Storm Surge and the Houston Ship Channel: A National Security Issue?

Jim Blackburn, a professor at Rice University noted for his work in predicting and modeling the effects of severe storms, has released an except from a larger paper that he is preparing with Amy Jaffe of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The report, titled “Storm Surge and the Future of the Houston Ship Channel,” models a series of storms with increasing intensity to examine their impact on Galveston, Galveston Bay and the Houston Ship Channel.

Houston ship channel, chemical plant and tank farm.

Refining Capacity Vs. Surge Height

The report begins by outlining the importance of these areas for national security. For instance, this Bay and Ship Channel are home to eight major refiners and more than 200 chemical plants that provide 12% of U.S. refining capacity, 27% of the nation’s jet fuel, 13% of the nation’s gasoline, and 25% of the nation’s ethylene and propylene.

Blackburn and Jaffe note that the largest surges recorded up the Houston Ship Channel to date were from Hurricane Ike in 2008 and Carla in 1961. Neither of those storms generated more than about 13 to 14 feet of surge, a level that can generally be accommodated by industry. 

Modeling Surge Damage from Future Storms

The authors then play “what if.” What if the winds were 15 mph stronger and extended out a few miles farther? The “what if” scenarios are based on recent storms such as Hurricanes Irma and Maria (Category 4 and 5 storms) with hurricane force winds extending 80 miles out from the center. Such storms could generate surges in the range of 22 to 25 feet in the ship channel. Those are NOT levels that industry could handle with existing dikes.

An associate of Blackburn’s, Dr. Jamie Padgett of Rice’s SSPEED Center, predicts that some percentage of storage tanks would fail. They would either be lifted off their foundations, crushed by water or penetrated by debris. Dr. Padgett’s team estimated that a 24-foot surge event could lead to the release of at least 90 million gallons of oil and hazardous substances. It could threaten the US economy and raise concerns about the availability of transportation fuel.

Confined in Galveston Bay and its surrounding wetlands, such spills could also turn into an environmental debacle that lasts for decades. Far fetched? Consider what happened this week when a fire erupted in a few storage tanks at one facility in Deer Park. It shut down the entire city for close to a week.

Significantly, the modeled surge event does not include the effects of sea-level rise or climate change.

Inability to Deal with Mitigation

Blackburn and Jaffe then shift their focus to mitigation strategies such as the Ike Dike and the Galveston Bay Park Plan. I will not review those here; they have received much coverage in other venues. And the report contains far more detail than any summary could.

The authors conclude by saying, “A major threat exists to the refining and chemical industrial complex that is based around Galveston Bay. This issue has not received the attention that it should from a national security perspective, from a national economic stability perspective and from an environmental risk perspective. The SSPEED Center’s experience in modeling and planning to protect the channel highlights the disconnect between past observations and future likely events being encountered everyday throughout the world with our changing climate. We are facing situations that differ from the past, but we seemingly lack the institutional ability or fortitude to address these future risks and avoid the national security consequences that are foreseen and forewarned.”

“What If” We Actually Came to Grips with Flood Mitigation?

Whether you believe in climate change or not, it worries me to think about what would happen if a storm like Maria came up the throat of Galveston Bay like Ike did. We had two storms in the last decade (Ike and Harvey) that wiped out major portions of the region. The possibilities are not remote that another could strike before we prepare for it. I wish someone had done this kind of analysis with a rainfall event like Harvey before Harvey hit. Think how different life might be right now.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/22/2019

570 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Creighton’s SB7 Passed Unanimously by Senate, Bill Goes to House Today

NOTE: This article has been updated to include the paragraph below entitled Floodplain Implementation Account. I also added a mention of a separate appropriations bill, SB500.

One of the most important pieces of legislation in Austin this session is SB7, sponsored by Senator Brandon Creighton. It relates to flood control planning and the funding of flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects.

Light pole near River Bend in North Shore as Harvey receded. Note the “wet marks” several feet up on pole. Photo by Jim Balcom.

Status of SB7

The Texas Senate passed the bill unanimously yesterday. It is now engrossed and in the House. Engrossed means it has been recorded in its final legal form by the chamber in which it was introduced and passed to the opposite chamber.

SB 7 started life as SB 695, but was renumbered when it became one of the Lieutenant Governor’s top picks for the session. The lower number makes it one of the first bills to be considered, thus increasing its chances of passage during this session.

Last week, the Senate heard testimony on the bill. Yesterday, 31 senators voted by voice FOR the bill. None opposed it.

What SB7 Includes

Key provisions of the final version of SB7 include:

  • Creation of a Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund outside of the General Revenue Fund. Within the Resiliency Fund, it also creates:
  • A Floodplain Management Account to provide financing for: (A) the collection and analysis of flood-related information; (B) flood planning, protection, mitigation, or adaptation; (C) the provision of flood-related information to the public through educational or outreach programs; or (D) evaluating the response to and mitigation of flood incidents affecting residential property, including multifamily units, located in floodplains.
  • A Floodplain Implementation Account to grant, low-interest, or zero-interest loans. Purposes: (A) to provide matching funds that enable local governments to participate in a federal program for a flood project; (B) to provide loans at or below market interest rates for planning or design costs, permitting costs, or other costs associated with state or federal regulatory activities for flooding; or (C) to provide grants that enable local governments to participate in a federal program for the development of a hazard mitigation plan.
  • A Hurricane Harvey account, also within the resiliency fund to grant low-interest or zero-interest loans to eligible political subdivisions. The loans can be used as a local match to enable political subdivisions to qualify for a federal match. The loans will help local governments seeking federal grants for hazard-mitigation and public-assistance plans or the cost of flood-project planning, design, permitting, etc. associated with state or federal regulatory activities.
  • A Federal Matching Fund Account. The board may use the account only to meet matching requirements for projects funded partially by federal money, including projects funded by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
  • Rules regarding the distribution of funds, administration, transparency, etc.

What SB7 Does NOT Include

Not in the engrossed version sent to the House: a specific dollar amount to establish the fund. When introduced, SB 695 called for $3 billion to be transferred from the “rainy day” fund to establish the resiliency fund. That’s no longer in the bill.

In its place, the bill now has some vague language that refers to:

  • Money deposited to the credit of the account under Section 251.004, Insurance Code;
  • Money directly appropriated to the board;
  • Money from gifts or grants from the United States government, local or regional governments, private sources, or other sources.

This bill sets up the accounts. A separate bill, SB500 handles the appropriations for the accounts.

How SB7 Will Help Flood Mitigation

Still, if funded, the Texas Infrastructure Resilience Fund, will provide a wonderful vehicle to help jumpstart critical flood mitigation projects. It provides low- or no-cost LOANS, to help local governments get matching funds to:

  • Study flood problems
  • Design solutions
  • Fund construction.

Why SB7 Is Necessary

These loans can be used to help local governments bypass the begging phase of flood mitigation where they look for grants to fund grant writers or study problems. Example: It took almost 18 months after Harvey for Montgomery County, the City of Houston, Harris County and the SJRA to come up with a local match and get FEMA to cover the rest of a $2 million San Jacinto River Basin Study. That study will that take another 18 months to complete.

SB7 could have saved half that time. SB7 deserves the support of all Texans who would like to see flood mitigation efforts accelerated.

To review the status of other legislation affecting the Lake Houston area, check the Legislation page of this website.

Posted by Bob Rehak on March 21, 2019

569 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Reminder: Townhall Meeting Thursday Night at Kingwood Community Center, 6:30 PM

City Council Member Dave Martin will host a  Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Town Hall meeting  Thursday, March 21, 2019, at 6:30 p.m. , at the Kingwood Community Center, 4102 Rustic Woods Drive, Kingwood, Texas, 77345. 

Costello Will Update Community on Flood Mitigation

Post-Harvey updates will be provided from Flood Czar Stephen Costello. Expect Costello to address additional flood gates for the Lake Houston Dam and dredging of the mouth bar.

Capital Improvement Projects also on Agenda

During this meeting, residents will also hear from Mayor Sylvester Turner, and other city and community representatives about ongoing and future capital improvement projects, local issues and community news related to the Kingwood and Lake Houston areas of District E.

Congressman Dan Crenshaw will be in attendance to meet with community members. 

Harvey Aid Specialists in Attendance

The District E office has arranged for Hurricane Harvey intake specialists to host an information table at the meeting for those impacted by Hurricane Harvey and interested in learning more about the resources available to them. If you are seeking Harvey aid, before attending the meeting, please make sure to take the Harvey Recovery Survey online or by calling 832-393-0550 (Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). 

For more information, please contac t Council Member Martin’s office by calling (832) 393-3008 or via email at districte@houstontx.gov . 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/21/2019

569 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Harris County Flood Control to Begin Restoring Conveyance of Bens Branch In April

Jason Krahn of the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) revealed plans tonight to begin restoring the conveyance of Bens Branch, one of the largest drainage channels in Kingwood. Bens Branch runs diagonally through the center of Kingwood from the new St. Martha Catholic Church to east of Kings Harbor where it joins the San Jacinto West Fork.

Harris County Flood Control will soon begin removing more than
8000 truckloads of sediment clogging Ben’s Branch.

Welcome Relief

News of the project will bring welcome relief to those who live near the creek and who flooded during Hurricane Harvey. Among them are residents of North Woodland Hills, Kings Forest, Bear Branch, Town Center, the Enclave, Kingwood Village Estates, and Kings Harbor.

Restoring Conveyance to 1990 Level

The objective of the project: to restore the conveyance that existed in 1990 when the creek was last widened and improved. Large portions of the creek have severe silting.

Krahn says Flood Control plans to excavate 1.3 miles of the ditch from near Kingwood Drive to past the YMCA – a total of 6,851 linear feet. The project will stop approximately 1,800 feet from Lake Houston. From that area, they plan to excavate 77,365 cubic yards of sediment that have built up since 1990. That equals about 8,600 dump-truck loads.

Flood Control also plans to bring in rock to shore up areas that have severely eroded.

Project Phasing and Timeline

The design phase of the project has completed and bidding will begin within two weeks, says Krahn, the project manager.

To access the areas to be excavated, Flood Control will use a combination of roads and adjacent property owners. They include Kingwood County Club, Harris County Precinct 4 Library, the YMCA, and the Kings Crossing Trail Association.

Expect the following phases:

  • Establishing access
  • Erection of construction fencing
  • Mobilization of equipment such as amphibious trackhoes and shallow-draft barges
  • Excavating material and storing it along the edges of the creek
  • Waiting two weeks for it to drain and dry
  • Hauling it away

Krahn expects to haul off 40 truck loads per day. He says the project should take a total of 250 calendar days. Thus, they should complete the project by next January.

Some trees may have to go, but Krahn vows to make every effort to keep as many trees as he can. He says he understands how much Kingwood values trees. He also points out that any trees on the banks did not exist when the ditch was last excavated; they have grown up since.

Procurement, bidding, and planning will run from April through June. Expect to see boots on the ground no later than July 1.

$2.1 Million Cost Expected

Total cost of the project is projected at about $2.1 million out of a $17 million total maintenance budget for all of Harris County. This money does not come out of the flood bond. It comes from the normal HCFCD maintenance and operations budget.

Soil Already Tested; Non-Hazardous

The county has already sampled and tested the soil that it will remove. It received a Class 2 Non-Hazardous Rating. That means it is not contaminated and can be stored anywhere. Krahn says that the winning contractor will propose disposal sites. Sometimes the fill will be used in road beds, to elevate property, or returned to old sand pits.

Warn Kids to Stay Away

Many people fish and play in the creek and job on its banks. Krahn requested residents to keep their children away from the construction zone once heavy equipment starts moving in. Operators will have their eyes on the job and not people jogging or fishing.

Thanks to Barbara Hilburn

A shout-out to Barbara Hilburn of Kingwood Lakes who has doggedly led the charge on internal drainage improvements since Harvey. Hilburn emphasized the need for a Kingwood-wide study of internal drainage to restore the entire system to its original capacity. She hopes that will work hand-in-hand with other improvements being made to the San Jacinto and the Lake Houston dam to reduce flood risk.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/20/2019

568 Days since Hurricane Harvey

High-Rise Meeting Doesn’t Change Many Minds and Raises Big Concern

A standing-room-only crowd of 800-plus people packed the Kingwood Community Center last night for a high-rise meeting. They were there to hear for the first time from Romerica and the people who hope to build high rises in an area deed restricted to single-family residential.

Gabriel M. Haddad, one of Romerica’s partners, seemed decent and sincere. He answered questions directly with a few exceptions, and remained cool in the face of hostile questioning. His main point: he wanted to solve the flooding and sedimentation problems on the river and in Lake Houston to make his project viable.

Haddad even admitted that the property where he wanted to build most of the high rises was deed restricted to single-family residential. He said that his plan was to get a permit and THEN get Friendswood to change the deed restrictions.

No Details, No Plan

However, neither Haddad nor the other speakers provided specific details about the project. Several people commented that the speakers from SWCA and Civil Tech seemed unprofessional, unprepared, not responsive to questions.

Several posters scattered around the room made grandiose claims without any support. For instance, they claim:

  • The high-rise project would generate $135 million of property tax revenue for the City.
  • Up to 70% of the property is planned to be preserved.
  • They will preserve wetlands (while filling them in).

Few Chances for Followup Questions

Upon questioning, Haddad confessed that it might take 30 years to reach property tax revenues of $135 million. That would translate to almost $5 billion in appraised value. That’s more than all the appraised value of all commercial properties in the entire Humble ISD including Deerbrook Mall! But then the meeting format didn’t allow for follow up questions.

Weasel Words

Regarding the “up to” in front of 70%: that includes a lot of territory starting with 1%.

That’s a pretty neat trick with the wetlands. Oops, they forgot to mention the wetlands will be preserved somewhere else.

Omissions, Insufficient Explanations, and Public Meetings for Dummies

I was very concerned about evacuation plans, so I asked. Guess what. There is none. “We’ll have people shelter in place.”

No evacuation plan? I guess someone forgot to consider heart attacks, sewers that back up in floods, and power outages that would leave people sweltering in their vertical footprints for days in August. No evacuation plan needed for high-rises in what soon will become the floodway of the San Jacinto! Seriously?

They also hoped to address traffic problems with a bridge and a Hamblen-Road extension that voters already rejected, thus showing a total lack of understanding of local history and values.

A Civil Tech employee couldn’t tell me where more than 150,000 cubic yards of fill was coming from or going to.

Mr. Haddad felt that his condos were no longer in the Kingwood Lakes Homeowner Association. (They are.)

Mr. Haddad claimed that they were no longer soliciting investments through EB-5 visas because the project had “outgrown” them. (However, they still operate an EB-5 regional center and website.)

Financing for a supposed $5 billion project was never addressed.

They invitation said they would talk about phasing and they didn’t.

Sizzle No Substitute for Substance

The posters seemed to revolve around buzzwords, such as conservation, preservation, sustainability, mobility, and resiliency. However, they used the same support points over and over again for each…without ever explaining how they supported the buzzwords.

For instance, they supported sustainability with “natural water systems, promoting alternative modes of transportation, vertical development and preserving forests.”

To mix it up a little bit, they promote resiliency with “natural water systems, preserving forests, a compact development footprint, and alternative modes of transportation.”

You get the idea. You’ve heard it all before. And that, I think, pretty much sums up the takeaway for most of the people that I talked to. “No substance. No specifics. No plan. No answers. No way.”

Not Buying It

During the Q&A at the end of the meeting, one of the questioners asked people in the audience who were still against the development to stand up. Almost everyone stood.

People standing to show their opposition. Photo and video courtersy of Jim Zura, Zura Productions.

Now that was one message that was clear and unambiguous.

Reinforcing Worst-Nightmare Scenario

At one point, Mr. Haddad said, “We’ll start slowly, and if we see it’s uneconomic, we’ll do something else.” This confirmed the worst fears of many in the audience who saw the developers disturbing the environment and then abandoning the job half finished.

They never did address the vast majority of the questions I posted on Friday. Had they done so, they might have changed some minds. But by ignoring them, many people felt the developers had something to hide or that Kingwood people were easily bluffed.

Little wonder that Manlove chose not to have a public meeting while the Army Corps’ public comment period was still open.

As always, the thoughts herein represent my opinions on matters of public interest. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP laws of the great State of Texas.

Posted by Bob Rehak on March 19, 2019

567 Days since Hurricane Harvey

They Took Questions from the Floor After All

Romerica packed the house with perhaps 800 to 1000 people. Both large rooms of the community center were standing room only. Contrary to pre-meeting guidance, the Romerica developer and his team DID take questions from the floor. The meeting lasted more than three hours.

Gabriel M. Haddad was not what I expected. He was disarming and appeared to answer questions candidly even when they were hostile. He seemed cautious and reasonable.

However, nothing I heard tonight changed my mind about the development. I had some questions answered. Some answers raised more questions. Many questions remain unanswered. And there were many contradictions and surprises. This will require sleep, food, and thorough review of my notes before I can make sense of it.

Please check back tomorrow for a rundown of the entire meeting.

Posted by Bob Rehak on March 18, 2019

566 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Manlove Says Questions “Won’t Be Necessary” at Romerica’s Public Meeting

For weeks, Barbara Hilburn (Kingwood Lakes President), Bill Fowler and Dianne Lansden (Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Initiative leaders) and I have been calling and emailing Manlove Marketing and Communications. We asked whether the high-rise developer would take questions from the audience tonight. We were consistently ignored. No answer. None. Nada. Silence.

Barrington Resident Finally Breaks Through

This morning, a Barrington resident called Manlove. She actually managed to speak to someone. Here’s how her conversation went:

“I called the PR contact for the Romerica project, Manlove Marketing, to make sure they were including a question and answer portion in tonight’s “free” meeting.
The receptionist gave me a very enthusiastic ‘Oh yes, of course you can ask questions!’ Then she trailed off with something to the effect of ‘before and after the presentation.’ To clarify, I asked ‘Questions won’t be addressed during the meeting?’ The receptionist said, ‘Oh no. That’s not necessary!’”

The resident replied, “‘It absolutely IS necessary.’ The receptionist then offered to let me talk directly with the woman handling this project. I was transferred to her voicemail.”

“I followed up with a FaceBook message asking why they weren’t planning to answer questions in a public forum,” said the resident. “The message has been read, but no one has responded.”

Later this afternoon, Manlove added several paragraphs of copy to the developer’s home page that confirm the resident’s report.

“Dialog At Every Level”

Manlove’s website boasts that, “Romerica believes in collaboration which includes a dialog with stakeholders at every level.”

Memo to Manlove: answering questions and emails, and returning phone calls would be a great way to start collaborating. I believe they don’t really want to address people’s concerns. If they did, they would have had a meeting long ago at the start of the Corps’ public comment period, not after it closed.

One wonders why they’re even bothering to have a meeting tonight. As my friend John Knoezer asked this morning, “Are they going to read a brochure for two hours?”

As always, these thoughts represent my opinions on matters of public policy. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Posted by Bob Rehak, Mandi Thornhill Lokey and John Knoezer on March 18, 2019

566 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Reminder: High-Rise Developers’ Meeting Monday Night at 6:30

On March 4, Romerica announced a “free” public meeting at which they and their suppliers plan to “discuss”:

  • USACE Corp Process 
  • Phases of the Development 
  • Current and Future Initiatives of Romerica

 At that time, the guest panel was to include:

  • R. Thomas Sankey, PWS, CSE Senior Project Manager / Senior Ecologist, SWCA 
  • Melvin G. Spinks, P.E., CFM, President, Civil Tech Engineering, Inc.
  • Gabriel Haddad, Developer, Romerica

New Strategy: PR Firm Goes Dark

Manlove Marketing and Communications, Romerica’s second official point of contact during the Army Corps public comment period, sent out invitations to people who signed up for their mailing list.

However, as of this writing, no meeting announcement has ever been made on the website that Manlove developed for Romerica.

Neither did Manlove return telephone calls or emails to discuss the meeting format and whether they would take questions from the audience. Manlove also has not responded to inquiries from local videographer Jim Zura and the Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Initiative about taping the meeting.

Disclaimer Debacle

Manlove originally tried to give themselves the most generous disclaimer in the history of words and websites when they printed this in small type at the bottom of TheHeronsKingwood.com: “DISCLAIMER: Users agree that John Manlove Marketing & Communications and parties involved have no responsibility for any deficiencies, inaccuracies, errors and/or omissions contained in this site or the data and/or information contained therein.”

I then pointed out that as the official point of contact for the permit, they would be held to a slightly higher standard of truth. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 states that: “Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.” That’s when the lights went out.

So Many Questions Remain

I’m suspect the panel will do its best to avoid the real questions surrounding this development Monday night. For instance:

  1. How have they gotten around single-family residential deed restrictions?
  2. Why are they proposing to build 25-50 story high rises in an old meander of the San Jacinto (a practice that proved disastrous during Harvey)?
  3. Aren’t they jeopardizing public safety by rushing to permit so many massive structures in what will surely be reclassified as the floodway when new flood maps come out?
  4. How will they evacuate 15,000 to 20,000 people if the water comes up again without warning like it did during Harvey?
  5. How did they miss eagle nests on and adjacent to the property when they were specifically looking for them?
  6. Why did they not report an eagle nest that their own employees knew about?
  7. Where will all the kids in this subdivision go to school? It could triple enrollment at Foster Elementary!
  8. Why did they list a wrong contact phone number on the Army Corps public notice?
  9. What have these developers ever actually developed before?
  10. Why are investors suing them for fraud?
  11. Why do they have such a maze of companies in so many different states and countries selling the same property to each other in different names?
  12. Why are so many of the companies registered with the Secretary of State at an address that does not exist?
  13. Why register companies using so many aliases?
  14. Why is Romerica’s real-estate license listed as “inactive” by the Texas Real-Estate Commission?
  15. Why does Dunn and Bradstreet think Romerica Investments is out of business?
  16. Why did Manlove list the “Romerica Group” and then plain “Romerica” as the developer in their website when neither is registered with the Texas Secretary of State and “Romerica Investments” filed the permit application?
  17. Who produced their market study that supposedly demonstrates the “need” for this project? Need is a key Corps criteria. Yet the market study fails to take into account such crucial factors as retail traffic, proximity to freeways, flooding, and navigability of the West Fork.
  18. How will raising buildings to 57 feet keep them from flooding?
  19. Why did Civil Tech apply for an excavation permit that wasn’t in the name of the development?
  20. Why did CivilTech say all the excavated material would be removed from the flood plain to obtain that permit when the Corps public notice now states that fill will be added to the floodway?
  21. Why does the Corps’ public notice specify that buildings will be raised to 57 feet and TheHeronsKingwood.com specify 62.42 feet?
  22. Why does Manlove claim Romerica will preserve wetlands when Romerica has applied for a permit to fill them in?
  23. How will the fill that they plan to put in streams and wetlands NOT worsen flooding?
  24. Why are there so many dead links, disconnected phone numbers, and vacant offices listed in various web sites promoting Romerica, the high-rise development, EB-5 visas, and more?
  25. How could 640 40-foot boats and 200 jet skis possibly fit on the West Fork?
  26. Why would you even consider putting underground parking in an area that flooded six times last year?
  27. How will you supply water to all the people who live in the Herons without exacerbating subsidence?
  28. How will Romerica finance 3.2 million square feet of development in the floodway and floodplain of the San Jacinto River’s West Fork?
  29. How will the Developer provide the mitigation (i.e., Detention ponds) for fill and impervious cover that is required to obtain the City of Houston and/or Harris County Development permits?

Kingwood Community Center, 6:30 PM

I’m guessing that they won’t allow real questions tomorrow night. They’ll probably make people submit questions in writing before hand and then cherry pick those they want to answer. I hope I’m wrong on that point, but we’ll know for sure when its over.

As always, these thoughts represent my opinions on matters of public interest. They are protected under the first amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/17/19

365 Days since Hurricane Harvey

But by the Grace of God…

Donna Dewhirst’s home did not flood. But the flood came within feet of her foundation and left debris strewn across her yard.

Based on Harris County Flood Control estimates, 154,170 homes flooded in Harris County during Harvey (see page 13). The US Census Bureau estimates that there were 1.56 million households in Harris County in 2017. That means approximately one in ten homes flooded during Harvey in Harris County.

At the edge of the flood, nine out of ten families breathed a sigh of relief and went about the work of helping their neighbors. Donna Dewhirst was one such person. As you can see, she also had a little work of her own to do.

Raging Waters. Hurricane Harvey Flood by Donna Dewhurst.
Raging Waters. Hurricane Harvey Flood by Donna Dewhirst. “My backyard with my outdoor kitchen …knee deep in the lake water with my dock buried along with our boat.”
Flood debris from Harvey washed up in back yard of Donna Dewhurst
Flood debris from Harvey washed up in back yard of Donna Dewhirst. “The debris line on my lot next door after the rains when the water was beginning to subside… a refrigerator was on the lot among other things… stairs from docks etc.”
Debris left after street flooding. By Donna Dewhurst
Debris left after street flooding. By Donna Dewhirst. Note how lake in background is still curling around her home in the upper right.

While the debris shot is impressive, the other two shots are just plain spooky. The gray curtain of rain coming down to meet the brown torrent of floodwater with no horizon in sight. The lake creeping up the street.

It’s enough to make you want to campaign for flood mitigation. Please help by submitting your pictures of Harvey through the submissions page of this web site.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/16/2019

564 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Yes, They’re Selling the Sand, Too!

On Tuesday this week, I created a post in response to a question about whether they really were taking sand out of the river. Someone thought the presence of dredges on the river was a government hoax because they didn’t see any trucks carrying sand away. Shades of Roswell and UFOs!

I explained that they were pumping it back upstream to sand pits via submerged pipelines. Placement Area #1 (PA 1) is an old pit no longer in active use. Placement area #2 (PA 2) is an active sand mine south of Kingwood College on Sorters Road.

Quantities Dredged to Date

According to Al Meyer, the Army Corps Project Manager, dredged material placed in the pits to date is approximately 418,000 cubic yards at PA 1 and 825,000 cubic yards at PA 2. That’s about two-thirds of the total estimated volume of 1.9 million cubic yards for the entire project.

Second-Hand Sand

Dozens of readers complained that they weren’t selling sand from the placement areas. Their concern: that it could wash right back into to the river. Most people wanted to see it put to use somehow…as fill for foundations, in concrete, etc…outside of the flood plain.

The Army Corps contract gives dredging companies and landowners the right to sell the material pulled out of the river. (See SECTION 02 41 01.01 45 Page 4 ) But were they? I asked the Corps. Here’s what I found out.

Placement Area #1

The abandoned pit south of the river is filling up quickly. So far, no sand has been sold from tha as far as I know and the Corps did not return a phone call on that subject.

Unconfirmed rumors say that the landowner may keep the sand and build on top of it. It certainly appears that way. I see no sorting or loading equipment on site. One bulldozer keeps relentlessly moving around, spreading and leveling the sand that has piled up. However, it could be mined and resold at a later date if the owner chooses.

At Placement Area #1 on Townsend, a bulldozer is spreading the sand around and packing it down.

Placement Area #2 on Sorters

The active pit on Sorters has received about twice as much material as the inactive pit on Townsend. But it is not filling up as quickly. That’s because they’re selling the sand.

Placement area #2. Dredged material flows in at the left and spreads out in the pit.

As it enters the pit, a dredge sucks it up and sends it to machines that cleans and sorts it. The mine then sells the coarse sand for use in concrete. They sell the fine sand for mortar in the construction trades, fill and pipeline bedding.

From there, a dredge sucks it up for cleaning, sorting, stockpiling and transportation.
Placement area #1 does not have all this equipment.

Free Use of Land In Exchange for Right to Sell

According to the Corps’ Lt. Col. Williford, the sand mine operators offer the free use of their land for storage in exchange for the right to sell the material. This seems fair. It keeps the cost to taxpayers down. The material is put to good use. And, at least in the case of PA2, they are removing it from the flood plain.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/15/2019

563 Days since Hurricane Harvey