Government Gone Wild: Army Corp Refuses to Release Dredging Documents that Explain Decisions, Delays

The Army Corps has refused to release documents that explain key decisions, delays and plans related to West Fork mouth bar dredging, and a potential placement area for the spoils. At issue are the Corps’ decisions to dredge only 500,000 cubic yards from the area of the mouth bar and to delay approval of the City’s proposed placement area for long-term dredging.

As a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request related to these decisions, I also learned that the Corps:

  • Is dredging near the mouth bar without a plan
  • Is almost done with the mouth bar project and hopes to have a plan before it finishes
  • Has repeatedly delayed a decision on a new placement area that could have saved millions of tax dollars.

Meanwhile, the Corps continues sending sediment to a mine that leaks it back into the river. That mine – in the floodway – has a dubious environmental record at best. This seems to be a case of Government Gone Wild.

Dueling Studies Offer Different Opinions of Harvey-related Mouth Bar Volume

The City of Houston and Army Corps have reportedly argued for a year or more about how much sediment Harvey deposited in the mouth bar. Late last year, FEMA required the City to perform a core-sample study using something called the Stockton Protocol. The City hired Tetra Tech to do it. And Tetra Tech concluded Harvey deposited 1.4 million cubic yards. Here is their study.

The Corps, however, evidently did not buy the results. The Corps conducted another study for FEMA using a different protocol. It concluded Harvey deposited 500,000 cubic yards.

The Corps, however, refused to release the results of that study for public review.

FEMA and the Corps went ahead and hired Great Lakes to dredge that volume from the mouth bar. That job is now more than half complete.

As part of their refusal to release their study, they cited the need to keep “pre-decision” information confidential so that inter- and intra-agency personnel could debate the merits of proposals freely. I get that. What I don’t get is how they justify this as “pre-decision.” The job is almost complete!

Dredging Without a Plan

While inventorying the documents that the Corps DID send me, I also discovered that they are now dredging the mouth bar area – without a plan. I know this because I requested the plan and they did not supply it. A Corps representative then explained that they are still working on the plan. They hope to have it done before they complete the $17 million job.

Wasteful Spending?

The Corps could be saving much of that money by using Berry Madden’s property near Kings Lake Estates as a disposal site. That’s because they need more than 5,000 gallons of diesel per day and two extra boosters (plus their crews) to pump sediment 10 miles upriver to an old West Fork sand mine in the floodway.

At the current price of diesel (about $3/gallon), that’s about $15,000 per day for fuel alone. More than $100,000 per week. And more than $400,000 per month. Waaaaay more than the limit on my gas cards. So what does the Corps get for all that?

Dike Breaches of Placement Area in Floodway

Minor floods last December breached the dike of that sand mine at least three times. Sediment continues to sweep out of the mine.

Placement Area #2 near Kingwood College on West Fork. This image is from February, but it is the same mine, whose dikes were breached in December.

It has caused additional shoaling (see below) that will need to be removed some day near the I-69 bridge. It even buried Great Lakes pipes, causing cost overruns for Phase 1.

Shoaling has become so bad through this reach of the river that it buried Great Lakes pipeline, resulting in cost overruns.

A year ago, this same mine was caught on camera deliberately sending its process water straight into the West Fork.

Video provided to ReduceFlooding.Com. Source wishes to remain anonymous.

Yet, while approving this site, the Corps reportedly has environmental concerns over a much closer disposal site that would require less fuel and fewer boosters. It’s also on higher ground and out of the floodway. It’s Berry Madden’s property in Humble immediately west of Kings Lake Estates between the West Fork and 1960.

Five different proposed placement areas on Madden property avoid wetlands (the cross-hatched areas).

The Corps may or may not have good reasons for disliking the property, but they won’t reveal them whatever they are.

After more than a year of environmental and archeological studies costing Madden more than $100,000, the Corps still has not approved or rejected his property. Nor have they explained delays in approving or rejecting it. The documents that the Corps DID supply show that they are throwing one obstacle after another in Madden’s path. Despite the fact that he’s on higher ground and farther from the river than the current placement area.

Meanwhile, the Corps subsidizes the sub-optimal sand mine/placement area above. Go figure!

Potential Setback for Future Dredging

One of the consequences of NOT having an approved site to store additional spoils is that it could delay future phases of dredging. Those potentially include:

  • Additional mouth bar dredging
  • 59 to River Grove Park
  • Maintenance dredging
  • Mouths of ditches such as Ben’s Branch

FOIA Scorecard

I filed my Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Army Corps 50 days ago. I requested:

  • Their plans for mouth-bar dredging
  • Conference reports of meetings where the mouth bar was discussed
  • Documents relating to the approval of Berry Madden’s property in Humble as a potential storage site.

About a month ago, they requested a clarification. “What do you mean by ‘plans’?” Seriously! The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers needed to have the concept of plans explained????!!!

After more delays and excuses, five days ago, I received a compact disk in the mail with approximately 800 total pages of material. The Corps:

  • OMITTED any mouth-bar plans.
  • OMITTED the Corps study that contradicted the Tetra Tech study.
  • WITHHELD 118 pages of material that could have explained their decision.
  • REDACTED key correspondence relating to Madden’s property.
  • SUBSTITUTED dredging status reports from contractor meetings for conference reports of meetings among City, State and Federal officials where decisions about the mouth bar were considered.

Government Gone Wild

After several phone calls in which I tried to cajole them into supplying the Corps’ study, I received another email from the Corps. It said that they considered my original FOIA request closed. They then asked me to submit another one for the same material that I requested in June. They seem to be treating this as a national-security issue, not a public-safety issue. Why?

Here’s the explanation from the Corps. The letter claims that they need to keep pre-decision information secret in order to foster free discussion between its employees and other government agencies and to avoid confusing the public.

Unfortunately, that does not allow informed discussion among the public, whose safety is at stake. Nor does it recognize the fact that they have already made a decision, i.e, to dredge 500,000 cubic yards and have half-completed the project. So how does this qualify as “pre-decisional”?

You’ll have to ask the man who signed this letter.

He has the title “Initial Denial Authority.” How many levels are there?

In my opinion, this is clearly a government agency out of control. The Corps has made a decision to dredge only 500,000 cubic yards – despite scientific evidence supporting a higher volume of 1.4 million cubic yards. And that scientific evidence was acquired using a protocol that the CORPS AND FEMA DEMANDED.

Who Will Pick Up the Pieces?

That leaves the State, County, City and the public in the lurch. Maybe a Congressional investigation could sort this out. That’s what it will take.

At this point, it’s not clear how, when or if the mouth-bar job will be finished. Five hundred thousand cubic yards is a small fraction of what needs to be removed to restore conveyance to the river.

It’s also not clear how many more hurdles the Corps will put in the way of a placement area farther from the river on higher ground. Or why.

A curtain of secrecy has descended upon this job. I will continue to follow the story. The public has a right to know.

Open Offer to Corps to Rebut Criticisms

If the Corps feels I have criticized it unjustly, I invite a spokesperson to explain the Corps point of view. I promise to reprint the rebuttal verbatim.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/9/2019

710 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The 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.

First Phase of West Fork Dredging Completed

The Army Corps has completed the original scope of its West Fork Emergency Dredging Project. Great Lakes, the prime contractor, finished its portion of the job in mid-April. This week, Callan Marine, the subcontractor, finished its portion of the dredging.

Subcontractor Callan Marine Now Demobilizing

Callan has already begun demobilizing. So far, the company has unhooked its dredge from its pipeline and is removing its booster pumps and other equipment from the river. Callan should have all of its equipment back at the command site dock by this weekend.

Yesterday, Keith Jordan, a resident of Kings Lake Estates, greeted the news joyfully. “Hallelujah! It’s simply amazing how quiet it is tonight.  It’s been a long 8 months!” Jordan had a booster pump anchored behind his home the entire time and complained several times to the Corps about noise.

Callan operated the blue dredge that worked the area downstream from the West Lake Houston Parkway bridge since approximately January.

Callan dredge near King’s Harbor on Jan. 31, 2019. West Lake Houston Parkway Bridge in background. Callan booster pump on far side of bridge.

Mouth Bar Contract Extension Ahead of Schedule

In other news, Great Lakes is far ahead of schedule on a contract extension. The extension is a separate mission assignment from FEMA to the Corps for slightly more than $17 million. It involves dredging 500,000 cubic yards of sediment from the mouth bar. The Corps originally thought the extension would take until January, 2020. However, at the current rate, Great Lakes could finish next month – in less than half the time predicted.

Five-hundred thousand cubic yards will barely scratch the surface of what needs to be removed and may not even be sufficient to cut a channel through the mouth bar area, thus leaving most of the mouth bar intact. It is unclear at this time what the plans are to restore conveyance through this area of the West Fork.

Current Dredging Photos from Carolyn Daniel

A reader, Carolyn Daniel, sent me several pictures taken earlier this week from the window of an airplane as it descended into Bush Intercontinental Airport. They show the Great Lakes Dredge south of the mouth bar. The company also removed vegetation from leading edge of the mouth bar itself. Perhaps they hoped that river currents could help erode the bar which contains far more than 500,000 cubic yards.

Great Lakes Dredge near Mouth Bar with Kingwood in background. Looking north. Town Center is on left and Kings Point on the right. Photo courtesy of Carolyn Daniel. Taken 8/5/2019.
Seconds later, as her plane descended, Carolyn Daniel grabbed this shot of mouth bar dredging. Also looking north, it shows Atascocita Point in the foreground and Fosters Mill and Kings Point in the background.

These images illustrate the enormity of the task ahead and the need to be ruthlessly efficient with resources and time.

Challenges Ahead

Tomorrow, I will look at some of the challenges ahead, and some of the obstacles to restoring conveyance.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/8/2019 with photos from Carolyn Daniel

709 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Mark Your Calendar: Important Meetings Related to Flooding

This month, you have three opportunities to attend meetings that could help reduce flooding in the Lake Houston area.

TWDB Visits Tomball to Solicit Input on State’s First Flood Plan

On Friday, August 9, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) will hold a meeting in Tomball. Purpose: to solicit public opinion on rules and guidelines for Texas’ first statewide flood plan. Here’s more information about the event and the TWDB. The TWDB is the state’s water agency. It’s primary mission is developing and maintaining lakes and reservoirs that support economic growth. This year, the legislature put them into the flood mitigation business, too. They’re looking for the best ways to spend $800 million on flood mitigation from the state’s Rainy Day Fund. TWDB will hold the event at:

  • 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. You can also contact the TWDB at (512) 463-8725 or flood@twdb.texas.gov.

TWDB Makes Repeat Appearance at Houston City Hall

If you can’t make the event in Tomball, you have another chance. TWDB will repeat the event at:

  • Houston City Hall
  • Council Chamber, 2nd Floor
  • 901 Bagby Street
  • Houston, TX 77002
  • 9:30 to 11:30
  • Friday, August 23

Montgomery County Will Hear Testimony on Closing Detention Loophole

On Tuesday, August 27th, Montgomery County Commissioners will consider a motion to close a loophole that allows developers to avoid building detention ponds. Expect developers to testify against closing the “flood routing study” loophole. You can testify FOR closing it, however.

The meeting starts at 9:30. Montgomery County has special sign-up procedures for citizens who wish to testify; make sure you sign up beforehand. Check the agenda beforehand to plan your time. You can also register your opinion with county commissioners via phone or email.

You don’t have to be a Montgomery County resident to testify. As downstream residents of the Lake Houston Area, you may be affected by this more than Montgomery County residents are.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/7/2019

708 Days since Hurricane Harvey

NY Times Article Says Quarter of Humanity Facing Looming Water Crisis

An article in the New York Times about a looming water crisis caught my eye today. Datelined Bangalore, India, the article describes how “Countries that are home to one-fourth of Earth’s population face an increasingly urgent risk: The prospect of running out of water.” So what does that have to do with flooding? Many of those countries also experience cyclic flooding. Sound familiar?

Uncanny Parallels to Houston

In yet another uncanny parallel to our situation – i.e., with the Water Wars in Montgomery County – “…some are squandering what water they have. Several are relying too heavily on groundwater, which instead they should be replenishing and saving for times of drought.”

And then we have the subsidence parallel. Mexico City, claim the authors, draws groundwater so fast that the city is literally sinking.

In Chennai, India’s fourth largest city, residents accustomed to relying on groundwater for years now find none left. So the city is forced to transport water from farther and farther away (like our Luce Bayou Project). They lose significant amounts in the process due to evaporation and leakage.

The World Resources Institute expects the number of people worldwide living in “extremely high water stress” to nearly double in the next decade.

Cape Town, a city roughly the size of Houston, had to ration water last year.

Drought and Flooding Solutions Often Overlap

In Bangalore, lakes that once dotted the city have been filled in, much the way we fill in wetlands, so they can no longer collect rainwater and serve as the city’s water storage tanks.

That parallel reminded me of the dwindling water capacity in Lake Houston due to sedimentation. With backup supplies in Lake Livingston and Lake Conroe, Houston certainly doesn’t have to worry about running out of water any time soon. But as recent sedimentation surveys near the mouth bar showed, we do have to worry about loss of lake capacity.

Difference map developed by Tetra Tech for City of Houston in Feb/March, 2019, showing areas of deposition and scour near the West Fork Mouth Bar. Overall, Tetra Tech estimates that this small 350-acre area of Lake Houston gained 504-acre feet of sediment since the previous survey in 2011. Brown areas represent more than 5 FEET of deposition.

Drought and floods represent two sides of the same coin. This article reminded me that solutions to one problem can also help solve the other. For instance…

  • Developing adequate surface water supplies and saving ground water as the backup. This can reduce subsidence which can lead to flooding.
  • Improving lake/river capacity by dredging can eliminate blockages that also cause flooding.

As we move forward with West Fork and maintenance dredging, we should remember this. We aren’t just looking at costs that benefit Lake Houston residents. We’re looking at costs that benefit millions of residents in the larger metropolitan area. It’s not just about flooding. It’s also about water capacity for a rapidly growing population.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/6/2019

707 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Humankind’s Love-Hate Attraction to Water

Two days ago, I posted a story about a community on the Bolivar Peninsula that Hurricane Ike totally destroyed. Owners have virtually rebuilt it. This isn’t a unique story. Around the world, around the county, on coast after coast and river after river, similar stories abound. FEMA calls floods the most common form of natural disaster. The Agency says Americans have a 26 percent chance of experiencing a flood during the life of a 30-year mortgage, compared to a four percent chance of fire. So people obviously love water views despite the risk. They even pay a premium for them. Why is there such an attraction to water?

Pragmatic Attractions

Historically, oceans were our earliest highways and busiest trade routes.

Water attracts us for other logical reasons, too. We need water for drinking, cooking and bathing. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, each person in the United States uses eighty to one hundred gallons of water every day for what we consider our “basic needs.” The United Nations declared, “Safe and clean drinking water is a human right essential to the full enjoyment of life.” We can’t live without it. But given modern technology and our ability to pump water over long distances, pragmatic considerations alone cannot explain our attraction to it.

Oceans and rivers also provide abundant protein year round. Wallace Nichols, author of the Blue Mind, wrote in Salon.com that, “The number of food and material resources provided in or near the water often trumped what could be found on land. The supply of plant-based and animal food sources may vanish in the winter, Eriksen observed, but our ancestors could fish or harvest shellfish year-round. And because the nature of water is to move and flow, instead of having to travel miles to forage, our ancestors could walk along a shore or riverbank and see what water had brought to them or what came to the water’s edge.”*

Biological Attractions

Nichols, also notes that, “Our innate relationship to water goes far deeper than economics, food, or proximity, however. Our ancient ancestors came out of the water and evolved from swimming to crawling to walking. Human fetuses still have “gill-slit” structures in their early stages of development, and we spend our first nine months of life immersed in the “watery” environment of our mother’s womb.”

“When we’re born, our bodies are approximately 78 percent water. As we age, that number drops to below 60 percent — but the brain continues to be made of 80 percent water. The human body as a whole is almost the same density as water, which allows us to float. In its mineral composition, the water in our cells is comparable to that found in the sea. Science writer Loren Eiseley once described human beings as “a way that water has of going about, beyond the reach of rivers.”

Psychological Attractions

Nichols cites the story of researchers at Plymouth University in the United Kingdom. In 2010, they asked forty adults to rate more than one hundred pictures of different natural and urban environments. Respondents gave higher ratings for positive mood, preference, and perceived restorativeness to any picture containing water, whether it was in a natural landscape or an urban setting, as opposed to those photos without water.

One of my close friends and photographic mentors is Gary Faye. Faye is one of America’s greatest living landscape photographers. His images exude serenity and often mystery…as in this shot of a swing in the Salton Sea. At a root level, it says, “This doesn’t belong here.” Much like the homes once destroyed by Ike, rebuilt just feet from the Gulf of Mexico on a dwindling spit of sand barely five feet above sea level.

“Swingset, Salton Sea” (c) 2019 Gary Faye. Used with artist’s permission. All rights reserved.

Years ago, Faye told me that his images showing water outsold his other work by a considerable margin. He has since refined his explanation. “It’s not just the presence of water in the image,” he says. “It’s the sense of peacefulness and serenity that it communicates.”

Indi Maxon writing in Basmati agrees. “Spending time near natural bodies of water instills a feeling of calmness and ease of mind.”

Population Distribution Reflects Attraction to Water

Regardless of the reason, you can see people’s preference for living near water in the world’s population distribution. Recent studies have shown that the overwhelming bulk of humanity is concentrated along or near coasts on just 10% of the earth’s land surface.

In the United States, counties directly on the shoreline constitute less than 10 percent of the total land area (not including Alaska), but account for 39 percent of the total population. From 1970 to 2010, the population of these counties increased by almost 40% and are projected to increase by an additional 10 million people or 8% by 2020. Coastal areas are substantially more crowded than the U.S. as a whole, and population density in coastal areas will continue to increase in the future. In fact, says NOAA…

The population density of coastal shoreline counties is over six times greater than the corresponding inland counties.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s official population estimates, Between 1960 and 2008, the population in coastline counties along the Gulf of Mexico soared by 150 percent, more than double the rate of increase of the nation’s population as a whole.

Eight of the top ten largest cities in the world are located by coastlines.

As of 1998, over half the population of the planet — about 3.2 billion people — lives and works in a coastal strip just 200 kilometers wide (120 miles), while a full two-thirds, 4 billion, are found within 400 kilometers of a coast.

Living and Dying with the Water Paradox

So are people who build homes mere feet from the shoreline crazy? Or are others crazy for thinking they are crazy? It would seem that:

  • Proximity to water is hardwired into our DNA
  • Living near water, which has both benefits and dangers, is the norm.

I call this attraction to living in a danger zone the Water Paradox. What to do about it? You can’t fight it. Maybe we just need to plan and build better. Personally, I’m still searching for answers.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/4/2019

705 Days since Hurricane Harvey

*Excerpted from “Blue Mind: The Surprising Science That Shows How Being Near, In, On, or Under Water Can Make You Happier, Healthier, More Connected, and Better at What You Do” by Wallace J. Nichols. Copyright © 2014 by Wallace J. Nichols. Publisher: Little, Brown. All rights reserved.

Gary Faye teaches at Camera West in Palm Springs, California and photographs throughout the West.

Phase 1 of West Fork Dredging Almost Complete; What Happens Next Could Affect Mayoral Race

Callan Marine should complete its portion of the original Emergency West Fork Dredging Project near Kings Harbor next week. That’s a good thing because Placement Area 1 (PA1) is virtually filled up. Compare these two photos.

20-acre PA1 on 2/23/19 was about one quarter full.
This shot taken on 8/3/2019 shows the entire 20-acre pond is now full with the exception of a narrow strip along the western edge.

Next Phases of Dredging Outlined

The original scope of the emergency West Fork project extended from roughly River Grove Park to just past Kings Harbor. In a town hall meeting last October, Stephen Costello, the City of Houston’s flood czar and chief resiliency officer, called that Phase 1.

He called Mouth Bar dredging Phase 2. Great Lakes, the prime contractor, on Phase 1 has already started dredging 500,000 cubic yards near the mouth bar of the West Fork. The company has completed half of that project, according to Houston City Council Member Dave Martin. That would put them far ahead of schedule.

Costello also indicated that he was pursuing a grant through FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to dredge further upriver between 59 and River Grove. He called that Phase 3.

Next, he talked about potentially dredging the East Fork.

Finally, he talked about the need for maintenance dredging, something the Corps and FEMA have emphasized for more than a year.

Next phases of dredging, proposed by Stephen Costello, City of Houston’s flood czar, at Town Hall Meeting earlier this year.

Phase 3 and Edgewater Park Boat Ramp

Harris County Precinct 4 plans to build a new park and boat launch immediately east of 494 and Hamblen Road starting in October. Construction will go well into 2020, but unless Phase 3 of dredging takes place, the boat launch may have limited value. I was on a ride-along with HPD’s Lake Patrol in January and their boat got stuck on sand bars several times in this reach of the river.

More Dredging Needed at Mouth Bar

The 500,000 cubic yards that FEMA is removing from the mouth bar is just a start.

The City estimated that Harvey deposited at least 1.4 million cubic yards in that area. And that doesn’t even include deposits left behind by previous storms that severely constrict the conveyance of the river.

Neither the City, nor the Corps, have yet divulged plans for restoring the full conveyance. People are so tight lipped, you would think this involved national security. I requested plans from the Corps under the Freedom of Information Act six weeks ago and have still not received them.

Drone photo of Great Lakes Dredge at Mouth Bar with Atascocita Point in background. Photo courtesy of BCAeronautics.

Meanwhile, the partial mouth bar dredging is going much faster than expected. Great Lakes originally said it would take six months to complete the 500,000 cubic yards. However, they’ve finished half the job in six weeks. That’s reportedly because they have not found the submerged trees in that area that they found upstream.

Once again, an early finish could pressure officials. Remobilizing another dredge crew if Great Lakes leaves could prove very costly. Mobilization and demobilization constituted one quarter of the cost of the current job or about $18 million.

Maintenance Dredging Needed, Too

Keeping sedimentation down to a sub-acute level in the future will require periodic maintenance dredging. And that will require a large storage site and annual budgeting.

Beyond the sediment, we also have another reason for periodic river surveys and maintenance dredging. They will help avoid battles with FEMA. After Harvey, the City, Corps and FEMA argued for a year about how much of the sediment in the mouth bar was due to Harvey and how much was due to deferred maintenance from previous years. FEMA can pay for storm damage, but not deferred maintenance. Hence the lengthy debate and delays.

Kingwood Could Swing Mayoral Election

As we head into the mayoral race this fall, we should keep in mind that we have started the dredging, but it will never be finished. Nature and sand mines in floodways will continue to dump sediment in the headwaters of Lake Houston.

I, for one, look forward to quizzing the candidates on their plans for and commitment to maintenance dredging after we restore conveyance between 59 and 1960. In previous years, because the problem was out of sight under water, mayor after mayor deferred dredging to divert money elsewhere. We paid the price during Harvey.

In the last mayoral election, Kingwood could have easily provided enough swing votes to alter the outcome. With so many crucial flood-mitigation issues still unresolved, you can count on much higher turnout this year.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/3/2019 with drone photo from BCAeronautics

704 Days since Hurricane Harvey

City of Houston Receives $3.3 Million FEMA Grant for Design and Permitting of Additional Gates For Lake Houston Dam

This week, FEMA awarded $3.3 million for the design, engineering and environmental permitting (Phase I) of additional gates for the Lake Houston dam. Under the 75:25 matching terms of the grant, local sources including the City and Harris County will contribute approximately another million bringing the total available for Phase 1 to $4.375 million.

FEMA notified Congressman Dan Crenshaw regarding the award who then notified Houston Council Member Dave Martin. The award comes through FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).

Construction Funding Also Committed But Will Require Confirmation of Cost/Benefit Ratio

FEMA also committed funds for construction, but release of those funds is contingent on confirmation of the cost/benefit analysis after completion of Phase I.

The total award for the City of Houston Lake Houston Dam Spillway Improvement Project Phases I and II comes to $47,170,953.

Of that amount, the Federal share comes to $35,378,214.75 and the Non-Federal Share totals $11,792,738.25. City and Harris County shares of the Non-Federal portion have not yet been determined according to Martin’s office.

Lake Houston Area and Downstream Residents Protected

Congressman Crenshaw announced, “Today, FEMA approved $3.3 million for Phase 1 of the gates at the Lake Houston Dam. These gates will increase the flow out of Lake Houston significantly. This money will ensure that the final design will not impact downstream residents and will provide the anticipated relief to the Lake Houston area.  Increasing the conveyance will have positive impacts for the entire San Jacinto watershed including the East Fork and the West Fork. For a community that feels the burden of flooding too often, this is a huge win.”

Mr. Martin has worked to obtain the grant for nearly two years. Martin also played a role in dredging. As part of his press release on the gates, Martin noted that the Army Corps is now half-finished with the 500,000 cubic yards that it intends to remove from the mouth bar between Kings Point and Atascocita Point.

Crenshaw and Martin say they will continue to fight for the removal of even more material from the mouth-bar. They also thanked Governor Abbott, TDEM Chief Kidd, State Senator Creighton, Representative Huberty, Houston Mayor Turner, and Houston Chief Resiliency Officer Costello for their help on the Lake Houston Spillway Dam project.

Martin said, “The Lake Houston Dam gates give us the ability to proactively release water from Lake Houston in an expeditious fashion if needed during an emergency.”

State Role in Two-Step Process

Funding is awarded directly to the State of Texas Division of Emergency Management (our version of FEMA) and will be transferred to Houston in two steps. Phase I gets the project rolling. Once the City successfully completes permitting, engineering, design, and environmental assessment, it will provide a new cost/benefit analysis and to FEMA for review.

This is standard procedure. The initial grant is based on ballpark estimates. With the actual design in hand, the City can more closely estimate the costs.

Assuming FEMA approves renewed cost/benefit analysis, the State will release the additional funds to the City for construction (phase II).

Three-Year Project

The City has not yet chosen an engineering company to design the gates. Nor is it clear how many gates will be added or where they will be located. All that will be part of Phase I.

Martin says the two phases together should take three years once money is received, though an extension may be possible if needed.

Other Grants Also Announced

FEMA also awarded three other grants impacting City Council District E, according to Martin:

  • Lonestar College’s Kingwood Campus won two public assistance grants for Emergency Protective Measures amounting to $6,276,131.22 and $2,502,914.79.
  • Clear Creek Independent School District won a public assistance grant for Emergency Protective Measures amounting to $1,303,060.49.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/2/2019

703 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Hurricane Ike: Sometimes the Lesson Learned is That We Haven’t Learned the Lesson

As this hurricane season heats up, you may want to read this article in the Texas Tribune about the Ike Dike or Texas Coastal Barrier. It’s a story about a flood mitigation effort that started in 2008, shortly after Hurricane Ike. I remember this storm vividly. I photographed the damage on the Bolivar Peninsula days after the storm. Despite the massive destruction it caused, nothing has yet been done to prevent a recurrence.

Remembering Ike

For those who don’t remember, Ike was a Cat 4 storm that weakened over Cuba, emerged into the Gulf, and came onshore at the northeast end of Galveston as a Cat 2. Ike came right up the center of Galveston Bay. The eye passed over the Lake Houston area.

Ike caused massive damage everywhere, killed more than a hundred people in Texas, and leveled thousands of homes on the Bolivar.

I remember vividly that evening watching giant pine trees bent 90 degrees, looking up at the stars the next minute and seeing those same pine trees bent 90 degrees in the other direction a few minutes later – ninety miles inland! When I emerged from my storm shelter the next morning, power was out everywhere. It would remain out for 13 days because of all the trees down on power lines.

Ike Dike Proposed to Protect Industry

Almost immediately, people began talking about an Ike Dike to protect the refining and petrochemical industry lining the western shores of the Bay. Had Ike come in a little west of where it did, those plants would have borne the direct brunt of the dirty side of the storm. How bad was the destruction on the dirty side? See the sequence of pictures below. It starts with two images from Google Earth. One taken a week before Ike. One taken days after.

Before and After Images from Google Earth of the Bolivar

Bolivar Peninsula on 9/3/2008, was covered with beach homes, some of which were occupied year round.
Bolivar Peninsula immediately after Ike. Streets are superimposed over the image in Google Earth. Those things that look like roofs are really slabs. See below.

Images Taken on the Ground Days After Ike

The storm surge from Ike tore sewers and water lines right out of the ground.
From this location, not one home was left standing as far as the eye could see.
People had a hard time even finding their streets. Storm surge carried them away, too.
People spray painted addresses on slabs for insurance adjusters…if there was a slab to find.
Mardi gras beads stuck in this tree…a sad reminder of happier times.
Destruction on the Bolivar Peninsula after Hurricane Ike was complete.
Even though homes had been elevated, it wasn’t enough to survive the storm surge.

Ike Storm Surge Reached 20 Miles Inland

The storm surge swept homes off their foundations 12 miles inland along FM1985. The surge reached the southern edge of Winnie on I-10, approximately 20 miles inland. I remember looking up at utility poles on the northern edge of Anahuac National Wildlife refuge and seeing seaweed in the telephone lines.

What Same Area Looks Like Today

Eleven years later, here’s an image showing the same area in the Google Earth images above.

Ike would have been a golden opportunity to turn this area into a national seashore. Not so much today. They’re BA-AAAACK, as they say in the horror movies.

Lessons Not Learned

I guess people’s love of nature is stronger than their fear of it. The Ike Dike is still a distant dream. And taxpayers are still subsidizing vacation homes on the edge of oblivion with Federally funded flood insurance.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/3/2019

703 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 3975 days since Hurricane Ike

MoCo Will Consider Requiring More Detention for New Developments in August 27 Meeting

Montgomery County commissioners will consider changing flood mitigation requirements for new developments at their regular August 27 meeting. Commissioners will hear public testimony and consider approving a revision to the Montgomery County Drainage Criteria Manual. The change would close a loophole that allows developers to substitute “flood routing studies” for detention ponds in new Montgomery County developments. 

How Developers Use Flood Routing Studies

Flood routing studies calculate when runoff from a new development will hit a river during a major rain event. If results show that the runoff will reach the river before the crest of a flood, developers may not need to build detention ponds. The idea: it’s not adding to the peak, so why run up costs needlessly?

Why Flood Routing Studies are Inadequate

In principle, that sounds good. However, routing studies almost always contain flawed assumptions according to Jeff Johnson, Montgomery County’s Engineer.

First, they don’t consider the cumulative effects of other developments. Second, they are almost always based on outdated hydrologic models. And third, they assume “ideal” storm conditions.

“If you start with a brand new hydrologic model,” says Johnson, “the modeling a developer does could theoretically be accurate.” But his/her runoff changes the model. That runoff rarely gets incorporated into the model that the next developer uses. “So the next developer is dealing with outdated assumptions,” says Johnson. Same way with the third and fourth developers, etc. They all keep going back to the original model, even though they know it has been changed by previous developments. Said another way, additional runoff is not added to the model on which subsequent developers base their calculations. So they all show no consequences when the cumulative effects can be large.

Another problem. They all base calculations on ideal assumptions. Johnson estimated that only a small percentage of storms conformed with ideal conditions. For one example, calculations are valid only if rain stops before the flood reaches its peak.

Shortage of Detention Leads to Downstream Flooding

As a result, there’s not enough detention upstream to protect downstream residents during a major storm.

Many developers like the flawed assumptions behind the routing studies. They justify building less detention, which costs developers time and money. And with less detention, they can develop and sell more lots per acre. So they reduce costs and increase income.

But when that happens, somebody downstream pays the price. “They’re not being responsible,” said Johnson. “This is a public safety issue.”

One flood expert that I interviewed for this article said, “Only good things come from more detention.”

City of Houston Public Works Director Agrees

As if to punctuate Johnson’s point, shortly after my interview with him, I attended a talk by City of Houston Publics Work Director Carol Haddock. Haddock emphasized that flooding today largely stems from problems inherited from legacy infrastructure. “We’re living with infrastructure developed before we knew what we now know about flooding,” said Haddock.

Haddock argued for both higher drainage and detention capacity. They will help accommodate future floods and future development – while protecting people and property downstream, she argued.

Projected MoCo Growth Underscores Need to Close Development Loophole

Getting drainage and detention right is crucial, not just for families downstream in northern Harris County, but also for families in Montgomery County itself. The New Caney ISD (NCISD) is projected to grow substantially in the next few years. The NCISD just completed a demographic update from Population and Survey Analysts (PASA). (Caution: 58 meg download.) Page 6 of the study shows that the District expects to grow by more than 19,000 housing units in the next 10 years. That’s almost as large as Kingwood. And it doesn’t even include commercial space.

A graphic from a Caldwell Brokerage brochure shows some of the major current and planned developments in the area between the Woodlands and Kingwood with the number of homes.

In the previous 5 years, the NCISD had the second highest percent change in school district enrollment in the region at a whopping 30.3%. Only Alvin had a higher increase at 31.6%.

PASA graphic comparing 5-year growth rates in area school district enrollments.

PASA predicts the new commercial area near 45 and 99 will have as much square footage as downtown Austin. And, further upstream, Conroe was the fastest growing City in America in 2017.

Fortunately, the new San Jacinto River Basin Survey will update hydrologic models. But with projected growth like this, they will become outdated as soon as they are complete. All the more reason to move away from the flood routing paradigm of development and require more on-site detention. ASAP.

Register Your Opinion

Expect developers to testify against closing the “flood routing study” loophole. You can testify for closing it, however. Montgomery County Commissioners will hear public testimony at their regular meeting on August 27th. The meeting starts at 9:30. Montgomery County has special sign-up procedures for citizens who wish to testify; make sure you sign up beforehand. Check the agenda beforehand to plan your time. You can also register your opinion with county commissioners via phone or email.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/31/2019

701 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Flood Planning: How Would You Spend $793 million?

The 86th Texas Legislature charged the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) with implementing flood-related legislation, including Senate Bill (SB) 7, SB 8, SB 500, and House Joint Resolution 4. This legislation greatly expanded the TWDB’s role in flood planning and financing.

Planning the New State Flood Plan

The TWDB will administer a new state flood planning program. This program establishes a state and regional flood planning process, with flood planning regions based on river basins. The TWDB aims to have the first regional flood plans by 2023, and the first state flood plan by September 1, 2024.

Light pole near River Bend in North Shore as Harvey receded. Note the "wet marks" several feet up on pole. Photo by Jim Balcom.
Light pole near River Bend in North Shore as Harvey receded. Note the “wet marks” several feet up on pole. Photo by Jim Balcom.

The legislature also authorized a one-time transfer of $793 million from the state’s Economic Stabilization or “Rainy Day” Fund to create a new flood mitigation funding program that the TWDB will administer. The goal: to make drainage and flood projects more affordable and to meet immediate needs for funding. The funding will become available in 2020.

Statewide Call for Input

Says Jeff Walker, Executive Director, “The TWDB is working to get these programs up and running as quickly as possible and to hire staff for these new roles. Prior to formal rulemaking activities this fall, we are seeking input on a variety of issues, including but not limited to:

  • Administration of funding for flood control planning and drainage, flood mitigation, and flood control projects
  • Creation of regional and state flood planning process and related requirements
  • Potential flood planning region boundaries
  • State and regional flood planning guidance principles”

The information included in this PDF is intended to generate discussion and to solicit specific feedback that will inform formal rulemaking and other implementation efforts.

Written feedback is requested by August 30, 2019 and should be submitted to rulescomments@twdb.texas.gov.

Issues Being Considered

TWDB will also host stakeholder workshops around the state the first two weeks of August; these will include presentations on implementation efforts and issues for stakeholder consideration as well as opportunities for giving formal comments and for informal discussions with TWDB staff and board members.

TWDB invites you to join these discussions. In the coming months, you can help create new state programs that will better protect Texans against the loss of life and property from flooding.

Spending close to a billion dollars is not easy. Given that funding is finite and needs are not, it will require establishing rules. This PDF explains many of the issues that the TDWB will review at its upcoming public meeting in Tomball on August 9. They include, but are not limited to:

  1. What will be the most effective form of financial assistance? Grants or loans?
  2. Should they require local matches?
  3. What types of projects should get the highest priority?
  4. Should state funds complement federal buyout funds?
  5. How can the TDWB ensure cooperation of all political entities in a watershed?
  6. How can we avoid conflicts between state and regional flood plans?
  7. How can we ensure that flood mitigation measures in one area don’t exacerbate flooding in another?

Regional Workshop in Tomball on August 9

The information included in the PDF linked above is intended to generate discussion and to solicit specific feedback that will inform formal rulemaking and other implementation efforts.

Written feedback is requested by August 30, 2019 and should be submitted to rulescomments@twdb.texas.gov.

If you have thoughts you would like to volunteer on these or other planning issues, you can also discuss them in person at:

  • 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. You can also contact the TWDB at (512) 463-8725 or flood@twdb.texas.gov.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/30/2019 with photo by Jim Balcom

700 Days since Hurricane Harvey