Second Dredge Starts Dredging

It’s official. There are now two dredges actually dredging on the West Fork. Dredge #2, owned and operated by Great Lakes Dredge and Dock, moved downriver from the command site on October 16.

Getting 2-foot Pipe Through Water One Foot Deep

However, the company had not yet reached placement area #2 with the pipeline. Great Lakes had to dredge their way upstream through water less than one-foot deep in places to get to the placement area with five miles of pipeline that is 2 feet in diameter.

Next Steps: Patches and Pressure Testing

After reaching the placement area with pipe, Great Lakes then had to test it. During testing, dredgers slowly increase pressure in pipe as they look for leaks. The most common place to find leaks is at the joints, but sometimes they need to replace entire sections of pipe. The dredgers then make repairs in the water from pontoons loaded with backhoes and welding equipment. Backhoes bring the pipe up from the bottom of the river and position it in the welding machines.

After that, the dredging company had to test the booster pumps and throttles as they started them up. They also perform dye tests to calibrate velocity measurements. This helps ensure that water in each stage is moving at the same rate of speed. Great Lakes and its subcontractor Callan Marine will each use up to three booster pumps to keep five miles of sediment-laden water moving upriver to their respective placement areas.

One of three booster pumps that Great Lakes will use. This one can be seen from the northbound 59 feeder road.

While dredge #1, which started the same process on September 20 is diesel, dredge #2 is electric. Electric dredges run quieter, but take longer to warm up. As my source said, “An electric dredge slowly heats up the equipment to drive the moisture out; water and electricity don’t mix well.”

Now Working 24/7 Until Completion

With all those steps complete, dredging is now in full swing. By this weekend, both dredgers will be working 24/7 until completion.

To help jumpstart dredging, Great Lakes hired Callan Marine as a subcontractor. Callan had equipment available earlier and started this same process on September 20. The diagram below shows how both companies plan to work together.

Dredge #1 started at the halfway point and will work its way east to the end point. Dredge #2 started at River Grove Park and is working its way toward the midpoint.

Great Lakes will start at the western edge of the project area and work its way to the middle. Meanwhile, Callan, which started in the middle will work its way to the project’s end point – east of the West Lake Houston Parkway Bridge (by Chimichurri’s).

Callan will send its spoils to placement area #1 while Great Lakes will send its to placement area #2.

No News Yet on Next Phase of Dredging

When City of Houston representatives including City Council Member Dave Martin returned from Austin two weeks ago for a high level meeting about the need to remove the mouth bar, hopes were running high. Decisions makers needed only an environmental survey and a placement area before the mouth bar project could proceed. Reportedly, they had reached agreement in principle on all other requirements including funding. However, the City has made no announcements yet about either the survey or a third placement area.

It took 3.5 months for contractors to fully mobilize for the current project. If FEMA, the Corps, the State, and the City can lock down phase two before mid-April, 2019, taxpayers have a chance to save the cost of another mobilization/demobilization – about $18 million.

It would also save precious time. Without having to remobilize, dredgers would have a chance to cut a channel through the mouth bar before the onset of next hurricane season.

Revised, estimated timeline for first phase of the West Fork Emergency Dredging Project

What About River Grove Boat Launch?

Cutting a channel through the side bar at River Grove will probably be the last thing Great Lakes does as part of this phase of dredging. Dredgers are concerned about boater safety and worry that opening the channel now will increase the number of boats on the river and the chance of accidents.

Posted on October 25, 2018 by Bob Rehak

422 Days since Hurricane Harvey

San Jacinto River Watershed: Underfunded, Overdamaged

When I go to various flood mitigation meetings around town, I often hear – with some jealously and resentment – that the San Jacinto River Watershed seems to be getting the lion’s share of flood mitigation funding. This is not true, but it’s a popular misperception. Those who believe they are underfunded tell me constantly how unfair they think it is.

Flood Damage and Mitigation Funding Varies Greatly by Watershed

So I’ve done some research on this subject and would like to call your attention to two reports. The first is a regional report by the Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium called Strategies for Flood Mitigation. It examines equity in funding between different watersheds. It found that the San Jacinto River Watershed has 3% of the region’s population, historically has received 0% of the region’s flood mitigation funding, and yet sustained 14% of the region’s damages during Harvey. That would seem to suggest that San Jacinto River Watershed residents suffered almost five times more damage per capita than other watersheds.

I wondered if there could be a correlation between underfunding of flood mitigation projects and excessive damage. That led me to another report that lists spending by watersheds in dollars: Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) annual federal briefing. It’s Flood Control’s annual report to the Federal Government about how Federal funds are being spent here. The link above is to the 2018 version, published last March. That was just BEFORE the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers started its West Fork dredging project. Note also, it was BEFORE Harris County passed its $2.5 billion flood bond in August. So what follows is a snapshot of the way things were BEFORE Harvey, not now.

SJR Flood Mitigation Projects Underfunded Until Recently

A re-reading of that Federal Briefing confirmed my suspicions and the findings of the Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium. The San Jacinto River watershed is by far the biggest in Harris County. With the exception of a few buyouts and flood gages, until now, it has received NO federal dollars for flood mitigation projects (at least through the County).

Source: Harris County Flood Control 2018 Federal Briefing. Harris County has 22 watersheds. The San Jacinto appears to be the largest.

By far, the vast majority of the money spent goes to capital improvement projects such as channelization and detention. Virtually all of that money is spent in six areas according to the Active Federal Projects Summary in the HCFCD Federal Briefing. They are:

  • Sims Bayou
  • Clear Creek & Tributaries
  • Greens Bayou
  • Brays Bayou
  • Hunting Bayou
  • White Oak Bayou

Previously, projects were completed for the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, Halls Bayou, Buffalo Bayou, Vince Bayou, Little Vince Bayou, and Cypress Creek. There are no capital projects listed for the San Jacinto River Watershed, past or present.

Higher Percentages of Budget than Damage

So how did the watersheds fare that are receiving federal funding? According to pages 24 and 25 of the Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium  report:

  • Sims Bayou had 19% of the budget and 2% of the damage.
  • Clear Creek had 13% of the budget and 7% of the damage.
  • Greens Bayou had 8% of the budget and 7% of the damage.
  • Brays Bayou had 23% of the budget and 18% of the damage.
  • Hunting Bayou had 8% of the budget and 1% of the damage.
  • White Oak Bayou had 14% of the budget and 3% of the damage.

With No Budget, SJR Tied for Third Highest Amount of Damage

Compared to the six creeks and bayous above, the San Jacinto River had 0% of the budget and 14% of the damage. Here’s how it looks in graph form, taken from the Flood Mitigation Consortium report.

The Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium Report dramatizes the need for equity in funding throughout the region. For a complete breakdown of all watersheds, see the table on page 25 of the report.

What can we deduce from this?

Flood mitigation spending, without a doubt, reduces damage.

The San Jacinto River watershed is by far the most underfunded compared to others.

Vigilance Needed

People in the Lake Houston Area need to fight future underfunding. We have been too quiet and therefore neglected for far too long. We must remain vigilant in coming years to ensure that the projects we have been promised (additional dredging, detention and floodgates, plus better ditch maintenance) are in fact delivered.

Harris County and the federal government together are spending $1.342 billion dollars on capital projects for Sims Bayou, Clear Creek, Greens Bayou, Brays Bayou, Hunting Bayou and White Oak Bayou. The San Jacinto currently gets only one twentieth of that due to the current Corps dredging project.

Before you call Judge Emmett and your county commissioners, I would like to point out that they have already committed to a more equitable distribution of project dollars from the $2.5 billion flood bond passed in August and that the Lake Houston area should get its fair share in the future. Phone calls at this moment are not necessary. Vigilance is. We can’t change the past, but together we can change the future.

Posted by Bob Rehak on October 24, 2018

421 Days since Hurricane Harvey

 

New Reports and Data on ReduceFlooding.com

As this site has grown, the Reports section started to get unwieldy. To make information easier to find, I separated it under tabs. Some of the tabs even have subsections. Here’s a list of current tabs and some significant new additions to the report data base.

City Proposition A (NEW)

Contains Supreme and Trial Court rulings on the 2010 amendment to the City Charter that created a Dedicated Pay-As-You-Go Fee for Drainage and Street Improvements. Also contains the 2010 and 2018 wording for comparison purposes (hint: they differ by one word). Finally, it contains a link to my post that tries to put everything in context.

Dredging (NEW)

Contains all of the information relating to the current (Phase 1) US Army Corps of Engineers Emergency West Fork Dredging Project. Includes all contract documents including plans, specs, value engineering study, all eight amendments to the contract, the original bids, and the revised bids after vetting.  Also contains a presentation by Kissling and Garfield, two Lake Houston area geologists who argue for expanding the scope to include the mouth bar. Finally, includes a template for maintenance dredging using Galveston Bay as the example.

Harris County Flood Control District (Expanded)

Gathers all the information published by HCFCD that has been discussed on this site, including all the information and project lists related to the 2018 $2.5 billion flood bond. Also includes a new item, the 2018 Federal Briefing that is Flood Control’s annual progress report to Congress. This doc shows all the Federal money being spent in different parts of Harris County. It was published before the Corps started its current dredging project. It shows that the Lake Houston Area was the only part of the County NOT receiving Federal help at the time.

Hurricane Harvey and Flooding (Expanded)

Includes new information from Rice, University of Houston, USGS, the SJRA, NOAA, Texas General Land Office, Texas State Comptroller, and Texas Water Development Board. Also includes a link to a Slate Magazine article about floodplain development in Houston.

New Report on the State Recovery Plan from the Texas General Land Office: 360 Pages!

River Health (NEW)

Contains one item: a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality report about water quality in the San Jacinto River Watershed.

San Jacinto River Authority (Separated)

There’s not much new in this category, but it’s been separated to make the information easier to find.

Sedimentation (Expanded)

Contains most of the original reports posted on this site plus a few new ones. Most of the dredging information was moved out of this section because it was getting voluminous enough to require its own tab.

Subsidence (NEW)

A brand new section on what could become a long-term flooding threat to Montgomery and northern Harris Counties. Includes information from the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District, and USGS.

Tax Appraisals (NEW)

Information about how sand mines are appraised in Montgomery County. Also, how the flood could affect the appraisal on your house and what you can do about it.

Other Flood Mitigation (Expanded)

This contains information about mitigation efforts that don’t fall into one of the categories above, for instance, the engineering report on adding gates to the Lake Houston Dam.

Please Help This Site Grow

Click on a tab to expand or contract it. Hope this helps make information easier to find. Remember, too, there’s always the search bar! I hope these changes make all the information easier to digest. In about a year, this site has amassed thousands of pages of reports and its still growing every day.

From the beginning, my goal for this site has been to create a one-stop resource for all information related to flooding in the Lake Houston area.

If you know of something that should be added, please email me through the contact page on this site.  And please send more of your flood pics for the new Submissions page. Thanks!

Posted by Bob Rehak on October  23, 2018

420 Days since Hurricane Harvey

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boating Safety around Dredges

Now you see it. Now you don’t. Watch out for submerged pipeline.

This public service announcement paid for by the School of Hard Knocks. Please send this link to every boater you know. It could save a friend’s life.

Near Miss with Dredge

Today, I received yet another request to remind boaters about safety issues on the West Fork. A near miss prompted the request.

Dredging has attracted a higher than usual number of boaters.

In this incident, a boater zoomed up from behind a dredge at a high rate of speed just as the dredge was swinging a cutter head into his path. Luckily the man is OK, but he nearly decapitated himself on a cable.

While the San Jacinto may seem like a big river, it’s not – especially when numerous small boats are trying to maneuver around two 200-foot dredges, six booster pumps, 10 miles of 24″ pipeline, welding equipment, supply boats, cranes, backhoes, and support barges.

The Main Safety Dangers

When you see a dredge, remember that it’s there for a reason. The river is shallow. Watch out for:

  • Sand bars that the dredge is working on
  • Cables as the dredge swings its cutter head from side to side.
  • Submerged pipe
  • Backhoes that are rotating on pontoons

Common-Sense Precautions

Stay away. Boat somewhere else. If you must be on the West Fork:

  • Go slow around dredges, especially when coming from the rear.
  • Leave plenty of room between yourself and the dredge.
  • Stay as far from them as you can.
  • Remember: they have equipment that swings from side to side. It’s guided by cables that you may not see until it’s too late.
  • Make eye contact with the dredge’s operators. They’re focused on their work and not looking for you.
  • Don’t create a wake that will rock their boats, barges, pontoons or pipelines.
  • Don’t expect them to get out of your way; they can’t maneuver like you.

There’s never been anything quite like this on the river within the memory of most living people. Recreational boaters on Lake Houston just aren’t familiar with the safety protocols around such equipment. The easiest and safest thing is just to boat, canoe or kayak somewhere else.

Posted on October 21, 2018 by Bob Rehak

418 Days since Hurricane Harvey

 

Background on Houston Proposition A: Drainage Fee Re-vote

Warning: I’m not making a recommendation in this post. I am just trying to provide background information that may help you understand this issue and why its on the ballot again.

History of the “Drainage Fee”

Historically, Houston issued bonds to finance capital projects related to drainage and street improvements. About a decade ago, a group of engineers worried that we spent too much on interest, perpetually underfunded drainage, and constantly diverted money to less important things. So in 2010, they managed to get a referendum on the ballot that would create a dedicated fund out of current revenue for such improvements.

Ads featured a man who had flooded repeatedly. He blamed politicians who diverted money away from needed drainage projects. He said we needed to create a “lockbox” around future funds to ensure they were spent for their intended purpose.

Photo by Kilee Northrup. Forest Cove Drive in Forest Cove. From Wednesday, August 30th, late afternoon, "once I was able to drive out of my villiage (Mills Branch)."

Photo by Kilee Northrup. Forest Cove Drive on August 30th during Harvey.

Voters narrowly approved the Amendment (51-49). Subsequently, the City Council voted to add it to the City Charter (Article IX, Section 22: Dedicated Pay-As-You-Go Fund for Drainage and Streets.)

Court Challenge

The new amendment ran into problems immediately, not because of the supposed lockbox, but because of the way the City worded the summary of the amendment on the BALLOT itself.

The summary simply said, “Shall the City Charter of the City of Houston be amended to provide for the enhancement, improvement and ongoing renewal of Houston’s drainage and streets by creating a Dedicated Pay-As-You-Go Fund for drainage and streets?”

In 2015, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the summary (not the amendment) was misleading. It failed to disclose that the money would be raised through a new tax/fee on residents. The Texas Supreme Court then remanded the issue back to a trial court. which voided the election and ordered a new one.

Re-vote Confusing

Now, in 2018, we’re getting a chance to vote again on the 2010 measure. However:

  • The City claims that a positive vote will affirm the drainage fee, but a negative vote will not invalidate it.
  • The wording for the funding formula has changed and no one has yet explained why.
  • The vote is being positioned as a chance to create the lockbox promised eight years ago, but the referendum’s wording is virtually identical to the 2010 wording.
  • Even though this is popularly known as the drainage fee, the language that created it allows money to be used for a wide range of things not related to drainage (streets, salaries, vehicles, etc.)
  • The wording does not define the terms used within the amendment, nor does it specify the percentage of the money that should go toward drainage.

Let’s look at each one of these issues.

Texas Supreme Court and the Do-Over Vote

When you read a summary of any proposed amendment at the ballot box, it’s supposed to be a fair and accurate reflection of the proposal. The Supreme Court ruled that the 2010 ballot language in this case could mislead voters. That’s because it did’t disclose that voters would pay for the dedicated fund with a new tax on themselves.

Justice John Devine said in the conclusion of the ruling (see page 15) that, “The City did not adequately describe the chief features—the character and purpose—of the charter amendment on the ballot. By omitting the drainage charges, it failed to substantially submit the measure with such definiteness and certainty that voters would not be misled.”

The court found no problem with any other wording in the amendment. The new 2018 ballot language DOES disclose the tax on residents this time. Here’s how it reads.

Ballot Language for 2018 Proposition 

[Relating to the Creation of a Dedicated Funding Source to Enhance, Improve and Renew Drainage Systems and Streets]

“Shall the Houston City Charter be amended to establish a Dedicated Pay-As-You-Go Fund, to be used for the enhancement, improvement, and ongoing renewal of Houston’s drainage and streets, funded annually from the following sources: (i) developer impact fees; (ii) drainage charges, to property owners or users, to recover costs of providing drainage to benefitting real properties; (iii) a portion of the City’s ad valorem tax levy; and (iv) third-party contracts, grants, or payments earmarked or dedicated to drainage or streets?”

Vote Could Affirm, But Not Invalidate

After voters narrowly approved the 2010 amendment, a City Council vote actually added it to the City Charter. The City now argues that the Supreme Court ruling does not invalidate the City Council vote, only the results of the referendum. The tax will not go away regardless of how you vote, according to Mayor Sylvester Turner. So why are we having a re-vote if there is no real consequence?

Said Mayor Sylvester Turner in the Houston Chronicle, “We are simply saying in November to the voters: Go and reaffirm the dedicated purpose for which this fee is intended, put a lockbox around it. Voters are not being asked to increase the fee or create another fee, just to reaffirm what already is.”

Does the 2018 Language Create a Lockbox?

According to the Houston Chronicle, Mayor Turner believes that the Supreme Court decision removed a lockbox around the source of funding and that “approving the charter amendment this year would restore it.

Even though he feels the City does not need voter validation to retain the fee, for some reason, he feels the need for validation to keep the fee dedicated to drainage and streets. Perhaps he feels financial pressures.

Critics claim that revenues have been diverted for unintended purposes in the past. The City is trying to re-sell the concept by saying that a YES vote will create a lockbox around the money and a NO vote will allow money to be used in the general fund. There’s truth to this, and also some scare tactics, especially at a time when the firefighters are asking for large raises. However…

Critics say that there never was an effective lockbox. Moreover, there is NO new language in the 2018 amendment that creates or strengthens one. In fact, the 2018 language  is virtually identical to the 2010 language.

When I asked the Mayor’s office to point out the language in the 2018 referendum that created a lockbox around the money, I received a response from an aid who simply asserted it did so without explaining how.

Equal Vs. Equivalent

One key word has changed out of 518 words in the amendment. Amidst all the talk about lockboxes and affirmation, it has been overlooked.

The formula for allocating money to the fund mysteriously changed.

In section B (iii) the word “equal” became “equivalent.” There has been no public discussion of the impact of this change.

It’s not clear whether any change in the language of the amendment is even legal. The Trial Court’s Final Summary Judgment ordered a new election for Proposition 1 (what it was called in 2010), not a new election on a variation of it.

Here’s the change – in context of the funding mechanism in the bill:

City Charter Section B (iii) as adopted in 2010 (see Article IX, Section 22) reads:

“An amount equivalent to proceeds from $0.118 of the City’s ad valorem tax levy minus an amount equal to debt service for drainage and streets for any outstanding bonds or notes…”

B (iii) in the current 2018 ballot reads:

“An amount equivalent to proceeds from $0.118 of the City’s ad valorem tax levy minus an amount equivalent to debt service for drainage and streets for any outstanding bonds or notes…”

You might ask, “Don’t they mean the same thing?”  Not necessarily.

Equal means exactly the same in number; equivalent means the same value or weight. For instance, one 2010 dollar equals one 2018 dollar. However, adjusted for inflation, that same dollar would now be equivalent to $1.16. Another example: At this moment, $1 U.S. dollar is equivalent to $1.31 Canadian dollars.

Changing equal to equivalent makes me wonder whether something else is changing that could affect the debt-service calculation and therefore the amount that comes out of the city’s ad valorem tax. A change in the property tax rate? Interest rates? Home values affected by Harvey?

Usually when finance people talk about “equivalents,” they adjust for something: inflation, deflation, currency fluctuation, discounts, exchange rates, time value, etc. It’s not clear why they made this change….especially if the election is only to “affirm what is.”

The change might or might not be something crucial. But changing one word out of 518 makes me believe that someone did it intentionally, not accidentally, especially in this age of cut-and-paste.

Lack of Clarity

Vagueness and self-contradictions have plagued this amendment from the start.

  • Fees were originally intended for capital projects, but the amendment allows 25% of the money to go toward  maintenance and operations.
  • The public knows Proposition A as a drainage fee, but the fee also pays for street improvements. What constitutes a street improvement? New pavement and bigger storm drains? Surveys? Engineering fees? An asphalt patch? A bicycle lane? A bus lane? Stop signs? Traffic lights? Salaries of Public Works employees? The vehicles they drive? Turns out, it’s all of the above. Pretty much anything that touches a street.
  • Proponents keep talking about a lockbox. But the amendment contains no provisions for financial transparency, segregation of funds, council approvals, audits, or public reporting that would create a true lockbox.

Early Voting Starts Monday

If you believe money was diverted from this fund to pay for services other than drainage, then Proposition A won’t give you much comfort. The language is virtually identical to the last one.

How you vote will depend on:

  • How happy you are with the existing drainage fee
  • How much you trust people to do the right thing
  • Whether you’re a “something-is-better-than-nothing” person or a “let’s-start-over-and-get-this-right” type.
  • Whether you’re satisfied with the speed of mitigation efforts.

Now that you have the backstory, review the original language you’re voting on. Will it do what you want? If so, vote yes. If not, vote no.

Posted by Bob Rehak on October 20, 2018

417 Days since Hurricane Harvey

 

New Edgewater Park: First Good Thing to Come Out of Harvey

Until now, any good news coming out of Harvey has had to do with mitigation or restoration – preventing future flooding or getting things back to the way they were. Here’s the first story about creating something new out of Harvey’s wreckage that will go far beyond what we had, improve the entire Lake Houston area, and benefit the entire county.

Harris County has bought four parcels of land for a 90-acre park at Hamblen Road and Loop 494. The new Edgewater Park will be built around an old, defunct private park on the San Jacinto River near U.S. 59 that went by the same name. However, the new Edgewater Park will cover much more area, include many new amenities, and be a gateway to new recreational opportunities.

Tentative plans for a new Edgewater Park at Hamblen Road and Loop 494

Features of the new Edgewater Park

According to Dennis Johnston, County Precinct 4 Parks Director, the park will contain nature trails, picnic areas, a playground, rest rooms, an office and a boat ramp among many other features. From the park near U.S. 59, boaters will be able to put their boats, kayaks and canoes into the West Fork.

“There are currently no public boat ramps in that area along the San Jacinto River,” says Johnston. “Edgewater Park will provide residents access to a brand new, doublewide concrete boat launch.”

Hopefully, by the time the park opens, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will have completed dredging that reach of the San Jacinto River. From Edgewater Park, boaters will be able to explore Spring Creek, Lake Houston, and the East Fork as well as connecting creeks and bayous.

City of Houston Chief Resiliency Officer Stephen Costello announced at the Kingwood Town Hall meeting on October 9, 2018, that the City hopes to eventually dredge the entire West Fork between 59 and Lake Houston.

New Trailhead for Spring Creek Greenway

The park will also form the new trailhead for the Spring Creek Greenway, a network of hike and bike trails that will eventually connect the Woodlands and Kingwood. Just last week, Harris County Precinct 4 finished the last connection between U.S. 59 and I-45.

The most recent iteration of the Edgewater Park plans shows a re-routing of Hamblen Road, but that is far from certain at this point. Feasibility depends on approval of a grant request by the county’s Transportation Enhancement Program.

Johnston also said that he hopes to establish a bike rental program at the Townsend Park ‘n Ride and a connector trail between the Park ‘n Ride and the Greenway. “That would enable people from the City to take buses or cars out to Humble on weekends when the Park ‘n Ride isn’t being used and make use of the Spring Creek Greenway,” said Johnston.

Connection to Kingwood Trail Network

Plans also indicate a possible connection to Kingwood’s trail network. However, the Houston Parks Board, not the County, is working on that portion of the project as part of their Bayou Greenways 2020 program.

Harris County is currently buying out properties that have repeatedly flooded between Hamblen Road and the river. For instance, the County has already initiated a five-phase buyout program for the townhome/apartments along Marina Drive in Forest Cove that were destroyed in Harvey. The county expects to close on many of those properties soon.

Matt Zeve, Deputy Executive Director of the Harris County Flood Control District, said, “The apartments will either become parkland or be planted with native vegetation and allowed to go back to nature and function as a floodplain.”

Forest Cove Townhome destroyed by Harvey.

Timetable for Edgewater Park Development

Harris County’s web site says that Phase I of the Edgewater project (south of Hamblen) will begin in mid-2019. It will include the boat launch, parking lots, entry roads, rest rooms, a concession stand, park lighting, a fish-cleaning station, concrete picnic tables and trail access to the Spring Creek Greenway.

Phase II of the project (north of Hamblen), including the possible re-routing of Hamblen itself), will begin later. Phase II includes development of a trail system that will highlight interesting natural features of the ecosystem, including cypress ponds, with interpretative stops and signage along the trail.

“The park will be fully staffed and maintained by Precinct 4 and patrolled by constable park deputies. Edgewater Park will be an important anchor park for the Spring Creek Greenway and a day-use park that residents of all ages can enjoy,” Johnston says.

“If Hamblen is re-routed, it will NOT affect the cypress ponds.” The ponds are one of the signature features of the area and a natural treasure that the county is preserving. “The floodplain forest of Edgewater Park is a varied habitat with beautiful Texas red yucca shrubs, bluejack oaks, and old cypress trees,” says Johnston.

When asked when construction could begin, Johnston replied, “It depends on when our grant application to Texas Parks and Wildlife is processed. We should hear by February of 2019, but Parks and Wildlife sometimes approves grants and releases money months later. As a result, our construction could begin as early as May of 2019 or as late as January of 2020.

Harris County Precinct 4 is already fencing off Edgewater Park in preparation for construction.

“In the meantime, we are fencing off the area.  Architects have already been hired. Design work is in progress. We have wetlands and archeology studies to perform. We’re not wasting time,” says Johnston.

Parks Role in Reducing Flooding

By preserving this area as green space, the county will reduce the risk of flooding. Green spaces absorb more water than developed areas during rainfalls. They also slow the rate of runoff. “The ground acts as a sponge,” Johnston says.

Posted on October 18, 2018 by Bob Rehak

415 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Second Dredge Reaches Start Point at River Grove Park

Dredge #2 has moved down the West Fork of the San Jacinto River to River Grove Park, the western limit of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Emergency Dredging Project.

An aerial view of the starting point at River Grove Park for Dredge #2; photo taken 9/14/2017.

At River Grove, the second dredge, which is owned by Great Lakes Dredge & Dock, the primary contractor, will cut a 150-foot-wide opening in the giant sand bar above that blocks the drainage ditch. That ditch empties the western third of Kingwood. Approximately 650 homes flooded above this blockage. The opening should allow the drainage ditch to flow directly into the river again. It will also let boaters use the launch at the park.

Ugly Photo, Beautiful Sight

Dredge #2 has reached its starting point at River Grove Park. It should begin dredging in the next day or so once pipe reaches Placement Area 2. Here, the dredge is seen behind the 10-12 foot high “side bar” seen in the first photo above. Foliage in the foreground has grown since the first photo was taken shortly after Harvey.

Plans for the 150-foot-wide path through the giant sand bar.

Second Dredge Will Start This Week

Even though the dredge has moved into position, it has not yet started dredging. The dredge pipe that will carry sediment is still several thousand feet short of an old sand mine, Placement Area #2 on Sorters Road south of Kingwood College.

The second dredge will begin working after pipe reaches the old mine.

Sediment in the West Fork has made it difficult to float the pipe upstream. Mechanical dredges have had to cut a path through the sediment, which has reduced the river’s depth to one foot or less in places.

Easterly Direction for Dredging

Both dredges will work in a downstream direction until they complete their respective portions of the river.

That is because the river is so shallow. Dredge #1 reportedly bottomed out five times on its way to its starting point between Kingwood Greens and King’s Lake Estates. Mechanical dredges also had to clear a path for it. Starting west and working east reduces the amount of time it takes for each dredge to get to its starting point.

By completion of the project, expected around April 1 next year, West Fork channel conveyance between River Grove and Chimichurri’s should be restored to pre-Harvey conditions.

Meanwhile, Officials Continue to Plan Phase II

Between now and then, the City, County and State will work with FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to plan and launch Phase II of the dredging. Phase II would include the mouth bar area. Details yet to be worked out include an environmental survey and identification of a placement area for the spoils.

As of this morning, Houston City Council Member Dave Martin was confident that both could be accomplished and that the mouth-bar dredging could be approved before the current project is done. If so, that would save taxpayers $17 million on mobilization and demobilization costs for a second, separate job.

Posted on 10/16/2018 by Bob Rehak

413 Days since Hurricane Harvey

New Difference Map Confirms Buildup of West Fork Sediment Around Mouth Bar, Underscores Need for Removal

A new “difference map” published by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) shows the rapid build up of sediment in the West Fork of the San Jacinto River where it meets Lake Houston. Difference maps show changes in sediment levels over time.

When Stephen Costello, Chief Resiliency Officer for the City of Houston, presented this map at the Kingwood Town Hall Meeting on October 9, it was to describe three potential phases of West Fork dredging..

Having had several days to review and discuss this map, several other things became clear. See the map and legend below.

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

Conclusion #1:

The worst sediment buildup in the West Fork is near the mouth…exactly where retired Lake-Houston-area  geologists Tim Garfield and RD Kissling said it was when they raised the alarm about the mouth bar month’s ago.

Conclusion #2:

The problem is much worse than even they suspected. This clearly shows the extent of the West Fork’s mouth bar.  Like an iceberg, the part you see above water is only a small part of the bigger picture.  Vast new sediment deposits extend down to FM1960.

Conclusion #3:

Even Harvey-strength currents could not cut through the mouth bar. Therefore, smaller floods won’t be able to either.

Conclusion #4:

The mouth bar creates a sediment dam in the river that will exacerbate flooding. If the mouth bar area is not dredged, it will cause higher-than-normal flooding on smaller-than-normal rainfall.

Google Earth shows that the area between the mouth bar and FM1960 comprises 1700 acres. According to the difference map, this area received an average of approximately 2 feet of sediment. This means the channel and lake lost 3400 acre feet of capacity in this area.

Conclusion #5:

The mouth bar must be removed immediately. It and adjacent shoal areas get higher with every passing day and storm as water becomes shallower. If the mouth bar is left in place, it will slow the river, causing the area upstream (that is now being dredged) to fill more rapidly than normal with sediment.

Difference Map Proves Mouth Bar Must Go NOW

The mouth-bar area was the focus of the Corps’ survey efforts. They have known for months that it is the major problem. As they stated in Galveston at a meeting I attended, it is the primary driver for backwater and upstream flooding. Their value engineering report also states that in the event of another heavy rainfall, there is a “near certain likelihood” that wide-spread flooding will occur impacting even more homes than before Harvey, due to the river’s inability to pass high volumes of water. See Page 2 for the words engineers almost never use without cause.

We’ve been lucky so far this hurricane season. But minor floods earlier this year on March 28/29 and July 4 proved how serious this problem is. Had the City not lowered the level of Lake Houston for July 4, homes almost certainly would have flooded according to Houston City Council Member Dave Martin.

This Week’s Holdups

At a meeting in Austin last week, the City, Army Corps, FEMA, County and State of Texas all agreed in principle that the mouth bar needs to be removed. Further, if it can be added to the current dredging project, taxpayers can likely save $17 million or more in mobilization fees for a second, separate project at a later date.

Only two hurdles remain: a disposal site for the dredged material and an environmental survey.

A large disposal site is already under review that is much closer to the area of concern than either of the two current sites.

The proposed disposal site’s proximity could save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars more.

However, the environmental survey could delay the project beyond April when current dredging is expected to finish. If so, that could also increase flood risk.

Trees on the mouth bar initially led the Corps to exclude the bar from dredging for two reasons: one was environmental, the other legal. According to the Stafford Act, the enabling legislation for FEMA, FEMA funds cannot be spent to fix things that existed before Harvey. The existence of the trees proved that at least part of the mouth bar existed before Harvey.

The “Mouth Bar.” Note the trees on the right end.

Let’s Get Real

If the trees on the island raise an environmental concern, leave the part of the island that existed pre-Harvey. Dredge the channel and other parts of the island first.

This area includes 3-5+ft of Harvey derived sediment which should qualify for FEMA disaster recovery funds under the Stafford Act based on the new TWDB map.

The longer we wait to dredge this island, the more vegetation will grow on it, the more resistant to erosion it will be, and the more expensive it will be to dredge.

Are the Army Corps and FEMA trying to save an invasive species that USDA wants to eradicate?

Close examination from a boat showed the trees in question to be Chinese tallow trees, an invasive species that the USDA has been trying to eradicate from here to Florida. It’s actually poisonous to local animals. If this tree costs taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in delays and opportunity costs, it will become the new poster child for government waste and folly…especially if Humble, Kingwood and Atascocita flood in the meantime. This is one delay I certainly wouldn’t want my name associated with. That’s the wrong way to go down in history.

This tree on the mouth bar which initially caused the Army Corps to exclude the bar from dredging is a Chinese tallow, an invasive species which the USDA is trying to eradicate. Note the heart-shaped, aspen-like leaves – the tell-tale identifier.

Posted by Bob Rehak on October 14, 2018

411 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Harvey Experiences of Robert Westover and Pat Klemz at Kingwood Village Estates  

Harvey’s floodwaters at Kingwood Village Estates in the heart of Kingwood, 1.4 miles from the San Jacinto River

Interviewed by Bob Rehak:

In 50 years of professional writing, this is the hardest story I have ever written. Twelve people died. Seniors. People like me. Had they evacuated sooner, many might still be alive. But there was no warning until water started creeping under the doors of Kingwood Village Estates at 3 a.m., on August 29th, 2017.

Kingwood Village Estates is a gorgeous retirement community in the heart of Kingwood. It contains 120 condominiums and a clubhouse nestled around tranquil, tree-lined streets.

Today, a casual observer would never know Kingwood Village Estates flooded. 

Residents range in age from 65 to 95. Some have lived there 20 years. That’s remarkable given the age of residents. Many are widowed. Many have impairments. But all still live independently … with help from each other. It’s a tight-knit community.

Robert Westover is the property manager. Pat Klemz, at 65, is the youngest resident and president of the condo association. This is the story of how they got more than 75 people out alive during Harvey. Sadly, it’s also the story of how twelve later died of injuries sustained during the surprise evacuation or the stress that followed.

The Day Before the Flood

Rehak: “Tell me about the day before the evacuation.”

Westover: “We had never flooded before. The day before they opened the gates at the Lake Conroe Dam, we felt like we could manage. The drains were clear. The streets were clear. There were no evacuation warnings. However, we did encourage people to move to higher ground just to be safe and some left to stay with their families. Then at 3 a.m. the next morning, water began crawling up the staircases. The fire department came in and said, ‘You have to leave.’”

Rehak: “What was their concern?”

Westover: “Electricity. Fear of electrocution. We started waking people up and they carried them out mostly by airboats brought in by the Cajun navy. We evacuated 75 to 80 people who were still here. Every first-floor unit flooded.”

“Water Rising Right Before Our Eyes”

Klemz: “I got a phone call early in the morning of August 29th while I was still sleeping. One of our buildings already had four or five inches of water. It just kept coming. You could see it rising right in front of your eyes; it was that fast. I got another person and we went door to door waking people up. Some people didn’t want to leave. All we had to do was ask them to look out of the window. When they did, everybody cooperated. We sent them upstairs first.”

Lobby of Windsor House at Kingwood Village Estates today after flood repairs. Residents waited at the top of these stairs to be rescued by boats the night of the flood.

Westover: “The elevators had been knocked out by then. No electricity. Everything was dark. Some people couldn’t get upstairs by themselves, so we had to help them.”

Rescue Boats Came Through Front Doors

Klemz: “It took two or three hours for first responders to get here. They literally had to break down doors to float their boats into our lobbies.”

In the dark, early hours of August 29, 2017, rescuers broke down these doors to rescue people with airboats.

“I did triage at the top of the stairs, while Kay Lake, another resident (age 68), went around with first responders to make sure everyone was out. They also had to break down the doors of some units. Some people simply refused to open their doors. They were scared and didn’t want to leave.”

“Most left only with the clothes on their backs. Many people had pets. Some forgot their identification. Some forgot their medicines. And some had to be carried down the stairs in wheelchairs. It was frantic. But when it came to loading boats, everybody cooperated fantastically. We had to balance the boats to make sure they didn’t tip.”

Evacuating In Darkness

Westover: “All this happened in darkness. It was a couple hours before the sun came up. It only took four or five hours for the water to go from the gate to the highest building. The flooding started at 3 a.m. By 5 a.m., we already had four or five inches of water everywhere. The water didn’t stop rising until it reached Wendy’s about three quarters of a mile up the road. Ultimately, we had to rip out sheetrock to the top of door frames.”

“No One Died that Night, but…”

Klemz: “No one died that night, thank God.”

Westover: “However, by the end of the year, 12 of our residents died. The flood and the stress were just too much for them to go through.”

Rehak: “What was the most poignant story from that night?”

Klemz: One man in the early stages of Alzheimer’s was also afraid of heights. His wife came up to me and said, “I don’t know if he’ll make it down the stairs.” So I sat with him for about ten minutes and just talked with him. When first responders came to pick up his wheelchair, I walked down the stairs next to him.”

Westover: “His wife said, ‘He wouldn’t have made it out of the building had it not been for Pat.” He was diabetic. Had lots of problems. He went into the hospital. Came out. Went back in.”

Klemz: “Sadly, he passed two months later. There are so many memories like that from that night. I had one woman who came up to me after we moved back in. She said, ‘You saved my life.’”

At this point, Klemz’ eyes turn bleary and she chokes back tears. “She said if I hadn’t been there to talk her down the stairs, she wouldn’t have been able to get down. She told me, ‘You saved my life.’”

Memory Loss, Short Tempers, Symptoms of PTSD

Klemz: “This was extremely stressful for anyone, but especially for older people. Many didn’t even know whether their families were safe; cell phones weren’t working. They were shuffled from shelter to shelter or taken in by strangers.”

“Later, many would come up and tell me, “I’m having a terrible time with my memory; I’m short tempered; things like that. I saw the same symptoms after Katrina. Most in their seventies and eighties never expected to go through something like this.”

Rehak: “What kind of symptoms?”

Klemz: “People are distracted. They can’t concentrate. They anger easily. They can’t sleep. They become agitated every time it rains. The stress is overwhelming. People in their eighties lost homes and all their belongings. Some people were so traumatized they couldn’t remember their names.”

Rehak: “What triggers the PTSD?”

Klemz: “Rainstorms set people off. Also, if you feel like you’re not in control, you more easily lose your temper. People lost that sense of control; they couldn’t stay. Even when the water went down, there was nothing around us. Toilets would not work. Everything was backed up. There were: no alarm systems, no doors on the first floor, no elevators, spotty electricity. We didn’t get electricity back completely till the third week of December!”

12 Deaths Attributed to Injuries and Stress

Rehak: “Tell me about the people who died? How was their health before the evacuation?”

Westover: “They were generally in good health, but fragile in the sense of hips, knees and that kind of thing. Six died within 30 days. They were on the staircase being handed down into a boat. Of the six, one was male; the rest were female. All were in their eighties.”

“Six more died within six months – we think from the stress of not being able to come back to their homes. We lost 12 altogether from injuries directly related to the event or from the stress that resulted from it.”

Rehak: “How does that compare to the normal mortality rate for people in this age group?”

Westover: “Normally, we might lose one or two folks a year. Twelve in six months is highly unusual.”

Lack of Warning

Rehak: What was the most terrifying part of the experience?”

Klemz: “When my phone rang at 5 a.m.”

Westover: “Monday everything was fine. We were totally unprepared for Tuesday. There was no warning whatsoever of what would happen when Lake Conroe opened its gates.”

Klemz: “Harvey was diminishing at that point. There was no indication so much water was going to come down the West Fork. That’s why most people didn’t evacuate. If they had said Monday night that so much water was coming, people would have been out of here.”

Rehak: “What was the best part of the experience?”

Both: “Getting everybody out alive.”

A Second Miracle

Westover: “The repairs were our second miracle.”

Rehak: “How so?”

Westover: “Because of the ownership structure, no banks would loan us money. They were concerned about our ability to pull everyone together and rehab the place. Residents own their own units. They also own a percentage of the common areas proportional to the size of their units. We had to rehab 64,000 square feet at a cost of $3.5 million. Every penny of that came from the owners.

Less than 5% had flood insurance and most are widows. People had to come up with $20,000 to $50,000 depending on the size of their condo. It was amazing how folks came together. They found a way to finance repairs and wrote a check. If that hadn’t happened, it would have affected all of Kingwood.”

Kingwood Village Estates today. 

“Ninety percent of the owners are back in their units now. The rest should be back in their units soon. They like it here. They miss it.”

Rehak: “How did you manage? Your personal home was flooded, too!”

Westover (choking up): “One day at a time.”

Pat Klemz, left, president of Kingwood Village Estates Condo Association and Robert Westover, the property manager.

Posted by Bob Rehak on October 13, 2018

410 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Meeting in Austin to Include Mouth Bar in Dredging Scope Ends Well, But Two Hurdles Still Exist

On Thursday, October 11, Council Member Dave Martin attended a follow up meeting to discuss Harvey recovery needs in the Lake Houston area, including the mouth bar. Regulatory agencies including the Texas Department of Emergency Management (TDEM), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), along with staff from Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s office and the City of Houston also attended the meeting. At one point, Texas Division of Emergency Management Chief Nim Kidd reportedly told people he wasn’t going to let them leave until they reached agreement. The meeting lasted nine hours…without lunch. But at the end of the day, we’re a big step closer to removing the giant sand bar blocking the mouth of the San Jacinto River. Here’s how things reportedly played out.

City Requested Expansion of Scope

The City of Houston asked FEMA to give the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) an emergency directive to remove siltation caused by Hurricane Harvey at the mouth of the West Fork of the San Jacinto. Further, to expedite the project and save remobilization fees, the City requested that this work piggyback on the original State of Texas Assistance Request (STAR).

Although  not officially approved yet, regulatory agencies reacted favorably to adding this to the original STAR request. However, two hurdles still exist.

Two Hurdles Remain for Mouth Bar Project

Before the mouth bar can be removed, two more hurdles must be cleared:

  • Identifying and permitting a disposal site
  • Complying with environmental regulations.

TDEM agreed to complete this additional work under an emergency request similar to the one that jumpstarted the initial dredging.

Said Houston City Council Member Dave Martin, “All parties involved are ready to make this work.”

Humble Land a Possibility

Barry Madden, an Humble landowner, with substantial acreage near the river and the mouth bar, has already met with officials about using his property as a potential disposal site. If acceptable, the proximity could save millions of tax dollars. Madden already has “fill” permits in place. So there may really only be one hurdle to clear.

Property owned by Barry Madden just west of Kings Lake Estates and south of the San Jacinto West Fork

Thank You to…

As discussed at the Kingwood Town Hall Meeting on Tuesday, October 9, this mouth bar and other Lake Houston area projects could not happen without the continuing efforts of TDEM, in particular Chief W. Nim Kidd;  Governor Abbott’s Chief Operating Officer, Reed Clay; City of Houston, Mayor Sylvester Turner; Chief Resiliency Officer, Stephen Costello; and Chief Recovery Officer, Marvin Odum.

How You Can Help

Many residents continue to ask Council Member Martin what they can do to help. Council Member Martin encourages residents to send their thanks to several key officials for assisting District E. Please click here for their mailing addresses.

For more information, please contact Council Member Martin’s office at (832) 393-3008 or via email at districte@houstontx.gov.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/12/18

409 Days since Hurricane Harvey