Conditions in Atlantic Becoming More Favorable for Tropical Development

I just received an email from Jeff Lindner, Director of Hydrologic Operations Division/Meteorologist for Harris County Flood Control District about a potential tropical development.

Linder says, “There has been little mention of the Atlantic tropics thus far this hurricane season…even though we are already on our “E” storm. Most of the storms have been focused in the sub-tropical north Atlantic away from the generally hostile conditions in the deep tropics and far removed from any land interaction.”

National Hurricane Center Five Day Graphical Tropical Weather Outlook gives this tropical disturbance a 20% chance of tropical formation over the next five days.

Conditions in Tropics Becoming More Favorable for Tropical Development

“However conditions are starting to slowly change and as is usual for mid-August, conditions are becoming more favorable for tropical development in the deep tropics or that region between Africa and the Caribbean Sea,” said Lindner.

Tropical Wave 99L

Lindner continued: “A tropical wave roughly 850 miles east of the southern Windward Islands has shown an increase in deep convection today. This convection (thunderstorms) remains fairly disorganized at this time. Significant amounts of Saharan Air (dusty air from the deserts of N Africa) have been generally keeping the formation of convection to a minimum for the last 2 months, but 99L has found itself far to the south (near 8N) and mainly south of the dusty air across the mid Atlantic. This system has also found itself near/under a building ridge of high pressure aloft and removed from the anomalous strong wind shear thus far this year across the Caribbean Sea and Atlantic.”

“Conditions appear at least marginally favorable for some slow development of this feature as it moves W to WNW over the next 48-72 hours.”

“There is little to no model support for this feature to develop, but we shall see what the 00Z and 12Z models suggest. At the 800pm this evening, the Hurricane Center is giving this system a 20% chance of tropical development over the next 5 days as it moves generally toward the eastern Caribbean Sea.”

Lindner Cautions Against Looking Too Far into Future

“Reminder: it is important as we move into the heart of hurricane season to get information from trusted sources – especially on social media. Posts showing where a storm could be 7-9 days from now and at some level of intensity should not be believed and it is important to refrain from sharing such posts without proper context,” cautioned Lindner.

Peak of Hurricane Season is September 10

The statistical peak of hurricane season for this area is September 10, so we are still almost a month away. Nevertheless, be prepared. Check your your hurricane kit now. Don’t leave important matters for the last minute.

SJRA Still Lowering Lake Conroe

The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) has been steadily lowering Lake Conroe by 275 cubic feet per second to create extra capacity in the lake.  From a normal level of 201 mean feet above sea level (MSL), the goal was to reduce the lake to 199 MSL by August 15 and maintain that level until the end of September. This is to create an additional buffer against downstream flooding until the Army Corps can restore the carrying capacity of the West Fork.

However, recent rains have been refilling the lake almost as fast as the SJRA is lowering it. At the time of this post, the level was at 200.01 MSL. Visit SJRA.net to see the current level and release rate.

I am sure they will increase the discharge rate if this or any other storm approaches to get to their target of 199 MSL.

In short, nothing to worry about now. But keep your antenna up.

Posted by Bob Rehak on August 15, 2018

351 Days since Hurricane Harvey.

Activity at Army Corps Dredge Command Site Kicking into High Gear

The countdown to D-Day (dredging day) continues. Preparation for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Emergency Dredging Project on the West Fork is kicking into high gear. Here are some pics from the job site and the latest schedule for when various activities will start.

Schedule for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers West Fork Emergency Dredging Project

Dozens of trucks are delivering equipment to the mobilization site.

Traffic management at the site is a major concern, prompting the Corp to request the public stay a safe distance away.

Thousands of sections of dredge pipe have been delivered to a massive “pipe farm.”

Two Poseidan dredges are being delivered in sections and will be assembled on site. Shown here: some platforms being unloaded. Here’s a link to the Poseidon site that shows how the equipment is set up.

Contractor and Army Corps representatives review dredging plans at mobilization site headquarters.

Actual dredging should begin within the next two weeks. While staff and material are being organized for the dredging operation, clean up crews will remove more dead trees and other debris from the river and placement sites.

Example of debris removal from Lake Houston before dredging. This shot actually shows a city-contracted crew working on the East Fork during July. Corps crews will be conducting similar work.

Difference Between City Dredging and Corp Dredging

(NOTE: THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH THE FOLLOWING INFO SINCE THE ORIGINAL POST) What is the difference between the city debris removal and the debris removal that the corps is doing? I went back into the contract requirements. Division 2, Section 02 41 01.01 45 stipulates, “General debris consists of trees and other vegetation within limits of dredging in the river, under the West Lake, Houston Parkway bridge, and upland areas that are to be dredged or excavated. General debris may also include, but is not limited to, metal bands, pallets, pieces of broken cable, rope, concrete rubble, construction materials, broken piles, etc. and may be encountered in the same area as above.”

So I see three main differences. The Corps subcontractor will: 1) only be working within the area to be dredged, 2) remove other types of materials that the city did not, 3) Also be responsible for cleaning up the placement areas, which the city did not.

Section 1.3.2 of the same document stipulates how they are being paid. Basically, it’s by the ton, but they are also being compensated for the cost of equipment, labor and material. The government is inspecting the scales. The complete contract requirements and plans are posted on the Reports page of this web site under Sedimentation/Dredging/Army Corps.

Additional Info About Army Corps West Fork Dredging Project

Below are some videos posted by the Corps that explain how we got to this point and how the project will progress.

The first explains how the Corps conducted the site survey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvQNwKOOmeA

The next shows an aerial tour of the project.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu4-cwsdFNc

And the final one explains their value engineering process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2se5YdNRGdA

Posted by Bob Rehak on August 14, 2018

350 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Houston A Year After Harvey: Where We Are And Where We Need To Be

Jim Blackburn, JD, professor of environmental law at Rice and Phil Bedient, PhD., a professor of engineering also at Rice, have just released an important new study called Houston a Year After Harvey: Where We Are and Where We Need to Be . Because of the length, detail, intricate maps and charts, and file size, this is best viewed on something larger than a smartphone.

Written for the Average Adult

Three things immediately become apparent when reviewing this 55-page report. It’s wide ranging in scope. It’s an excellent work of scholarship. And it’s well written; the average adult should be able to understand all the key concepts without difficulty.

Houston A Year After Harvey: Three Major Sections

It’s an excellent summary of what happened during Harvey, how the community is responding, and what still needs to be done – major watershed by major watershed.

The Problems of Obsolete Flood Plain Maps

This paper is organized into three main sections. First, the issues of obsolete 100-year floodplain maps and increasing rainfall are discussed because they are key to fully understanding the current dilemma and shaping alternative concepts for long-term protection. Whether or not you believe in climate change, the case for revising flood maps is pretty compelling based on the math alone. We’ve had five so-called 500-year storms in the last 25 years. Are we just spectacularly unlucky? Or do we need to revisit the assumptions and underlying math?

USGS did this recently and designated Harvey a 42-year flood at the West Fork and Grand Parkway.

Any time you try to predict the frequency of rarely observed or unobserved events, such as 500-year storms, you venture way out on a limb. The data on which you base assumptions is thin. Worse, one of the fundamental precepts of extreme value analysis (EVA) is that nothing changes during the 500 years under analysis.

Good luck with that. Five hundred years ago, the U.S., Texas, Houston, developers, gasoline, F150s and sand mining didn’t even exist. As we get more data and update assumptions, flood maps are being redrawn. So are the guidelines which form the basis for different types of development. Instead of raising new homes two feet above the 100 year flood plain, officials are now talking about two feet above the 500-year flood plain.

Issues that Need to Be Addressed Watershed by Watershed

The second part of Houston A Year After Harvey is a geographic overview of the flood issues and potential responses to various watersheds across Harris County.

The discussion of the West Fork of the San Jacinto goes from pages 28-30. It starts with a discussion of sedimentation, where the sediment is coming from and why we need stronger regulation of sand mining.

In regard to sedimentation, the reports also discusses  the need for dredging to restore the river’s carrying capacity.

Finally, in regard to the San Jacinto, the report discusses the need to change the operating philosophy for the dams on Lake Conroe and Lake Houston to enable pre-release as a strategy for flood mitigation. This has already happened, they note, with the approval of the TCEQ to temporarily lower the level of Lake Conroe during the peak of hurricane season.

Different Solution Sets for Different Flooding Issues

The third major portion of Houston A Year After Harvey discusses different flood management concepts for three zones of the Houston area that have different flooding issues.

The authors break the county up into three major zones, A, B and C. A stretches from Addicks/Barker to the Katy Prairie. B covers the central part of the county. And C covers coastal areas.

The discussion of Zone B (which includes the Lake Houston and San Jacinto River) includes explanations for many of the projects listed on the Harris County Flood Control District Flood Bond that we are now voting on. See pages 42 through 45.

But don’t stop there. There’s also a great description for how the Ike Dike could work in Zone C.

How All the Pieces of the Flood Bond Fit Together

All in all, Houston A Year After Harvey makes a great case for the flood bond, without ever really setting out to do that. It will help give you a better understanding for how our drainage problems affect the people around us and vice versa.

The entire report is posted on this web site with permission of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and SSPEED Center. ©2018 James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University. It will be permanently stored in the Reports Section under the Hurricane Harvey tab for easy future access.

Posted on August 13, 2018 by Bob Rehak

349 Days Since Hurricane Harvey

 

TACA Now Claims Sand Mines Helped to Prevent Flooding Downstream

David Perkins, CEO of TACA (the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association) now claims that sand mines helped to prevent flooding downstream. The claim appeared in the current issue of Mining Technology in an article titled “Did Sand Mining Exacerbate Flooding During Hurricane Harvey?”

Perkins is quoted as saying, “…what [these sand mines] actually do – in contrast to what people were stating – is that they stored quite a bit of that floodwater and helped to prevent additional flooding …”

He explained how.  “… For example, one 60-acre pit that’s 100 feet deep holds 6,000 acre feet of water. We’ve got some great potential capacity for off-channel storage that we could incorporate into our mining activities.” [Emphasis added twice.]

Did Mines Really Help Prevent Downstream Flooding?

Did they prevent flooding or could they have the potential to do so? Perhaps, but only if they followed best management practices common in other states and countries. More on that later.

Let’s suspend disbelief for a moment and examine Mr. Perkins’ theory.

The pits are already filled with water, so you only have a tiny portion of those acre feet available for storage during a flood! Not as much as he implies. Is the amount significant?

The difference between the top of the water and the top of the dikes is usually 10 to 20 feet at best. So let’s be generous to Mr. Perkins and assume 20. And let’s use the pit below as a test case. It’s 160 acres – about the size of Kingwood’s East End Park so people will have a reference.

Here’s what the same pit looks like from ground level.

Peak flow from Harvey would have filled this pit in less than 8 minutes.

How 8 Minutes was Calculated

The pit above is approximately 160 acres.

  • Assume 20 vertical feet are available to store water.
  • 20 feet x 160 acres = 3200 acre feet of potential storage.
  • Now let’s calculate how fast Harvey would fill that up.
  • Approximately 150,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) flowed through this area.
  • There are 43,560 cubic feet in an acre foot. To find the fill rate…
  • 150,000 cubic feet per second/43,560 = approximately 3.5 acre feet per second
  • To convert seconds to minutes, 3.5 x 60 = 210 acre feet per minute.
  • 1600 acre feet of extra capacity/210 acre feet per minute = 7.6 minutes.
  • Thus, Harvey could have filled 20 feet in this pit in less than 8 minutes.

Did It Delay, Reduce, or Prevent Flooding?

So this pit really wouldn’t have done much by itself to prevent flooding. It delayed flooding on the West Fork for 8 minutes in a 4-day flood. It reduced flow by 3,200 acre feet. But it did little prevent flooding as Mr. Perkins claims. To put things into perspective, the total amount of flow going into Lake Houston would have filled up NRG stadium in 3.5 minutes (see page 7).

Contribution to Flood Reduction if You Put All Mines Together

However, if you consider all the pits on the West Fork together (20 square miles), they might have delayed  flooding by 10 hours according to the same calculations. That’s starting to sound like a significant contribution. Barker and Addicks Reservoirs together store a total of 410,000 acre feet. West Fork sand mines occupy 12,800 acres. If every acre had 20 vertical feet of storage available, you would have 256,000 acre feet of storage. That might not stop Harvey but it could certainly help reduce flooding – especially in smaller floods.

Two Problems Need to Be Addressed with Perkins’ Theory

Mr. Perkins’ theory has two major flaws that would need to be addressed before it could be taken seriously by residents.

That would mean following best management practices common in other states and countries.

Ignoring Best Practices Contributes to Flooding

Regardless of storage POTENTIAL, if mines fail to follow best management practices, they are likely to do more harm than good.

Texas does not enforce best management practices common in other states, such as setbacks from rivers, sloping of dikes, and strengthening of dikes.

In Texas, we locate mines in floodways. And dikes are so thin that they often fail. Case in point: the mine we are talking about. There, dikes have been breached repeatedly. The river has cut through the pit and carried sediment downstream. That sediment then helped clog the river and create floods, not prevent them.

Rather than trying to deny what happened and change the debate, TACA should acknowledge what happened and work with citizen groups and government to create new regulations that protect the public as well as themselves.

What Really Happened in West Fork Mines During Harvey

Here’s what it looked like. This series of photos shows West Fork sand mines during Harvey on 8/30/17, one day after the peak. The river was flowing at only one-third of its peak on this day, according to the San Jacinto River Authority.

West Fork Sand Mine complex inundated by Harvey. Two of the three stockpiles in this photo were decimated by the flood. Sediment from the pits was also picked up by currents within them and carried downstream. Mine used in illustration above is in center. 

Following are several close ups that show water breaching dikes, entering the mine and eroding areas within it and then carrying sediment downstream. All images taken on 8/30/17, courtesy of Google Earth and NASA.

Floodwater broke dikes, captured the sand pit and flowed straight through it.

Rapids within the mine.

Force of floodwater washed out road INSIDE mine. 

Floodwater rushing out of forest into sand mine. It then flowed through and over dikes on the opposite side.

Exit Point for Floodwaters in this Mine

This next image shows the floodwaters exiting the mine on the far side after they scooped up sediment.

Floodwaters exit mine during Harvey. Photo taken on 8/30/2017.

Harvey was not the only flood when this has happened. The Memorial Day flood in 2015 and the Tax Day Flood in 2016 also saw breaches of the dikes. Those floods were much smaller and still caused problems, underscoring the need to modify permitting, regulations and best practices.

Exit point when river captured mine during Memorial Day flood in 2015.

Exit point two months later, on 7/31/2015. Breach was still unprepared and mine was leaking sediment into river.

By March of 2016, the breach had been repaired, but you can also see how sand was building up against it.

Less than a year later, when the flood waters had subsided, we can see the growth and orientation of the sand bars within the mine on the upper left in this 2017 image. This indicates that current within the mines during river capture was forcing sediment out of the mines.

I fail to see how this particular sand mine can prevent flooding. These pictures tell a different story. If the operator and TACA supported best management practices common in other states and countries, they might be able to help prevent flooding. But until that happens, I’m going to call Mr. Perkins’ claim a perfect-world generalization that has real-world limitations and exceptions.

And until TACA and the mines acknowledge the role they have played in flooding, residents will have a hard time emotionally accepting their presence in the community.

As always, these are my opinions on a matter of public interest. They are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statutes of the great State of Texas.

Posted by Bob Rehak on August 11, 2018

347 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Harvey Brought Us Together; Now It Is Dividing Us

A psychotherapist told me recently how the storm that brought people together is now dividing us.

Taking the bait, I asked, “How so?”

“People who didn’t flood want to get back to their normal lives. People who flooded can’t.”

“And?”

“The ones who didn’t flood just can’t fathom what it’s like for people who did. So they often say well-intentioned things that come off as insensitive.”

“Come in and make yourself right at home.”

“Really?”

“Really!”

So I asked friends who flooded. It’s true. Some want to scream inside even if they’re smiling on the outside.

One told me, “I belong to a community (that I never chose), of displaced, defeated, depressed people who have to figure out how to put their lives back together, both physically and emotionally.”

How would you react if you flooded and someone said to you…

“Don’t you get tired of only cooking with your microwave upstairs?”
A) “I love popcorn for breakfast, lunch and dinner.”
B) “So come over and chop some fire wood for me.”
C) “It doesn’t get any better than Jimmy-Dean cuisine.”
D) “When I need variety, I bring my microwave downstairs.”

“Well, just think, you get to redecorate!”
A) “I hate decorating. I don’t like shopping. And I liked my home just the way it was.”
B) “Yes, I’m in luck. The second-hand shop is having a scratch-and-dent sale this weekend.”
C) “Unfortunately, at the moment, I have champaign taste on a beer budget.”
D) “I always aspired to that college-dorm-room look, but I’m going to have to settle for the deer-camp feel.”

“Without a kitchen, at least you don’t have to cook very much.”
A) “It’s convenient when you don’t have plates either.”
B) “We’ll just fly to New York for dinner tonight.”
C) “I needed to go on a diet anyway.”
D) “Whatatime I have at Whataburger!”

“You’re still living in your camper?”
A) “Yes, I turned down a weekend at Mar-a-lago so I could enjoy the freedom of the open driveway!”
B) “It’s roomier than a coffin.”
C) “My crew cab doesn’t have a shower.”
D) “Yes, we don’t have a choice. The raccoons have taken over the Port-o-let.”

“That was just ‘stuff.’ You are alive and you have your family.”
A) “I’ll trade you my weird cousin Izzy for some drywall.”
B) “True, but I could do with some matching shoes right about now.”
C) “Who needs hot water when you have each other?”
D) “Yes, living with four-people and a dog in a 276-square-foot camper has brought us closer together than ever.”

“Now you have a blank canvas…”
A) “…and an empty bank account.”
B) “If only I could afford the paint.”
C) “I always wanted to pay for my house a second time!”
D) “I’d look at the bright side, but all my Dale Carnegie books wound up in the dumpster.”

“How’s the house coming along?”
A) “They built the Empire State building in one year; why is my bathroom taking two?”
B) “Kind of like the Mueller investigation. No end in sight.”
C) “Great. I’m having an ATM installed by the front door.”
D) “I like paying top dollar for bargain basement service.”

“We just got back from (insert romantic destination here). You guys going anywhere?”
A) “About all I can afford is a wild weekend in Waller.”
B) “All my money is going into the house; we will not trek Everest this year.”
C) “Can you have a wild weekend in Waller?”
D) “I hear Waller has a good donut shop.”

“What can I do to help?”
A) “I can tell by your Gucci’s that that was a pro forma offer.”
B) “Mean it when you ask.”
C) “Start putting up some drywall.”
D) “Get the skunk out of the closet.”

“We redid our kitchen two years ago. What a nightmare! I know what you are going through!”
A) “I’m pretty sure the judge would call it justifiable homicide.”
B) “I look pretty good in orange jumpsuits.”
C) “You think they’ll give me time off for good behavior?”
D) “Where’s Al Queda when you really need them?”

Said with a wink and a smile. Really. If you heard yourself in any of the questions or responses, give yourself a perfect score. You are still a human being.

Posted by Bob Rehak, August 9, 2018

345 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Your Best Investment in Your Biggest Investment: Vote FOR the Flood Bond

My wife and I were the first in line for early voting on the Count Flood Bond today. By 8:01, were were voting. By 8:02, the Harris County Flood Bond had surged out to a commanding 2-0 margin in the Kingwood area.

Even if your home didn’t flood, the perception that it might will affect your home’s value.

That’s why the Harris County flood bond is likely to be your best investment in your biggest investment – your home.

We need to show the world that we’re serious about fixing our drainage problems, not just pretending they don’t exist.

After Months of Successful Lobbying, Now is the Time to Vote

After months of successful lobbying, residents of the Lake Houston area managed to get key projects included in the Harris County Flood Bond that will reduce the likelihood and severity of flooding in our area. Now it’s time to seal the deal. Get out and vote FOR the bond.

More than 800 Lake Houston area residents submitted input on the bond. As a result, additional detention, dredging, and gates were added to the project list. They will reduce the input during a flood, increase the throughput, and speed up the output.

We’ve all heard the arguments for and against the bond. We’ve learned what the impact of the bond will be on taxes. Now we just need to approve it.

If approved, the bond will provide vital money that provides the local match for critical projects, such as dredging the west fork mouth bar and the addition of ten new flood gates to the Lake Houston Dam.

Please don’t take anything for granted. Get on the phone. Call all your neighbors, all your relatives, all your friends. Get them to vote for the bond. AND get them to contact all of their neighbors, relatives and friends, too. Especially those who did not flood. 

Lake Houston Area Can Swing This Election

ONE FOURTH of the 3000 people county-wide that showed up at 23 watershed meetings with county officials were from the Lake Houston area. That’s huge, considering that we have only about ONE TWELFTH of the county’s population. Our voting power can swing this referendum one way or the other. Let’s use it. Vote FOR.

Early Voting Dates and Hours

Early voting started August 8, at the Kingwood Community Center and continues through 4:30 today. Here is the complete list of early voting dates and hours.

Wednesday, August 8, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Thursday, August 9, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Friday, August 10, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Monday, August 13, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Tuesday, August 14, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Wednesday, August 15, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Thursday, August 16, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Friday, August 17, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Saturday, August 18, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Sunday, August 19, 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday, August 20, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Tuesday, August 21, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

The final day for voting is August 25 at your normal polling place. If you wait until August 25 to vote, it will be at your normal polling place. To find your polling place, follow this link.

Posted by Bob Rehak, August 8, 2018

344 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Endorsement of Harris County Flood Bond: I’m voting “For!”

Yesterday, the final project list was released for the Harris County Flood Bond. There was only one change affecting the San Jacinto Watershed and it was positive.  The number of homes covered by subdivision drainage improvements increased tenfold. Early voting starts tomorrow on the flood bond referendum and I hope to be one of the first people at Kingwood Community Center at 8 a.m. because the flood bond is getting my wholehearted endorsement.

Townhomes cut in half by Harvey’s floodwaters. North side of the west fork of the San Jacinto River in Forest Cove. Photo: September 14, 2017.

Reasons to Vote “For” Are Numerous

I like this bond for many reasons:

  • We lobbied long and hard as a community to make sure the things that would mitigate flooding in the Lake Houston area were included. The county responded by including additional upstream detention, dredging, and floodgates for Lake Houston. They’ve given us what we asked for.
  • Additional detention will decrease the input during a flood. Additional dredging will increase the throughput. Additional gates will increase the output. Hopefully, all of that will reduce flooding.
  • The County has also included money to improve internal drainage ditches so water can get to the river faster.
  • Together, these measures should help get us back to the point where a 100-year storm produces a 100-year flood. That’s the goal. Over the years, siltation has reduced drainage capacity and upstream development has increased peak flows. Baseline assumptions have changed since most of us bought our homes. Measures in the flood bond should help our drainage systems respond to heavy rains the way they were intended to.
  • If we don’t address flooding, home values will not increase the way they normally would  simply because of proximity to flooding. We must send a signal to the rest of the world that we are dealing with this problem.
  • No one can afford another storm like Harvey, which USGS just re-classified as a 42-year storm (based on its West Fork gage at the Grand Parkway).
  • The bond will provide seed money for many projects that bring in billions of additional dollars in matching funds.
  • For instance, bond money could help us get started on dredging the West Fork mouth bar which is not within the scope of the Army Corps’ current dredging project.
  • The cost per household is not a budget-breaker. It should cost far less than flood insurance and, unlike flood insurance, will actually reduce flooding.
  • It will help protect homes, schools, businesses, and infrastructure, and make this entire area more secure and resilient.

Reasons to Vote Against are Weak

The main arguments that I have heard against the bond have to do with distrust of government; flexibility that allows officials to cancel or change projects; misplaced anger; and a tax increase.

Re: distrust:
  • I have had the opportunity to meet for hours with the County Judge, the County Engineer and the Director of Operations for the Flood Control District. I have been impressed by how open, candid and receptive they have all been. I’m just not getting a negative vibe.
  • We are holding them accountable for preventing another disaster, but without the money to do it, we’re tying their hands. That’s a prescription for another disaster.
Re: flexibility:

It’s true that projects on the list could be changed or cancelled. I may not like that flexibility because it could potentially result in cancellation of what I perceive to be key projects, but I get it. Officials have rushed to respond to an urgent need; preliminary engineering reports have yet to be started on most of these projects. Things will change. No one can tell exactly how every penny will be spent ten years from now. Officials need flexibility to ensure our money is well spent. Sometimes you just have to trust people to use their judgment and do the right thing. I trust these people.

Re: misplaced anger:

Some people are conflating the Harris County Flood Bond with the City of Houston Drainage Fee. Don’t. They’re from two different groups.

Re: a tax increase:
  • Some people have claimed the bond will double property taxes. Not true! You are NOT doubling your entire tax BILL. You would only double a tiny portion of it, the 1.4% that goes to flood control. Some people – depending on age, exemptions, and home value – won’t see any increase at all. See the typical examples provided by Bill Fowler at this link.
  • Any increase will be phased in over time as projects get ready to launch.
  • Yes, I might pay another $100 bucks a year. But it’s an investment in the security of my home – my biggest investment. It will pay me (or my heirs) back many times over. You wouldn’t hesitate to put a new coat of paint on your house if it needed it. Why would you vote against the one thing that might keep your neighborhood from flooding again?

Sleep Better, Look Better, Too

The biggest reason to vote for the bond is that you’ll sleep better. And maybe even look better. My wife keeps telling me that I look better without grocery bags under my eyes. That’s why the flood bond gets her endorsement, too.

Posted by Bob Rehak on August 7, 2018

343 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Montgomery County Floodplain Management Regulations Affecting Sand Mines: Are They Being Enforced?

A friend called my attention to Montgomery County Floodplain Management Regulations.  These regulations govern permitting of sand mines in the county. The thoughts are great. But are the regulations being enforced? Are they actually protecting the people of Montgomery County and residents downstream? You be the judge.

Findings of Fact

The regulations start out with “Findings of Fact.” They state on page 4:

“The flood hazard areas of Montgomery County are subject to periodic inundation, which results in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, and extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare.” Also…

“These flood losses are created by the cumulative effect of obstructions in flood plains which cause an increase in flood heights and velocities, and by the occupancy of flood hazard areas by uses vulnerable to floods and hazardous to other lands because they are inadequately elevated, flood-proofed or otherwise protected from flood damage.”

When they wrote that last statement, they may not have anticipated the specific problem of the giant sandbar at the mouth of the San Jacinto River, but it certainly applies. The bar is backing water up throughout Humble, Kingwood and Atascocita,  and it was created – in part – with sand that came from mines built in the West Fork floodway.

The second part of that last statement about “inadequately elevated, flood-proofed or otherwise protected from flood damage” also applies.  Common-sense best management practices required in other states could have helped protect us. Those include moving mines out of the floodway, not mining below the thalweg, greater setbacks from the river, wider dikes with more gradual slopes, replanting areas already mined, and more. If only those BMPs were practiced here!

Statement of Purpose

Also on page 4, the next section, “Statement of Purpose,” says, “It is the purpose of these regulations to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to: 

  1. Protect human life and health; 
  2. Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; 
  3. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; 
  4. Minimize prolonged business interruptions; 
  5. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in flood plains

Just downstream from River Grove Park in Kingwood, a new sandbar has formed on the west fork of the San Jacinto. Boats that draw 18 inches of water can no longer navigate upstream (foreground) past this sandbar.

Primary Threat of Sand Mining

The primary threat from sand mines is sand and sediment that washes out of the mines during floods and accelerates the natural rate of sedimentation. Sand mine pits probably lower floods within THEIR local area by a small amount. No argument there.

However, when the West Fork of the San Jacinto River captures the pits (as it has done repeatedly), large volumes of sediment can be swept downstream and contribute to flooding elsewhere. The professional engineer that certified the development plans of these sand mines should have anticipated this, especially downstream of the Lake Conroe Dam.

Google Earth shows many instances of river capture and not just in Harvey. Much smaller floods have captured pits, too. These repeated captures are caused by building mines in floodways, excavating too close to the river, and using dikes/levees that are insufficient to withstand the volume of floodwaters – especially when the San Jacinto River Authority releases water from the Lake Conroe Dam. Additionally, mines sometimes increase the height of their levees by piling up sand in a way that constricts the floodway.

As You Review these Regulations…

I reviewed these regulations as I thought about the thousands of homes and businesses flooded downstream from the mines, partially as a result of massive sand bars that that blocked drainage ditches and the river itself (see photo above).

Clearly, not all of that sand came from mines, but some did. I flashed on the City Sewage Facility that was inundated, the loss of six buildings at Kingwood College that were contaminated by that sewage, and the $70 million taxpayers will spend on a dredging project…that doesn’t even address the biggest sand blockage on the river.

The most obvious areas to explore for permit violations include:

Article IV

  • Sec (B)(2) Ensure that the proposed … site … will be reasonably safe from flooding (page 15)
  • Sec (C)(2)(c)  Consider the danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others. (Page 17)
  • Sec (C)(2)(f) Consider the costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions including maintenance and repair of streets and bridges, and public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems. (Page 17)
  • Sec (C)(2)(g) Consider the expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site. (Page 17)
  • Sec (C)(2)(c) Permits should be denied if there’s a danger that materials could be swept onto other lands to the injury of others. (Page 17)
  • Sec (D)(2)(b) Variances shall not result in increased flood heights, threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create a nuisance or victimize the public. (Page 18)
  • Sec (D)(10) Any person or persons aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioners Court may appeal such decision in a court of competent jurisdiction. (Page 19)

Article V

  • Sec (A)(2) All improvements shall be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage. (Page 21)
  • Sec (A)(8) An engineer must certify that the proposed excavation will have no adverse impact to the drainage on, from or through adjacent properties. (Page 21)

Article VI

  • Sec (E)(1) Permits can be revoked in cases where there has been a false statement or misrepresentation. (Page 27)
  • Sec (E)(5) Violators can be fined $100 per day for each violation. (One of those dikes remained open for 3 years and another for 8!) (Page 28)
  • Sec (E)(7) A permit holder in violation may be forced to restore property to pre-existing conditions. (Page 28)
To read the complete regulations, click here. As stated on pg 26,  SECTION F. EXEMPTIONS (5)  Commercial mining and dredging are not exempt and must have a professional engineer certify the development plans of sand mines. Therefore, one would expect that the engineer would have evaluated sediment transport from the mines and the potentially increased risk of downstream flooding – especially downstream of the Lake Conroe Dam.
As always, these are my opinions on matters of public policy, protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statutes of the great State of Texas.
Posted August 6, 2018 by Bob Rehak
342 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Mining Technology Feature Article about Sand Mining in the Wake of Hurricane Harvey

A lady named Molly Lempriere from Mining Technology magazine (a Global Data publication) contacted me from the UK for an interview. She said she was “writing an article about the effect of sand mining in the wake of Hurricane Harvey and its impact on flooding.”

These were the questions she asked and my responses. Since most of you don’t read Mining Technology, I wanted to share them with you. Her article has not yet appeared and may not. She has not responded to my queries about its publication date.

When we experience a disaster like Harvey, it’s important to examine all the factors that contributed to the damage, and mitigate each to the extent possible.

Q. How long have you been campaigning against sand mining?

A. I’m not campaigning against sand mining per se. I’m campaigning against reckless sand mining. I began in September 2017, when it became apparent that giant sand deposits left by Hurricane Harvey contributed to billions of dollars in damages in my area.

Q. How devastating was Hurricane Harvey to the surrounding area?
  • FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) received more than 16,000 claims from residents and 3,300 from businesses in the Lake Houston area.
  • Harris County Flood Control documented more than 5,500 damaged structures in the Humble and Kingwood areas alone. Note: One structure, such as an apartment complex, might include hundreds of people.
  • At least ten people (that I know of) died.
  • After 11 months, only half of the residents who flooded are fully back in their homes.
  • City of Houston estimates Lake Houston area damages to be in the billions.
  • City of Houston estimates this area’s tax revenues were reduced 20-30 percent.
  • Our local school district documented $97.5 million in damages to its facilities so far; two still have not re-opened.
  • Kingwood High School closed for 7 months; 4000 students had to be bused to another high school more than an hour away the entire time.
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will begin an emergency $70 million dredging project this week.
  • 44 percent of all Lake Houston Area Chamber of Commerce businesses were adversely affected (100% within certain areas up to 1.5 miles from the San Jacinto River).
  • Union Pacific Railroad had to replace its bridge, disrupting rail traffic for weeks.
  • TxDoT had to replace part of the I-69 bridge for more than $20 million. All traffic in and out of Houston was delayed for months.
  • A new hospital facility is still under repair after 11 months.
  • Lone Star College lost 6 of its 9 buildings in Kingwood for most of the school year and won’t be fully operational until 2019.
  • Kingwood’s library closed for more than eight months.
  • Two local parks were inundated with sand; some dunes exceed 10 feet in height.

 

Harvey knocked out the Union Pacific Railroad bridge over the San Jacinto River near I-69. It disrupted rail traffic for weeks. Picture taken 9/14/2017.

 

TxDoT had to replace the I-69 southbound bridge at a cost of more than $20 million. The bridge re-opened in July, 2018.

Q. Were the effects of sand mining on flooding considered previously?

A. Yes.

  • State Representative Dan Huberty introduced legislation in 2011 to regulate sand mines due to concerns about the increasing rate of sedimentation.
  • Former State Senator Tommy Williams introduced legislation to tighten restrictions on sand mining near rivers. TACA lobbied against it and it failed.
  • Prior to that, Texas implemented a pilot program for a small portion of the Brazos river that restricted sand mining within the 100-year flood plain.
  • Lake Houston, the main source of drinking water for America’s fourth largest city, is losing capacity at an increasing rate– even as the City plans to supply another 1.5 million customers with water from the lake.
  • Area around Kingwood’s only boat launch has required dredging at an increasing rate.
Q. To what extent are sand mines directly to blame?

A. Asking the question this way is like asking what percentage of a train wreck was due to poor visibility, excessive speed, tight curves, or a tired engineer. It’s impossible to quantify.

However, sand miners deserve part of the blame. They contributed to the problem by pushing the safety envelope. They built mines in floodways, lobbied against common sense regulations that could have minimized damage, and ignored best practices commonly observed in other states that reduce erosion.

Certainly, not all sand mines share equally in the blame; some operate more responsibly than others. Certainly, part of the sand comes from natural sources. And certainly, Mother Nature pushed the limits with Harvey.

However, TACA wants people to believe that no sand came from mines because of the way they are designed.

Aerial and satellite imagery show the TACA claims to be misleading. See:

With one exception, all area sand mines have chosen to locate, at least partially, in floodways. Some are entirely in floodways. That means they are in the main current of the river during floods. At the peak of Harvey, that current carried approximately 150,000 cubic feet per second down the West Fork of the San Jacinto River where miners had exposed almost 20 square miles of sand IN THE FLOODWAY.

One mine, whose dikes have repeatedly broken, leaves only 40 feet of unvegetated sandy buffer between operations and the river. Its dikes are not sloped like best management practices recommend.

As a consequence of ignoring best management practices for setbacks, buffer zones, slopes, and vegetative erosion controls, the dikes in that mine have broken repeatedly. Floodwaters go over and through its dikes, washing sand downstream.

That sand then constricts the carrying capacity of the river, reduces the river’s gradient, and blocks drainage ditches. In these ways, sand mines contribute directly to flooding.

TACA has fought legislation that: prohibits mining in these dangerous areas, leaves natural buffers against flooding, and makes miners responsible for cleanup.

Q. What more needs to be done to protect the local area against sand mining?

A. Several things.

  • If all sand mines followed best management practices commonly used in other states for setbacks, erosion controls, buffer zones, vegetation, reclamation, and construction, I believe we could radically reduce the amount of sand coming from mines during floods.
  • Mining in floodways should be outlawed. It’s reckless. It has also proven dangerous, and harmful.
  • When dikes are breached, owners should promptly repair them. In one case, a broken dike has gone unrepaired for three years while the mine emits sand and sediment directly into the San Jacinto River. In another case, a dike went unrepaired for eight years.
  • Sand miners should acknowledge that they are part of the problem instead of denying it. They should post remediation and cleanup bonds rather than externalizing their cleanup costs to downstream residents.

A mine whose dikes were breached and remained open for eight years was repeatedly flooded. 

Q. On ReduceFlooding.com you mention that there are multiple agencies with conflicting mandates that govern the river. So is it the mining that’s inherently bad or the management?

A. This question belies TACA’s role in aggressively lobbying against common-sense regulations that would protect residents.

Conflicting mandates have nothing to do with bad management; they’re about focus. Only one agency focuses on flood control. Others focus on conserving and selling water.

Q. Are there lessons that could be learned from other sand mining operations around the world?

A. Yes. If Texas sand miners followed the best management practices (BMPs) from other states and countries, many of the problems here could be reduced or eliminated.

Communication of BMPs also needs to be improved. Louisiana has an excellent guide to best management practices for sand mining. It’s clear, concise, candid, well written and well illustrated. It was developed by government and industry working together, and clearly lays out the dangers if best practices are not followed.

Alaska discourages mining within 1000 feet of a public water source. That could help here. The San Jacinto River is the main source of water for millions of people.

Q. Is there a way for TACA and sand mining to help reduce flooding risks?

A. Yes.

  • Don’t locate sand mines in floodways.
  • Follow best management practices used in other states and countries.
  • Quit misleading people, especially legislators.
  • Acknowledge the risks and dangers; quit pretending they don’t exist.

During Harvey, when the San Jacinto River Authority had to open the floodgates on Lake Conroe, approximately 150,000 cubic feet per second swept through 20 square miles of sand mines.

Partially as a result, one particular sand dune that the Army Corps of Engineers expects to begin dredging next week grew 1,500 feet in length and 12 feet in height in one day during Harvey. It completely blocked a drainage ditch that empties the western third of Kingwood. More than 650 homes and a high school that depend on that ditch flooded. Result: more than $250 million dollars in damages. Did all of that sand come from mines? No. Did mines contribute? Yes.

Q. What ideally would you like to happen next? 

A. We need to:

  1. Stop sand mining in the floodway of the main drinking water source for America’s fourth largest city.
  2. Establish minimum setbacks between mines and rivers, especially the San Jacinto.
  3. Create a clear, concise set of best management practices (BMPs) that everyone can read and understand.
  4. Raise awareness of BMPs.
  5. Follow BMPs.
  6. Increase fines for those who fail to follow BMPs.
  7. Remediate abandoned mines.
  8. Within active mines, immediately re-vegetate areas that are no longer being actively mined.

All but one of the West Fork mining operations are not only in the floodplain, they are in the FLOODWAY! The Red cross-hatched areas above show the floodway, while the Aqua shows the 100-year flood plain.

Q. Is there anything else that you’d like to add?

A. I contacted TACA. They did not respond to me.

Posted 8/5/2018 by Bob Rehak

341 Days since Hurricane Harvey
 

Harris County Flood Control Updates Project List for Flood Bond

The Harris County Flood Control District has updated the project list for the upcoming flood bond referendum. This will be the last update before early voting starts on August 8.

Location of proposed projects in San Jacinto Watershed

There are several earlier versions of this list that do not include all of the most recent projects that have been added for the Lake Houston area. Make sure you review the most current list before voting.

The Lake Houston Area Chamber and the Lake Houston Area Grassroots Flood Prevention Initiative lobbied long and hard to get items on this list including additional:

  • Upstream detention
  • Dredging of the East and West Forks
  • Floodgates for the Lake Houston Dam

These three items comprised the so-called Plea for DDG (detention, dredging and gates). They have been added to the project list and will be in the bond proposal that people vote on. To review all projects that could affect you, make sure you also look upstream in the Spring and Cypress Creek Watersheds.

Early voting starts August 8 and the Kingwood Community Center. Here is the complete list of early voting hours and dates.

Wednesday, August 8, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Thursday, August 9, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Friday, August 10, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Monday, August 13, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Tuesday, August 14, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Wednesday, August 15, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Thursday, August 16, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Friday, August 17, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Saturday, August 18, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Sunday, August 19, 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday, August 20, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Tuesday, August 21, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

The final day for voting is August 25 at your normal polling place. To find your polling place, follow this link.

The August 1 list includes partnership projects that could bring in additional funds through matching grants. They could potentially total another $3.1 billion.

For complete details on the bond proposal, visit the Harris County Flood Control District website and click on Bond.

This list must be approved by Commissioner’s Court. Their next meeting is August 14.

Posted by Bob Rehak on August 4, 2018

340 Days since Hurricane Harvey