Wastelands to Wetlands, Part II: San Jacinto West Fork Stakeholders

3/30/25 – Yesterday, I outlined a vision for transforming the San Jacinto sand pits from wastelands to wetlands.

west fork sand mine
West Fork Sand Mine illustrates need for vegetative controls to reduce erosion.

The idea: create a mile-wide, 20-mile long natural recreational area between I-45 and I-69 with lakes and ponds, all connected by hike-and-bike trails. It would be called the Montgomery County Lake District. And it would connect to the West Fork and Spring Creek Greenways.

Together, we could restore the natural beauty of the area, increase its recreational potential, improve water quality, reduce flooding, reduce erosion and attract responsible development. If successful, the plan would improve home values and also bring back wildlife.

Snow geese over Anahuac
Thousands of snow geese fill the sky near Galveston Bay during their fall migration.

It could be a win-win for all parties involved. People would rather live near nature than an abandoned sand pit.

Of course, a vision is just the glue that guides the efforts of many different parties as they work together for years to achieve common goals. The first step in achieving such a vision is to identify and enroll stakeholders.

Collaborating with local communities, environmental organizations, and government agencies will ensure the project aligns with regional needs and regulations.​

Who Are The Stakeholders?

Several different groups have a stake in the restoration of the San Jacinto West Fork. In addition to those who benefit directly, other groups could help with funding, permits and sweat equity.

Stakeholders That Benefit Directly
  1. Sand Miners – They own or lease the land that needs restoration and they have the equipment onsite to do it. They have profited from the land. And they want to continue profiting from other natural resources in fast-growing Montgomery County.
  2. City of Houston – Reducing sedimentation will improve water quality, reduce water treatment costs, reduce dredging costs, and help maintain the volume of Lake Houston.
  3. Montgomery County – Wants to attract responsible development, increase its tax base, and provide a lasting legacy for future generations.
  4. Residents – In surrounding communities, especially residents who flooded.

Permitting Authorities

  1. The Army Corps of Engineers requires Clean Water Act Section 404 Permits for most work in wetlands or navigable waters, especially if filling or reshaping pits.
  2. If federal funds are used, a National Environmental Policy Act assessment may be required.
  3. TCEQ Water Quality Certification (401 Permit) often goes with the 404 permit, especially if water discharge or sediment transport is involved.
  4. Sand and Gravel Reclamation Permit – If the mine was never officially closed, you may need to coordinate with the Railroad Commission of Texas or TCEQ for reclamation compliance.
  5. Montgomery County Floodplain Development Permit – Required for any earthwork, construction, or grading in a floodplain area.
  6. San Jacinto River Authority – May need to review plans that affect the river channel or hydrology.
State of Texas Agencies
  1. Texas Parks and Wildlife provides local park grants for turning reclaimed land into public parks or recreation areas.
  2. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) manages the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. It offers low-interest loans (and sometimes partial forgiveness) for water quality-related projects, like constructed wetlands or erosion control.
  3. Texas Water Development Board – Flood Infrastructure Fund – Provides financial assistance in the form of loans and grants for flood control, flood mitigation, and drainage projects. 
Federal Government Grants and Programs
  1. FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC)
    For projects that reduce risk from natural disasters, especially flooding.
  2. EPA Wetland Program Development Grants
    Supports planning, monitoring, and restoration of wetland areas.
  3. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
    Offers funding for conservation easements or habitat restoration, especially on flood-prone or riparian land.
  4. USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
    Great if you’re turning pits into wildlife habitat — offers funding and technical help.
Conservation Groups and Non-Profits
  1. Bayou Land Conservancy – A powerful environmental group in this area that works with land owners and manages conservation easements. Several sand miners have already donated land to them.
  2. Texas Environmental Excellence Awards – Under the auspices of the TCEQ, winning this brings exposure and leverage for grants.
  3. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation – provides grants that help restore habitat and improve watershed health.
Private Sector
  1. Mitigation banking: You can restore floodplain/wetland habitat and sell credits to developers who need to offset their impact elsewhere.
  2. Eco-tourism partnerships: Partner with outfitters, RV parks, or fishing shops to co-invest in recreation-focused sites.
  3. Corporate sponsorships: Regional companies (e.g., energy or construction) might fund park or conservation work as part of their environmental and social commitments. 
High Schools and Local Colleges

Restoration could involve outdoor classrooms for students from local high schools and colleges. Teachers could give natural science credit to students who helped on the project, i.e., with planting wildflowers and trees. Students also provide an efficient way to reach and motivate their parents.

Next Steps

Clearly, a wide range of people, companies, agencies and non-profits have an interest in working together to transform the San Jacinto wastelands to wetlands.

The San Jacinto West Fork has been named one of America’s most endangered rivers because of sand mining. We need to fix it. And sooner, rather than later.

In my next Wasteland-to-Wetlands post, I will outline a plan for achieving the vision. We need an organization that can bring all of these groups together and a path to success.

Transforming sand to sanctuaries, and wastelands into wetlands, won’t be simple or quick. But we can and must restore the river. It will make a huge difference for our children and grandchildren.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/30/25

2770 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Wastelands to Wetlands: A Vision for Restoring the San Jacinto West Fork

3/29/25 – Every time I fly over the San Jacinto West Fork, I wonder, “What would it take to transform all the wastelands to wetlands again?”

one of the prettiest places in texas
Typical scene along banks of San Jacinto West Fork between I-69 and I-45.

That burning question has guided much of my research for the last eight years. I don’t have all the details worked out, but I would like to share a vision for restoring the area’s:

  • Natural beauty
  • Recreational potential
  • Ability to:
    • Reduce flooding and sedimentation
    • Attract economic development.

The restoration would be incremental and generational. It will not happen overnight. And the timing will, no doubt, depend on how much sand remains.

All the more reason for all parties to agree on a vision that can guide future restoration and redevelopment. So, let me propose a vision to start the debate and stimulate ideas. All of us are smarter than one of us.

The Vision

I would like to see a mile-wide, 20-mile long recreational area between I-45 and I-69 with lakes and ponds, all connected by hike-and-bike trails. It would be called the Montgomery County Lake District. And it would connect to the West Fork and Spring Creek Greenways.

Lake Houston Park
Dense forests/wetlands in Lake Houston Park on East Fork represent potential of nature to reduce flooding and sedimentation.

Such an area would feature kayak launches and fishing piers. It would also feature covered pavilions, restrooms and parking lots in the higher elevations near the edges of the preserve.

Constructed wetlands would filter runoff from nearby developments.

Islands in the larger lakes and ponds would attract birds and bird watchers, much like the Houston Audubon Society’s Smith Oaks Sanctuary in High Island.

Image of great egret in breeding plumage captured at High Island

The floodplains would be planted with native grasses, wildflowers, and flood-resilient trees such as willow and bald cypress.

Some of the pavilions might even have educational exhibits that explain about restoration efforts and the native wildlife.

To put this concept in perspective, Lake Houston Park – not far away on the East Fork – is already the largest urban nature park in North America. The area in the floodplains and floodway of the West Fork between 59 and 45 could be TWO TO THREE TIMES LARGER. Restoring and preserving it could draw national attention to Montgomery County and Houston as a role model.

What Would It Take?

From an exclusively physical point of view, turning old sand mines into sanctuaries would likely require the actions below. (I’ll discuss financial, permitting, legislative and other needs in future posts.)

With effort, the sand pits could be transformed into giant detention basins that hold hundreds, if not thousands, of acre feet of stormwater during floods. They could also intercept sediment carried downstream by the river during floods.

The design would likely incorporate overflow weirs to accommodate flood pulses.

For safety and flood resilience, we would need to regrade the pits. The edges should be shallow and gradual. Avoid sharp drop-offs that could challenge young swimmers or waders.

Gradual slopes also help with replanting native vegetation. We should use dense plantings of native trees and wildflowers to create visual buffers.

The area would also feature educational signage along trails to encourage outdoor activities, environmental awareness and collective action.​

We should collectively buy and preserve any not-yet-spoiled land between the mines also, so trails can be continuous along the entire length of the river.

Make Miners Part of the Solution

Prior to a mine’s closing, miners should re-contour any high, steep pitwalls, overburden piles, or embankments. Slopes should not exceed a 2:1 (50%) grade, with gentler 3:1 slopes preferred to enhance stability and allow vegetation to take hold​.

Avoid long, continuous slopes to reduce erosion and break them up with terraces to facilitate seeding and maintenance.

Where runoff concentrates, install lined channels or rock chutes to convey water safely downslope without gullying​. Use riprap to protect outlets, dissipate energy and prevent scour​.

As mines near the end of their producing life, begin revegetating all areas not occupied by water bodies. Reclaim the land progressively in phases, as production ends in one part of the mine and continues elsewhere. Prompt reclamation prevents abandoned pits from becoming illegal dump sites.

Mines need to demobilize all equipment and remove industrial materials, fuel tanks, maintenance shops, debris piles, etc. The final land surface should be free of trash, waste and equipment.

abandoned dredge
Abandoned dredge, West Fork Sand Mine in Humble.

The goal: a stable site with self-sustaining vegetation, no significant sediment leaving the property, and no uncontrolled discharges into the West Fork or its tributaries.

All these recommendations are consistent with TCEQ Best Management Practices for Sand Mining in the San Jacinto Watershed and case studies from around the world.

Additional Efforts

A vision is just the glue that guides the efforts of many different parties as they work together to achieve common goals. Of course, creating such a transformation takes more than a vision. It takes sweat, money and leadership. So we also need to:

  • Identify and Enroll Stakeholders
  • Engage Engineers to Develop a Design
  • Obtain Permits from Multiple Levels of Government
  • Initiate Legislative Efforts to Create a Redevelopment Authority/District
  • Raise Funds and Apply for Grants
  • Provide for Ongoing Maintenance

I’ll discuss these additional topics in future posts to keep the length of this one manageable.

Please stay with me and share these posts with friends, families and neighbors. Also, please contribute your own ideas through the contact form of this website.

Together, we can turn sand into sanctuaries and wastelands into wetlands again.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/29/25

2769 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Lions Clubs Award

The most cherished compliments come from the people you respect the most. Yesterday, I (and ReduceFlooding.com) received an award from the Lions Clubs International Foundation for Dedicated Humanitarian Services.

About Lions Clubs

You would be hard pressed to find a group of people more dedicated to community service than the 1.4 million members of 49,000 Lions Clubs in 200 countries around the world. They’re involved in causes as diverse as hunger, childhood cancer, disaster relief, the environment and more. They are the youngest major, global service organization, but have grown to be the largest.

Our local chapter, the Humble Noon Lions Club, focuses on pediatric eye screenings of pre-school children as young as six months. They also:

  • Collect used eyeglasses for people who can’t afford them
  • Support special needs children
  • Sponsor camps for disabled children
  • Assist HAAM with the distribution of Meals on Wheels to unsheltered clients
  • Support the Humble ISD Foundation with scholarships, teacher grants, and vision screening at their health fairs.

A Big ‘Thank You’ to Lions and Readers

So, it was quite an honor when the local Lion’s club honored my efforts with ReduceFlooding.com yesterday. My focus is on raising awareness of the causes of flooding and what people are doing to mitigate it…especially in the Houston region.

Award ceremony at what used to be Rehak Creative Services before I retired and is now the Creativity Shell. Tony Austin, presenting the award. I’m the suit. And the woman next to me is my wife of 50 years, Susan Davy.

I never really thought of myself as a humanitarian. I just wanted to make my community a safer place to live. But I will happily accept the award. And it will rest in a place of honor in my home.

Thank you, Lions for all you do. Thank you, Susan Davy, for all your help. And thank you, readers, for keeping the fight alive to make the Houston region a safer place to live. Together, we can do it.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/28/2025

2768 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Is it more economic to permit floodplain developments or mitigate them after floods?

3/26/25 – From a public policy perspective, is it more economical to permit floodplain developments or mitigate them after floods? I asked ChatGPT that question this morning. It was consistent with year’s of research on flooding.

The issue pertains directly to posts in the last two days about a proposed development called the Crossing at the Commons of Lake Houston. After being required by the City of Houston to raise the elevation of slabs two feet above the 500-year floodplain, the developer challenged the City all the way to the Texas Supreme Court.

Location of the Crossing at The Commons of Lake Houston relative to Kingwood and Lake Houston Park

Policymakers, urban planners, and economists wrestle with this question of prevention vs. correction all the time. The short answer: It’s generally more economical to restrict floodplain development than to pay for damages later. Here’s why.

Cost Comparison: Prevention vs. Mitigation

Upfront Development in Floodplains (Short-Term Gain)
  • Pros: Cheaper land, attractive to developers and buyers.
  • Cons: High long-term costs due to:
    • Property damage (often repetitive).
    • Infrastructure repair (roads, utilities).
    • Emergency response costs.
    • Health impacts (mold, contaminated water).
    • Insurance payouts or federal disaster relief.

FEMA reports that every $1 spent on mitigation saves an average of $6 in future disaster costs.

FEMA.gov

A scientific study published in the journal Nature Sustainability found similar results. Every dollar spent acquiring flood-prone land (a specific kind of mitigation) avoids five dollars in damages.

Examples of Mitigation Costs
  • Post-flood buyouts: Government often buys and demolishes homes after repeated flooding.
  • Levees/dams: Expensive to build and maintain — and they can fail.
  • Flood insurance subsidies: Taxpayers often foot the bill via programs like the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is deeply in debt.
Smart Prevention Strategies (More Economic in the Long Run)
  • Zoning restrictions to keep development out of high-risk zones.
  • Green infrastructure like wetlands that absorb floodwaters.
  • Elevated buildings or flood-resistant designs where development is unavoidable.
  • Buyouts and conservation easements before development occurs.

In the past, Houston allowed extensive floodplain development. As a consequence, it faced massive losses during Hurricane Harvey. Post-flood buyouts and infrastructure repairs have cost billions. The estimated costs of Harvey adjusted for inflation now approach $160 billion.

“While development in floodplains may seem cheaper at first, the long-term economic, environmental, and social costs almost always outweigh the initial savings,” according to ChatGPT.

The developer reaps the profit, but taxpayers bear the costs.

Houston and Harris County

Looking at Houston and Harris County as opposed to national figures, evidence again suggests that proactive floodplain management is far more cost-effective than reactive mitigation.

The enormous expenses associated with post-flood recovery—illustrated by the massive losses from Hurricane Harvey—underscore the economic and social benefits of investing in prevention. Not only does prevention save money, it also helps protect community well-being, property values, and local infrastructure.

Houston and Harris County have adopted several preventive measures. Chief among them:

Floodplain Development Regulations:

Houston enforces stringent regulations for construction within flood-prone areas. The city’s Floodplain Management Office oversees permitting to ensure compliance with the floodplain ordinance and FEMA regulations. Notably, new structures are required to be elevated at least two feet above the 500-year flood elevation to mitigate potential flood damage. ​

Home Buyout Programs:

The Harris County Flood Control District administers voluntary home buyout programs aimed at relocating residents from high-risk flood zones. These programs have successfully acquired and demolished numerous properties, restoring approximately 1,300 acres to their natural floodplain functions and preventing future flood damages. ​

Such investments in flood mitigation have proven to be economically beneficial not just nationally, but in Houston, too. Studies indicate that for every $1 spent on mitigation, there is an average savings of $6 in future disaster costs. ​

$2.5 Billion 2018 Flood Bond

In 2018, Harris County voters passed a $2.5 billion flood bond. While primarily aimed at correcting past problems, it will also prevent future flooding. But so far, most of the money has been spent in Low-to-Moderate Income areas. That leaves more affluent areas, including the Commons of Lake Houston, with elevated flood risk.

All this underscores the need for accurate, up-to-date flood maps.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/26/25

2766 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

What Happens When Flood Maps Don’t Illustrate True Risk

3/25/25 – Almost eight years after Hurricane Harvey and a massive region-wide effort to update flood maps, FEMA still features maps on its website based on decades-old data that don’t come close to showing true flood risk. The old maps cause confusion among homebuyers who may not understand their limitations. And that helps developers pursue and profit from risky ventures in floodplains.

Three-Year Delay for New Maps and Still Counting

FEMA has yet to release maps based on recent Atlas-14 data developed after Hurricane Harvey. Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) anticipated release of FEMA’s new preliminary maps three years ago and release of the final maps by now. See the timeline below published in 2020.

Source: Screen Capture from Harris County Flood Control District MAAPnext site in 2020.

I requested the release date for the new maps from Harris County and Federal officials. However, they did not respond.

Delays Contribute to Confusion about Safety of New Developments

The delays have contributed to confusion about the safety of new developments near or in floodplains.

Take, for instance, the lawsuit between the City of Houston and one of the area’s largest developers. According to a Texas Supreme Court decision released last Friday, the Signorelli Companies want to develop more than 500 lots near the San Jacinto East Fork as part of The Commons of Lake Houston.

Plats show most of the lots outside the current 100-year floodplain. But floodplains will reportedly expand by 50-100% when the new flood maps come out. At that point, most if not all the lots will likely be deep in the floodplain.

So, the City imposed higher elevation requirements for homes in anticipation of the new flood maps. That triggered a property-rights lawsuit by the developer, which claimed the City’s requirements made the property “undevelopable.”

Sometimes We Just Never Learn

Sometimes, it feels as if we just never learn. I understand a company’s desire to make money from its land. But unsuspecting homebuyers could lose their life savings. Worse, more people could die.

Flood insurance is becoming unaffordable for many. Insurance companies are fleeing high-risk areas.

And we haven’t even mentioned yet the costs of flood mitigation, disaster relief, buyouts, and restoration of the natural ecosystems – that already protect people for free.

In my opinion, for the public good, some land just shouldn’t be built on.

The Commons of Lake Houston Proposal

The flood map for the Commons area on the East Fork was last updated in 2007. It is based on data acquired after Tropical Storm Allison in 2001. New Atlas 14 rainfall data is 30-40% higher than previous estimates and represents the current best efforts of scientists.

The map below shows the extent of those 100- and 500-year floodplains in 2007 maps as dotted lines superimposed over a proposed new section of the Commons called the Crossing.

Close up of plat. Floodway is to left of heavy dotted line. 100-year and 500-year floodplains are shown as lighter dotted lines farther right.

Two Pictures Worth 2,000 Woods

These two pictures, sent to me by a nearby resident of an existing home on higher ground in the Commons, illustrate the problem.

First image shows extent of the Harvey flood. Second shows Signorelli’s proposed development. High water mark during Harvey identified as Position 1.

Think such a flood can’t happen again in your lifetime? That Harvey was a thousand-year storm?

It almost happened again in May 2024 during a no-name storm a month before the start of hurricane season. The screen capture below shows historical HCFCD data from a gage just upstream from the Commons. Note the last three entries.

Historical flood heights from Harris County Flood Warning System Gage at East Fork and SH99.

That no-name storm produced flooding almost five feet higher than Imelda and only about four feet lower than Harvey. It was the second highest flood at that location since HCFCD started keeping records!

Will We Repeat Mistakes of the Past?

The thing about floodplains is that they keep growing with upstream development – especially as other developers push into wetlands near rivers and streams. And the area upstream from the Commons is growing very quickly.

At some point (like now), it may make more sense to donate this land to an organization such as the Bayou Land Conservancy, Houston Parks, or Texas Parks and Wildlife. That would offer the developer some tax benefits. That could also help protect the public, protect lenders, help hold down insurance rates, provide recreation, and reduce future mitigation costs. It would even likely add value to homes on higher ground.

Posted by Bob Rehak based on 3/25/25

2765 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Supreme Court Punts Floodplain Regulation Case Back to Trial Court

3/24/25 – On March 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled on a long-running lawsuit between a developer and the City of Houston over floodplain regulation. The Supreme Court reversed an Appeals Court judgement, which had dismissed the developer’s claims against the City, thus keeping the case alive.

The developer argued that the City’s changes to floodplain regulation after Hurricane Harvey made their river-front property “undevelopable” and therefore were an unconstitutional taking of their property.

The case could have far-reaching implications for property rights advocates, developers, the enforcement of floodplain regulations, building codes, public safety, availability of flood insurance, and more.

However, the case also involves many specific issues, not yet decided, that could limit those ramifications. The Supreme Court acknowledged validity to the claims of both parties.

After ruling on a few, pivotal underlying issues, they found the case should not have been dismissed. And they simply remanded the case back to the trial court for “additional proceedings.”

Commons of Lake Houston
Most of the area being developed lies within one of the designated flood areas shown above. But note the date on the map: 2007. Eight years after Harvey, FEMA is still updating such maps. Early indications are that flood zones will expand 50-100%.

Background: Developer Claims “Inverse Condemnation”

After Hurricane Harvey struck Texas in 2017, the City of Houston amended its floodplain regulation to increase the elevation requirements for construction in a floodplain. A developer (The Commons of Lake Houston) sued the City for “inverse condemnation,” alleging that the amendments caused a regulatory taking of the developer’s property under the Texas Constitution.

The trial court agreed with the developer. But the City appealed. And the court of appeals reversed that trial court’s decision. It agreed with the City and dismissed the case.

The appeals court said that the developer could not establish a valid takings claim because the City amended the ordinance as a valid exercise of its police power and to comply with the federal flood-insurance program. The developer then appealed to the Supreme Court.

What is Inverse Condemnation?

Inverse condemnation refers to a situation where the government takes or damages private property for public use without formally using its power of eminent domain—and without providing just compensation to the property owner.

In simpler terms, the government does something that effectively takes away or reduces the value of your property, but doesn’t officially “take” it through normal legal channels, i.e., condemnation.

So the property owner must sue the government to get compensated, which is why it’s called inverse condemnation. It’s the opposite of the usual process used by government to take someone’s property.

Floodplain Regulation Changed Before Development Completed

The Commons of Lake Houston first began developing a 3,300-acre residential community near Lake Houston in 1993.

The Supreme Court opinion says that, “Focusing on one phase at a time, it subdivided, platted, and cleared the raw land in sections, adding streets and utilities and then selling empty lots to buyers and builders who design and construct the homes.”

“This case involves a section called The Crossing, a 300-plus-acre area that includes many of the project’s most valuable lots. The Commons’ business plan relied on revenue from the earlier phases to finance the subsequent phases and ultimately produce profits from the last phases, including The Crossing,” said the Supreme Court.

Crossing at the Commons of Lake Houston
Crossing at the Commons of Lake Houston. Compare to colored map above showing floodplains.

“The Crossing’s lakefront and lakeview lots are more valuable than most, but they also lie in areas colloquially referred to as the 100- and 500-year floodplains,” continued the Supreme Court.

After the City approved the developer’s initial plans, Hurricane Harvey struck in 2017. The City of Houston changed its floodplain regulation in anticipation of changes from FEMA concerning the depth and width of floodplains.

Before Harvey, the City had initially approved the developer’s plans based on slabs being one foot above the 100-year floodplain. But in 2018, the City amended its code to require foundations at least two feet above the 500-year floodplain.

How Regulation Changes Impacted Developer

Justice Jeffrey Boyd, speaking for the Supreme Court, wrote, “Commons asserted that the amendment increased the required slab elevations in The Crossing by an average of 5.5 feet and, as a result, rendered 557 of the 669 total lots (and over seventy-five percent of the total acreage) undevelopable.”

“Because of the new elevation requirement, The Commons alleges it had to cancel development and sales contracts, lost $4.4 million in revenue and $1.8 million in bond reimbursements, and had to borrow over $1 million to cover cash flow. Ultimately, The Commons asserts, the amendment destroyed its expected profits from the entire 3,300-acre project.”

“The Commons filed this suit against the City in 2020, asserting that the amended ordinance caused a regulatory taking for which the Texas Constitution requires reasonable compensation,” said Boyd.

Underlying Issues

Like many legal cases, this one involved arguments over procedural elements and precedents:

  • Did the City actually deny a permit or did it just not approve one?
  • Does the City have the right to insist on approving plans for specific buildings when the developer does not actually build buildings? (The developer sells lots, not buildings.)
  • Does the City’s governmental immunity apply to this case?
  • Does a change in a regulation for the public good constitute a taking?
  • Did the City actually damage the Commons’ property?
  • Does the City have the right to promote public safety and minimize flood losses?
  • Is the City’s exercise of its powers in this case compensable?
  • Did the City justifiably deny the Commons’ anticipated profits?
  • Had the City not increased elevation requirements, would anyone have been able to obtain flood insurance from the Federal government?

Boyd references all these issues. But the court’s 30-page opinion doesn’t hinge on all of them. It focused mainly on those that constituted reversible errors in the appeals court decision, i.e., whether the:

  • City’s actions constituted a taking of the developer’s property
  • Developer sued prematurely
  • Developer lacks standing to assert them

The 30-page opinion will make fascinating reading for anyone:

  • Who owns property in or near a floodplain
  • Seeking to develop property in a floodplain
  • Affected by others developing property in floodplains.

What Court Did and Didn’t Conclude

In the end, the Court concluded the Commons:

  • Can assert a valid regulatory-takings claim even though the City amended the ordinance as “a valid exercise of its police power and to ensure compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program.”
  • Had a claim that is “ripe for adjudication.”
  • Has standing to assert its claim.

The Court did not address whether the Commons has, in fact, asserted a valid regulatory-takings claim under several different precedents or the Texas Constitution’s “damaged” provision.

In the end, the Supreme Court simply reversed the Appeals Court judgment that summarily dismissed the Commons’ claim. Then, the Court sent the case back to the trial court “for further proceedings.”

Resident Reaction

I called a Commons resident to discuss the community’s reaction to the Supreme Court decision. She summed it up in two words: “It’s tragic.”

She said that when she and her husband bought their property, the developer gave them assurances that the land in question would be used only for parks. She also said. “We were told by salesmen that there would never be anything down there. Now they’re taking away the nature.”

“In my opinion, there’s not one person out here that’s happy to know it would be built up like that,” she added.

We haven’t heard the last of this yet.

For More Information

Read the actual court documents and more:

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/24/25

2764 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Editorial: The Perils of Pendulum Politics

3/22/25 – Enough of the pendulum politics already! We seem to swing from the left to the right and from overregulation to no regulation, oblivious to any middle ground.

The latest agency in the Washington crosshairs: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). No doubt, most business people can cite an extreme example of EPA overregulation. And no doubt, many will welcome a relaxation of environmental regulations.

But the last 45 years have proven that businesses can make a fair profit while still protecting the environment, jobs and public health.

Those old enough to remember a time before the EPA know what I’m talking about. As I read several stories today about the gutting of the EPA, I not-so-fondly remembered scary images from my early childhood growing up in the Cleveland and Pittsburgh areas in the 1950s.

The Cuyahoga River caught fire a total of 13 times dating back to 1868. It was one of the most polluted rivers in America. Photo: Cleveland State University Library.

At one time, people thought such horrors were the price of jobs and prosperity!

But the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen fifty-fold in the 45 years after the formation of the EPA in 1970. That’s far more than the seven-fold rise in the 45 years before the EPA.

Is Changing EPA’s Mission a Wink-Wink to Polluters?

I just finished reading two articles in the New York Times about the EPA. The first began, “The Trump administration said it would repeal dozens of the nation’s most significant environmental regulations, including limits on pollution from tailpipes and smokestacks, protections for wetlands…” Yada Yada.

The second article quoted Lee Zeldrin, new head of the EPA. He reportedly said, “Those changes…would allow the agency to better focus on its core mission and powering the Great American Comeback.”

The core mission no longer seems to be environmental protection as the name of the agency implies. According to Zeldrin, the core mission is now lowering the costs of “buying a car, heating a home and running a business.”

The same article also quoted Ann E. Carlson, a professor of environmental law at the UCLA School of Law. She said the changes at EPA are “…essentially a wink, wink to…pollute with what may be close to impunity.”

Need for Consistency

No doubt, most business people in Texas can cite an example of EPA overregulation. And no doubt, many will welcome a relaxation of environmental regulations.

But consider this. In general, one of the primary needs of most businesses is consistency. What CEO would invest a billion dollars in a new plant knowing that a change in the Oval Office could cause a regulatory flip back in the opposite direction before construction of the plant even finished?

Such uncertainty slows businesses down. It makes planning, forecasting, and decision-making much more difficult as business leaders weigh political probabilities.

Opportunities Overlooked

In my opinion, rather than only trying to make government more efficient with a chainsaw, we should be trying to make it work better. And when it comes to flood mitigation, opportunities abound.

Last night, I published an article about how Montgomery County has spent an incredible eight years running the grant gauntlet to obtain money to clean logjams out of its streams. And it could still be another year or more before the work can even begin. The work will likely take only months.

But instead of focusing on such obvious opportunities, we are simply lopping off branches of government that we still need.

Why We Still Need a Strong EPA

As I not-so-fondly reminisced about those horrific images from my childhood, I received a text about Hallett’s sand mine on the West Fork San Jacinto. The text contained a video showing the mine still leaking wastewater into the public water supply – after a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) investigation.

State, county and local government agencies, such as TCEQ, are far more susceptible to lobbying groups, such as the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association, than a Federal agency like the EPA.

The video shows a road acting like a berm to keep wastewater from escaping. But close scrutiny shows the wastewater going under the road, rather than over it, as it used to.

Video supplied by concerned nearby resident shows wastewater now goes under road instead of over it.

Historically, different levels of government in the U.S. complement each other. When local levels fail, we need other levels to help. Without the EPA as a backstop for the TCEQ, you will likely not only experience higher flood risk, but higher health risks, too.

During the COVID pandemic, the EPA announced a pause in its enforcement operations. Air pollution surged 62% in three weeks after the announcement, according to a Texas A&M study. Such are the perils of pendulum politics.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/22/25

2762 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

MoCo Receives Approval from GLO for 3 De-snagging Projects Totaling $60 Million

3/21/25 – Montgomery County has received approval from the Texas General Land Office (GLO) for three “de-snagging” projects totaling $60,374,999.66. The grant, first reported in 2022, stems from money allocated to Texas by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) after Hurricane Harvey.

I’ll discuss the complex, lengthy process involved in awarding these grants below, but first let me outline the projects and who will benefit.

De-snagging Projects Will Benefit 185,000 People

The $60 million will enable three “de-snagging” projects. They include:

  • East County – $36.4 million
  • Lake Creek – $9 million
  • Stewart Creek – $15 million (also includes bank stabilization).

All three projects involve removing trees and loose debris that have fallen into streams or rivers.

Obstructions on San Jacinto East Fork after May 2024 flood…
…backed water up, threatening homes and businesses.

In many cases, log jams have formed around bridges, also threatening roadways. In addition, other debris – such as old cars, tires, and appliances – also hinders conveyance and streamflow.

The three projects also involve stream bank protection, i.e., with riprap or revegetation. But the Stewart Creek project also involves bank stabilization to help restore and harden the bank that has been lost.

The projects will help protect more than 185,000 people. Specifically, East County will help protect an estimated 115,439 people. Stewart Creek will help 42,560 people. And Lake Creek will benefit 28,325 people.

Mitigation Funds Not Limited to Just Harvey Debris

According to the GLO, all three areas qualify as HUD Most Impacted and Distressed (HMID). And even though the money comes out of an allocation made to the state after Hurricane Harvey, debris that has fallen into streams after Harvey still qualifies for removal.

That’s because of a distinction between disaster-relief and flood-mitigation funds. Disaster relief funds can only be used to help repair damage directly resulting from a storm. However, flood mitigation funds can also be used to help prevent future damage. Disaster relief looks back; flood mitigation looks forward.

So, anything in the streams today qualifies for removal because it would help prevent future flooding. That includes, but is not limited to debris deposited by Imelda in 2019 and three storms in 2024.

In 2024, we had a derecho that downed many trees. Then we had floods in May that swept them into streams and against bridges. Finally, we had Hurricane Beryl that downed even more trees. We experienced one wave of destruction after another.

More trees blocking San Jacinto East Fork after Beryl.

There is no doubt that people are suffering and will continue to suffer if the log jams are not removed.

According to Morgan Lumbley with the Montgomery County Office of Emergency Management, trees aren’t the only problem. The streams also contain debris such as cars, tires, refrigerators and trash that can back water up and flood people.

Multi-Step Funding Process Finally Near End

These funds come from HUD via the GLO and the Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC). This complex process involves multiple levels of government.

In 2018, Congress voted $28 billion for mitigation money throughout the U.S. Then HUD allocated $4.3 billion overall to the state of Texas for disasters in 2015 through 2018. That included Hurricane Harvey.

The Federal register for the HUD allocation was not even published until August 2019, two years after Harvey, and 1.5 years after the appropriation.

After Texas received its allocation, GLO had to devise a state action plan and go through a public comment period and approval processes.

At the state level, a large portion of the Texas’ allocation went to local Councils of Governments, such as the HGAC. After HGAC finally knew how much it had to work with, it had to devise a plan for distributing the money locally.

HGAC then had to develop and negotiate a plan called a MOD (Method of Distribution) based on all the requests for assistance from its competing members. A MOD basically is a list of sub-recipients stating how much each gets for what. That involved lengthy submission and project-ranking processes.

Once finalized, the GLO approved HGAC’s MOD in principle. Then entities like Montgomery County actually started developing highly detailed applications involving demographic data, engineering reports, surveys, maps and more. That step is very expensive, which explains why projects are conditionally approved at a high level first.

Where We Stand Now and Next Steps

The GLO just approved three of those applications for MoCo. This page on the GLO site outlines a six-step approval process for Council-of Government projects.

Now that the GLO has approved the MoCo project applications, only one more step remains before work can start. The GLO and MoCo must sign contracts formalizing their agreements. Then work can begin toward construction. That involves bids, procurement of vendors, obtaining any necessary permits, etc.

Whew! And after all that…the actual de-snagging can begin – hopefully before hurricane season…next year.

One observer noted that while upfront processes take years, the actual work might take only months. That makes a great case for de-snagging the business processes around flood mitigation. Perhaps we can get DOGE working on that.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/21/25

2761 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Reduce Your Flood Risk for Less than $1

3/20/25 – Montgomery County has asked U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw for federal help in sponsoring a study on repurposing old sand mines. Please send a letter expressing your support. For less than $1 – the cost of an envelope and a stamp – you could help reduce your flood risk.

Why Repurposing is Necessary

Southern Montgomery County has more than 20 square miles of sand mines. To put that in perspective, together, they exceed the size of Lake Houston. In fact, five of the mine complexes are wider than the lake itself at its widest point.

Some mines are still producing, but many have been abandoned – without any remediation or repurposing. Worse, an area 50% larger than Harris County drains through the mines and flushes sediment from them into Lake Houston during floods. The sediment reduces room for water, backs water up, contributes to flooding, and raises water treatment costs.

Exposed sediment in San Jacinto West Fork sand mine

Potential Benefits of Redevelopment

Other areas around the world have used old mines to enhance floodplain management, ecological restoration, and community recreation. Thoughtful redevelopment of Montgomery County mines might yield significant benefits here, too. That’s why we need this study.

Challenges of Abandoned Sand Mines in Floodplains:
  • Flooding Risks: Abandoned sand mines in floodplains can exacerbate flooding by altering natural water flow and increasing sediment deposition downstream. For instance, during Hurricane Harvey, sand from mining operations contributed to sediment buildup in the San Jacinto River, reducing its capacity and worsening flood conditions.
  • Environmental Degradation: Unrehabilitated mines can lead to habitat loss, water quality issues, and destabilized riverbanks, impacting local ecosystems and communities.

Potential Repurposing Strategies

Sand-mining in floodplains typically leaves large holes in the ground. With planning, they can turn into extra storage for flood water. Typical secondary uses include:

Water Management Infrastructure:
  • Stormwater Retention Basins: Repurposed mines can serve as detention basins, managing stormwater runoff and reducing urban flooding.
  • Groundwater Recharge Zones: These areas can facilitate groundwater recharge, enhancing water availability during dry periods.
Wetland and Riparian Restoration:
  • Flood Mitigation: Transforming abandoned mines into wetlands can act as natural sponges, absorbing excess floodwater and reducing downstream flooding.
  • Habitat Creation: Restored wetlands and riparian buffers support biodiversity, offering habitats for various species and improving water quality through natural filtration.
Recreational and Educational Facilities:
  • Parks and Trails: Redeveloping these areas into parks with walking trails, fishing spots, and bird-watching platforms can provide community recreational spaces.
  • Environmental Education Centers: Establishing centers focused on local ecology and conservation can promote environmental awareness and stewardship.

Where It Has Worked Elsewhere

Other areas around the world have faced similar challenges and turned lemons into lemonade.

  • The Little Miami River, Ohio, USA: Provides flood control benefits, supports a rich array of wildlife, and has become an important recreational and educational resource for surrounding communities.
  • Maasplassen Lakes, Netherlands: Former sand pits were transformed into a network of lakes used for water sports, nature conservation, and tourism, boosting the local economy and biodiversity.
  • Chattahoochee RiverLands, Georgia, USA: Abandoned sand and gravel pits are being converted into natural areas and parks as part of a greenway system, focusing on habitat restoration and public access.
  • Tinsley Green Sand Quarry, South Yorkshire, UK: Now supports a wide range of species, including several that are rare or protected.
  • Angler’s Paradise, United Kingdom: A sand and gravel pit in Devon, England, was transformed into a well-known fishing and leisure destination known as Angler’s Paradise.

Considerations for the San Jacinto Watershed

For similar plans to succeed here in the San Jacinto Watershed, in my opinion, we need:

  • Comprehensive Planning: Collaborative efforts among local governments, environmental organizations, and communities are essential to develop sustainable repurposing plans.
  • Environmental Assessments: Conduct thorough assessments to address potential contamination and ensure safe redevelopment.
  • Community Engagement: Involving local residents in planning ensures that projects meet community needs and gain public support.

By implementing these strategies, abandoned sand mines in the San Jacinto watershed could potentially be transformed into assets that enhance environmental health, provide recreational opportunities, and improve flood resilience for communities downstream.

Miners could incorporate the long-term vision for the area into their mine-abandonment plans. But first, we need the vision. So, reduce your flood risk for less than $1.

Suggested Letter

Here is a sample letter. Feel free to copy it or put it in your own words. But send it right away. The deadline is March 28, 2025.

[Insert Your Return Address Here]

March 20, 2025

The Honorable Dan Crenshaw

248 Cannon HOB

Washington, DC  20515

Re:  Supporting Flood Damage Reduction and Environmental Enhancements Study of Sand Mines Along the West Fork of the San Jacinto River

Dear Congressman Crenshaw:

I am writing to express my support for the proposed feasibility study regarding the re-purposing of sand mines along the West Fork of the San Jacinto River for flood damage reduction and environmental enhancements. This project will help mitigate flood risks, enhance water quality, restore ecological function, and improve the resilience of East Montgomery County as well as people downstream in Harris County.

The proposed feasibility study will focus on the reuse of existing sand mines. It presents an opportunity to improve drainage, provide for additional floodwater storage, and enhance recreation.

To put the problem in perspective, five of the sand mines are wider than Lake Houston. And all sand mines combined exceed the area of Lake Houston, which provides water for more than 2 million people.

We thank you for giving this project your full consideration and support and for your commitment to addressing the drainage challenges in Montgomery County Precinct 4.

Respectfully,

[Signature/Name]

Send your letter today! Granted, repurposing mines would be a long-term effort. But it could help reduce your flood risk for less than $1.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/20/25

2760 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

West Fork Sand-Mining Problems Persist Despite Legislative Efforts

3/19/25 – San Jacinto West Fork sand-mining problems persisted this morning, even as the House Natural Resources Committee met to discuss legislation intended to deal with them. With one exception, the miners seemed blissfully unaware of the problems they were causing. And at least one committee member seemed to be a ringer for the sand-mining industry. He reportedly argued that the TCEQ had everything under control.

Do they? You be the judge.

Cunningham Bills Under Consideration

Three bills by Rep. Charles Cunningham discussed this morning included:

  • HB1532 which creates a Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District to help deal with sediment from the mines.
  • HB1163 which requires miners to develop a restoration plan and post a bond to guarantee they would do it.
  • HB1177 which puts more teeth in the state water code provision that prohibits flooding neighbors by creating criminal penalties.

Photos Taken During Committee Hearing

As the committee discussed merits of the bills, this is what the West Fork sand-mining problems looked like.

South end of pit sold by Hallett to Riverwalk Porter LLC. Dike has been breached since January 2024. TCEQ seems unconcerned.
North end of same pit. River has flowed through pit since May 2024 instead of following its original course. TCEQ seems unconcerned.
Closer shot shows sandbar now blocking original river channel which flows left to right. TCEQ seems unconcerned.
Farther upstream, the river now flows through another pit that Hallett still owns. River flows from bottom to top. Note abandoned river channel on right. TCEQ seems unconcerned.
Closer shot of exit breach in same pit.
Abandoned dredge pipe at an abandoned mine immediately south of Hallett. This pipe has been there for years. The original operator should have removed it long ago. TCEQ seems unconcerned.
Another pit open to the river since May 2024. TCEQ seems unconcerned.
Same pit from different angle. Note river starting to cut through neighbor’s property. TCEQ seems unconcerned.
More abandoned equipment at another abandoned mine. Should have been removed years ago. TCEQ seems unconcerned.
For years, sediment flowed through this breach from the left and filled the channel on the right with silt. Now water in the channel is flowing back into the pond. TCEQ seems unconcerned.

One Exception

All in all, things this morning looked much the way they have since the May flood last year…with one exception. Remember that 800-foot wide river of sludge from the Hallett settling basin (right), that flowed through the woods (left) for more than a year?

Hallett is finally raising the road to staunch the flow.

Putting It All in Perspective

Of Cunningham’s three bills, two focus on prevention. But the dredging bill focuses on correction.

Ironically, one observer of today’s committee hearing felt that the members looked most favorably on the dredging bill. That makes sense. This is a business friendly state. And…

There’s more money to be made by letting companies pollute and then paying other companies to clean it up than there is by just preventing the pollution.

But it’s too early to know how the committee will vote. Check back soon to see how or if Natural Resources will address our West Fork sand-mining problems.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/19/25

2759 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.