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
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.
Supply boat docks with dredge.
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.

Romerica
Looking west toward area of proposed Romerica development. Photo taken during peak of May, 2024 flood.

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.

Natural Resources Committee Hears Testimony on HB2068

Update: 4/10/25 – After reading this post, the media liaison for HCFCD emailed me to say, “One correction to your post today – Dr. Petersen testified as a resource on the bill, not against it.” Listen to her testimony at the link provided and you be the judge.

4/9/2025 – The Texas House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee heard testimony today on HB2068. HB2068 attempts to reconstitute the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) into one with wider authority to address flooding that originates outside Harris County.

It would also give the governor authority to appoint a board for the reconstituted district that would replace Harris County Commissioners Court, which has severely politicized flood mitigation much to the detriment of those who live on the periphery of the county.

Three people testified in person AGAINST the bill. But 192 provided written comments FOR the bill. Still, the bill’s fate is unclear tonight.

Three In-Person Testifiers All Against Bill

The committee heard live testimony from three people. All spoke against the bill. They included Stephen Costello, the City’s former Chief Recovery Officer under the late Mayor Sylvester Turner. They also included Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD and Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia.

Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia testifying against HB2068 in today’s House Natural Resources Committee hearing.

The essence of Costello’s testimony was “HCFCD is working. Don’t mess with it.” He called the District a good partner for the City of Houston. And that may be true in certain areas.

Petersen and Garcia both bragged about HCFCD’s track record under their leadership, including their ability to take politics out of decision making.

Their testimony stood in stark contrast to brutal confrontations in Harris County Commissioners Court during the last two months. Commissioners, including Garcia, have raked Petersen over the coals. They complained bitterly and repeatedly about budget shortfalls totaling hundreds of millions of dollars that have jeopardized their pet projects.

No one seems to know where the current budget or projects stand. And that has made it impossible for commissioners to prioritize projects for any budget remaining.

Regardless, Petersen touted the county’s failed IT systems as a positive. She estimated it would cost the District $75 million to replace them if Flood Çontrol were a stand-alone entity.

Petersen also failed to mention the four-year slowdown in HCFCD activity.

HCFCD annual spending trend

See the entire testimony here. HB2068 starts about 1:18 into the video.

Strange Failure to Address Author’s Claims

Rep. Dennis Paul, the bill’s author, teed up his bill by explaining how much flooding originated outside the county. However, neither Costello, Petersen, nor Garcia addressed that point.

The failure to address such an obvious point may have been a fatal flaw in their arguments. Any casual observer could see the disconnect.

In fact, 10 of the 22 watersheds in Harris County originate outside the county, including most of the largest ones. Excluding cooperative efforts with people in those areas dooms large parts of Harris County to repetitive flooding. Especially those on the periphery of the county.

watershed map of Harris County
Harris County Watershed map

Electronically Filed Comments Overwhelmingly Support Bill

Many county residents have received virtually no support from HCFCD during Petersen’s tenure because of deliberate diversions of funds to low-income areas. Residents who remain living with high flood risk did not share Petersen’s and Garcia’s appraisals of their own performance, judging by their written comments.

194 people submitted comments electronically. You can read them here. Of the 194, only two were against HB2068. The other 192 strongly favored it. Virtually all of them came from the Lake Houston Area.

However, a number of people from Porter, Conroe, and even as far north as Cleveland also favored the bill. All had been flooded. And all sought the kind of support that an expanded District could provide.

Only one other bill discussed in Natural Resources today received more comments than HB2068. It was a quarrying bill relating to the Lower Colorado River Authority. The rest received only a handful of comments. Most received 0 to 3.

That in itself seems like it would argue for closer scrutiny and debate.

Bill Not Debated in Committee, Fate Up in Air

However, at the end of the testimony, the chairman left the bill “pending in committee.” That could mean they will just let it die. Or it could mean they will debate it and pass it out of committee to the full house for a vote at a future date.

Rep. Paul’s bill does not yet have a companion bill in the Senate.

More news to follow when it becomes available.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/9/2025

2780 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Action Needed: Support HB2068 NOW!

4/8/25 – State Representative Dennis Paul has authored a bill, HB2068, which would transform the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) by reconstituting its management and potentially expanding its geographic scope. Fifteen other state representatives have expressed their support by signing on as “co-authors” of the bill. Most represent parts of the San Jacinto River Basin.

The Texas House of Representatives Natural Resources committee will hold hearings on the bill tomorrow. We need to make sure the bill doesn’t die a quiet death by never making it out of the committee for a vote by the full House. So please write today to express your support.

Why We Need HB2068

Water doesn’t respect political boundaries. Back in 1937 when the legislature created HCFCD, that wasn’t a huge problem. Most of the region’s population lived within Harris County.

But since then, the Houston area has grown to encompass all or parts of seven counties. Having the state’s only flood control district focusing primarily on the area inside Beltway 8 no longer serves the needs of the region.

For instance, in the San Jacinto watershed, an area half again as large as Harris County drains past Kingwood. Yet Kingwood has received only $230 in capital improvement construction projects from HCFCD. Ever.

But during Harvey, Kingwood also had the highest flooding in the county. And it has flooded several times since then.

Meanwhile, eight other watersheds favored by certain Harris County Commissioners have received more than $740 million…just since 2018.

Their formula for allocating funds relies heavily on race and income. The majority of County Commissioners now in control do not even include flood damage or risk in their current formula for prioritizing flood-mitigation projects.

Moreover, HCFCD under the leadership of Harris County Commissioners Court refuses to release comparative flood risk data in their possession.

Plus, certain commissioners have vowed not to allow HCFCD to spend money on projects outside of Harris County, where many of the County’s flooding problems originate.

How HB2068 Could Change That

HB2068 modifies the legislation that originally created HCFCD. The modifications do two basic things. They:

  • Replace Harris County Commissioners Court as managers of HCFCD with a board appointed by the governor. (See Section 1D Page 3.)
  • Allow surrounding counties to join the reconstituted district voluntarily after approval by their Commissioners Courts and voters.

Thus…

HB2068 would enable the reconstituted district to serve all people of the river basin and give them a way to address their flooding issues together.

Flooding does not respect political boundaries. HB2068 bridges those boundaries.

How to Express Your Support

The Natural Resources committee will meet on Wednesday April 9, 2025 to hear testimony on HB2068.

Remember public comments must be submitted before the end of the meeting. To be safe, do it now! And do it here. You are limited to 3000 characters. I suggest something that expresses the key points above under:

  • Why We Need HB2068
  • How HB2068 Could Change That.

They include 2000 characters.

If you are pressed for time, just say, “I support this bill.”

Please DO IT NOW!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/8/2025

2779 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Lake Meritage Drained into City Storm Sewer

4/7/25 – Last Saturday, 2.5 inches of rain turned the Meritage construction site in Atascocita into Lake Meritage. But by this morning, contractors were draining Lake Meritage into a City of Houston storm sewer.

Close examination of aerial photos shows a series of trenches cut under silt fences to let the water drain from the site quickly and bypass the usually slow filtration process that the fences provide.

Contractors had also cut a series of trenches within the site to move trapped stormwater toward the street. And an excavator was scooping muddy stormwater from the beginnings of a detention basin into yet another trench that led toward the exit rows.

Lake Meritage 24 Hours After Storm

Here’s what the site looked like 24 hours ago.

Meritage Phase II (right) on April 6, 2025 24 hours after 2.5 inch rain

Pictures and Videos Taken Another 24 Hours after Storm

Here’s the same area today.

Meritage Phase II (right) 24 hours after photo above.

Where did all the water go?

Interior channels brought the stormwater toward the street…
The excavator (center left) was scooping buckets of water out of the detention basin and dumping it into another channel that led toward the street.
…and a series of shovel-wide trenches let water leak out from under the silt fence.

Much of the muck flowed through a roadside swale to a storm sewer inlet. See below.

10-Second Video by Michelle Chavez, who lives next to the Meritage construction site.

But not all of the muck stayed in the swale. The next ten-second video shows part of it running down the street. There was so much at one point that contractors had to partially block it off.

Another 10-second video showing stormwater entering street. Supplied by passing motorist.
Motorist tracks overflowing silty stormwater down street for another 18 seconds until it flows into City storm sewer inlet.

When I drove by about an hour after the last video was shot, the flow through the street had ended and someone had installed a screen over the inlet that’s clearly not on the video. The screen could make them appear compliant with their Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan.

Silt Fence Repairs Not a Priority

Unfortunately, the contractors did not drain the water invading neighbors’ yards. And repairing damaged silt fences that protected neighbors from the muck was not their highest priority.

Broken silt fence and runoff on neighboring properties as of noon 4/7/25.

To File a Complaint

Practices like those above are usually discouraged by the Harris County Engineer and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

If you’re concerned about runoff that floods your property or potentially clogs your storm drains, please file a complaint.

Harris County Engineer

Phone: 713-274-3600 Monday Through Friday 8 AM to 5 PM

File a complaint online at: https://epermits.harriscountytx.gov/External_Complaints.aspx

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

For instructions to file a complaint, visit: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/compliance/complaints.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/7/2025

2778 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.