A strong line of thunderstorms with high winds, torrential rains and possible tornadoes swept through the Lake Houston area this afternoon. It left widespread power outages, snarled traffic, flooded streets, and swollen creeks and ditches. People still suffering PTSD from Harvey were re-traumatized by the sound of news helicopters and water creeping up their front steps. More heavy rains tonight will add to the area’s woes, even as people are still cleaning up from this afternoon’s flooding.
Examples of Damage Reported
Among the damage reported:
Several flooded homes in Bear Branch and Woodland Hills near creeks or ditches
Flooded locker rooms at Kingwood High School
Trees down and blocking Kingwood Drive at rush hour
Power lines down on Kingwood Drive
Knee-high water on Kingwood Drive at Town Center
Kingwood Drive traffic rerouted up Valley Manor
New pad sites for the retail expansion of the HEB center under water
Street flooding from one end of Kingwood to the other
Streets Designed as Part of Flood Retention System
Note: the streets in Kingwood are DESIGNED as part of the flood retention system. When rainfall rates exceed what creeks, ditches and bayous can handle, water backs up into streets. and drainage swales.
The amount of rain we received today was not great. But the intensity was off the charts. In about a half hour at my house, we received almost two inches. That’s between 3 and 4 inches per hour. Here’s an example: the swale beside my house.
Valley Manor just north of Kingwood Drive at 4PM on 5.3.19. Two neighbors across the street reports water on their front steps. One said water started to come through her front door. The family is still repairing from Harvey. Her entire family is traumatized.This is the ditch adjacent to the retail expansion of the H-E-B center. Photo courtesy of Mark Micheletti.Kingwood Drive west of Town Center. Photo courtesy of Clay Crawford.Kingwood Drive at Town Center.Photo courtesy of Clay Crawford.I heard that the entrance to Fosters Mill was also under water.Video of street in Riverchase by John Knoerzer.
Rainfall Totals for Friday Storm
Rainfall totals for last 24 hours as of 10PM 5.3.19. Note higher totals upstream from Lake Houston area.
River Report: Minor Flooding Possible on West Fork
Harris County Flood Warning System’s Real Time Inundation Mapping shows most streams within their banks. But note the warning for Humble at US59. While the river is 2 feet below the top of bank as of 10PM, it could easily go out of bank tonight.
More Storms on Way
As of 9PM a severe thunderstorm watch is still in effect for much of southeast Texas until 3PM Saturday..A large line of strong to severe thunderstorms has developed from E of Austin to NW of San Antonio and is moving ESE/SE at 15-20mph. Expect an average 1-2 inches with the line passage. Isolated total up to 3 inches be common. Creeks and bayous should be able to handle that amount of rainfall, according to Jeff Lindner of Harris County Flood Control.
NOAA forecast clearly shows the line of strong thunderstorms that should hit us overnight.
Here is an updated radar image as of 12:01 AM Saturday morning.
Image courtesy of RadarScope, an amazing app!
Expect minor flooding at 59 and River Grove Park, that could be exacerbated by the mouth bar and other sediment still in the river.
This does not account for any local effects to the mouth bar.
Hoping you stay dry!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/3/19 around midnight
613 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/KWD-TC.jpg?fit=1500%2C1125&ssl=111251500adminadmin2019-05-03 23:19:552019-05-04 00:47:07Overnight Rains Could Add to This Afternoon’s Woes
Jeff Lindner, Director of Hydrologic Operations and Division Meterologist for Harris County Flood Control, just issued this warning”
“Multiple rounds of thunderstorms with heavy rainfall and some severe weather likely today into tonight.”
“Large cluster of thunderstorms with heavy rainfall extends from near Sealy to College Station and is moving eastward and will overspread much of the region N of I-10 over the next several hours. A second…powerful…bow echo with 70-80mph is rapidly approaching Corpus Christi and the coastal bend and may impact the Matagorda Bay area later this morning.”
“Active pattern will remain in place as several disturbances and a weak cold front move across the area today and tonight and into Saturday. Rounds of thunderstorms will produce heavy rainfall and isolated severe weather. Main severe threats today will be mainly west of I-45 and some of the storms this morning over south-central TX have shown some weak rotation.”
“Expect the current round of storms to move across the area between now and 1-2pm followed by a brief break and then another…potentially stronger round this evening into the overnight period.”
“Rainfall amounts of 1-3 inches will be possible today into early Saturday with isolated higher totals. In fact some of the higher resolution models are showing isolated amounts up to 4-5 inches under training bands today and tonight. Air mass is certainly moist and will be able to support some 1-2 inch per hour rainfall rates which will lead to street flooding.”
River Forecast
“Area rivers are responding to the recent heavy rainfall and will remain elevated and in flood (Trinity). Additional rains today and tonight and then again next week will only increase rises. The area river and hydro situation is starting to become worrisome given the potential for this pattern to maintain for the next 1-2 weeks.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on April 3, 2019
612 Days since Hurricane Harvey
00adminadmin2019-05-03 09:41:282019-05-03 09:41:53Possible Street Flooding Today
I visited Placement Area 1 this morning . Muck was shooting out of the “diffuser pipe” at 470 cubic yards per hour. That’s enough to fill up 47 dump trucks every hour! A truly impressive sight. So I grabbed my Nikon D5 and started clicking. Only after downloading the images did I realize that I had the shutter set to 1/8000th of a second.
Liquid Looks Like Glass at 1/8000th
Normally, when shooting flowing water, you want to use shutter speeds in the range of 1/8th to 1/60th of a second. Slower speeds blur the liquid and create a sense of motion. The faster speed, however, froze the motion and made the liquid look like glass.
In photography, sometimes mistakes make the shot. This may have been one of those times. As I stared at the effluent, I became transfixed by the thousands of bursting bubbles within it. You can also see how the further the “spray” gets from the pipe, the bursting bubbles begin to reform into smaller droplets.
Effect of Diffusion Pipe
Dredgers call this a diffusion pipe because of those rings on the end of it. They allow the dredger to control the spread of the effluent. By adjusting the spread, they can make it shoot out far like a fire hose or spread out wide.
In this case, they had it set to “wide” so that it would be more controllable.
Diffuser pipe at Placement Area #1 shooting out effluent at 470 cubic yards per minute. Shot with a Nikon D5 at 1/8000th of a second.A slightly wider shot shows sand piling up. All the water in the effluent finds its way back into the river after sediment drops out of suspension and it is filtered by gravity.This shot shows three separate activities: a) the pit being filled, b) an excavator moving sand out of the flow, and c) loading a sand truck which will haul it away.
Now Selling Sand from Placement Area #1
A worker told me that early last week, the pit owner started selling sand from the site to an asphalt company. At the present rate, they are hauling it away about half as fast as the pit is being filled. This will help create extra storage area in the pit should the US Army Corps of Engineers choose to use it for the next phase of dredging – the mouth bar.
Max Flow Rates
As impressive as this flow is, I’m told it can go even higher – up to about 1,000 cubic yards per hour. The rate depends on factors such as the density and hardness of the spoils, as well as the distance they are pumped.
Details Still Being Worked Out on Mouth Bar
Still no official word yet on details of Phase 2 – the mouth bar project. The Corps is still evaluating placement areas. It could be that they need to permit more than one to contain the entire mouth bar. However, they also need to move quickly to make sure the dredgers don’t move on to another job.
Because of the lengthy amount of time permitting a placement area can take, the Corps may try to buy time by directing spoils to one or both of the current placement areas which are already permitted.
The more sand that pit owners can sell, the more capacity they will have, and the faster phase two of West Fork dredging can start.
FEMA will not pay to remove the entire mouth bar. FEMA has been working with the Corps and the City of Houston to determine how much of the mouth bar was due to Harvey. By statute, that’s all FEMA can pay to remove.
Variables Complicate Decisions
The City, State and Harris County will have to pay to remove the rest. That’s part of the contingency planning at this point. No details have yet been released about how all the pieces of this jigsaw puzzle will fit together.
Planners are now trying to optimize for at least ten variables that I have heard discussed.
Volume due to Harvey
Time required to dredge it
Available storage in existing placement areas
Additional cost to move it to those placement areas (pipe, booster pumps, fuel, etc.)
Productivity loss due to additional distance from mouth bar
Cost versus amount funded by FEMA
Placement areas and cost for any volume FEMA does not fund
Time required to permit new placement area(s)
Where money will come from to cover what FEMA does not cover
When additional funds will be available
Not simple! We can only wish that they could make the decision in 1/8000th of a second.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/2/2019
611 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/PA1-5.2.19-CU_01.jpg?fit=1500%2C1007&ssl=110071500adminadmin2019-05-02 16:44:452019-05-02 16:47:37What 470 Cubic Yards of Muck Per Hour Looks Like at 1/8000th of a Second
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ’s) letter to the Corps expresses eight pages of concerns. Keep in mind that it was dated March 1. So the developer had it for TWO MONTHS. Also remember! TCEQ was reviewing ONLY water-quality issues posed by the development.
For everyone else, I have summarized the main concerns below.
Title 30, Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Chapter 279.ll(c)(l), states that “No discharge shall be certified if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, … ” “Please have the applicant clarify the purpose and need for the project, as portions of the proposed project are not aquatic-dependent.”
From the public notice, the applicant states that “they have avoided and minimized environmental impacts by configuring the location of the proposed structures and reducing the size of the lakes within each district.” “This statement does not detail how and where wetland and stream impacts were avoided or minimized. Please have the applicant explain how and where impacts to stream and wetland resources were minimized and avoided.”
“The applicant proposes to develop a mitigation site or purchase credits but says nothing more…The compensatory mitigation plan must include the objectives, site selection, the site protection instrument, baseline information, how the compensatory mitigation will provide required compensation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources, a mitigation work plan, maintenance plan, ecological performance standards, monitoring requirements, long-term management plan, adaptive management plan, financial assurances, and other information per the mitigation rule requirements.”
“During the site visit, the resource agencies and the applicant’s representative noticed several streams that were not accounted for in the impacts tables. Please have the applicant incorporate the additional streams and revise the total amount of project impacts accordingly.”
“There are several impacts within the commercial district that appear to be unaccounted for or are unidentified. Please have the applicant revise the impacts table to account for all resources that will be converted.”
“Please have the applicant determine if project specific locations (PSLs) such as borrow, stockpiling, staging, and equipment parking areas associated with the project will impact wetlands. These PSL impacts should be included in the accounting of total project impacts.”
“Several wetlands within the proposed project boundary will be hydrologically disconnected from the current floodplain. Please have the applicant revise the impacts tables to include wetland and stream resources that will be affected secondarily by the proposed project and address the cumulative effect of each district on the interconnectedness of the onsite wetlands.”
“Please have the applicant explain in detail what measures will be taken to avoid groundwater and surface water contamination from construction activities.”
“Please have the applicant provide a hydraulic analysis of the site to account for current site conditions, projected increased impervious surface runoff, as well as drainage patterns for the site, and describe how water quality on and off the project site will be protected from impacts such as erosion.”
“Stormwater drainage from residential and commercial lots should be routed away from the West Fork San Jacinto River, the marina, and stream resources onsite. Stormwater should be redirected and routed to stormwater treatment features before entering the aforementioned resources. Please have the applicant provide details on how the replacement of lost onsite water quality functions will be addressed.”
Other Issues Outlined in Letter
How an expanded Woodland Hills Drive would affect stream crossings
The purpose and design of the so-called “water-quality ponds”
The design of channels and marinas; their connectivity to the San Jacinto; and their impact on water quality
The impact of boat channels on water-oxygen levels
Channels that cross wetland habitat
Box culverts instead of bridges
Channel widths (100-foot wide for a channel 4-feet deep)
Channels crossing property Romerica doesn’t own
Slope of channels
Diversion of stormwater from roads and parking lots away from channels
Dead-end channels
How domestic wastewater will be collected and treated
Dissolved oxygen monitoring and reporting
Applicants characterization of stream types (intermittent vs. perennial); requests “an accurate assessment.”
Conservation easements on the property. (21.90 acres of wetlands are covered by a conservation easement located within the residential and commercial portions of the proposed development. “Please have the applicant verify that the conservation easement will be protected from potential development and ensure the preserved wetlands will not be impacted, directly or indirectly, from the construction of the proposed project.”
Start Over?
There may be no good answers to some of these questions and concerns. SWCA, CivilTech and Romerica must be re-evaluating the impact of these questions on the economics of their project.
This isn’t the type of stuff you need another week to figure out. These questions will make the developers rethink their commitment to the entire project.
Finding answers will likely involve a redesign of the project and that could cost more than the land itself.
Keep in mind that water quality was just one of 20 different areas that the Corps is evaluating.
TCEQ Didn’t Have Enough Info to Make Decision
I asked Peter Schaefer, a team leader within the TCEQ Water Quality Assessment Section, whether the TCEQ had made a recommendation to the Corps on this project. He said “No.”
The reason: “Because TCEQ did not receive a response to our comment letter, and the applicant had not begun the process of working with us and the Corps to address the concerns raised in the letter, TCEQ was not in a position to make a decision on the project,” said Schaeffer. Hence the detailed requests for more information.
Schaefer added, “A typical 404/401 permitting process would normally take several months, if not a year or more, for the applicant to address comments from TCEQ, Corps, resource agencies, and the public. Because of the magnitude and nature of this project, it would likely have required much more time, coordination, discussion, project revision(s), and perhaps additional public notice(s) to get to the point where the Corps was prepared to complete a Decision Document.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/1/2019
610 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Pieces-of-Romerica-Dev-e1546040851855.png?fit=1500%2C1095&ssl=110951500adminadmin2019-04-30 23:55:582019-05-01 00:04:00TCEQ Lists Water-Quality Concerns About Romerica High-Rise Permit
Artists rendering of several towers near the proposed marina with the Barrington in the background.
Romerica Could Not Meet Deadline
In a letter dated April 24, SWCA, Romerica’s environmental consultant, requested a “suspension” of the permit application. They said they needed more time to answer issues raised in 727 letters of protest. SWCA also said they would have to conduct additional surveys and field work requiring more than the 30 days allowed for them to respond. The official deadline for filing responses was April 27.
Withdrawal “Without Prejudice”
Instead of suspending the permit, the Corps “withdrew it without prejudice.” The Corps invited SWCA and Romerica to reapply at some future time when they had completed answers to the issues raised by concerned residents and environmental groups.
Leah Howard of Manlove Marketing and Communications, Romerica’s official point of contact for the application, was not available for comment at press time. However, a third party who talked to her earlier in the day said that their team wanted “to do a good and complete job with citizens’ questions, and that 30 days just wasn’t enough time.”
Another third party source quoted her as saying, “Due to Harvey, Romerica will complete several new studies and surveys for due diligence which will shed more light on the larger issue Lake Houston faces. After completion of the necessary work, Romerica and the USACE will reactivate the permit and more information will be provided at that time.”
Issues Still to Be Clarified
It is unclear at this time whether a new application would obligate Romerica to go through an additional public comment period. However the letter sent from the Corps to the developer states, “Resultant project modifications may require additional coordination.”
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Herons.jpg?fit=1500%2C2000&ssl=120001500adminadmin2019-04-30 15:31:532019-04-30 16:56:35High-Rise Permit Application Withdrawn by Corps
The Bayou Land Conservancy sent this letter today to the Committee Clerk of the House Environmental Regulation Committee. The Conservancy has allowed me to publish it:
On behalf of Bayou Land Conservancy, I urge you to vote FOR HB 909 when the Environmental Regulation 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, 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.
HB 909 would require the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to adopt and make accessible best management practices for aggregate producers to comply with applicable environmental laws and rules.
This adoption of best management practices would be an important, and needed, step to ensure that aggregate production in Texas is done with sensitivity to the environment and to community standards. As the population of Texas continues to grow, with the corresponding increase in construction of buildings, roads, and bridges, there is greater risk to the quality of life and safety for many communities located near mining operations.
As one of the nation’s leading aggregate producing states, we know Texas can lead in developing higher standards. We recommend best management practices that consider community values, such as:
Employ public notice and stakeholder process guidelines to ensure mining operations are in step with local priorities and concerns
Maintain setbacks or standards for siting operations away from sensitive areas or those with the highest likelihood to cause impacts
Develop environmental impact statements for proposed mining operations
Enact mitigation standards to reclaim the project area after facility closure
Utilize progressive reclamation with a step-be-step restoration of the site over time rather than waiting for final closure
Require the submission of an approved reclamation plan prior to permit approval
Require the certification of financial security to perform reclamation activities before permit approval
Require post-use conservation easements to ensure that the floodplain is left undeveloped and can provide a community amenity opportunity.
There is urgency for Texas to lead by enacting commonsense solutions that protect the community.
Without development and implementation of best management practices, such as those outlined above that would keep sediment in place through floodplain preservation and mine reclamation, downstream communities will continue to be at risk of water quality degradation and flooding.
Please vote YES on HB 909.
(Signed) Jill Boullion Executive Director
Please Support HB 909; Here’s How
Call. Write. Or testify in person TODAY. The committee meets to consider this bill tomorrow. The following representatives comprise the Environmental Regulation committee.
Rep. J. M. Lozano (512) 463-0463
Rep. Ed Thompson (512) 463-0707
Rep. César Blanco (512) 463-0622
Rep. Kyle J. Kacal (512) 463-0412
Rep. John Kuempel (512) 463-0602
Rep. Geanie W. Morrison (512) 463-0456
Rep. Ron Reynolds (512) 463-0494
Rep. John Turner (512) 463-0576
Rep. Erin Zwiener (512) 463-0647
Committee Clerk: Scott Crownover. (512) 463-0776
If you can come to Austin to testify, please do. The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 1, in room E1.026 of the Capitol Building. Most likely hearing time is in the evening around 8 p.m., but get I plan to get there early. Hope to see you there.
Posted by Bob Rehak on April 30, 2019
609 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/capitolc_1024.jpg?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=17681024adminadmin2019-04-30 10:12:192019-04-30 10:15:35Bayou Land Conservancy Supports HB 909, Publishing Best Practices for Sand Mining
Wednesday, May 1, 2019, the Texas House of Representatives Environmental Affairs Committee will hear testimony on HB 909. It would require the TCEQ to establish and publish best management practices for sand mining.
Why We Need HB 909
After Harvey, I discovered bright white trails of sand leading from sand mines upstream to massive sediment buildups in the Humble/Kingwood area. The Army Corps later acknowledged that some of our flooding was likely attributable to these massive sediment dams. No doubt some of the sand came from channel erosion, too. But we can’t do much to control that. We can, however, help reduce sediment from man-made sources with sensible regulations found in many other states, including those growing faster than Texas.
Texas is the only state that does not mandate minimum setbacks from rivers for sand mines. As a result, virtually all mines in this area are built inside floodways of major rivers where floods can wash sediment downstream.
Establish performance bonds to cover the cost of cleanup
Giant sand dunes deposited during Harvey exacerbate flooding by constraining the conveyance of downstream drainage ditches and the San Jacinto river. Mining exposes downstream populations to heightened flood risk and reduces their property values. Performance bonds could ensure cleanup and repairs after floods in a timely way and force those who caused damage to bear the cost of remediation.
Increase the width of dikes
Texas has no minimum setbacks from rivers and does not recognize erosion hazard zones. Some mines operate so close to the river that floodwaters breach their dikes repeatedly. Wider dikes:
Make stronger dikes that are less likely to fail and that improve safety.
If forested, can slow currents as they enter and leave mines.
Reduce the amount of sediment picked up and carried downstream.
Reduce the danger of river capture due to river migration.
River is migrating toward pit in background at the rate of 12 feet per year, in part, due to lack of vegetation protecting banks.
Decrease the slope of dikes
Other states and countries recommend gently sloping dikes to help grow vegetation, which reduces erosion. The near-vertical slope of many dikes on the San Jacinto can’t sustain vegetation.
Steep, loose dikes with no vegetation breach easily during floods.
Reduce erosion with vegetation
Planting dikes and unmined surfaces with grass and/or native trees can bind the soil, slow floodwater, reduce erosion, trap sand, and help retain sand within mine boundaries.
Virtually all states and countries recommend planting native grasses and trees to help bind soil. Revegetating after plants have been removed can take years. Therefore, the best, cheapest and simplest practice is to leave native vegetation in place when constructing mines.
Replant areas not actively being mined
Loose sand, exposed to floodwaters, exposes downstream communities to unnecessary risk. Replanting with native grasses and trees can bind soil, reduce water velocity during floods and reduce erosion. TCEQ reports that native grasses are 98% effective in reducing erosion. Keeping soil in place is the best way to keep it out of rivers.
Avoid clearing areas that will not soon be mined.
Delay clearing land until the last possible moment to reduce erosion risk from floodwaters. A large part of a sand mine on the East Fork was cleared, then went through three so-called “500-year storms” in the next three years – before any mining took place.
This land was cleared just before consecutive 500-year floods in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Downstream communities like Kingwood paid the price. It still has not been mined. 30 acres of wetlands downstream from the mine above were covered by sand dunes up to 10 feet tall.
Before Harvey, this stockpile covered 34 acres and was up to 100 feet tall. It is located at the confluence of not one, but two floodways, just upstream from the wetlands shown above.
Establish performance bonds to guarantee remediation of breaches and repurposing of mined areas once mining is complete.
Satellite images show dike breaches that have remained open 3 to 6 years. Even worse, obtaining a permit to mine in Texas requires a remediation plan, but it does not obligate mines to act on that plan when mining is complete. That creates safety hazards, eyesores, and economic development headaches for communities.
Gaping Holes in Regs Exposed by Harvey
Harvey exposed gaping holes in Texas regulations. It underscored the importance of adopting better practices to help improve public safety, reduce damage to infrastructure, and avoid widespread flood damage to homes and businesses. Consequences of ignoring these recommendations potentially include:
Destruction of downstream communities through increased flooding
Illegal “taking” of private property
More loss of life
Unfair imposition of remediation costs on taxpayers
Hidden “subsidies” that distort the true cost of cement and its usage
Loss of faith in the ethical standards of businesses and the free enterprise system
Loss of faith in government institutions to protect people and property
Loss of home and business values
Reduction of property tax income to city and county governments
Making Texas a less desirable place to live.
Destruction like we experienced during Harvey is rarely caused by one thing. Multiple failures on multiple levels compounded each other. To the extent that sand mines contributed to the problem, they can help solve it by modifying business practices as described above.
Please Help
Texas has no simple, easy-to-read recommendations like Louisiana and other states. The few references to best management practices currently on the TCEQ web site have to do with a water-quality district on the Brazos. They do not apply to the San Jacinto.
Please support this legislation. Phone members of the House Environmental Regulation Committee.
Rep. J. M. Lozano (512) 463-0463
Rep. Ed Thompson (512) 463-0707
Rep. César Blanco (512) 463-0622
Rep. Kyle J. Kacal (512) 463-0412
Rep. John Kuempel (512) 463-0602
Rep. Geanie W. Morrison (512) 463-0456
Rep. Ron Reynolds (512) 463-0494
Rep. John Turner (512) 463-0576
Rep. Erin Zwiener (512) 463-0647
If you can come to Austin to testify, please do. The meeting will be in room E1.026 of the Capitol Building. Most likely hearing time is in the evening around 8 p.m., but I plan to get there early. Hope to see you there.
Posted by Bob Rehak on April 29, 2019
608 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/StockpileErosion.jpg?fit=1500%2C911&ssl=19111500adminadmin2019-04-29 17:18:012019-04-29 19:49:42House Environmental Regulation Committee to Hear Testimony on Sand Mining Best Practices
Jim Zura has posted three videos he shot at Romerica’s public meeting in the Kingwood Community Center on March 18, 2019. The first covers questions I asked Gabriel Haddad, one of Romerica’s two principles, before the meeting officially started. The next two cover questions and answers asked by community members after the formal presentations by Romerica and its suppliers.
Additional Videos to Follow
Zura says additional video will follow. He does national quality work from his base right here in Kingwood. Zura volunteered his services to the community on this project out of concern for the impact the development could have on the community. Please note: Zura fought a high level of ambient crowd noise to obtain these videos. While they won’t win an Emmy for sound quality, they very adequately capture the responses and promises made to the community regarding this controversial development.
The first video is me going one-on-one with Romerica developer Gabriel Haddad.
Rehak (left) interviewing Haddad (right) at the Kingwood Community Center Public Meeting. That’s Dianne Lansden of the Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Initiative in the background.
After presentations by Romerica and its associates, the audience got a chance to ask questions from the floor. Below is the first thirty minutes of the Q&A session.
I ask Mr. Haddad how his development will generate $135 million in tax revenues and point out that that’s more than the rest of Kingwood combined contributes to the City of Houston or Harris County. He responds that that’s only if it’s all built out. I ask, “How likely is that?” He responds: “Not very.” Mr. Haddad then goes on to describe why and blames sedimentation in the river.
Other topics we discussed included:
How he plans to get around the deed restrictions by Friendswood
Long-range plans if he can’t get a permit
Evacuation in the event of a flood
Noise
School district overcrowding
His maze of companies
Changing architectural firms in mid-stream, no pun intended
Mr. Haddad answers one or two questions somewhat directly, pivots on others, and claims they’re still working out details on the rest.
Audience Q&A: Part 1
Audience Q&A went for a total of 50 minutes. Unfortunately, some people turned questions into rants. Other people shouted questions from the floor that were not picked up by the microphone. So I’m not going to attempt to transcribe the entire session, but will provide time codes for the questions I could understand. That way you can fast forward to specific segments that may interest you. All time codes are approximate:
0:00 Concern about impact on land adjacent to the Romerica development
2:00 Concern about flooding and how it will be mitigated
3:15 Statement by lady who says she wants “Livable Forest,” not high-rises.
3:45 Are you not worried about building high-rises at ground zero for the worst natural disaster in U.S. history?
6:45 How are you getting around single-family residential deed restrictions?
8:45 Who do you expect to invest and what kind of businesses do you expect to attract? Concerned about inaccessibility of location. Says they will find other locations more attractive. (No response from developer.)
10:20. Gentleman asks for vote from floor about who approves/disapproves of development.
13:50 Lady observes that every home that flooded had surveys done assuring the owners that it would not. What makes your development different?
15:00 Have you engaged hydrologists and do you have money set aside to restore the property if the development fails.
17:30 Lady doesn’t like comparison to Woodlands. Says she moved here because it wasn’t so commercial.
18:20 Concern about lack of plans for traffic and noise mitigation.
22:20 Are you willing to pay for dredging?
24:15 How are you going to evacuate people from a dead-end road? Are you going to elevate Woodland Hills Drive?
Audience Q&A: Part 2
The same caveats apply here:
0:00 Concerns about loss of view and quiet?
2:50 Will you listen to and respect the will of the community?
3:30 Will ALL construction be postponed until solution is found for flooding? How will new flood maps and watershed study affect your plans? What’s the time frame for your development? (Hint: Answer: We will not do anything until there is a flooding solution.)
9:10 What is the source of your funding?
12:15 Do you have backup and failsafe plans?
13:15 How will you address flood levels that get worse with time?
Next Steps
As in my interview questions, sometimes the answers were direct and sometimes they weren’t. Sometimes, they just let people rant and didn’t answer at all. By the time Romerica wrapped everything up, most of the audience had left and they were turning out the lights.
Since the meeting, they have had more than a month to address the concerns that more than 700 people and groups submitted in protest letters to the Army Corps.
Now the Corps needs to sift through all their responses and make sure they addressed valid concerns. You can expect plans to change. Romerica has already posted online that they are planning to elevate the entire development another six to ten feet. That will likely involve more fill and stimulate more concerns about flooding.
Thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public interest. They are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on April 28, 2019
607 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/PublicMeetingPart1.jpg?fit=1500%2C836&ssl=18361500adminadmin2019-04-28 21:27:122019-04-28 21:36:11Zura Productions Posts Interview with High-Rise Developer and Q&A From Public Meeting
A reminder. Today, Romerica Investments, LLC. owes the Army Corps of Engineers answers to all of the questions, comments and concerns raised during the public comment period for its proposed high-rise development and marina resort.
More than 700 Protest Letters Filed
The Corps is ruling on a permit application for a 3.2 million square foot development near the floodway of the San Jacinto West Fork. The proposed development would surround the Barrington, and be adjacent to Kingwood Lakes, Trailwood, King’s Cove Deer Ridge Estates, Deer Ridge Park and River Grove Park.
It will be interesting to see how Romerica responds to all these concerns. They can change their plans for the future. But they can’t change their past.
At a public meeting held AFTER the public comment period, Gabriel M. Haddad, co-owner, of a maze of related companies, partnerships, LLPs and LLCs in different countries and states, said it could take up to two years for the Corps to rule on his permit application.
The Corporate Maze Related to Romerica
I have a call in to the Corps to discuss next steps and how long they will take. Stay tuned.
Note: Ideas expressed in the post represent my opinions on matters of public interest. They are protected by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/27/2019
606 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Woodland-hills-map.png?fit=1061%2C1024&ssl=110241061adminadmin2019-04-27 20:56:202019-04-27 21:14:43Answer Day for High-Rise Developer
Yesterday, I posted about how greater setbacks from rivers could improve safety for sand mines and downstream residents. Setbacks reduce the potential for erosion, sedimentation and consequent flooding. Here’s a related post that shows what happens when you try to build too close to rivers.
Note repairs to dike. I took this photo two weeks after Harvey.
First, understand that the closer you mine to the river, the steeper the slope of dikes must be. At a certain point, the slope becomes so steep that:
Grasses and trees can’t take root in it.
The loose soil becomes prone to erosion.
During floods, water in the river rises faster than in the pit.
Depending on the depth of the pit, the volume of sediment in it, and the force of the flood, sediment could be carried downstream.
Another factor leading to dike collapse in the photo above is the road built on top of it. Running heavy equipment over the sandy soil causes it to compact and push outward. Vehicle traffic also keeps vegetation that could bind the soil from growing.
Accidents Waiting to Happen
It doesn’t take a Harvey-scale flood to breach these loose dikes. The unmemorable July 4th flood of last year breached the dike shown above.
Repairs to one of three dike breaches at a sand mine in Dec. 7 flood last year. Photo by Don Harbour Jr.
Here’s another breach at the same mine that hadn’t yet healed when I photographed it on September 28th last year.
Site of a breach in the dike of a sand mine. Note how the loss of vegetation has led to erosion and sloughing in the sandy soil.
When such breaches happen on both sides of a point bar, the river will “capture” the pit by rerouting through it – the shortest distance between two points.
West Fork sand mines on 8/30/17, one day after the peak from from Harvey
West Fork vs. East Fork and Value of Riparian Vegetation
Almost all of these problems could be solved by greater setbacks from rivers. That would retain more natural riparian vegetation and allow lower, more gradual slopes on dikes. It would also allow additional re-vegetation to take hold.
Shooting across the West Fork from on top of the dike shown in the first photo above. Note how loose the soil was in the foreground and how difficult it is to establish vegetation on the opposite shore in the middleground. Floods have torn away the erosion blankets trying to establish grass on the steep slopes.
Imagine 131,000 cubic feet per second ripping through a channel like this. That’s how much came down this portion of the West Fork at the peak of Harvey. It’s easy to see how the river could erode these dikes and invade the mines.
That’s why we need greater setbacks. It will allow more conveyance through the normal channel. And if we just leave native negation in place, it should help hold the dikes in place.
Now contrast the images above with this one taken on a portion of the East Fork where there are no sand mines.
Lush riparian vegetation and trees held the banks in place during Harvey.
Here’s another.
Offsetting Opportunity Costs with Conservation Easements
Mother Nature’s solution to sedimentation is free. If we could only just learn to respect the river and its flood plains. Yes, there would still be some sedimentation to deal with, but not nearly as much.
The loss of sand close to the river is an opportunity cost, not an out-of-pocket cost. Groups like the Bayou Land Conservancy can help offset some of that opportunity cost by providing income in exchange for conservation easements. I wish miners would explore this option more…for everyone’s benefit including theirs. It certainly might reduce their legal costs.
Posted by Bob Rehak on April 27, 2019
606 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/BankErosion_01.jpg?fit=1500%2C864&ssl=18641500adminadmin2019-04-26 21:28:102019-04-26 21:28:51Earth Week Part 4: Slope of Sand Mine Dikes, Riparian Vegetation and Cost Offsets
