1/11/25 – On July 15, 2020, Neel-Schaffer Engineering delivered the Kingwood Area Drainage Study to sponsors Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD), City of Houston and Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority/TIRZ 10.
HCFCD held a community meeting to discuss the results. The District delivered a 24-page high-level summary to the community at the time. However, I have now obtained the full two-volume, 620-page report and posted it on the Reports Page of ReduceFlooding.com under the Harris County Flood Control District Tab.
There were so many graphics in Volume 1, that I had to split it up into three parts to avoid the 32-meg file-size limitation of my web server. Warning: all parts comprise more than 50 megs.
But those maps contain a wealth of detail not available in the high level summary. For instance, they show floodplains down to the individual house level, the level of service for different stream segments, and which structures would flood in different mitigation scenarios and rainfall intensities.
The report focused on areas where structures would flood in less than a 100-year rainfall.
Full Reports of Follow-Up Studies Still Not Available
I posted about the high-level findings back in 2020. To refresh your memory, the report studied a large number of drainage features in Kingwood and concluded that mitigation of the Taylor Gully and the Kingwood Diversion Ditch were the two most important.
HCFCD recommended that the two projects: G103-38-00 (Kingwood Diversion Ditch) and G103-80-03.1B (Taylor Gully) move to the next phase: engineering design. Additionally, HCFCD recommended the Taylor Gully project be reanalyzed to determine how the use of Woodridge Village for detention could modify the recommended plan.
However, HCFCD has not released the full report on either. The District says it intends to present the full report on the Diversion Ditch to Commissioners Court on February 6th and may release it after that.
In the meantime, the maps in the Kingwood Area Drainage Study may be the best guide to flood risk in the area for realtors and those considering buying a home.
MAAPnext and FEMA still haven’t released the preliminary results of a massive floodplain update they have been working on since Harvey.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/11/25
2692 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KW-Area-Drainage-Sudy-Map-Kingwood-Center.jpg?fit=1100%2C594&ssl=15941100adminadmin2025-01-11 19:16:032025-01-11 19:27:17Full Kingwood Area Drainage Study Now Available Online
1/10/25 – Sometimes it seems transparency issues with Harris County government just never cease. For instance…
You go to the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) website to look for “active construction projects” in your area. But the “Active Construction Projects” page is not working. And it hasn’t worked for months.
You wanted to know what HCFCD had done for you before voting on a 63% tax increase they requested. But the latest document posted in the download section of their website is from 2020 – more than four years ago.
Screen capture from HCFCD.org on 1/10/25 at 6:30PM showed last update to Document section was in 2020.
You lead a flood coalition representing hundreds of thousands of people and seeking to participate in public online meetings about flood control. You repeatedly ask for notice of the meetings, but get none.
You file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request for a preliminary engineering report that HCFCD wants public comments on. But they refuse to give it to you and protest the request to the State Attorney General.
All of these scenarios are real. And current.
The Deeper You Dig, the More You Suspect
What are they trying to hide? Do they really want public input? Are they trying to cover up embarrassing incompetence? Government waste? Is this a case of bureaucratic laziness? Or do they just not want to deal with a public that might dare to disagree.
Two things are certain. The harder you push, the more they talk about how transparent they are. And the penchant for secrecy undermines trust in Harris County Government.
Let’s dissect just one of the examples above – the FOIA request.
Details on Kingwood Diversion Ditch FOIA Request
After Hurricane Harvey, Harris County Flood Control District commissioned a Kingwood Area Drainage Study. Commissioners approved it on August 13, 2019.
HCFCD held a Community Engagement Meeting to discuss the study on October 20, 2020. It found 85% of the storm water runoff from Montgomery County went into the natural channel of Bens Branch rather than being diverted into the Kingwood Diversion Ditch.
The Drainage Study also found the Bens Branch drainage channel has less than a 2-year level of service. This translates to a greater than 50% chance of structural flooding in any given year.
Looking E at where Kingwood Diversion Ditch (horizontal) splits off from Bens Branch (vertical) just north of Northpark Drive (out of frame to right).
The Drainage Study recommended increasing the conveyance capacity of the Diversion Ditch and completely blocking flow from Montgomery County into the natural channel of Bens Branch through Kingwood. The Study listed improvement of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch and Taylor Gully as the two top priorities to avoid future flooding in Kingwood.
Excessive flow entering the natural channel of Bens Branch is the root cause of the erosion of the Bens Branch channel. The Diversion Ditch is supposed to siphon water out of Bens Branch, but it’s obviously not working as planned,
After release of the Kingwood Drainage Study, Harris County Commissioners authorized a preliminary engineering study for improvement of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch. Neel-Schaffer, Inc. received the contract on June 29, 2021. The value was $437,685 and specifications called for the report to be issued in 300 days.
Excessive Delays
However, HCFCD held a Virtual Community Engagement Meeting on March 7th, 2024, to discuss the results of this study. This was 982 days after the contract – more than three times the duration specified.
The stated purpose of the meeting was to obtain questions and solicit public comment.
To formulate reasonable questions and comments, Chris Bloch, a retired Kingwood engineer and flood fighter, filed a FOIA request on March 6th to obtain the full report. But HCFCD denied his request.
HCFCD said the report was still in draft form and had the County Attorney send a letter to The Texas Attorney General objecting to disclosure of some of the information included in the Preliminary Engineering Report.
The Attorney General allowed HCFCD to keep the draft secret. But public comments on the secret report were due on March 20, 2024, two weeks after the meeting that presented only high-level findings.
Bloch’s beef? “As an engineer familiar with Kingwood drainage conditions, it is impossible to make reasonable questions or comments on a Study which cannot be seen.” He concluded, “It is clear, the priority of improving Kingwood Drainage does not seem to have any urgency.”
Block wrote me on December 14, 2024 about his ordeal. That was:
283 days after the close of public comments
1,264 days after the contract for the Preliminary Engineering Report was authorized
1,516 days after the Kingwood Drainage Study Community Engagement Meeting.
Block says he requested a meeting with Flood Control personnel responsible for the report, but they did not respond. He still hasn’t received the report.
Ray of Light
There is a ray of light, however. 1318 days after the study was commissioned, HCFCD says they have plans to finally review it with Harris County Commissioners Court on February 6, 2025. HCFCD indicates they may give the report to Bloch after that … if commissioners approve it.
Do you have a similar story about government transparency? Please send it to me using the contact form of this website.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/10/25 using information from Chris Bloch
2691 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/20220322-DJI_0041.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2025-01-10 20:40:542025-01-11 11:55:23Transparency Issues Undermining Trust in Harris County Government
1/9/25 – The widening of Bens Branch caused by ever-increasing amounts of water coming downstream from new upstream developments has forced the Bear Branch Trail Association to replace an aging wooden bridge with a new $300,000 steel truss bridge.
Old Bridge Between Cedar Knolls and Park Royal in Bear Branch Trail Association. Photo by Chris Bloch.New steel-truss bridge in same area being hoisted into place today.Photo by Chris Bloch.
The creek has widened from 32 to 50 feet since Tropical Storm Imelda in 2019. The new steel-truss bridge became necessary to accommodate the wider span.
Upstream Growth and Importance of Bridge
Contractors installed the new bridge about a hundred yards south of the Pines Montessori School on Cedar Knolls. It connects Park Royal in Bear Branch Village to Cedar Knolls in Kings Forest Village.
It is also a major connector for foot and bicycle traffic between the western and eastern halves of the 100+ mile Kingwood trail system.
Thousands of residents use it, including students going to/from Bear Branch Elementary, Kingwood High School and Pines Montessori.
The Bens Branch watershed extends northwest all the way up into fast-growing Valley Ranch area in Montgomery County. Over the years, ever-increasing amounts of runoff have widened the watercourse, undermining the supports of pedestrian and street bridges alike.
The pedestrian bridge also was pummeled by the power of moving water.
Eroded support for old bridge. Photo by Chris Bloch.
Erosion Also Undercut Trees
During floods in January, May and July last year, erosion also claimed hundreds of trees that fell into the creek, backing water up and contributing to flooding.
Example of erosion just a few feet downstream from new bridge.Trees hauled out of Bens Branch after Beryl remain stacked on Tree Lane waiting to be hauled away.
Pictures of New Bridge Installation on 1/9/25
The next group of pictures shows the new bridge and its placement today.
Before installation. The new 5,000 pound steel bridge will have concretepoured in the tray surrounding the deck.The concrete abutments are sunk deep into the ground.Overhead shot shows riprap stacked on both sides. It will protect the edges of the embankment next to the bridge from erosion.Wooden “matts” had to be placed under the crane to stabilize it for the heavy lift in rain-soaked soil.Then a forklift and a backhoe maneuvered the new bridge down the trail to the stream.As the crane slowly lifted the bridge into position, workers guided it with ropes from a safe distance.They guided the bridge by handfor the last foot or so to make sure it was squarely seated on steel posts embedded in the concrete.One whack from a sledgehammer and everything locked into place.
More to Come
Workers still have to:
Pour the concrete deck
Place the riprap
Finish the approaches to the bridge
Replant trees destroyed by heavy equipment.
The new bridge should help reduce erosion. The cross section under the bridge increased from 120 square feet before Imelda to 420 square feet with the new design – a 3.5X or 250% increase. That will make it easier for water to flow under the bridge without backing up, causing jetting, or flooding the nearby Montessori school.
The project should be complete by the end of January 2025.
Thanks go to more than 2,800 members of the Bear Branch Trail Association who paid for the new bridge and its engineering. And a special “thank you” goes out to three volunteer members of the BBTA board – Lee Danner, Chris Bloch and Chris Arceneaux. They supervised the installation today in driving rain and near-freezing temperatures. They exemplify a dedication to excellence and community service that makes Kingwood such a wonderful place to live.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/9/25 with help from Chris Bloch
2690 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/20250109-DSC_1486.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2025-01-09 19:59:162025-01-09 22:44:14Bens Branch Erosion Forces Installation of New Bridge
1/7/2025 – In the week after a holiday lull, Northpark construction is ramping back up and should reach some milestones later this week. According to the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority website:
A paving crew will begin pouring concrete for new lanes beginning Friday January 10th in front of PNC Bank between US and Loop 494 on the north side of Northpark.
Another crew will demolish the existing eastbound lanes of Northpark from Kings Mill to Russell Palmer Road.
In other news, crews will continue:
Installing reinforced concrete box culverts between Caliber Collision and the Extra Space Storage facility to accommodate new westbound access roads.
Switching water services from the Porter Special Utility District to the City of Houston.
Grading the area for a sidewalk between Loop 494 and US59 on the north side of Northpark.
See the pictures below, all taken on Tuesday morning, 1/7/25.
New Lanes and Sidewalk Between Loop 494 and 59
New westbound lanes and a sidewalk will go in the area being prepped to the right of existing traffic.Looking E toward 494 from same location.
Culvert Installation under Westbound Turn Lanes
The first three shots below show the culvert installation east of 494 from different angles.
Looking W toward 59. Drainage work from Caliber Collision (lower right) has reached the area between Dunkin’ Donuts and Public Storage.
This will be the area where two westbound surface turn lanes split off from traffic continuing over a bridge that spans Loop 494 and the UnionPacific Railroad Tracks.
Closer shot of current work area. The smaller pipe will drain lateral areas.Close up of box culvert installation. Note size of culverts relative to men on both sides.
Loop 494 North and South of Northpark
Elsewhere, new southbound lanes both north and south of Northpark have been completed.
Looking N along 494 from over Northpark. Old lanes on right closed off and awaiting demolition.Looking south across same intersection. Area on left is awaiting demo and reconstruction.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/20250107-DJI_20250107133013_0632_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-01-07 16:58:352025-01-07 16:58:39Northpark Construction: From Mistletoe to Milestones
1/6/2025 – Before New Year’s Day, I posted about the lack of best management practices (BMPs) at the Foster Elementary reconstruction site in Kingwood. A contractor let sediment-laden runoff escape the site, fill the street and flow into unprotected storm drains. Photos taken yesterday after a storm front passed show that it’s still happening.
Partial List of Sediment Control BMPs for Construction Sites
The EPA considers sediment a major source of pollution. And not following best practices to control it can clog storm drains, channels and streams, raising flood risk. I quote from the Agency’s brochure: “Sediment fills up storm drains and catch basins to carry water away from roads and homes, which increases the potential for flooding.”
To reduce the potential for flooding, the EPA recommends several best practices. They include, but are not limited to:
1. Silt Fencing around the perimeter to intercept and slow down runoff, so sediment can settle before water flows off the construction site.
2. Stormwater-Inlet Protection, such as sandbags, placed around stormwater inlets to capture sediment before it enters the storm drainage system.
3. Sediment Control Logs (Wattles) filled with straw or other materials to capture sediment before it leaves the site.
4. Mulching with organic materials such as straw, hay, or wood chips to help to protect soil.
5. Sediment Basins & Traps to capture sediment from runoff until it settles out of suspension.
6. Erosion Control Mats or Blankets to stabilize disturbed soil and prevent erosion.
7. Stormwater Diversion Channels to direct runoff to sediment-control ponds or a controlled discharge areas.
8. Construction Entrance/Exit Stabilization with gravel to minimize tracking of mud onto roads from construction vehicles.
9. Geotextiles to stabilize soil.
Slight Improvement, But Still Lacking
After the last post, the Humble ISD contractor did add straw wattles (#3 – sediment control logs) in front of the main construction site entrance.
But storm drain inlets remained unprotected. And part of the perimeter lacked silt fence.
As a result, sediment still escaped the site, entered the street, and entered the storm sewer. See the photos below taken by Chris Summers, a local resident and retired commercial photographer, after a recent storm front dropped .84 inches of rain on 1/5/25.
Entrance to construction site shows wattle roll that was not present for previous storm.
While that showed some improvement, other parts of the perimeter still lacked protection and let water escape.
No silt fence.Wattle roll did not cover the critical area, letting sediment laden water escape into storm sewer.Also, inlet not protected with sand bags.
Summers says he took the photos above after the storm front on 1/5/25 passed through.
How much effort does it take to drop a couple sand bags next to a storm sewer inlet? Could it cost much more than coffee and a danish? There’s just no excuse for this.
Sound Off to the School Board
I have already emailed members of the Humble ISD school board and suggest you do, too. We have lots of good contractors in the area that know how to follow best practices.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/6/25with photos by Chris Summers
2687 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/079-031-storm-runoff.jpg?fit=1000%2C563&ssl=15631000adminadmin2025-01-06 20:38:462025-01-07 06:53:31Contractor Only Partially Complies with BMPs at Foster Elementary Reconstruction Site
1/5/2025 – At a Community Resilience Flood Task Force Meeting in December last year, the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) announced that it would be kicking off a new feasibility study in Q1 2025 designed to make half of Harris County SAFER from flooding.
SAFER stands for Solutions for Advancing Flood Mitigation, Equity, and Resilience. The study area includes 11 of Harris County’s 23 watersheds.
HCFCD issued this statement about the study.
Overview of Study from HCFCD
The SAFER Study has the potential to address one of the most impactful threats to the Houston/Harris County region: severe storm events that cause catastrophic flooding.
This study will look broadly across the county and consider not only the effectiveness of large-scale flood mitigation projects within strategic locations, but also how they will function collectively as a system to provide flood mitigation, and the associated benefits, across broad regions of the county.
With the SAFER Study, the Flood Control District will be seeking to:
Identify substantial, wide-ranging flood mitigation across the region rather than depending solely on smaller, incremental projects that address the needs slowly.
Conduct the study in a way that allows the Flood Control District to identify flood risk reduction projects that could be cost-shared with the Federal government and constructed in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Identify project recommendations based on comprehensive benefits, which include social effects and environmental quality, as well as regional and national economic impacts.
Identify opportunities to integrate nature-based solutions.
The study area spans across eleven (11) watersheds within Harris County, including:
Brays Bayou
Buffalo Bayou
Clear Creek
Cypress Creek
Greens Bayou
Halls Bayou
Hunting Bayou
Little Cypress Creek
Sims Bayou
White Oak Bayou
Vince Bayou
The goals of this study effort are to reduce flood risks and strengthen resiliency within Harris County, to be grounded in the principles of equity, to pursue larger transformational solutions with broad benefits, and to better prepare the region to withstand both the flood risks of today and those of the foreseeable future.
The SAFER Study will evaluate traditional flood mitigation measures, such as increasing channel capacity and construction of new stormwater detention basins, as well as new options including large-scale stormwater tunnels, and non-structural measures.
The study will consider social, economic, and environmental benefits and impacts while evaluating flood mitigation effectiveness.
While the Flood Control District will be leading the study, we will be following federal laws, regulations, and guidance applicable for feasibility studies of water resources development projects, such as the SAFER Study.
We will be working with USACE for input throughout the study process to ensure recommendations are developed that follow USACE policy and guidelines.
We anticipate initiating the SAFER Study during the first quarter of 2025.
Saving the Worst Flooding for Last
Twelve watersheds are not included in the study. Among them are two that had the worst flooding in the county during Hurricane Harvey: the San Jacinto and Spring Creek Watersheds.
Chart showing feet above flood stage of 33 gages of misc. bayous in Harris County during Harvey.
So much for the oft repeated promise to fix the worst flooding first. HCFCD did not explain why it is including only half the watersheds.
From Hurricane Harvey through Q3 2024, HCFCD spent $1,444,838,886 on mitigation and maintenance in all of the county’s 23 watersheds, excluding county-wide projects.
Of that total, the 11 watersheds included in the SAFER study have received $1,132,471,139. That’s 78% of the total.
The 12 watersheds excluded from the SAFER study have received only 22% of all HCFCD spending.
Data supplied to ReduceFlooding.com in response to a FOIA request.
Here’s how the forgotten majority looks in a pie chart.
More than half of the watersheds have received less than a quarter of all HCFCD spending since Harvey.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/5/25
2686 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/SAFER-spending-e1736129367744.png?fit=1100%2C650&ssl=16501100adminadmin2025-01-05 20:08:452025-01-05 20:38:37HCFCD Kicking Off Study to Make Half of Harris County SAFER
1/4/25 – In a Houston-area-flooding context, we usually consider erosion as a negative. It reduces the capacity of streams, channels and Lake Houston. It can also form sediment dams like mouth bars that back water up.
But elsewhere, many consider erosion a tourist attraction. And I’m not just talking about the Grand Canyon.
Welcome to Sedona
During the holidays, I took a break from blogging about flooding to join a family reunion near colorful Sedona, Arizona. We actually stayed in the Village of Oak Creek, an unincorporated area about five miles south of the main part of Sedona.
Always alert for photo ops, I launched my drone from the back porch of our rented home and captured some photos of red rock, blue sky and spectacular erosion.
Looking NWSame angle but closer. Notice different color in uppermost strata.Looking NE. Closer shot, still looking NE. Again, notice different colors in upper layers.
The rocks around Sedona are famously red due to their high concentration of iron oxide. Millions of years ago, the Sedona region was covered by a vast shallow sea that deposited layers of sediments rich in iron minerals.
Over time, these iron-rich layers were uplifted due to tectonic activity. The iron in the rocks reacted with oxygen, resulting in oxidation – the same chemical reaction that gives rust its red color.
Then, erosion sculpted the landscape – over millions of years. It exposed these oxidized rock layers, which now dominate the area and give Sedona its iconic red hue. But why did the land erode in some areas and not others?
Caprock Protects Some Areas from Erosion
The spectacularly steep cliffs around Sedona can be attributed to the uneven distribution of what geologists call “caprock.” The term refers to the hard, erosion-resistant rock layers that sit atop mesas, buttes, and cliffs. These layers protect the softer rock below from erosion, helping to shape the striking red rock formations that make Sedona famous.
The caprock was formed from ancient sand dunes and marine deposits about 250–275 million years ago during the Permian period. Over time, these deposits solidified into dense rock layers responsible for Sedona’s intricate geological artistry.
The Value of Rust and Erosion
Sedona reportedly received approximately 4 million visitors last year, rivaling the Grand Canyon. That’s more people than live in Houston and almost as many as live in Harris County. Sedona’s stunning red rock formations and outdoor recreational opportunities make it a major attraction for both domestic and international travelers.
Rainfall and Flooding
Sedona receives an average of 19 inches of rainfall per year – less than 40% of Houston’s average rainfall. However, Sedona still experiences three types of flooding:
Flash Flooding:
Sudden, intense thunderstorms during the monsoon can cause flash floods. The steep terrain and rocky surfaces around Sedona lead to rapid runoff, overwhelming dry washes and creek beds.
Flash floods are particularly hazardous in areas like Oak Creek Canyon, where narrow canyons can funnel water quickly.
River Flooding:
Sedona’s primary waterway, Oak Creek, can flood after prolonged rainfall or snowmelt from higher elevations. Heavy storms, particularly in winter, can cause the creek to rise significantly, affecting nearby properties and recreational areas.
Urban Flooding:
Heavy rain can overwhelm local drainage systems, leading to localized flooding in lower-lying areas.
Oak Creek flooded badly from severe winter storms in 2005. One of the most significant floods in recent memory, it damaged homes, businesses and bridges.
In 2023, heavy rains led to flash floods that temporarily closed hiking trails and roads.
Such floods sculpted the landscape you see in the photos above.
More About Sedona
Spanish explorers first passed through the area as early as the 1500s.
Homesteading began in the late 1800s.
Sedona became a popular filming location for Western movies due to its dramatic landscapes. Films like “Stagecoach” (1939) and “Broken Arrow” (1950) were shot in the area, bringing international attention to Sedona.
Improved roads and infrastructure led to a tourism boom beginning in the 1950s.
Today, Sedona is known for its outdoor activities (hiking, mountain biking, and jeep tours), yoga retreats, art galleries, and night skies. Re: the last point, Sedona is designated as an International Dark Sky Community. Star gazers enjoy freedom from “light pollution” – there were no streetlights where we stayed!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/4/2025
2685 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/20241227-DJI_20241227172839_0609_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-01-04 11:08:102025-01-04 19:30:44Sedona: Erosion on a Spectacular Scale
1/3/25 – Jeff Lindner, Harris County’s Meteorologist, provided this official holiday tornado report. Southeast Texas experienced a highly active period of severe weather from 12/24/24 through 12/28/24. It included several tornado outbreaks on both the 26th and 28th.
Said Lindner, “While it is not uncommon to have severe weather and tornados in southeast Texas during the winter months, it is a bit unusual to have back-to-back outbreaks one day apart.”
“Most tornados in this region are small and of low-end intensity (EF-0 or EF-1). It is rare to see the higher intensity EF-3 and longer track tornadoes here locally, but they do occasionally happen,” said Lindner.
He provided the following holiday tornado report on the two main days.
December 26th Tornadoes
Five tornados occurred across southeast Texas on Thursday, the 26th. They included 2 EF-1 and 3 EF-0 tornados.
EF-1 tornados (on the Enhanced Fujita scale) have winds from 73-112 mph that can cause moderate damage.
EF-0 tornados have winds less than 73 mph that generally cause light damage.
1. El Campo TX (Wharton County)
Rating: EF-1
Peak Wind: 95mph
Path Length: .50 mile
Path Width: 50 yards
This tornado began three miles northeast of El Campo and was on the ground for roughly half of a mile. The tornado mostly moved across open farmland, but one well constructed outbuilding (barn) was impacted and destroyed yielding the EF-1 rating. It is possible this tornado was stronger over the open farm fields, but without any available damage indicators, this will remain unknown.
2.Southwest Harris County (NW of Meadows Place)
Rating: EF-1
Peak Wind: 90mph
Path Length: .05 mile
Path Width: 25 yards
A brief tornado occurred one mile north-northwest of Meadows Place in southwest Harris County along Plumbrook Drive. It damaged a few houses and overturned a delivery truck. One of the houses sustained roof and outside-facing wall damage resulting in the EF-1 damage rating.
3. Northern Liberty County (SE of Cleveland TX)
Rating: EF-0
Peak Wind: 75mph
Path Length: 6.8 miles
Path Width: 50 yards
This tornado began nine miles northwest of Dayton Lakes and moved eastward across mostly rural northern Liberty County. It damaged trees and two mobile homes consistent with winds of 65-75mph, earning it an EF-0 rating.
4.Lake Houston/Huffman (NE Harris County)
Rating: EF-0
Peak Wind: 60mph
Path Length: 2.1 miles
Path Width: N/A
HPD Lake Patrol and other video confirmed a tornado (waterspout) over Lake Houston north of FM 1960 that moved eastward across the lake and moved ashore along the eastern side of the lake in a wooded area. Survey teams were unable to find any damage near where the tornado reached the shoreline and the tornado dissipated quickly while moving onshore.
5.Dayton TX (Liberty County)
Rating: EF-0
Peak Wind: 60mph
Path Length: 1.1 miles
Path Width: 25 yards
A small tornado developed seven miles west of Dayton and moved across mainly open farm and ranch land. It downed a few trees. That helped storm spotters that captured the funnel cloud on video confirm that it was, in fact a tornado.
December 28 Tornados
Linder also said, “A more significant and damaging tornado event occurred from late morning to late afternoon on the 28th. Five tornadoes occurred from two primary supercell thunderstorms that moved across the area. Unfortunately, these tornadoes resulted in more significant damage with injuries and one fatality. Two EF-3, one EF-2, and two EF-1 tornados moved over the area.”
Paths of 5 tornados associated with two supercells on 12/28/24.
1. Brookshire Tornado (Waller and western Harris Counties)
Rating: EF-1
Peak Wind: 100mph
Path Length: 10.9 miles
Path Width: 150 yards
This tornado began west of FM 2855 in southern Waller County three miles north of Brookshire where a mobile home was moved off its foundation. The tornado continued northeast where it impacted a small area of houses south of Beckendorff Road and Noel Lane.
It rolled and completely destroyed one mobile home. Several other structures sustained roof and window damage. It also overturned vehicles in a driveway. Damage fell into both EF-0 and low-end EF-1 categories. The tornado continued northeast into a newly built subdivision where it destroyed 1-2 houses under construction and a brick privacy wall.
It then crossed FM 529 at Pitts Road just south of a Centerpoint power substation where it knocked down a power pole. Debris fanned across an open field and a subdivision detention basin.
The tornado then entered the Windward Subdivision near its southeastern edge. There, it damaged roofs, windows, and fences of 5-10 homes. One house lost all south-facing windows along with portions of the roof’s deck and outside facing wall siding.
This qualifies as EF-1 damage with winds estimated around 100 mph. The tornado weakened as it moved north-northeast and dissipated west of John Paul Landing in northwest Harris County.
Brookshire Tornado Path
2. Porter Heights to Splendora Tornado (Montgomery County)
Rating: EF-3
Peak Wind: 140mph
Path Length: 10.3 miles
Path Width: .65 mile
Injuries: 4
The same supercell that produced a Katy tornado continued northeast across northwest Harris County. It crossed the Bridgeland subdivision, then SH 249 near Spring Cypress, and continued northeast toward I-45/SH99. Both radar and Hooks Airport staff observed rotation, but not on the ground.
Porter Heights/Splendora Tornado Pathon 12/28/24.
As this storm entered Montgomery County, the velocity increased and radar showed a debris ball near Porter Heights. Wind removed the entire roof structures of 1-2 homes. One brick house suffered complete outside wall failure and several interior wall failures. The twister also rolled a nearby mobile home, completely destroying it.
Damage indicated winds in the 140-145 mph EF-3 range.
Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist
The tornado then crossed FM 1314 where it destroyed large sections of a metal rental facility and a nearby mobile home. At this point, damage indicated high-end EF-1 or low-end EF-2.
The tornado weakened some while moving northeast across several rural streets and houses, but still caused significant tree damage. It then intensified as it moved into the Pickering Road area southwest of FM 1485. The twister heavily damaged or destroyed several RV’s and mobile homes. It completely removed the roof of Fire Station 154 and damaged three fire trucks. The twister even picked one up and rotated it 90 degrees.
North of FM 1485, it damaged several homes before crossing SH 242 into the Harrington Trails subdivision, removing nearly the entire roof of one home. The storm also completely destroyed several houses under construction.
The tornado continued northeast toward Splendora High School and dissipated in an open field after it crossed FM 2090.
Most of the storm’s track qualified as EF-1 or EF-2. Only a small portion near the beginning in Porter Heights rated EF-3. Four people suffered injuries.
3. Liverpool to Hillcrest Tornado (Brazoria County)
Rating: EF-2
Peak Wind: 125mph
Path Length: 8.8 miles
Path Width: 300 yards
Injuries: 5
Fatalities: 1
This tornado began four miles ENE of Liverpool along CR 172 in a rural area and tracked into Hillcrest southeast of Alvin. Most damage indicated EF-0 or EF-1 strength. But at Walt Disney Elementary School several large sections of the roof were ripped off and portions of an exterior wall failed. That indicated EF-2 (125mph) strength.
The storm also flipped and destroyed a mobile home causing a fatality. The tornado dissipated prior to reaching the Galveston County line.
Brazoria County Tornado Pathon 12/28/24
4. Dickinson to Bacliff (Galveston County)
Rating: EF-1
Peak Wind: 90mph
Path Length: 7.40 miles
Path width: 850 yards
The Brazoria County supercell produced another tornado near the intersection of Hughes Road between I-45 and HWY 3. It moved northeast across FM 517 and HWY 146, causing EF-1 damage to several homes with its 90 mph winds east of Dickinson High School. Along most of its path, the storm featured EF-0 (60-80 mph) winds. It downed trees, fences, and power poles and caused some roof damage.
The tornado continued east across Galveston Bay and reached into Chambers County.
Dickinson to Bacliff Tornado Pathon 12/28/24
5. Chambers County
Rating: EF-3
Peak Wind: 140mph (Chambers)/160mph (Jefferson)
Path Length: 22 miles
Path Width: 400 yards
Injuries: 1 (Chambers) and (4 injuries in Jefferson County)
The Brazoria and Galveston County supercell intensified over Galveston Bay before tracking into Chambers County near Smith Point. The tornado destroyed several mobile homes along FM 1941, where EF-3 damage was noted.
The tornado then crossed HWY 124 destroying high-tension power-transmission towers with 140mph winds. The towers supplied power to High Island and the Bolivar Peninsula. Winds also lofted and rolled a pickup truck near Smith Point Road resulting in one injury.
This was a significant tornado. It impacted mainly rural areas of Chambers County before crossing all of southern Jefferson County where high end EF-3 (160 mph winds) damage occurred in Hampshire TX. The tornado then moved between Port Arthur and Sabine Pass into southern Louisiana.
Chambers to Jefferson County Tornado Pathon 12.28/24
The holidays are usually happy times. But severe weather made them less so for many people in 2024.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/3/24 based on information provided by Harris County Meteorologist Jeff Lindner
2684 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/12.28-tornados-e1735935355135.png?fit=1100%2C567&ssl=15671100adminadmin2025-01-03 14:23:472025-01-04 05:16:28Official Holiday Tornado Report from HCFCD
12/29/24 – Several rounds of intense rain in the past week triggered a slew of emails from concerned residents about the need for better construction management practices to control sediment-laden runoff.
Chris Summers, a retired commercial photographer, included pictures of the runoff from the Foster Elementary site in Kingwood’s Trailwood Village. Contractors recently cleared the site for reconstruction of the school. Summer’s photos illustrate the dangers from sediment pollution and the need for better construction management practices.
A Major Source of Sediment Pollution
Construction site runoff is a major source of sediment pollution. Construction typically involves large-scale disturbance of soil, which can significantly increase the amount of sediment carried away by stormwater runoff. This sediment-laden runoff can have serious environmental impacts, especially when it enters local water bodies, such as Lake Houston..
Clearing, excavating and grading disturb soil. Stripping away vegetation makes soil more prone to erosion. So, when it rains, the exposed soil can easily wash away into nearby water systems.
In many cases, vegetation or other stabilization measures (e.g., erosion control blankets, mulching) may not be installed until later stages of construction, leaving the site vulnerable to sediment loss in the meantime.
Construction sites are most vulnerable during heavy rainfalls, which can lead to significant runoff, especially from areas without adequate sediment-control measures.
In many cases, construction schedules are not aligned with seasonal weather patterns, so sites may be left exposed during periods of heavy rain. This can lead to water-quality degradation, increased costs for water treatment, higher water bills, and infrastructure damage.
Excessive sediment can clog stormwater systems, leading to flooding and costly repairs.
Regulations and Best Management Practices
Due to the significant environmental impact of construction-site runoff, many countries and regions have strict regulations and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control it. In the U.S., for example, the Clean Water Act requires construction sites to control stormwater discharges through permits such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This often includes implementing sediment control measures like silt fences, sediment basins, and erosion control methods.
Rainfall and Soil Saturation in Last Week
The HCFCD gage at West Lake Houston Parkway and the San Jacinto West Fork shows that the area near Foster Elementary received about 2 inches of rain in the last few days.
That made the soil go from “wet” to “saturated.”
And that radically increased runoff.
Photos of Foster Elementary Construction Site After Heavy Rains
Summers’ photos show the need for better construction management practices to control sediment-laden runoff.
Silty water streamed out of the site after an intense rain.
The flow was steady and strong.
Water exited the site in multiple places and filled half the street.
Inlets had no protection. (See #8 below).
The site had large areas of disturbed and unprotected soil.
Runoff left inches of soil in the street. Imagine what the storm sewer looked like…
…especially since storm-sewer inlets were unprotected by any of the usual methods. (Again, see #8 below.)
Ways to Reduce Sediment-Laden Runoff
Here are several common and effective methods used to minimize silt-laden runoff. They represent best construction management practices.
1. Silt Fencing intercepts and slows down water flow, allowing sediment to settle before water flows off the construction site. It’s normally installed around the perimeter.
2. Sediment Basins & Traps capture sediment from runoff until it settles out of suspension.
3. Erosion Control Mats or Blankets stabilize disturbed soil and prevent erosion. They are most often used during the early stages of construction.
4. Mulching with organic materials – such as straw, hay, or wood chips – helps to protect soil while promoting vegetation growth. They are most effective when applied immediately after soil is disturbed.
5. Planting Vegetative Cover, such as fast-growing grass, can also help stabilize soil and reduce runoff. Plant roots bind the soil, making it less susceptible to erosion. Vegetation also slows down the flow of water, reducing the energy available to carry away sediment.
6. Sediment Control Logs (Wattles) are tubular barriers filled with straw or other materials. When placed along the contours of the construction site, they capture sediment before it leaves the site.
7. Stormwater Diversion Channels direct runoff to sediment-control ponds or a controlled discharge areas.
8. Stormwater-Inlet Protection, such as sandbags, can be placed around stormwater inlets to capture sediment before it enters the storm drainage system.
9. Shallow temporary or Permanent Vegetative Swales collect runoff and allow it to slowly infiltrate into the soil while trapping sediment in the vegetation and soil.
10. Construction Entrance/Exit Stabilization with gravel minimizes the tracking of mud onto roads from construction vehicles. But the gravel must be regularly maintained.
11. Grading can help control water flow and minimize erosion by directing water flow away from disturbed areas towards sediment control features.
12. Geotextiles can also provide erosion control and soil stabilization.
Need for Regular Inspections
Regular inspections and maintenance ensure that all erosion and sediment control measures are installed functioning properly.
Compare the measures in this list to the photos above. With the exception of gravel at the entrance, Summers’ photos show that few of these measures appeared to be implemented at the Foster construction site.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/29/24 with photos by Chris Summers
2679 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2024-079-020-storm-runoff.jpg?fit=800%2C450&ssl=1450800adminadmin2024-12-29 14:06:572024-12-29 18:06:28Better Construction Management Practices Could Reduce Silt-Laden Runoff
Meritage has finished clearing all of its 40 acres between Pinehurst and Kings River. The property is just east of West Lake Houston Parkway and borders Kings Park Way, Texas Laurel Trail, and Pinehurst Trail Drive. The company plans to build 210 homes on the site in two phases.
Status of Phases 1 and 2
Meritage finished clearing the first 20 acres for Phase One west of Pinehurst Trail Drive in March this year. The company has already installed a large stormwater detention basin that occupies about a quarter of the site. But no homes have been built on the site yet.
Phase One in foreground looking east toward Lake Houston. Note large detention basin on right which already has grass growing around it to protect the slopes from erosion.
For the 20 acres east of Pinehurst Trail Drive, Meritage appears to be finished cutting trees. But they have yet to haul them all away. And Meritage has not yet done any drainage work for the second 20 acres. See below.
Looking east over Pinehurst Trail Drive. Contractors have cleared Phase 2, but trees have not all been hauled away yet.
However, no streets or homes have been constructed on either phase yet. Meritage’s website shows they build homes similar in size, look and price points to those found in surrounding neighborhoods.
So far, Meritage has managed to avoid any drainage fiascos similar to those associated with a nearby Trammell Crow apartment development.
But a drainage analysis by R.G. Miller Engineers for Meritage raised many questions about the sufficiency of the plans. The analysis:
Omitted data
Contained misstatements
Left out related reports
Included alarming assumptions.
Looking west toward West Lake Houston Parkway (out of sight at top of frame). Note pond in foreground.
Say Goodbye to the Wetlands
Parts of both phases of this development contained wetlands before Meritage cleared and graded the land.
The saying in the engineering business is, “Water has a memory.” It tends to go where it has gone before. I’m sure Meritage will do a good job grading and compacting the land. But building over wetlands usually entails environmental, structural and economic risks.
The environmental risks include:
Loss of Biodiversity
Water-Quality Degradation
Increased Flood Risk
Carbon Storage Loss
Erosion and sedimentation
Structural risks include:
Foundation Instability
Water Intrusion and Damage from High Water Tables and Mold Growth
Drainage Issues such as Water Pooling and Flooding Around Homes.
Homes built over wetlands also often have higher insurance costs due to these issues, which may also cause property value to decline over time.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241221-DJI_20241221112339_0571_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2024-12-23 13:39:102024-12-23 14:06:41Meritage Finishes Clearing 40 Acres between Pinehurst and Kings River
