Status Reports on 10 Lake Houston Area Flood Mitigation Projects

Instead of exploring one topic in depth, tonight, I’ll summarize a number of topics related to flood mitigation with just a few sentences on each.

West Fork Mouth Bar Dredging

Mouth bar dredging is going faster than expected. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock has not encountered buried trees in that region of the river as they did upstream. Of the 500,000 cubic yards being paid for by FEMA, Great Lakes had already removed about 150,000 as of last Saturday. If they were able to keep that rate, they should be closer to 200,000 cubic yards by now.

West Fork Mouth Bar with Great Lakes Dredge. Drone image courtesy of Franz Willette, BCAeronautics.

That would make them approximately 40% done. Still no word on what comes next. 500,000 cubic yards represents only about a quarter to a third of what needs to be removed to eliminate the backwater effect created by sediment build up. Neither the City, County, State, nor Federal government has yet announced plans for removing the rest. Money is available. But a “placement” permit for the spoils remains elusive.

I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Army Corps five weeks ago for the plans for this project. I think if they had any I would have gotten them by now. This doesn’t exactly involve national security, but people are acting like it does. That worries me.

Kings Harbor Dredging

Callan Marine expects to be done within 10 days and will start demobilizing. This should be welcome news for residents of Kings Lake Estates who have had to live with the noise of booster pumps since the dredging project moved into this reach of the river.

Callan Marine Dredge that has worked the Kings Harbor area for several months.

Ben’s Branch Desilt Project

HCFCD has desilted the upper portion of Bens Branch near Northpark Drive and Woodland Hills. Attention now is shifting farther south, below Kingwood Drive.

Bens Branch near North Park and Woodland Hills

Way back in April, Harris County Flood Control thought it might start work on this project by July. Think August now. The county has already bid the project and awarded the contract. The contractor will remove 77,000 cubic yards of sediment from the area near West Lake Houston Parkway. That’s about 7,700 dump-truck loads. Get ready. Removing all that could take through the end of the year. The City of Houston, though, still has not completed work on the easements that would allow the desilting project to go all the way to the West Fork.

Bens Branch between the Kingwood YMCA and Library. That little spec in the background is a HCFCD surveyor.

Here’s the latest status report from Harris County Flood Control. Currently HCFCD is obtaining the bond and insurance information from the contractor. A pre-construction meeting will take place in the near future at which HCFCD and the contractor will set the notice-to-proceed date.  Ultimately, the contractor should be on the ground working before the end of August 2019.

Three-Phase Taylor Gully De-Snag and De-Silt Projects

Think of this in three separate phases: East Fork to Mills Branch, Mills Branch to Bassingham, and Bassingham to the new construction project project across the Montgomery county line.

Between 2/12/2019 and 4/18/2019, HCFCD in-house crews completed an earthen channel desilt project and a backslope drain repair project from Bassingham Drive to Mills Branch Drive. 

Currently HCFCD in-house crews are focusing on the Montgomery County line to Bassingham.  They are desilting an earthen channel, pruning the fence line, repairing backslope drains, creating new interceptor structures and outfalls, regrading backslope swales, repairing ruts, and installing gates and signs.

Flood Control will also fix the broken concrete rubble at the downstream end of the concrete drop structure which is downstream of Mills Branch Drive. Before they leave, crews will double check the flow line of Taylor Gully from Bassingham Drive to Maple Bend Drive and remove any siltation blocking flow if needed. 

Regarding the last segment, Flood Control removed many downed trees in the natural part of Taylor Gully leading to the East Fork after Hurricane Harvey. Since then, residents have reported more trees that have fallen into the channel. Flood Control has scheduled the removal of these downed trees in Fall/Winter 2019. 

Erosion on the downstream natural portion of Taylor Gully threatens homes in Woodstream Village. Flood Control will once again de-snag this area this fall or winter. Photo Courtesy of Chris Kalman.

San Jacinto River Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan

This study (partially funded by FEMA HMGP funds) will guide future decisions (and funding) for large flood damage reduction projects upstream of Kingwood. Think additional detention that could help offset future releases from Lake Conroe during floods. While consultants have not yet identified suitable areas for new reservoirs, they have reportedly ruled out Lake Creek because of new developments spring up in the area. The project was expected to take about 15 months and kicked off in April. Flood Control expects to have the final report by the fall of 2020. For videos and more background info on the study, click here.

As part of the project, the consultant will recalibrate hydrologic models using new Atlas 14 data from NOAA. This project could also affect additional gates for the Lake Houston Dam and maintenance dredging.

Woodridge Village Development

A judge has set a trial date in July of 2020 for all the lawsuits resulting from the May 7th flood this year. Meanwhile construction continues. Jeff Miller shot this video last week showing the status of the crucial S2 detention pond adjacent to Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest.

Video Courtesy of Jeff Miller showing the status of construction in S2, the Woodridge Village detention pond adjacent to the homes that flooded on May 7th in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest.

I have also received reports of the developer bringing in fill to raise the northern section of the property. If true, neighbors should be on high alert.

Lake Conroe Lowering by SJRA

Lake Conroe is normally at 201 feet above sea level. To create an extra buffer against floods during the peak of hurricane season (August/September), the SJRA will start gradually lowering Lake Conroe on August 1. They hope to get to 200 feet by August 15 and 199 feet by September 1. They will hold that level until October and then let the lake gradually rise back to its normal level. The National Hurricane Center expects no tropical activity anywhere in The Atlantic or Gulf during the next 5 days.

Huffman Area General Drainage Improvements

Harris County Flood Control met with community members on July 11 to discuss the status of improvements to Huffman area drainage. They are too numerous to list here. But Flood Control has a page on its web site dedicated to Huffman now. Here is the presentation from the Community Meeting.

Inundation Map of Huffman Area from Harris County Flood Control.

Based on an analysis of Harvey flooding in three watersheds (East Fork, Luce Bayou and Cedar Bayou), the flood control district is investigating:

  • Stormwater Detention Basins
  • Channel Maintenance
  • Channel Modifications
  • Voluntary Home Buyouts

The District should make final recommendations by this fall.

Montgomery County New Development and Construction Practices

Four people called me in the last two days about flooding on their properties due to construction practices on new, nearby developments. Complaints involved filling in of wetlands and natural streams; altering or blocking natural drainage; plus elevating property and regrading it to drain onto neighbor’s property.

Part of the Woodridge Village development above Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest. Many other developments are starting up in MoCo that will drain into the West Fork.

Not sure what’s happening all of a sudden. This may be MoCo’s answer to urban renewal. According to victims, commissioners seem unconcerned. According to New Caney ISD reports, as many as 4,000 new homes could soon be built in this area. Main focus seems to be between Sorters and West Fork along 1314 up to highway 99. More news to follow.

Romerica High-Rise Project

This isn’t really a mitigation project. But it would require one if built. Romerica’s spokesperson has indicated they plan to re-apply for a permit once they find ways to respond to all the concerns raised during the public comment period for the Corps permit application. However, Romerica’s PR agency has not said when that may happen. Meanwhile they have taken down many of the websites about the project. One remains: TheHeronsKingwood.com.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/28/2019 with imagery from Jeff Miller, BCAeronautics, and Chris Kalman

698 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Truth is the First Casualty In Water Wars, Too

Aeschylus, the ancient Greek playwright coined the phrase, “The first casualty in war is truth.” The same is true of water wars. In an attempt to justify unlimited groundwater pumping from the Jasper aquifer, a headline in a Montgomery County online newspaper trumpeted, “University Of Houston Study Shows No Linkage Between Deep Groundwater Production And Subsidence In Montgomery County.” But wait! Is that what the study really said? The article did not provide a link to the actual study. So how could you tell if the review was accurate? It’s not. Below are just a few of the reasons why.

Contradictions Between Study and Newspaper’s Summary

The UH study didn’t study Montgomery County. It looked only at Harris-Galveston Subsidence District Regulatory Areas 1 and 2. They cover only SOUTHERN Harris and Galveston counties! Researchers found no subsidence associated with the Jasper there. That’s because virtually no one pumps the Jasper there (See Jasper well location map below).  The article’s anonymous author forgot to mention that though.

“Don’t Extrapolate Results,” But They Did

The UH study also carefully cautions readers not to extrapolate the results from the study area to other areas. But the newspaper did it and forgot to mention the caution also.

Newspaper Falsely Claims Study Suggests “No Subsidence”

The newspaper author claimed that the study “suggests that Montgomery County utilities, municipalities, homeowner’s associations, and other large-scale groundwater users could draw water production from the Jasper aquifer without causing any subsidence at the surface of Montgomery County.” The UH study makes no such suggestion. 

Claimed “No Need for Regulation,” Contrary to UH Findings

The newspaper author goes on to claim that the study “also suggests that, as long as groundwater production comes from the Jasper or lower formations (such as the Upper Catahoula Formation), there is little need, if any, for any groundwater regulation whatsoever.” Again, the UH study makes no such suggestion. 

Quite the contrary, the UH study says that regulation was effective in slowing the subsidence found in other aquifers along the gulf coast that were being depleted, such as the Evangeline and Chicot. 

Newspaper Claim of 100% Annual Recharge Not Substantiated by Study

The newspaper author also says that, “Since the quantity of groundwater in Montgomery County is essentially unlimited, and since Montgomery County aquifers enjoy almost 100% recharge annually after production drawdowns have occurred, there would seem to be no reason whatsoever to regulate groundwater production from the Jasper aquifer and the Catahoula aquifer.” The study makes no mention of recharge rates in either of those aquifers.

Newspaper Implies “No Need for Regulation” but Study Says It Helped

Finally, the anonymous newspaper author concludes by saying, “The University of Houston study suggests that it’s time for the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District to bring the entire over-regulation of groundwater to a crashing halt.” The study made no such recommendation.

Inferring that the UH scientists even implied that would require turning the the study’s findings on their head. Quite the contrary. The study explicitly states that regulations implemented in 1975 with the formation of the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District slowed out-of-control subsidence.

Newspaper Article Not Signed

Jumpin’ Jasper! What’s going on here? Who wrote this unsigned article? Was it someone who stands to profit financially from pumping the Jasper dry? 

Why Water Not Pumped From Southern Part of Jasper

For the record, the Jasper dips toward the coast along a roughly north-to-south axis. The Jasper aquifer contains fresh water in Montgomery County and northern Harris County. But south of that, it becomes brackish. The water is too salty to use. That’s a big reason why virtually no one pumps it in the southern part of the region.

This map shows the freshwater limits of the Jasper aquifer in 2010. For the most part, the freshwater portion of the Jasper aquifer does not extend to the area of interest studied by the UH scholars.

The down-dip part of the Jasper toward the coast also goes very deep. At the southern limit of freshwater, depth ranges to thousands of feet in places (see bottom of colored area below). Why would you drill that deep if you could get fresher water from aquifers like the Chicot and Evangeline much closer to the surface?

From Page 30 of Hydrogeology and Simulation of Ground-Water Flow and Land-Surface Subsidence in the Northern Part of the Gulf Coast Aquifer System, Texas, Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5102, USGS

Subsidence Already Noted in Northern Part of Jasper

Those are the reasons why the UH scholars do not associate subsidence with the Jasper in southern Harris and Montgomery Counties. That does NOT mean subsidence won’t happen in other areas where utilities DO pump the Jasper. It already has.

Map showing contours of the average subsidence rate (mm/year) during the time span from 2006 to 2012. From “Is There Deep-Seated Subsidence in the Houston-Galveston Area?”, Page 2.

However, USGS well-water height readings north of Highway 99 show severe drawdown near the population centers in southern Montgomery and northern Harris Counties. And surprise, surprise! That also happens to be the area where most subsidence has occurred in Montgomery County.

Unsustainable Pumping Rates

While the advocates of unlimited groundwater pumping want you to believe that the aquifer recharge rates in Montgomery County equal the drawdown rate, they don’t. The Jasper aquifer is being drawn down in populated places at more than 10 FEET per year (see graph below). But USGS estimates that the recharge rate for the Jasper is as little as ONE-TENTH of an INCH per year. That means some utilities have been using up Jasper water 1200 times faster than nature replaces it.

This well drilled in the Jasper aquifer near the Woodlands showed an average decline of approximately 10 feet per year (about 180 feet in 18 years).
USGS map showing 2000-2018 Water-Level Decreases/Increases (left) vs. Well Locations (right) for the Jasper Aquifer. This USGS viewer lets you see different aquifers over different time periods and check water level changes for any well near you. Most of Montgomery County’s major declines happened near major population centers.

Truth or Consequences

Ground level declines produce fault movement and subsidence. They translate to infrastructure damage and flooding. 

As water levels decline, water wells begin to have problems producing. They lose “yield,” which means they can’t produce as much water in a given time period. This requires the wells to run longer to meet demand. It costs more to lift water. Longer run times increase maintenance costs.  Pumps have to be lowered. The motors have to be upsized, which requires electrical rewiring. 

Some well pumps can’t be lowered any farther, which may mean abandoning and replacing the well. Some water level decline is expected. But those who argue that Montgomery County has an unlimited supply of water are just ludicrous. The harder you pump, the more decline you get, and with that comes all the consequences of declines. 

Why People Want to Believe the Unbelievable

Montgomery County residents have found the change from well to surface water financially difficult. People WANT to believe that unlimited groundwater pumping is safe. I just hope they don’t wind up putting all their water lillies in one pond, so to speak. 

The only thing worse than expensive water is no water. Or no water plus infrastructure damaged by subsidence.

Selective Perception Amplified by Selective Deception

Selective perception is a well known cognitive bias. It describes the process by which people perceive what they want to in media messages while ignoring opposing viewpoints. However, in this case, it seems that selective deception is amplifying the bias.

Don’t take my word. Read the newspaper article and then read the actual study on which the article is based. I provide links so you can make up your own mind; the newspaper article did not.

Other Useful References

Below are some other useful publications from the U.S. Geological Survey which is part of the Department of the Interior.

USGS Subsidence home page. Contains dozens of useful publications on Texas Gulf Coast Groundwater and Land Subsidence, plus raw data in numerous formats.

Hydrogeology and Simulation of Ground-Water Flow and Land-Surface Subsidence in the Northern Part of the Gulf Coast Aquifer System, Texas By Mark C. Kasmarek and James L. Robinson, 2004

Groundwater Withdrawals 1976, 1990, and 2000–10 and Land-Surface-Elevation Changes 2000–10 in Harris, Galveston, Fort Bend, Montgomery, and Brazoria Counties, Texas, Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5034, By Mark C. Kasmarek and Michaela R. Johnson

Land Surface Subsidence in Harris County between 1915 and 2001.

Water-Level Altitudes 2016 and Water-Level Changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper Aquifers and Compaction 1973–2015 in the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers, Houston-Galveston Region, Texas, Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5034, U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

Evaluation of Ground-Water Flow and Land-Surface Subsidence Caused by Hypothetical
Withdrawals in the Northern Part of the Gulf Coast Aquifer System, Texas, Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5024, U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey by Mark C. Kasmarek, Brian D. Reece, and Natalie A. Houston

Also, don’t forget to check out the subsidence tab under the Reports page of this web site.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/27/2019

697 Days after Hurricane Harvey

“Is There Deep-Seated Subsidence in the Houston-Galveston Area?” by Jiangbo Yu, Guoquan Wang, Timothy J. Kearns, and Linqiang Yang, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, National Center for Airborne LiDAR Mapping, 312 Science & Research Building 1, Room 312, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-5007, USA. Copyright © 2014 Jiangbo Yu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License. Hindawi Publishing Corporation, International Journal of Geophysics, Volume 2014, Article ID 942834, 11 pages.

Note: All thoughts in this post represent my opinions on matters of public interest and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.

Judge Sets July 2020 Trial Date in Flood Case

Judge Lauren Reeder of the 234th Judicial District Court has set the trial date in the Elm Grove/North Kingwood Forest flooding case for July 13, 2020.

Background of Case

On May 7th of this year, heavy rains fell on 268 acres that had been clear cut by subsidiaries of Perry Homes (PSWA, Inc. and Figure Four Partners LTD.) and their contractors. Contractors working on the new development, Woodridge Forest, had not yet installed detention ponds to control the runoff. Approximately 200 homes flooded during the rain event.

Video shows that much of the water flowed down streets near Taylor Gully instead of flowing into the gully itself at a controlled rate as it should have. The defendants blamed the flooding on God. But the hydrology report prepared by LJA Engineering showed that the detention ponds in the development should have held more than a foot of rain, far more than actually fell that day. One issue in the case may be whether the developer acted negligently by clearcutting so much acreage before installing adequate detention.

Schedule Between Now and Trial Date

The docket control order issued by Judge Reeder also lays out the general order of events in the case. On or before:

  • 12/16/2019, all parties to the case must be added and served, a legal process called “joinder.” Inviters this case, more than 200 individual plaintiffs are suing the defendants. Interestingly, the defendants do not yet include the parent company, Perry Homes, or LJA Engineering Inc., the company that designed the development and its detention systems.
  • 4/13/2020, all expert witnesses for parties seeking affirmative relief must be named.
  • 5/13/2020, all other expert witnesses must be named.
  • 6/12/2020, the court will hold a status conference to discuss discovery limitations and alternative dispute resolution (i.e., mediation). The discover period ends on 6/12. All pleadings, amendments and challenges to expert testimony must also be heard by this date.

On 6/29/20 at 1:30 pm, Judge Reeder has scheduled a docket call at which all parties to the case must be prepared to discuss every aspect of the case.

Judge Reeder also tentatively scheduled the trial for 7/13/2020.

To see the entire original docket order, click here.

Woodridge Village Construction Continues

Construction on the Woodridge Village development will continue during the pre-trial phase. This has some residents concerned. While the construction of detention ponds is encouraging, any flaws in the construction of the engineering plans will be set in concrete before the case goes to trial. If there are flaws, that could affect flooding for years to come.

Jeff Miller, an Elm Grove resident, reports that two more culverts have been added to Taylor Gulley where it bisects the northern and southern portions of Woodridge Village.

Video Courtesy of Jeff Miller. To play, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on July 25, 2019 with help from Bill Fowler and Jeff Miller

695 days after Hurricane Harvey

All thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.

Giving Rivers More Room: Who Wants to Give Up The Freedom to Flood?

A CBS 60-Minutes segment last Sunday brought into focus many thoughts I have been struggling to articulate since Hurricane Harvey. The segment featured an interview with a Dutch flood expert named Henk Ovink. Mr. Ovink has some impressive credentials and consults with other countries and cities around the world. At a strategic level, he looks at America and scratches his strikingly bald head. You can sum up his observations in a paragraph.

Simple Flooding Solution: Reimagine, Don’t Replace

America, he says, spends hundreds of billions of dollars to repair flood damage and restore communities to the way they were. The Dutch, he says, focus on re-imagining their cities to move structures and people out of harm’s way. The idea is to give floods more room to spread out rather than to confine them within dikes. Instead of incentivizing people with below-cost national flood insurance to build ever closer to danger areas, reward them for moving to safer places.

Unfortunately, the 60-minutes segment is behind a pay wall. If you’re not a subscriber already, you can see many of the same thoughts in this 10-minute interview he did with the Canadian Broadcasting Company right after Hurricane Harvey and other massive floods in 2017.

Click here to see the CBC Documentary featuring Henk Ovink

Why Change is So Difficult

It’s not as if these are new ideas. We hear people talking about them ad nauseam – at conferences, on TV, in City Council chambers, in newspaper reports. Yet we never take action on them. As a result, homes and businesses flood repetitively. And people die. In contrast, no one has died in a Dutch flood since 1955, says Mr. Ovink.

This raises an obvious question.

What keeps us from adopting simple, low-cost, proven solutions?

The answer should be blindingly obvious, but isn’t … at least to Americans … and especially Texans, who believe in individual freedom and competition more than most.

If you take the time to watch Mr. Ovink’s other speeches and interviews on YouTube, you’ll get a hint. He talks a lot about the spirit of cooperation among the Dutch people. It’s not as if American’s don’t know how to cooperate. It’s that we don’t LIKE to cooperate – if there’s money to be made.

Cooperation Vs. Competition

From a sociological and psychological perspective, humans have two great survival strategies: cooperation and competition. You can see them built into our political fabric at every level, dating back to the U.S. Constitution. We built America on both. Fifty states work together to provide for things like a common defense. But we also have fifty states competing with each other for jobs, economic development, and the freedom to pursue different values.

The contradiction and tension between these two survival strategies defines the American mindset and American politics. Two local, recent examples:

  • Romerica is trying to build a 3.2 million square foot development in wetlands near the floodway of the San Jacinto West Fork. They know it’s not safe, but they can make money by buying up cheap flood plain land and then sell river views at a profit. Taxpayer-subsided flood insurance protects everyone. So why not?
  • In Montgomery County, a private water utility is fighting what it calls a “government monopoly” on the supply of water. QuadVest and Simon Sequeira want unlimited groundwater pumping to pump up their profits. They dispute the science that points to the subsidence it will generate, endangering other people’s property.

Lessons from the Pursuit of Loneliness

As I reflected on this, it reminded me of a book I read in 1970, The Pursuit of Loneliness by Phillip Slater. For a sociology book, it became a blockbuster success. It sold more than half a million copies, a monster number at the time.

The New York Times said in a review, “…the book explored the tension between the Lone Ranger individualist who occupies center stage in American myth and the communal interdependence that defines democracy in reality.”

The example I remember best from Slater’s book, which I read almost 50 years ago, concerned migration to suburbs and exurbs. For thousands of years, Slater said, to be civilized meant to be citified. We love all the benefits of living in a city (like jobs, shopping, cultural and sporting events), but our dream is a ranch far out in the country that lets us escape. So we buy it, then lobby to build an eight-lane divided highway to it. Use up two to three hours a day commuting. And pollute the air along the way. We wake up years later only to find that we have destroyed the very lifestyle we we fought so hard to attain.

The book is filled with contradictions like this. For instance, when connectedness brings us happiness, why do we work so hard to live in walled-off homes? I highly recommend it.

Group Vs. Individual

This conflict between cooperation and competition, independence and interdependence, defines the contradictions in our ambitions, politics and lifestyles. It’s what makes America and Texas so insanely great. It’s also one of the things that makes flood mitigation so difficult and expensive. Our belief in individual rights blinds us to the obvious. Maybe we should just give the river room to flood by turning that flood plain property into communal parks that everyone can enjoy. But who will give up their river view? Or the freedom to flood?

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/25/2019

695 Days since Hurricane Harvey

All thoughts expressed in this post are my opinions on matters of public policy. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP law of the great State of Texas.

Upstream Development Should Not Affect Kingwood Like It Affected Bellaire, But…

Two new subdivisions, Northpark Woods and Woodridge Village, made me worry about the impact of upstream development on Kingwood and the rest of the Lake Houston area. Could these developments overwhelm the capacity of our drainage ditches? Could they increase our chances of flooding? The consensus among flood professionals: It’s not likely. But they also qualify their answers. Here’s why.

Clear-cut area for new Northpark Woods development in Porter. This 90-acre area will contain hundreds of starter homes in the flood plain of the West Fork (background), ranging from 1200 to 2400SF.

Changes in Detention Requirements Over Time

In the past, upstream development definitely contributed to downstream flooding in places like Bellaire and Meyerland. But that was back before regulations in most cities and counties required detention ponds in new developments. In many cases, no detention was provided for a development because it simply wasn’t part of the requirements of the time.

It’s different now for places like Kingwood because much of the upstream development has required and continues to require detention.

I found that very comforting. However, we also have some challenges ahead to reduce flood risk.

Not All Counties Have Fill Requirements As Stringent as Harris’

As we’ve seen with the Romerica development, Harris County has stringent requirements about filling in floodplains. Not all surrounding counties have those same restrictions. Can we do anything about that?

Kingwood can certainly advocate among all areas upstream that drain to Lake Houston. For instance, take Montgomery County, Waller County, Grimes County, Walker County, San Jacinto County, and Liberty County. Those and associated incorporated areas (e.g., City of Conroe) should not only require detention for new developments, they should adopt drainage criteria and regulations similar to Harris County.  

This would mean that new developments would have to mitigate not only for the increased stormwater runoff, but for any fill they add to the floodplain. 

Problems in Harmonizing Flood Plain Regulations

This is a big ask for many areas that are looking to attract development and growth. The problem: Many places on the fringes of the City see lax regulations (or a reputation for lax enforcement) as a way to attract growth. The implied pitch to developers is, “Your costs will be lower here.”

Complicating matters, many residents of those counties moved away from the City because they like the freedom. You just have fewer people telling you what to do out in the country.

So expect political pushback.

Consider as Part of First Statewide Flood Plan?

Even right here in the Lake Houston area, we have widely varying flood plain regulations.

Fortunately, we have a forum to debate this: the new statewide flood plan authorized by SB8 this year. Harmonizing flood-plain regulations should be part of our first-ever statewide flood plan. The lack of harmony certainly contributed to many of our woes during Harvey – especially when it comes to flood plain developments like Northpark Woods.

Statewide Flood Plan Meetings Coming Up

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) is inviting interested Texans to attend one of 13 flood outreach meetings during the first two weeks of August. They will solicit comments on the new state and regional flood planning process and the new flood financing program, both established during the 2019 legislative session under SB8 and SB500.

Texans are beginning the first stages in the development of a first-ever statewide flood plan.

Jeff Walker, Executive Administrator of the TWDB says the group is holding these meetings prior to the required formal rulemaking process to help ensure that the new programs meet the needs of Texas communities.

The flood planning program will result in regional flood plans in 2023 and the first state flood plan in September 2024. Intended to make drainage and flood projects more affordable for Texas communities, the flood financing program will be funded through a $793 million transfer from the Rainy Day Fund and will become available in 2020.

The 13 meetings are widely scattered throughout the state. The closest to the Houston area is in Tomball.

  • Beckendorf Conference Center at Lone Star College–Tomball
  • 30555 Tomball Pkwy. 
  • Tomball, TX 77375
  • 9:30-11:30 a.m.
  • Friday, August 9

Sign up for more information about these meetings and other flood information at the TWDB’s website.

Said Walker, “Your comments will help us craft programs that reflect the diversity and magnitude of the flood needs in Texas. We hope we will see you in August.”

Monitor Master Watershed Study

Additionally, the Kingwood area should closely monitor the San Jacinto River Watershed Master Drainage Plan currently underway.  This study will be the critical document that guides future decisions (and funding) for large flood damage reduction projects upstream of Kingwood. 

That includes more upstream detention like the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs. Additional detention was one of three critical remediation measures to help improve flood safety in the Lake Houston Area (detention, dredging and gates for Lake Houston – DDG).

Already some areas have been ruled out for additional detention because of new developments going in upstream. The study began last March after Houston, Harris County, Montgomery County and the SJRA obtained FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds.

Posted by Bob Rehak on July 23, 2019

693 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Those Who Deny History Are Doomed To Repeat It: Subsidence in 1974 and 2019

My post about Conroe escalating the Montgomery County water wars and putting millions of people in the crossfire from subsidence drew a response from Simon Sequeira, president of Quadvest. Sequiera is one of the litigants arguing for unlimited pumping of groundwater. On Facebook, he dismissively said, “Rehak has an elementary understanding of the issues.”

Who are Simon Sequiera and Quadvest?

Quadvest claims to be the “fastest growing, privately-owned utility company in Southeast Texas.” It has aggressive growth goals. Unlimited pumping of cheap groundwater would help them attain those goals. I consider Mr. Sequeira’s criticism with that in mind. He has some self-interest in this fight. If he wins, he gets even richer. Unfortunately, for millions of people in the Gulf Coast region, money has a short memory.

Denying History Means Learning the Hard Way

The history of Quadvest goes back only 40 years, so this 1974 Texas Monthly article about subsidence may not be part of Mr. Sequeira’s or the company’s institutional memory. William Broyles wrote it. Broyles helped found Texas Monthly and won numerous national magazine awards, one of the highest honors in journalism. Broyles later went on to a distinguished film career as a screenwriter.

The article, titled Disaster, Part Two: Houston, discusses subsidence. It begins with the story of a home – built less than 10 feet above sea level – that had subsided 10 feet in the previous 30 years, three of those feet in just the previous 10 years. The home was separated from the shore and surrounded by sand bags when Broyles wrote the article.

It was one of 448 homes in Brownwood, an exclusive subdivision in Baytown, that actually sank into Galveston Bay.

Cause of Subsidence

In the next paragraph Broyles discusses the cause: “Across the Houston Ship Channel, … the booming plants and industries of the world’s largest petro-chemical complex and the nation’s third largest port had set in motion an inexorable geologic process which destined their quiet neighborhood for the bottom of Galveston Bay. This great agricultural, industrial, and refining economy—and its population—have been fueled by 190 billion gallons of water a year, available easily and cheaply from industrial and municipal wells. These wells have steadily drained the Evangeline and Chicot aquifers (underground water storage systems) faster than they are refilled by annual rainfall. Each year the wells must go deeper to find water. Because of the region’s geology, water is a vital structural component of the clay and sand underlying the land surface; when it is removed, the land sinks.”

One aquifer in Montgomery County is being depleted 500 times faster than its recharge rate. This is clearly not sustainable.

Alternate Doomsday Scenario

Because of its proximity to sea level, Brownwood felt the effects of subsidence first. But the article goes on to discuss the effects of subsidence in the Sixties and Seventies on Pasadena, League City, Clear Lake, the San Jacinto Battle Ground, Galveston, Texas City, and the Johnson Space Center.

The doomsday scenario most feared then and now is a giant hurricane pushing storm surge up the Bay.

The specter of subsidence was so feared by the people of the time that it led to the creation of the Houston-Galveston Subsidence District by the Texas Legislature in 1975, just months after Broyles wrote the article.

Of course, most of Montgomery County is higher than the area bordering Galveston Bay. So why should Montgomery County residents worry?

Red contours show subsidence in last century. Blue contours show subsidence in first 16 years of this century. Note how the small red circle near Jersey Village (A) quickly expanded to the large blue circle around it. Also note (B) the widening gap between red and blue at the top of the frame. This shows that areas that depend on groundwater, i.e., Montgomery County, are subsiding faster than those on surface water, i.e., most of Harris County. Source: Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.

Water level declines start at the well locations where the aquifer is being overpumped.  They call the drawdown curves “cones of depression.” Any local district allowing unlimited groundwater pumping would be impacted first and most. Then the effects would spread to neighboring counties such as Harris and Liberty. This could reduce the gradient of the San Jacinto, causing floodwaters to move slower or accumulate in certain places. Jersey Village is already experiencing this type of flooding due to excessive pumping that put it in the center of a giant bowl.

Fault Activation and Property Damage

Broyles’ article goes on to describe another fear: the activation of faults. “Subsidence caused by massive water withdrawal from regions of high compressibility has also nudged into activity more than 1000 miles of faults. These faults, which generally run parallel to the coast, range in displacement from several inches to eight feet. Such a fault has caused the variation in subsidence at the San Jacinto Monument, where one end of the reflecting pool has sunk three feet and the other end six feet.” 

“This faulting,” continues Broyles, “… exacerbates the problems caused by relatively even subsidence; sewers, pipelines, foundations, sensitive catalytic units, and other highly sophisticated structures cannot survive faulting.”

A recent study by SMU, funded by NASA, confirms that fault activation is still a very real threat from subsidence in Montgomery County.

One economic geologist quoted by Broyles in 1975 characterized faults as “slow motion earthquakes.” There’s no shortage of pipelines, wells, and oilfield instructure. We should not forget that Humble Oil Company turned into one of the world’s largest brands, Exxon, and started right here. Also, there’s other infrastructure like roads, sewers and water distribution networks to be concerned about in northern Harris and southern Montgomery Counties.

Private Vs. Public Interest

If Mr. Sequeira is smart, he will pay close attention to the end of Broyles’ article. Broyles concludes with a discussion of a massive and messy class-action lawsuit between those fighting for unlimited pumping and those whose property was damaged.

Broyles said, “…People … endangered by subsidence are not accepting the extinction of their property … stoically.”

That should give everyone on both sides of the current water war lots to think about.

Many wells and pipelines run through the Lake Houston watershed. Hmmmm. Subsidence, faulting, ruptures, drinking water for 2 million people. It’s easy to see how this could get even uglier. Before there is any resolution, history may repeat itself.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/22/2019

692 Days since Hurricane Harvey

All thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public safety and interest. They are protected by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas.

Barrington Is BACK and BETTER!

This morning, more than 22 months after Hurricane Harvey, the Barrington held a grand re-opening ceremony for its 18,000 square foot Manor House. When project manager Lauren Blackburn cut the red tape, residents got their first glimpse of a newly renovated and re-imagined community facility without equal in Kingwood, and perhaps without equal in the Houston area.

Houston City Council Member Dave Martin (left of bow) addresses a crowd gathered for the ribbon cutting ceremony.
Lauren Blackburn, right, the project manager planned the renovation meticulously. She laid out 72 steps that had to be taken before residents could even vote on the proposal.

Time to Enjoy Life Again

Driving into the parking lot, I could sense the electricity in the air. A large crowd gathered in front of the Manor House. People wanted this.

Residents of one of the hardest hit subdivisions during Harvey were out to make a statement. Every home looked perfectly manicured and freshly painted. Every blade of grass looked neatly trimmed and postcard perfect. Golfers were enjoying the immaculate greens and fairways of the surrounding Kingwood Country Club. Even the bluebirds were singing.

Flowers and flags set the stage.
Impressive without being intimidating, the Manor House radiates warmth and welcome.
Part of the library in the Manor House.
Conference table in the library.
A grand piano adorns the entry hall which looks out over the swimming pool.
Opposite the piano in the entry hall, another conversation area welcomes residents and guests to sit awhile and stay.
The Manor House is large enough to provide couples and friends with private, peaceful places to relax and socialize. It’s designed to bring people together..
One end of the Manor House provides an exercise room for adults.
The kitchen and dining area include a bar.
Game room for kids and teens includes a full size pool table.
Game room also includes ping pong…
…air hockey and more. Before the renovation, the Manor House did not have a game room at all.
The Manor House even has a play room for smaller children. Parents and babysitters can bring kids here to play and socialize.
The Manor House contains a room big enough to host parties, book clubs, church groups and more.
Reception area in the Manor House.
Pool area behind the Manor House.
A lighted tennis court allows extended play for serious enthusiasts.
This cabana provides shade near the tennis courts and swimming pool.
Residents Audrey and Gabriel Alvarado with their daughters Gloria and Reeva, can all walk to the new Manor House.
The Barrington is surrounded by the Kingwood Country Club, one of the largest private clubs in the country. It offers 72 holes of golf. The Club’s Lake Course surrounds the Barrington.

Overwhelmingly Approved by Barrington Residents

Blackburn says her team of residents surveyed the community three times to determine what the new Manor House should offer. Residents volunteered ideas for everything from the types of activities to the art on the walls.

Even though renovations cost more than $750,000, a whopping seventy-two percent of the residents voted for them.

Reflecting Needs of Next Generation

The developer originally conceived the Barrington for people older than 55. However, the survey found that 30% of the families had children under 10. As a result, the design of the original building, built in 2002/2003 changed.

“The community is different and the Manor House reflects the composition and wishes of the community,” says Blackburn.

Cultivating a Sense of Community

“In fact, we designed it to cultivate a sense of community,” said Blackburn. “People can hold all kinds of private events here. Or just hang out with friends. Groups can hold private events. Book clubs. Watch parties. Bible study. Birthdays. Community meetings. Weddings. Receptions. No other community has something like this. It’s what makes us special.”

The Barrington offers stately homes on immaculate streets surrounded by the Kingwood Country Club and nature.

Defined by Dreams, Not Disaster

Yes, the people of the Barrington made a statement today. They said, “We will no longer be defined by disaster. We will be defined by our dreams.” And they’re making those dreams come alive.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/20/2019

690 Days after Hurricane Harvey

MoCo Water War Escalates, Putting Millions in Crossfire

An old-West saying proclaimed, “Steal my horse; carry off my wife; but don’t touch my water.” Texans fight over water. Even here in the Gulf Coast area. In fact, in Montgomery County, we have a good, old-fashioned water war erupting. Last week in Conroe, it escalated again, putting millions of residents in surrounding counties at risk. Here’s the latest volley in a shot heard across the Gulf Coast.

Trigger: Resolution Passed by Conroe

On July 11, 2019, the Conroe City Council passed a resolution supporting the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District which is fighting the Texas Water Development Board’s (“TWDB”) recommendation to incorporate the 2010 Desired Future Conditions (“DFCs”) into its Groundwater Management Plan.

Battle Lines Drawn

To someone who hasn’t been following this controversy closely, that resolution sounded innocent enough. Like a little squabble about objectives. But it’s much more.

It’s a struggle for control of inexpensive ground water and the right to pump it, even though unlimited pumping will damage other people’s property.

One side says unlimited pumping has no negative consequences and that restricting the pumping of groundwater violates their constitutional property rights, impinges their freedom, and restricts their ability to grow. They also feel that the forced conversion to surface water is a monopoly conspiracy to run up prices needlessly. They see the other side as over-reaching bureaucrats eager to impose needless and expensive regulation on a population strapped by high water rates (even though Moco surface water rates compare favorably with others throughout the region).

The other side says unlimited pumping will cause subsidence, increase flooding, deplete aquifers, and deny others their fair share of groundwater. They see the other side as selfish water hogs, oblivious to the future, blind to science, and set on an unsustainable course.

Wowsers! How’d we get to this point?

Surface Water Vs. Groundwater: Pros and Cons

Several aquifers lie under the Houston region. Decades ago, people in neighboring counties learned that excessive pumping from these aquifers caused both depletion and subsidence. So they started converting to surface water to limit flood threats and property damage.

However, surface water is inherently more expensive for several reasons:

  • You have to buy land to create lakes.
  • You have to build dams and water treatment systems.
  • You have to build extensive water distribution networks instead of pumping it from under your feet.

All of that creates incentives to continue pumping groundwater.

So groups advocating cheaper water in Montgomery County found two hydrologists who, surprise, surprise, told them subsidence and depletion won’t happen there – even though the area is already subsiding and water well levels have been in decline!

Large amounts of subsidence are already visible in southern Montgomery County where most groundwater pumping takes place.

State Law Requires Neighboring Counties to Approve Pumpage

The state developed Chapter 36 of the Texas Water Code in large part to protect the public interest from private interests. It governs groups such as the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District in Montgomery County.

Chapter 36 legislates goals for districts. They include:

  • Conservation
  • Preservation
  • Protection
  • Recharging
  • Prevention of waste
  • Control of subsidence
  • Protection of property rights
  • Balancing conservation and development of groundwater
  • Using best available science.

Four Steps to Manage Groundwater

By law and convention, groundwater and subsidence districts manage groundwater with a four-step process.

  • First, they set goals by defining “desired future conditions.”
  • Second, they model how much groundwater they can pump to meet those goals.
  • Third, they develop a plan for achieving the goals.
  • Fourth, they develop rules for implementing the plan.

It’s enlightening to see how those steps have played out in Montgomery County.

Step One: Define Desired Future Conditions

Groundwater management AREAs (GMAs) set “desired future conditions” (DFCs) or goals for a region. This helps prevent selfish decisions by individual groundwater conservation DISTRICTS (GCDs).

Under current law, goals are now set by a vote of all the GCDs in a GMA. 

Instead of your local GCD setting goals for its area, the district must go to the GMA and convince the larger group of GCDs to approve goals for the area. This limits local control, but prevents one district from allowing the aquifer to be mined to the detriment of surrounding counties.

Legislators have divided the Sate into 16 groundwater management areas. Multiple groundwater conservation districts comprise each area (see below). For a high res pdf of this map, click here.
GMA 14 includes 20 counties (including Harris and Montgomery), five groundwater conservation districts and two subsidence districts. For a high res PDF of this map, click here.

LSGCD did not like the DFCs (goals) that were approved by the members of this area in 2010. So the board, now run by a former Conroe mayor got the Conroe City council to pass a resolution that supported the exclusion of GFCs from the LSGCD groundwater management plan.

Step 2: TWDB Sets Limit

After the districts in a GMA set the DFC or goal, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) sets the Modeled Available Groundwater (MAG).  This is the volume of groundwater that can be pumped in a particular area while still meeting the DFC goal.  

For example, if Montgomery County wants to maintain stable water levels in the aquifer (at today’s height), then producers can pump approximately 65,000 acre feet per year. Prior to the introduction of surface water in 2015, producers were already pumping in excess of 90,000 acre feet per year.

Step 3: GCD Develops Management Plan

Once TWDB sets the MAG limit, then the GCD is supposed to develop a management plan that includes the approved DFC and MAG. The plan describes how they will achieve the DFC goals.

The TWDB rejected the Lone Star Conservation District’s (LSGCD) plan because it did not include a DFC and MAG approved by the rest of the districts in GMA 14. 

The LSGCD board doesn’t like the DFC that was approved by the other GCDs because it would limit pumpage to a sustainable amount. They think mining the aquifer will have NO negative consequences, either to them or to neighboring counties. 

They don’t want to be stuck with the 2010 DFC because those DFCs limit pumpage to a sustainable amount. Their problem:

Texas law doesn’t allow TWDB to approve just any DFC that LSGCD wants. All GCDs in the area must approve the goal.

Step 4: GCD Adopts Rules to Meet Goals

Once TWDB approves the management plan, a GCD must adopt rules to achieve its goals.  Most often, this means adopting rules that limit pumpage to no more than the MAG (limit). 

However, GCDs can structure rules many different ways to accomplish their goal.  For instance, they could proportionally limit everyone’s pumpage by the same percentage.  Or establish different classes of users with different rules for each, etc.

Chapter 36 gives GCDs quite a bit of flexibility. However, a judge found in May that a rule adopted by LSGCD was outside their statutory authority (see point #4 on page 3).  LSGCD is trying to argue that the Judge’s ruling rejected DFCs. However, other conservation districts argue that his ruling applies only to the rules LSGCD adopted.

DFCs Listed For MoCo in GMA-14 Report

To confirm the latter, I downloaded and reviewed the 2010 GMA-14 report on desired future conditions from the TWDB website. On pages 30/31, it lists the goals for Montgomery County’s LSGCD. The goals say things like, “From estimated year 2008 conditions, the average draw down of the Chicot aquifer should not exceed approximately 3 feet after 8 years.” They go into similar detail for other aquifers, but using different dates, time spans and depletion rates.

A 1186-page document adopted in 2016 contains similar DFCs. See Pages 21 and 22 in Section 3.1.9.

These goals are, in fact, different from the rules that the judge found unenforceable.

Section on Subsidence in Executive Summary

Note the executive summary in the last report. It says:

“Subsidence is a major factor in GMA 14. The GMA 14 consultants spent considerable time and effort to evaluate potential impacts by the DFCs on subsidence. The only means of preventing  subsidence  is  stabilizing  groundwater  levels  throughout  the  Gulf  Coast  Aquifer System. The District Representatives concluded that the only means of stabilizing groundwater levels is to limit groundwater production.”

This report was approved unanimously by every subsidence and groundwater conservation district in the management area plus their consultants.

Complaints by other Districts

If you have a hard time following this (and many people will), consider what other experts in GMA-14 say in their letters to the Texas Water Development Board when protesting the action of the LSGCD:

  • City of Houston Public Works: “Houston is concerned that (LSGCD’s) Management Plan … does not safeguard aquifer recharge and recovery and does not support efforts to address subsidence.”
  • North Harris County Regional Water Authority: Requests the TWDB to reject LSGCD’s most recent Management Plan for its failure to comply with the Texas Water Code.
  • Montgomery County Water Control and Improvement District #1: Complains about the loss of wells due to water level declines and the expenditure of millions of dollars to drill new wells and reset pumps. Requests TWDB to reject the LSGCD Management Plan.
  • West Harris County Regional Water Authority: Urges TWDB to reject LSGCD Management Plan because of the impact it will have on groundwater availability and subsidence in northern Harris County.
  • Woodlands Joint Powers Authority: Requests TWDB to reject LSGCD Management Plan citing pumping of groundwater above sustainable levels, risk of additional water level declines, land subsidence, and flooding that would negatively impact private property rights throughout the region.
  • Harris-Galveston Subsidence District: The LSGCD management plan… “underrepresents the amount of subsidence that has occurred in Montgomery County. … Any additional withdrawal could cause pressure declines in Northern Harris County and additional subsidence.”

Protect Your Own Interests

Every person and entity who stands to be negatively impacted by LSGCD and Conroe’s actions should make their voices heard. They should notify TWDB that they oppose LSGCD’s appeal and support DFCs that prevent water-level declines and subsidence. They also should notify newspapers, neighbors, and community groups. Subsidence is irreversible. A few years of unlimited pumping can produce water level declines that take hundreds of years to reverse.

So speak up NOW.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/20/2019

690 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts in this post are my opinions on matters of public interest and are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great state of Texas.

Now You See It; Now You Don’t. Second Biggest Blockage on West Fork GONE!

These two images, taken almost two years apart, show one of the most dramatic improvements to West Fork conveyance – the removal of a giant blockage that the Army Corps nicknamed Sand Island.

Sand Island mysteriously appeared during Harvey almost overnight and virtually blocked the entire West Fork of the San Jacinto. Today, the blockage is gone as the before/after photos below show.

Taking Time to Reflect on Accomplishments

This is what Sand Island looked like two weeks after Harvey. It appeared virtually overnight. I took this shot from a helicopter.

Facing east. Sand Island blocks the entire west fork of the San Jacinto. The Kingwood Country Club is in the upper left portion of the photo. Shot from a helicopter on 9/14/2017.

Bayou Land Conservancy Provides the “After” Photo

Suzanne Simpson, Land Stewardship Director for the Bayou Land Conservancy, was doing a wetlands inventory with her drone near River Grove Park this morning. She captured a similar shot below of the same area.

After more than a year of dredging, Sand Island is finally gone. The Army Corps and Great Lakes have restored conveyance on this portion of the San Jacinto West Fork, immediately downstream from River Grove Park. Shot by Suzanne Simpson with a drone on 7/18/2019.

A Job Well Done

This pair of images shows the dramatic improvement in conveyance to this portion of the river. Kudos to the Army Corps and their contractors, especially Great Lakes, which managed this portion of dredging.

Clearing the river of blockages like these should have a dramatic impact on conveyance and help reduce future flooding.

Great Lakes is now working on the mouth bar farther downriver, while Callan Marine is dredging the area near Kings Harbor. Only the mouth bar was/is a bigger blockage on the West Fork than Sand Island.

Additional thanks go to FEMA for funding the project, the Texas Division of Emergency Management, former Congressmen Ted Poe, and the City of Houston.

Since dredging started almost a year ago, the Corps has removed 1.8 million cubic yards of sediment. That’s enough sand to fill the Astrodome.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/18/2019

688 Days After Hurricane Harvey

Video shows Taylor Gully Restoration Reaching County Line; Giant Berm Now Separating Elm Grove and Woodridge

Elm Grove resident Jeff Miller submitted two more videos and a still photo today. They show:

Harris County Flood Control crews restoring conveyance of Taylor Gully near Harris/Montgomery County line. Video courtesy of Jeff Miller.
Woodridge S2 Detention Pond, immediately upstream from Elm Grove on Taylor Gully. Video courtesy of Jeff Miller.

More than 200 homes flooded near Taylor Gully on May 7th that had never flooded before. The ditch winds through Porter, Woodridge Village, Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest. Homes on all four sides of the new development flooded after contractors altered drainage when clearing the land.

LJA Surveyors Worked over Weekend in Elm Grove

Additional still photos taken last Sunday by Nancy Vera also show LJA Surveying the streets of Elm Grove. Vera asked them what they were doing and the surveyors professed (or feigned) ignorance. They said the reason they were there was “above our pay grade,” according to Vera.

LJA Surveying crew working in Elm Grove on Saturday, July 13, 2019. LJA Surveying is a subsidiary of LJA Engineers, the company hired by the developer of Woodridge Village. Note dumpster in background. Families are still repairing homes more than two months after the May 7th flood. Image courtesy of Nancy Vera.
LJA Surveying Truck in Elm Grove. Note: glare caused by shooting photo through windshield. Image courtesy of Nancy Vera.

I’m not sure what’s going on here. It may have something to do with the countersuit by the subsidiaries of Perry Homes. They allege, in part, that the flooding on May 7th is not their fault “because Plaintiffs assumed the risk that resulted in Plaintiffs’ alleged damages.” (See Point #10, page 5). However, their lawsuit does not specify what they mean by that.

I’m going to take a wild guess and assume that they’re going to claim that some of the homes were in the 100- and 500-year flood plains. Of course, that ignores the fact that none of those homes had every flooded before, not even in Harvey.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/17/2019 with contributions from Jeff Miller and Nancy Vera

687 Days since Hurricane Harvey