SB500 with Huberty Dredging Amendment Unanimously Approved by House

Unofficially, the vote was 134 – 0. Technically, the vote must still be certified. But I’m not worried.

Texas Capitol Dome from South Entrance

This means that Representative Dan Huberty’s amendment to provide $30 million for West Fork mouth bar dredging passed its second major hurdle. What happens next?

If the Senate agrees with the changes, SB500 will go to the Comptroller and then the Governor. If the Senate does not agree with the changes, it will go to a conference committee and then back to BOTH chambers with final “compromise changes” for a straight up or down vote.

For former political science majors, civics teachers using this as a class lesson, and those who are just plain curious, here’s how the process works. I’m quoting directly from the Legislature’s procedure manual.

Return of a Bill to the Originating Chamber

“After a bill has passed through committee and floor deliberation in the opposite chamber, the bill is sent back to the originating chamber. If the bill was not amended in the opposite chamber, or if it was amended and the originating chamber concurs with the changes, the bill is enrolled, signed by both presiding officers in the presence of their respective chambers, and sent to the governor. Any bill making an appropriation must be sent to the comptroller of public accounts for certification before going to the governor. If a bill was amended in the opposite chamber and the originating chamber does not concur with the changes, the originating chamber may request the appointment of a conference committee to resolve the differences between the house and senate versions of the bill.”

Conference Committee

“If a conference committee is requested, the presiding officers each chamber appoint five members from their respective chambers to serve on the committee. A conference committee’s charge is limited to reconciling differences between the two chambers, and the committee may not alter, amend, or omit text that is not in disagreement without the adoption of an “out of bounds” resolution by both chambers. The committee also may not add text on any matter that is not in disagreement or that is not included in either version of the bill in question without such a resolution.”

“After the committee has reached an agreement, a report is prepared for submittal to the house and senate. The report must be approved by at least three conferees from each chamber and must contain the text of the bill as approved by the conference committee, a side-by-side analysis comparing the text of the compromise bill to both the house and thesenate versions, an updated fiscal note, and the signatures of those members of the conference committee who approved the report. A conference committee report is not subject to amendment by the house or senate and must be accepted or rejected in its entirety.”

“Should the proposed compromise remain unacceptable to either chamber, it may be returned to the same conference committee for further deliberation, with or without specific instructions, or the appointment of a new conference committee may be requested. Failure of the conference committee to reach agreement kills the bill. If the conference committee report is acceptable to both chambers, the bill is enrolled, signed by both presiding officers in the presence of their respective chambers, and sent to the governor.”

Comptroller’s Review Required

The sentence BOLDED above, refers to Article III, Section 49a of the Texas Constitution. It says that any bill containing an appropriation must go to the Comptroller (before the Governor) to certify that the State has enough money to pay for it.

Article III says, “No bill containing an appropriation shall be considered as passed or be sent to the Governor for consideration until and unless the Comptroller of Public Accounts endorses his certificate thereon showing that the amount appropriated is within the amount estimated to be available in the affected funds. When the Comptroller finds an appropriation bill exceeds the estimated revenue he shall endorse such finding thereon and return to the House in which same originated. Such information shall be immediately made known to both the House of Representatives and the Senate and the necessary steps shall be taken to bring such appropriation to within the revenue, either by providing additional revenue or reducing the appropriation. (Added Nov. 3, 1942; amended Nov. 2, 1999.)”

Both Houses Approved Unanimously and Changes Relatively Minor

So what path will SB500 take? My guess? Both the Senate and the House approved this bill unanimously (31-0 in Senate and 131-0 in House). Also, the changes in the House were relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, The two houses have roughly 5,000 more bills to consider before the end of the session. So I’m betting that the Senate may approve the changes without a conference committee and send the bill straight to the Comptroller. Stay tuned.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/28/19

576 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Emily Murphy Photographs Inactive Bald Eagle Nest on Romerica Property from River; Active Nests Likely in Vicinity

Correction: Since posting this story two hours ago, I have spoken with an enforcement officer from US Fish & Wildlife Service. He investigated this particular nest and found no droppings or fish bones around the base of the tree. He said you would expect that if the nest was active. He also said the tree was dead, likely a victim of all the sand deposited by Hurricane Harvey along the river. Finally, he said that bald eagles often establish multiple nests in an area and sometimes switch between them. This nest may have been abandoned when the tree began to die after Harvey. The eagle in the photo may have been revisiting it because it was a good perch for fishing. So I have edited the story to remove all mentions of “apparently active.”

Emily Murphy took the shot below on 3/27/19 from her kayak on the West Fork. It clearly shows a bald eagle and a very large nest.

Bald Eagle and Nest on Romerica Property. Romerica hopes to build a series of high rises within 750 feet of this nest.
Bald Eagle and Nest on Romerica Property. Romerica hopes to build a series of high rises within 750 feet of this nest.

Ironically, I photographed what appears to be the same nest from the river on January 31, 2019 while on a ride-along with HPD Lake Patrol. My shot appears closer than Murphy’s because I took it with a 1000mm super-telephoto lens.

Photo taken by Bob Rehak on 1/31/19 from West Fork of San Jacinto with 1000mm lens. Note the similarity of the bark stripped from tree opposite the nest. GPS coordinates are embedded in the JPEG and virtually identical to Murphy’s.
Location of nest pinpointed and circled below.

The Balcom family, which lives near the river at the western (left) edge of the satellite image above, photographed a pair of bald eagles on their property in December.

Pair of bald eagles outside Balcom residence on River Bend, one mile west of nest site. Photo by Melissa and Jim Balcom.

Boaters, Please Report Sightings

Boaters, please help. Let me know through the contact page on this web site if you see activity in this area. If you see a nest – active or not – do not approach it or disturb the birds in any way. It’s illegal. See below. And do not enter Romerica’s property. That’s trespassing.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

Although no longer an endangered species, bald eagles are still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) is a United States federal statute.) The statute protects two species of eagle. According to Wikipedia, the bald eagle was chosen as a national emblem of the United States by the Continental Congress of 1782 and was given legal protection by the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940. This act was expanded to include the golden eagle in 1962.[1] 

Since the original Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act has been amended several times. It currently prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald eagles. Taking is described to include their parts, nests, or eggs, molesting or disturbing the birds. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle … [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof.”[2]

Purpose of Protection Act

The purpose of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection act is to protect bald and golden eagles from disturbance, abuse, and interference with their lifestyle. That includes sheltering, breeding, feeding, and nesting.[3] 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/28/2019

576 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Huberty Amendment to Appropriate Money for Dredging Mouth Bar Passes First of Six Hurdles Today

Five days ago, State Representative Dan Huberty offered an amendment to Senate Bill 500 (SB500). SB500 is the omnibus Senate appropriations bill making its way through the House. It contains appropriations for everything from health care to education to criminal justice and highways and more.

Texas Capitol Building in Austin from the South Grounds

Huberty filed his amendment last week. Below are the steps required for ultimate passage of SB500 and Huberty’s amendment.

First of Three Readings

Each bill passing through the Texas House or Senate goes through three “readings.” The first reading happened when SB500 arrived in the House. House members got their first chance to read the bill in its final form as amended by the Senate.

After the first reading, House members could file amendments of their own. They voted on amendments in the second reading. Tomorrow, if the House follows procedures, all members will get a chance to vote on the SB500, as amended by the House. It’s rare that a non-controversial spending bill like this would be voted down during the third reading. Regardless, tomorrow is the Huberty amendment’s SECOND major hurdle.

Conference Committee Next if Bill Approved

Because differences now exist between the House and Senate versions of the bill, the bill will go to a “conference committee.”

The conference committee will then try to reconcile, compromise on or accept differences in the bills approved by the Senate and House. Surviving the conference committee represents the THIRD major hurdle.

Re-Votes in House and Senate, Then On to Governor

Assuming the amendment is still alive at that point, the conference committee version will go back to both chambers for a final vote. According to rules of the Texas Legislature, the final vote on a conference committee bill must be straight YEA or NAY. Amendments may no longer be offered. Those votes in the House and Senate will represent the FOURTH and FIFTH hurdles.

Obtaining the governor’s signature will be SIXTH.

Next Steps

Next stops:

  • Final vote in the House on March 28
  • Conference committee
  • Re-votes on revised bill in House and Senate
  • Governor’s desk
  • Mouth Bar!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/27/2019

575 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Senate Appropriates $1.65 Billion for SB7, But House Omits Funding For It While Considering $3.26 Billion For HB13

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

Updates Relating to Proposed Sand Mining and Flood Mitigation Legislation

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

Huberty Proposes Amendment to Appropriations Bill that Would Allocate $30 Million to Dredge Mouth Bar

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

After Town Hall Meeting, Confusion Still Swirls Around Status of 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 6, 2018 – Mayor Sylvester Turner announced at a Kingwood Town Hall meeting that he had on that same day spoken to Governor Greg Abbott about the urgent need to remove sediment from the San Jacinto River.
  • 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.
  • April. 6, 2018 – An Army Corps sonar-equipped boat began surveying a five-mile area between Hwy 69/59 and West Lake Houston Parkway.
  • April 10, 2018 – The Army Corps announced that it had completed the first leg of its survey of West Fork sedimentation.
  • 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

Second Half 2018: Effort to Save $18 million

  • July 19, 2018 – Mobilization for the project officially started. About this time, it became clear that mobilization represented 25% of the total cost of the $70,000,000 job, or about $18 million. If the dredging scope could be extended BEFORE the end of “Phase 1,” taxpayers could save the cost of a massive REmobilization for a second, separate project.
  • 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.
  • July 27, 2018 – Tim Garfield and R.D. Kissling, two retired top geologists for a major oil company publish a paper describing why the mouth bar should be included in the scope of dredging.
  • 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.

Late 2018: Countdown Clock Keeps Ticking

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.

It since has become clear that Costello met with TDEM Chief Nim Kidd on February 6th to discuss his data acquisition plan. He summarized it in a memo dated February 8th titled Lake Houston Dredging Analysis Workplan. The plan included three stages:

  1. Using a high frequency “Chirp-type” acoustic sub-bottom profiler data-acquisition tool
  2. Core sampling
  3. 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

County Demolishes First of Buyouts In Forest Cove

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

Stilts Not Always Answer, Evac Not Always Possible For High Rises Near Floodway

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 and caught on Balcom property
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

Simple Policy Proposal to Change Economics of Floodplain Development

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