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:
602 Days since Hurricane Harvey with 37 Days Left in the Legislative Session
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Harvey-SanJac_374.jpg?fit=2000%2C1333&ssl=113332000adminadmin2019-04-23 07:05:322019-04-26 10:52:40Earth Week Part 2: Clearing Land for Sand Mining
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.
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.
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.
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 Impactreported 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
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Screen-Shot-2019-04-22-at-10.18.42-AM-copy.jpg?fit=1500%2C966&ssl=19661500adminadmin2019-04-22 13:13:322019-04-22 13:14:10Tunneling: A Potentially Valuable Flood Mitigation Tool
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.
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.
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.
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
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Environmental-Regulation.jpg?fit=1268%2C710&ssl=17101268adminadmin2019-04-19 20:22:102019-04-19 20:23:21Outlook Good for Bill That Would Double Fines for Illegal Sand Mining
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
