Last week, I reviewed Texas Senate Bill 7 (SB7) which creates a Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund. The fund, if approved, will help local governments by providing grants and low- and no-interest loans for flood mitigation projects in four major categories. Categories include Floodplain Management, Hurricane Harvey, Floodplain Implementation and Federal Matching accounts. A competing bills has emerged in the House called HB13.
Dome of the Texas state capital in Austin
The Senate specified funding for SB7 in SB500, an omnibus appropriations bill. SB500 appropriated $1.65 billion for SB7 from the Economic Stabilization (Rainy Day) Fund. See Section 29a on page 12.
However, when SB500 moved to the House, the House Appropriations committee voted to remove the funding for SB7. The committee report states, “The substitute does not include an appropriation to the comptroller for the Texas infrastructure resiliency fund or certain other provisions relating to that fund.” See the second to the last paragraph on page 9.
Meanwhile, State Representative Dade Phelan from Orange, Tx. filed House Bill 13 (HB13). SB7 and HB13 do many of the same things, but have some important differences. HB13 would provide $3.26 billion out of the economic stabilization fund.
SB7 creates something called the “Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund”; HB13 sets up a “Flood Infrastructure Fund.”
Important Similarities Between SB7 and HB13
Both SB7 and HB13:
Relate to flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects
Could make loans at or below market rates
Could make grants to cities and counties to provide matching funds that make them eligible to participate in a federal program for a flood project
Provide seed money to help attract federal grants
Would likely accelerate flood mitigation.
Differences
The Texas Water Development Board would control grants and loans made under HB13, but SB7 would create a separate board to control and distribute funds.
Compared to SB7, HB13 takes twice as much from the Rainy Day Fund.
Principal and interest payments on loans made under HB13 could be deferred for not more than 10 years or until construction of the flood project is completed, whichever is earlier.
HB13 would give special consideration to cities and counties whose median household income falls more than 15% below the state median.
HB13 encourages regional solutions by requiring cities and counties to demonstrate that they have acted cooperatively with other cities and counties. In other words, they don’t want people passing problems downstream. For instance, adding additional gates to the Lake Houston Dam might flood properties downstream. If so, HB13 could require buying out properties below the dam to avoid flooding them before adding gates to the dam (something that is already happening).
How does HB13 encourage cooperation? By requiring that all political subdivisions substantially affected by any given flood mitigation project: 1) participate in the process of developing the proposed flood project; 2) hold public meetings on proposed flood projects; and 3) compare their impacts versus other potential flood projects for the same area.
HB13 also requires the state to prepare:
A statewide flood plan that must be updated every five years
A 10-year dam and maintenance plan.
What Happens Next?
The full House has not yet voted on HB13. Consideration of SB7 will likely be delayed in the House until HB13 is voted up or down by the House. In the meantime, the House deferred any action on funding for SB7 by taking it out of SB500. It could always be handled separately at a later date in a supplementary appropriations bill.
If the House votes FOR HB13, we will then have two partially approved bills that do substantially the same thing. They would go to a conference committee to forge a compromise bill.
A conference committee consists of 10 people. The leader of each house appoints five. They work with each other to incorporate the best aspects of each bill. When a bill comes out of conference committee, it goes back to the House and Senate for straight up or down votes. Rules do NOT allow any amendments to bills that come out of conference committees.
With the amount of dollars at stake, not to mention the number of flood mitigation projects that depend on those dollars, everyone should closely watch the progress of these bills.
One Concern About HB13
After pondering each of these bills, I have one concern about HB13: the requirement to gain cooperation from all affected parties. In principle, it sounds good. In action, it could delay mitigation projects for years. It assumes political willpower and financial capabilities among multiple jurisdictions that may not exist. Mitigation for tens of thousands of people could be held up by a handful of folks that refuse to cooperate. There needs to be some way to arbitrate in such cases.
For instance, the San Jacinto River touches multiple cities and counties, has two major lakes, and is governed by the San Jacinto River Authority and the Coastal Water Authority. Lining up all those dominos every time someone somewhere wants to improve drainage may represent an impossible hurdle to clear.
The good news: the best minds in the state are all focused on ways to speed up and fund flood mitigation projects. A good compromise will likely emerge
I will continue to follow both of these bills as they work their ways through the House and Senate.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/27/19
575 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/dome2_1024.jpg?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=17681024adminadmin2019-03-27 14:35:162019-03-27 14:40:24Senate Appropriates $1.65 Billion for SB7, But House Omits Funding For It While Considering $3.26 Billion For HB13
At the start of this legislative session, I added a new page to this web site called Legislation. Its purpose: to help people track key pieces of proposed legislation affecting the Lake Houston area that have to do with sand mining and flood mitigation.
On it, you can see summaries of issues, links to the actual text of proposed bills, a “status tracker,” and posts that describe bills in more detail. I update these every few days. If you need to check on updates that have not yet been posted, consult Texas Legislature Online. It’s updated nightly during legislative sessions.
Key Bills Affecting Lake Houston Area
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.)
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.
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.
HB 908 Provides for penalties up to $50,000 for water code violations and every-other-year inspections.
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.
HB 1674. 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.
SB 7. Creates a dedicated Texas Infrastructure Fund for flood control planning and the funding of flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects.
SB500. An omnibus 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.
Status of Each as of 3/26/19
HB13 Filed on March 7, 2019. Referred to Natural Resources on 3/11. Reported favorably by committee. Sent to Calendars Committee on 3/25.
HB509 Filed Dec. 11, 2018, Referred to Energy Resources 2/20/2019.
HB 907 Filed Jan. 17, 2019, Referred to Environmental Regulation 2/25/2019.
HB 908 Filed Jan. 17, 2019, Referred to Environmental Regulation 2/25/2019.
HB 909 Filed Jan. 17, 2019, Referred to Environmental Regulation 2/25/2019.
HB 1671 Filed on March 4, 2019, Referred to Natural Resources 3/4/2019.
SB 7 Filed on March 6, 2019, Referred to Water & Rural Affairs on 3/7, Public testimony 3/11. Senate passed unanimously by voice vote on 3/20. Received by House on 3/21.
SB500 Approved by Senate on 3/13. Engrossed, sent to House, and referred to Appropriations committee on same day. Approved with changes by House Appropriations on 3/19. The Appropriations Committee analysis of CSSB500 says on page 9, “The substitute does not include an appropriation to the comptroller for the Texas infrastructure resiliency fund or certain other provisions relating to that fund.” A separateHuberty amendment proposed on 3/22 would dedicate $30 million for dredging the West Fork mouth bar in Lake Houston.
Developments to Watch
Nothing has happened yet on any of the sand-mining bills since being sent to committees.
HB509 is reportedly dead in the water. That’s a shame. It was the only bill that made hydrologists consider the aggregate impact of all mines in an area when permitting an operation. And that is precisely our issue.
HB907, 908, 909 and 1671, according to Dan Huberty’s office, will soon be scheduled for committee hearings. That’s worth a trip or four to Austin!
SB7 created a Texas Infrastructure Resilience Fund (TIRF) which was funded within SB500, an omnibus appropriations bill. But when SB500 got to the House, the Appropriations Committee deleted funding related to the TIRF – at least temporarily, while the House considers its own HB13. HB13 has many of the same objectives as SB7, but it has not yet reached the House floor for a vote.
Braden Kennedy, an assistant of Senator Brandon Creighton who sponsored SB7 had this to say. “It was unfortunate to see the House remove the funding to TIRF. However, Senator Creighton is confident we can find common ground down the road and achieve a Texas-sized appropriation hopefully during conference committee, when members of the Senate and House get together and settle the differences on the bill. Right now, House Bill 13 includes the appropriation itself while in the Senate, the members believe these expenditures should be in the supplemental budget (SB 500). We still think SB 7 has many certain advantages in that it is versatile in use – Harvey recovery dollars, future mitigation project funding, and Army Corps matching funds – and it includes several oversight and transparency safeguards.”
Check back soon and often. This is a $3.2 billion issue!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/26/2019
574 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/capitole_1024.jpg?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=17681024adminadmin2019-03-26 16:30:372019-03-26 17:47:17Updates Relating to Proposed Sand Mining and Flood Mitigation Legislation
Senate Bill 500 is an omnibus appropriations bill passed by the Texas Senate on March 13. The bill passed to the House for committee review and consideration the same day. Last Friday, March 22, State Representative Dan Huberty offered an amendment to SB 500. It would allocate $30 million to dredging the mouth bar where the West Fork of the San Jacinto meets Lake Huston.
Text of Huberty Amendment
The text reads:
“Out of the funds appropriated in Subsection (1), $30 million dollars is dedicated to the Texas Water Development Board to provide a grant to Harris County for the purchase and operation of equipment to remove accumulated siltation and sediment deposits located at the confluence of the San Jacinto River and Lake Houston.”
Great News for West Fork Residents
This is great news for Lake Houston and West Fork residents. We faced six floods last year on relatively small rains. The mouth bar and other sediment dams left by Harvey created backwater effects that exaggerated flood heights. The exaggerated response of the river to these modest rains forced the City to prerelease water to avoid flooding.
It’s not clear how much funding the City will get from FEMA, if any, to address the mouth bar. The two sides have been arguing for more than a year about how much of the sediment is due to Harvey. Stephen Costello, the City’s Chief Recovery Officer, told a town hall meeting in Kingwood last week that there was at least 1.5 million cubic yards of sediment that needs to be removed to restore the river’s natural conveyance. Local geologists estimated that at least a third of that was due to Harvey.
Matching Funds for County
Last year, the County Flood Bond approved by voters in August included a $10 million match for dredging of the East Fork, West Fork and Lake Houston. The project description read: “Potential partnership project with the City of Houston, Coastal Water Authority, and the State of Texas to permit, design, and complete dredging of the East Fork, West Fork and Lake Houston area waterways to reduce flooding risks.”
The County expected to provide one-fifth of the total $50 million projected cost.
If the Huberty amendment and the appropriations bill pass, suddenly we have a clear path to funding… regardless of what FEMA does and how long it takes their money to get here.
Includes Purchase of Equipment
The Huberty amendment calls for the purchase and operation of equipment. That means the equipment could be owned and used wherever needed. For about a year, the Army Corps has emphasized the need for maintenance dredging to prevent re-accumulation of massive deposits.
Matching Funds Mean Higher Priority
There’s a lot to like about this simple amendment. Consider this. Many have worried lately about prioritization of flood bond projects, i.e., which would kick off first. Readily available matching funds would give the dredging project a very high priority. That would accelerate execution of the project.
Posted by Bob Rehak on March 25
573 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Cutterhead.jpg?fit=856%2C914&ssl=1914856adminadmin2019-03-25 20:43:282019-03-25 20:44:00Huberty Proposes Amendment to Appropriations Bill that Would Allocate $30 Million to Dredge Mouth Bar
To hear the City tell it, we’re days away from agreement to dredge 1.5 million cubic yards of the mouth bar. To hear Congressman Dan Crenshaw tell it, the permit application hasn’t even been filed yet.
So where do things really stand. A reader asked last weekend, whether the Houston Chronicle story about the meeting was accurate.
The Chronicle headline said, “Crenshaw frustrated with delayed application for federal funds to remove notorious Kingwood mouth bar.”
Specifically, the reader asked, “Based on your knowledge, is this factual (City of Houston dragging its feet) or just politicians pointing the finger at each other?”
Before I step into the cross-fire, let me say this. Officials have conducted most meetings on this subject behind closed doors. But I shall attempt to answer the reader’s question based on public statements and documents supplied by Houston City Council member Dave Martin and the Army Corps.
Mouth Bar Chronology
To answer the “Is it foot-dragging or finger-pointing” question, I need to go back to the period after Harvey and put this subject in a historical context. Foot dragging depends on where you want to start the clock ticking. So bear with me.
2017: Post Harvey Discovery and Early Efforts to Raise Awareness
September, 14, 2017 – Two weeks after Harvey, I photographed the mouth bar from a helicopter. In the next few months, I began calling attention to it and other sediment problems every way I could. They included this web site, newspaper articles, and testimony before Texas Senate and House committees. At the House Natural Resources Committee hearing at the GRB, Dave Martin was present.
Mouth Bar of the West Fork of the San Jacinto. Like an iceberg, most of it is below water. To get past this blockage, water must flow uphill more than 30 feet.
Early 2018: Early Efforts to Forge Political Consensus
February of 2018 – Houston City Council Member Dave Martin began calling Governor Greg Abbott for help on an almost daily basis.
March, 15, 2018 – Governor Abbott visited Kingwood, took an aerial tour of the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto and met with local officials. After the meeting, he announced that, using Hazard Mitigation Funds, he was authorizing the Texas Department of Emergency Management (TDEM) to spend $3 million to jumpstart the engineering and permitting process to determine where dredging should take place on the San Jacinto River.
May 9, 2018 – The Corps announced that it had completed the value engineering phase of its Emergency West Fork Dredging Program.
May 28, 2018 – DRC (under a contract with the City of Houston) began removing debris from Lake Houston to clear the way for dredging.
Mid-2018: Mouth Bar Excluded from Scope, Scramble to Identify Solutions
May 30, 2018 – The Army Corps announced the scope of its dredging program, was a mere 2.1 miles from River Grove Park to a little east of the West Lake Houston Parkway Bridge. Shocked, concerned residents begin to ask questions about the omission of the mouth bar. The struggle to include it began then. Phone calls and meetings with Corps representatives revealed that the Corps’ main concern was that part of the bar existed BEFORE Harvey. They said that under the Stafford Act, they could only address sediment deposited DURING Harvey. The Stafford Act is the enabling legislation for FEMA. This set the stage for the conflict still at the center of this controversy.
July 26, 2018 – Members of the Lake Houston Area Flood Prevention initiative meet with County Judge Ed Emmett to discuss priorities for the upcoming flood bond including additional dredging for the mouth bar.
August 9, 2018 – Houston City Council Member Dave Martin holds a meeting to line up the support of Senators Cruz and Cornyn for extending dredging to the mouth bar.
August 21, 2018 – Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Group meets with Ted Poe to urge extension of dredging.
August 25, 2018 – Harris County voters approved a flood bond package that included money to extend dredging.
October 9, 2018 – At a Town Hall Meeting, Council Member Martin and Mayor Turner announced a meeting to be held in Austin on October 11. Purpose: to determine how to get the mouth bar included in the scope of the current dredging project to save $18 million.
October 11, 2018 – All parties reach agreement in principle to dredge the mouth bar at the famous “Everybody but Trump” meeting in Austin. Costello’s conference report indicates that USACE was to analyze the most recent LIDAR and bathymetric data to determine the total volume of Harvey-deposited debris in the area and evaluate its inclusion into the ongoing operation.
December 14, 2018 – According to Costello’s same notes, the Corps recommended that the City contract Dr. Tim Dellapenna, a professor of geomorphology at Texas A&M Galveston. The Corps suggested he could analyze core samples for color and consistency to see if he could find layering traceable to Harvey. As of Jan. 8, 2019, the City still had not finalized a contract with Dellapena.
Storage Permit Controversy and Delays
Costello’s notes on the December 14th meeting also indicate that he had applied to the Corps for a permit to dispose of the dredged material. “A nationwide permit was submitted and subsequently denied by the USACE. We are meeting with all parties involved to discuss the next course of action required to obtain the necessary permits,” says the letter.
It would be another FOUR months before this meeting happened…by conference call.
A confidential source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, indicates a difference of opinion about the permit application. The source says the permit application, filed sometime in November of 2018, was NOT DENIED and that the Corps simply requested more information.
The City still has NOT supplied the additional information, nor has it reapplied for the permit.
Specifically, the Corps wanted to know how much material would be excavated, where it would be stored on the landowner’s property, whether there were any mitigation requirements, and whether there were alternative disposal sites in case the primary site proved unacceptable for some reason. There was also some confusion over the type of nationwide permit (NWP) requested. According to one source, the permit requested was for drying/dewatering the spoils and then hauling them off-site. However, the landowner wanted to keep the fill and use it to raise the level of his property.
“Tomorrow Afternoon”
On January 14, 2019, Costello told a group of Lake Houston Area leaders that he hoped to be taking core samples “tomorrow afternoon” and have results by the end of January. That did not happen.
Using a high frequency “Chirp-type” acoustic sub-bottom profiler data-acquisition tool
Core sampling
Sediment analysis
Note that on five other occasions between mid-January or mid-March, Costello told people that the City would be taking core samples “tomorrow afternoon.” Martin says they finally took the core samples the week before the March 21st town hall meeting.
No explanation was given for these delays. With $18 million dollars in remobilization fees at stake, no one ever even acknowledged the delays.
Core Sample Results
The results that Costello reported at the town hall meeting – $1.5 billion cubic yards – were preliminary estimates. At the meeting, Costello said he expected the final number “tomorrow afternoon” (there’s that phrase again) and that he would send the final report to FEMA no later than Monday, March 25. He vowed to refile an amended permit with the Corps by Friday, March 29. As of 5PM Monday, Costello still has not replied to inquires about whether he transmitted the results to FEMA.
Estimated depth of Harvey Deposits at core sample locations. Shown by Stephen Costello, City of Houston Chief Recovery Officer and Kingwood Town Hall Meeting on 3/21/2019. For a high resolution pdf of this image suitable for printing, click here.
Remember, there are two issues: FEMA controls funding; the Corps controls permitting for the storage.
Note that FEMA wants to limit funding to Harvey-related damage only; but the Corps is looking for a disposal site that could hold far more sediment, i.e., for pre-Harvey material. Other sources (City, County, State) could fund removal of pre-Harvey sediment to restore the full conveyance of the river. Having one site that could handle everything could save considerable permitting work.
Also lost in the Town Hall political pep rally was the fact that the Corps volunteered to prescreen the application to make sure it was complete and that the the city filed the right type of nationwide permit this time.
When the City says “We are moving as fast as humanly possible,” that sounds like a bit of exaggeration. It took the City four months to acquire the core samples needed to determine the Pre-Harvey volume of the mouth bar. Ultimately, they did it in an afternoon when facing the deadline of last week’s town hall meeting.
Next Steps vs. Deadline to Save $18 Million
So will the City be able to save the $18 million. The current dredging program is due to demobilize in a little more than a month, at the end of April. Before then:
FEMA must rule on findings of the core sampling before it can fund the mouth bar project (or at least the initial phase of it).
Several parties must audit any grant.
City must refile the correct type of permit with additional information.
Corps must review and comment.
Corps must hold a 30-day public comment period by Federal law.
Corps must issue final ruling on permit application.
That looks like at least several months worth of work.. So no, it doesn’t look like the City will be able to save taxpayers $18 million unless they can pull off a miracle.
Is the City moving “as fast as humanly possible?” as one city official said at the Town Hall meeting last week.
You be the judge. How long this has taken depends on where you want to start the clock ticking. It’s not as clear as either side would have you believe. Still there are huge gaps in the timetable that need to be explained to the public…especially if we lose $18 million.
Late-Breaking News: Huberty Amendment to CSSB 500 on Mouth Bar
Meanwhile, State Representative Dan Huberty filed this amendment to CSSB 500 on March 22. It would provide $30 million for dredging the mouth bar. (CSSB stands for Committee Substitute Senate Bill. SB 500 is an omnibus spending bill approved by the Senate, now being considered in the Texas House as CSSB 500.) That money, if approved, could go a long way toward dredging the portion of the mouth bar that FEMA doesn’t fund and the rest of the West Fork.
Posted by Bob Rehak on March 25, 2019
573 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LakeHouston_TopLayer_rev0-e1553548021432.jpg?fit=1500%2C971&ssl=19711500adminadmin2019-03-25 17:06:502019-03-25 17:07:18After Town Hall Meeting, Confusion Still Swirls Around Status of Mouth Bar
Harris County Flood Control District, working with the help of the City of Houston, has demolished 803 and 805 Timberline Ct., and 1060 Marina Dr. (a burned structure) in the Forest Cove Townhome complex.
Demolition Work to Date
The parking lot and sidewalk at 1060 Marina are in process of removal. Grading of the lot is scheduled to occur by Friday. Please see the attached pictures of the progress and map below.
Townhomes demolished to date and others that will soon be.
HCFCD also now has complete ownership of 1050 Marina Dr. and is requesting the demolition (paperwork) process beginning this week. Below are some pics of work completed so far.
1060 Marina Drive once stood here. Someone’s home. Someone’s dream. Now gone forever. Another angle of 1060 Marina Drive showing other townhomes in background soon to be demolished.803 and 805 Timberline Court once stood here.
About 30 More Units to Demo
To date, Harris County Flood Control (HCFCD) has purchased about 30 total units. HCFCD plans to submit the demolition request for 1050 Marina Dr. shortly. “We’re also close to having complete ownership of 1020, 1030, and 1040 Marina Dr. We will proceed with demolition of these buildings once we have complete ownership,” said Matt Zeve, Deputy Executive Director of HCFCD.
From Destruction to Construction
Harris County Precinct 4 plans to begin construction of a new Edgewater Park at the intersection of Hamblen Road and 59 later this year. This area, once cleared of flood-damaged structures could become part of a linear park along the San Jacinto.
Harvey destroyed dozens of townhomes in this area, even sweeping some off their foundations. The ones still standing have become the target of vandals, thieves, squatters, and graffiti artists. The roads and parking lots remain littered with refuse.
These abandoned townhomes took on more than 17 feet of water during Harvey.
When FEMA visited Houston last year to check on the status of the Hurricane Harvey recovery, they chose these townhomes to feature in their video that showed the destructive power of Harvey.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/25/2019
573 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/image008.png?fit=965%2C524&ssl=1524965adminadmin2019-03-25 00:40:092019-03-25 00:50:35County Demolishes First of Buyouts In Forest Cove
Last Monday, Gabriel Haddad, the Romerica developer who wants to put up 25-50 story high rises and 5,000 condos near the floodway of the West Fork, told a packed audience at the Kingwood Community Center that he would construct his buildings on stilts.
Of course, he also wants to put 150,000 cubic yards of fill in wetlands and streams which is why he’s applying for the Army Corps permit. But put that aside for the moment.
Catching Debris and Creating Backwater
Stilts may be the best answer when building near floodways. They can reduce the net impact on flooding compared to fill. However, they still have their drawbacks…as these pictures show. For instance, stilts, stairs and anything below a building will catch debris being washed downstream and back water up.
Debris washed downstream caught on stairs. Photo by Melissa Balcom.All the trees caught in the bridge supports for the old 59 bridge reportedly formed a “dam” during Harvey that backed water up into Humble businesses. Ask Humble Mayor Merle Aaron about his feelings on the subject. Debris caught under bridges during Harvey. Photos by David Seitzinger.Stilts didn’t help thousands of homes on the Bolivar Peninsula during Hurricane Ike. They have to be high enough to elevate the home above the flood. More than a 100 people died on Bolivar who failed to evacuate before Ike. They thought their elevated homes would keep them safe.
Evacuation Routes Flooded
The next three pictures show one of the planned evacuation routes, Hamblen Road. As you can see, connecting Woodland Hills to Hamblen might help with normal traffic, but it would not help at all during a flood.
Hamblen Road during the Tax Day Flood of 2016. Photo by Melissa Balcom. Note height of street lights.
Hamblen Road during the Memorial Day flood of 2016. “This is when we thought things were as bad as they would ever get!” said Melissa Balcom who lives between Hamblen and the West Fork of the San Jacinto.
Same area on Hamblen during Harvey. Compare street lights in the background. The brick wall on the left is completely submerged.
“The water is actually even deeper than it appears because those street lights are on a hill that lines the side of Hamblen,” said Melissa Balcom, who took these photos. “The water is so deep you can’t even see the white brick fence that lines Hamblen. It completely covers it! That’s one of the reasons why making Hamblen a cut through street is so ridiculous.”
Horror Movie in the Making
When I asked Mr. Haddad how he planned to evacuate 15,000 people by boat if there were ever another midnight release from the Conroe dam without warning, he said that people could shelter in place.
Imagine being in a high rise…in August, when the water comes up, the power goes out, the toilets overflow, the AC fails, the humidity hits 99%, and you can’t open the windows. That may be a Navy Seal’s idea of luxury living, but not mine. I’ll pass, thank you!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/24/2019
572 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Hurricane-Ike-329-e1746218830424.jpg?fit=1100%2C737&ssl=17371100adminadmin2019-03-23 21:30:352019-03-23 21:31:46Stilts Not Always Answer, Evac Not Always Possible For High Rises Near Floodway
Want to change the economics of floodplain development? Deny flood insurance to anyone who builds new structures within a floodway. Grandfather structures that already exist. But don’t sell flood insurance policies to anyone who wants to, for instance, buy a new condo in a high-rise in the floodway of the west fork of the San Jacinto. And don’t sell a commercial policy to the 50-story hotel next door.
Respect the Rivers
Harvey was a wake up call. It taught us to start respecting rivers by giving them the distance deserve. It’s time for taxpayers to stop encouraging risky developments with taxpayer subsidized flood insurance. When investors, mortgage lenders and buyers can’t get that insurance, they will turn their backs. It will be much harder to build such harebrained ideas.
Siding from home washed downstream during Harvey. Photo by Dan Monks.
Stop Subsidizing Risky Behavior
This isn’t such a radical notion. Most private insurers peg the price of insurance to risk. More risk, higher price. It’s simple. At a certain point, when behavior becomes too risky, you can’t get insurance at any price. Right now, people can get flood insurance anywhere because it’s subsidized by taxpayers. Artificially low rates encourage floodplain development and discourage conservation.
So we have a developer trying to build 3.2 million square feet next to an area where the county is simultaneously buying out homes that have flooded repetitively.
By weeding such high-risk developers out of the pool, the cost of flood insurance should come down for people who give rivers the respect they deserve and build a reasonable distance away.
Start Encouraging Conservation with Economic Incentives
For those who want waterfront views, and those who are willing and able to lose everything, go ahead. No one’s stopping you. Just don’t expect taxpayers to subsidize your insurance through the National Flood Insurance Plan. If developers, lenders, investors and buyers couldn’t get flood insurance on newly built floodway homes, demand for such homes would likely fall. Thus, developers would have an economic disincentive to buy that cheap floodplain land. Owners would leave it in timber or grass. And we could give them even bigger tax breaks for doing do. Take the tax rate on timber land in floodways down to zero.
Smarter Land Use Policies = Fewer Flooded Homes
More floodplain land might remain in the hands of Mother Nature. More natural green space would slow rain from getting to rivers and provide more natural retention. Less development in floodways and flood plains just might reduce flooding further from the river, too.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/23/2019
571 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/siding.jpg?fit=1885%2C1060&ssl=110601885adminadmin2019-03-23 17:27:342019-03-23 17:29:18Simple Policy Proposal to Change Economics of Floodplain Development
Jim Blackburn, a professor at Rice University noted for his work in predicting and modeling the effects of severe storms, has released an except from a larger paper that he is preparing with Amy Jaffe of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Houston ship channel, chemical plant and tank farm.
Refining Capacity Vs. Surge Height
The report begins by outlining the importance of these areas for national security. For instance, this Bay and Ship Channel are home to eight major refiners and more than 200 chemical plants that provide 12% of U.S. refining capacity, 27% of the nation’s jet fuel, 13% of the nation’s gasoline, and 25% of the nation’s ethylene and propylene.
Blackburn and Jaffe note that the largest surges recorded up the Houston Ship Channel to date were from Hurricane Ike in 2008 and Carla in 1961. Neither of those storms generated more than about 13 to 14 feet of surge, a level that can generally be accommodated by industry.
Modeling Surge Damage from Future Storms
The authors then play “what if.” What if the winds were 15 mph stronger and extended out a few miles farther? The “what if” scenarios are based on recent storms such as Hurricanes Irma and Maria (Category 4 and 5 storms) with hurricane force winds extending 80 miles out from the center. Such storms could generate surges in the range of 22 to 25 feet in the ship channel. Those are NOT levels that industry could handle with existing dikes.
An associate of Blackburn’s, Dr. Jamie Padgett of Rice’s SSPEED Center, predicts that some percentage of storage tanks would fail. They would either be lifted off their foundations, crushed by water or penetrated by debris. Dr. Padgett’s team estimated that a 24-foot surge event could lead to the release of at least 90 million gallons of oil and hazardous substances. It could threaten the US economy and raise concerns about the availability of transportation fuel.
Confined in Galveston Bay and its surrounding wetlands, such spills could also turn into an environmental debacle that lasts for decades. Far fetched? Consider what happened this week when a fire erupted in a few storage tanks at one facility in Deer Park. It shut down the entire city for close to a week.
Significantly, the modeled surge event does not include the effects of sea-level rise or climate change.
Inability to Deal with Mitigation
Blackburn and Jaffe then shift their focus to mitigation strategies such as the Ike Dike and the Galveston Bay Park Plan. I will not review those here; they have received much coverage in other venues. And the report contains far more detail than any summary could.
The authors conclude by saying, “A major threat exists to the refining and chemical industrial complex that is based around Galveston Bay. This issue has not received the attention that it should from a national security perspective, from a national economic stability perspective and from an environmental risk perspective. The SSPEED Center’s experience in modeling and planning to protect the channel highlights the disconnect between past observations and future likely events being encountered everyday throughout the world with our changing climate. We are facing situations that differ from the past, but we seemingly lack the institutional ability or fortitude to address these future risks and avoid the national security consequences that are foreseen and forewarned.”
“What If” We Actually Came to Grips with Flood Mitigation?
Whether you believe in climate change or not, it worries me to think about what would happen if a storm like Maria came up the throat of Galveston Bay like Ike did. We had two storms in the last decade (Ike and Harvey) that wiped out major portions of the region. The possibilities are not remote that another could strike before we prepare for it. I wish someone had done this kind of analysis with a rainfall event like Harvey before Harvey hit. Think how different life might be right now.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/22/2019
570 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Refinery_01.jpg?fit=1500%2C811&ssl=18111500adminadmin2019-03-21 22:43:062019-03-21 22:43:39Storm Surge and the Houston Ship Channel: A National Security Issue?
NOTE: This article has been updated to include the paragraph below entitled Floodplain Implementation Account. I also added a mention of a separate appropriations bill, SB500.
One of the most important pieces of legislation in Austin this session is SB7, sponsored by Senator Brandon Creighton. It relates to flood control planning and the funding of flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects.
Light pole near River Bend in North Shore as Harvey receded. Note the “wet marks” several feet up on pole. Photo by Jim Balcom.
Status of SB7
The Texas Senate passed the bill unanimously yesterday. It is now engrossed and in the House. Engrossed means it has been recorded in its final legal form by the chamber in which it was introduced and passed to the opposite chamber.
SB 7 started life as SB 695, but was renumbered when it became one of the Lieutenant Governor’s top picks for the session. The lower number makes it one of the first bills to be considered, thus increasing its chances of passage during this session.
Last week, the Senate heard testimony on the bill. Yesterday, 31 senators voted by voice FOR the bill. None opposed it.
Creation of a Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund outside of the General Revenue Fund. Within the Resiliency Fund, it also creates:
A Floodplain Management Account to provide financing for: (A) the collection and analysis of flood-related information; (B) flood planning, protection, mitigation, or adaptation; (C) the provision of flood-related information to the public through educational or outreach programs; or (D) evaluating the response to and mitigation of flood incidents affecting residential property, including multifamily units, located in floodplains.
A Floodplain Implementation Account to grant, low-interest, or zero-interest loans. Purposes: (A) to provide matching funds that enable local governments to participate in a federal program for a flood project; (B) to provide loans at or below market interest rates for planning or design costs, permitting costs, or other costs associated with state or federal regulatory activities for flooding; or (C) to provide grants that enable local governments to participate in a federal program for the development of a hazard mitigation plan.
A Hurricane Harvey account, also within the resiliency fund to grant low-interest or zero-interest loans to eligible political subdivisions. The loans can be used as a local match to enable political subdivisions to qualify for a federal match. The loans will help local governments seeking federal grants for hazard-mitigation and public-assistance plans or the cost of flood-project planning, design, permitting, etc. associated with state or federal regulatory activities.
A Federal Matching Fund Account. The board may use the account only to meet matching requirements for projects funded partially by federal money, including projects funded by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Rules regarding the distribution of funds, administration, transparency, etc.
What SB7 Does NOT Include
Not in the engrossed version sent to the House: a specific dollar amount to establish the fund. When introduced, SB 695 called for $3 billion to be transferred from the “rainy day” fund to establish the resiliency fund. That’s no longer in the bill.
In its place, the bill now has some vague language that refers to:
Money deposited to the credit of the account under Section 251.004, Insurance Code;
Money directly appropriated to the board;
Money from gifts or grants from the United States government, local or regional governments, private sources, or other sources.
This bill sets up the accounts. A separate bill, SB500 handles the appropriations for the accounts.
How SB7 Will Help Flood Mitigation
Still, if funded, the Texas Infrastructure Resilience Fund, will provide a wonderful vehicle to help jumpstart critical flood mitigation projects. It provides low- or no-cost LOANS, to help local governments get matching funds to:
Study flood problems
Design solutions
Fund construction.
Why SB7 Is Necessary
These loans can be used to help local governments bypass the begging phase of flood mitigation where they look for grants to fund grant writers or study problems. Example: It took almost 18 months after Harvey for Montgomery County, the City of Houston, Harris County and the SJRA to come up with a local match and get FEMA to cover the rest of a $2 million San Jacinto River Basin Study. That study will that take another 18 months to complete.
SB7 could have saved half that time. SB7 deserves the support of all Texans who would like to see flood mitigation efforts accelerated.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/image4-1-e1553198926707.jpeg?fit=966%2C1400&ssl=11400966adminadmin2019-03-21 15:12:382019-03-22 07:22:12Creighton’s SB7 Passed Unanimously by Senate, Bill Goes to House Today
City Council Member Dave Martin will host a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Town Hall meeting Thursday, March 21, 2019, at 6:30 p.m. , at the Kingwood Community Center, 4102 Rustic Woods Drive, Kingwood, Texas, 77345.
Costello Will Update Community on Flood Mitigation
Post-Harvey updates will be provided from Flood Czar Stephen Costello. Expect Costello to address additional flood gates for the Lake Houston Dam and dredging of the mouth bar.
Capital Improvement Projects also on Agenda
During this meeting, residents will also hear from Mayor Sylvester Turner, and other city and community representatives about ongoing and future capital improvement projects, local issues and community news related to the Kingwood and Lake Houston areas of District E.
Congressman Dan Crenshaw will be in attendance to meet with community members.
Harvey Aid Specialists in Attendance
The District E office has arranged for Hurricane Harvey intake specialists to host an information table at the meeting for those impacted by Hurricane Harvey and interested in learning more about the resources available to them. If you are seeking Harvey aid, before attending the meeting, please make sure to take the Harvey Recovery Survey online or by calling 832-393-0550 (Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.).
For more information, please contac t Council Member Martin’s office by calling (832) 393-3008 or via email at districte@houstontx.gov .
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/21/2019
569 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Turner.jpg?fit=1500%2C1125&ssl=111251500adminadmin2019-03-20 23:12:442019-03-20 23:13:14Reminder: Townhall Meeting Thursday Night at Kingwood Community Center, 6:30 PM
