News Archives - Page 31 of 275

Building 7,000 Homes Here Would Accelerate Subsidence

4/19/25 – Ryko, a development company, has announced plans to build 7,000 new homes in an environmentally sensitive, flood-prone area immediately west of Kingwood. Moreover, the area already experiences the highest subsidence in the north Houston region.

Residents in the area currently use groundwater. Assuming an average household size of 2.5 people, Ryko would add 17,500 new residents to the area. That could accelerate declines in groundwater levels and increase subsidence.

*Base map from Harris-Galveston Subsidence District*. 1.83 centimeters = 0.72 inches per year.

Reviewing the Subsidence District’s latest annual report revealed that the issue at this one reporting station is part of a larger problem. And the problem is very bad in southern Montgomery County.

Impacts of Subsidence

I have been posting about the issue for five-plus years. Subsidence happens too slowly to notice in most cases. But over time, it can be very disruptive:

Excessive groundwater withdrawals can create bowls in the landscape that alter the gradient of rivers and streams. That can increase local flooding. For instance, when land at the county line sinks faster than land at the Lake Houston Dam, it tilts the lake toward the county line.
Projected subsidence rates upstream could erase your freeboard factor (the height at which your home was built above the 100-year floodplain). That would increase your flood risk.
Subsidence can also crack pipelines, storm sewers, and pavement.
Uneven settling can cause your doors and windows to stick; crack foundations; split wallboard; and break tile.
Near Galveston Bay, a whole subdivision even sank beneath the waves.
Subsidence can also trigger long-dormant geologic faults.

Front steps of Woodland’s homeowner Dr. Mark Meinrath in 1992 and 2014. Part of Meinrath’s home straddles a fault which subsidence triggered. Relative to the rest of his house, these front steps dropped 9.9 inches in 22 years.

For more examples of the impacts of subsidence in the north Houston area, visit StopOurSinking.com, a site developed by a Woodlands resident. There, subsidence has triggered faults and flooded multi-million-dollar homes through the “bowl effect.”

High Cost of a Little Flooding

Getting even an inch of water in your home can be very costly. According to FEMA, just 1 inch of floodwater in an average 2,000 square foot home can cost $10,000 to $20,000 to repair.

Higher-end finishes, such as wood floors, built-in cabinetry, granite, etc., can push those estimates past $25,000.

Why is one inch so expensive?

Flooring usually needs to be completely replaced (carpet, wood, sometimes even tile if the water gets underneath).
Baseboards and lower drywall (often up to 2 feet) usually must be cut out and replaced.
Insulation in walls may need replacing if water wicks up.
Cabinet bases and interior doors are often ruined.
Appliances like washers, dryers, and even low-mounted electrical outlets might be affected.
Mold prevention requires fast and sometimes professional drying and remediation.

In homes larger than 2,000 square feet, the cost would go up proportionately. For instance, FEMA estimates repair costs for a 3,000 square foot home to be 50% greater – in the $15,000 – $30,000+ range.

Disasters/accidents are rarely caused by one thing. They usually result from a combination of factors eroding margins of safety.

For instance, the risk of a driving accident increases when you’re tired, it’s dark and the pavement is wet. That’s why it’s important to pay attention to little things that can degrade your margin of safety. They may not be so little in the next big storm.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/19/2025

2790 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.

Bald Eagles Live Where Developer Wants to Build 7,000 Homes

4/18/25 – Just upstream from the Humble/Kingwood Area, residents of Benders Landing Estates in Montgomery County frequently spot bald eagles flying overhead and resting in trees adjacent to 5,500 acres that Ryko is trying to develop for 7,000 homes.

Frequent Eagle Sightings Suggest Nearby Nests

Susan Gillespie Marrero of Benders Landing Estates, near the Ryko property, sent me video of two bald eagles landing in a tree outside her window.

Video of eagles in back yard of Susan Gillespie Marrero in Benders Landing Estates.

Such sightings are reportedly common in that area. Marrero also sent me dozens of postings by neighbors on a community website. See example below.

*One of more than two dozen social media posts sent by Marrero* *showing bald eagle sightings in/near the Ryko land.*

Ryko’s property is one of the last areas in the north Houston region to be developed because of frequent flooding. Much of the area is covered by wetlands and swamps that make excellent habitat for wildlife. They also make excellent hunting grounds for the eagles. The Ryko property has likely become an eagle refuge.

Eagles No Longer Listed as Endangered, but Still Protected

Bald eagles, America’s official national symbol, were once listed as a threatened and endangered species, primarily due to habitat loss, hunting and pesticides.

But their numbers have recovered in recent years. In 1995, they were reclassified from endangered to threatened. And in 2007, they were removed entirely from the federal Endangered Species List.

However, they are still protected under other laws, such as the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. And it is still illegal to harm or interfere with them or their nests without specific federal permission. Violation carries stiff fines and even jail time.

Building Near Eagles Adds Significant Time, Cost, Risk

Permit approvals can reportedly add months or even years to a construction project when eagles are involved. You must apply for an eagle permit if your project might:

Disturb an active bald or golden eagle nest (especially during nesting season: usually late winter through summer)
Destroy or remove a nest (even an inactive one)
Cause repeated disturbances nearby (i.e., with heavy equipment)
Significantly alter eagle habitat (like clearing mature trees used for nesting or roosting)

Even if you don’t directly destroy a nest, frequent loud noise or heavy vehicle movement near an active nest can cause developers trouble under the law.

Moreover, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service often requires seasonal restrictions, such as:

No clearing, grading, or major disturbance within a certain distance of a nest during nesting season.
Sometimes, developers are told to wait until after chicks fledge (late summer) before starting heavy work.
Buffer zones are often required — for bald eagles, this can range from 660 feet to over 1/2 mile, depending on sight lines and level of disturbance.

How Developers Usually Handle It

If a development is near eagle habitat, developers usually hire a qualified wildlife biologist early to survey for nests.

Next, they avoid and minimize impacts first by making site plan changes. If that is not possible, they apply for a permit.

Permits can take 6-12 months, so that needs to be factored into project timelines.

Even with a permit, mitigation may be required, such as

Planting new trees.
Creating conservation easements.
Donating to eagle habitat funds.

Bottom line: If eagles are nearby, developers must avoid nests. Reportedly, it’s much easier and cheaper than trying to work through the permit process.

This could be an issue for Ryko as it seeks to build 7,000 homes and a four-lane thoroughfare stretching to Spring Creek.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/18/25

2789 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 Commissioner Taking Townsen Blvd. Extension Off 2025 Road Bond

4/17/2025 – Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler’s office says he is taking the controversial Townsen Blvd. extension off of the County’s 2025 Road Bond. However, as of 4 P.M. this afternoon, the county’s website does not yet reflect the deletion.

*Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler addressing Town Hall meeting about Townsen Blvd. and the 2025 MoCo Road Bond.*

The change comes after a Town Hall meeting last night at which the commissioner heard a crowd of angry residents express their concerns about the Townsen Blvd. extension. The extension would open up 5,500 flood-prone acres, where a developer plans to build 7,000 homes.

No one spoke in favor of the road project, which includes three segments.

The cancellation of the County’s portion of the project could make it more difficult for a private developer to build a separate segment beyond that. The developer would have no thoroughfare to connect to.

Contractually, that separate segment must be completed by the end of 2030 if the developer hopes to get reimbursed $27 million from County tax revenues for building the road.

Road Plans Included Three Separate Segments

At the start of the meeting Wheeler explained that the entire road, as originally conceived, stretched from the Grand Parkway to Spring Creek on the south in three discrete segments. A bridge over Spring Creek was to have connected the Montgomery County portion of Townsen to the Harris County portion of Townsen Blvd.

*Each of the three segments has different funding.*

The first segment (shown above in yellow) is currently under construction using private funds.

Going into last night’s meeting, financing of the second segment (dotted green line) was to have come from Montgomery County’s 2025 Road Bond.

The third segment (shown in red) was to have been financed through a “381 Agreement” between Ryko, Montgomery County and several utility districts.

Controversy Surrounding 381 Agreement

Under a Texas 381 Agreement, if a developer builds a road and developments around it, the county reimburses the developer for their expenses. That reimbursement comes out of future tax revenues from the new residents. Such agreements encourage economic development.

According to Wheeler, his predecessor, James Noack, initially signed the 381 agreement with Ryko in 2018. The contract required them to complete the road by the end of 2027. But they still have not started construction, jeopardizing that deadline.

So, before Noack left office at the end of 2024, he signed an agreement to extend the deadline to 2030. That gave the developer three more years.

But Noack pushed the deadline extension through Commissioners Court on a “consent agenda.” Here’s where the plot thickens. Typically, consent agendas are reserved for non-controversial items, such as fixing a pothole.

However, the portion of the road covered by this 381 agreement was and is controversial for several reasons.

Last night, residents expressed concerns about decreases in property values along with increases in crime, traffic, flooding, and taxes. Residents also worried about the impacts on traffic safety and area schools.

This deal is very controversial and according to Wheeler should never have gone on the consent agenda.

Deadline Extension Also Fundamentally Changed Developer’s Obligation

Wheeler also pointed out that the deadline extension fundamentally changed the deal. The original agreement obligated Ryko to build the bridge over Spring Creek. However, the three-year deadline extension obligates them only to build the road – not the bridge. He also said the county has no plans to build that bridge, nor is it in the 2025 Road Bond.

Wheeler explained he had little to no power to stop the road or the agreement. “You cannot deny access to a public right of way to a property owner,” said Wheeler. But residents complained nonetheless.

Wheeler said that he met with Ryko and tried to buy the land from them. But he said they wanted “nine figures.” That would be somewhere north of $100,000,000 for 5,500 acres. And that would make the price per acre a whopping $18,000…for land that is largely in a floodplain and pockmarked with wetlands.

The land sits at the tip of a funnel where the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek and Cypress Creek all come together. FEMA’s flood map below shows just how flood prone the area is.

*Ryko and its partner, Pacific-Indio Properties, own the land bounded by red box. Cross-hatched = floodway. Aqua = 100-year floodplain. Brown = 500-year floodplain.*

Montgomery County Appraisal District currently values the land at approximately $4,000 per acre, not $18,000.

Wheeler also said that Harris County Flood Control previously offered to buy 1,800 acres of Ryko’s land – the portions closest to the West Fork and Spring Creek. However, the developer wanted $15 million. Flood Control couldn’t afford it. The land would have cost more than $8,000 per acre.

County commissioners on both sides of Spring Creek (Wheeler and Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey), have said publicly that they would not support building a bridge over Spring Creek.

So Ryko is now battling connectivity issues to its north and south. That will limit the appeal of any developments built there. And that’s probably a good thing.

The Case for Caution

As the Federal Government reduces support for flood-mitigation and disaster relief, the financial burden will fall increasingly onto states, counties and cities to do the job by themselves. And the lowest cost way to do that is by preserving land along bayous, creeks and rivers. Prevention is always cheaper than correction.

Taking that center portion of the Townsen Blvd. extension off the Montgomery County road bond won’t prevent Ryko from developing its land. But it could make it more difficult. And, in my opinion, that is a step in the right direction.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/17/2025

2788 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 Precinct 3 Town Hall Meeting Tonight Will Discuss Road Bond, Townsen Blvd.

4/16/25 – Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler will host a town hall meeting tonight at 6:30 to discuss the 2025 Montgomery County Road Bond including the Townsen Blvd. extension.

One of the proposed projects is the extension of Townsen Boulevard south from the Grand Parkway toward Spring Creek. The Montgomery County long-range transportation plan shows the road eventually crossing Spring Creek and hooking up with Townsen Boulevard in Humble. However, the Townsen proposal on the 2025 MoCo Road Bond would not take it that far at this time.

*The portion of Townsen on the 2025 Road Bond is the light blue within the purple area. The purple area is a portion of MoCo Precinct 3.*

Location of Town Hall Meeting

The meeting has not been widely publicized. However, Commissioner Wheeler did post this on his Facebook page.

If you have concerns about the Townsen extension, which is part of the Road Bond Election on May 3, tonight may be your best chance to get them answered.

*For more info, see https://www.mctx.org/departments/departments_q_-_z/road_bond_2025/index.php*.

Last month, Montgomery County Precinct 3 listed Townsen as its #1 project.

Normally, developers pay for roads like this. But in this case, taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill. That has many people concerned.

So does the long-range plan that shows the road connecting across Spring Creek to Humble.

*Townsen Blvd from 2021 MoCo transportation plan. See diagonal dotted line in center of frame that goes from Grand Parkway to Spring Creek.*

But back in 2018, the previous Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner James Noack signed an agreement with Montgomery County Municipal Utility District No. 118 to fund the road improvement costs and reimburse the developer for its road improvement expenditures.

Tables on pages 13 and 14 of the agreement show the $27 million project taking place in four stages. Two of the four tables (Segments 3 and 4) reference placement of fill dirt within jurisdictional floodplains. Segment 4 also references building a bridge crossing to avoid wetlands. Section 2F of the agreement specifies a road completion date of December 31, 2027.

However, before leaving office at the end of 2024, Noack signed an amendment to the agreement extending the completion date to December 31, 2030.

Here are construction plans for the segment currently under construction.

Concerns about Townsen Extension

So far, citizens have raised three main concerns about the Townsen Blvd. extension:

Traffic
Crime
Flooding

Traffic

Residents worry about how an increase in “cut-through” traffic would affect their tranquil lifestyles.

Crime

In a related concern, residents worry that if a Townsen Blvd. bridge ever did go across Spring Creek, it could give easier access to those in the City, who may have less than honorable intent. This is a very affluent area. Many families likely moved there to escape crime.

Flooding

The road will open up vast areas in floodplains to development. And those floodplains are expanding based on data acquired after Hurricane Harvey. But FEMA has not yet released updated flood maps. And even if they do, there is no guarantee that Montgomery County will adopt them.

Nor is there any guarantee that Montgomery County will adopt its new drainage criteria manual and floodplain regulations based on the higher standards anytime soon.

townsen floodplains — *This map is from 2014. Townsen (red) will cut through many floodplains which are expanding based on data acquired after Harvey.*

So, flooding could easily damage many of the newer homes and affect the value of existing surrounding homes.

Residents downstream in Kingwood also fear what the floodplain development and increase in impervious cover could do. One highly reputable hydrologist told me that, “It would be like aiming a fire hose at Kingwood.”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/16/25

2787 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.

Why Flood Mitigation Needs Steady Funding Source

4/15/25 – At a flood resilience workshop yesterday in Houston, the importance of a steady funding source for flood-mitigation projects became abundantly clear.

The Biannual Resiliency Workshop of the Society of American Military Engineers (S.A.M.E.) drew a star-studded lineup of speakers for the hundreds of engineers, lawyers and business people in attendance.

Alia Vinson, a partner at the law firm of Allen Boone Humphries Robinson LLP, made steady funding for flood mitigation the focus of her entire talk. She even wore green to underscore her theme. (“The color of money,” she said.)

*Alia Vinson, partner at Allen Boone Humphries Robinson LLP*, *speaking at S.A.M.E. workshop.*

After Vinson, the keynote speaker, Congressman Wesley Hunt, talked about “unsustainable federal spending.” The Federal government provides most of the flood-mitigation financial assistance in the country through FEMA and HUD. But both agencies have come under fire by President Trump and Elon Musk lately. That creates uncertainty for Texas where more people live in floodplains than the entire populations of 30 other states.

Competition for Flood Mitigation Funding Getting Stronger

Vinson’s talk focused primarily on the vigorous competition for funds in this Texas Legislature and the previous session. She began with the creation of the Texas Water Fund (Proposition 6) in 2023, which triggered a $1 billion investment in new water infrastructure needed to support a growing population.

The Texas Water Development Board administers the Texas Water Fund. It has the authority to shift money as needed between at least eight different programs. They award loans and grants to political subdivisions for local water and wastewater infrastructure projects. They include:

New Water Supply Fund
SWIFT
State Revolving Funds
Rural Water Assistance Fund
DFund
State Participation Fund
Water Awareness Fund
Water Assistance Fund

At least 25% of the $1 billion must go to the New Water Supply Fund, which supports projects such as:

Desalination
Aquifer storage and retrieval
Use of produced water
Transport of water

The point:

None of these has to do with flooding or flood mitigation.

This year, “new water” again is high on the Legislature’s agenda. Although nothing is final yet, base budgets have set aside $2.5 billion for the Texas Water Fund.

Pending Legislation Could Help Address Mitigation Needs

Vinson then shifted focus to this year’s SB7 by Senator Charles Perry and HB16 by Rep. Cody Harris.

The Senate has already approved SB7 and sent it to the House Natural Resources Committee. A key provision makes the Flood Infrastructure Fund eligible for money from the Texas Water Fund.

HB16 does the same thing, but hasn’t made it out of the Natural Resources Committee yet for a vote by the House.

Two other bills pending this year would create a dedicated revenue stream of $1 billion per year for the Texas Water Fund. They are SJR 66 and HJR 7. The big difference between them: the Senate Bill requires at least 80% to be used ONLY for New Water Supply. That would limit flood mitigation funding to only 20% of $1 billion.

Still No Dedicated Funding Stream

I took away two main things from Vinson’s speech:

Texas doesn’t yet have a dedicated funding source for water OR flood mitigation projects.
The money available for flood mitigation is being fragmented among competing needs.

That dedicated funding source could quickly become increasingly important. Uncertainty continues to swirl around financial support from the federal government, which has the deepest pockets when it comes to flood mitigation and disaster relief.

This morning, Politico ran a story with the headline, “FEMA denies Washington state disaster relief from bomb cyclone, governor says.” FEMA denied the State’s request for $34 million for disaster relief even though it reportedly met all the criteria for assistance. According to the State’s governor, FEMA provided no explanation for the denial, but said “assistance was not warranted.”

Federal Support Uncertain

Another speaker yesterday at the S.A.M.E. workshop, U.S. Congressman Wesley Hunt, said he had talked directly with President Trump and Elon Musk at length about the Federal budget.

*Congressman Hunt addresses S.A.M.E. workshop about ballooning federal deficit* *and need to cut spending.*

Hunt said the U.S. has a $2 trillion annual deficit and that we are $36 trillion in debt. He characterized both as “unsustainable.”

However, a group called “Truth in Accounting” that monitors government finances reported this morning that the situation is even more dire. The group applies generally accepted accounting principles from the private sector to government spending reports.

According to Truth in Accounting, the government’s financial position worsened by $4.7 trillion last year, not $2 trillion.

Truth in Accounting also says the government needs $158.6 trillion to pay its bills, not $36 trillion. And that each taxpayer’s share of the burden is $974,000.

The ominous warnings from Hunt and Truth in Accounting come as President Trump has questioned whether to disband FEMA entirely and give money directly to states to handle disasters. According to Politico, Trump has created “a council to study what to do with FEMA and whether to get rid of it.”

The uncertainty surrounding future availability of Federal aid makes it all the more important for Texas to provide a dedicated, steady funding stream for flood mitigation.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/15/2025

2786 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Poignant Letter to Governor Urges Him to Support HB2068

4-14-2025 – Two weeks ago, I posted about HB2068, State Rep. Dennis Paul’s bill. It has the potential to create more effective flood control for more people.

*Flooded property in May 2024 near San Jacinto East Fork in Montgomery County just north of Harris County line.*

The post prompted 192 readers from across the river basin to write the House Natural Resources committee in support of HB2068. But not all concerned citizens stopped with the committee. One, who wishes to remain anonymous, sent me the text of a poignant letter he wrote to Governor Abbott. It expressed sentiments I hear from many flood victims.

Letter to Governor about HB2068

Honorable Governor,

We desperately need your help in the Harris County, Kingwood, Conroe and Lake Houston Area.

As we all know, flooding rivers and streams do not respect jurisdictional boundaries. The water from several counties, cities and tributaries all end up in Lake Houston.

Eight (8) years ago I received 3 1/2 feet of water in my 1 1/2 year old single-story house. The financial, emotional and physical impacts of this event were devastating.

Red tape and politics aside, VERY LITTLE has been done during the past 8 years to mitigate future flooding. This is proven by several flood threats as a result of flooding from slightly greater than normal rainstorms.

The Harris County Judge and certain Commissioners have totally failed us. We supported a Flood Bond in 2018 to implement a number of much needed projects. But what did the County officials do? They changed the “rules of the project prioritization.” They said they would tackle the hardest-hit areas first. Instead they’re funneling the money almost exclusively to folks in low-to-moderate income areas.

The officials refer to it as “equity”; I refer to it as buying votes. Now, it is my understanding that all funds have been spent.

The City of Houston clearly knows additional gates need to be added to the Lake Houston Dam to handle the release of water from Lake Conroe. The City has been overseeing this project for over 6 years and not one thimble of dirt has been moved.

We are sick and tired of hearing excuse, after excuse, after excuse of why it is taking so long. It is my understanding that funding was approved. But I have to believe that inflation has seriously reduced the amount that will be available to spend.

Study, after expensive study, has been performed. BUT – no meaningful projects to curb flooding have been implemented.

I do not minimize the cost, time and complexity of these projects. BUT IT HAS BEEN 8 YEARS.

I’m convinced the current governing structure, as well as the officials involved, are incapable of planning and executing efforts to successfully mitigate future flooding.

THE TEXAS HOUSE IS CURRENTLY CONSIDERING A BILL THAT WILL CREATE A MULTI- JURISDICTIONAL BODY TO OVERSEE FLOOD CONTROL: HB2068.

ANY HELP YOU CAN PROVIDE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD WOULD BE DEEPLY APPRECIATED.

We have been very “lucky” to not have a repeat of Harvey since 2017. However, I fear everyday for my family that our luck is about to run out!

Sincerely,

(Name withheld at reader’s request)

Don’t Stop Now

Sound familiar? Please support HB2068. Write the governor and your other elected representatives.

But don’t wait too long. The vast majority of bills die in committees and never even see a vote on the House or Senate floors.

HB2068 received some good news today. State Rep. Charles Cunningham signed on as a co-author. But the bill is still pending in committee.

For More Information

For more information about HB2068, see these posts:

25/04/09 Natural Resources Committee Hears Testimony on HB2068

25/04/08 Action Needed: Support HB2068 NOW!

Full Text of Bill as Filed

Follow progress of the bill on Texas Legislature Online website.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/14/2025

2785 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Mercer and TC Jester Basins Far Behind Schedule

4/13/25 – A quick check of the Mercer and TC Jester stormwater detention basin projects on Cypress Creek showed that, under current management:

One was supposed to finish last month, but is far from complete.
The other has had funding lined up for years, but won’t even go out for bid until the fourth quarter of this year.

They reminded me of Larry the Cable Guy. He’s the stand-up comic, whose famous hook line is “Git-R-Done^©.”

But sorry, Larry. This is no laughing matter. Let’s look at the two projects upstream from Lake Houston.

One of those holes in the ground will take twice as long to design and build as the Empire State Building. But that’s not all. Read on.

Mercer Basins near Hardy Tollroad and FM1960

Back in mid-2024, HCFCD told us that they hoped to complete the Mercer Stormwater Detention basin project by Fall of 2024. But when I checked in December, I found HCFCD was far from complete. And it’s still not done.

When you add up the times specified in the original contract plus change orders, HCFCD should have completed it weeks ago.

But as of today, it appeared as if contractors have made practically no progress in the last four months. They are still far from complete. Compare the pictures below with those I took in December.

*Mercer Detention Basins/South Pond as of 4/13/25*

*Mercer Detention Basin/North Pond as of 4/13/25*

*Looking S from over Cypress Creek at both basins. Intersection of Hardy Toll Road and FM1960 at top right.*

*There’s obviously a lot of dirt work to do before they start landscaping.*

Mercer Basins Should Have Been Done Two Weeks Ago

Here’s the timeline on this project.

8/4/23 – Contract was advertised to potential bidders
10/10/23 – Contract was awarded and called for completion in 348 working days.
12/23 – HCFCD issued Notice To Proceed to contractor (I don’t have an exact day, but let’s assume 12/31/23 to be generous).
9/19/24 – Change order added 37 days and $108k
12/10/24 – Change #2 added another 63 days and $105k
1/21/25 – Change #3 added eight more days and $16k.

Thus, given a Notice to Proceed in December 2023, the contractor should have finished the job in 456 days (348 + 37 + 63 + 8).

But 456 days expired 13 days ago.
Today is 469 days since Notice to Proceed

Commissioner Rodney Ellis won’t like this. These basins are in his Precinct 1. Now let’s look five miles farther upstream.

TC Jester East Basin Got Final Funding in February, but Won’t Be Bid Till Fourth Quarter

In September, 2023, HCFCD held a press conference celebrating the funding of the TC Jester Stormwater Detention Basins.

Later, the County decided to seek more money from the Texas General Land Office (GLO), which administers HUD funding in Texas.

GLO approved Harris County’s final application by February. But that project isn’t even scheduled to go out for bids until the fourth quarter of 2025!
HCFCD Bid Outlook

And that’s despite the fact that Commissioners Court approved an agreement with an engineering company in 2021 to provide design/build/construction-phase services. Come on folks. This is a hole in the ground!

*The TC Jester East Stormwater Detention Basin Complex will go in the big forested area in the center of the frame. Photo taken 4/13/25.*

This project started five years ago! So why wait until to the fourth quarter to bid it? Why wasn’t it ready to bid the minute GLO gave final approval? Can it even be completed before the deadline in May 2026?

TC Jester Timeline

Here’s its timeline:

9/14/21 – Preliminary engineering review (PER) completed and accepted by the county.
11/30/21 – Approval of agreement with engineering company to provide design/bid/construction-phase services
6/14/22 – Approval to submit the FEMA grant application (for Rep. Crenshaw’s earmark)
1/10/23 – Approval to accept FEMA grant of $9.95 million through TDEM. This is the earmark that Congressman Crenshaw secured.
9/19/23 – Approval to submit application to TWDB to receive the $12 million that Rep. Sam Harless secured
2/27/24 – Harris County Commissioners Court approved an escrow agreement, a requirement to receive TWDB funds
4/23/24 – Authorization to negotiate for materials testing. However, the record doesn’t show that the agreement has come back to Court yet. (Perhaps because they aren’t ready to go to construction.)
6/4/24 – Commissioners Court accepted $12 million from TWDB (the Harless funds)
3/27/25 – Commissioners Court accepted the CDBG-DR grant from the GLO for the construction of the East Basin.

One would like to think that, if they’ve been working on this since 2021, the design would be ready to bid. HUD set a deadline of May, 2026, to complete this project.

That gives HCFCD only a little more than a year…unless HUD grants an extension…to dig a hole in the ground that HCFCD began planning five years ago.

By comparison, the Empire State Building was designed AND constructed in less than three years!

And if it takes six years to finish the TC Jester Basin, that will equal the amount of time it took to build the first transcontinental railroad. But, of course, the civil war slowed the railroad down a bit.

What’s wrong with this picture? I’m with you, Cable Guy. Git-r-done!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/13/25

2784 Days since Hurricane Harvey

I have offered to publish HCFCD‘s explanation as to why these projects are taking so long if it chooses to submit one.

“Git-R-Done” is a registered trademark of Git-R-Done Productions, Inc., the company of comedian Larry the Cable Guy (Daniel Lawrence Whitney).

Dredging Progress on Lake Houston and In Austin!

4/12/25 – Dredging is making progress on Lake Houston and in Austin.

The City of Houston’s most recent West Fork dredging program started last December near the channel south of Royal Shores. The channel connects the San Jacinto East and West Forks. Callan Marine is pumping the spoils through the channel, across the East Fork, up Luce Bayou to a placement area adjacent to the Luce Inter-Basin Transfer Canal.

I did a brief update about the expansion of the placement area in January. At the time, the dredge was still operation between the channel and the northern extremity of Atascocita Point. And Callan was doubling the size of the placement area.

Since then, the dredge moved about a half mile downstream toward FM1960. And Callan has filled the expanded placement area approximately one-third of the way up. Callan estimated the program would take a year. And that was about a third of a year ago.

In a separate but related effort, State Representative Charles Cunningham’s bill to create a Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District picked up some additional support and was considered by the House Natural Resources Committee on April 9. The Committee “reported it favorably”

Photos Taken Today Show Dredging Progress

My estimate on one-third complete is purely a guess based on the original timetable and a visual assessment of the placement area. See the photos below, all taken today.

*Looking south toward FM1960 Bridge.* *Dredge is in upper center.*

*Closer shot reveals dredge bit was submerged and the dredge was pumping.*

*Dredge was at left end of red line this morning and pumping to placement area in red box in upper right.*

This program uses money left over from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Emergency West Fork Dredging Program. Therefore, dredging is restricted to the West Fork.

*Map of current dredge plan. Today, the dredge was operating slightly NW of the #4 position.*

The dredge you saw above is pumping spoils approximately four miles to the northeast. Dredging “spoils” are the materials, including sand, silt, clay, and other organic matter, removed from the bottom of the Lake.

Below is a photo of the placement area for the spoils.

*Looking E toward Dayton and Liberty. Luce Bayou Inter-Basin Transfer Canal (left) and placement area (right).*

Spoils enter at lower left via a pipeline. Water carrying the sediment then works its way through the maze of compartments in the pond and circles back to where it entered. The closer shot below shows the dirt spreading out. Eventually it will be hard enough to build homes on.

*The maze slows down the speed of the water and allows dirt to drop out of suspension.*

*Higher shot shows a “delta” forming within the pond.* *Before this operation is complete, bulldozers will spread the dirt around evenly.*

*Spoils enter the pond through the pipe on the right. De-silted water exits the pond just a few feet away. It returns to Lake Houston through the canal in the upper right.*

Progress on Cunningham Bill to Create Lake Houston Dredging/Maintenance District

The immensity of this task dramatizes the need for State Rep. Charles Cunningham’s bill (HB1532) to create a Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District. The project above covers only a tiny portion of the lake, which is losing capacity due to sedimentation.

Cunningham’s bill would create a permanent dredging district for Lake Houston.

In March, the bill picked up three additional sponsors: Armando Walle (District 140), Harold Dutton, Jr. (District 142) and Valorie Swanson (District 150).

On 3/19/25, the House Natural Resources Committee heard testimony on the bill. See video starting at approximately 1:23 here.

On 4/9/2025, the House Natural Resources Committee reported it favorably as substituted and recommended it be put on the Local & Consent Calendar.

That’s good news. You can follow the bill’s progress here.

We still have a long way to go. But so far, so good.

For More Information on Dredging

See these related posts:

2025/01/15 New West Fork Dredging Program Off to Fast Start

2024/12/21 West Fork Dredging Spoils Being Deposited Near Luce IBT Canal

2024/12/20 City’s New Dredging Program Launched

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/12/25

2783 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Proposed Romerica Development Raises Red Flags

4/11/2025 – By Chris Bloch – The proposed Romerica development would have a negative impact on the neighborhoods of Kingwood Lakes, Trailwood, Deerwood Cove and the Barrington. The Romerica development could even contribute to ﬂooding the intersection of Kingwood Drive and Woodland Hills Drive.

The potential negative impacts result from a combination of factors. They include:

The design of surrounding stormwater infrastructure built during the 1970s
Increases in expected rainfall since then
The current outfall location of area storm and sanitary sewers on Romerica property
An increase in impervious cover from the proposed new development
The fact that the new development would be built in an area that collects water naturally
Fixed elevations of surrounding lakes.

During heavy rains, a combination of these factors would back water up through sewers farther and faster into surrounding neighborhoods where structures have already flooded.

Let me explain how each of these issues contributes to the others. Together, they increase flood risk for surrounding homes and would also increase the potential for floodwater blocking Kingwood Drive and Woodland Hills Drive during evacuations.

Design of Surrounding Infrastructure Outdated

Back in the 1970s, engineers did not build infrastructure to current Atlas-14 rainfall standards. Standards for expected rainfall have increased twice since then – after Allison in 2001 and after Harvey in 2017.

So, the existing storm sewers in Kingwood Lakes and Trailwood are already overtaxed. And that has contributed to flooding of structures during heavy rains. There is simply not enough conveyance capacity in storm sewers to safely handle the volume of rainfall we now know that we will get.

Water Backing Up from Outfalls

Multiple storm sewer networks currently outfall to the Romerica property. As water levels rise at an outfall, the capacity of the sewers to convey stormwater from the neighborhoods is reduced.

During heavy rains, the lost capacity of the storm sewers causes streets and homes in the affected neighborhoods to flood.

Increases in impervious cover that come with high-density development on the Romerica property would back water up even further and faster into those sewers. That would elevate flood risk for surrounding homes.

Increased backwater levels would also result in higher water levels at the Kingwood Drive/Woodland Hills intersection. This is a critical intersection in Kingwood. High water at that location limits access into and out of much of Kingwood.

Property Already Collects Stormwater

The Romerica property is already extremely low compared to surrounding property. So, it naturally collects stormwater. During heavy rains, such as we received last May, photographs show that water reached the canopy of trees on the property.

Elevation profiles on the USGS National Map clearly show both low elevation as well as the nature of the property in question. It’s swampy and forms a sort of natural detention basin. And that’s why Friendswood never developed it.

N to S Elevation Profile from USGS National Map shows Romerica land significantly lower than Kingwood Lakes and Barrington.

W to E Elevation Profile from USGS National Map also shows Romerica land significantly lower than surrounding areas.

Moreover, the impervious cover that comes from additional development would contribute to even higher water levels on Romerica’s property. And those higher levels would back water up – father and faster – into the storm and sanitary sewers that serve surrounding villages.

Construction of access drives and buildings on the property would reduce the volume of stormwater that can be absorbed on the property. This will result in even higher water levels on the property and Lake Kingwood.

Surrounding Lakes Not Far Below Romerica’s Elevation

Romerica property is already extremely low compared to surrounding areas. It forms a sort of natural detention basin just two or three feet above the level of surrounding lakes. So, during heavy rains, the Romerica property floods badly.

The water-surface elevation of Lake Kingwood is 47 feet. It discharges into a second lake at 46 feet. And that discharges into a third at 45 feet. Weirs control the elevation of all three lakes.

During heavy rain events, it is common for the lake levels to rise 3 to 4 feet. And during extreme events, such as Hurricane Harvey, they rise even farther. The water surface level of Lake Kingwood during Harvey rose by approximately 12 feet!

So homes facing Lake Kingwood all flooded 6 to 8 feet. And Kingwood Lakes is much higher than Romerica!

The property of the proposed Romerica development has an average elevation less than 52 feet. During any signiﬁcant rain event, the vast majority of the property will be submerged by ﬂood waters from the stormwater discharge outlets and water spilling over from Lake Kingwood.

*Romerica swamp with 5- to 12-inches of water after only two inches of rainfall in the last month.*

*If that swamp gets much higher, it could reduce the conveyance of this storm sewer outfall from NE Trailwood Village.*

And that would back up water in those storm sewers.

What It Would Take to Develop Romerica’s Property Safely

The design of surrounding stormwater and sanitary sewers that lead to Romerica’s property did not anticipate high-density development on that property.

Additional runoﬀ from added impervious surface would require considerable modiﬁcations to existing utility services at the expense of the City…which doesn’t have the money.

Safe development of the Romerica property would also require:

A new bypass drainage channel from the west end of Lake Kingwood south to the Diversion Ditch
A new storm sewer main to divert stormwater from South Woodland Hills and Trailwood into the bypass drainage ditch
Limiting discharges into Lake Kingwood
A longer weir on the west end of Lake Kingwood to help control water levels in the lake.

In my opinion, this development should not receive a permit. Instead, the property should be developed as an additional stormwater detention facility site and drainage channel.

*Chris Bloch presenting his research to the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority board and City Council Member Fred Flickinger on 4/10/25.*

Guest editorial by Chris Bloch, a flood activist who has studied Kingwood drainage issues for decades. Bloch holds 12 patents which fundamentally changed the way power plants, and petrochemical plants are commissioned

2782 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.

Court of Federal Claims Hears Final Arguments in Addicks Barker Downstream Case

4/10/2025 – Law firm McGehee ☆ Chang, Landgraf, Feiler issued a press release today on the final arguments in the Addicks Barker Reservoirs litigation in the Court of Federal Claims. Arguments took place on April 8, 2025 and conclude the liability portion of the case. The judge advised that he intends to issue a ruling “soon.”

The plaintiffs claim the Army Corps of Engineers opened the gates of the reservoirs unnecessarily during Harvey and flooded plaintiffs homes. They also allege that the Corps’ action constituted a “taking” by the government without just compensation.

Addicks Barker Location — *The Addicks and Barker reservoirs (big green areas on left) lie on either side of I-10 on Houston’s west side*.

The Corps and Harris County Flood Control developed the reservoirs in response to devastating floods in 1929 and 1935.

When constructed development had not yet reached them. Since then, it has surrounded them.

Issues in Case

The issues defined by presiding Judge Loren Smith were:

(1): Did an emergency necessitate the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) to open the Addicks and Barker reservoir gates? Or did the Corps open them as a matter of ordinary operating procedure?

(2): What would have happened if the gates had remained closed?

While the questions sound simple, the case involved hundreds of hours of lengthy depositions, trial testimony, and more than 500,000 pages of documents.

Plaintiff’s Attorneys Optimistic

According to lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Jack McGehee, his team utilized hours and hours of trial testimony, deposition testimony, the Corps’ own internal documents, and expert testimony which he says were “largely uncontested by the defense expert.”

The law firm contended, of course, that there was no “emergency” that necessitated the opening of the flood gates. In support of that conclusion, the attorney says the Corps’:

Various personnel admitted as much before “emergency” became an issue in the case.
Own reports and documentation lack reference to any “emergency”

Further, McGehee reported that both the Plaintiffs’ expert and the Corps’ expert agreed – that if the gates were not opened, then, the vast majority of the test properties would not have flooded. Further, he says, the others would have received less flooding.

He added that that conclusion “was made abundantly clear through the 500,000 pages of documents and hundreds of hours of lengthy deposition/trial testimony.”

McGehee added that the government’s strategy focused on the “emergency” declarations by the Corps and the federal and state government. However, the government reportedly failed to point out that these “emergency” declarations were made days prior to Harvey, and had nothing to do with the opening of the flood gates.

These emergency declarations, he claims, concerned Harvey in general, but not the Addicks/Barker reservoirs that are the subject of this case.

Additionally, the government emphasized how much the Addicks and Barker dams have benefited the Houston area in the past and how it was reasonable for the Corps to open the gates.

McGehee concluded, “The government, however, did not address that these claims are not relevant in the legal analysis of a government ‘taking’ of private property. “

Legal History of Case

This case is one of two that involve alleged “takings” by the Federal government during Harvey related to the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs. Several years ago, they were split into upstream and downstream cases because the issues and facts differed somewhat.

These posts include background information on both:

24/12/9 Addicks Barker Litigation Update – about testimony in an appeal of the cases.

24/11/25 Flood Digest: Brief Summaries of Five Flood-Related News Items contains a summary of then-recent developments in the upstream case.

23/1/19 Downstream Addicks Barker Case Moves Another Step Closer to Trial

22/11/21 Government Again Moves for Summary Judgment In Addicks-Barker Downstream Cases

22/8/9 Addicks-Barker Upstream Trial Case Entering Final Phase

22/6/11 Upstream Addicks-Barker Trial Concludes, But No Ruling Yet on Damages

22/6/3 Appeals Court Revives Addicks-Barker Downstream Takings Cases

20/2/26 New Presentations on Barker-Addicks Upstream Case and State of Regional Flood Mitigation

For more updates dating back to 2017, see this page on the law firm’s site.

Almost eight years after Harvey, we still don’t have a decision in this case. That underscores the need to purchase flood insurance if you live in Harris County.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/10/25

2781 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.