News Archives - Page 239 of 275

Zura Productions Posts Interview with High-Rise Developer and Q&A From Public Meeting

Jim Zura has posted three videos he shot at Romerica’s public meeting in the Kingwood Community Center on March 18, 2019. The first covers questions I asked Gabriel Haddad, one of Romerica’s two principles, before the meeting officially started. The next two cover questions and answers asked by community members after the formal presentations by Romerica and its suppliers.

Additional Videos to Follow

Zura says additional video will follow. He does national quality work from his base right here in Kingwood. Zura volunteered his services to the community on this project out of concern for the impact the development could have on the community. Please note: Zura fought a high level of ambient crowd noise to obtain these videos. While they won’t win an Emmy for sound quality, they very adequately capture the responses and promises made to the community regarding this controversial development.

The first video is me going one-on-one with Romerica developer Gabriel Haddad.

*Rehak (left) interviewing Haddad (right) at the Kingwood Community Center Public Meeting. That’s Dianne Lansden of the Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Initiative in the background.*

Click here to see the Rehak-Haddad discussion on vimeo.com. It should open up in a new tab.

After presentations by Romerica and its associates, the audience got a chance to ask questions from the floor. Below is the first thirty minutes of the Q&A session.

See the Herons Meeting Kingwood Q&A Part 1 of 2 on vimeo.com.

The last part of the Q&A session runs for another 20 minutes.

See the Herons Meeting Kingwood Q&A Part 2 of 2 on vimeo.com.

Summary: Rehak Interview with Haddad

I ask Mr. Haddad how his development will generate $135 million in tax revenues and point out that that’s more than the rest of Kingwood combined contributes to the City of Houston or Harris County. He responds that that’s only if it’s all built out. I ask, “How likely is that?” He responds: “Not very.” Mr. Haddad then goes on to describe why and blames sedimentation in the river.

Audience Q&A: Part 1

Audience Q&A went for a total of 50 minutes. Unfortunately, some people turned questions into rants. Other people shouted questions from the floor that were not picked up by the microphone. So I’m not going to attempt to transcribe the entire session, but will provide time codes for the questions I could understand. That way you can fast forward to specific segments that may interest you. All time codes are approximate:

0:00 Concern about impact on land adjacent to the Romerica development
2:00 Concern about flooding and how it will be mitigated
3:15 Statement by lady who says she wants “Livable Forest,” not high-rises.
3:45 Are you not worried about building high-rises at ground zero for the worst natural disaster in U.S. history?
6:45 How are you getting around single-family residential deed restrictions?
8:45 Who do you expect to invest and what kind of businesses do you expect to attract? Concerned about inaccessibility of location. Says they will find other locations more attractive. (No response from developer.)
10:20. Gentleman asks for vote from floor about who approves/disapproves of development.
13:50 Lady observes that every home that flooded had surveys done assuring the owners that it would not. What makes your development different?
15:00 Have you engaged hydrologists and do you have money set aside to restore the property if the development fails.
17:30 Lady doesn’t like comparison to Woodlands. Says she moved here because it wasn’t so commercial.
18:20 Concern about lack of plans for traffic and noise mitigation.
22:20 Are you willing to pay for dredging?
24:15 How are you going to evacuate people from a dead-end road? Are you going to elevate Woodland Hills Drive?

Audience Q&A: Part 2

The same caveats apply here:

0:00 Concerns about loss of view and quiet?
2:50 Will you listen to and respect the will of the community?
3:30 Will ALL construction be postponed until solution is found for flooding? How will new flood maps and watershed study affect your plans? What’s the time frame for your development? (Hint: Answer: We will not do anything until there is a flooding solution.)
9:10 What is the source of your funding?
12:15 Do you have backup and failsafe plans?
13:15 How will you address flood levels that get worse with time?

Next Steps

As in my interview questions, sometimes the answers were direct and sometimes they weren’t. Sometimes, they just let people rant and didn’t answer at all. By the time Romerica wrapped everything up, most of the audience had left and they were turning out the lights.

Since the meeting, they have had more than a month to address the concerns that more than 700 people and groups submitted in protest letters to the Army Corps.

Now the Corps needs to sift through all their responses and make sure they addressed valid concerns. You can expect plans to change. Romerica has already posted online that they are planning to elevate the entire development another six to ten feet. That will likely involve more fill and stimulate more concerns about flooding.

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on April 28, 2019

607 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Answer Day for High-Rise Developer

A reminder. Today, Romerica Investments, LLC. owes the Army Corps of Engineers answers to all of the questions, comments and concerns raised during the public comment period for its proposed high-rise development and marina resort.

More than 700 Protest Letters Filed

The Corps is ruling on a permit application for a 3.2 million square foot development near the floodway of the San Jacinto West Fork. The proposed development would surround the Barrington, and be adjacent to Kingwood Lakes, Trailwood, King’s Cove Deer Ridge Estates, Deer Ridge Park and River Grove Park.

According to the Corps, Kingwood residents raised a record number of concerns. More than 700 people and groups submitted letters of protest. Let’s look at just a few of the concerns; read some of the letters that include impacts on:

Water quality
Wetlands
Streams
Erosion
Flooding
Traffic congestion of local thoroughfares
River navigation/congestion
Air traffic interference
Education
Environment
Wildlife
Noise levels
School overcrowding
Neighborhood aesthetics
Conservation easements
Water supply
Subsidence
Safety
Surrounding communities

Additional Concerns

People and groups also raised concerns about:

And That Was Just for Starters

It will be interesting to see how Romerica responds to all these concerns. They can change their plans for the future. But they can’t change their past.

At a public meeting held AFTER the public comment period, Gabriel M. Haddad, co-owner, of a maze of related companies, partnerships, LLPs and LLCs in different countries and states, said it could take up to two years for the Corps to rule on his permit application.

*The Corporate Maze Related to Romerica*

I have a call in to the Corps to discuss next steps and how long they will take. Stay tuned.

Note: Ideas expressed in the post represent my opinions on matters of public interest. They are protected by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/27/2019

606 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Earth Week Part 4: Slope of Sand Mine Dikes, Riparian Vegetation and Cost Offsets

Yesterday, I posted about how greater setbacks from rivers could improve safety for sand mines and downstream residents. Setbacks reduce the potential for erosion, sedimentation and consequent flooding. Here’s a related post that shows what happens when you try to build too close to rivers.

*Note repairs to dike. I took this photo two weeks after Harvey.*

First, understand that the closer you mine to the river, the steeper the slope of dikes must be. At a certain point, the slope becomes so steep that:

Grasses and trees can’t take root in it.
The loose soil becomes prone to erosion.
During floods, water in the river rises faster than in the pit.
It exerts pressure on the dike.
The dike can collapse through one of more of several mechanisms (piping, erosion, overtopping, sloughing, etc.)
The river invades the pit.
Depending on the depth of the pit, the volume of sediment in it, and the force of the flood, sediment could be carried downstream.

Another factor leading to dike collapse in the photo above is the road built on top of it. Running heavy equipment over the sandy soil causes it to compact and push outward. Vehicle traffic also keeps vegetation that could bind the soil from growing.

Accidents Waiting to Happen

It doesn’t take a Harvey-scale flood to breach these loose dikes. The unmemorable July 4th flood of last year breached the dike shown above.

Another flood on December 7th last year breached a dike in another sand mine downstream from the first one in three places!

*Repairs to one of three dike breaches at a sand mine in Dec. 7 flood last year. Photo by Don Harbour Jr.*

Here’s another breach at the same mine that hadn’t yet healed when I photographed it on September 28th last year.

*Site of a breach in the dike of a sand mine. Note how the loss of vegetation has led to erosion and sloughing in the sandy soil.*

When such breaches happen on both sides of a point bar, the river will “capture” the pit by rerouting through it – the shortest distance between two points.

*West Fork sand mines on 8/30/17, one day after the peak from from Harvey*

West Fork vs. East Fork and Value of Riparian Vegetation

Almost all of these problems could be solved by greater setbacks from rivers. That would retain more natural riparian vegetation and allow lower, more gradual slopes on dikes. It would also allow additional re-vegetation to take hold.

Shooting across the West Fork from on top of the dike shown in the first photo above. Note how loose the soil was in the foreground and how difficult it is to establish vegetation on the opposite shore in the middleground. Floods have torn away the erosion blankets trying to establish grass on the steep slopes.

Imagine 131,000 cubic feet per second ripping through a channel like this. That’s how much came down this portion of the West Fork at the peak of Harvey. It’s easy to see how the river could erode these dikes and invade the mines.

That’s why we need greater setbacks. It will allow more conveyance through the normal channel. And if we just leave native negation in place, it should help hold the dikes in place.

Now contrast the images above with this one taken on a portion of the East Fork where there are no sand mines.

*Lush riparian vegetation and trees held the banks in place during Harvey.*

Here’s another.

Offsetting Opportunity Costs with Conservation Easements

Mother Nature’s solution to sedimentation is free. If we could only just learn to respect the river and its flood plains. Yes, there would still be some sedimentation to deal with, but not nearly as much.

The loss of sand close to the river is an opportunity cost, not an out-of-pocket cost. Groups like the Bayou Land Conservancy can help offset some of that opportunity cost by providing income in exchange for conservation easements. I wish miners would explore this option more…for everyone’s benefit including theirs. It certainly might reduce their legal costs.

Posted by Bob Rehak on April 27, 2019

606 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Houston Council Member Dave Martin Issues Mouth Bar Update

Houston City Council Member Dave Martin announced today that the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) has authorized the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to remove sand and siltation from the Lake Houston mouth bar.

History of Project

In 2018, USACE first began removing debris deposited during Hurricane Harvey from the San Jacinto River under FEMA Mission Assignment (DR 4332). The assignment directed USACE to restore the river to pre-Harvey conditions.

DR 4332 has removed debris from three out of four identified sections of the San Jacinto River. Contractors should finish the last segment (shown in blue below) in May.

Original segments identified by USACE. The orange and green segments are complete. The blue segment should be finished with another week or so. And the purple segment is the one yet to be done – including the mouth bar.

FEMA did not approve the fourth section, in the original scope of work for DR 4332. Last month, the City of Houston filed an application for mouth bar removal as well as an additional dredge material disposal site. FEMA and USACE have been reviewing it since then, according to Council Member Martin.

The State of Texas, the City of Houston, as well as multiple stakeholders from the Lake Houston area, requested FEMA to expedite authorization of a Mission Assignment for debris removal and dredging of the mouth bar while the equipment is still in the river. The hope: to save taxpayers the cost of a second mobilization effort. Mobilization for the first assignment cost approximately $18 million.

FEMA Issues Directive of Mission Assignment

At a meeting last week in Austin, FEMA issued a directive of Mission Assignment to USACE for dredging of the mouth bar at the confluence of the San Jacinto River and Lake Houston.

The City requested removal of 1.4 million cubic yards of sediment. It is unclear at this time how much FEMA will fund, exactly where it will be stored, and whether matching funds will come from other sources. FEMA, TDEM, City of Houston, and USACE are still working to determine the amount of silt deposited by Hurricane Harvey.

Dredging of Final Segment To Begin Within 30 Days

Martin hopes the calculation will be finalized next week, and expects dredging to begin within 30 days.

*The Great Lakes Dredge is still docked at the USACE Command Post while it awaits FEMA and USACE to finalize mouth bar dredging details with the City and State.*

Kudos to Mission Team

In his press release, Martin issued “a huge thank you to our federal partners Congressman Dan Crenshaw, Field Representative for Congressman Crenshaw, Kaaren Cambio, Congressman Kevin Brady, Senator Ted Cruz, and Senator John Cornyn for their support as they have all been meeting regularly with FEMA and discussing this project.”

“This is a huge project for our area,” said Martin, “and it would not be possible without the on-going support and push from Governor Greg Abbott and Chief Nim Kidd, Texas Department of Emergency Management (TDEM), as well as Mayor Sylvester Turner and Stephen Costello, Chief Recovery Officer – City of Houston.”

Martin also gave additional thanks to Jenna Armstrong and Mark Mitchell from the Lake Houston Area Chamber of Commerce for coordinating a letter writing campaign.

Breathing a Bit Easier Tonight

During floods earlier this year, I noticed a ten foot difference at times at gauges on either side of the mouth bar. It is acting like a dam behind the dam.

With the start of Hurricane season on June 1, residents of Kingwood and Humble will breathe a little easier tonight. Hopefully, the Corps and its contractors will be able to at least dredge a channel through the mouth bar area before the peak of the Atlantic season from mid-August through September.

The SJRA has agreed to continue lowering Lake Conroe during that period by 2 feet versus its normal level as an additional buffer against flooding.

My thanks to Council Member Dave Martin for pushing this project so tirelessly, and to Kaaren Cambio and Mark Micheletti for leading to effort to lower Lake Conroe again this year. Neither effort has been easy. Finally, kudos also to Tim Garfield and R.D. Kissling, two local retired geologists for their efforts in helping people understand the dangers posed by the mouth bar.

Posted by Bob Rehak on April 26, 2019

605 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Earth Week Part 3: Sand Mine Setbacks from Rivers

After a year and a half of investigating sand mining best practices around the US and the world, I concluded that Texas falls short of other states and countries on several measures. The single biggest opportunity for improvement: greater setbacks from rivers.

*River is migrating toward pit in background at the rate of 12 feet per year. When this picture was taken after Harvey, dike was only 38 feet wide.*

Other states recommend from 100- to 1000-foot setbacks. Some prohibit building in floodways and flood plains. All but one sand mine on the San Jacinto lie at least partially in floodways. This leads to frequent dike breaches which, I believe, contribute to downstream sedimentation and flooding. Yet legislation that could increase setbacks and safety remains bottled up in committees.

Benefits of Setbacks

Greater setbacks would remove mines from the fiercest currents during floods. Leaving vegetation in place between the mine and the river would also help bind soil, reduce erosion, protect mines stockpiles, slow currents entering mines, help trap any sand leaving mines, and improve public safety.

*Memorial Day Flood in 2015 ruptured the dikes on these sand mines on both sides of the West Fork.*

Miners’ Objections to Setbacks

I queried several miners and the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association (TACA) about why they felt compelled to mine so close to rivers. The answer (I’m paraphrasing now): because there’s less overburden, they have greater efficiencies that are important in a low margin business.

That makes sense until you realize that some of these mines are more than two miles wide. That’s wide enough so that parts didn’t even flood during Harvey. And I have to believe that:

…if sand on the perimeter was unprofitable, they wouldn’t mine it.
…if mining in the floodway were prohibited, no one would be at a competitive disadvantage.

Dubious Relationship Between Growth and Mining Near River

For generations, the mining industry has positioned itself as “the driver of growth.” And it has sought concessions from state legislators to perpetuate growth. Like all myths, there’s some truth to this one. But when you look closely, any argument for lax regulation rapidly disappears.

While over-regulation can certainly hurt an economy, sensible regulation can help it. If aircraft manufacturers tolerated crashes, people would not fly.

So why is leaving a floodway-wide buffer such a hardship? I’m still scratching my head. According to USA Today, three states have higher growth rates than Texas AND require minimum setbacks (Idaho, Washington and Arizona). So setbacks are not anti-business or a growth killer. Idaho is growing at 2.20%, Washington at 1.71% and Arizona at 1.56% according to USA Today. Texas is growing at 1.43%.

When you look at the opposite end of the spectrum, the two states LOSING the most population are West Virginia and Wyoming – both big mining states with lax regulations.

So clearly, lax regulation is not creating growth and tougher regulation is not stifling it. So why is it so hard to get mining regulation that protects citizens, property and the environment?

Status of Mining Legislation

Here is where Texas stands on proposed sand mining legislation.

No bill opposed by TACA has made it out of committee so far this year.

Two bills supported by TACA have reached the floors of the Senate and the House:

SB 2126 which could actually allow mining IN rivers, not just their floodplains.
HB 907 which doubles fines against unregistered miners (not TACA’s problem).

All the rest are still bottled up in committee tonight with only 34 more days remaining in the session:

HB509 which requires a hydrologic impact study, public notice, and public hearings before permitting
HB908 which strengthens fines for water code violations and increases inspection rates
HB909 which calls for the TCEQ to adopt and publish best management practices for mining
HB1671 which would enforce those best practices on the San Jacinto and require minimum setbacks
HB2871 which would require miners to post performance bonds, ensuring reclamation when they finish mining.

Seat Belt and Blowout Analogies

I am not against mining; I am FOR more responsible mining that protects citizens, property, the environment, and the image of Texas as a great place to live. Growth is far more complicated than the sand mining industry would have us believe.

Minimum setbacks will not destroy the state’s formula for growth. They’re a safety measure, like seat belts for Mother Earth against speeding, out-of-control floodwaters.

Arguing against them is reminiscent of the argument against putting seat belts and other safety features in cars 50 years ago. Remember Unsafe at Any Speed? At the time, some in industry claimed the extra cost would drive Detroit out of business. Those of us old enough to remember might say it was the beginning of Detroit’s rebirth.

Another more direct analogy: a hundred years ago, people drilled oils wells that routinely blew out. Erle P. Halliburton changed the industry with new cementing techniques that prevented blowouts and improved well control. In 1957, Oklahoma inducted Halliburton into its Hall of Fame. The world is a much safer place because of him.

Hurricane Harvey exposed the safety flaws in the assumptions underlying sand mining regulations. We have 34 days left in this legislative session. Let’s use them to enact some common sense legislation that improves the safety of mining and preserves the environment for our children.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/25/2019

604 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Quick, Inexpensive, New Idea for Hurricane Storm-Surge Protection

Jim Blackburn, the noted environmental lawyer and Rice professor, will hold a meeting to review new ideas on storm surge protection in and around Galveston Bay. If you or one of your loved ones works at one of the petrochemical plants or refineries near the Bay or Ship Channel – or if you use the Bay for recreation – you may be interested in this.

Quick, Inexpensive, Storm-Surge Solution

Says Blackburn, “No issue is more serious to the future of our region than is hurricane surge flooding, and we have a unique, once-in-a-lifetime chance to solve it relatively cheaply and relatively quickly. There are 800,000 people, 2.2 million barrels per day of refining capacity and over 200 chemical plants in harm’s way.

Piggybacking on Ship-Channel Widening

At the current time, the Port of Houston is trying hard to find a way to widen the Houston Ship Channel to allow two-way traffic. The SSPEED Center at Rice University has developed a hurricane flood protection plan that would utilize the dredged material created by the Port’s proposed widening project. The plan calls for building a 25-foot bay barrier system that would extend from Houston Point in Chambers County down the ship channel to a terminus at the Texas City hurricane protection levee system. It would combine flood protection with navigation enhancement along with recreational access to Galveston Bay, says Blackburn.

Storm Surge Meeting Details

Speakers at the meeting will explain this new opportunity. They will also provide an update on the Corps of Engineers planning process and an update from Texas A&M.

Time: 6:30 – 8 PM
Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Place: San Jacinto College Central Campus
Music Building: Corbin Hall
Address: 8060 Spencer Highway, Pasadena, TX 77505

Important, but Not Covered by Flood Bond

“We in Harris County need protection from flooding coming in from Galveston Bay, just as we need protection from rainfall flooding,” says Blackburn. “The 2018 bond issue did not provide funding for surge protection. We must find concepts that work and ways to fund these concepts sooner rather than later or else we risk significant loss of life and homes, loss of our regional economic engine and the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.”

Mark Calendar and Invite Friends

So mark your calendars for May 15. This public meeting is sponsored by Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia. This should be of particular interest/concern to anyone who works near the Houston Ship Channel or the eastern sections of the City of Houston. If you are concerned about this issue or the alternatives that might be chosen to address it, please come. And please let your friends know about the meeting too.

About Jim Blackburn

Jim Blackburn is a professor in the practice of environmental law in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at Rice University. He teaches courses in sustainable development and environmental law. He is also a practicing environmental lawyer with the Blackburn & Carter law firm in Houston and a Rice faculty scholar at the Baker Institute. At Rice, he serves as the co-director of the Severe Storm Prediction, Education and Evacuation from Disaster (SSPEED) Center.

Posted by Bob Rehak on April 24, 2019

603 Days since Hurricane Harvey

SJRA Responds to Post about SB 2126 Opening Door to River Mining

Letter to the Editor

RE: “Caution: SB 2126 Opens Door to Sand Mining in Rivers”

Bob,

Thank you for your work with Reduce Flooding to raise awareness about flooding and flood-related issues since Hurricane Harvey. You have done a tremendous job of helping to educate the public on the causes of flooding and providing status updates on current and future flood-related projects and initiatives. Regarding your April 25 post titled ““Caution: SB 2126 Opens Door to Sand Mining in Rivers,” I want to clarify what SB 2126 is and what it is not.

Chuck Gilman, the author of this post, is
Director of Water Resources and Flood Management for the
San Jacinto River Authority

The concept behind SB 2126 is to create a proactive approach toward removing sediment from the river before it is deposited in Lake Houston. If you’ll recall the KBR report from 2000 noted “For long-term sediment management consideration, sedimentation basins, either on-channel or off-channel, are the most effective approach to minimizing sediment buildups and maintain the life of the channel conveyance.” That is what we are attempting to accomplish with this program.

The strategies and programs that could be implemented if SB 2126 is approved would not be river mining or dredging. Any kind of dredging (either hydraulic or mechanic) would be very limited in scope, allowing conservation and reclamation districts to restore conveyance in the rivers in a strategic location through small-scale, periodic, targeted removal of sediment in the river. This could be as large-scale as the current dredging project currently in progress, or as simple as the construction of sand traps that are dredged annually. Regardless, your point about oversight and management is well noted, and is a requirement for this program to be a success.

The San Jacinto River Authority has secured the support from the sand mining industry through the Texas Aggregates and Concrete Association to explore options to remove sand, gravel, shell, and other aggregates from the river—all without a cost to taxpayers. Ideally, the SJRA would be the public agency overseeing and managing the program, conducting the necessary studies, and coordinating with the appropriate state and federal agencies to determine where and how much material should be removed. Partners from the private sector could then remove the material as directed by SJRA.

After Hurricane Harvey, Governor Abbott tasked all of us with flood control and flood management. SB 2126 creates opportunities for public-private partnerships to help preserve the channel conveyance capacity of the San Jacinto River. As we know in the Lake Houston area, this sediment impedes the flow of storm water where the West Fork converges with Lake Houston.

Senator Creighton has led the effort to develop a flood resiliency funding bill in the Senate this legislative session (SB 7), and continues to seek other options to help create a regional flood management effort in the San Jacinto Basin. This bill would simply create another tool in our toolbox to help reduce potential flooding in the future.

As stewards of the San Jacinto River and its water supply, the SJRA supports Senator Creighton’s proactive approach to managing sediment in the river. We are trusted partners with the State of Texas, Harris County Flood Control District, and FEMA to execute $2.5B in flood control bond projects like the comprehensive San Jacinto Watershed Master Drainage Plan. We value our role as a community partner and appreciate the opportunity to further reduce the risk of flooding by providing oversight and management of this plan.

Chuck Gilman
Director of Water Resources and Flood Management
San Jacinto River Authority

For additional information on SJRA visit our website at www.sjra.netor like SJRA on Facebook
@SanJacintoRiverAuthority

Posted verbatim from SJRA letter by Chuck Gilman on 4/23/2019

602 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Earth Week Part 2: Clearing Land for Sand Mining

Best management practices for sand mining in many states say that miners should avoid clearing land until they’re ready to mine it. The roots of trees and grasses help stabilize soil during floods.

Barren land exposed to three 500-year storms. Vegetation not only binds the soil, it reduces the velocity of floodwaters, reducing the potential for erosion. Picture taken on 9/14/2017 two weeks after Hurricane Harvey.

Land Cleared, Then Three 500-Year Storms

However, on Caney Creek in Porter, a sand miner cleared 60 acres right before three 500-year storms in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Except for a tiny pond at the far end of this cleared area, no mining had occurred here when I took this photo shortly after Harvey.

With little vegetation to reduce the velocity of floodwaters, the miner lost sand from this area and a significant portion of his stockpile. Below is a closer shot of the stockpile.

*34-acre stockpile suffered severe erosion during Harvey.*

Sand Damage Downstream from Mine

Meanwhile, downstream from the mine, when Harvey’s floodwaters subsided, Kingwood residents found 30 acres of East End Park covered with sand, including this area that was once wetlands.

*Eagle Point section of Kingwood’s East End Park. After Harvey, sand dunes replaced wetlands.*

Extreme events like Harvey reveal the need for regulations that protect both miners and the public.

Restoring the trails in the park cost residents hundreds of thousands of dollars. Several months after the storm, trees covered by sand started dying and continue dying to this day. Eagles, other birds, and residents have lost valuable wetlands.

Bills to Regulate Sitting Idle

State Representative Dan Huberty introduced a bill that would establish best management practices for sand miners and another bill that would require miners in the San Jacinto watershed to follow them.

HB 909 calls for the TCEQ to adopt and publish best management practices for sand mines.
HB 1671 creates penalties for non-compliance with best practices defined under HB 909.

The legislature has taken no action on either bill since:

The Environmental Regulation Committee received HB 909 on 2/25/19.
The Natural Resources committee received HB 1671 on 3/4/19.

Time Running Out

With only 37 days left in this legislative session, hopes for both bills are quickly fading. If you would like to see them enacted, please email committee members:

House Environmental Regulation Committee

House Natural Resources Committee

Click here to see my top ten recommendations for sand mining practices that could reduce erosion. Each represents an opportunity for improvement relative to other states.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/23/2019

602 Days since Hurricane Harvey with 37 Days Left in the Legislative Session

Tunneling: A Potentially Valuable Flood Mitigation Tool

Engineering firm Freese & Nichols claims that “Incorporating tunneling into Houston’s stormwater portfolio could significantly reduce flood damages and improve the reliability of existing conveyance and detention infrastructure.” Tunneling technology, the firm says, has improved dramatically in the last 30 years, making projects possible that were once deemed impossible.

Rapid Growth Limits Mitigation Possibilities

Houston’s exponential population growth (16X during the last 100 years) has made both flooding and flood mitigation more difficult to deal with. However, tunneling, says Freese & Nichols bypasses the urban sprawl issue – especially in dense neighborhoods, such as those inside Beltway 8. Tunneling’s low-impact can move stormwater with very little effect on the surface, benefiting communities and addressing environmental concerns.

Tunnels Expand Both Conveyance and Storage

Tunnels, they point out, expand conveyance capacity within a watershed. They can also store stormwater during floods. A 30-50 foot tunnel can store 50 to 150 acre-feet of storm water per mile. More important, it can convey 10,000 to 15,000 cubic feet of water per second. To put that in perspective, that’s about 40-60% of the flow coming from Cypress Creek during Harvey. Or almost 20% of the flow coming from the Lake Conroe Dam.

San Jacinto River Watershed Flow Rates — During Harvey, an estimated 24,100 cfs came from Cypress Creek.

Thus, tunneling could significantly reduce total flow coming down rivers and streams during floods by providing an alternative means of conveyance.

How Tunnels Are Built

This detailed video shows how a modern tunneling machine works. It can construct up to 350 meters of tunnel in a week. That’s between a fifth and a quarter of a mile per week. The machine continuously cases the hole with precision, pre-caste, concrete segments as it excavates through loose sandy soil. It also dynamically balances pressure in the tunnel along the cutting head face to prevent cave ins. Working a hundred feet or more below the surface, it can even evacuate ground water.

*Machine used to build subways and storm tunnels. See fascinating 14 minute video.*

Editor’s note: This 13-minute industrial video is among the best-produced videos of its kind that I have ever seen. It should satisfy professionals as well as non-technical types. If you have students who lean toward science and engineering, make sure they see this; it shows how human ingenuity can fill the gap between problem and solution.

Gravity-Driven Reliability

Once built, gravity drives the system during floods.

Diagram courtesy of Freese & Nichols. Reproduced with permission. Note that this diagram shows the start point within a detention basin. Starting within a detention basin helps reduce sediment accumulation in tunnels.

Success Stories in Other Parts of Texas

Here in Texas, engineers have used the technology successfully to reduce flooding potential in Dallas, San Antonio and Austin. As urban centers grow, the need to move infrastructure underground grows with them. Disruption to life and the environment on the surface are simply too costly otherwise.

This presentation gives an overview of the technologies involved several case studies in Texas and the U.S. Here’s a shorter two-page summary. And a link to the Freese & Nichols blog that provides a more detailed discussion of the possibilities.

Weighing Expense Against Flood Cost

Because of the expense, tunneling isn’t the first technology you would consider for flood mitigation. But it can be a valuable addition to the tool chest…especially when weighed against the $125 billion that Harvey cost Houston residents.

Numerous discussions have been held at the county, state and federal levels re: the potential applications of this technology.

Community Impact reported last week that Brian Gettinger—tunneling services leader with Freese & Nichols —said he thinks the concept could work on Cypress Creek.

The newspaper said that Gettinger pitched the tunnel system to the Cypress Creek Flood Control Coalition in March. He said if the tunnel becomes a reality, it could cost $2 billion-$3 billion, would take years to build, and would require federal support because of the high price tag.

Feasibility and Alignment Studies

Harris County Flood Control should soon begin Phase 1 of a $400,000 study. Once started, it could take four months to confirm whether tunneling is feasible in this area. Future phases of the study will dig deeper into specific alignments (Buffalo, Brays, Cypress, etc.), evaluating inflow and outflow points, and specific routes.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/22/2019 (Earth Day)

601 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Outlook Good for Bill That Would Double Fines for Illegal Sand Mining

On April 17th, the Texas House of Representatives Environmental Regulations committee heard testimony on a bill that would double fines for illegal sand mining, HB907. No illegal sand miners spoke against the bill, so this one has a pretty good chance of passing.

Key Points in Huberty’s Testimony

The bill’s author, State Representative Dan Huberty laid out the case for the bill starting at 9:29 into this recording. His main points: this bill does not penalize miners who have registered with the TCEQ, only those who have not. He reminded committee members how bad the problem of illegal sand mining was when his first sand mining bill was passed in 2011. Huberty said that he believes the problem of unregistered sand mining continues to this day. However, he said, the fines set in 2011, no longer make the same deterrent they did then. He said the increased fines would enable the TCEQ to increase oversight efforts.

Why This is Important

Illegal sand mining contributes disproportionately to the problem of sedimentation in the river. That’s because it often takes place in or on the banks of the river. The illegal miners make no attempt to control erosion or sediment. And the scars can last for decades.

*Here is a satellite image from 1989 on the West Fork of a mining operation near a point bar. At this point in time, sand miners were not forced to register with the TCEQ.*

*The same area almost 30 years later still bears the scars. Both photos courtesy of Google Earth.*

Supported by Both TACA and Environmental Groups

At about 18 minutes into the recording, Rob Van Til, owner of River Aggregates, a registered sand mining company, spoke in favor of the bill. Speaking for himself as well as TACA, he said it would help deter “bad actors.”

Grant Dean, representing the Texas Environmental Coalition, from Marble Falls, also rose to speak in favor of the bill.

Not a “Christmas Tree”

Given the lack of opposition, Huberty then wrapped up testimony by moving for passage of he bill. He said that he would not allow the bill to become a “Christmas Tree” when it went to the House floor. A Christmas tree bill is a political term referring to a bill that attracts many, often unrelated, floor amendments that provide special benefits to various groups or interests.

The testimony with questions from the committee members took about 15 minutes. In response to one of the questions, Huberty details all of the other flood mitigation legislation moving through the Legislature at this time. It’s definitely worth watching if you want a preview of how the political landscape could change for sand mining in coming years.

Revenue Neutral

While this is certainly not the most important piece of sand mining legislation, it will help in a limited way by plugging a legislative and enforcement gap. And because the extra revenue generated will pay for the enforcement, it is revenue neutral.

Status: Pending in Committee

To read the text of HB907, click here. Senator Brandon Creighton has introduced a companion bill in the Senate, SB2123. Both are still pending in committee.

Creighton’s SB2123 was referred to the Natural Resources & Economic Development Committee on March 21. The committee has not yet held hearings on it.

Reasoning Behind Companion Bills

A companion bill is a bill filed in one chamber that is identical or very similar to a bill filed in the opposite chamber. Companion bills are used to expedite passage as they provide a means for committee consideration of a measure to occur in both houses simultaneously. A companion bill that has passed one house can then be substituted for the companion bill in the second house.

How You Can Help

Both of these bills deserve the support of Lake Houston Area residents. To urge action, call or email the committee members. Here is contact info for:

Said Huberty at the end of the day, “It was quick, but we feel good about this!”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/20/2019

599 Days since Hurricane Harvey