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.
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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Winter-Storm-Watch-2.png?fit=725%2C544&ssl=1544725adminadmin2025-01-19 08:58:412025-01-19 09:00:50NWS Now Predicting Up to 5″ of Snow, Sleet
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.
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 1/18/25based on information from NOAA, NWS and Jeff Lindner
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.
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.
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.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/17/2025 based on information from NOAA and NCEI
2698 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Disasters-in-2024.png?fit=1637%2C889&ssl=18891637adminadmin2025-01-17 16:36:282025-01-17 16:36:312024 Climate Records, Near Records
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
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.
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.
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 Flickingerat 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
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/20221206-Taylor-Gully.jpg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=112001200adminadmin2025-01-16 21:37:172025-01-17 14:29:08Ramsey, Flickinger Discuss Status of Flood Projects
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.
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 areain foregroundwill 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/20250114-DJI_20250114091626_0721_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-01-15 13:39:462025-06-21 19:14:42New West Fork Dredging Program Off to Fast Start
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:
Dust Control: Roads and parking areas for vehicles that will leave the site should be paved.
Light Pollution: Direct light properly and use perimeter barriers to eliminate sky glow, light trespass, and glare.
Mine Management and Truck Safety: Clear roads for school buses by not loading trucks for 30 minutes before and after school bells.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 pondDike 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.
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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/20240504-DJI_20240504164238_0406_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-01-13 17:53:172025-01-13 19:12:07Better Sand-Mining BMPs Needed to Control Sediment Pollution
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
