Hills Dr. to WFSR (Length= 2.7 miles)
G103-36-01 – From Woods Estates Dr. to the confluence with Bear Branch (Length= 0.8 miles)
G103-36-02 – From Woodland Hills Dr. to the confluence with Bear Branch (Length = 0.9 miles)
G103-36-02.1- From Kingwood Dr. to the confluence with Bear Branch (Length= 0.4 miles)\
G103-36-03- From Royal Circle Dr. to the confluence with Bear Branch (Length= 0.4 miles)
G103-38-01- From Laurel Springs Ln. to the confluence with Kingwood Diversion Ditch (Length= 1.3 miles)
G103-38-01.1- From Red Oak Terrace Ct. to the confluence with Kingwood Diversion Ditch (Length = 0.4 miles)
G103-38-02- From Harris County Line to the confluence with Kingwood Diversion Ditch (Length= 0.7 miles)
G103-39-00- From Palmetto Ln. to the WFSR (Length= 1.3 miles)
G103-41-00 (Sand Branch) – From Sycamore Creek Dr. to the WFSR (Length= 2.0 miles)
G103-41-01- From Elk Creek Dr. to the confluence with Sand Branch (Length= 0.8 miles)
G103-45-00- From Trail Tree Ln. to the WFSR (Length= 0.4 miles)
G103-46-00- From Forest Cove Dr. to the WFSR (Length = 1.0 miles)
G103-46-01- From Sweet Gum Ln. to the confluence with G103-46-00 (Length= 0.7 miles)
G103-80-01.1- From Autumn Sage Ln. to the confluence with Green Tree Ditch (Length= 0.3 miles)
G103-80-03.1A (Mills Branch) – From Same Way to Whiteoak Creek (Length = 1.5 miles)
G103-80-04 (Blackland Gully) – From Maple Knob Ct. to the EFSR (Length = 0.6 miles)
The scope of work includes several stakeholder meetings with TIRZ 10, homeowner associations, and the community at large. Their purpose: to increase public awareness and understanding of the magnitude of the watershed problems, their complexities and the cost of solutions.
Drainage Study Data Acquisition Phase
The contractor will start by collecting all available information and data including:
Construction plans
Previous drainage studies
HCFCD historical flooding data
High Water Marks
Watershed Masterplan data
FEMA Repetitive Loss properties
Flooding reports
LiDAR DEM data
Aerial maps
HCFCD watershed maps
Hydrologic and hydraulic models
City of Houston GIMS data
Any other pertinent technical data in the development of this scope of services.
Field Reconnaissance Phase
Neel-Schaffer engineers will then conduct field reconnaissance of the existing drainage systems, outfalls, and drainage patterns within the project area. That will include field measurements of 27 bridge crossings, 32 culvert crossings, 16 pedestrian bridge crossings and 6 drop structures to be incorporated in the development of hydraulic models.
During this stage, Neel-Schaffer will also measure high water marks; update floodplains; and analyze stream performance and capacity to illustrate flooding issues to the County, TIRZ and community.
Identification of Structural and Non-Structural Mitigation Alternatives
The Engineer will determine structural and non-structural improvement alternatives to bring all streams back up to the 100-year level-of-service.
Neel-Schaffer will perform this analysis using full conveyance at peak flows. Engineers will identify the major constraints that affect the available solutions for each stream.
They will then consider both structural and non-structural alternatives for mitigation.
Structural Alternatives
Structural alternatives include:
Improved drainage channels including widening, deepening, and/or lining for increased conveyance capacity.
Watershed diversions using enclosed conduits (following existing roadway alignments or other public ROW).
New regional or sub-regional detention basins and modification of existing detention basins including inlet and/or outlet structures.
Enhanced conveyance using selectective clearing and re-shaping of natural channels.
Enhanced flood storage in natural and park areas using small-scale berms and grading.
Non-Structural Alternatives
Non-Structural Alternatives include:
Property buy-outs.
Coordinated ROW dedications for future improved channels and regional detention basins.
Regional detention fees for new development.
Drainage Study Will Consider Detention Ponds
This contract includes identifying detention needs, identifying potential locations, and developing schematic layouts of the detention ponds. It also includes:
Proposed Right of Way acquisition
Preliminary Cost Estimates
A project priority and implementation plan
It is not clear at this point how long this project will take.
This post is dedicated to Barbara Hillburn, the president of the Kingwood Lakes HOA, who fought long and hard to get a project like this started. Thank you, Barbara!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/14/2019 with thanks to Barbara Hillburnand Precinct 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle
715 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Kingwood-Drainage-Study-Area.jpg?fit=1366%2C1088&ssl=110881366adminadmin2019-08-14 15:55:322019-08-14 15:55:43Harris County Commissioners Approve $700,000 Kingwood Area Drainage Study
The Army Corps has released a new summary of its progress on dredging the mouth bar. The report indicates that Great Lakes, the contractor is now 70% complete. They have dredged 350,000 out of 500,000 cubic yards.
Great Lakes started dredging the mouth bar on June 25th, 2019, as part of a $17,085,861 extension of the original contract (FEMA mission assignment SWD-30).
Current area of operation is the blue area on the far right. Sediment removed from that area is being pumped 10 miles back upstream to Placement Area #2, a sand mine near Kingwood College, on the far left.
Between the start of mouth bar dredging and August 12, Great Lakes dredged an average of 6,363 cubic yards per day. If they can keep that pace up, they should be done by approximately Labor Day – three months ahead of schedule. That’s HALF the predicted time.
Remainder of Project Still Not Decided
What comes next? That still has not been finalized. City, County and State officials have been meeting in the background to determine that. The Army Corps still has not accepted or rejected Berry Madden’s property as a third placement area. And the $30 million appropriated by the State for mouth bar dredging won’t even become available until September 1st.
RD Kissling and Tim Garfield, two local geologists who first brought the mouth bar issue to the public’s attention, estimate that 500,000 cubic yards is about one-fourth of the total sediment that must be removed to fully restore conveyance of the West Fork.
How Shallow is It?
The Corps has not yet released (or even developed) plans for mouth bar dredging. We do know the volume they intend to remove, and the general area they intend to remove it from. However, they have refused to divulge how much of a dent their efforts will make in solving the problem.
This photo of a Kings River resident wading across the river shows how shallow it is near the orange channel marker.This resident says boats “beach” behind his property almost every day.Note: Deeper pockets may exist, especially near dredging equipment. The risk of drowning is real. Do not let children attempt this.Photo taken Sunday, August 10, 2019.The resident made it almost to the channel marker without getting his shorts wet.Shot taken with 6X telephoto lens.The lake/river within this area averages two to three feet deep. 500,000 cubic yards would lower the average level by another three feet as this calculation shows.
Problem With Stopping after 500,000 CY
The problem with stopping after the Corps finishes its 500,000 cubic yards is that the river behind this area is much deeper. Where the Corps stopped dredging just past Kings Harbor, the river is now 25-30 feet deep. And places are even deeper according to fishermen. That means water coming downriver will be forced to flow uphill in this area. That will force it to slow down and more sediment will rapidly drop out of suspension. Some experts have suggested dredging a deep channel through this area to help restore full conveyance of the river. However, the Army Corps intends to stop after 500,000 cubic yards.
“Q: What is USACE Galveston District’s plan for the rest of the mouth bar?“
“A. There is no additional work planned for the mouth bar. The current plan for the modification addressing material near the mouth bar can be found on the placemat. USACE Galveston District has no authority to conduct any additional work in the West Fork of the San Jacinto River or Lake Houston. The San Jacinto River is not an authorized federal waterway, the Corps of Engineers dredging operations are currently limited to dredging Harvey-related material. The ongoing work under the contract modification will remove the remainder of material attributable directly to Hurricane Harvey. The sedimentation from recurring annual flows are not within USACE Galveston District’s mission assignment from FEMA. Water flows on the West Fork of San Jacinto River were restored to pre-Harvey levels in December 2018.”
“Q: Who can the public contact for additional concerns with the maintenance of the San Jacinto River?“
“A. For concerns with the maintenance of the San Jacinto River, please contact Harris County Flood Control District, the San Jacinto River Authority and the City of Houston.”
Punt!
Meanwhile the City is still arguing with the Corps about how they arrived at 500,000 cubic yards. More on that later. I have obtained the Corps’ estimate through a FOIA request to the City of Houston. It raises many questions that I am still trying to sort through. More on that later.
Posted by Bob Rehak on August 14, 2019
715 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/MouthBar_01_01.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-08-14 13:46:172019-08-14 13:46:28Army Corps Now 70% Complete with Its Portion of Mouth Bar Dredging
