Corps Finishing Touch-Up Dredging at River Grove, Moving Downriver

Good news for residents. Last week, the Army Corps of Engineers and its contractor, Great Lakes Dredge and Dock, finished dredging the area up to the boat dock at River Grove Park. However, because of the size of the hydraulic dredge, it could not quite finish the job. So on Monday, the contractor returned with mechanical dredging equipment to work in the tight drainage ditch area by the boat dock. See the photo below courtesy of Don Harbour.

Mechanical dredging equipment was able to maneuver into the tight location that the hydraulic dredge could not. Photo courtesy of Don Harbour, a local resident.

The Kingwood Service Association also requested the Corps to reduce the angle on the edge of the remaining side bar. Young people frequently played on the bar. Community leaders were concerned that a cave in near the steep edge could cause a bad accident.  

Contractors scraped back edge of sand bar to prevent cave-ins caused by curious kids.

As you can see from the edge of the bar in the photo above, the Corps has addressed that issue. 

This afternoon when I visited the park, I saw a survey boat checking to ensure the contractors had reached the proper depth.

Survey boat checks for proper depth while mechanical dredge stands by.

Multiple Activities Create Hazards for Recreational Boaters

The River Grove area today was busier than Santa’s workshop on Christmas Eve. However, the main focus of dredging activity will soon move east. Dredge #1, operated by subcontractor Callan Marine is now working close to the West Lake Houston Parkway Bridge. Dredge #2, operated by Great Lakes, is now operating just east of River Grove (see point #4 in photo below).

The river is busy. Stay off it for your own safety.

From the boat dock today, I saw five different clusters of activity in different areas: 1) survey boat, 2) mechanical dredge, 3) debris removal on far side of river, 4) Hydraulic dredge moving towards the country club, and 5) a back hoe removing vegetation from the triangular sand dune  in the distance.

Both dredges will continue to work their way east until they reach their respective goals. 

Latest Schedule

The Corps’ schedule originally called for completion in mid-April 2019. However, crews have been delayed by recent storms and floods, as well as greater than expected sedimentation in the river. Their most recent schedule calls for completion by April 30 and demobilization during the first two weeks of May.

Status of Mouth Bar Project Still Uncertain

Everyone I talk to hopes FEMA and the Corps will grant approval for a second project that addresses the huge sand bar at the mouth of the West Fork before this project reaches completion. If that does not happen, demobilization and remobilization at a future date would cost about $18 million. 

The “Mouth Bar,” a giant sand bar that blocks the West Fork of the San Jacinto, backing the river up into Kingwood and Humble. The mouth bar is not within the scope of the current Army Corps dredging project, but officials have been trying to get FEMA and the Corps to include it. Water depth is generally 1-3 feet around this bar. Max channel depth in places is just 5 feet.

Sources in Austin expected an announcement weeks ago on the mouth bar. Congressman Ted Poe requested a meeting with the head of the Army Corps to discuss the project. However, the  meeting originally scheduled for November 28th was delayed into next year. That means Congressman-elect Dan Crenshaw will inherit the battle. Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz has thrown the weight of his office behind the effort to dredge the mouth bar.

Corps to Meet with Super Neighborhood Council Wednesday Night

Eduardo Irigoyen, the project manager of the Emergency West Fork Dredging Project (the dredging currently underway), will meet with the Kingwood Super Neighborhood Council tomorrow night. The meeting at the Kingwood Community Center starts at 7PM. Mr. Irigoyen will update local leaders on the status of the Corps’ project. The meeting is open to the public, but seating is very limited.

Posted by Bob Rehak on December 18, 2018

476 Days since Hurricane Harvey

How Sand Mines Increased Erosion Potential by 33X During Harvey

Yesterday, I posted about how major storms transport the vast majority of the sediment that flushes down rivers. That’s a major reason to have wide buffers between mines and rivers, and to get the mines out of the floodway. One major event, as we have seen, can alter a river and people’s lives forever. However, in Texas we allow sand mining right up to the edge of the river, increasing the potential for erosion.

Scalping 20 Square Miles of Forest Increased Erosion Potential

We all know from science classes that when you remove ground cover, you increase the potential for erosion. That’s exactly what the sand mines upstream from the Humble/Kingwood area have done. They have removed about 20 square miles of ground cover to expose sand. And because virtually all of the mines are in the floodway, they effectively increase the riverbed width during floods by an average of 33X. Here’s the basis for the calculation. 

Exposed Sand in Floodwater is 33X Wider than Natural Riverbed

Between I-45 and I-69 on the West Fork, a distance of 20 miles, we have approximately 20 square miles of sand mines. So we have one square mile of mines per mile.

If you lined all mines up, end to end, you would have a swath exactly one mile wide.

But the river is, on average, only .03 miles wide. Thus, mines widen the effective riverbed width by average of 33X.

By removing all the surface vegetation, miners also increased the potential for erosion during extreme storms, such as Harvey, by 33X. 

To put a mile-wide riverbed in perspective, that’s twice as wide as the muddy Mississippi … in the Delta region. 

Sediment Dams Increase Flood Levels

That helps explain how so much sand piled up virtually overnight during Harvey. The flood was wide enough to inundate the mines. Afterwards, a nearly continuous trail of sand along both shores of the West Fork led directly to the Humble/Kingwood area as the pictures in my gallery show. In many places, this trail was more than 5 feet deep. Here’s what it looked like onshore in River Grove Park.

Note height of sand in River Grove Park relative to parking sign in background.

Plus there was far more sand in the river after the flood than before.  

If the river AND both shores were ALL higher after the storm than before, then it stands to reason that most of that sand had to come from somewhere other the river itself. 

Looking at a satellite image, the barren sand mines dominate the landscape like no other feature in the watershed. The obvious conclusion is that much of the sand came from mines like this …

West Fork Mine Complex one day after the peak of Harvey when floodwaters were already receding. Exposed sand surface increased the potential for erosion.
West Fork Mine Complex day after peak of Harvey when floodwaters were already receding. Exposed sand surface increased potential for erosion relative to river which snakes diagonally through photo. Image courtesy of Google Earth.

… and wound up in places like this.

Sand left behind by Hurricane Harvey on both flanks of the west fork of the San Jacinto River. Looking northeast toward Forest Cove where apartment buildings or townhomes were destroyed. Note sand in treetops in foreground.

Or places like those below, where it formed sediment dams, which the Army Corps says contributed to flooding.

A drainage ditch (center left) that empties the entire western third of Kingwood at River Grove Park was virtually closed off by a sandbar approximately 10 feet high and 1500 feet long. It was deposited during Harvey. An estimated 500+ homes above this point flooded.
A six foot high dune not present before Harvey virtually blocks the West Fork just south of Kingwood Country Club.
A giant sand dune has formed at the mouth of the west fork of the San Jacinto. It is not being addressed by the Army Corps dredging project but should be. Thousands of homes upstream from the blockage flooded during Harvey.

Huge Pre/Post Increases in Deposition Rates Since Sand Mining

In its final report on Hurricane Harvey, Harris County Flood Control District confirms the enormity of the deposition. It says, “Large amounts of debris and heavy sedimentation upwards of 4.0-8.0 ft in some locations have been noted especially along the West Fork of the San Jacinto River.” (See Page 7.)  But how does this compare to the deposition rate before Harvey?

Sedimentation Rate Much Higher than Before Sand Mining 

In 1983, Turner Collie & Braden, an engineering consulting firm, estimated the loss of lake capacity due to sedimentation at 311 acre-feet per year. (See page 9.)

Large-scale sand mining on the West Fork began shortly after that and has grown ever since. On the East Fork, sand mining began in the early 2000s.

The Texas Water Development Board created the difference map below by comparing data collected in 2011 with data collected from March through June of 2018. Remember, three or four of those years were drought years when very little sediment came down river. Virtually all of what you see below happened during the last three years. We can also see from satellite photos  that most of that happened during Harvey.

West Fork Difference Map. Red/orange/yellow/green areas represent decreases in sediment since last survey. Blue, violet and white represent increases.

The map above shows we gained 1.0 to 5.5+ feet of sediment in most of the 3400 acre area between the mouth bar and FM1960. 

Assuming we gained on average about 3 feet per acre, that means the City lost approximately 10,000 acre-feet of storage in this ONE SECTION of the lake in only three years.

Current Rate Estimated 22X Higher

That’s about an 11X increase per year compared to the Turner Collie & Braden study which measured the ENTIRE lake. However, we can also roughly adjust for the difference in lake and sample sizes shown above. Page 9 of the Brown & Root report in 2000 says that the area shown above collects a little less than half (42%) of the sediment flowing into the lake. So we can assume that 11X at least doubles to 22X. (Because there’s more in the bottom portion of the lake than the top.) 

22X is less than 33X, but consistent with earlier observations when you consider that much of the sand was deposited on shores, as you saw in the River Grove photo. 

Caused by Mining or Nature?

Some of this sand also came from urban runoff. And some undoubtedly came from other tributaries, such as Spring and Cypress Creeks, which have fewer mines. Some also came from the East Fork watershed, where there is a huge active sand mine on Caney Creek.  Regardless, 131,000 cfs cut across that statistical mile-wide swath of sand on the West Fork during Harvey. 

Analysis of satellite and aerial photos leads me to believe that the river carried millions of cubic yards of sand and sediment downstream from the mines, including their stockpiles. That sand, I believe, helped to create the blockages shown above, which contributed to flooding throughout the heavily populated Humble and Kingwood areas.

Let’s Get Sand Mines Out of the Floodway

Miners claim that the currents in Harvey were not strong enough to carry sand out of their mines. Several world-leading hydrologists that I have talked to claim the opposite. As one said, “Of course it could.”

That’s why we need to pass legislation moving mines back from the river. We can’t reduce natural sedimentation, but we can reduce man-made sedimentation by putting sand mines out of the reach of rushing floodwaters.

As always, these are my opinions on matters of public policy. They are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas.

Posted by Bob Rehak on December 17, 2018

475 Days since Hurricane Harvey

99% Solutions to a 1% Problem Are No Solutions at All

Today, I read a scientific article that talked about 99% solutions to 1% problems. It hit me between the eyes with the force of a freight train. It was written 30 years before Hurricane Harvey for a 1987 symposium sponsored by the U.S. Navy called Sedimentation Control to Reduce Maintenance Dredging of Navigational Facilities in Estuaries.

“SESSION A: SEDIMENT SOURCES AND TRANSPORT PROCESSES”  made months worth of arguments, complaints and frustrating meetings suddenly fall into sharp focus. I quickly realized our problem.

I can’t post the paper here for copyright reasons. So I will link to it and quote brief passages in a review. The author was Ronald J.Gibbs, Center for Colloidal Science, College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware.

His paper begins by looking at the largest rivers in the world and rank ordering them by their discharge (flow) rates. He then talks about factors that influence sedimentation, such as soil types, river gradient, and weather events. 

Rare Weather Plays Mammoth Role in Sedimentation

In case after case, extreme weather played a hugely dominant role in sediment transport. For instance…

…in one storm on the Delaware River, a two day discharge represented three full years of average discharge.

An even more spectacular example: a storm struck the Eel River in California. “In a three day period, the Eel River carried more sediment past Scotia, California than it had during the previous seven years.”

“In ten days, the transport was equivalent to the previous ten average years.”

“To put this into perspective, the total suspended discharge for the Eel River was 168 million tons that year, which compares with the 184 million tons carried by the Mississippi River past St. Louis during the same year.” I had never even heard of the Eel River, so this caught my attention. 

Difficulty of Measuring

The authors’ point: This tremendous variability, occurring over a period of many years, is exceedingly difficult to sample and to understand because it is normally very expensive to prepare for sampling these types of rare events. However, sudden events are extremely significant in terms of quantity of sediments discharged…”

A Storm Like Harvey 

Another example: the Susquehanna, which flows south through eastern Pennsylvania before entering Maryland and Chesapeake Bay. Gibbs referenced another study that estimated sediment discharged in one week (June 22–28, 1972) during a major storm. “The Susquehanna River probably discharged greater than 50 x 10(6) metric tons of suspended sediment than had been discharged during the past three decades, and probably even during the past half century.” 

50 million more tons of sediment in one week than during the previous fifty years!

Annual Patterns Follow Extremes, Too

Gibbs looked at both extremely rare events like this and typical annual patterns. He found that,

“During 1 percent of a year (3.6 days), most rivers discharge better than one-half to two-thirds of their sediments for that year.”

These observations illustrate how important rare events are in transporting sediment. Gibbs says, “They dominate deposition over many years and greatly affect dredging and shoaling activities.”

I knew that most sediment transport happened during floods. But I until I read this study, I did not understand how extreme the disparities between normal and flood transport were.

Implications for Regulators and Legislators

Suddenly, the tumblers clicked into place. I understood why the Brown & Root study quoted sediment transport figures for the West Fork, Spring Creek and Cypress Creek, and then told people to ignore them; they measured suspended solids when the streams were moving only at about 60 cfs, not 131,000 cfs as during Harvey. 

Suddenly, I also understood how TACA, the TCEQ and state legislators could conclude that mining in floodways was OK. They look at the 99%, not the 1%. But the 1% is when all the damage occurs.

As a business person, I might have made the same mistake. Conventional wisdom dictates that you design systems for the 99%, and that you’ll go broke chasing that last 1%. Or more to the point, the last .2%.

Design for Disaster: The 1% Solution

Very few industries design for extreme events. In the airline business, the cost of a crash is unthinkable. Nuclear power plants simply cannot go out of control.  Every pacemaker has to work. For almost everything else, 99% success gets you a nice Christmas bonus and a promotion. But when the cost of failure is a major portion of the nation’s fourth largest city…

As a legislator, you listen to the carefully crafted arguments of TACA and say to yourself, “This was a force majeure event, an act of God. We can’t ask them to design their mines for that. They’ll go broke!” And you never stop to think, “Yes, I can. No, they won’t. It’s simple. I ask them to move out of the floodway. It doesn’t cost them a dime out of pocket. They just don’t mine so close to the river.”

At least you don’t realize it’s that easy until the sediment sent downstream by Hurricane Harvey dams the river and contributes to wiping out 16,000 homes, 3,300 businesses, a college, a high school, a hospital, a fire station, entire subdivisions, and entire shopping centers. Repairs for all of the above also wiped out billions in equity, college funds and retirement savings.

We Need to Fix A Business Model that Destroys Growth

If that doesn’t move you, consider that it also slowed the growth of an area from 6% to 1%. That’s what happened in the Humble ISD right after voters approved a  $575 million bond referendum.

Attention: governor, developers, aggregate producers, concrete manufacturers, legislators, mayors, city council members, county commissioners, chambers of commerce, do you really want to bet on a business model that destroys growth?

Sometimes, it makes more sense to think of the 1% solution than the 99%. This is one of those times. In fact, the 1% is the ONLY thing we should be focusing on as we consider legislation to fix the broken sand mining model. What good is building cheap roads if you drive residents to move out of state?

These are my opinions on matters of public policy and protected under First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/16/2018

474 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Picking the Teeth of a Dredge

When Great Lakes (Dredge #2) punched through the side bar at River Grove Park last week, I got a rare chance to take some close up pictures of men at work. Here’s what the “cutter basket” of a dredge looks like when it’s clean. Just looking at it, the teeth inspire fear. It looks like a nightmare out of a John Carpenter movie.

The rows of teeth stir up sand, and saw through roots and submerged deadwood. Pumps then suction the sand through the holes between the blades. Photo courtesy of Don Harbour.

Why Dredging Can Be So Slow

However, submerged plant material sometimes gets caught in the teeth and clogs the inlet. This slows the intake of sand. To restore the flow, the dredge operator calls for a service crew, lifts the cutter basket out of the water, and men remove the debris by hand. It was a real productivity show-stopper.

Before cleaning, roots and weeds clog the cutter basket.
During cleaning, men manually remove debris, such as the weeds you see in the background, that get caught on teeth.
Half hour later, after cleaning, the dredge finally lowers the cutter basket back into the water and resumes dredging. Note the pile of debris now in the boat.

For those who care to dig a little deeper into dredging, this web site explains how companies vary the shapes of cutter baskets to reduce the number of these time out situations. 

There’s a real science to the way they design these things. The objective is to reduce the number of unwanted objects that make it into the pipe. If the pipe clogs, it could take much longer to fix.

Posted by Bob Rehak on December 15, 2018

473 Days after Hurricane Harvey

How to Protect Yourself from Flooding Due to Sand Mining

It’s hard for me to write this because I hate government regulation. But when an industry acts so irresponsibly in the pursuit of profit that it endangers my safety, my family, my property, and my community, I will fight to regulate it. I am at that point now with the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association, which represents sand miners. 

The Problem

During Harvey, 131,000 cubic feet of water per second raced down the West Fork … through approximately 20 square miles of sand mines … located in the floodway … below a major dam … in a subtropical climate … prone to hurricanes and torrential rainfalls … where floods would blow through dikes made of sand … and reroute the river through the center of mines. (I’m guessing the Safety Committee was overruled.)

As a result, an abnormally large amount of sediment washed downstream; clogged rivers, streams and ditches; and helped create massive sediment dams. Those dams contributed to the flooding of thousands of homes and businesses with water contaminated by sewage when treatment plants were also overwhelmed. 

I don’t care how much TACA contributes to the economy or politicians. The flooding they helped create cost Kingwood College $60 million, Humble ISD $100 million, TexDoT $20 million, homeowners billions, businesses billions more, retirees their savings, and taxpayers $70 million for dredging. But worst of all, it cost 13 people their lives and endangered the life of my community. Forty-four percent of the businesses in the Lake Houston Area Chamber were damaged due to the flood.

Moreover, we have not yet begun to tally the long-term health costs of wading through floodwaters contaminated with sewage and years spent repairing moldy homes while trying to live in them.

The river took a shortcut through this West Fork mine during Harvey, blowing through dikes and roads as it carried sediment downstream. In other mines, it even swept away stockpiles.
The sediment swept downstream contributed to the growth of massive sandbars like this one that almost totally blocks the West Fork where it meets Lake Houston. As much as ten feet was deposited in this area during Harvey (five below water/five above). It continues to back water up throughout the Humble/Kingwood corridor.

If you want more responsible sand mining, the time to fight for it is now. 

Remember the Most Important Thing

 To reduce sediment during floods, move sand mining out of the flood plain. This should not be a huge economic burden. Houston became the fourth largest city in America overnight without sand mines in the floodway of the San Jacinto. 

The Solution

  1. Start with your state senator and state representative. Urge them to sponsor legislation that:
  2. Contact friends and relatives in other parts of the state. Urge them to do the same with their representatives and senators. Let them know that without their support, the homes, lives, businesses and health of their constituents could also be endangered by the same irresponsible business practices. It’s good to be business friendly, but not good to be resident hostile.
  3. Contact the heads of the transportation committees in the House and Senate. Contact Governor Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Patrick. Urge them to demand that TexDoT refrains from purchasing any sand produced in floodways. TexDoT is the miners’ biggest customer.
  4. If they refuse to support legislation that enforces responsible operation of sand mines, ask if they will support a progressive tax on sand mines.  The tax would be based on their distance from the river. The further from the river, the lower the tax. Set the tax so that mining in or near a flood plain becomes disadvantageous and mining outside of the flood plain creates a cost advantage.
  5. Contact other groups or associations that you belong to that may have lobbying efforts in place that could help. We need allies to counteract the millions that TACA has spent on lobbying and political contributions. For instance, is your insurance through USAA? They have an active lobbying effort and the flooding affected them adversely. They would form a natural ally. Look for similar allies – through your work, your church, your bank, your trade associations, insurance company, or environmental groups you support. You can bet TACA is doing the same – with developers, contractors and their trade associations. 
  6. Ask your local city council and county representatives to endorse your efforts. Sad to say, but a letter or call from them counts more than letters from an ordinary citizen.
  7. Put extra effort against committee chairs in the State Senate and House. They have seniority and clout. If this comes down to “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” at the end of the session, their influence could make the difference.

Keep track of your efforts. If you are so inclined, let me know about them. I will tabulate the results and publish them periodically. 

Some Tips

  • Start a grass roots movement in your neighborhood, church or club. Reach out to friends, neighbors and relatives – especially those who flooded.
  • Personal letters count for more than form letters.
  • Be polite.
  • Tell them how flooding personally affected you and why you feel regulation is important.
  • Emphasize that what happened here could happen anywhere in the state and that mining in floodways is not necessary for economic growth. 
  • In fact, it can contribute to flooding that causes people to move away.
  • Tomorrow I will post fact sheets for your reference on key issues related to sand mining and their role in flooding. Refer people to them.

This battle will not be won or lost because Dan Huberty or Brandon Creighton endorse it. It will be won or lost in places like West Texas and North Texas that don’t often flood. The majority of the votes live there. So cast a wide net. Remember: silence is an endorsement of the way things are now. If you want change, let others know. Speak up now.

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on December 13, 2018

472 Days after Hurricane Harvey

ReduceFlooding.com’s Recommendations for the 2019 Legislative Session

 As we approach the next legislative session, we have a rare chance to pass meaningful legislation that could reduce sedimentation from sand mining. Such legislation has been defeated repeatedly in the past by lobbying efforts of the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association (TACA). TACA has spent millions to lobby against regulations that protect downstream citizens and property.

How Texas Fails to Protect Citizens & Property

Did you know that Texas, unlike other states and countries:

At the moment, people still hurt from Hurricane Harvey. By the next legislative session in 2021, the energy required for regulatory reform may die. The time to do something is now if we are going to do it. But what to do?

There are approximately 20 square miles of sand mines upstream from the Lake Houston area on both forks of the San Jacinto. 

ReduceFlooding.com Recommendations 

After studying government regulations and scientific literature from around the world for a year, I have concluded that citizens need three things to protect themselves from the ravages of Texas sand miners. The legislature needs to:

  1. Publish and enforce best management practices for sand mining that bring Texas standards up to those common in the rest of the country and the world. Among them, prohibit mining in erosion hazard zones. The water supply for two million people deserves nothing less.
  2. Put some teeth into penalties for non-compliance. Mines have left dikes unrepaired and open to the river for years without fines. Yet TCEQ fines average about $800 in the seven years since HB571. That’s a slap on the wrist and no meaningful incentive to change business practices.
  3. Establish a water protection district for the San Jacinto, such as the John Graves district on the Brazos. It pushes mining back beyond the 100–year flood plain and makes miners post a performance bond that ensures reclamation of the property when they are done mining.

TACA Recommendations

Not surprisingly, TACA has a different set of recommendations. See the full text here.

Instead of moving farther back from the river, they are lobbying to move INTO the river.

To “mitigate adverse impacts of sedimentation associated with flooding,” the association proposes:

  1. Building sand traps in the river that would allow them to mine river sand in exchange for payments to the SJRA.
  2. Selective dredging of impacted areas.
  3. Converting sand pits to a network of off-channel floodwater storage structures to mitigate flooding. 
  4. Letting land conservancies turn abandoned mines into wetlands or natural areas for wildlife habitat preservation.

Discussion of Differences

The ReduceFlooding.com recommendations would prevent damage from excess sedimentation currently attributable to sand mines.

TACA recommendations might help – in some cases – if miners actually implemented them. And if they followed best practices in doing so.

But those are big “IFs.” Nothing in TACA’s proposals actually obligates them to do anything. 

Sediment Traps

They say only that the option “can be” implemented, not that they will implement it. They also don’t specify what the traps are. While meeting in Austin with TACA, the TCEQ and legislators two weeks ago, I asked and got three different answers from three different people. They basically wanted to mine sand bars in the river adjacent to their property. However, river mining has proven so damaging in other parts of the world that it is outlawed in many countries, including most of Europe. 

“Selective” Dredging

Sounds good. But note the qualifier “selective.” Who selects? When KSA asked mines to remove the sand deposited in River Grove Park, no mine would take it. They said it was unsuitable for sale. And that’s the same kind of sand and sediment found in the mouth bar.

So is this offer an empty promise? I suspect it is. I’ll believe it when I see these words in print: “We promise to dredge the mouth bar at our expense.”

In the meantime, I will keep wondering. How will they get sand 10-20 miles upstream and make it cost competitive with the sand that they take from  their mines? It’s a pipe dream, no pun intended –

Off-Channel Floodwater Storage  

Note that they have committed only to developing a strategy. They say the lakes “could be” cost effective, but the Texas Water Conservation Association disagrees. The TWCA says that this strategy relies on pumps which cannot move water fast enough during floods. They also explicitly state that this approach is not cost effective. See page 10 of their report on Flooding in Texas.

Donating Abandoned Mines

Donating abandoned mines to land conservancies? Basically, they’re donating  liabilities (i.e., their obligation to reclaim mines) to a third party. 

We Need Promises, Not Puffery

In closing, TACA claims their recommendations will cost taxpayers NOTHING. Maybe TACA thinks Mexico will pay for everything. Or maybe they think they won’t have to do anything after this legislative session.

Before closing, TACA pats itself on the back. They claim, “As an industry that is focused on stewardship of our natural resources…we stand ready to work together with all stakeholders…”  

In my opinion, that’s where the BS gets nose deep and the English language – our currency of communication – is devalued to ZERO. I’ve met with these people three times (including the trip in Austin) and…

In six months, they haven’t once made any solid commitments to changing the way they do business in order to protect downstream residents and businesses. They haven’t even discussed it.

They just keep making the same empty promises in an attempt to delay any meaningful discussion of issues past legislative deadlines. This paper makes them appear positive when, in reality, their current business practices have contributed to the destruction of billions of dollars of property and helped undermine the infrastructure of entire communities.

Tomorrow…more about how you can help if you wish to get involved.

These are my opinions on matters of public policy, protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas.

Posted by Bob Rehak on December 11, 2018

470 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Drone Footage of River Grove Park Shows Scope of Last Flood

Jim Zura, owner of Zura Productions, sent me three clips shot from his drones last Saturday at River Grove Park. They show just how wide the river got at this low point at the peak of the flood. They also show the impact of dredging on the massive side bar that blocked the drainage ditch which runs through the park.

At this point, dredging is only about 20% complete. So we have not yet seen the full effect, nor will we until the mouth bar issue is addressed. 

Flying into River Grove and looking down on parking lot.
Flying out over river to dredged area
Flying out over playing fields

My thanks to Jim Zura for letting me share his work with the community. This impressive footage enhances our understanding of the world around us.

Posted on December 12, 2018, by Bob Rehak with permission from Jim Zura, Zura Productions

470 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Getting Close to Nature. Maybe too close!

During this recent flood, the East Fork crested after the West Fork – because of where heavy rain fell upstream. This morning, ABC13 posted a story about how FM1485 in New Caney was under water from East Fork flooding.

Otter Point in East End Park at dusk. This deck is normally about 4 feet above lake level. Photo by John Knoerzer.

Tonight, a friend, John Knoerzer, texted this photo to me from Otter Point at East End Park. In case you didn’t know, East End Park is on the East Fork of the San Jacinto. John runs a heating and air conditioning company called UniServe. He’s a great AC guy, but never claimed to be a photographer. Nevertheless, the composition of his photo above almost feels like art.

People familiar with this site will recognize that despite releasing water for days, water is still 4 feet above the normal level and that the East Fork was on the verge of coming out of its banks in the Kingwood area. In fact, it did in some low lying areas.

Once again, I am reminded how very different this flood could have been for many people if the City had not lowered the lake for several days before the rain came. They not only lowered it the announced 18″, they kept lowering it as the flood built. Despite all that, it was a close call.

Close Call Underscores Need for Additional Gates

The frantic efforts to lower the lake underscore how important additional gates are for the Lake Houston Dam. The City needs the ability to shed water faster before it reaches the height of the spillway. With greater capacity, operators can reduce uncertainty associated with pre-releasing water…by waiting until storms are closer and forecasts become more certain. Operators can then be confident that they are not wasting precious water.

Weather forecasts can be notoriously fickle. And in fact, this one did not drop rain where predicted. Nor did it drop as much as predicted. Still, many areas were on the verge of being submerged as you can see from the photos above and below.

Parks are meant to be flooded. Fuel tanks? Not so much.

Kudos for Houston City Council Member Dave Martin for leading the charge in the effort to get the City to pre-release water.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ command post for emergency dredging almost had an emergency of its own. Another foot higher and the site would have flooded. Photo taken Saturday afternoon, the day after the heavy rain.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/11/2018

469 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Where the Rain Fell

During last week’s major rain, the National Weather Service and others predicted that some of the heaviest rain would fall in the US59 corridor. In fact, it did…just not US59 North. A pocket of 6-8 inch rain hit Sugar Land, as you can see below.

Regional Rain Map From Last Storm

Regional rainfall map of last week’s big storm, supplied by National Weather Service

Two other pockets received 6-8 inches (red): The Woodlands and Huntsville. The vast majority of the area around Lake Houston received 4-5 inches (olive). Upstream from us, a small band through southern Montgomery County received 5-6 (orange). But upstream from Lake Conroe, the huge yellow area received only 3-4.

Diane Cooper, who sent this map to me, worked for the NWS for 20 years in various capacities including as a meteorologist, hydrologist and river forecaster. In predicting floods such as this, forecasters say, it’s important to look at rainfall upstream, not just your area.

How to Interpret

Reviewing such maps can help several ways. It can help predict peaks based on historical comparisons of rainfall. It can also help predict the timing of peaks, based on the distance high volumes have to travel. 

In this case, Lake Creek and the East Fork, because of heavy rainfall upstream, prolonged the high water in our area.


You can zoom from the entire United States to your own property, and even switch backgrounds, or highlight streams, by turning layers on and off.

By zooming out, you can see the storm as it approaches. And by varying the length of the period searched, you can get an idea of how much rain has fallen in the last 14, 30, 60, 90 and 120 days. You can even narrow the search to 1 hour to determine current intensity.

Where to Find

You can find all this regional information on the National Weather Service web site here.

If you forget the link, it’s always available on the Links page of this web site under the Weather/Flood Related subhead and a listing called NWS Regional Rainfall for the last 24 hours.

The site offers hundreds of different ways to search through information as varied as river stages “forecast” and “observed”; stream flow amounts; temperature; wind; visibility; ship observations and more. It’s one of the more powerful and useful online tools I have ever seen.

Play with it and learn how it works before the next storm. It can help reduce anxiety by showing you exactly what you’re up against. 

Precipitation for the last thirty days. Saturated ground makes for quick runoff.

You can even see where the storm went after it left here.  I’m just thankful I’m not one of those people buried under snow without power. Been there. Done that. Minnesota. January. It’s enough to make you a Texan. 

Posted by Bob Rehak on December 10, 2018

468 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Deadline Approaching for Hurricane Harvey Tax Relief

In the weeks after Hurricane Harvey made landfall, Congress passed the Cruz-Cornyn-Rubio bill, which provided crucial tax relief for hurricane survivors. An important part of this bill eliminated the tax penalty for hurricane survivors who wanted to withdraw from retirement accounts to pay for the costs of repairs storm damages.

Such qualified retirement account withdrawals must be made by December 31, 2018 – a deadline that is quickly approaching.

If you are still in the process of rebuilding and recovering from the ravages of Harvey, contact your tax advisor for more information.

Residents trying to escape as Harvey's floodwaters rose
Residents of Kingwood Village Estates as Harvey’s floodwaters rose.

The IRS also provides information on this and other Harvey-related programs at this link.

Thousands of families in the Lake Houston area suffered hurricane-related damage during Harvey and could qualify. Hardly anyone finished Harvey-related repairs before this year. So check this out if you haven’t already. Remind your friends, neighbors and relatives. Every little bit helps. Only 22 tax-relief days left till New Years!

Posted by Bob Rehak on December 9, 2018

467 Days since Hurricane Harvey