Houston Council Member Dave Martin Issues Mouth Bar Update

Houston City Council Member Dave Martin announced today that the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) has authorized the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to remove sand and siltation from the Lake Houston mouth bar.  

History of Project

In 2018, USACE first began removing debris deposited during Hurricane Harvey from the San Jacinto River under FEMA Mission Assignment (DR 4332). The assignment directed USACE to restore the river to pre-Harvey conditions.

DR 4332 has removed debris from three out of four identified sections of the San Jacinto River. Contractors should finish the last segment (shown in blue below) in May.

Original segments identified by USACE. The orange and green segments are complete. The blue segment should be finished with another week or so. And the purple segment is the one yet to be done – including the mouth bar.

FEMA did not approve the fourth section, in the original scope of work for DR 4332.  Last month, the City of Houston filed an application for mouth bar removal as well as an additional dredge material disposal site. FEMA and USACE have been reviewing it since then, according to Council Member Martin.

The State of Texas, the City of Houston, as well as multiple stakeholders from the Lake Houston area, requested FEMA to expedite authorization of a Mission Assignment for debris removal and dredging of the mouth bar while the equipment is still in the river. The hope: to save taxpayers the cost of a second mobilization effort. Mobilization for the first assignment cost approximately $18 million.

FEMA Issues Directive of Mission Assignment

At a meeting last week in Austin, FEMA issued a directive of Mission Assignment to USACE for dredging of the mouth bar at the confluence of the San Jacinto River and Lake Houston.

The City requested removal of 1.4 million cubic yards of sediment. It is unclear at this time how much FEMA will fund, exactly where it will be stored, and whether matching funds will come from other sources. FEMA, TDEM, City of Houston, and USACE are still working to determine the amount of silt deposited by Hurricane Harvey.

Dredging of Final Segment To Begin Within 30 Days

 Martin hopes the calculation will be finalized next week, and expects dredging to begin within 30 days. 

The Great Lakes Dredge is still docked at the USACE Command Post while it awaits FEMA and USACE to finalize mouth bar dredging details with the City and State.

Kudos to Mission Team

In his press release, Martin issued “a huge thank you to our federal partners Congressman Dan Crenshaw, Field Representative for Congressman Crenshaw, Kaaren Cambio, Congressman Kevin Brady, Senator Ted Cruz, and Senator John Cornyn for their support as they have all been meeting regularly with FEMA and discussing this project.”

“This is a huge project for our area,” said Martin, “and it would not be possible without the on-going support and push from Governor Greg Abbott and Chief Nim Kidd, Texas Department of Emergency Management (TDEM), as well as Mayor Sylvester Turner and Stephen Costello, Chief Recovery Officer – City of Houston.” 

Martin also gave additional thanks to Jenna Armstrong and Mark Mitchell from the Lake Houston Area Chamber of Commerce for coordinating a letter writing campaign.

Breathing a Bit Easier Tonight

During floods earlier this year, I noticed a ten foot difference at times at gauges on either side of the mouth bar. It is acting like a dam behind the dam.

With the start of Hurricane season on June 1, residents of Kingwood and Humble will breathe a little easier tonight. Hopefully, the Corps and its contractors will be able to at least dredge a channel through the mouth bar area before the peak of the Atlantic season from mid-August through September.

The SJRA has agreed to continue lowering Lake Conroe during that period by 2 feet versus its normal level as an additional buffer against flooding.

My thanks to Council Member Dave Martin for pushing this project so tirelessly, and to Kaaren Cambio and Mark Micheletti for leading to effort to lower Lake Conroe again this year. Neither effort has been easy. Finally, kudos also to Tim Garfield and R.D. Kissling, two local retired geologists for their efforts in helping people understand the dangers posed by the mouth bar.

Posted by Bob Rehak on April 26, 2019

605 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Earth Week Part 3: Sand Mine Setbacks from Rivers

After a year and a half of investigating sand mining best practices around the US and the world, I concluded that Texas falls short of other states and countries on several measures. The single biggest opportunity for improvement: greater setbacks from rivers.

River is migrating toward pit in background at the rate of 12 feet per year. When this picture was taken after Harvey, dike was only 38 feet wide.

Other states recommend from 100- to 1000-foot setbacks. Some prohibit building in floodways and flood plains. All but one sand mine on the San Jacinto lie at least partially in floodways. This leads to frequent dike breaches which, I believe, contribute to downstream sedimentation and flooding. Yet legislation that could increase setbacks and safety remains bottled up in committees.

Benefits of Setbacks

Greater setbacks would remove mines from the fiercest currents during floods. Leaving vegetation in place between the mine and the river would also help bind soil, reduce erosion, protect mines stockpiles, slow currents entering mines, help trap any sand leaving mines, and improve public safety.

Memorial Day Flood in 2015 ruptured the dikes on these sand mines on both sides of the West Fork.

Miners’ Objections to Setbacks

I queried several miners and the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association (TACA) about why they felt compelled to mine so close to rivers. The answer (I’m paraphrasing now): because there’s less overburden, they have greater efficiencies that are important in a low margin business.

That makes sense until you realize that some of these mines are more than two miles wide. That’s wide enough so that parts didn’t even flood during Harvey. And I have to believe that:

  • …if sand on the perimeter was unprofitable, they wouldn’t mine it.
  • …if mining in the floodway were prohibited, no one would be at a competitive disadvantage.

Dubious Relationship Between Growth and Mining Near River

For generations, the mining industry has positioned itself as “the driver of growth.” And it has sought concessions from state legislators to perpetuate growth. Like all myths, there’s some truth to this one. But when you look closely, any argument for lax regulation rapidly disappears.

While over-regulation can certainly hurt an economy, sensible regulation can help it. If aircraft manufacturers tolerated crashes, people would not fly.

So why is leaving a floodway-wide buffer such a hardship? I’m still scratching my head. According to USA Today, three states have higher growth rates than Texas AND require minimum setbacks (Idaho, Washington and Arizona). So setbacks are not anti-business or a growth killer. Idaho is growing at 2.20%, Washington at 1.71% and Arizona at 1.56% according to USA Today. Texas is growing at 1.43%.

When you look at the opposite end of the spectrum, the two states LOSING the most population are West Virginia and Wyoming – both big mining states with lax regulations.

So clearly, lax regulation is not creating growth and tougher regulation is not stifling it. So why is it so hard to get mining regulation that protects citizens, property and the environment?

Status of Mining Legislation

Here is where Texas stands on proposed sand mining legislation.

No bill opposed by TACA has made it out of committee so far this year.

Two bills supported by TACA have reached the floors of the Senate and the House:

  • SB 2126 which could actually allow mining IN rivers, not just their floodplains.
  • HB 907 which doubles fines against unregistered miners (not TACA’s problem).

All the rest are still bottled up in committee tonight with only 34 more days remaining in the session:

  • HB509 which requires a hydrologic impact study, public notice, and public hearings before permitting
  • HB908 which strengthens fines for water code violations and increases inspection rates
  • HB909 which calls for the TCEQ to adopt and publish best management practices for mining
  • HB1671 which would enforce those best practices on the San Jacinto and require minimum setbacks
  • HB2871 which would require miners to post performance bonds, ensuring reclamation when they finish mining.

Seat Belt and Blowout Analogies

I am not against mining; I am FOR more responsible mining that protects citizens, property, the environment, and the image of Texas as a great place to live. Growth is far more complicated than the sand mining industry would have us believe.

Minimum setbacks will not destroy the state’s formula for growth. They’re a safety measure, like seat belts for Mother Earth against speeding, out-of-control floodwaters.

Arguing against them is reminiscent of the argument against putting seat belts and other safety features in cars 50 years ago. Remember Unsafe at Any Speed? At the time, some in industry claimed the extra cost would drive Detroit out of business. Those of us old enough to remember might say it was the beginning of Detroit’s rebirth.

Another more direct analogy: a hundred years ago, people drilled oils wells that routinely blew out. Erle P. Halliburton changed the industry with new cementing techniques that prevented blowouts and improved well control. In 1957, Oklahoma inducted Halliburton into its Hall of Fame. The world is a much safer place because of him.

Hurricane Harvey exposed the safety flaws in the assumptions underlying sand mining regulations. We have 34 days left in this legislative session. Let’s use them to enact some common sense legislation that improves the safety of mining and preserves the environment for our children.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/25/2019

604 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Quick, Inexpensive, New Idea for Hurricane Storm-Surge Protection

Jim Blackburn

Jim Blackburn, the noted environmental lawyer and Rice professor, will hold a meeting to review new ideas on storm surge protection in and around Galveston Bay. If you or one of your loved ones works at one of the petrochemical plants or refineries near the Bay or Ship Channel – or if you use the Bay for recreation – you may be interested in this.

Quick, Inexpensive, Storm-Surge Solution

Says Blackburn, “No issue is more serious to the future of our region than is hurricane surge flooding, and we have a unique, once-in-a-lifetime chance to solve it relatively cheaply and relatively quickly. There are 800,000 people, 2.2 million barrels per day of refining capacity and over 200 chemical plants in harm’s way. 

Piggybacking on Ship-Channel Widening

At the current time, the Port of Houston is trying hard to find a way to widen the Houston Ship Channel to allow two-way traffic.  The SSPEED Center at Rice University has developed a hurricane flood protection plan that would utilize the dredged material created by the Port’s proposed widening project. The plan calls for building a 25-foot bay barrier system that would extend from Houston Point in Chambers County down the ship channel to a terminus at the Texas City hurricane protection levee system. It would combine flood protection with navigation enhancement along with recreational access to Galveston Bay, says Blackburn. 

Storm Surge Meeting Details

Speakers at the meeting will explain this new opportunity. They will also provide an update on the Corps of Engineers planning process and an update from Texas A&M.

Time: 6:30 – 8 PM
Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Place: San Jacinto College Central Campus
Music Building: Corbin Hall
Address: 8060 Spencer Highway, Pasadena, TX 77505

Important, but Not Covered by Flood Bond

“We in Harris County need protection from flooding coming in from Galveston Bay, just as we need protection from rainfall flooding,” says Blackburn. “The 2018 bond issue did not provide funding for surge protection.  We must find concepts that work and ways to fund these concepts sooner rather than later or else we risk significant loss of life and homes, loss of our regional economic engine and the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.”

Mark Calendar and Invite Friends

So mark your calendars for May 15. This public meeting is sponsored by Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia. This should be of particular interest/concern to anyone who works near the Houston Ship Channel or the eastern sections of the City of Houston.  If you are concerned about this issue or the alternatives that might be chosen to address it, please come.  And please let your friends know about the meeting too.

About Jim Blackburn

Jim Blackburn is a professor in the practice of environmental law in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at Rice University. He teaches courses in sustainable development and environmental law. He is also a practicing environmental lawyer with the Blackburn & Carter law firm in Houston and a Rice faculty scholar at the Baker Institute. At Rice, he serves as the co-director of the Severe Storm Prediction, Education and Evacuation from Disaster (SSPEED) Center.

Posted by Bob Rehak on April 24, 2019

603 Days since Hurricane Harvey

SJRA Responds to Post about SB 2126 Opening Door to River Mining

Letter to the Editor

RE: “Caution: SB 2126 Opens Door to Sand Mining in Rivers”

Bob,

Thank you for your work with Reduce Flooding to raise awareness about flooding and flood-related issues since Hurricane Harvey.  You have done a tremendous job of helping to educate the public on the causes of flooding and providing status updates on current and future flood-related projects and initiatives. Regarding your April 25 post titled ““Caution: SB 2126 Opens Door to Sand Mining in Rivers,” I want to clarify what SB 2126 is and what it is not.  

Chuck Gilman, the author of this post, is
Director of Water Resources and Flood Management for the
San Jacinto River Authority

The concept behind SB 2126 is to create a proactive approach toward removing sediment from the river before it is deposited in Lake Houston.  If you’ll recall the KBR report from 2000 noted “For long-term sediment management consideration, sedimentation basins, either on-channel or off-channel, are the most effective approach to minimizing sediment buildups and maintain the life of the channel conveyance.”  That is what we are attempting to accomplish with this program. 

The strategies and programs that could be implemented if SB 2126 is approved would not be river mining or dredging.  Any kind of dredging (either hydraulic or mechanic) would be very limited in scope, allowing conservation and reclamation districts to restore conveyance in the rivers in a strategic location through small-scale, periodic, targeted removal of sediment in the river.  This could be as large-scale as the current dredging project currently in progress, or as simple as the construction of sand traps that are dredged annually.  Regardless, your point about oversight and management is well noted, and is a requirement for this program to be a success.  

The San Jacinto River Authority has secured the support from the sand mining industry through the Texas Aggregates and Concrete Association to explore options to remove sand, gravel, shell, and other aggregates from the river—all without a cost to taxpayers.  Ideally, the SJRA would be the public agency overseeing and managing the program, conducting the necessary studies, and coordinating with the appropriate state and federal agencies to determine where and how much material should be removed. Partners from the private sector could then remove the material as directed by SJRA.  

After Hurricane Harvey, Governor Abbott tasked all of us with flood control and flood management. SB 2126 creates opportunities for public-private partnerships to help preserve the channel conveyance capacity of the San Jacinto River.  As we know in the Lake Houston area, this sediment impedes the flow of storm water where the West Fork converges with Lake Houston.  

Senator Creighton has led the effort to develop a flood resiliency funding bill in the Senate this legislative session (SB 7), and continues to seek other options to help create a regional flood management effort in the San Jacinto Basin.  This bill would simply create another tool in our toolbox to help reduce potential flooding in the future.  

As stewards of the San Jacinto River and its water supply, the SJRA supports Senator Creighton’s proactive approach to managing sediment in the river. We are trusted partners with the State of Texas, Harris County Flood Control District, and FEMA to execute $2.5B in flood control bond projects like the comprehensive San Jacinto Watershed Master Drainage Plan.  We value our role as a community partner and appreciate the opportunity to further reduce the risk of flooding by providing oversight and management of this plan.

Chuck Gilman
Director of Water Resources and Flood Management
San Jacinto River Authority

For additional information on SJRA visit our website at www.sjra.netor like SJRA on Facebook 
@SanJacintoRiverAuthority

Posted verbatim from SJRA letter by Chuck Gilman on 4/23/2019

602 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Earth Week Part 2: Clearing Land for Sand Mining

Best management practices for sand mining in many states say that miners should avoid clearing land until they’re ready to mine it. The roots of trees and grasses help stabilize soil during floods.

Barren land exposed to three 500-year storms. Vegetation not only binds the soil, it reduces the velocity of floodwaters, reducing the potential for erosion. Picture taken on 9/14/2017 two weeks after Hurricane Harvey.

Land Cleared, Then Three 500-Year Storms

However, on Caney Creek in Porter, a sand miner cleared 60 acres right before three 500-year storms in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Except for a tiny pond at the far end of this cleared area, no mining had occurred here when I took this photo shortly after Harvey.

With little vegetation to reduce the velocity of floodwaters, the miner lost sand from this area and a significant portion of his stockpile. Below is a closer shot of the stockpile.

34-acre stockpile suffered severe erosion during Harvey.

Sand Damage Downstream from Mine

Meanwhile, downstream from the mine, when Harvey’s floodwaters subsided, Kingwood residents found 30 acres of East End Park covered with sand, including this area that was once wetlands.

Eagle Point section of Kingwood’s East End Park. After Harvey, sand dunes replaced wetlands.

Extreme events like Harvey reveal the need for regulations that protect both miners and the public.

Restoring the trails in the park cost residents hundreds of thousands of dollars. Several months after the storm, trees covered by sand started dying and continue dying to this day. Eagles, other birds, and residents have lost valuable wetlands.

Bills to Regulate Sitting Idle

State Representative Dan Huberty introduced a bill that would establish best management practices for sand miners and another bill that would require miners in the San Jacinto watershed to follow them.

  • HB 909 calls for the TCEQ to adopt and publish best management practices for sand mines.
  • HB 1671 creates penalties for non-compliance with best practices defined under HB 909.

The legislature has taken no action on either bill since:

  • The Environmental Regulation Committee received HB 909 on 2/25/19.
  • The Natural Resources committee received HB 1671 on 3/4/19.

Time Running Out

With only 37 days left in this legislative session, hopes for both bills are quickly fading. If you would like to see them enacted, please email committee members:

House Environmental Regulation Committee

House Natural Resources Committee

Click here to see my top ten recommendations for sand mining practices that could reduce erosion. Each represents an opportunity for improvement relative to other states.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/23/2019

602 Days since Hurricane Harvey with 37 Days Left in the Legislative Session

Tunneling: A Potentially Valuable Flood Mitigation Tool

Engineering firm Freese & Nichols claims that “Incorporating tunneling into Houston’s stormwater portfolio could significantly reduce flood damages and improve the reliability of existing conveyance and detention infrastructure.” Tunneling technology, the firm says, has improved dramatically in the last 30 years, making projects possible that were once deemed impossible.

Rapid Growth Limits Mitigation Possibilities

Houston’s exponential population growth (16X during the last 100 years) has made both flooding and flood mitigation more difficult to deal with. However, tunneling, says Freese & Nichols bypasses the urban sprawl issue – especially in dense neighborhoods, such as those inside Beltway 8. Tunneling’s low-impact can move stormwater with very little effect on the surface, benefiting communities and addressing environmental concerns.

Tunnels Expand Both Conveyance and Storage

Tunnels, they point out, expand conveyance capacity within a watershed. They can also store stormwater during floods. A 30-50 foot tunnel can store 50 to 150 acre-feet of storm water per mile. More important, it can convey 10,000 to 15,000 cubic feet of water per second. To put that in perspective, that’s about 40-60% of the flow coming from Cypress Creek during Harvey. Or almost 20% of the flow coming from the Lake Conroe Dam.

San Jacinto River Watershed Flow Rates
During Harvey, an estimated 24,100 cfs came from Cypress Creek.

Thus, tunneling could significantly reduce total flow coming down rivers and streams during floods by providing an alternative means of conveyance.

How Tunnels Are Built

This detailed video shows how a modern tunneling machine works. It can construct up to 350 meters of tunnel in a week. That’s between a fifth and a quarter of a mile per week. The machine continuously cases the hole with precision, pre-caste, concrete segments as it excavates through loose sandy soil. It also dynamically balances pressure in the tunnel along the cutting head face to prevent cave ins. Working a hundred feet or more below the surface, it can even evacuate ground water.

Machine used to build subways and storm tunnels. See fascinating 14 minute video.

Editor’s note: This 13-minute industrial video is among the best-produced videos of its kind that I have ever seen. It should satisfy professionals as well as non-technical types. If you have students who lean toward science and engineering, make sure they see this; it shows how human ingenuity can fill the gap between problem and solution.

Gravity-Driven Reliability

Once built, gravity drives the system during floods.

Diagram courtesy of Freese & Nichols. Reproduced with permission. Note that this diagram shows the start point within a detention basin. Starting within a detention basin helps reduce sediment accumulation in tunnels.

Success Stories in Other Parts of Texas

Here in Texas, engineers have used the technology successfully to reduce flooding potential in Dallas, San Antonio and Austin. As urban centers grow, the need to move infrastructure underground grows with them. Disruption to life and the environment on the surface are simply too costly otherwise.

This presentation gives an overview of the technologies involved several case studies in Texas and the U.S. Here’s a shorter two-page summary. And a link to the Freese & Nichols blog that provides a more detailed discussion of the possibilities.

Weighing Expense Against Flood Cost

Because of the expense, tunneling isn’t the first technology you would consider for flood mitigation. But it can be a valuable addition to the tool chest…especially when weighed against the $125 billion that Harvey cost Houston residents.

Numerous discussions have been held at the county, state and federal levels re: the potential applications of this technology.

Community Impact reported last week that Brian Gettinger—tunneling services leader with Freese & Nichols —said he thinks the concept could work on Cypress Creek.

The newspaper said that Gettinger pitched the tunnel system to the Cypress Creek Flood Control Coalition in March. He said if the tunnel becomes a reality, it could cost $2 billion-$3 billion, would take years to build, and would require federal support because of the high price tag.

Feasibility and Alignment Studies

Harris County Flood Control should soon begin Phase 1 of a $400,000 study. Once started, it could take four months to confirm whether tunneling is feasible in this area. Future phases of the study will dig deeper into specific alignments (Buffalo, Brays, Cypress, etc.), evaluating inflow and outflow points, and specific routes.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/22/2019 (Earth Day)

601 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Outlook Good for Bill That Would Double Fines for Illegal Sand Mining

On April 17th, the Texas House of Representatives Environmental Regulations committee heard testimony on a bill that would double fines for illegal sand mining, HB907. No illegal sand miners spoke against the bill, so this one has a pretty good chance of passing.

Click here to view testimony.

Key Points in Huberty’s Testimony

The bill’s author, State Representative Dan Huberty laid out the case for the bill starting at 9:29 into this recording. His main points: this bill does not penalize miners who have registered with the TCEQ, only those who have not. He reminded committee members how bad the problem of illegal sand mining was when his first sand mining bill was passed in 2011. Huberty said that he believes the problem of unregistered sand mining continues to this day. However, he said, the fines set in 2011, no longer make the same deterrent they did then. He said the increased fines would enable the TCEQ to increase oversight efforts.

Why This is Important

Illegal sand mining contributes disproportionately to the problem of sedimentation in the river. That’s because it often takes place in or on the banks of the river. The illegal miners make no attempt to control erosion or sediment. And the scars can last for decades.

Here is a satellite image from 1989 on the West Fork of a mining operation near a point bar. At this point in time, sand miners were not forced to register with the TCEQ.
The same area almost 30 years later still bears the scars. Both photos courtesy of Google Earth.

Supported by Both TACA and Environmental Groups

At about 18 minutes into the recording, Rob Van Til, owner of River Aggregates, a registered sand mining company, spoke in favor of the bill. Speaking for himself as well as TACA, he said it would help deter “bad actors.”

Grant Dean, representing the Texas Environmental Coalition, from Marble Falls, also rose to speak in favor of the bill.

Not a “Christmas Tree”

Given the lack of opposition, Huberty then wrapped up testimony by moving for passage of he bill. He said that he would not allow the bill to become a “Christmas Tree” when it went to the House floor. A Christmas tree bill is a political term referring to a bill that attracts many, often unrelated, floor amendments that provide special benefits to various groups or interests.

The testimony with questions from the committee members took about 15 minutes. In response to one of the questions, Huberty details all of the other flood mitigation legislation moving through the Legislature at this time. It’s definitely worth watching if you want a preview of how the political landscape could change for sand mining in coming years.

Revenue Neutral

While this is certainly not the most important piece of sand mining legislation, it will help in a limited way by plugging a legislative and enforcement gap. And because the extra revenue generated will pay for the enforcement, it is revenue neutral.

Status: Pending in Committee

To read the text of HB907, click here. Senator Brandon Creighton has introduced a companion bill in the Senate, SB2123. Both are still pending in committee.

Creighton’s SB2123 was referred to the Natural Resources & Economic Development Committee on March 21. The committee has not yet held hearings on it.

Reasoning Behind Companion Bills

A companion bill is a bill filed in one chamber that is identical or very similar to a bill filed in the opposite chamber. Companion bills are used to expedite passage as they provide a means for committee consideration of a measure to occur in both houses simultaneously. A companion bill that has passed one house can then be substituted for the companion bill in the second house.

How You Can Help

Both of these bills deserve the support of Lake Houston Area residents. To urge action, call or email the committee members. Here is contact info for:

Said Huberty at the end of the day, “It was quick, but we feel good about this!”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/20/2019

599 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Texas Parks and Wildlife Sand and Gravel Permitting Program: History, Scope and Protections

As I’ve been posting a lot about sand mining legislation, a friend sent me this doc today about the reasons for Texas Parks & Wildlife Department’s (TPWD) permitting program. TPWD regulates mining in rivers; TCEQ regulates mining in flood plains.

Photo by Jim & Melissa Balcom of their son playing on the West Fork of the San Jacinto after Harvey.

Difference in Tax Rates Between Rivers and Flood Plains

Flood plain mining has a 2% tax rate; in-river mining 8%. This doc explains what the department does with that 8%. TPWD’s authority to regulate mining in rivers goes back more than 100 years.

TPWD says that:

Dredging of sand, gravel, and shell from rivers and bays can negatively impact fish and wildlife habitats. Habitat alteration is the primary cause of population declines, loss, and extinction of freshwater fishes, mussels, and other aquatic organisms. Habitat alteration is also one of the primary contributors to listing of fish and wildlife as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. 

Evolution of Mining Influenced

Because of the 4X difference in tax rates, and the fact that sand is a highly competitive undifferentiated commodity, sand from flood plains enjoys a huge cost advantage: 6%. As a result, comparatively little sand is taken from rivers today. In an average year, TPWD department says it brings in only $200,000 to $400,000 statewide. It comes mostly from small scale mining (less than 1000 cubic yards) by people who want to build roads or pipelines across streams.

Goals of Regulations

As the number of applications for permits has increased, TPWD has established project guidelines such as seasonal restrictions that avoid or minimize impacts to recreational users; site-specific provisions to ensure channel stability; and best management practices to control bank erosion, avoid land loss, and reduce downstream impacts. 

Read Over Your Morning Cup

The entire document is 2-pages, well-written, and well-illustrated. It will give you a good understanding of why the state started regulating sand mining in rivers long ago…all during your morning cup of coffee or tea. Highly recommended easy reading!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/19/2019

598 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Bill that Could Open Door to River Mining Modified and Heading to Full Senate

Senate Bill 2126, which allows sand mining in rivers – without permits or royalties – was voted out of the Senate Water and Rural Affairs committee last night. The committee left the bill pending during the previous day’s testimony after four of the seven members expressed concerns about it.

Changes in Committee Substitute SB 2126

However, when the bill’s author, Senator Brandon Creighton, created a “committee substitute” bill, four senators voted FOR it.

The substitute bill contains two major changes:

  • It limits the bill’s geographic scope to the San Jacinto River and its tributaries.
  • It gives the Harris County Flood Control District the same powers that it gives the San Jacinto River Authority.

Local bills rarely encounter serious opposition. So this may guarantee the bill’s passage.

Issues with Revisions

Unfortunately, the language is still so sweeping, that I fear it could open the door to abuses.

Someone reading this for the first time, without the benefit of all the senate testimony, could draw the conclusion that the San Jacinto and its tributaries are wide open to sand mining – 24/7/365 – as long you justify it by saying you will improve the river’s conveyance.

Vague Language Opens Door to Abuses

For instance, after reading this bill, unless you watched the testimony, how would you know that it’s supposedly:

  • For the purpose of building sand traps that are maintained once or twice a year?
  • Limited to “strategic locations”?
  • Based on scientific studies?

Several years down the road, when the players change, all the verbal promises made during testimony will be long forgotten. It’s easy to see how people could get the wrong impression of the bill’s original intent.

Nightmare Scenario

At that time, I can see developer’s coming to sand miners and the SJRA (or Harris County Flood Control) saying, “I need more fill to elevate my property. Can you take it out of the river for me?”

The only problem is this. While it may reduce the risk of flooding on the developers’ property, without proper safeguards, it will likely increase flooding for surrounding and downstream properties.

It could even increase sedimentation downstream as many academic studies have shown.

Example 1: Loss of riparian vegetation along the banks increases erosion. So even though you take sand out of the river, you put more back in.

Example 2: Imagine a flood moving slowly through a widened area. Now imagine those same floodwaters moving downstream through a narrower area. As the water hits the constriction, it starts churning at and eroding the river banks.

Example 3: Lack of permitting or engineering studies means that developers could put fill anywhere. Even in streams. They could divert flows onto neighboring properties. They could put fill in wetlands and pave it over. This would accelerate flooding downstream.

Proponents of the bill argue that removing deposits like this one near a mine could keep the sand from migrating downriver. Opponents argue that it could destabilize river banks and worsen sedimentation. The vagueness of the language in the bill would also make it easy to widen the river anywhere developers wanted to build in floodplains.

Better Ways to Reduce Sedimentation

Creighton’s original stated intent was to eliminate disincentives for public/private partnerships that could help address excess sedimentation. A noble intention.

But if he really wants to stop sediment from coming downstream, he might be better off partnering with groups like the Bayou Land Conservancy that protect and restore floodplains. Or accelerating bills like his own SB2124, which creates best management practices for sand mining. Texas is the only state that I could find that doesn’t require minimum setbacks from rivers for sand mines. That contributes to repeated flooding of mines. We sure could use some help in that department. Frankly, so could the miners.

This session ends on May 27th. Tick Tock.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/18/2019

597 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 39 days until the end of this legislative session

Army Corps Updates Dredging Status

As of April 15, almost all of the Emergency West Fork Dredging Project was complete. The map below shows the current status. As of April 15, the Corps and its contractors have dredged a total of 1,564,000 cubic yards of sediment.

The Great Lakes dredge has completed its segment (shown in red) and returned to dock where it is undergoing maintenance. Great Lakes has not yet demobilized. It is awaiting a decision from FEMA and the Army Corps on whether they will approve dredging of the mouth bar.

For a full-resolution pdf, click here.

Callan Marine, a subcontractor to Great Lakes, is shown in blue. They are currently dredging just downstream from Kings Harbor. They have about 400 yards to go on the northern half of the channel. Callan should complete its segment around the end of the month.

Great Lakes Dredge has completed its segment and is docked, undergoing maintenance.
Callan still has a short distance to dredge. See the unfilled rectangles in the map above.

Next step: FEMA and the Army Corps need to make a decision on the mouth bar. They have not yet indicated when that might be.

Posted by Bob Rehak on April 17, 2019

596 Days since Hurricane Harvey