As I’ve been posting a lot about sand mining legislation, a friend sent me this doc today about the reasons for Texas Parks & Wildlife Department’s (TPWD) permitting program. TPWD regulates mining in rivers; TCEQ regulates mining in flood plains.
Photo by Jim & Melissa Balcom of their son playing on the West Fork of the San Jacinto after Harvey.
Difference in Tax Rates Between Rivers and Flood Plains
Flood plain mining has a 2% tax rate; in-river mining 8%. This doc explains what the department does with that 8%. TPWD’s authority to regulate mining in rivers goes back more than 100 years.
TPWD says that:
Dredging of sand, gravel, and shell from rivers and bays can negatively impact fish and wildlife habitats. Habitat alteration is the primary cause of population declines, loss, and extinction of freshwater fishes, mussels, and other aquatic organisms. Habitat alteration is also one of the primary contributors to listing of fish and wildlife as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Evolution of Mining Influenced
Because of the 4X difference in tax rates, and the fact that sand is a highly competitive undifferentiated commodity, sand from flood plains enjoys a huge cost advantage: 6%. As a result, comparatively little sand is taken from rivers today. In an average year, TPWD department says it brings in only $200,000 to $400,000 statewide. It comes mostly from small scale mining (less than 1000 cubic yards) by people who want to build roads or pipelines across streams.
Goals of Regulations
As the number of applications for permits has increased, TPWD has established project guidelines such as seasonal restrictions that avoid or minimize impacts to recreational users; site-specific provisions to ensure channel stability; and best management practices to control bank erosion, avoid land loss, and reduce downstream impacts.
Read Over Your Morning Cup
The entire document is 2-pages, well-written, and well-illustrated. It will give you a good understanding of why the state started regulating sand mining in rivers long ago…all during your morning cup of coffee or tea. Highly recommended easy reading!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/19/2019
598 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/image3-4.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2019-04-18 22:29:062019-04-18 22:35:49Texas Parks and Wildlife Sand and Gravel Permitting Program: History, Scope and Protections
It limits the bill’s geographic scope to the San Jacinto River and its tributaries.
It gives the Harris County Flood Control District the same powers that it gives the San Jacinto River Authority.
Local bills rarely encounter serious opposition. So this may guarantee the bill’s passage.
Issues with Revisions
Unfortunately, the language is still so sweeping, that I fear it could open the door to abuses.
Someone reading this for the first time, without the benefit of all the senate testimony, could draw the conclusion that the San Jacinto and its tributaries are wide open to sand mining – 24/7/365 – as long you justify it by saying you will improve the river’s conveyance.
Vague Language Opens Door to Abuses
For instance, after reading this bill, unless you watched the testimony, how would you know that it’s supposedly:
For the purpose of building sand traps that are maintained once or twice a year?
Limited to “strategic locations”?
Based on scientific studies?
Several years down the road, when the players change, all the verbal promises made during testimony will be long forgotten. It’s easy to see how people could get the wrong impression of the bill’s original intent.
Nightmare Scenario
At that time, I can see developer’s coming to sand miners and the SJRA (or Harris County Flood Control) saying, “I need more fill to elevate my property. Can you take it out of the river for me?”
The only problem is this. While it may reduce the risk of flooding on the developers’ property, without proper safeguards, it will likely increase flooding for surrounding and downstream properties.
Example 1: Loss of riparian vegetation along the banks increases erosion. So even though you take sand out of the river, you put more back in.
Example 2: Imagine a flood moving slowly through a widened area. Now imagine those same floodwaters moving downstream through a narrower area. As the water hits the constriction, it starts churning at and eroding the river banks.
Example 3: Lack of permitting or engineering studies means that developers could put fill anywhere. Even in streams. They could divert flows onto neighboring properties. They could put fill in wetlands and pave it over. This would accelerate flooding downstream.
Proponents of the bill argue that removing deposits like this one near a mine could keep the sand from migrating downriver. Opponents argue that it could destabilize river banks and worsen sedimentation. The vagueness of the language in the bill would also make it easy to widen the river anywhere developers wanted to build in floodplains.
Better Ways to Reduce Sedimentation
Creighton’s original stated intent was to eliminate disincentives for public/private partnerships that could help address excess sedimentation. A noble intention.
But if he really wants to stop sediment from coming downstream, he might be better off partnering with groups like the Bayou Land Conservancy that protect and restore floodplains. Or accelerating bills like his own SB2124, which creates best management practices for sand mining. Texas is the only state that I could find that doesn’t require minimum setbacks from rivers for sand mines. That contributes to repeated flooding of mines. We sure could use some help in that department. Frankly, so could the miners.
This session ends on May 27th. Tick Tock.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/18/2019
597 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 39 days until the end of this legislative session
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Harvey-SanJac_41-e1555625578344.jpg?fit=1500%2C973&ssl=19731500adminadmin2019-04-18 17:14:272019-04-18 20:19:29Bill that Could Open Door to River Mining Modified and Heading to Full Senate
As of April 15, almost all of the Emergency West Fork Dredging Project was complete. The map below shows the current status. As of April 15, the Corps and its contractors have dredged a total of 1,564,000 cubic yards of sediment.
The Great Lakes dredge has completed its segment (shown in red) and returned to dock where it is undergoing maintenance. Great Lakes has not yet demobilized. It is awaiting a decision from FEMA and the Army Corps on whether they will approve dredging of the mouth bar.
Callan Marine, a subcontractor to Great Lakes, is shown in blue. They are currently dredging just downstream from Kings Harbor. They have about 400 yards to go on the northern half of the channel. Callan should complete its segment around the end of the month.
Great Lakes Dredge has completed its segment and is docked, undergoing maintenance.Callan still has a short distance to dredge. See the unfilled rectangles in the map above.
Next step: FEMA and the Army Corps need to make a decision on the mouth bar. They have not yet indicated when that might be.
Posted by Bob Rehak on April 17, 2019
596 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/190415_Post-Harvey-Dredging-Overview-Zoom-1.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-04-17 21:58:362019-04-17 22:18:56Army Corps Updates Dredging Status
Forest Cove Townhomes destroyed by Harvey and swallowed by sand. In places, sand reaches into the treetops.
Bootleg Operators Destabilize River Banks
You don’t have to look long or hard to find examples of bootleg operators; they’re clearly visible in satellite images. As you examine an area in Google Earth and scroll back through time, look for operations that pop up suddenly and disappear just as fast. Concentrate on point bars and areas hidden in woods near rivers.
High Cost of Dredging
It’s costing taxpayers $70 million to restore the conveyance of the San Jacinto River; that’s the cost of the US Army Corps of Engineer’s dredging program. And that’s only for a PORTION of the area that needs dredging.
In the process, they kill trees and riparian vegetation that stabilize river banks. Results: erosion, excess sedimentation and scars that can last for decades.
I’m not aware of any responsible parties opposing this legislation. And it doesn’t impose any hardships on honest people.
It does, however, put APOs on the radar of oversight agencies, so the agencies can better enforce environmental laws and regulations.
HB 907 Won’t Solve Sedimentation Problems but Will Help
PLEASE SUPPORT HB 907.It won’t solve all the sedimentation problems on the San Jacinto, but it will definitely help.
The House Environmental Regulation committee is hearing testimony on the bill today. Let’s hope this one makes it out of committee.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/17/2019
596 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/capitold_1024.jpg?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=17681024adminadmin2019-04-17 13:22:062019-04-17 13:39:58In Support of HB 907: Doubling Fines for Unregistered Sand Mining
Senator Brandon Creighton, author of SB 2126 and Senator Charles Perry, Vice Chair and Chair respectively of the Senate Water and Rural Affairs Committee.
Uncontested but Not Unquestioned Testimony
Testimony started at about 8 pm. Chuck Gilman from the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) and David Perkins from Texas Aggregate & Concrete Association (TACA) spoke FOR the bill. Craig Bonds from Texas Parks and Wildlife Division acted as a “resource” for the committee.
Senator Brandon Creighton, the bill’s author is vice chairman of the committee. Senator Charles Perry is chairman. Only Perry and Senators Lois Kolkhorst, Jose Rodriguez, and Carol Alvarado offered questions or comments. Creighton defended the bill vigorously at every turn.
Senator Perry questioned whether the SJRA was the appropriate entity, given its history, to tackle a project like this.
Senator Kohlkorst raised questions about how this would impact the Lower Colorado River Authority. She also raised concerns brought to her by the Katy Prairie Conservancy about the lack of permitting and possible erosion issues.
Senator Alvarado questioned the impact on water quality and increased treatment costs.
Senator Rodriquez questioned why the State was giving away a profitable, salable resource.
Bill Left Pending in Committee
After almost half an hour of testimony and discussion, Chairman Perry left the bill pending in committee. No action was taken on it. At several points during the discussion, members talked about amending the language. Unless it changes substantially, Senator Creighton may not have the votes to get it out of the seven-person committee.
I will continue to monitor this bill as will most citizen groups in Texas. It’s not dead until the session is over.
49:50 to 53:00 Senator Brandon Creighton lays out the case for the bill.
53:30 to 54:30 Chuck Gilman, Director of Water Resources and Flood Management with the SJRA emphasizes that the bill will use private contractors to remove the sediment rather than paying a public entity like the Army Corps to do it.
55:00 – 55:30 Senator Perry asks whether the SJRA is the appropriate entity to tackle a project like this.
55:30 – 56:00 Gilman responds by talking about “Building places along the lake” (sand traps) where they could capture materials with beneficial market value.
56:00 – 56:35 Perry asks why the bill, which was once limited to the SJRA, now applies to every river authority in the state. “What’s changed?”
56:35 – 57:20. Senator Creighton interjects and asks Gilman to explain his role in flood mitigation.
57:20 – 58:10. Gilman gives his history. Perry’s question about change is never answered.
58:10 – 59:00 David Perkins speaks for the bill. He claims it would improve water quality without creating excessive cost. And says TACA wants to “Participate where we can.”
59:00 – 1:00:00 Senator Creighton asks Perkins to explain how sand miners wanted to be part of the current dredging effort, but were discouraged and why that policy needs to change.
1:00:00 – 1:02:30 Perkins implies that TACA volunteered to help the Army Corps dispose of material, but was rebuffed. Blames Corps for inertia. Implies storage was a major part of the $70 million project cost. Talks about TPWD’s 8% royalty fee for removing sand from river as a disincentive for private companies to take sand out of the river.
1:02:30 – 1:03:00. Senator Kolkhorst expresses concerns about lack of permitting in the bill’s language.
1:03:00- 1:04:34. Senator Creighton volunteers to work with her on wording and exclude other river authorities like the Lower Colorado River Authority, if that makes it more palatable.
1:04:35 – 1:05:50 Senator Kolkhorst says she will work with Creighton.
1:06:00 – 1:06:45 Senator Carol Avarado worries about decrease in water quality and an increase in treatment costs. Her concerns are never really addressed.
1:06:45 – 1:07:00 Craig Bonds introduces himself as a resource witness from TPWD.
1:07:00 – 1:07:30 Senator Perry asks what should be put in the bill to protect the environment.
1:07:30 – 1:09:00 Bonds replied that he would bypass permitting where dredging was needed but not bypass permitting statewide. He said he wanted to require permitting for the Hill Country but was OK to bypass permitting on the San Jacinto. Said other areas of the state were “highly sensitive.” He also stated that he saw impacts from both regulated and illicit sand mining in the Hill Country. However, he claimed “sideboards” could be put on activities to protect the San Jacinto. He never explains what those are.
1:09:00-1:09:30 Senator Creighton asks Perkins to describe what a sand trap is and where it would be located.
1:09:30 – 1:10:30 Perkins talked about the need to assess the river first. He said sand needs to be removed on a regular basis and that it could be used for construction. He never did explain what “sand traps” were. Instead he suggested they would undertake “Excavation activities once a year or once every six months” depending on the rate of sedimentation.
1:10:30 – 1:11:25. Creighton emphasized “no free reign.” Said all stakeholders would have to agree where problems exist and that removal would be science-based.
1:11:30 – 1:14:12. Senator Rodriguez expresses concern about the fiscal impact of giving away sand which would otherwise be sold. Craig Bonds explains that TPWD charges an 8% royalty for sand taken out of a river. But he also admits that this bill would do away with that royalty, resulting in a fiscal impact on the state.
1:14:12 Creighton explains that 8% is such a disincentive that practically no river mining exists and the state is not receiving much in royalties.
1:17:00. Testimony ends. No one spoke against the bill. Chairman Perry closed testimony and announced that the bill would be left pending.
Questions Still Remain
Why do Hill Country rivers deserve protection but not the San Jacinto?
Who will conduct the scientific studies? An independent entity? If so, how would that affect cost?
Senator Creighton keeps emphasizing that the LAKE needs to be dredged to improve conveyance and capacity. But TACA talks about doing it “where it makes sense.” From separate discussions, I’ve concluded that TACA means “next to their mines, on the RIVER.” Those are FAR upriver. Does this seem like a disconnect?
Creighton and Gilman talk repeatedly about “sand traps”, but when Perkins is probed on that issue, he talks about excavating the river. Is that another disconnect? What do they really have in mind?
They never acknowledge that these activities could increase sedimentation. Why?
What is the basis for Perkin’s claim that this program will “improve water quality and reduce costs”?
Senate Bill (SB) 2126 is well intentioned. However, in my opinion, its present wording could have disastrous unintended consequences.
What Bill Does
SB 2126 would allow a “conservation or reclamation district” to take sand from the West Fork and its tributaries in order to “restore, maintain, or expand the capacity of the river and its tributaries to convey storm flows.” The district would not need a permit and could deposit sand anywhere as long as it’s on private land. What’s a “conservation district?” The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA), which supports this bill.
Image showing proximity of sand mines to the West Fork of the San Jacinto. If approved, SB2126 would allow miners into the river, too.
How It Started
The SJRA, concerned about sediment in the river, met with miners to see if they could find a public/private solution. The feelings were:
The river had too much sand
Dredging is very expensive
Miners had the expertise and equipment to remove it at no cost to the public.
Great in Theory But…
It’s hard to argue with any of those points and the cost savings are appealing. But this bill ignores the fact that river mining is actually outlawed in many countries. They include England, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Others strongly regulate river mining including Italy, Portugal, and New Zealand.
Scientific literature abounds with examples of how river mining frequently increases sedimentation downstream. Some causes include:
Loss of riparian vegetation that stabilizes river banks
Channel incision (lowering or widening of river beds)
Lowering of flood plain water tables, which kills more plants on river banks and increases erosion
Disturbance (resuspension) of sediment on the river bottom that gets carried downstream
A reduction of “bedload” that contributes to head cutting and downstream erosion, as seen in this video.
“Sediment starvation” which causes downstream water to pull sediment from banks and beds, often resulting in the loss of private property downstream.
Upstream changes in channel geometry that cause beds and banks to erode downstream, for instance, when rivers go from wide (near sand mines) to narrow (downstream).
The SJRA says that it would provide the necessary oversight to reduce negative environmental impacts of river mining. The bill’s authors cite the need for “continuous dredging” on the West Fork. Further, they say that the bureaucracy for contracting dredging is overly burdensome and that this bill will cut red tape. Here is the analysis of the bill prepared for the Senate’s Water and Rural Affairs Committee.
Opponents Say…
Many environmental groups and scientists see river mining as far more destructive than flood-plain mining. Historically, the shift to flood-plain mining across the U.S. was largely a response to the dangers and excesses of river mining.
Also, the bill makes no mention of any oversight provisions, limitations or public comment. Sponsors even argue that the bill’s purpose is to eliminate the red tape associated with current oversight.
The Bayou Land Conservancy, one of the leading environmental groups in the Lake Houston Area, is sending the following letter to members of the Senate Water and Rural Affairs Committee as well the group’s own members.
Bayou Land Conservancy’s Letter on SB 2126
“On behalf of Bayou Land Conservancy, I urge you to vote NO on SB 2126 when the Water & Rural Affairs Committee meets to consider this bill.
“Bayou Land Conservancy is a non-profit, community-supported, land-conservation organization that preserves land along streams for flood control, clean water, and wildlife. We preserve 14,000 acres in the Houston region, primarily focused on the Lake Houston watershed. This includes the San Jacinto River, cited in 2006 as one of America’s most endangered rivers due to a number of threats, including the high intensity of local aggregate mining.
“SB 2126 would allow operators that are now currently limited to mining away from the river to remove sand and gravel from within the river itself. The river belongs to the citizens of Texas, and the contents of the river do as well. SB 2126 allows operators to remove sand, gravel, and other natural products that belong to the taxpayers of Texas without acquiring a permit or paying a fee.
“Not only would passage of this bill set a dangerous precedent, only a casual understanding of the science is necessary to know it would make sedimentation and flooding on the San Jacinto River even worse. “
“Because of the sandy soils along the San Jacinto, river banks are especially prone to collapse. Furthermore, while dredging in the still waters of a lake or bay can have benefits, mining within the flowing portion of a stream catastrophically destabilizes the river channel, speeding up erosion. Far from the imagined result of less sediment moving down the river, this dredging within a flowing river leads to much more sediment ending up in Lake Houston.
“This watershed-wide disruption of regional stream dynamics could also potentially create a tremendous liability for mining operators. Worst of all, this action would send much greater volumes of water even faster downstream, threatening communities like Kingwood, Humble and others.
“Without prior careful and deliberate study by an independent research organization long before any legislation, this practice should not be allowed. There are too many risks to downstream communities. We urge you to keep the life, health, safety, property of these downstream communities in mind and vote NO on SB 2126.”
This Bill Scares Me
The lack of language pertaining to oversight, methods and limitations in SB 2126 scares me. I was at a meeting in Austin last November when the subject of this bill came up.
I asked a simple question: “What would the solution look like?” I got three different answers from the SJRA, legislators and sand miners. Since then, I have met with all three groups again and still have no consistent answer.
Worse, the bill does not encourage them to find one. I can imagine years down the road (when all the good intentions are long forgotten) how the purpose of this bill could be subverted. Imagine a developer like Romerica saying, “I have a flooding problem. Take more sand out of the river and put it on my property. We don’t need any pesky oversight or public comment. Let’s get on with it. Who cares about flood plains when you can just expand the river?”
While I would like to see flood mitigation speeded up, I recognize that removing regulation can sometimes solve one problem only to create others. In addition to increasing sedimentation, this bill could fuel ceaseless and careless development along river banks that contributes to flooding. Despite its good intentions!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/15/2019
594 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SourceOfWater-e1529593516550.jpg?fit=1300%2C846&ssl=18461300adminadmin2019-04-15 19:52:052019-04-15 20:17:11Caution: SB 2126 Opens Door to Sand Mining in Rivers
Houston City Council Member Dave Martin reminds residents of an upcoming Mobile Hurricane Harvey Recovery Center event taking place in Huffman tonight. Intake specialists will be available to assist families with guidance on recovery programs and resources under the City of Houston Homeowner Assistance Program.
Harvey Damage. Photo courtesy of Melissa Sturgis.
The event will take place on/at:
Monday, April 15
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
May Community Center
2100 Wolf Road, Huffman, TX 77336
Take Survey First: Online, By Phone or In Person
If you were affected by Hurricane Harvey, please take the Harvey Recovery Survey before the upcoming event:
The Recovery Survey directs residents to the appropriate recovery program and helps prioritize those with urgent needs. The survey requires no documentation and takes less than 15 minutes to complete. While priority will be given to low- and moderate-income homeowners, assistance is available to homeowners of all income levels. An Intake Specialist will contact you after you complete the Survey regarding next steps.
If you need assistance filling out the Survey, please call 832-393-0550 or visit one of the stationary HRC’s. The closest is at: Northeast: 9551 N. Wayside, Houston, Texas 77028.
It is open Monday and Tuesday, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Wednesday and Thursday from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Saturday from 9:00 to 3:00 p.m. These centers are closed on Sundays. For a map, please click here.
$1.17 Billion in Assistance Available
The City received the $1.17 billion for housing recovery through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the State of Texas General Land Office. The recovery funds include the HoAP, which offers five program options including:
Reimbursement for completed repairs
Homeowner-managed rehabilitation
City-managed rehabilitation and reconstruction
Buyouts
Interim mortgage assistance.
For more information, regarding this project please contact the Houston Recovery Center by calling 832-393-0550.
Posted by Bob Rehak on April 15, 2019
594 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/IMG_4619.jpg?fit=1500%2C1125&ssl=111251500adminadmin2019-04-15 10:54:222019-04-15 10:55:01Mobile Hurricane Harvey Recovery Center Coming to Huffman April 15
Callan Marine, a subcontractor to Great Lakes on the job is still hard at work clearing the Kings Harbor area. Over the next 30 days, the Army Corps forecasts that Callan will remove an additional 125,000 cubic yards of material from the West Fork,” said Alton Meyer, Corps Project Manager.
Callan Marine Dredge still hard at work in Kings Harbor area.
Unless FEMA, Army Corps, City of Houston, Harris County and State of Texas can strike a deal to remove the giant sand bar at the mouth of the West Fork, demobilization will begin in early May, roughly two weeks from now. For now, Great Lakes is standing by, waiting for that decision.
Dredging Highlights To Date
The video above shows some of the highlights of the current project. The Army Corps produced it.
As of April 11, 2019, the Corps and contractors had removed 652 tons of woody debris and 1,547,000 cubic yards of sand from the river.
The Corps estimates that by the completion date, 720 tons of woody debris and 1,684,000 cubic yards of sand will be removed from this 2-mile stretch of the San Jacinto.
The project began September 20, 2018, and should finish by the end of May, 2019.
Mouth-Bar Considerations
Planners now need to determine whether to extend the project by dredging the mouth bar. That would keep the crew and equipment working. And that could save, at least in theory, approximately $18 million in remobilization fees compared to pulling out now and coming back later.
Planners are evaluating:
How much sediment Harvey deposited in the mouth bar area
The cost to remove it
Where to place it.
All three variables affect each other. That makes costing the alternatives complex. For instance, the further upriver you pump the sand, the higher the cost for any given volume. That’s because you need additional pipeline, booster pumps, fuel, pontoons and crew.
Of the three variables, decidingwhere to place the sediment is the most time consuming. By Federal law, permitting the placement site requires two mandatory 30-day public-comment periods.
Thus, it may be technically possible to keep the equipment working and save remobilization fees – if FEMA can make a decision quickly enough.
A third possibility: using a combination of two placement areas, as in the current project.
While FEMA and the Corps weigh their options and costs, Great Lakes is repairing its equipment and inspecting pipeline. Mouth-bar dredging already has support of the City of Houston, Harris County and the State.
A decision could come in the next week or two.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/15/19
594 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/USACE-Video-Key-Frame.jpg?fit=1500%2C819&ssl=18191500adminadmin2019-04-15 06:07:182019-04-15 11:24:52Army Corps Releases New Video of West Fork Dredging Highlights
Approximately two-thirds of this legislative session has expired. The maximum length for a legislative session in Texas is 140 days starting on the second Tuesday in January. We are 96 days into this session. So where do we stand on key pieces of legislation related to sand mining and other flood mitigation? A quick update.
With 42 more days left in this legislative session, chances are looking good for flood mitigation legislation but slim for sand mining legislation.
Proposed Legislation in House
HB13 Creates a flood infrastructure fund of $3.26 billion taken from the Economic Stabilization (Rainy Day) fund for flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects. (Comparable to SB7 below but with some differences.) This bill finally passed the House on April 11 and was sent to the Senate on the same day.
HB509 Allows Texas Railroad Commission to regulate APOs with TCEQ. Requires: hydrologic impact study, public notice, public hearings, and provides fines up to $10,000 and 1-year in jail for false statements. The Energy Resources Committee held a public hearing on April 8. Opponents says six of 11 members on the committee oppose the bill. It is still pending in committee. They could act on it as early as April 15. If you haven’t sent in your letters let, time is running out on this one.
HB 907 Doubles the penalties for not registering a sand mining operation. New penalties can range from $10,000 to $20,000 per year with the total not to exceed $50,000. Scheduled for a public hearing on Wednesday, April 17.
HB 908 Provides for penalties up to $50,000 for water code violations and every-other-year inspections. Has been sitting in the Environmental Regulation Committee since February 25. No hearings scheduled yet.
HB 909 Calls for the TCEQ to adopt and publish best management practices for sand mines (aggregate production operations) that comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations. Has been sitting in the Environmental Regulation Committee since February 25. No hearings scheduled yet.
HB 911. Creates a Lake Houston Watershed Commission: Purpose: to provide the public with streamlined communication and cooperation in flood control planning. Public hearing held on March 19 and has been pending in the Natural Resources Committee ever since.
HB 1671. Extends water quality protections to the West Fork of the San Jacinto currently enjoyed by the John Graves District on the Brazos as part of a pilot program. Attaches penalties for non-compliance with best practices defined under HB909. Has been sitting in the Environmental Regulation Committee since February 25. No hearings scheduled yet.
HB 2871. Would require sand mines and other aggregate production operations to acquire a reclamation permit and to file a performance bond ensuring reclamation. Significantly, they would have to do both of these things before they could acquire a production permit. It also attaches civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance. The Energy Resources Committee also held a public hearing on this bill on April 8. Six of 11 members reportedly oppose the bill. It is still pending in committee. They could act on this one, too, as early as April 15. If you haven’t sent in your letters yet, act now.
Proposed Legislation In Senate
SB 7. Creates a dedicated Texas Infrastructure Fund for flood control planning and the funding of flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects. Passed by the Senate and referred to House Natural Resources Committee on March 28. No action since then.
SB500. An appropriations bill that includes funding for SB7 and an amendment that would dedicate $30 million for dredging of the West Fork Mouth Bar in Lake Houston. Passed by both houses and heading for a conference committee to iron out slight differences in amendments.
SB2123. Companion bill identical to HB907. No action since referral to Natural Resources and Economic Development committee on March 21.
SB2124. Companion bill, identical to HB909. No action since referral to Natural Resources and Economic Development committee on March 21.
SB2125. Companion bill, identical to HB908. No action since referral to Natural Resources and Economic Development committee on March 21.
SB2126. Would allow conservation districts to dredge rivers without a permit to restore conveyance if they place the spoils on private land. No action since referral to Natural Resources and Economic Development committee on March 21.
42 Days Left
With only 42 days left before the end of the session, the chances for flood mitigation legislation look hopeful. However the chances for sand mining regulation look doubtful. Near the end of the third quarter, TACA and the status quo are up 10-0 over Citizens.
In exactly six weeks, the clock will run out and it will be two more years for resident’s next shot at sand mining regulation. Stay tuned.
Posted by Bob Rehak on April 13, 2019
592 Days since Hurricane Harvey
00adminadmin2019-04-13 19:43:212019-04-13 19:44:06Time Running Out for Legislation On Sand Mining
Last month, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers predicted that dredging could take until early May. They allowed another month for de-mobilization. However, one of the two dredgers on the job, Great Lakes, finished this week. Their early finish could affect a series of decisions on the mouth bar.
Sand Bar blocking the West Fork of the San Jacinto where it enters Lake Houston. The City estimates that 1.4 million cubic yards of sediment was deposited in this area during Harvey.
Early Finish, New Possibilities
The early finish could let mouth-bar dredging start sooner. However, it also could put pressure on the Corps to consider options not in play a week ago.
At the end of March, the City of Houston submitted an application to FEMA to fund mouth bar dredging. The purpose: remove 1.4 million cubic yards of sediment from the giant sand bar at the mouth of the San Jacinto West Fork. Separately, the City also submitted a permit application to the Army Corps to store the dredging spoils on property in Humble, across from Kingwood’s River Grove Park.
Officials hoped that decisions could be made on both requests before the dredgers began demobilizing. That could save up to $18 million in re-mobilization fees. From a taxpayer-savings point of view, it’s more economical to keep the dredgers dredging than organize a second separate project.
However, Great Lake’s early finish is forcing everyone from Galveston to Houston to Austin to Washington to scramble.
Great Lakes’ dredge is back at the dock at the Corps’ command site in Humble.
New Possibilities
As of this afternoon, the Army Corps said it was still reviewing the storage application permit to use the property in Humble. The permit review plus site prep, if approved, could take months though.
This raised the question of a backup site and the obvious one in my mind is one the Corps is already using – Placement Area #2 (PA2) on Sorters Road south of Kingwood College.
But that would require a much longer run, additional booster pumps, more pipe, and most likely…the larger, more powerful dredge that just finished.
Experts tell me that it is technically feasible to pump the sand all the way from the mouth bar to PA2 – IF the sand mine operator would allow it.
Evaluating Alternatives
Will the higher cost of the longer run eat up any savings that come from avoiding a second mobilization? The Corps has not yet had time to explore all possibilities and run the numbers, but it’s good to know another possibility may exist…
…if FEMA acts right away
…if the Humble property runs into problems
…if the Corps needs to move quickly to take advantage of the larger dredge.
To help keep all options open, officials throughout Texas at every level have leaped into action.
City officials have scrambled also. Dave Martin, Houston City Council Member said, “I’ve been in communication all day, and had multiple conversations with Great Lakes; Congressman Dan Crenshaw’s office; Chief Nim Kidd of the Texas Division of Emergency Management; Stephen Costello, the City’s Chief Recover Officer, and more.” Reportedly, even Governor Abbott got involved at one point.
According to Martin, “Our #1 goal is a Mission Assignment.”
Still Time to Save Re-mobilization Costs
Martin added,”Nothing is being disassembled, yet. They are not removing any pipe yet. They are taking advantage of this down time to check the pipe’s condition so that it can be replaced if necessary. I’m guardedly optimistic at this time.”
One experienced dredger explained that pipe can wear out. Coarse sand, he said, can be very abrasive, especially with steel pipe.
So for the time being, dredgers are performing necessary maintenance and inspections. That could take days or weeks. However, it probably will not keep them here months. Bottom line: the clock is ticking … louder now than before.
Contractors can’t tolerate downtime indefinitely. How long they decide to wait will most likely depend on the certainty of future work. That depends on FEMA and how quickly it acts.
Update on Funding
FEMA has not yet committed any funding. Stephen Costello has said in the past that the amount they fund will depend on their assessment of the City’s assessment. The two sides need to agree on how much mouth-bar sediment came from Harvey.
Mayor Sylvester Turner has committed $18 million from the City, according to City Council Member Martin. And the County committed $10 million in last year’s flood bond.
Keep in mind though that we must also budget for dredging beyond the mouth bar. We need East Fork, remainder of the West Fork, and maintenance dredging.
All the pieces are falling into place. Keep your fingers crossed and your eyes on FEMA. This is a high-stakes, political drama for the Lake Houston area!
Posted by Bob Rehak on April 12, 2019
591 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GLDD-Dredge-Back-At-Dock.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-04-12 14:48:222019-04-12 20:29:50Great Lakes Finishes Dredging Early; Accelerates Need for Mouth Bar Decision
