Reduce Flood Risk from Sand Mining in Two Minutes

1/22/25 – The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has proposed new Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Sand Mines. But they do nothing to address flood risk from sand mining here in the Lake Houston Area.

Sediment pollution from upstream sand mines has contributed to flooding more than 13,000 homes and businesses in the Lake Houston Area. Yet despite more than a billion dollars in damages and almost $200 million spent on dredging in the last five years, fewer than 100 people have protested the new, but ineffective BMPs as of noon today.

To encourage more people to get involved, below I’ve summarized the problems and suggested solutions that you can submit verbatim. The process should take less than two minutes.

The Problem

Local sand-mining practices accelerate and add to the rate of natural erosion. That helps create sediment blockages that reduce conveyance of rivers, back water up, and build higher flood peaks.

west fork mouth bar
Sand deposited during Hurricane Harvey was 8-10 feet above the water line in places. It backed water up into Kingwood, Atascocita and Humble, and stretched 3,400 feet.
East Fork Mouth Bar cost $18 million to dredge.
East Fork Mouth Bar after Imelda grew 3,700 feet.

Both of these blockages have since been dredged. But more sand continues coming with each new flood due to questionable management practices at upstream sand mines. See suggestions below.

Be Part of The Solution

Please add your voice to those protesting the omission of BMPs that address our issues. Providing public comment. Only three days remain before the deadline Friday night.

It should only take a minute or two. Follow these simple steps.

  1. Download this PDF from ReduceFlooding.com. Save it to your desktop. You’ll attach it to the webform in step 3.
  2. Copy all text between the two lines below.
  3. Go to the TCEQ web page for submitting comments. Paste the text and attach the PDF.
RE: APO BMP List Proposal

TCEQ’s attempt to create a helpful list of Best Management Practices for Aggregate Production Operations is an exercise in willful blindness. It completely ignores issues mandated by the legislature, as well as others that reduce water quality and increase flood risk.

The issues you do address are addressed in a vague and/or self-evident manner that render them inadequate.

In addition to more specificity, I would like to see BMPs that help mines in the Houston region avoid inundation and pit capture. 

Most mines on the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto were inundated last year. Floodwaters swept industrial waste downstream into Lake Houston, the drinking water supply for two million people. 

The rivers also broke through the dikes of at least six of those mines. The rivers now run through pits instead of around them. This flushes sand and sediment downstream, where it reduces conveyance, blocks drainage and contributes to flooding.

Addressing these issues requires building mines on higher ground, farther from rivers.

I recommend doubling the minimum setback from 100 to 200 feet for mines in the San Jacinto watershed. That will put the mines on higher ground, farther from the floodway.

I also recommend leaving forests undisturbed in the widened buffer zone. That will reduce the velocity of floodwater and, with it, the volume of sediment carried downstream. It will also decrease the likelihood of pit capture, by increasing the amount of time that it takes a river to migrate into a mine. The forest will also help capture sediment that may escape a mine.

Finally, the wider buffers will give rivers more room to spread out during floods. Right now, dikes are supposed to protect mines from a hundred-year flood. But when mines build tall dikes on one side of a river, they double the volume of water flooding the other side. And when they build tall dikes on both sides of a river, water has no room to spread out without invading the mines. The tall dikes effectively eliminate ALL floodplains and turn rivers into erosive firehoses.

I have attached a PDF that shows visual proof of the need for BMPs that address our main sand-mining concerns in the San Jacinto Watershed.

I also support the concerns and list of alternative BMPs supported by Texans for Responsible Aggregate Mining.

Send a message to Austin that you want the protection you pay taxes for. Get all your friends, neighbors and relatives to submit comments, too.

For more information about sand mining in the Houston region as it relates to the Proposed BMPs, consult these posts.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/22/25

2703 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Only 4 Days Left To Comment on New TCEQ Sand-Mining BMPs

1/21/25 – The TCEQ is soliciting public comments on its proposed new “best management practices” (BMPs) for sand mining. The comment period closes at 11:59 PM on 1/24/25. That’s this Friday.

Regrettably, few people have submitted comments to date. Yet, when it comes to reducing downstream flood risk, few things are as important.

BMPs are Helpful Guidelines, Not Regulations

BMPs do not carry the force of regulation. Regardless, they have great value for businesses. They improve organizational effectiveness, efficiency, trust, risk management, product quality, compliance, sustainability, neighbor relations and more.

They say to employees of an organization, “Here are lessons learned from all who have come before us. This is how the best in our business operate.”

But sadly, the BMPs recommended by TCEQ for sand miners are not very instructive. They fail to address the critical issues that sand miners – and the public – in the Houston region face. Worse, instead of raising the bar, they lower it.

Confluence of West Fork with Spring/Cypress Creeks
Confluence of Spring and Cypress Creeks (Left)with San Jacinto West Fork (right). Taken after May floods in 2024 near US59 Bridge. 20 square miles of sand mines are upstream on the right.

We Need BMPs that Address Our Real Issues

So hungry are we to keep Texas growing with low-cost concrete that we have collectively avoided addressing the other costs of sand mining related to flood mitigation, insurance, public health, and water purification. For example:

  • Inundated sand mines deposit industrial waste in the drinking water supply for 2 million people.
  • Rivers broke through the dikes of at least six mines on the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto last year, carrying sand and silt downstream, where it reduced the drainage capacity and the storage of Lake Houston.

Costs to the public?

  • Houston Public Works must pay more to purify our drinking water.
  • The public must pay more in taxes to support dredging programs that restore conveyance and reduce flood risk.
  • Insurance companies must increase premiums to pay for damage to flooded homes and businesses.

Not one of the BMPs proposed by TCEQ addresses these problems. It’s as if addressing them would obligate TCEQ (which the Sunset Commission called a ‘reluctant regulator’) to enforce them.

Worse, the proposed TCEQ BMPs failed to address issues specifically mandated by the state legislature in its last two sessions. They include water use, noise, and light pollution.

In addition, the BMPs that TCEQ does propose are vague and self-evident. For instance:

  • “Ensure vehicles are driven at reasonable speeds to reduce dust disturbance.”
  • “Be sure your stockpiles are only as high as your permit allows.”

I have posted about the need for public comments on these BMPs three times in the last two months. See:

Regardless, the last time I checked, TCEQ had received only a handful of comments.

So, for those who feel daunted by the complexity of the task or the time required, I have compiled the copy below. You can simply cut and paste the copy between the two lines into the TCEQ’s webform.

RE: APO BMP List Proposal

TCEQ’s attempt to create a helpful list of Best Management Practices for Aggregate Production Operations is an exercise in willful blindness. It completely ignores issues mandated by the legislature, as well as others that reduce water quality and increase flood risk.

The issues you do address are addressed in a vague and/or self-evident manner that render them inadequate.

In addition to more specificity, I would like to see BMPs that help mines in the Houston region avoid inundation and pit capture.

Most mines on the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto were inundated last year. Floodwaters swept industrial waste downstream into Lake Houston, the drinking water supply for two million people.

The rivers also broke through the dikes of at least six of those mines. The rivers now run through pits instead of around them. This flushes sand and sediment downstream, where it reduces conveyance, blocks drainage and contributes to flooding.

Addressing these issues requires building mines on higher ground, farther from rivers.

I recommend doubling the minimum setback from 100 to 200 feet for mines in the San Jacinto watershed. That will put the mines on higher ground, farther from the floodway.

I also recommend leaving forests undisturbed in the widened buffer zone. That will reduce the velocity of floodwater and, with it, the volume of sediment carried downstream. It will also decrease the likelihood of pit capture, by increasing the amount of time that it takes a river to migrate into a mine. The forest will also help capture sediment that may escape a mine.

Finally, the wider buffers will give rivers more room to spread out during floods. Right now, dikes are supposed to protect mines from a hundred-year flood. But when mines build tall dikes on one side of a river, they double the volume of water flooding the other side. And when they build tall dikes on both sides of a river, water has no room to spread out without invading the mines. The tall dikes effectively eliminate ALL floodplains and turn rivers into erosive firehoses.

The attached PDF shows visual proof of the need for BMPs that address our main sand-mining concerns in the San Jacinto Watershed.

I also support the concerns and list of alternative BMPs supported by Texans for Responsible Aggregate Mining.

Instructions:

To help improve the quality of life for your family and community, please:

  • Cut and paste the copy between the brackets above into TCEQ’s webform at: https://tceq.commentinput.com/?id=NdefHRZiG. Now. Today. Don’t wait.
  • Review and attach this PDF which shows visual proof of the need for BMPs that address the main sand-mining concerns in the San Jacinto Watershed.
  • Modify the bracketed text above as you see fit to address other concerns you may have.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/21/25

2702 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.

Best to Stay off Northpark in Snow

1/20/25 – As I write this, the snow has already begun. Some people are predicting up to 6″ tonight and tomorrow. To put that in historical perspective, Houston hasn’t seen that much snow since 1895.

The Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority sent out a notice tonight saying that construction on Northpark would be tabled until after the snow melts.

We can only hope drivers use as much common sense. Snow will make roads slick. Lanes make frequent changes around construction. And if you start to skid, you will likely run into a giant concrete barrier, not just a curb.

Large concrete barriers in construction zone will leave little room for recovery in a skid.

Also keep in mind, that even if you know how to drive in snow, it’s not part of the skill set for 95% of the motorists in Houston.

The City and County advise staying home and avoiding all travel until the roads clear. But if you must travel, please use routes other than Northpark Drive for your own safety.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/20/25

2701 Days since Hurricane Harvey

NWS Now Predicting Up to 5″ of Snow, Sleet

1/19/25 at 9 AM – This morning, the National Weather Service (NWS) updated its predictions for the Winter Storm Watch and Cold Weather Advisory issued yesterday. The possible accumulations of snow increased from 3″ to 5″ with ice accumulations of around one tenth of an inch also possible.

Banding will lead to a disparity in snow totals. Some areas could receive less than 5″ and some could receive more. Exact locations of heavy snow bands are uncertain. Monitor the latest NWS forecasts for updates.

Wind gusts will be as high as 35 MPH for large portions of southeast Texas from Monday evening through Tuesday afternoon.

From NWS on Sunday Jan. 19 at 8 AM.

Timing of Precipitation

From NWS Sunday, January 19, 2025 at 8 AM

Plan on dangerous road conditions that will impact commutes.

Bitter Cold to Follow Snow

Bitter cold will follow the snow and ice. Tuesday night, NWS predicts temperatures will drop to 18º F at Bush Intercontinental Airport and barely reach above freezing on Wednesday. So, the snow and ice may not have time to melt before they refreeze.

Wind chills could drop to the single digits by Wednesday morning in some areas.

Gusty northerly winds today through Tuesday will result in wind chills in the 10’s and 20’s…so you’ll need layers if going outside.

How Cold Near You?

Many areas will fall below freezing on Monday evening and potentially remain below freezing into Wednesday afternoon. During that period, temperatures may only warm a few degrees above freezing. Sub-freezing temps could still around for 36-45 hours.

Monday AM Forecasted Low Temperatures: 

  • North of HWY 105: 22-26
  • North of I-10: 25-29
  • Houston metro (inside Beltway): 27-29
  • Coastal Counties: 28-31
  • Beaches/Galveston: 31-34

Tuesday AM Forecasted Low Temperatures:

  • North of HWY 105: 24-26
  • North of I-10: 25-28
  • Houston metro (inside Beltway): 27-29
  • Coastal Counties: 27-30
  • Beaches/Galveston: 30-32

Wednesday AM Forecasted Low Temperatures: 

  • North of HWY 105: 14-17
  • North of I-10: 15-18
  • Houston metro (inside Beltway): 17-19
  • Coastal Counties: 19-22
  • Beaches/Galveston: 28-30

Precautions include Pipe Protection

Maximum preparations and precautions for sub-freezing conditions for many hours should be completed today. Failure to complete proper precautions may result in significant damage to vegetation and infrastructure.  

  • Protect sensitive vegetation.
  • Protect any exposed outdoor pipes (sprinkler systems should be shut off and properly drained). Pipes in attics and along exterior walls of structures could freeze at these levels.
  • Prepare proper shelter and warmth for animals and livestock and make sure water sources are not frozen.
  • Persons should limit outside exposure to a minimum.
Cold weather safety from NWS

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/19/25

2700 Days since Hurricane Harvey

NWS Issues Cold Weather Advisory, Winter Storm Watch

1/18/25 – Don’t get a flood in your attic. The National Weather Service (NWS) has issued a cold weather advisory and a winter storm watch for the entire Houston region. Sub-freezing temperatures and extreme wind chills mixed with ice and snow are expected. The:

  • Cold-weather advisory runs from 3 AM to 12 PM on January 19th.
  • Winter-storm watch takes effect on Monday January 20, 2025 at 6PM and will last until Tuesday at the same time.

For more details on each, see below.

Cold Weather Advisory Details

WHAT: Very cold wind chills below 20 degrees are expected.

WHERE: Portions of south central and southeast Texas.

WHEN: From 3 AM to noon CST Sunday, January 19, 2025

IMPACTS: Wind chill values can lead to hypothermia with prolonged exposure.

PRECAUTIONS: Use caution while traveling outside. Wear appropriate clothing, a hat, and gloves. Keep pets indoors as much as possible. Make frequent checks on older family, friends, and neighbors. Ensure portable heaters are used correctly. Do not use generators or grills inside.

Winter Storm Watch Details.

WHEN: Monday evening through Tuesday afternoon

WHAT: Heavy mixed precipitation is possible with total snow and sleet accumulations up to 3 inches and locally higher amounts. Ice accumulations of up to one tenth of an inch possible for portions of south central and southeast Texas.

IMPACTS: Roads, and especially bridges and overpasses, will likely become slick and hazardous. Plan on slippery road conditions. The hazardous conditions could impact the Tuesday morning and evening commutes.

PRECAUTIONS:

  • Be where you plan to be by 6:00 PM Monday for the duration of this winter storm event.
  • Monitor the latest forecasts for updates on this situation. Delay all travel if possible.
  • If travel is absolutely necessary, drive with extreme caution and be prepared for sudden changes in visibility.
  • Leave plenty of room between you and the motorist ahead of you, and allow extra time to reach your destination.
  • Avoid sudden braking or acceleration, and be especially cautious on hills or when making turns. Make sure your car is winterized and in good working order.

WHERE: Houston; Trinity; Madison; Walker; San Jacinto; Polk; Burleson; Brazos; Washington; Grimes; Montgomery; Northern Liberty; Colorado; Austin; Waller; Inland Harris; Chambers; Wharton; Fort Bend; Inland Jackson; Inland Matagorda; Inland Brazoria; Inland Galveston; Southern Liberty; Coastal Harris; Coastal Jackson; Coastal Matagorda; Coastal Brazoria; Coastal Galveston; Matagorda Islands; Brazoria Islands; Galveston Island; Bolivar Peninsula.

What to Expect within Metro Area

Jeff Lindner, Harris County’s meteorologist provided this additional detail.

As a cold front moves through the area today, look for increasingly colder conditions into Sunday and next week. Expect a substantial drop in the temperatures tonight into Sunday.

The freezing line will make it down toward the north and western sides of the metro area Sunday morning. When combined with gusty northerly winds of 15-25mph, wind chills will fall into the 10’s and 20’s for much of the area.

A more significant freeze is likely Monday morning with lows into the 20’s for much of the area and into the low 20’s north of HWY 105. Expect similar lows on Tuesday morning. Coldest temps will be on Wednesday morning with possible ice/snow cover and clearing skies resulting in maximum cooling conditions.

The duration of sub-freezing temperatures will be critical. Much of the area looks to fall below freezing Monday early evening and not rise above freezing until Wednesday afternoon.

Even then, it may only be a few degrees above freezing for a few hours. We could potentially experience sub-freezing temps for 36-45 hours over much of the area – and possibly longer.

Monday AM Forecasted Low Temperatures: 
  • North of HWY 105: 22-26
  • North of I-10: 25-29
  • Houston metro (inside Beltway): 27-29
  • Coastal Counties: 28-30
  • Beaches/Galveston: 31-33
Tuesday AM Forecasted Low Temperatures:
  • North of HWY 105: 22-26
  • North of I-10: 26-30
  • Houston metro (inside Beltway): 27-29
  • Coastal Counties: 28-30
  • Beaches/Galveston: 30-32
Wednesday AM Forecasted Low Temperatures: 
  • North of HWY 105: 17-20
  • North of I-10: 18-21
  • Houston metro (inside Beltway): 19-21
  • Coastal Counties: 19-24
  • Beaches/Galveston: 30-32
  • Maximum preparations and precautions for sub-freezing conditions for many hours should be completed this weekend. Failure to complete proper precautions may result in significant damage to vegetation and infrastructure.  
Winter Precipitation: 

Once the cold air is in place on Monday, another front will move through. Expect snow along and north of I-10 with the potential for a mixture of freezing rain/sleet/snow south of I-10. Models suggest the storm may move across the area in bands, resulting in much higher precipitation totals locally. This scenario occurred in 2004, 2008 and 2009.

Snow accumulations of 1-3 inches (or more locally) are possible along and north of I-10. Expect lower amounts south of I-10.

There is a:

  • 70-85% chance much of the area will see at least a tenth of an inch of snow.
  • 35-50% chance the area south of I-10 will get ice.

We could still be dealing with travel issues into Thursday morning. Aviation will be heavily impacted. Snow will clog runways and de-icing of planes will likely be necessary.

Forecast Graphics

Monday AM Low Temps:
Tuesday AM Low Temps:
Wednesday AM Low Temps:
Probabilities of Snow and Freezing Rain:
Snow Accumulation through Tuesday 600am (additional accumulation is likely after 600am)
Ice Accumulation through Tuesday 600am (additional accumulation is likely after 600am)

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/18/25 based on information from NOAA, NWS and Jeff Lindner

2699 Days since Hurricane Harvey

2024 Climate Records, Near Records

1/17/25 – According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2024 was a year for climate records and near records. 2024 was the:

  • Warmest year in the contiguous United States in 130 years
  • Third wettest year of the climate record in the contiguous United States
  • Second worst year for tornadoes (with 1,735 confirmed to date)
  • Second highest year for billion-dollar weather disasters in 45 years. Twenty-seven cost a total of $182.7 billion (which was the fourth highest price tag on record).
  • Fourth highest year for hurricanes making landfall in the U.S.

Graphic Recap of 2024’s Most Significant Climate and Weather Events

The maps below come from the NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). The first shows significant climate events during 2024.

Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters

The second map shows the location and dates of the 27 billion-dollar disasters.

NOAA says 2024 ranks second highest for number of billion-dollar disasters in a calendar year, one event behind 2023’s record 28 events. The total annual cost in 2024 – $182.7 billion – may rise by several billion as additional costs from identified events are reported.

Since records began in 1980, the U.S. has sustained 403 separate weather and climate disasters where overall damages/costs reached or exceeded $1 billion. All costs are adjusted to 2024 dollars based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The total cost of these 403 events exceeds $2.915 trillion.

Since 1980, the U.S. has experienced an average of nine billion-dollar disasters per year. So 2024 tripled the average.

National Centers for Environmental Information

This is also a record 14th consecutive year when the U.S. experienced 10 or more billion-dollar disasters.

Other Stats and Key Points

The average annual temperature of the contiguous U.S. was 55.5°F, 3.5°F above average and the warmest in the 130-year record. 

Seventeen states (Texas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine) ranked warmest on record while all but two remaining states across the Lower 48 ranked as one of the warmest five years on record.

Annual precipitation for the contiguous U.S. was 31.58 inches, 1.66 inches above average, ranking in the wettest third of the historical record (1895–2024). 

The Atlantic basin saw 18 named tropical cyclones and five landfalling hurricanes during 2024—an above-average season. Hurricane Helene was the seventh-most-costly Atlantic hurricane on record.

The tornado count for 2024 was second highest on record behind 2004 (1,817 tornadoes) with at least 1,735 confirmed tornadoes. When looking at EF-2+ tornadoes, 2024 was the most active year since the historic 2011 season.

Hurricane Helene’s extensive damage topped the list of 27 separate billion-dollar weather and climate disaster events identified during 2024.

Be cautious about generalizing about trends from these numbers. Almost every one of the stats references other record years from decades or even a century ago.

For More Information

For more detailed climate information, check out NOAA’s comprehensive Annual 2024 U.S. Climate Report. For additional information on the statistics provided here, visit NOAA’s Climate at a Glance and National Maps webpages.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/17/2025 based on information from NOAA and NCEI

2698 Days since Hurricane Harvey

 

Ramsey, Flickinger Discuss Status of Flood Projects

1/16/2025 – Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, PE, and Distict E Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger discussed the status of numerous flood projects at a meeting of the Kingwood Area Republican Women today at the Oakhurst Golf Club.

Ramsey addressing Kingwood Area Republican Women’s Club today.

Among the projects they covered were:

  • Taylor Gully Improvements/Woodridge Village Detention
  • Kingwood Diversion Ditch Improvements/Upstream Detention
  • Additional Floodgates for Lake Houston
  • Legal Changes Governing Pre-Release of Water from Lakes
  • Edgewater Park
  • Dredging
  • Medians
  • Flood Tunnels
  • Subsidence

Below are the highlights. They also discussed other issues such as median maintenance, vine control, crime, taxes, government waste, elections and more. But I will focus primarily on infrastructure issues related to flooding – especially Taylor Gully and Woodridge Village, because of pending approvals this month.

Taylor Gully/Woodridge Village

After Perry Homes clearcut approximately 270 acres in Montgomery County, hundreds of Kingwood homes flooded twice in 2019 along Taylor Gully. Taylor Gully runs through the northern part of Kingwood from Kingwood Park High School to White Oak Creek.

Taylor Gully/Woodridge Village

Harris County Flood Control District (HCDFC) began working on mitigation plans in 2021 and presented preliminary recommendations to the community in December, 2022.

The county had high hopes for funding from the Texas General Land Office (GLO) and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), but those ran into a potential snag. Taylor Gully improvements fit within available HUD funding, but Woodridge Village (the former Perry Homes Property) did not. HCFCD hoped to build more stormwater detention basin capacity on Woodridge to help control Taylor Gully expenses downstream.

Regardless HCFCD pressed forward. They combined the two projects. And according to HCFCD, both now fit with available funding capacity (see “above the line” list on page 2) of the list being presented to Commissioners Court next week on 1/23/25.

The county purchased Woodridge Village in February 2021. Shortly thereafter, HCFCD began an excavation and removal (E&R) contract to get a “head start” on the basins. Indeed, the head start brought the total stormwater detention on the site almost to Atlas-14 standards.

However, HCFCD was forced to terminate the E&R contract before the basins could be completed. That was to comply with HUD requirements while HUD considered the grant application.

This is potentially great news for the people who live in Sherwood Trails, Elm Grove, Mills Branch and Woodstream.

Watch commissioner’s court closely next Thursday. The Kingwood area drainage study named this project as one of the two most important in Kingwood.

Kingwood Diversion Ditch and Upstream Detention

The Kingwood Diversion Ditch was the other of the two most important projects. The Diversion Ditch takes floodwaters out of Bens Branch, which runs diagonally through the center of Kingwood from St. Martha Catholic Church to River Grove Park.

Improving the Diversion Ditch would reduce flood risk for hundreds of homes and apartments, Kingwood High School, Town Center, and Kings Harbor. Both Bens Branch and the Diversion Ditch currently have a two-year level of service. That means they have a 50% chance of coming out of their banks in any given year.

The District started preliminary engineering in mid-2021. HCFCD will finally present that report to Commissioners Court on February 6, 2025.

Ramsey estimated today that the project could cost $60 million. However, he also indicated that U.S. Congressman Dan Crenshaw “got us enough money so we can do the final engineering.”

Eric Heppen, Precinct 3 engineer, later stated that once Commissioners Court approves the preliminary report, it will be made public.

Flickinger emphasized that he is talking with Montgomery County, trying to get them to retain more of their floodwaters. He raised concerns about a new 200,000 sq. ft. convention center planned for US59 at Valley Ranch. “That will generate a lot of runoff that could come down to us, unless we work together to find a way to hold that water up there.”

Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger at same meeting.

Additional Floodgates for Lake Houston

Shortly after Harvey, many people pinned their flood-mitigation hopes on additional floodgates for the Lake Houston dam. The idea: to lower the lake faster when it becomes certain that a storm will flood the area. The existing gates have 1/15th the capacity of Lake Conroe’s. So Lake Houston must start releasing far earlier in advance of storms than Lake Conroe. And by the time Lake Houston is lowered, storms can veer away, wasting valuable water.

So Conroe tends to hold its water back until it is absolutely certain. At that point, it has no other choice than to release water at high rates that flood people downstream.

Being able to lower Lake Houston faster would let Lake Conroe release earlier and slower, smoothing out flood peaks downstream.

Ramsey estimated the cost of 11 new floodgates that could release 80,000 cubic feet per second at $150 million. He said the final engineering should be completed this year. He also said that bidding and construction could start in 2026.

Legal Changes Governing Pre-Release of Water

Flickinger addressed a related legal issue. State law limits the release of water from lakes; it must be only for defined beneficial uses and flood control is not one of them.

So, Flickinger is working with State Rep. Charles Cunningham to change that and increase the limit. “Bottom line,” he said, “is that we need to release more water sooner rather than holding it back until we’re adding to the crest of the flood.”

Flickinger is also working with the San Jacinto River Authority on these changes.

Edgewater Park

After Harvey, the County acquired land on the northeast corner of the West Fork and US59, which will turn into Edgewater Park. It will also connect the Houston Parks Board’s West Fork Greenway with the Spring Creek Nature Trail. Ramsey said the plans will be made public very soon. After the meeting, Precinct 3 engineer Eric Heppen confirmed the plans were 99% complete.

Ramsey said, “Soon, you’ll be able to go from Kingwood to Tomball and not cross a road.” That should be a tremendous draw for hikers and bikers and the entire area.

Dredging

Flickinger discussed two aspects of dredging not covered in last night’s post. First, he is seeking additional funding to continue the current program while the dredge is on the lake. Second, he feels opportunities exist to increase efficiency.

I asked what he meant by that. FEMA restrictions on the funds currently being used limit the dredging to “pre-Harvey” conditions. That means, Callan Marine, the contractor, must dredge to different depths to match the exact bottom profile that existed before Harvey. And that requires repositioning the dredge more than if you were just dredging to a uniform depth across wide areas.

The search for additional funding has led Flickinger to the City, the Coastal Water Authority (CWA) and former State Representative Dan Huberty. Huberty was appointed to the board of CWA last last year by Houston Mayor John Whitmire.

Medians

Several people from the audience questioned Flickinger about the medians along Kingwood Drive. He touted the success of his first Median Madness event in November 2024 and announced another on February 22, 2025. Mark your calendar now.

More than 50 volunteers participated in the last vine-cutting extravaganza. He hopes for many more volunteers this time.

Flood Tunnels

The county is getting ready to launch the next phase of its flood tunnel study. Ramsey emphasized that there isn’t enough room in Harris County to poke enough holes in the ground to solve all of our flooding problems. He sees tunnels that carry floodwater from strategic locations as essential parts of the solution.

Eric Heppen, Ramsey’s engineer said that by burying the 40 foot tunnels 80 feet underground, you can double the conveyance in some watersheds, sidestep environmental issues, and avoid having to condemn property.

But many issues have yet to be worked out. For instance, will tunnels be constructed to relieve 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year or 50-year flooding? More to follow when details become available.

Subsidence

Harris County estimates the area east of Lake Houston will grow by 18,000 homes in the next 10 years. But there currently are no plans to provide them with surface water. So, they will pump groundwater. That means subsidence. And subsidence means flooding, according to Ramsey. He pointed to Conroe as an example. The City’s groundwater pumping has caused subsidence as far south as Harris County.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/16/25

2697 Days since Hurricane Harvey

New West Fork Dredging Program Off to Fast Start

1/15/25 – The City of Houston’s latest West Fork Dredging Program appears to be off to a fast start. Dredging began about a month ago and has already filled up approximately 10 percent of the placement area. The program was originally estimated to last two years.

Before it’s all over, Callan Marine, the contractor, will dredge 876,672 cubic yards of West Fork sediment from 181 acres near the mouth of the West Fork in Lake Houston.

Shortly after sunrise yesterday, Callan Marine’s General Pershing Dredge lifted its bit out of the water temporarily as the dredge was repositioned. Note the FM1960 bridge downstream in the upper right.

Pictures Taken 1/14/25

Yesterday morning, the Callan dredge was anchored off Atascocita Point. Just three weeks ago, it began across the river in Kingwood. The pictures below tell the story.

Looking N. Atascocita Point on left and Kingwood on far side of river. Can you spot the Kings Point water tower?

Callan will pump slurry to the placement area through that winding 18″ pipe in the photo above. It goes approximately four miles to an area near the Luce Bayou Interbasin Transfer Canal. See pictures below.

The Amazing Maze

There, Callan separates the water from sand and silt with an ingenious maze. The twists and turns in the maze slow the water down, so sediment drops out of suspension.

Water comes in at the upper right and exits near the same point. Note how the sediment is higher on the wall near the entry, then tapers off. To visually estimate percentage of completion, compare levels on both sides of the diagonal berm in right foreground.

The 35-acre pond currently in use is surrounded by berms approximately 6-8 feet tall that contain the slurry. Callan has room at this same site to build another pond of approximately the same size. The two together will total 70 acres.

Cleared but unfinished area in foreground will contain a second pond. Luce Interbasin Transfer Canal on right.
Notice how bulldozers have built small temporary walls that channel the slurry away from areas where fill has already reached the full height of the berms.
When filled, this area will be high and hard enough to build new homes on.

Bulldozers spread the sediment out in layers that allow excess water to drain out or evaporate. One dredging expert told me that when dry, the sediment will be hard enough to support foundations and homes.

Small, low temporary berms within the placement area concentrate the slurry where workers want it to go.

Water that Doesn’t Evaporate Returns to the Lake

The pictures below track the movement of water within the placement area.

Slurry shoots in from the dredge almost 4 miles away.
Then bulldozers spread out and compact the dirt.
Water that doesn’t evaporate eventually makes its way through the maze back to the two pipes (center at bottom)
Boards in front of the exit pipes control the level of water in the pond and the rate of outflow.
After dirt is separated from the water, any remaining water that doesn’t evaporate re-enters Lake Houston (upper left).

Comparison with December

To see how much progress Callan has made, compare the pictures above with the one below taken, just three weeks ago.

Progress as of 12/21/24.

Beneficial Use

I wonder if that return channel will become a ready-made detention basin when the landowner develops the site. This is an ingenious example of “beneficial use” – turning a problem into a solution.

Up the Down Escalator

Nevertheless, there is a cost associated with dredging. Funding for the program comes from FEMA via U.S. Congressman Dan Crenshaw. The City will use money left over from previous West Fork Mouth Bar dredging. Crenshaw secured $125 million in federal funding to cover dredging, including phases already completed.

Some of the sediment shown above comes from natural erosion. Some also comes from upstream sand mining.

With 20 square miles of sand mines in a 20-mile reach of the West Fork between I-45 and US59, the average width of exposed sediment during floods is one mile.

Sometimes I compare flooding issues to trying to walk up a down escalator.

In this case, we’ve failed to establish an effective regulatory regime based on a comprehensive set of best management practices for sand mines. And the public is paying the price in terms of increased flood risk and mitigation costs.

If you haven’t already written the TCEQ to register your concerns about their proposed (but inadequate) best management practices for sand mining, please do so. The public comment period ends on January 24. This post contains more about the problems with the TCEQ’s proposed BMPs. Texans for Responsible Aggregate Mining has even bigger concerns which I posted about yesterday.

Please mail your concerns to Jess Robinson, MC 175, Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. Or you may submit them electronically.  Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. on January 24, 2025, and should reference “APO BMP List Proposal.”

So far, only a handful of people have registered public comments. So please help.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/15/25

2696 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.

TRAM Pans TCEQ’s Mining BMPs, Proposes Improvements

1/14/25 – Texans for Responsible Aggregate Mining (TRAM) has issued a position paper that pans a new set of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for mining that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has proposed. TRAM calls TCEQ’s BMPs “sparse,” “vague,” and “self-evident.”

TRAM asks everyone concerned about flooding and other issues related to aggregate mining to write the TCEQ before the close of public comments on the new BMPs. The deadline is January 24, 2025.

TRAM has also proposed a more comprehensive list of alternative BMPs that it believes will be more effective at minimizing disturbances created by mining.

San Jacinto West Fork mine complex inundated by floodwaters illustrates need for better BMPs

TCEQ BMPs Fail to Address Legislature’s Requirements

Senate Bill 1 in the 2021 Legislative Session required TCEQ “to adopt and make accessible on the commission’s internet website best management practices for aggregate production operations regarding nuisance issues relating to dust, noise, and light…” But the BMPs ignore noise and light.

SB 1397 and House Bill (HB) 1505 in the 2023 Legislative Session then required TCEQ to adopt BMPs related to dust, water use, and water storage. But the proposed BMPs ignore water use.

TCEQ also ignored Texans for Responsible Aggregate Mining’s (TRAM’s) technical team of credentialed professionals. TRAM created a vetted list of BMPs and presented it to the TCEQ for consideration. Instead of drawing from that resource…

“TCEQ spent three years (September 2021 to December 2024) to produce BMPs so sparse, vague, and self-evident, as to be completely irrelevant and useless.” 

TRAM

Description of TRAM Concerns

According to TRAM, TCEQ’s draft BMPs weaken TCEQ’s effort to protect public health and natural resources by “pretending to establish new guidelines while actually saying nothing. It is a disservice to taxpayers and to the environment.”

Sparse

In regard to sparse, TRAM says, “The proposed BMP list fails to address many of the real issues associated with APOs, including issues they were directly charged with addressing.”

“While they addressed dust and water storage (albeit inadequately) the TCEQ completely overlooked the “water use” portion of their 2023 charge.” And they still haven’t addressed noise and light pollution from 2021.

“TCEQ has simply failed to comply with their mandates,” says TRAM.

Vague

TRAM also feels that the TCEQ recommendations are “too vague to be useful.” For instance, “Ensure vehicles are driven at reasonable speeds to reduce dust disturbance.” TRAM suggests posting speed limits of 10 or 15 mph for unpaved haul roads. The group believes that the value of a BMP list is in detailing what a “reasonable speed” ought to be.

TRAM gave another example of vagueness. TCEQ proposed “Use fuel-efficient and appropriately-sized equipment to reduce emissions, operation time, and the overall amount of dust you produce.”  TRAM questioned what “appropriately sized” meant.

“How is anyone to assess when a BMP is being implemented,” TRAM asked, “if they are described in completely subjective terms like ‘reasonable’ and ‘appropriate’?”

Self-Evident

TRAM also cited TCEQ recommendations that were self-evident. For instance, “Be sure your stockpiles are only as high as your permit allows,” or “The further dust-producing operations are from the site boundaries, the less likely they will be to create a nuisance for any neighbors.”  

“Who benefits from these self-evident recommendations and simple reminders to follow the permit requirements?” asked TRAM.

“Completely Inadequate”

TRAM summed up its concerns in two words. “This completely inadequate draft BMP list, three years in the making, only weakens TCEQ’s effort to protect public health and natural resources by pretending to establish new guidelines while actually saying nothing. It is a disservice to taxpayers and to the environment.”

Whatever BMPs TCEQ ultimately settles on, they will neither be required nor incentivized. Still, TRAM believes it is paramount that the list be thorough and well vetted. That’s because, “It will serve to educate the public about what quarry operators could be doing to be good neighbors.”

Send Feedback to TCEQ Now

TRAM and its member organizations ask that you submit public comments to TCEQ at the address or website provided below by the January 24th deadline.

Mail comments to Jess Robinson, MC 175, Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. Or you may submit them electronically.  Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. on January 24, 2025, and should reference “APO BMP List Proposal.”

TRAM suggests mentioning the inadequacies above. The group also suggests including BMPs from TRAM’s list that are most important to you. And insisting TCEQ addresses unaddressed issues required by the Texas Legislature: water use, noise, and light pollution.

More Complete List and Thorough Descriptions Needed

Further, they suggest addressing more issues more completely. For instance, some of the many BMPs that should be included are: 

  1. Dust Control: Roads and parking areas for vehicles that will leave the site should be paved.
  2. Light Pollution: Direct light properly and use perimeter barriers to eliminate sky glow, light trespass, and glare.
  3. Mine Management and Truck Safety: Clear roads for school buses by not loading trucks for 30 minutes before and after school bells.
  4. Noise: APOs should monitor the noise exposure at their property line, keeping the noise level below 65 dB if within 880 yards of a residential area, school, or house of worship, and 70 dB if not. Set noise criteria using MSHA on-site guidance and limits from nearby municipalities.
  5. Blasting: Blasting should be monitored with seismographs, located on the perimeter (corners) of the APO property (and in some instances, adjacent or near-by properties in multiple directions).   
  6. Water quality: Vegetation is an inexpensive and effective way to protect soil from erosion and filter contaminants, protecting water quality in nearby streams and aquifers. It also protects air quality by holding dust down and filtering the air. Vegetative controls should consist of native plants appropriate for the Texas ecoregion where the site is located and must not include any noxious or invasive species.
  7. Water use: Maximize re-use of process wastewater. Manage fine tailings to reduce volume in settling ponds. Use a tailings thickener system and/or flocculant, as many APOs do. These can provide additional recycled water, reduce water loss and also reduce land use.
  8. Riparian health and safety: In riparian areas, reduce the risk of catastrophic “pit capture” (when a river breaks through the riverbank or constructed levy and runs through the mine pit, as has happened countless times in Texas, due to poor mining practices) by:
    • Maintaining an undisturbed setback of 50-200 feet from the water’s edge. Create a buffer between mining activities and the waterway.
    • Leaving vegetation in the buffer.
    • Minimizing use of heavy equipment in buffers to protect vegetation and reduce soil compaction.

ReduceFlooding.Com Suggestion

ReduceFlooding.com agrees with all of TRAM’s recommendations, but given recent erosion, I would suggest that the minimum safe distance from rivers such as the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto, be 200 feet. Fifty feet can be wiped out in one flood.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/14/25

2695 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.


 

Better Sand-Mining BMPs Needed to Control Sediment Pollution

1/13/25 – The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has proposed new Best Management Practices (BMPs) for mining in response to a mandate from the 2023 session of the Texas Legislature. However, in my opinion, the recommended BMPs will do little to nothing to help control sediment pollution from mines in the Lake Houston Area.

The BMPs feel like little more than a half-hearted attempt on the part of a reluctant regulator to create the illusion of environmental protection.

You can find the proposed BMPs at this page on the TCEQ website. You may submit comments on them electronically. To be considered, TCEQ must receive your input by 11:59 p.m. on January 24, 2025. Your email should reference “APO BMP List Proposal.”

Please let the TCEQ know what you think even if you disagree with me.

Notable Omissions

The TCEQ’s recommended BMPs do not really address the biggest mining issues we have in the upper San Jacinto watershed.

I urge you to urge TCEQ to develop BMPs that address:

  • Discharge of sediment-laden water
  • Pit capture (when a river starts flowing through a mine)
  • Periodic flooding.

The proposed BMPs do not cover these issues at all.

The final report of a TCEQ investigation into a West Fork pit capture last year didn’t even mention the phrase. Do they not consider it a problem? I sure wish the TCEQ could enlighten us on this issue. I documented seven instances of pit capture in the Lake Houston watershed last year alone. There may have been more; many mines are in remote, difficult-to-access locations.

Sediment Pollution Reduces Water Quality, Increases Flood Risk

All three of the bullet points above add up to a big problem called “sediment pollution.” Dredging costs for the City of Houston and Army Corps approached $200 million dollars as of October 2023. Better BMPs would likely have reduced or delayed that expenditure of public funds.

dredging cost summary
At an October 2023 town hall meeting in Kingwood, Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin presented this summary showing dredging costs totaling $186 million.

But those costs paled in comparison to the damages to 13,000 homes and businesses that flooded in the Lake Houston Area behind giant sand bars that formed sediment dams at the mouths of the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto.

Nor do the costs reflect extra water filtration at the City’s Northeast Water Purification plant.

To be fair, nature causes some erosion. The question is whether local mining practices accelerate it.

Photos of Sediment Pollution Related to Discharges, Pit Capture and Flooding

See the pictures below. I will submit these as part of my comments on the draft BMPs. Feel free to submit them as part of yours, too.

Confluence West Fork and Spring Creek near US59 Bridge. This is a frequent sight. Twenty square miles of mines are upstream on the right in a 20-mile reach of the river.
San Jacinto East Fork capturing a mine in Plum Grove.
Effluent from the Hallett Mine settling pond (white in upper right) on San Jacinto West Fork escaping into adjacent property owned by others.
Close up of same effluent from same pond
Dike of abandoned Williams Brothers Mine (upper right) eroded by the San Jacinto West Fork (lower left) about to give way…
…was taken out by flooding from Hurricane Beryl shortly after I took the photo above this one.

Hallett sold the San Jacinto West Fork sand pit below to a real estate developer. Within months, the river captured the pit.

West Fork flows into the pit at the north end…
…and flows out at the south end.
The pit in question is to the right of the S-turn in the river (middle). Here you can see both the entry (lower right) and exit (upper right) breaches in the dikes.

River Speed During Floods High Enough to Stir Up and Carry Even Largest Particles of Sand

Now, let’s discuss the speed of floodwaters and whether it’s sufficient to entrain sand in pits and carry it downstream.

Flood inundated both sides of the West Fork during May 2024. My drone measured logs floating through the captured pit at 5 MPH, more than fast enough to scoop up and carry off the largest grains of sand and other sediment. See below.
Industry-standard graph shows the speed necessary to erode, transport and deposit sand/sediment of different particle sizes. Blue line indicates measured speed of water. Red indicates range of typical sand sizes.
Another West Fork pit capture at the Hallett Mine after floodwaters receded. Notice how natural channel of the river has been virtually cut off.
Effluent from the Hallett Mine (upstream in upper right) polluting the West Fork at the Northpark/Oakhurst Ditch (middle foreground). Water flows right to left.
Reverse angle shows proximity of pollution to homes.
Same ditch blocked by sand increases flood risk for those homeowners.
Farther downstream, the Kingwood Diversion Ditch (top middle) also became blocked by sediment. A Harris County Flood Control District study found that the Diversion Ditch was one of the two most dangerous flooding problems in Kingwood.
Broken dike at the Triple PG sand mine in Porter. Industrial waste water is flowing out of the mine into White Oak Creek which joins Caney Creek and the San Jacinto East Fork before flowing into Lake Houston.

Horrifying! Aren’t they? The truly horrifying part is that I have thousands of similar shots. These are not isolated instances.

This is THE biggest environmental problem in the Lake Houston Area. We have industrial waste polluting the drinking water supply for 2 million people and the TCEQ BMPs don’t even address the problem.

Please register your opinion with the TCEQ at: https://tceq.commentinput.com/?id=NdefHRZiG. Help improve the quality of life for your family and community.

Don’t forget to reference “APO BMP List Proposal” when you submit the web form. Greater setbacks of mines from rivers could solve all the problems discussed above.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/13/25

2694 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.