Public Comment Period for TWDB State Flood Assessment Closes October 3

The TWDB (Texas Water Development Board) has completed its first statewide assessment of flooding. The public comment period on the first draft is open now, but closes on October 3.  That’s next Wednesday at 5pm. I plan to write about what I believe is an error of omission. You may have other concerns. One thing is certain. If something isn’t in the report, legislators won’t give it a high priority in the next session.

What/who is TWDB?

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) provides leadership, information, education, financial assistance, and support for planning,  conservation and development of water resources throughout the state.

First Draft of Statewide Flooding Study

The TWDB just finished a draft of its first statewide assessment of flood risks, planning, and mitigation, and is seeking public comment.

Download the 69-page report here.

The cover note on page one says, “Your information and thoughts on flood mitigation in our state are vital to this first comprehensive assessment on flooding in Texas. As such, please consider taking part in the public review and comment period on the Draft State Flood Assessment.”

“Your input will inform decision-making regarding the need for, and benefits of, future flood planning and financial investment.”

The public review and comment period ends at 5:00 p.m. on October 3, 2018. You can email comments to: PUBLIC-COMMENT@twdb.texas.gov.

The executive summary states the main reasons for and conclusions of the report:

  • Flooding has never been assessed at the statewide level.
  • Flood risks pose a serious threat to lives and livelihoods.
  • Much of Texas is either unmapped or uses out-of-date maps, leading to widespread
  • confusion.
  • Rainfall drives most flood events in Texas, but the rainfall data used to inform planning
  • and design are decades old.
  • Texas does not have a statewide strategic plan to address flood risk management.
  • Significant funding is required to mitigate flooding in Texas.
  • Stakeholders identified the need for additional resources directed toward floodplain
  • management and mitigation.
  • Sound science and data are the core elements of effective planning and flood mitigation.

Other Key Findings

Several things jumped out at me. One that hit home on page 26 said, “Local hazard mitigation planning … is not sufficiently scoped to provide collaborative, watershed-based strategic flood planning.”

Another on page 26 also resonated. “Only half of stakeholders reported that their jurisdiction has identified flood risk and conducted local planning efforts to develop mitigation solutions.” The Lake Houston area suffers from this problem. We are affected by Montgomery County which has no flood control district. And until recently, the SJRA had no flood mitigation division. The SJRA is trying to launch a watershed-wide study on flood mitigation, but has been trying to cobble together funding for it since March.

On page 32, the report addresses another issue that has plagued our area. It draws the distinction between planning for water supply and flood control, and the confusion between the two. Remember the protestations of the SJRA about Lake Conroe NOT being a flood control reservoir?

Floodplain Mapping, Planning and Sedimentation

The report includes very little discussion of sedimentation and its role in flooding. Chapter 4 discusses floodplains and mapping. In regard to riverine flooding, it states, “The boundaries of a natural floodplain change with each flood event as sediments are scoured and deposited within the river channel and upon adjacent lands.”

Chapter 5 also briefly mentions sedimentation in regard to planning. On Page 26, the report states that TWDB works with farmers to control sediment. However, there is no mention of sand mining in floodways, a major omission in my opinion.

Flood Mitigation

Chapter 6 on page 33 begins the discussion of flood mitigation activities. Generally, they fall into two categories: structural and non-structural. The chart below indicates the type of activities discussed by stakeholders during input sessions. The size of the rectangles indicates the frequency of responses.

Rectangle size represents frequency of responses when asked about flood mitigation activities.

Sadly, there is no mention of sediment control in regard to flood mitigation. Such omissions, represent, in my opinion, the biggest flaw in this first draft and merit public comment.

Anticipated statewide mitigation costs range from $31.5 to $36.0 billion. However, there is a statewide flood funding shortfall of $18.0 to $26.6 billion after subtracting available funds. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

The remainder of this chapter discusses funding issues.

Confusing Roles and Responsibilities

Chapter 7 discusses other barriers to implementing flood mitigation programs. They include:

  • Lack of access to local match funding sources. Only 20% of communities have a funding source for local match requirements of grant programs.
  • Confusing funding options. Currently five state agencies and five federal agencies share responsibilities for administering 16 funding programs.
  • Complicated application processes. 42 percent of stakeholders requested additional technical training and guidance in navigating the complex deadlines, requirements, and paperwork associated with both state and federal funding programs.
  • Lack of staffing. Stakeholders said insufficient staffing at all levels of government slows down the flood mitigation process. Chokepoints exist at every step of project timelines which exacerbate this issue.
  • Lack of training. No state-level requirement exists for training or certification of floodplain administrators or others with flood-related responsibilities. This problem is especially acute in rural areas. Respondents from small communities report difficulty in attending classes because of a lack in staff availability, travel funding, or related resource constraints.
  • Prolonged timelines. Project timelines for flood mitigation grant programs can take anywhere from months to years between the start of an application to the start of construction or project implementation (if non-structural). The more complex the processes, the lengthier the application review and disbursement period. Stakeholders expressed frustration with this aspect of project implementation, requesting more streamlined processes and increased transparency.

If this sounds familiar, perhaps its because I blogged about it months ago.

What I Plan to Do

Studies like these become legislative guides. If there’s no focus on sedimentation, the problem doesn’t merit debate in the next session. So…

I plan to write and ask them to include a paragraph about how excessive sedimentation contributed to flooding on the San Jacinto and how sand mines in floodways exacerbated that problem.

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

The email address is: PUBLIC-COMMENT@twdb.texas.gov. I would put Statewide Flood Assessment Public Comment in the subject line to ensure your thoughts are filed correctly.

All comments received by the deadline (Wednesday at 5pm) will be considered. For more information, visit www.texasfloodassessment.com. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Mindy Conyers of TWDB’s Surface Water staff at 512-463-5102.

Posted on September 30, 2018 by Bob Rehak

397 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Dredging Status: End of September

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has spread out across the West Fork of the San Jacinto River for its Emergency Dredging Project. Here is a visual status report from a trip up the river on Friday. I went from West Lake Houston Parkway past the US59 bridge to chronicle what has become an amphibious construction project.

The first dredge belonging to Callan Marine, a subcontractor to Great Lakes Dredge and Dock, has taken up position near the high tension power lines that connect Kingwood and Kings Lake Estates.

This is what the entire dredging assembly looks like.

It has been idling in the same position more than a week while pipeline and booster pumps are connected to it upstream.

Here’s what it looks like from the stern where dredged materials will enter the pipeline that takes them back to placement area #1.

This booster pump is required because of the distance to placement area #1 behind the apartments on Townsend near North Houston Avenue just south of the river.

Pilot boat shuttles pontoon with heavy equipment into place.

Heading upriver, more pipeline waits to be connected near the dredging command site.

At the command site, staff scurries to get the second dredge ready to launch before mid-October.

Dredge #2 owned by Great Lakes Dredge and Dock. This electric dredge will pump sediment to placement area #2 and require more booster pumps than the first dredge because of the length of the pipeline, almost five miles. Placement area #2 is on Sorters Road just south of Kingwood College.

Close up of the business end of the second dredge still at the dock. The rotating assembly stirs up sediment which is then suctioned into the pipeline and pumped to a placement area.Workers loading water into pipeline to get it to submerge. 

Pontoon with crane and pipeline welding equipment.  Sections of pipe waiting to be connected provide a convenient resting place for egrets and other water fowl.

The debris barges will offload their cargo here, where it will be transferred into these trucks and hauled away for processing or landfill.

Meanwhile, another crew scouts a route to placement area #2. Up the West Fork near Kingwood College, the river is so shallow, it may not be deep enough to float pipeline. If dredging in this reach of the river becomes necessary, it could delay the job and increase costs.

From this brief visual trip up the river, you can see that much prep work remains before full dredging can start. The second dredge has not yet launched and no pipeline has reached placement area 2. City officials have stated that the Corps hoped to be in full operation by mid-October. The 270-day clock for this project began ticking on August 19. Two hundred and twenty-nine days remain to the expected completion. Before the project is done, the Corps expected to move 1.8 million cubic yards of sand and sediment out of the river. 

Posted by Bob Rehak on September 30, 2018

397 Days since Hurricane Harvey

 

San Jacinto River at Its Finest: Nature the Way It Was Meant to Be

Today, I took a much needed rest from floods, sand mines, sedimentation and tax appraisals. A friend took me and two others out on his boat for a day long encounter with nature. We explored the West Fork, East Fork, Taylor Gulley, Caney Creek, Peach Creek and Luce Bayou. It was a cool, overcast day…the kind that’s perfect for nature photography. Diffused light. Saturated colors. Quiet moments. An intense feeling of beauty and oneness with nature.  Restful and rejuvenating. It taught me that there are still places on the San Jacinto that haven’t been screwed up yet. Places worth fighting for. Today reminded me of something Ansel Adams once said, “If you want to preserve nature, inspire people with its beauty.” Here’s my humble attempt. I hope you enjoy these moments as much as I did. Most were taken far up the East Fork.

Posted on 9/29/2018 by Bob Rehak with grateful thanks to Josh Alberson, his boat, and the Creator.

396 Days since Hurricane Harvey

New 100-year 24-Hour Rainfall Map and Data Released by NOAA Today

New data shows the 100-year rainfall for this area has increased 4-5 inches since the NOAA study in 1961 or 2-3 inches since the USGS study in 2004. This is why flood mitigation and reducing sedimentation are so important. Basically, what we used to think of as a 100-year storm is now almost a 25-year storm.

NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 11: The New Go-By for Everything Related to Rainfall

Today, the Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center of the NOAA’s Office of Water Prediction released updated precipitation frequency estimates for Texas.

They are published as  NOAA Atlas 14 Volume 11: Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States, Texas.

The new precipitation frequency estimates supersede the NOAA estimates published in 1961, 1964, and 1977, and the USGS estimates published in 2004. The new NOAA estimates include data from Harvey and all of the huge storms we have had since 1994 including Tropical Storm Allison, the Tax Day Flood and the Memorial Day Flood. Here’s what the 100-year/24-hour rainfall map looks like. Note that the Houston to Beaumont area is in the bulls-eye.

The new 100-year 24-hour Rainfall Intensity Map. Accompanying documentation, describing the data used in this project and project methodology, will be published in December 2018.

For a full scale map like the one above, download this PDF: tx100y24h rainfall intensity pdf.

Zooming in on the Houston area shows that the new 100-year 24-hour rainfall for the Lake Houston area is between 17 and 18 inches depending on your exact location.

To find precise figures for your location, go to the Precipitation Frequency Data Server – PFDS.

The data varies by location, so…

First, select your location in the map, then click on the gage nearest you.

Next, review the rainfall table associated with that gage. Clicking on the other tabs or “print” brings up additional information.

Then review the new data for different time periods and recurrence intervals. This may be the information you want to keep handy for ready reference.

Comparison to Previous Studies

From this data, we can see that – for the gage at the San Jacinto and US59 – the new, official 100-year rainfall is 17.3 inches in a 24-hour period.

Compare a previous dataset published. Look on page 58 for the 100-year/24 hour data from 1961. Twelve inches in 24-hours represented the old 100-year rainfall for our area for decades.

USGS also published a precipitation frequency study in 2004.  See the USGS Rainfall Maxima Guide for Texas (Warning: 40 meg PDF). I believe it became the basis for the current flood-plain maps redrawn after Tropical Storm Allison that were released in 2007. It shows the 24-hour, 100-year rainfall to be about 13 inches.

How New Data Will Be Used

What does it mean that the 100-year rainfall has increased 4-5 inches?

First and foremost, it means that all of the floodplain maps will be revised. One expert I talked to suspected that the new 100-year floodplain could be close to where the 500-year flood plain is now. However, that is far from certain and not official.

Floodplain Maps

The flood plain maps have not yet been redrawn, as Matt Zeve, Harris County Flood Control Director of Operations, discussed at the September meet of the Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Initiative. The next step is for the County to process the new rainfall data in a new 2-D model that the Flood Control District has developed with new high-resolution LIDAR data. Contour internals in the new models will shrink from feet to inches. The LIDAR data also reflects new conditions in the watershed (developments, road expansions, siltation in ditches, etc.), so predictions should become much more accurate.

Insurance

Based on the new rainfall data, flood insurance rates could also change.

Construction

Finally, the new data will become crucial in city planning, construction and permitting. The City is already demanding that new construction be raised to two feet above the 500-year flood plain. Perhaps Mayor Turner had a hint of what the new numbers would show when he suggested the new construction standards.

Infrastructure

The larger rainfall totals also mean that cities must use larger storm drains and sewers in new developments. Everything will change.

For more information about the new data, review this quarterly newsletter from NOAA.

Posted on September 27, 2018 by Bob Rehak

395 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Inconsistencies in Montgomery County Sand-Mine Real-Estate Tax Appraisals

Analysis of Montgomery County real estate tax records reveals wide inconsistencies in the way sand mines are appraised. Fifty three parcels of land in Montgomery County devoted to sand mining received seven different real estate tax classifications. Not one classification had anything to do with mining, though one parcel was classified as commercial land and two were classified as industrial.

Sand Mines on East and West Forks of the San Jacinto are appraised seven different ways from Sunday.

36 West Fork Mines Received Six Different Classifications

Sampling 36 parcels of land used for sand mining on the West Fork of the San Jacinto revealed that properties were taxed as:

  • A1 – Residential Single Family (1)
  • D1 – Qualified Ag & Timber Land (6)
  • E3 – Other Improvements over 5 acres Non-Ag (1)
  • E4 – Vac Rural Land over 5 acres Non-Ag (24)
  • F1 – Commercial (real) (1)
  • F2 – Industrial (real) (2)

The numbers in parentheses represent the number of parcels found within each category. The sample included West Fork mines larger than 5 acres from US59 to just west of I-45 on the San Jacinto River’s West Fork that showed clearly visible mining activities on the Montgomery County Appraisal District website.

17 East Fork Parcels Classified 3 Different Ways

Yesterday, I posted about one San Jacinto East Fork/Caney Creek mine in Porter that was subdivided into 17 different parcels. The parcels were classified as:

  • D1 – Qualified Ag & Timber Land (10)
  • C1 – All Vac Res Lts & Vac Res Tr < 5 Ac (3)
  • E4 – Vac Rural Land over 5 acres Non-Ag (4)

Real Estate Tax Roulette?

Altogether, the East and West Fork parcels represent a sample size of 53. Excluding undeveloped land reserved for expansion, several things stood out.

  • Sometimes adjacent pieces of land that were being used in identical ways received different classifications.
  • Areas dedicated to mining – often without any agriculture or timber – received ag/timber exemptions that dramatically lowered their taxes.
  • None of the parcels appeared to be vacant, yet 27 parcels out of 53 (more than half) were classified that way.
  • NOT ONE parcel of the 53 received a G3 Category classification for sand mines.

Not One Parcel Classified as “Subsurface Interests”

The G category in Texas Property tax includes “Real Property: Oil and Gas, Minerals and Other Subsurface Interests.” The Texas Property Clasification Guide states on page 10, “… real property defined as mines and quarries, should be reported as Category G3.”

The Texas State Controller’s website states: “Tax Code Section 23.01 requires … the same appraisal methods and techniques be used in appraising the same or similar kinds of property.”

Yet 53 parcels of land in Montgomery County devoted to sand mining received seven different classifications, not one of which had anything to do with mining.

Financial Impact of Inconsistencies

So how big of a deal is this? Yesterday, we saw the value of an ag/timber exemption compared to land classified as C1 and E4 on the East Fork. The actual tax due for the ag/timber land was $1.83 per acre. But the tax due on other land not receiving the exemption was $102.36 – 56 times more!

Today, I discovered similar inconsistencies on the West Fork.

However, even $99/acre is still dirt cheap!

To see the list of who’s classified as what, download this Excel worksheet, West Fork MCAD Classifications.

I still need to investigate this more. Is there a policy in Montgomery County NOT to classify mines as mines? Why are subsurface interests being given away? Did the State do away with the G3 classification?

I’m sure the Montgomery County Appraiser can help us understand why none of the sand mines on the San Jacinto are classified as mines and why half of them receive ag/timber exemptions they apparently don’t qualify for.

Posted by Bob Rehak on September 27, 2018

394 Days since Hurricane Harvey

 

 

East Fork Sand Mine in Montgomery County Appraised as Ag/Timber Land

I wish I could get a deal like this! A cardiologist from Nacogdoches named Dr. Prabhakar R. Guniganti (in a trust set up for his family members) owns virtually all the land used for sand mining adjacent to Kingwood on Caney Creek, White Oak Creek and the East Fork of the San Jacinto. Here’s the best part! The land isn’t taxed as industrial land. It’s taxed as agricultural and timberland, even though:

Guidelines for Appraisals

Among other stringent requirements, State and County guidelines say that if a parcel is clear cut, it cannot go without replanting for more than two years to quality. The guidelines also state that both timber and agricultural land must be used at an intensity comparable to the surrounding area. Additionally, timberland must be used with the intent to produce income from timber and be devoted principally to the production of timber.

Guniganti is not alone; I’m just using him and his trust as an example. Several of the sand mines on the West Fork are also taxed at the same agricultural/timber rate.

$241 in Tax on Ten Acres

I found one 10-acre parcel of Guniganti land that owed a whopping $241.09 in real estate tax for 2017. Deal of the century! It hasn’t had any timber on it for about three years and Montgomery County is still assessing it as timberland for 2018.

See for yourself.

  1. Review the land’s history in Google Earth.
  2. Go to the Montgomery County Appraisal District website and click on a parcel of land within the sand mine to check its tax history.
  3. Cross-check the information against the Montgomery County Tax Assessor/collector’s website. The two sites don’t always agree, but the assessor issues the actual tax bills, so for the purposes of this analysis we’re using the assessor’s info when computing taxes paid.

When I clicked on Guniganti’s 10-acre parcel as discussed in Step 2 above, here’s what I found. A little gray box popped up describing the location and size, plus the owner’s name. In this case, Guniganti no longer owns the property himself; he sold it to a trust in his family’s name, Guniganti Family Property Holdings LLC (limited liability corporation). LLCs are a common strategy that land owners use to insulate themselves from liability that may arise from use of the property.

The blue box shows the boundary of the ten acres within the mine.  Clearly, there is no timber on this land and it is part of the mine.

Clicking on “View property information,” tells you the classification of the property, tax rates that apply to it … and the history of ownership, Note that Guniganti bought this parcel in 2014 and sold it to his LLC in 2017. Also note that, despite the sale, the market value of the property is assessed at $0.00 and its agricultural market value is also assessed at $0.00.
.

Because the Montgomery County appraiser classifies this parcel as “Timber,” the County, emergency services, the hospital, college, and school districts will have to split up a grand total of $241.09.

Nevertheless, Montgomery County taxed the 10 acres at $10,000. At a 2.4109% tax rate, the family trust owed $241.09 on this land in 2017. Here’s the actual tax bill for 2017 from the assessor’s web site:

Of course, the land originally contained timber. Montgomery County appraises it as though it still does. That’s sweet if you’re Guniganti – especially when you consider that he owns nearly 2000 acres in the area and all but 217 are classified as Ag & Timber.

Back in 1966 and 1978, the Texas legislature saw the value of ranch, farm and timberland increasing exponentially. Many family farms and ranches were being taxed out of existence. They didn’t make enough money to pay real estate taxes at the normal market value. So the legislature created special exemptions, first for family farms, and then for corporations and trusts.

Fair enough. We certainly need farms and ranches.

But why should sand mines enjoy the Ag/Timber tax break? These are multi-million dollar businesses.

$288 in Tax on 218 Acres

Let’s look at another example of how Guniganti benefitted from an exemption that he didn’t seem to qualify for.

This 218-acre parcel occupies most of the middle of Guniganti’s mine. Though it has some timber on the periphery, approximately 90% of it appears to be used for sand mining.

That parcel has a market value of $439,480, but was appraised at $12,450 because of the agricultural/timber classification.

In this second example, the 2017 tax due on a 218-acre, income-producing property with a market value of nearly half a million dollars is just $287.71. Here’s the actual 2017 tax bill.

Almost 2000 Acres in Two Categories

What about the rest of the mine and the surrounding property which will be used for expansion? As luck would have it – for comparison purposes – the Guniganti Family Trust owns 17 different parcels of land in and around the mine totaling almost 2,000 acres.

Guniganti owns 17 parcels of land in Montgomery County totaling about 2000 acres. For an interactive list, click on the image above.

Most parcels are classified Ag/Timber including approximately 750 acres being mined. However, several are classified as “unimproved rural” and one was “unimproved residential.” Check them for yourself if you have several hours.

This spreadsheet breaks the Guniganti Family Trust properties down into two different categories: Ag/Timber and Other to show the benefits of the ag/timber classification.

The Big Payoff

In 2017, thetaxable value per acre of the ag/timber land was $68 per acre. But the taxable value for the land not receiving any exemption was $3,120 per acre – 46 times more.

The actual tax due for the ag/timber land was $1.83 per acre. But the tax due on other land not receiving the exemption was $102.36 – 56 times more!

Guniganti still enjoys the ag/timber benefit on these properties for the 2018 tax year.

Substantial differences.

Almost 90% of Guniganti’s land is classified as ag/timver. However, he paid seven times more tax on his other land.  Thus, you can see the benefits of the exemption.

In total, Guniganti paid $3,189.61 in tax on 1741 acres receiving the ag/timber classification. Those parcels have a market value in excess of $4 million.

Had that property been taxed at the Montgomery County Appraisal District’s opinion of their market value, he would have had to pay about $120,000 more in tax

I still don’t understand how sand mines qualify for Ag/Timber rates when all the ag and timber is long gone. I hope there’s a reasonable explanation. Not all sand mines in Montgomery County receive the ag/timber exemption. But that’s a story for another day.

As always, these 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 9/26/2018 by Bob Rehak

393 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Sand Mining Best Management Practices: Vegetation

Sand mining best practices throughout the country and the world urge operators to leave vegetation in place until they are ready to mine an area. The reason: to reduce erosion. However, approximately 60 acres of the sand mine below on the East Fork of the San Jacinto where it meets Caney Creek and White Oak Creek was cleared but not mined – just in time for two 500-year floods.

Approximately 65 acres of this mine were cleared before two five-hundred year floods, contributing to downstream sedimentation in the East Fork, even though only about three acres of the area was mined.

Removing Vegetation Risks Sedimentation Downstream

The cleared area lies totally in the 100-year flood plain and was inundated. Satellite images of the area downstream from the cleared land show a sudden buildup of sand. While the sand did not all come from the cleared area, one wonders how much sedimentation could have been prevented by following best practices.

The following sequence of images shows the rapid removal of vegetation.

The white outlined area will be totally cleared before Harvey. On April 8, 2014, it was all dense forest. 

By March 3, 2016, most of the area was cleared.

By January 23, 2017, just before Harvey, the area was entirely cleared.

Risk from Flooding

This FEMA flood hazard map shows that the entire area lies within with 100-year flood plain (aqua) and adjacent to the floodway (cross-hatched area).

Before and After: Results

This image from 2014 shows the area in question when it was still forested. Note how little sand is in the river downstream from the mine.

Here’s the same view after vegetationwas cleared and the area was inundated by Harvey in 2017. Note all the sediment in the river downstream.

Much of the sand and sediment washed downstream is invisible to satellite photos because it’s under dense forest canopy. This area (downstream the sand mine being discussed) was once wetlands. A boardwalk through those wetlands had to be excavated from several feet of sand after Harvey.

Here’s what part of the same trail looked like before it was excavated. Approximately 30 acres of the park were blanketed with dunes up to 10 feet tall after Harvey. Every trail in the park required repairs. Total cost: approximately $200,000 to Kingwood residents.

A bird’s nest that was ten feet up in a tree is now knee high. Many of the trees along the Eagle Point trail in East End Park are buried under so much sand that they are dying. 

An Ounce of Prevention

It’s impossible to tell how much of the sand above resulted from the removal of vegetation?  Previous posts showed how the mines stockpile also eroded. The river itself contributed sediment. However, if the mine were not in the flood plain and if the miners had not removed so much vegetation so far in advance of mining, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

So why do miners favor the floodplains and floodways? Why to they remove vegetation years before it will be mined? Is it all about the relentless pursuit of efficiency at the expense of safety?

Tomorrow, we will look at economics, taxation and how some well-intentioned laws passed in the late seventies to protect family farms helped fuel a boom in sand mining.

Posted September 24, 2018

391 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Opportunities to Speed Recovery

The things government does now to protect us from future flooding – and the speed with which it does them – will make the difference between long-term recovery and decay.

In many ways, we’ve made incredible progress since Harvey – the initial frenzy of volunteerism, the massive trash pickup, repairing homes, re-establishing businesses, rebuilding infrastructure, re-opening schools, organizing an emergency (albeit partial) dredging project, passing a $2.5 billion flood bond, and more. The amount of activity  speaks volumes about the character of the community. But recovery is far from complete.

The old HEB store still has not been leased to a new tenant.

Confidence determines whether people will rebuild. Without confidence, people are reluctant to invest. You can see lack of confidence in empty shops up and down West Lake Houston Parkway and in “for sale” signs in front of homes. People are saying, “I’m not going to risk this again.”

So what will give people confidence and speed recovery?

Expand Dredging

The Army Corps has started dredging a small portion of the West Fork – about 1.2 miles between Kings Lake Estates and River Grove Park. This will take until April or May of next year to complete. However, the biggest blockage in the river is NOT part of this project. The “mouth bar” where the river meets the lake will remain. Unless a second project to address that can be funded, bid and mobilized before the first is done, taxpayers will be forced to pay another $18 million in mobilization/demobilization fees – all over again.

First dredge on the San Jacinto is now working an area west of the West Lake Houston Parkway Bridge. Photo courtesy of Keith Jordan.

Even if the mouth bar is addressed, the rest of the West Fork, the East Fork and parts of Lake Houston will need to be dredged in order to clear channels through the upper Lake Houston area.

To prevent the current blockages from recurring and flooding us again, we should also develop a maintenance dredging program in perpetuity.

Reduce Sedimentation

Sedimentation comes from several sources: a) natural stream erosion, B) urbanization, and C) sand mining. With the exception of creating more upstream detention, we can’t do much to control A or B. We can, however, do something about the 20 square miles of sand mines in the floodways upstream from us.

FEMA defines floodways as the main channel of the river during a flood – where the water moves the fastest. With the exception of one sand mine between Lake Houston and I-45, part of every single sand mine lies in the floodway.

West Fork sand mines on 8/30/17, one day after the peak from from Harvey

Moving mines out of the floodway will require legislation that puts more distance between mines and rivers. As far as I can tell, Texas is the only state that does not require a minimum setback. We need greater setbacks because rivers migrate over time and capture pits during floods. This process is well understood and predictable.

We’ve seen several instances of ruptured mine dikes on the West Fork – some that have gone unprepared for years and increased the rate of sedimentation. This contributes to the sand and sediment clogging our rivers, the destruction of downstream properties, and dredging costs which are substantial.

Improve Ditch Maintenance

Harris County has agreed to take over ditch maintenance for the City of Houston. However, the City of Houston is still looking for deeds and easements that should have been transferred and recorded during annexation 22 years ago. This does NOT inspire confidence. Once the County receives permission to clean and clear the ditches, it can proceed. County flood control crews have been surveying in anticipation of receiving the documents. Money has also been freed up in the Flood Control budget with the passage of the flood bond.

Create More Upstream Detention

Holding water upstream during a flood lowers water levels downstream. The County has identified potential land to build another reservoir on far western Cypress Creek. That should help. But it’s a long term project and one of hundreds in the flood bond package.

We should also remember that more water came down the East Fork during the peak of Harvey than the West Fork. Additional upstream detention on both forks will help reduce the input during floods and raise confidence.

Add More Flood Gates to Lake Houston

In March, the Mayor promised 10 additional flood gates for Lake Houston so that we could shed water faster during a flood. This pr0ject has progressed somewhat since then, but slowly. The City has filed an application with FEMA which has received a high score from the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM). TDEM ranks applications for FEMA funding coming from Texas.

Nonetheless, some officials have said that additional gates could take 10 years to actually build. Given the fact that we’ve had five so-called “500-year storms” in the last 25 years (1994, 2001, 2015, 2016, 2017), 10 years is too long. Many older residents won’t live long enough to see those gates. We can and must do better. We won World War II in less than half that time.

Plead for Speed

Delays in these mitigation projects will undermine confidence and recovery. Conversely, fast-tracking these projects will restore confidence and speed recovery.

We also need to streamline government disaster recovery. Let’s face it. It has taken more than a year since Hurricane Harvey to get one dredge on the San Jacinto River. We can do better. We need to do better.

As always, 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 September 22, 2018

389 Days Since Hurricane Harvey

Dredging Starts, But Not Where Planned

The Army Corps of Engineers Emergency West Fork Dredging Project started yesterday, but not where planned. The Corps originally said it would start slightly east of West Lake Houston Parkway bridge and work its way back west to River Grove Park. Contract documents indicated the eastward limit of dredging would include the area south of Kings Harbor. However, today dredging started west of the bridge, between the Kingwood Country Club Forest Course and Kings Lake Estates. That puts the start of dredging approximately in the middle of the contracted area.

From US Army Corps’ contract plans for West Fork Dredging project. Note arrow pointing to power lines in C-102.

Photo courtesy of Keith Jordan, a Kings Lake Estates resident, shows first dredge set up behind row of trees on West Fork. Note high tension power lines seen in the right of photo as a reference to the map above.

Jordan said, “Literally watching constant dredging occurring about 200 yards in front of my boat house in the river. Motors seem to be running 24/7 with lights on boats at night.”  He later sent me this image.

Photo Courtesy of Keith Jordan. 

Approximate starting point of dredging. Satellite image courtesy of Google Earth.

When asked about noise from the operation, Jordan replied, “Just hear a steady hum from inside the house. Nothing bad.”

I asked about the change in plans because Kings Harbor was one of the worst flooded areas in Kingwood. One hundred percent of the businesses were destroyed along with three apartment complexes. This is also the area were Ben’s Branch empties into the river.

The Corps has not yet explained the reason for the change in plans. They did, however, send these additional shots of the dredge in operation.

First dredge in operation on location in the middle of the contracted area.

First dredge at work near Kings Lake Estates. There appears to be a mechanical dredge working in front of the hydraulic dredge.

The dredge weighs approximately 27 tons and will be in the river 24 hours per day until early May of 2019 according to the Corps.

Over 4.5 miles of high density polyethylene pipeline measuring 24 inches in diameter is in position and will help move over 1.8 million cubic years of sediment and debris.

Corps officials are asking recreational boaters to stay clear of the dredge and be aware of debris removal pipelines and booster pumps within the river.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/20/18

388 Days since Hurricane Harvey

 

 

 

 

 

First Dredge Moves Down River

Ever since Hurricane Harvey departed the Houston region more than a year ago, anxious residents have waited for this day. Today dredges begin removing massive amounts of sediment blocking the West Fork of the San Jacinto River. The Army Corps conducted a survey that confirmed the sediment contributed to flooding. But it has taken virtually six months to bid the project, award the job, and mobilize.

The first dredge has left it’s dock at the command site for the Emergency West Fork Dredging Project. Photo courtesy of Lake Houston Area Chamber of Commerce.

This morning, the first dredge left its dock.

As late as yesterday afternoon, workers were busy preparing it.

Final prep on first dredge happened on Tuesday, September 18.

Cranes loaded final supplies onto dredges at the US Army Corps of Engineers Command Site on September 18, 2018 for the Emergency West Fork Dredging Project.

Overcoming Delays

In the last few weeks, the Corps experienced several delays. First a key part for the first dredge had to be remanufactured and shipped to the job site. Then heavy storms swarmed the Houston area last week. Because the cranes above act like lightening rods, every time thunder was heard, work had to stop until the threat passed.

Finally, as other equipment such as dredge pipe and booster pumps were moved down the river into position, it became apparent that additional sedimentation had clogged the river since the Corps did its initial survey. That meant that sediment had to be removed before the dredges could get into position to start dredging.

Here are two pictures that show the depth of the pontoons on the barge and one of the areas it must move through.

Note the depth of the pontoons on the barge; image taken several weeks ago when dredge was being assembled..

It must move through water as little as 18 inches deep to get to its starting position.

A giant sandbar almost completely blocks the west fork of the San Jacinto River just downstream from River Grove Park.

Clearing the Way

The Corps stated Monday that mechanical dredges were scooping out a channel for the hydraulic dredges and on Tuesday, this scoop was seen between River Grove and the blockage above.

Clearing the way for the hydraulic dredges

Starting at West Lake Houston Parkway and Moving Back Upstream to River Grove

According to the Corps, dredging will start in the Kings Harbor area, slightly east of the West Lake Houston Parkway Bridge. Work will then progress upriver toward River Grove Park in Kingwood, the end of this particular project.

Plans for Subsequent Phases Still Uncertain

No one has yet announced plans to dredge the mouth bar, the East Fork or to perform maintenance dredging after all of the major blockages have been removed.

For those who wonder how this dredging will work, the dredges stir up sediment then suction it into pipelines that are miles long. Booster pumps stationed at regular intervals keep the slurry moving through the pipes back upstream to old sand pits where it will be stored.

How Dredging Works

This picture shows the business end of the second dredge.

This object will be lowered into the water and rotate to stir up sediment which will then be suctioned into pipelines that carry the slurry back to placement areas.

Dredge pipeline is already in place.

Periodic booster pumps will keep slurry moving upriver to disposal areas.

Safety Warning

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requests recreational boaters to stay a safe distance from dredging operations. This equipment weighs hundreds of tons and cannot maneuver as quickly as recreational boaters. Don’t expect them to get out of your way. The safest thing to do is to stay out of this reach of the river until dredging has completed.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/19/18

386 Days since Hurricane Harvey