News Archives - Page 249 of 282

Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium Releases Report on Affordable Multifamily Housing

The Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium has released its second report. This one addresses the City’s dwindling supply of affordable, multi-family housing, 26 percent of which lie within a currently mapped floodplain and are vulnerable to future flood events.

Like the group’s first report which addressed the causes of flooding watershed by watershed throughout Houston, this is a true work of scholarship. Major contributors to the report include the University of Houston’s Community Design Resource Center, Rice University’s Kinder Institute for Urban Research, and the Local Initiatives Support Corporation Houston. The Cullen Foundation generously funded the report. Other major sponsors of the Consortium include the Houston Endowment, Kinder Foundation, and The Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation.

Major Findings about Multi-family Housing

The report found:

165,000 multi-family units are vulnerable to flooding
More than 475,000 people who live in these units often face multiple vulnerabilities.
45% of all households in Harris County are renters
57% of all households in the City of Houston rent
Half of the renter households in Harris County spend more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing
The rising prices of rental units, coupled with the low incomes of many renting households, makes the search for safe and affordable housing a major challenge for many of Houston’s most vulnerable residents
Between 1990 and 2017, 1,850 multi-family units were lost each year through demolition
Demolitions, renovations, and redevelopment of older apartment buildings are replacing lower-priced units with higher-priced ones
Updated floodplain maps will likely bring tens of thousands more of the region’s residents into areas of elevated risk
The bulk of the new multi-family construction in the city and county is being built with higher-income renters in mind
Half of all affordable multi-family units are at risk of losing their affordability through the expiration of existing subsidies, demotion or upgrades.

Organized to Give Insight into Strategies

The combined risks of flooding and the accelerating loss of affordable multi-family housing across the City of Houston and Harris County point to the need to understand and consider strategies to address this crisis. The authors break it down into four major sections:

Introduction and overview
Risks and opportunities
An overview of the study areas and case studies highlighting solutions that have helped in other parts of the country
Policy and action considerations

Partial List of Policy Recommendations

In the policy and action considerations section, the report makes many recommendations to protect and support vulnerable families. Below, a partial list:

Establish a housing trust fund for housing recovery
Inventory available developable land outside of the floodway
Establish a privately-funded strike fund to assist affordable housing developers and preserve existing affordable housing
Establish a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to limit floodplain development
Leverage Local housing Authority’s tax-exempt status to initiate projects
Encourage limited equity cooperatives as an alternative for multi-family residences in need of repair or under bad ownership
Encourage transit oriented development
Create Opportunity Zones outside of floodplains.
Encourage a community land trust model
Bolster incentives to encourage development outside the floodplain
Creating an eviction protection program.
Expanding the number of housing choice vouchers and preventing discrimination against users.
Alerting residents of flood risk.
Implementing a more streamlined system of inspection and permitting that prioritizes rehabilitation of multi-family units.

For More Information

The 108-page report is richly illustrated with maps and charts that give both policy makers and concerned residents hard information with which to build sound policy. It contains so much meat, it’s hard to summarize.

This is not light reading, but it will help illustrate the problems that half the people in the City and County face.

To download and read the full text, click here. Warning: 50 meg PDF.

One Wish…Rely Less on Statistics

My one wish after reading this? The authors should have used more photography to illustrate the problems; they over-rely on statistics in my opinion. Having done a fair amount of documentary photography myself, I understand how difficult this is. But until people have actually seen the living conditions many are forced to endure, they won’t truly understand the problem.

Years ago, I studied poverty in a Chicago neighborhood called Uptown from 1973-1977 – between the two OPEC oil embargoes. I was trying to understand the effect they had on people. Forty years later, I can’t remember a single statistic from those days. But I can’t forget the image below. This young, shoeless boy was fishing through trash cans looking for soda bottles to redeem so that he could get money to eat. To encourage recycling, soda bottles had a nickel deposit in those days. Behind him: the affordable multi-family housing where he lived.

“Bottle Boy” from Uptown: Portrait of a Chicago Neighborhood in the Mid-1970s . Copyright ©2013 by Bob Rehak.
For more Chicago Uptown images see the BobRehak.com.

Posted by Bob Rehak on March 31, 2019

579 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Juvenile and Nesting Bald Eagles, Plus Other Area Wildlife Photos

Kingwood kayaker and wildlife photographer Emily Murphy has done it again. This time her great eye and quick reflexes captured this juvenile bald eagle flying over the San Jacinto West Fork near where Romerica proposes to build 25-50 story high rises. It’s evidence that eagles are nesting nearby.

Juvenile Bald Eagle photographed flying over the San Jacinto River West Fork by Emily Murphy. Catching birds in flight like this is very difficult. It requires a good eye and very fast reflexes. The equipment Murphy uses in her kayak weighs six to seven pounds, making it difficult to hold and maneuver while on the water.

The absence of white in the chin and cheeks of this eagle suggests it is very young and recently fledged. However, Fred Collins from Harris County Precinct 3, who is director of the Kleb Woods Nature Preserve in Tomball, thinks it is older. Says Klebs, “I think this is last year’s chick. I am fairly confident it is not this year’s hatch because it is molting.”

Regardless, the good news is that we seem to have an active and expanding eagle population on the San Jacinto and in Lake Houston. Below are a couple shots I took in January while on a ride-along with HPD Lake Patrol, graciously arranged by Houston City Council Member Dave Martin. Weather conditions were rough; the boat was pitching wildly. But we still photographed several eagles.

*Bald Eagle photographed in Atascocita on Lake Houston from HPD Lake Patrol Boat on 1/31/2019 by Bob Rehak*

*Nesting Bald Eagle near Walden on Lake Houston. Photographed by Bob Rehak from HPD Lake Patrol Boat on 1/31/2019.*

Other Area Wildlife

The Lake, River, swamps and wetlands this time of year teem with nesting birds of many species. Right about now, egrets are pairing up, building nests and laying eggs. So are the roseate spoonbills. Within a few weeks, chicks will hatch and by June, a new generation will be hunting the shorelines. Meanwhile, many other species are migrating through the area about now.

Get out and enjoy the wildlife in our wonderful parks! East End is a favorite location for birders. They have spotted more than 140 species there, including several that are threatened or endangered. Below are several shots that I took in the last two years.

*Male great egret returning with stick to build nest. Photo by Bob Rehak.*

Roseate Spoonbill in flight. Photo by Bob Rehak.

*Female great egret preening on nest. Photo by Bob Rehak.*

*Great Egret Chicks. Feathers have still not unfurled. Photo by Bob Rehak.*

*Blue Grosbeak in meadow of East End Park. Photographed by Bob Rehak.*

*Black and White. Cormorant and Great Egret. Photo by Bob Rehak.*

So grab your binoculars or camera and get out and enjoy this wonderful spring weather. After all, this is why we live here. Kingwood really is the livable forest!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/30/2019

578 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Clarification and $2.8 Billion Worth of Good News Regarding Senate Bill 500 and Harvey Funding

I previously reported that Senate Bill 500, an omnibus appropriations bill passed unanimously by the House this week, deleted all funding for the Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund (TIRF). However, I should also have clarified that it did NOT delete ALL funding related to Harvey and flooding.

The House deleted the portion of funding related to flood-mitigation while it considers House Bill 13 with its own infrastructure fund. The House DID leave IN approximately $2.8 billion for items not related to flood-mitigation infrastructure improvements, but related to Harvey repairs, reimbursement for extraordinary Harvey expenses, flood health care, and more itemized below. Unless noted otherwise, all expenditures are for fiscal year 2019. These Harvey-related appropriations include the following:

TDEM Matching Funds for FEMA

$273,000,000 to the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) for matching funds for projects sponsored by political subdivisions and approved for the Hazard Mitigation Grant program administered by FEMA
$400 million to TDEM for matching funds for projects sponsored by political subdivisions and approved for the Public Assistance grant program administered by FEMA.

Health & Human Services and Education

$110,000,000 to Health and Human Services for children’s Medicaid expenses
$271,300,000 to the Texas Education Agency (TEA) for increased student costs, reduction in school district property values and the reduction of the amount owed by school districts to achieve an equalized wealth level due to disaster remediation costs
$634,200,000 to the TEA for adjustment of school district property values and reimbursement to school districts for disaster remediation costs
$636,000,000 to TEA for the 2020 state fiscal year
$20,288,883 to the University of Houston
$4,000,000 to the University of Houston Downtown;
$1,703,828 to the University of Houston – Victoria
$83,668 to the University of Houston – Clear Lake
$13,100,000 to the Lone Star College System
$2,458,239.76 to the Texas A&M Forest Service
$1,418,585 to Lamar University;
$1,312,657 to Lamar Institute of Technology
$6,319,458 to Lamar State College – Port Arthur
$406,112 to Lamar State College – Orange
$10,200,000 to UT Austin for storm damage

Criminal Justice and DPS

$38,6000,000 to the Department of Criminal Justice
$34,954,409 to Dept. of Public Safety (DPS) for Strategy A.1.1., Organized Crime;
$60,000,000 to DPS for Strategy C.1.1., Traffic Enforcement
$2,000,000 to DPS for Strategy G.1.3., Information Technology

General Land Office

$696,921 to the General Land Office (GLO). for Strategy A.2.1., Asset Management
$20,459,797 to GLO for Strategy B.1.1., Coastal Management
$430,000 to GLO for Strategy B.1.2., Coastal Erosion Control Grant
$2,047,454 for Strategy B.2.1., Oil Spill Response
$4,217,510 to the GLO for full-time equivalent employees contingent on non-renewal of FEMA funding
$2,000,000 from the coastal protection account to the GLO for removal of abandoned vessels

Teas Parks & Wildlife and Workforce Commission

$17,000,000 to Parks and Wildlife to repair structures and equipment
$8,931,385 to Texas Workforce Commission for vocational rehabilitation services expenses

For More Information

Most of these expenditures will come from the Economic Stabilization (Rainy Day) Fund. For those who wish to learn more and review the exact wording of the House Committee Substitute version of SB500:

Here is the House version of CSSB500.

Here is the House Research Organization’s analysis of the bill.

Here is the House Appropriation Committee’s report on the bill.

Posted by Bob Rehak on March 30, 2019

578 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Placement Area #1 Filling Up Quickly

As dredging on the West Fork of the San Jacinto gets closer and closer to completion, placement area #1 (PA1) is filling up quickly. Callan Marine, the company operating the dredge near Kings Harbor, is pumping its spoils to PA1. PA1 is an old sand pit off Townsend in Humble near North Houston Avenue.

Pipe Big Enough to Hold Two Basketballs Side by Side

I photographed the tail end of their pipeline this morning. The outflow was impressive. Callan uses 20 inch pipe. To put that in perspective, a basketball has a diameter of about 9.5 inches. So two basketballs could go through this pipe side by side with an inch to spare.

Equivalent of Filling Dump Truck Every Minute or Two

Dredgers measure output in cubic yards per hour. The output varies constantly depending on dredging location and conditions. Callan averages between 280 and 600 cy/hr. If the average dump truck holds about 10 cubic yards, that means this pipe could fill up about 30 to 60 dump trucks per hour, or one every minute or two. That explains why they pump via pipeline instead of using dump trucks.

*Close up of 20 inch pipeline spewing sand, silt and clay into old sand pit near Townsend and North Houston Avenue in Humble.*

*Wide shot of same pit shows a little room left for storage near the perimeter in background.*

Mouth Bar Update

The Corps expects dredging to complete around May 4. By contract the dredgers then have 30 days to remove their equipment (dredges, pipeline, booster pumps, pontoons, crew boats, etc.) from the river.

That means the deadline is fast approaching to do something about the mouth bar if we want to avoid a remobilization charges for a second job.

This week, according to Houston City Council Member Dave Martin, the City submitted its coring analysis of the mouth bar to FEMA and a storage permit application to the Corps. FEMA and the Corps have not yet approved either.

Mouth bar of the West Fork of the San Jacinto creates a backwater effect that contributes to flooding.

The City reportedly has talked to the dredging companies about delaying demobilization if the City cannot get approval of FEMA funding and a storage permit before the end of dredging.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/29/2019

577 Days since Hurricane Harvey

SB500 with Huberty Dredging Amendment Unanimously Approved by House

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

*Texas Capitol Dome from South Entrance*

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

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

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

Return of a Bill to the Originating Chamber

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

Conference Committee

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

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

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

Comptroller’s Review Required

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

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

Both Houses Approved Unanimously and Changes Relatively Minor

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/28/19

576 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Location of nest pinpointed and circled below.*

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

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

Boaters, Please Report Sightings

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

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

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

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

Purpose of Protection Act

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/28/2019

576 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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

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

*Texas Capitol Building in Austin from the South Grounds*

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

First of Three Readings

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

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

Conference Committee Next if Bill Approved

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

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

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

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

Obtaining the governor’s signature will be SIXTH.

Next Steps

Next stops:

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/27/2019

575 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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

Last week, I reviewed Texas Senate Bill 7 (SB7) which creates a Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund. The fund, if approved, will help local governments by providing grants and low- and no-interest loans for flood mitigation projects in four major categories. Categories include Floodplain Management, Hurricane Harvey, Floodplain Implementation and Federal Matching accounts. A competing bills has emerged in the House called HB13.

*Dome of the Texas state capital in Austin*

The Senate specified funding for SB7 in SB500, an omnibus appropriations bill. SB500 appropriated $1.65 billion for SB7 from the Economic Stabilization (Rainy Day) Fund. See Section 29a on page 12.

However, when SB500 moved to the House, the House Appropriations committee voted to remove the funding for SB7. The committee report states, “The substitute does not include an appropriation to the comptroller for the Texas infrastructure resiliency fund or certain other provisions relating to that fund.” See the second to the last paragraph on page 9.

Meanwhile, State Representative Dade Phelan from Orange, Tx. filed House Bill 13 (HB13). SB7 and HB13 do many of the same things, but have some important differences. HB13 would provide $3.26 billion out of the economic stabilization fund.

SB7 creates something called the “Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund”; HB13 sets up a “Flood Infrastructure Fund.”

Important Similarities Between SB7 and HB13

Both SB7 and HB13:

Relate to flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects
Could make loans at or below market rates
Could make grants to cities and counties to provide matching funds that make them eligible to participate in a federal program for a flood project
Provide seed money to help attract federal grants
Would likely accelerate flood mitigation.

Differences

The Texas Water Development Board would control grants and loans made under HB13, but SB7 would create a separate board to control and distribute funds.
Compared to SB7, HB13 takes twice as much from the Rainy Day Fund.
Principal and interest payments on loans made under HB13 could be deferred for not more than 10 years or until construction of the flood project is completed, whichever is earlier.
HB13 would give special consideration to cities and counties whose median household income falls more than 15% below the state median.
HB13 encourages regional solutions by requiring cities and counties to demonstrate that they have acted cooperatively with other cities and counties. In other words, they don’t want people passing problems downstream. For instance, adding additional gates to the Lake Houston Dam might flood properties downstream. If so, HB13 could require buying out properties below the dam to avoid flooding them before adding gates to the dam (something that is already happening).
How does HB13 encourage cooperation? By requiring that all political subdivisions substantially affected by any given flood mitigation project: 1) participate in the process of developing the proposed flood project; 2) hold public meetings on proposed flood projects; and 3) compare their impacts versus other potential flood projects for the same area.

HB13 also requires the state to prepare:

A statewide flood plan that must be updated every five years
A 10-year dam and maintenance plan.

What Happens Next?

The full House has not yet voted on HB13. Consideration of SB7 will likely be delayed in the House until HB13 is voted up or down by the House. In the meantime, the House deferred any action on funding for SB7 by taking it out of SB500. It could always be handled separately at a later date in a supplementary appropriations bill.

If the House votes FOR HB13, we will then have two partially approved bills that do substantially the same thing. They would go to a conference committee to forge a compromise bill.

A conference committee consists of 10 people. The leader of each house appoints five. They work with each other to incorporate the best aspects of each bill. When a bill comes out of conference committee, it goes back to the House and Senate for straight up or down votes. Rules do NOT allow any amendments to bills that come out of conference committees.

With the amount of dollars at stake, not to mention the number of flood mitigation projects that depend on those dollars, everyone should closely watch the progress of these bills.

One Concern About HB13

After pondering each of these bills, I have one concern about HB13: the requirement to gain cooperation from all affected parties. In principle, it sounds good. In action, it could delay mitigation projects for years. It assumes political willpower and financial capabilities among multiple jurisdictions that may not exist. Mitigation for tens of thousands of people could be held up by a handful of folks that refuse to cooperate. There needs to be some way to arbitrate in such cases.

For instance, the San Jacinto River touches multiple cities and counties, has two major lakes, and is governed by the San Jacinto River Authority and the Coastal Water Authority. Lining up all those dominos every time someone somewhere wants to improve drainage may represent an impossible hurdle to clear.

The good news: the best minds in the state are all focused on ways to speed up and fund flood mitigation projects. A good compromise will likely emerge

I will continue to follow both of these bills as they work their ways through the House and Senate.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/27/19

575 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Updates Relating to Proposed Sand Mining and Flood Mitigation Legislation

At the start of this legislative session, I added a new page to this web site called Legislation. Its purpose: to help people track key pieces of proposed legislation affecting the Lake Houston area that have to do with sand mining and flood mitigation.

On it, you can see summaries of issues, links to the actual text of proposed bills, a “status tracker,” and posts that describe bills in more detail. I update these every few days. If you need to check on updates that have not yet been posted, consult Texas Legislature Online. It’s updated nightly during legislative sessions.

Key Bills Affecting Lake Houston Area

HB13 Creates a flood infrastructure fund of $3.26 billion taken from the Economic Stabilization (Rainy Day) fund for flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects. (Comparable to SB7 below but with some differences.)

HB509 Allows Texas Railroad Commission to regulate APOs with TCEQ. Requires: hydrologic impact study, public notice, public hearings, and provides fines up to $10,000 and 1-year in jail for false statements.

HB 907 Doubles the penalties for not registering a sand mining operation. New penalties can range from $10,000 to $20,000 per year with the total not to exceed $50,000.

HB 908 Provides for penalties up to $50,000 for water code violations and every-other-year inspections.

HB 909 Calls for the TCEQ to adopt and publish best management practices for sand mines (aggregate production operations) that comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations.

HB 1674. Extends water quality protections to the West Fork of the San Jacinto currently enjoyed by the John Graves District on the Brazos as part of a pilot program. Attaches penalties for non-compliance with best practices defined under HB909.

SB 7. Creates a dedicated Texas Infrastructure Fund for flood control planning and the funding of flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects.

SB500. An omnibus appropriations bill that includes funding for SB7 and an amendment that would dedicate $30 million for dredging of the West Fork Mouth Bar in Lake Houston.

Status of Each as of 3/26/19

HB13 Filed on March 7, 2019. Referred to Natural Resources on 3/11. Reported favorably by committee. Sent to Calendars Committee on 3/25.

HB509 Filed Dec. 11, 2018, Referred to Energy Resources 2/20/2019.

HB 907 Filed Jan. 17, 2019, Referred to Environmental Regulation 2/25/2019.

HB 908 Filed Jan. 17, 2019, Referred to Environmental Regulation 2/25/2019.

HB 909 Filed Jan. 17, 2019, Referred to Environmental Regulation 2/25/2019.

HB 1671 Filed on March 4, 2019, Referred to Natural Resources 3/4/2019.

SB 7 Filed on March 6, 2019, Referred to Water & Rural Affairs on 3/7, Public testimony 3/11. Senate passed unanimously by voice vote on 3/20. Received by House on 3/21.

SB500 Approved by Senate on 3/13. Engrossed, sent to House, and referred to Appropriations committee on same day. Approved with changes by House Appropriations on 3/19. The Appropriations Committee analysis of CSSB500 says on page 9, “The substitute does not include an appropriation to the comptroller for the Texas infrastructure resiliency fund or certain other provisions relating to that fund.” A separateHuberty amendment proposed on 3/22 would dedicate $30 million for dredging the West Fork mouth bar in Lake Houston.

Developments to Watch

Nothing has happened yet on any of the sand-mining bills since being sent to committees.

HB509 is reportedly dead in the water. That’s a shame. It was the only bill that made hydrologists consider the aggregate impact of all mines in an area when permitting an operation. And that is precisely our issue.
HB907, 908, 909 and 1671, according to Dan Huberty’s office, will soon be scheduled for committee hearings. That’s worth a trip or four to Austin!

SB7 created a Texas Infrastructure Resilience Fund (TIRF) which was funded within SB500, an omnibus appropriations bill. But when SB500 got to the House, the Appropriations Committee deleted funding related to the TIRF – at least temporarily, while the House considers its own HB13. HB13 has many of the same objectives as SB7, but it has not yet reached the House floor for a vote.

Braden Kennedy, an assistant of Senator Brandon Creighton who sponsored SB7 had this to say. “It was unfortunate to see the House remove the funding to TIRF. However, Senator Creighton is confident we can find common ground down the road and achieve a Texas-sized appropriation hopefully during conference committee, when members of the Senate and House get together and settle the differences on the bill. Right now, House Bill 13 includes the appropriation itself while in the Senate, the members believe these expenditures should be in the supplemental budget (SB 500). We still think SB 7 has many certain advantages in that it is versatile in use – Harvey recovery dollars, future mitigation project funding, and Army Corps matching funds – and it includes several oversight and transparency safeguards.”

Check back soon and often. This is a $3.2 billion issue!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/26/2019

574 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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

Senate Bill 500 is an omnibus appropriations bill passed by the Texas Senate on March 13. The bill passed to the House for committee review and consideration the same day. Last Friday, March 22, State Representative Dan Huberty offered an amendment to SB 500. It would allocate $30 million to dredging the mouth bar where the West Fork of the San Jacinto meets Lake Huston.

Text of Huberty Amendment

The text reads:

“Out of the funds appropriated in Subsection (1), $30 million dollars is dedicated to the Texas Water Development Board to provide a grant to Harris County for the purchase and operation of equipment to remove accumulated siltation and sediment deposits located at the confluence of the San Jacinto River and Lake Houston.”

Great News for West Fork Residents

This is great news for Lake Houston and West Fork residents. We faced six floods last year on relatively small rains. The mouth bar and other sediment dams left by Harvey created backwater effects that exaggerated flood heights. The exaggerated response of the river to these modest rains forced the City to prerelease water to avoid flooding.

It’s not clear how much funding the City will get from FEMA, if any, to address the mouth bar. The two sides have been arguing for more than a year about how much of the sediment is due to Harvey. Stephen Costello, the City’s Chief Recovery Officer, told a town hall meeting in Kingwood last week that there was at least 1.5 million cubic yards of sediment that needs to be removed to restore the river’s natural conveyance. Local geologists estimated that at least a third of that was due to Harvey.

Matching Funds for County

Last year, the County Flood Bond approved by voters in August included a $10 million match for dredging of the East Fork, West Fork and Lake Houston. The project description read: “Potential partnership project with the City of Houston, Coastal Water Authority, and the State of Texas to permit, design, and complete dredging of the East Fork, West Fork and Lake Houston area waterways to reduce flooding risks.”

The County expected to provide one-fifth of the total $50 million projected cost.

If the Huberty amendment and the appropriations bill pass, suddenly we have a clear path to funding… regardless of what FEMA does and how long it takes their money to get here.

Includes Purchase of Equipment

The Huberty amendment calls for the purchase and operation of equipment. That means the equipment could be owned and used wherever needed. For about a year, the Army Corps has emphasized the need for maintenance dredging to prevent re-accumulation of massive deposits.

Matching Funds Mean Higher Priority

There’s a lot to like about this simple amendment. Consider this. Many have worried lately about prioritization of flood bond projects, i.e., which would kick off first. Readily available matching funds would give the dredging project a very high priority. That would accelerate execution of the project.

Posted by Bob Rehak on March 25

573 Days after Hurricane Harvey