Looking Back at the 2024 Hurricane Season

12/1/24 – The 2024 Atlantic Hurricane Season ended yesterday. The season predicted to be “extreme” turned out to be “above average,” according to the National Hurricane Center (NHC).

The Atlantic basin, which includes the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, saw 18 named storms in 2024.

Of the 18, 11 became hurricanes and five became major hurricanes.

Comparison of 2024 to 30-Year Average

Each of these numbers is greater than the average for the 30-year period from 1991-2020. See table below.

 1991-2020 Average2024
Named Storms (39 mph or greater)1418
Hurricanes (74 mph or greater)711
Major Hurricanes (111 or greater)35
Source: National Hurricane Center

Landfalls in U.S.

According to NHC, five hurricanes made landfall in the continental U.S. Significantly, two of those storms made landfall as major hurricanes.

Comparison to Predictions

The Atlantic seasonal activity fell within the predicted ranges for named storms and hurricanes issued by NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center in the 2024 August Hurricane Season Outlook. 

Atypical Season Took Dip Where Peak Should Have Been

But 2024 was an atypical season. It started with a bang, fell into a lull, and then ended with a record.

Hurricane Beryl was the earliest Atlantic basin Category-5 hurricane on record. It caused significant storm surge flooding across parts of Texas and Louisiana after making landfall near Matagorda, Texas, as a Category-1 storm. People on my street are still cleaning up from Beryl!

However, later in the year, Mother Nature hit the pause button on tropical formation. Matthew Rosencrans, lead hurricane forecaster at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, a division of NOAA’s National Weather Service said, “Several possible factors contributed to the peak season lull in the Atlantic region. The particularly intense winds and rains over Western Africa created an environment that was less hospitable for storm development.”

But, strangely, at the time tropical activity should have been tapering off, we saw record-setting activity.

“Twelve named storms formed after the climatological peak of the season in early September. Seven hurricanes formed in the Atlantic since September 25 — the most on record for this period,” said the NHC.

Record Setters

Hurricane Beryl was the earliest Cat 5 storm on record for the Atlantic Basin.

Cat 4 Helene became the deadliest since Katrina in 2005. It caused more than 150 direct fatalities, mostly in North and South Carolina. Helene was also the strongest hurricane ever to make landfall in Florida’s Big Bend region.

In late September, Hurricane Helene also marked the first time ever that NOAA’s National Hurricane Center (NHC) forecasted a system to become a major hurricane before it became a tropical depression or tropical storm.

Hurricane Milton’s rate of rapid intensification was among the highest ever observed, with a 90-mile-per-hour increase in wind speed during the 24-hour period from early October 6 to early October 7. 

Milton’s central pressure dropped to 897 millibars – the lowest pressure for an Atlantic Hurricane since Wilma in 2005.

Storm-By-Storm Summary

The table below shows the dates and maximum winds of each named storm in the Atlantic basin during 2024.

NameDatesMax Wind (mph)
TS Alberto19-20 June50
MH Beryl28 June – 9 July165
TS Chris30 June – 1 July45
H Debbie3-9 August80
H Ernesto12-20 August100
H Francine9-12 September100
TS Gordon11-17 September45
MH Helene24-27 September140
H Isaac26-30 September105
TS Joyce27 September – 1 October50
MH Kirk29 September – 7 October145
H Leslie2-12 October105
MH Milton5-10 October180
TS Nadine19-20 October60
H Oscar19-22 October85
TS Patty2-4 November65
MH Rafael4-10 November120
TS Sara14-18 November50
Source: NOAA. TS = Tropical Storm, H = Hurricane, MH = major hurricane.

While the Atlantic hurricane season officially ended on November 30, NOAA satellites continue to keep watch for any developing storms.

NHC reminds us that hurricanes can and do form during any month of the year.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/1/2024

2651 Days since Hurricane Harvey



Appellate Court Dismisses Homeowners’ Claims in SJRA Takings Case

11/30/24 – On November 26, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas dismissed homeowners’ claims in the long-running SJRA Takings Case. The case arose from Hurricane Harvey flood damage.

Downstream homeowners alleged that San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) releases from Lake Conroe significantly exacerbated their flooding. The resulting damage, they claimed, amounted to an illegal taking of their property by the government.

Court of appeals dismisses Homeowners' Claims in SJRA Takings Case
SJRA Takings Case Appellate Ruling

The Texas Constitution provides that “no person’s property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation.” (Texas Constitution, Article I, Par. 17(a)).

Sadly, the alleged “facts” cited in the Appellate Court’s ruling apparently went unchallenged. And some of those so-called facts may mislead.

Speed of Floodwaters a Major Deciding Factor

The appellate court judges based much of their ruling on an argument related to the speed of floodwaters.

SJRA had produced an expert report by Mark E. Forest. The appellate judges said on page 24 of their ruling that “…the timing [emphasis added] of the water releases and flooding supported the conclusion that the River Authority’s water releases did not cause the homeowner’s flooding.”

The judges continued, “Forest explained that the water from Lake Conroe would take about 30 hours to travel the 38 miles downstream to reach the Humble and Kingwood areas, where most of the homeowners’ properties were located.”

Then, on the same page, comes this pivotal sentence. The judges say,

“About 30 hours after the River Authority first released water from Lake Conroe, the Humble and Kingwood areas had already experienced ‘major flooding,’ as the river levels had already risen from 41 feet above sea level to 62 feet.”

Page 24, SJRA v. Medina

Then the coup de grâce. “This major flooding occurred ‘without any contribution from Lake Conroe since those contributions had not yet arrived’ Forest explained.”

The appellate judges in the SJRA Takings Case evidently bought that argument. At the bottom of Page 24, they said, “Therefore, the River Authority produced evidence that its water releases from Lake Conroe did not cause or exacerbate the flooding of the homeowners’ properties.”

In their conclusion on page 36, the judges also state, “The homeowners’ evidence does not raise a fact issue to refute the River Authority’s evidence. The homeowners have not met their burden to provide evidence showing there is a material fact issue as to the causation of their inverse condemnation claim.”

Basis for SJRA Speed Estimate Unclear

I have asked SJRA repeatedly how they arrived at 30 hours and never gotten an answer. That made me suspicious. The SJRA claims floodwaters move only1.27 MPH (38 miles in 30 hours). An average person can walk 3-4 miles per hour!

Plus, I’ve measured (with my drone) logs floating downriver in lesser floods at 5-6 MPH.

The speed of floodwaters determine their arrival time downstream. Claiming a 30 hour travel time that easily could have been as brief as five or six hours could cause people to focus on the wrong part of the flooding bell curve. And it appears that may be what happened in this case.

Judges Cite Flooding at Less-Than-50-Year Level

I’m not sure what data Forest cited; the judges don’t specify. But let’s assume it came from the gage at the West Fork and US59.

At that location, 62 feet is less than a 50-year flood. Most structures are built at least two feet above the 100-year floodplain. The 100-year flood level there is 64.8 feet – almost three feet higher.

Importance of Speed in Determining Proximate Cause

If you assume a higher rate of speed and correlate that to when floodwaters reached the 100-year level where most homes begin to flood, it’s easier to see a possible connection between the Lake Conroe release and structural flooding downstream.

Floodwaters traveling 5-6 MPH would reach US59 in five to six hours, not 30 hours.

According to the Harris County Flood Warning System, the West Fork reached a 100-year-flood level at US59 at 8:42 PM on 8/28/2017.

And according to an SJRA affidavit supplied during the original trial:

  • 30 hours earlier, SJRA was releasing 10,946 CFS.
  • 6 hours earlier, SJRA released 78,885 CFS.

So, between the 30 hours claimed by the SJRA and the six hours indicated by drone measurement, the SJRA increased its release rate by almost 8X.

If the drone measurements are accurate and representative…

SJRA releases increased dramatically shortly before structures near US59 flooded.

This suggests a different conclusion. SJRA releases may have been a far more proximate cause of downstream flooding than SJRA-supplied data implied.

Would homes and businesses have flooded eventually anyway? Certainly, that’s true for some. But it might not be true for others.

No one would expect a home to flood in Kingwood when you release 11,000 CFS from Lake Conroe.

But how about an additional 79,000 CFS when homes were already on the verge of flooding? That’s a very different story – especially considering that at the peak, Lake Conroe releases comprised one third of the total water coming down the West Fork. Many homes at the periphery of the flooding might have stayed dry had the timing and volume of releases been different.

Too Late Now

The plaintiffs’ expert consultant in the SJRA Takings Case did not conduct his own hydrological modeling (Page 26). That’s unfortunate.

Even if the plaintiffs in this case succeed in getting the Texas Supreme Court to hear an appeal, additional evidence would likely be inadmissible.

In general, appellate courts do not consider new evidence. Their primary role is to review the record from lower courts to determine whether legal errors were made that significantly affected the outcome of the case. Appellate courts focus on issues of law rather than fact.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/29/24

2650 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.

New MoCo Drainage Criteria Manual Still Not Finalized

11/27/24 – Montgomery County is operating off a 1989 Drainage Criteria Manual that received minor updates in 2019. MoCo still has not finalized its new drainage criteria manual, a process it began in August 2022.

In February 2024, Montgomery County published a draft of a comprehensive new update to its drainage criteria manual. The draft brought the County’s standards up to date and made them more in line with surrounding areas’ standards.

In April, I discussed the major changes. They included, but were not limited to:

  • Use of industry-standard modeling software by engineering companies submitting plans
  • A requirement that new developments produce “no adverse impact” on downstream areas
  • Mandates to use certain “roughness coefficient standards” for different situations. These determine how models calculate flood peaks.
  • Stipulations that all projects shall mitigate and attenuate runoff for 5-, 10-, and 100-year storm events
  • Stormwater detention for all developments regardless of size
  • A discussion of flood mitigation measures
  • Identification of entities responsible for maintenance of stormwater detention facilities, channels, etc.
  • Adoption of Atlas-14 rainfall rates
  • A minimum detention rate of .55 acre-feet per acre (almost up to Harris County’s rate)
  • Prohibition of hydrologic-timing surveys (also known as flood-routing or beat-the-peak studies).

For a more complete discussion, see my April post which contains links to the relevant documents. Also see below. After publication of the draft, MoCo sought public comment.

Public Comment Period Remained Open for 10 Months

Since April, I have checked back periodically to see whether MoCo had finalized the new Drainage Criteria Manual after the public comment period.

Until earlier this week, the invitation to make public comments remained up on the county’s website. Most public-comment periods last a month or two. So this was highly unusual.

The MoCo engineering department has had some serious turnover recently. It was caused in part by retirements and the sudden, unexpected death of a County Engineer.

So, I emailed the County Engineer’s office to ask why the public comment period was remaining open so long.

Thomas E. Woolley Jr., Director of Engineering Services, wrote, “Thanks for pointing this out. With all the reshufflings in the department, this was overlooked. We will remove the Drainage Criteria Manual Draft from our website until we are ready to move forward.”

I next asked when they would move forward. Woolley replied that he hoped to get it passed by May 2025. He says that he’s currently focused on a related project – updating development regulations.

Developers Reportedly Recommending Which Changes to Adopt

Reportedly, MoCo is having or will soon have a committee incorporate public comments into the draft Drainage Criteria Manual. Before it could be adopted, the revised document would likely have to go back out for another round of public comment. However, it could also depend on the extent and nature of public comments made on the first draft, which still have not been published to my knowledge.

Most Important Recommendations Likely At Risk

I am told (not by Woolley) that developers comprise the committee. While they are certainly important constituents and their opinions should count as much as anyone else’s, reportedly they are pushing back on the most important recommendations in the first draft.

Those include:

  • The stormwater detention requirement for all new developments
  • Elimination of hydrologic-timing surveys.

New developments without sufficient mitigation typically increase the amount and speed of runoff during storms. One hundred percent of the water hitting concrete runs off quickly, rather than soaking into forest floors and wetlands.

To compensate, stormwater detention basins hold back water during a flood. But they cost money to build and they reduce the number of lots developers can sell. They increase developer’s expenses and reduce their income.

Hydrologic-timing surveys are a way some engineers use to exempt their clients from requirements to build detention basins.

In theory, if they show a developer can get runoff to a stream or river faster than the peak of a flood arrives, then the development won’t add to the flood peak…so no detention is required. Hence their nickname, “beat the peak” surveys.

However, in reality, such surveys have faults. According to the previous Montgomery County Engineer, they:

  • Don’t consider the cumulative effects of other developments.
  • Almost always rely on outdated hydrologic models
  • Assume “ideal” storm conditions.

Such surveys encourage developers to get their floodwater to rivers as quickly as possible. That’s exactly the opposite of what you need to reduce flooding.

Only good things come from more detention. But when developers don’t build detention, people downstream can pay the price.

Which Way Will Political Currents Flow?

MoCo commissioners already rejected the elimination of hydrologic timing surveys and mandatory detention requirements in 2019 when they did a minor update to drainage regs developed in the 1980s.

Will they do so again now that more and more of their own residents are flooding? We won’t know for certain until May at the earliest. But it’s pretty easy to see which way the political currents are flowing.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/27/2024

2647 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.

Tribute to Judy Cox, A Transformative Community Leader

11/26/24 – Flooding in Harris County could use more people like Judy Cox. I attended her memorial service this afternoon and my eyes misted up when hundreds of people sang, “Down By The Riverside.”

I dedicate this post to Judy’s memory because of her leadership style. She had no real involvement in flood mitigation. But flood mitigation in the Lake Houston Area could certainly use more people like her. And we can learn from her example.

Judy Cox, an advocate for domestic violence victims. Hundreds of people attended her memorial service today at Good Shepherd Episcopal Church in Kingwood.

A Transformative Leader

I knew Judy Karns Cox for more than 20 years. On one hand, she was quiet, modest, and self-effacing. On the other, she was a fearless, tireless, transformative leader who made a huge difference in the lives of thousands of Lake Houston Area residents, mostly women and children.

Judy was the retired executive director of Family Time. Family Time runs a crisis and counseling center for battered women. She gave 32 years of her life to the group and 110% of her energies to improving the lives of her clients.

She had an enduring commitment to supporting and uplifting those in need. Perhaps her quiet ways made her successful in her chosen mission. She kept the spotlight on those in need, not herself.

Judy was never pushy, but always pushing.

She took on a job that most would not and became a relentless advocate and educator for her cause.

Judy taught me that the scourge of family violence cuts across all segments of society – rich and poor. Rural and urban. Mainstream and minorities. Old and young. Male, female, LGBTQ+. No group is immune though some are definitely at higher risk.

Judy Cox also taught me that the key to addressing domestic violence lies in recognizing the underlying factors, providing education, reducing stigma, and increasing access to supportive resources and services for all affected individuals.

In that spirit, Family Time provides confidential crisis intervention, counseling, and emergency shelter to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking.

One Person at a Time

Judy didn’t change the world. But in her quiet way, she changed the lives of thousands of abused people over the years. One person at a time.

As someone who has advocated for flood mitigation since retiring, she was both a hero and a role model to me. I am grateful that I knew her.

The measure of a woman or man is not how much wealth they accumulate in a lifetime. It’s how much better they make other people’s lives and how much they improve their communities. Judy not only understood that, she lived by the principle.

We need more people like her who are willing to throw themselves into the breach and advocate for their respective causes.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/26/24

2646 Days since Hurricane Harvey



Flood Digest: Brief Summaries of Five Flood-Related News Items

11/25/24 – This flood digest contains brief summaries of five recent flood-related news items.

GLO Launches Disaster Recovery Reallocation Program

A month ago, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) announced the creation of a Disaster Recovery Reallocation Program (DRRP). The purpose: to utilize unused and de-obligated Community Development Block Grant for Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds from disasters dating back to 2008. See:

The GLO administers U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds in Texas. And in keeping with HUD’s mission, grant scoring for the reallocated funds gives preference to low-to-moderate income areas. Also, project evaluation criteria include feasibility of completing the proposed project(s) within two years. Communities can use the reallocated funds for:

  • Flood and drainage improvements
  • Water and wastewater improvements
  • Street improvements
  • Rehabilitation, reconstruction, and new construction of affordable multifamily projects
  • Permanently affixed emergency communication equipment.

Approximately 15 entities in or related to Harris County submitted projects. They include Harris County Housing Authority, City of Houston and Harris County plus a dozen or more other entities in Harris County.

Unused funds from the disasters currently total about $130 million. Grants will range from $500,000 to $20 million. For more details, see this PowerPoint presentation.

“Dam Project that Never Was” Might Have Prevented Helene Deaths

A reader sent me a link to a news story called The Dam Project that Never Was published in The Dispatch by Will Rinehart. It’s about the present day implications of a dam project in North Carolina scuttled more than 50 years ago.

The article begins with a quote from a news article in the July 17, 1916, edition of The Asheville Citizen. “Asheville today is absolutely isolated from the outside world, is a city of darkness void of ordinary transportation facilities, and finds herself helpless in the grasp of the most terrible flood conditions ever known here.” 

The article then draws eerie parallels between Hurricane Helene in 2024 and the 1916 flood. After additional Ashville floods in 1949, 1961, and 1964, the Tennessee Valley Authority proposed a dam project to protect Ashville. The City sits in a mountain bowl which makes it flood prone.

In the late 1960’s, Congress allocated $3.3 billion to build dams that could have prevented future flooding. But they would have displaced 60 families.

The families organized opposition that killed the project. More time passed. Helene struck and became the second deadliest hurricane to hit the US mainland since Katrina.

Hurricane Helene satellite
Hurricane Helene shortly after formation

It’s a powerful story filled with irony. Rinehart laments a technical gap in the discourse about such floods. “Very little of the coverage of Helene’s aftermath that I’ve seen discusses the technical aspects of the flooding and what might be done to limit it in the future.”

“We aren’t even talking about dams and flood management,” he concludes.

So sad. After Harvey, the Lake Houston Area Flood Task Force began a search for solutions. More than seven years later, authorities have identified several upstream dam sites, but begun construction on none. We saw where that got us this May.

Judges Hear Oral Arguments in Upstream Addicks Barker Case

Law firm McGehee ☆ Chang, Landgraf, Feiler wrote that oral arguments in the upstream Addicks Barker case concluded on November 8, 2024.

The government claimed that Harvey was a disaster that was a once in one-thousand-year occurrence, and that the government should not be penalized for such an extremely rare event. 

However, the lawyers for the plaintiffs say they refuted that claim. “Our side also pointed out that while Harvey was a significant rain event – it was not as infrequent as the government claimed.”

McGehee et. al. say they expect the appeals court to issue its ruling in approximately six months.

Addicks Repairs Costing $9.3 million Substantially Completed

In the meantime, Harris County Flood Control District says it has completed a $9.3 million project to repair channels in the Addicks Reservoir. Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey said, “The Flood Control District has learned near five miles of ditches and removed more than 2,000 dump trucks of silt.”

HCFCD Project ID: Z100-00-00-X308 – Bond Project ID: F-53

Repairs also included work on concrete structures and storm outfall failures. 

Repairs Totaling $6.46 Million in Barker Reservoir Completed

On November 20, 2024, Harris County Flood Control announced substantial completion of a similar package of repairs in the Barker Reservoir, which is in Precinct 4.

HCFCD Project ID: Z100-00-00-X310  – Bond Project ID: F-52

Repairs took two years and cost $6.46 million.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/25/24

2645 Days since Hurricane Harvey

 

Ready, Set, Dredge!

11/23/24 – Callan Marine now has a dredge in place to begin the City of Houston’s latest dredging operation. Last month, the City said it hoped its latest Lake Houston dredging program would start in December and now it looks like it will.

Callan’s dredge, the General Pershing, is currently anchored on the West Fork San Jacinto south of where the previous Mouth Bar dredging program ended. And this morning, I spotted a tug pulling lengths of dredge pipe into position.

Program First Announced in 2023

The City of Houston first announced its new Lake Houston dredging program last year. The focus: between Kings Point and FM1960 where the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto come together.

For months, Callan’s General Pershing dredge, was anchored south of the Forest Cove Pool on the West Fork San Jacinto at the old Army Corps mobilization site. Yesterday, Callan moved the General Pershing and its dredge pipe downriver to the starting point of the dredging program.

See the photos below taken this morning with the exception of the last one, which I shot last night.

Start of 2024 dredging between Kings Point (right) and Atascocita Point (left). Looking upstream toward West Lake Houston Parkway Bridge in far upper left.
Looking downstream toward FM1960 bridge and Lake Houston Dam in distance.
Tug pulling sections of dredge pipe into position for use.
Reverse angle showing pipe and dredge.
Only two or three sections of pipe remained upstream last night at the mobilization site south of the Forest Cove Pool.
dredging
Area between FM1960 and Kings Point currently has one of the largest sediment build-ups on the lake.

The dredge program was first announced in October 2023 at former City Council Member Dave Martin’s last town hall meeting.

Former City Flood Czar Stephen Costello outlined the program at that time. East of Atascocita and south of the convergence of the East and West Forks, the City plans to spend another $34 million to remove almost 900,000 cubic yards of sediment.

At the time, Costello said the City hoped to recoup some of its costs by reselling sand that it recovers from “hilltops” in the lake. Dredging will target areas that have sand which can be used for concrete, agriculture and other beneficial uses. At one point, the City reportedly also considered using spoils in the Ike Dike.

Costello showed the heat map above. Notice the heavy sediment concentrations in the lake’s headwaters. This is because sediment drops out of suspension where rivers slow down as they meet standing bodies of water.

Increasing Water Supply Capacity, Reducing Flood Risk

In addition to reducing the water storage capacity of Lake Houston, the sediment increases flood risk. It reduces conveyance of the rivers and lake forcing water up and out during floods.

According to a City of Houston source, the contractor will reportedly pipe the spoils south and east to an area near Spanish Cove. See map below.

The new disposal site (bottom right) is closer to the dredging than another site south of River Grove Park previously used for disposing of the spoils. That should reduce pumping costs. Location is approximate.

Since its construction in the mid-1950s, Lake Houston has lost nearly 20% of its capacity due to sedimentation. The City estimates it currently loses another 360 to 460 acre-feet per year.

This dredging program will help restore some of that capacity and create more room for floodwaters.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/23/24

2643 Days since Hurricane Harvey

FEMA Launches New Online Flood-Insurance Quote Tool

11/22/24 – FEMA has launched a new, online flood-insurance quote tool. You simply:

  • Fill in your address
  • Answer a few simple questions about the construction of your home, i.e., “Is it slab on grade?”
  • Tell it how much coverage you want
  • Select a deductible
  • Press a button to get your quote.

The entire process took me less than two minutes. I found that I could get the maximum coverage ($250,000) with the minimum deductible for $887.

How to Act on the Quote

Of course, you don’t buy flood insurance directly from FEMA. You buy it from a flood insurance agent. So before you leave, the tool gives you the option of emailing the FEMA quote to an independent agent through a variety of channels. See below.

Screen capture from https://www.floodsmart.gov/policy-quote/quote.

Everything You Wanted to Know About Flood Insurance in One Place

This new quote tool is amazingly easy to use. It’s also integrated with other useful information about flooding, ways to reduce your flood risk and obtain insurance. For instance, linked pages contain information about:

Buying a Policy

Renewing a Policy

Flood Risks and Costs

Before and After a Flood

Flood Zones and Maps

Get a Quote (The New Tool)

Each of the links above has additional links that help you drill down through information and explore ways to save. For instance, the page on Elevation Certificates above has a link to a fact sheet on Why First Floor Height is Important?; how you can modify your property to lower insurance costs; and a checklist about “Ways to Protect Your Home and Pay Less.”

Benefits of Tool and Site

I can see many benefits for FEMA’s new flood-insurance tool and its FloodSmart site. It:

  • Makes consumers smarter about risk and buying decisions
  • Saves buyers’ time
  • Saves agents’ time
  • Acts as a cross-check against possible mistakes by new agents
  • Helps reduce flood risk
  • Aids in finding agents who still deal in flood insurance; some companies have pulled out of high-risk states.
  • Encourages people to buy flood insurance even when they think they may not need it.

To that last point, note that during Hurricane Harvey, more than 154,000 homes in Harris County alone flooded. Of those, 70,370 were outside of the 1% (100-yr) and .2% (500-yr) floodplains. That’s almost half!

Flooded Sculptures, Car, Home during Harvey by Julie Yandell
Flooded Sculptures, Car, Home during Harvey by Julie Yandell

And that’s not all that unusual. One of the FAQs on FEMA’s site points out that “…from 2014 to 2018, policyholders outside of areas required to carry flood insurance filed over 40 percent of all NFIP flood insurance claims.”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/22/24

2642 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Subsidence District to Study Alternative Water Supply for NE Harris County

11/21/24 – Last week, the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District published a request for qualifications (RFQ) for consultants interested in conducting an alternative water supply feasibility study for Northeast Harris County.

Mike Turco, the District’s general manager, said he is specifically focused on the area east of Lake Houston, which is experiencing tremendous growth. The completion of the Grand Parkway has triggered much of that growth. And with it will come increased water demand, which has the potential to trigger subsidence.

“Alternative Water” Reduces Effects of Subsidence

The District defines “an alternative water supply” as a source that does not trigger subsidence. That most often means a source other than groundwater. Subsidence frequently results from excessive groundwater extraction. That can cause compaction of the earth and a whole range of consequences.

Such compaction caused an entire Baytown subdivision to sink into Galveston Bay.

Subsidence can also cause bowls in the landscape that trap water and increase flood risk Subsidence can even change the gradient of streams, slowing water down and backing it up.

An SMU study found that subsidence can cause faulting and damage structures such as homes, roads, pipelines, storm sewers, sanitary sewers and more.

Differential subsidence can create another set of problems altogether. For instance, the rate of subsidence at the Harris/Montgomery county line is much greater than the rate at the Lake Houston Dam.

That has the potential to tilt the lake toward its headwaters. And that could reduce the freeboard factor (feet above flood level) for homes in northern Harris County.

But alternative water sources can reduce all those impacts.

Examples of Alternative Water

In this region, surface water, i.e., from Lake Houston, is the most common “alternative water source,” according to the District’s definition. Lake Houston provides water for more than 2 million people without causing any subsidence.

alternative water source
One example of an alternative water source. Lake Houston from Kingwood’s East End Park. By Dr. Charles Campbell.

So if we already have the major source of water in the area, why look at other alternatives? The planning horizon for water projects is typically 50 years. The RFQ specifically mentions recommendations to meet demand through 2070.

Given expected population growth during that period, the region may need more than Lake Houston. So it behooves us to look at all available alternatives.

According to Turco, right now, the City is already aggressively expanding water distribution from Lake Houston to areas like Spring, which has experienced some of the worst subsidence in the region – 30.5 centimeters, slightly more than a foot since 2007. See below.

The City is also expanding the Northeast Waster Purification Plant and bringing in water from Lake Livingston via the Luce Bayou Inter-basin Transfer Project. But will it be enough to meet demand 50 years from now?

Other alternative sources could conceivably reduce demands on Lake Houston. They include but are not limited to:

  • Building a new reservoir
  • Constructing pipelines from existing reservoirs
  • Using reclaimed water for specific needs, such as irrigation or agriculture
  • Desalination of Bay water

For More Information

A District spokesperson said they want to look at all options, costs and timing. To review the RFQ, click here.

For the District’s latest annual report on subsidence, see this six-page executive summary, this 47-page presentation, or the 307-page full report with appendices.

Subsidence is widely considered to be irreversible. It’s comforting to know that people are already planning for the welfare of our grandchildren.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/21/24

2641 Days since Hurricane Harvey

GLO, HUD Funding Approved for 7 HCFCD Projects So Far

11/20/2024 – The Texas General Land Office (GLO) confirmed funding approval from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for seven Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) projects.

In June of last year, HCFCD submitted two projects lists to GLO for $825 million in HUD Community Development Block Grant disaster relief (CDBG-DR) funding and flood mitigation (CDBG-MIT) funding.

Since then, HCFCD has worked with GLO to finalize the HUD applications. HCFCD presented an update to Commissioner’s Court in early October, 2024. Today, GLO provided an update to the update.

CDBG-DR Projects

According to an email from GLO spokesperson Brittany Eck received today, seven DR projects have received funding approvals to date. They include:

Eck also said that five more CDBG-DR projects are under final quality-control review. “We are making sure the project submissions are complete and meet all federal eligibility requirements so that there are not issues or concerns down the road.”

Disaster Relief projects have the tightest deadlines. So, all parties focused on those first.

CDBG-MIT Funding Still Under Review

“Seventeen CDBG-mitigation projects are still in various stages of preliminary review,” said Eck.

“We are working back and forth on requests for more information required by HUD on many of the projects,” said Eck. “We continue to work very closely with the HCFCD team to make sure they have all available resources needed to complete the applications. Overall our team is very pleased with the progress being made and the relationship continues to be strong.”

Only two mitigation projects have not yet been submitted for preliminary review.

  • Kickerillo-Mischer Preserve Channel Rehabilitation (100-00-00-X115)
  • Channel Conveyance Improvements (C147-00-00-E002) in the Sims Bayou Watershed.

Tremendous Progress

“HCFCD has made tremendous progress on these funds,” said Eck. “However, the rate of approval may not yet demonstrate the progress being made behind the scenes.”

She added, “This process, especially considering the amount funds being administered is an extremely lengthy federal process. Additionally HCFCD has needed to combine projects due to functionality and the GLO is working closely with them to ensure eligibility in the most efficient timeframe imaginable.”

Kingwood Projects Not Mentioned in This Update

Eck did not comment on the status of two Kingwood projects. I can only assume they are still under review. She did not mention any that had been eliminated.

The two Kingwood projects:

Woodridge Village detention basin photographed on 10/25/24. Project paused pending outcome of HUD financing approval.

In its October update to Commissioners Court, HCFCD said the Woodridge Stormwater Detention Basins were originally below the funding line for CDBG-DR.

“The original engineering analysis indicated that only Woodridge Basin Compartment 1 was needed for the Taylor Gully mitigation,” said the update. “As the analysis has progressed it indicates that Compartment 2 (or a portion of it) may also be needed. Due to other projects potentially reducing in budget from the initial estimates, there may be funding available to include the Woodridge basin in the Taylor Gully project.”

That word “may” in the last sentence worries me.

HCFCD did not propose the Kingwood Diversion Ditch project for HUD consideration. HCFCD called the diversion ditch one of the two most important projects in Kingwood. That funding will have to come from somewhere else.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/20/24

2640 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Half of FEMA-Funded Buyouts Take More Than 5 Years

11/19/2024 – The time to fully complete half of all FEMA-funded buyouts takes more than five years from disaster to closeout.

The screen capture below was taken from a presentation earlier this month to the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force by Thao Costis, head of Harris County’s Housing and Community Development Department.

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) steps as shown to Harris County Flood Task Force on 11/6/24. For higher res PDF, click here.

The slide compares the time it takes to pay off an insurance claim (lower left) to the time it takes to complete a buyout (upper right).

The median is the midpoint of a frequency distribution. That means there is an equal probability of any given transaction falling above it or below it.

The thirteen steps involved in the buyout process as federal state and local governments pass information up and down the ladder to each other and homeowners can take more than six years at times. Meanwhile, insurance payouts usually take six months.

80% of Buyouts Go to Those Making Less than Median Income for Region

Sadly, buyouts affect the most vulnerable among us the most often. Approximately half of all buyouts in Harris County go to homeowners that fall into the bottom quartile of the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index.

The bottom two quartiles (those making less than the median income for the region) account for a whopping 80% of all buyouts.

buyouts by SVI quartile
Compiled from HCFCD data on buyouts in 2020.

Typically, government agencies buy out homes that flood repetitively. That’s because insurance payouts after multiple floods can easily exceed the cost of a home.

But FEMA doesn’t make it easy. This 68-page PDF details all the procedures involved in a FEMA buyout.

Low-income homeowners generally are the least able to afford insurance and often have higher flood risk.

The higher flood risk can stem from living in older homes, built when less stringent building regulations were in place and when flood risk (or our estimates of it) were lower.

The Case for Business Process Re-Engineering

Regardless of the reason, buyout candidates have few good choices if they don’t have insurance. They may not be able to afford to move or afford fix up their homes. And staying put may entail health risks.

Buyout candidates may also not have the time, skills and financial resources to understand their options, navigate the application process, and wait out bureaucracies.

home buyout flowchart
Buyout flow chart. Where the money comes from, how it gets to homeowners and different types of grants that are available.

Five years is a long time to wait with black mold growing in the walls.

It’s a classic case for business process re-engineering which buyouts desperately need.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/19/2024

2639 Days since Hurricane Harvey