News Archives - Page 52 of 275

Still Have Storm Debris?

8/22/24 – If you still have storm debris from Hurricane Beryl, what you do by when depends on where you live and what you need picked up. Procedures and deadlines differ for:

Harris County Precinct 3 Unincorporated Areas
City of Houston
Montgomery County

This post describes what people in those areas need to do to ensure their debris gets removed. Read thoroughly and act swiftly. Some deadlines are only days away.

*Beryl debris*. *Scenes like this were reported throughout the Houston Area* *and not all have been removed.*

The City of Humble has completed its cleanup effort and so is not included in this post.

Harris County Precinct 3 Unincorporated Areas

The final deadline for reporting storm debris is Monday, September 2. If you still have storm debris in your yard, please be sure to place it at the curb and report it for final pickup. You can do so online or by phone.

To report online:

Visit pct3.com/service-request
Select “Road & Bridge Maintenance” in the service menu
Type “Hurricane Beryl Debris” in the comments section

To report by phone:

Call 713-274-3100 during business hours, Monday – Friday, 7 AM – 4:30 PM.

Instructions:

Please remember to separate your debris for efficient pickup! Visit www.pct3.com or see below for separation guidelines.

*From Harris County Precinct 3 Newsletter* *on 8/22/24.*

City of Houston

The City’s Solid Waste Management Department (SWMD) collected more than 2.1 million cubic yards of Beryl-related storm debris by August 15. The Department expects to conclude the first pass of storm collections by Saturday, August 31.

In preparation for the next phase of debris collections, SWMD requests residents to place all remaining storm debris at the curbside no later than Sunday, August 25. The department will begin the second pass in earnest on Monday, September 2.

“Residents do not need to report their storm debris to 3-1-1.”
Houston Solid Waste Management Department

“Storm debris contractors will drive down every street and collect storm debris piles in all public rights of way,” explained this Solid Waste webpage.

SWMD urges residents to:

Separate storm debris from bulk waste, and demolition and construction debris at the curbside. Contaminated debris piles might delay collection until the next bulk waste month.
Ensure that tree trunks are 3 feet or less in diameter and 3 feet or less in length and tree branches are 6 feet or less in length.
Place debris piles within 10 feet onto private property lines as crews cannot encroach beyond that limit.

Beryl struck before the Derecho cleanup finished. Beryl alone created an estimated 4 million cubic yards of storm debris – enough to fill NRG Stadium. So please be patient.

Montgomery County

To have Beryl storm debris picked up, Montgomery County residents must register by August 30. Click this link to begin registration.

If you are still waiting on the first or second passes, make sure you RE-REGISTER and upload a debris photo.

Property owners must fill out a debris removal survey to ensure your vegetative debris will be picked up— tree branches, trees stumps, tree trunks, and branches.
Place vegetative debris as close to road/curb as possible. But do not block ditches or the roadway.

Montgomery County is only picking up vegetative debris. The county is not removing appliances, demolition debris or construction waste.

DO:

Ensure debris is easily accessible
Place it away from obstacles like trees, poles, fire hydrants, meters, mailboxes, or any other structure that could hinder removal
Place it in a county or city right of way.

DON’T:

Block roadways or ditches. Avoid blocking water flow.
Include non-storm-related debris: Only storm-related vegetative debris will be collected.
Use trash bags for tree debris.
Place debris on private property: Collection is limited to the County/City right-of-way.
Place debris in gated communities: Collection does not occur in gated communities.
Obstruct traffic: Avoid placing debris in a way that could pose hazards for drivers.

Make sure you follow FEMA debris removal guidelines.

Residents who live on cul-de-sacs or dead end streets require special equipment to maneuver in tighter areas. That may take longer, so please have patience.

Montgomery County’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (OHSEM) is handling the Beryl response. The information provided when you register will enhance their ability to allocate resources appropriately and expedite the debris removal process.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/22/2024

2550 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 45 since Beryl

Details of Lake Conroe Contract between SJRA, City

8/21/24 – The City of Houston approved a new Lake Conroe contract with the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) last September.

For those interested in a deep dive, I’ve posted the entire 48-page document on my Reports Page under the San Jacinto River Authority tab.

For everyone else, I’ve posted a brief summary below. It covers key provisions, including those that affect lake lowering to help reduce flood risk. Spoiler alert: I made a startling discovery at the end of the contract doc.

But let’s start from the top of the Lake Conroe contract.

Key Definition

The first few pages lay out the customary recitals and definitions found in all contracts. The key definition is that of a 1987 Certificate of Adjudication (Number 10-4963, shown in Appendix A) that governs the impoundment, use, diversion, and priorities of water in Lake Conroe.

Ownership Interests

The meat of the contract starts in Article II on page 5: Interests of the Parties. Key points:

SJRA owns the land that constitutes the Lake.
The City owns two-thirds of the water in it.
SJRA owns the remaining one-third.
Each party has the right to sell its share of the water.
Other revenues from the operation of Lake Conroe, such as income from marina leases, go toward operating and maintaining the lake.

Operational Responsibilities

Article III on Page 6 of the Lake Conroe contract lays out operational responsibilities.

SJRA:

Operates and maintains the lake and dam.
Handles all the accounting and reporting for water impounded and released.
Maintains metering devices and monitors withdrawals (must be accurate within ±5% or better)
Lets lakefront homeowners pump water directly from the lake for $150/year to water their lawns

Joint Responsibilities:

Annual reports to public and TCEQ of withdrawals.
Annual withdrawals by their respective customers.

Release of Water and Reservoir Levels (Section 3.04, )age 8)

SJRA must release water when requested by City (subject to restrictions in the Certificate). But it must do so in a way that maximizes the operational yield of the lake.

Liability and Indemnification (Section 3.05, Page 9)

Both parties are jointly liable for damages when the lake is operated according to established procedures.
If one side is negligent, that party assumes sole responsibility for any damages.

Reports and Inspections; Incidental Matters

Article IV, starting on Page 17 covers:

Annual audits
Inspection of records
Disposal of surplus property

Length of Contract

This contract replaces the original 1968 Lake Conroe contract between the City and SJRA. It will remain in effect until terminated by mutual agreement during the useful life of Lake Conroe.

Default and Notice; Remedies; Mediation

Article V covers how the parties will handle disputes. It starts on page 18 and goes through page 23. Basically, it covers procedures leading up to mediation in the event of disagreements.

Force Majeure

Article VII covers force-majeure events. In law, “Force Majeure” means “unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract.” This section defines what happens during Acts of God, such as hurricanes, storms, floods, droughts, etc.

This Article allows the temporary suspension of normal rules, except those regarding payments. However, it requires resumption of the normal rules after the event.

Other Provisions

Article VIII contains addresses and contact information for each party and approval procedures.

Article IX includes provisions concerning applicable law (State of Texas), procedures for amendments, etc.

Exhibit A

The Certificate of Adjudication from the Texas Water Commission, dated February 25, 1987, limits total withdrawals from Lake Conroe to 100,000 acre feet per year. It lists the maximum withdrawal rate as 700 cubic feet per second.

Note: Some at the SJRA and City have chafed at this limitation. It restricts pre-release rates that could lower Lake Conroe in advance of approaching storms. Some want to raise the limit so that more water could be released earlier and reduce flood peaks.

The TCEQ amended the Certificate in 2010. It keeps the total withdrawals and max withdrawal rate above constant. But it added an additional use for the water. To the original municipal, industrial and mining categories, they added agriculture. It says they did that because they had not received any complaints about the previous limits within each category.

This is, in essence, a permit to release/sell water. And the permit comes with an obligation – to implement water conservation plans, which the TCEQ letter also spells out.

Exhibit B

This 2016 letter from SJRA’s management to the City explains a residential-lawn-watering permit program for lakefront homeowners. The program lets them pump water directly from the lake for a permit fee of $150 per year (as of 2016). That’s 41 cents per day.

They saved the best part for last. This was a real eye opener.

The permits mandate a “drought contingency plan” that impose watering restrictions when the level of the lake gets to 199 feet above mean sea level. Astute readers may remember that SJRA’s seasonal lake lowering plan took the lake down to 199 for large parts of the year.

Editorial Comment

Hmmmmm. Could that be why the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) fought seasonal lake lowering so vigorously?

*People protesting the seasonal lake lowering policy wore red shirts saying “Stop the Drop,” and packed SJRA board meetings.*

We may never know with certainty whether the loss of lawn watering was the sole or a contributing reason. But either way, unlimited watering of giant lawns for only 41 cents per day certainly helps explain at least some of the pushback from the LCA.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/21/24

2549 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.

What Can Be Done to Reduce Flood Risk?

Flood-control experts have many tools in their tool chests to reduce flood risk. They include:

Widening channels to increase stormwater conveyance
Deepening channels to increase stormwater conveyance via dredging
Benching, i.e., reducing floodplain height to increase stormwater storage
Building retention and detention basins to create more storage and reduce flood peaks
Improving building codes to mandate higher home elevations
Requiring greater setbacks from rivers, streams and bayous
De-snagging to prevent log-jams from backing water up
Preserving wetlands, grasslands and forests to absorb and slow runoff, and to create recreational opportunities for nearby homeowners
Bio-swales and ditches to create more stormwater storage and positive drainage around homes
Buying out flood-prone homes and converting the property to recreational or flood-mitigation space.

I’m sure more techniques exist. But those represent the big categories.

Complex Decisions Involving Many Factors

No one tool works for all situations. And many of the tools that reduce flood risk fly in the face of other human values. They may conflict with other values beyond safety, that we hold dear. Consider, for instance, property rights, individual freedom, job formation, expanding the tax base, a desire to live near water, and risk-taking.

So how do professionals decide which tools to apply where and when?

Again, it depends on a number of factors. To name a few:

What are the benefits compared to the costs?
Does the cost of the cure exceed the cost of the damage?
What is the recurrence interval of flooding in a certain area?
Are you trying to fix a problem or prevent one?
Is the trouble spot pre- or post development?
How frequent and deep will likely flooding be?
Are changing conditions upstream contributing to increased flood heights?
How much damage will flooding cause?
Is State or Federal disaster-mitigation aid available?
Is Disaster Relief aid available?

Homeowner Inquiry Prompted Exploration

A homeowner reacted to one of my posts today. She lives in a low-lying area near FM1485 and the San Jacinto East Fork. It flooded badly on May2, 2024. She was certain that dredging and tree removal from the East Fork would help. But after investigating the area online, then from the ground and air, I wasn’t sure.

The normal river elevation in that area is 47.25 feet.

But on May 2, the river rose to 77.4 feet – 17 feet above the top of the river banks and 30 feet above normal!

Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist, had this to say about the May flood. “Since 1994, this was the second highest crest of the river at FM 1485. It exceeded Tropical Storm Imelda by 4.0 ft and the October 1994 flood by 1.0 ft.”

Lindner continued, “The flood of record remains Harvey which was 4.0 ft higher than the May 2024 event. The river exceeded the .2% (500-yr) exceedance probability elevation at the FM 1485 bridge by 1.5 ft. The table below shows the top five highest peaks on the East Fork of the San Jacinto River since 1994 at that location.”

Date Peak Elevation

8/27/17 (Harvey) 81.2
5/2/24 77.4
10/18/94 76.2
9/19/19 (Imelda) 72.8
11/14/1998 71.6

HCFCD calculates the elevation of a 100-year flood is 70.6 feet.

So…

Residents in this neighborhood experienced five 100-year-or-greater floods in 20 years. That’s one every four years. Is the risk 1% or 25% per year?

See the FEMA floodplain map below for the area in question.

It shows you how difficult flood prediction can be. It also shows you why even nature lovers should give water in Texas a wide berth unless they are prepared to lose everything. The May flood wasn’t even related to a tropical event!

*Yellow/green diagonal line is the Harris/Montgomery County line. Image shows neighborhood S of FM1485 near East Fork. Crosshatch=floodway, Aqua=100-year and Tan=500 year floodplain.*

Unfortunately, most of the homes in this neighborhood didn’t look like people could afford to lose everything. And I saw several that had been totally obliterated along with two roads that washed out.

*I’m not sure what this was. But it was the only structure semi-standing for blocks around.*

Professionals Say Buyouts Best Option In This Case, But…

In an area like this, flood-mitigation professionals have few good options. Given the depth of flooding, three professionals told me that intervention would have to be on a massive and costly scale to make a difference. As a result, each suggested buyouts as the best, most cost-effective alternative in this area.

Shortly after the May event, I interviewed a young couple named Daniel and Kathleen Moore. They lived on some of the highest land in the subdivision, but had flooded three times in the seven years that they owned their home (Harvey, Imelda, and May 2024).

They were hoping for a buyout. I called again today to see if they succeeded, but they were selling their property and moving out of state with their new baby. Why?

While Daniel was restoring the home, someone burned it to the ground on July 28th. Nothing stands there now but a charred chimney.

This was a heartbreaking story that deeply affected me personally. I once lived in a home near a creek that flooded frequently when I had two young babies.

While buyouts may sometimes be the most cost-effective option, they are not easy, according to a County Emergency Management Director that I interviewed. Counties must apply for FEMA buyout money and then it can take years to evaluate and rank all the applications and distribute the money.

Forest Cove buyouts took five years after Harvey to complete.

Ironically, the fact that the Moore’s were in a 500-year floodplain may have hurt their buyout chances. FEMA likes money to go to homes that are insured but which flood frequently.

So What About Dredging and Tree Removal?

The Moore’s lived in Montgomery County. But the other family that contacted me lived on the Harris side of the county line in the same neighborhood.

*Typical scene in East Fork south of FM1485*

Experts I talked to suggested dredging wouldn’t make an appreciable difference given the narrow width of the river channel and the height of flooding. Plus, it could undermine more trees along the heavily wooded banks.

Removing trees that have already fallen, they say, is a good idea. They could float downstream, form log dams that flood other homes, and/or harm boaters in Lake Houston. But who is responsible for removing them?

I asked Matt Barrett, head of SJRA’s Flood Management Division. Said Barrett, “SJRA’s jurisdiction does not include Harris County, so projects constructed in Harris County would have to be led by HCFCD.”

Distant Chances for Other Flood Mitigation

That said, Barrett also volunteered that SJRA has partnerships with both HCFCD and the City of Houston. The entities work together on multiple projects from the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Plan. But finding funding remains a challenge. And large scale projects are not quick to implement.

That brings us full circle to the original question in the headline. What was or is the best thing(s) homeowners can do to reduce their flooding chances? In my opinion:

Avoid buying property near water if you have a flooding concern
Or if you love the location, make sure you elevate the home high above the floodplain.

I’m not a professional engineer and I do not render professional engineering opinions. But I have interviewed a lot of flood victims who wish they could turn back the hands of time and build on higher ground.

*Foundation being endangered by riverbank erosion.*

If you have the slightest qualms about flooding when purchasing property, make sure you consult a professional engineer to evaluate your risk and mitigation options.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/20/24

2548 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.

Northpark Construction Sequence Changing

8/18/24 – The sequence and timing of upcoming construction steps for the Northpark Drive Expansion Project is changing. Project Manager Ralph De Leon wants the public to know what will change, why and when between now and the end of the year.

All parties involved in the construction met last week and agreed to the plan outlined below. However, De Leon warned that it could still change. The new plan will start within the next two to three weeks. The steps outlined below should be substantially completed by December.

Unfortunately, they could involve fewer lanes for a period a time and will cause a total closure of Northpark for three days. The original plan kept two lanes of traffic open in both directions at all times. But that is no longer possible.

Reason for Changes

Due to highly publicized delays caused by utility conflicts, project planners started building pieces of the project out of sequence to keep crews busy.

“We are now out of sequence globally,” said De Leon. “That will never change. So throw out everything you knew in the past. We will publish a new schedule this week or next.”

A complex series of signal changes for traffic, railroad and pedestrian crossings also contributes to the schedule changes. And they will need to be built twice: once for temporary traffic and again for permanent traffic.

Electronics are driving the new Northpark construction sequence more than concrete at this point, according to De Leon. “Boring and installing communication cables to temporary, then permanent signals is the difficult part,” he said.

The schedule changes will not affect what is being built, just when. Nothing has changed regarding the goals. Additional lanes and the planned bridge over 494 and the railroad will still be built.

New Sequence Affects Planned West- and Eastbound Feeder Roads

This new Northpark construction sequence affects how and when the west- and eastbound feeder roads will be constructed. The old plan called for both to be constructed at the same time.

Then traffic was to have been rerouted to the new feeders while contractors demolished the middle. However, that is no longer viable as you can see from photos below.

Instead, Harper Brothers will construct eastbound feeder roads on the south side as they place culverts west to east along the north side. They will start at the Shell station on the northwest corner of Loop 494 and Northpark and work their way down to the area by the Quick Quack Car Wash.

De Leon’s goal is to keep the existing at-grade railroad crossing intact and use that for west bound traffic. The new feeder road on the south side will handle eastbound traffic.

However, that could still change. “We could have to switch everybody (both directions) to the new feeder road. That would mean a single lane for both east- and westbound traffic until the second westbound feeder road is constructed on the north side.”

Pictures Taken Friday 8/17/24

Looking W at Northpark Expansion Project. Previously, planners hoped to install drainage east to west. Now they will move west to east to accommodate UnionPacific which must reroute traffic during its busy season.

*Still looking west over 494. Contractors are already beginning to work on drainage that will go under 494 and the railroad tracks.*

*Looking east. Two more feeder lanes will be built for east bound* *traffic sout*h of Northpark.

UPRR will construct a crane on top of the rail tracks needed to install 200 feet of track panel. For that to happen they must rip out the existing rail tracks and reroute all traffic to rail lines that parallel the Hardy Tollroad.

The panel is in a single section that will stretch across ten lanes. UPRR needs that for track stability. However, its length will mean totally closing Northpark for three days.

Still looking east toward Russell Palmer and Kingwood Diversion Ditch. Crews have finished installing culvert and are now building up the center. To see how high, look at the height of manhole covers already installed.

While painful now, when finished, this project will give Kingwood its first all-weather evacuation route. It could save lives in the future.

For More Information

For more information about Northpark Drive expansion and a history of the project, see these posts on ReduceFlooding.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/18/24

2546 Days since Hurricane Harvey

HCFCD Contractors Begin Clearing Trees Blocking Streams, Channels

8/17/24 – The clearing of trees blocking streams and channels in the Lake Houston Area has begun. The clearing began after a coordinated inventorying and reporting effort.

According to Chris Bloch, a member of the Bear Branch Trail Association Board, FEMA contractors working for Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD), were seen this morning clearing trees blocking Bens Branch. The stream cuts diagonally through the middle of Kingwood.

If left in the stream, the trees can catch other debris floating downstream and create log dams that back floodwater up into streets and homes. So, contractors are cutting the fallen trees into sections and removing them.

This morning, I found them hauling the logs and underbrush out of the woods with a Bobcat fitted with grappling jaws. They stacked the debris near Woodland Hills Drive to be hauled away.

However, in coming days, contractors will be using much larger equipment and actually going down into the channel to remove logs and haul them off.

According to Bloch, just cutting the logs into small sections and letting them float away in the next flood is not the answer. They could still harm unsuspecting boaters and waterskiers in Lake Houston.

Beware of Heavy Equipment with Limited Visibility

It’s unclear at this time how long the clearing operation will take. But Bloch estimates that it could easily take a week or more to get all the way down Bens Branch.

Other contractors may be working on other channels simultaneously. However, I have been unable to verify that at this time.

*Photograph taken 8/17/24 near St. Martha School at Bens Branch and Woodland Hills Drive.*

Residents should exercise caution when using greenbelt trails during the removal operation. Operators maneuvering in tight spaces have limited visibility when transporting logs and brush. They will use greenbelt trails in some places and CenterPoint easements in others.

Residents who use the trails to get to school or for recreation should consider wearing brightly colored shirts or reflective vests to increase their visibility.

Members of the Bear Branch Trail Association Board met with the contractor last night to show them where obstructions are in Bens Branch and other channels.

*Note the size of some of those logs. The pile is 6-8 feet tall.*

Inventorying the blockages was difficult. Now comes the really hard part.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/17/24

2545 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 40 since Beryl

Sand-Pit Capture Between White Oak and Caney Creeks

8/16/24 – Today, thanks to an anonymous tip by a fisherman, I observed an instance of sand-pit capture between White Oak and Caney Creeks in the headwaters of Lake Houston.

The sand pit in question used to be known as the Triple PG Mine, but is now being operated under a different name.

Alleged environmental violations caused the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to sue the mine and its owners through the Texas Attorney General’s Office in 2019.

The conditions that exist today are virtually identical to those that existed in 2018 when I previously observed another instance of sand-pit capture between White Oak and Caney Creeks in the same location.

Then as now, instead of following its normal course, White Oak Creek flows in one side of the mine and out the other into Caney Creek.

*2019 satellite image. Red line shows path of White Oak Creek (left), then crossing pit to Caney Creek (right).*

Pictures Taken 8/16/24

Pictures taken today show that two new breaches happened in the same locations (see below) as 2019.

*2024 breach shows White Oak Creek entering pond in same place as in 2019.*..

*…and exiting pond to Caney Creek via another breach in same location on opposite side of pond as in 2019.*

I do not know the exact date the breaches occurred.

There is one visible difference though. The pond where the two breaches occur today has been sealed off from other ponds in the mine by an internal dike that is not visible in earlier satellite photos.

*Note dike now crossing mine (center L to R). New breaches occurred around dikes of pond in foreground.*

The Texas Attorney General sued the mine in 2019 for a million dollars plus $25,000 per day for every day the breaches remained open.

Guniganti has denied all charges by the TCEQ and Attorney General.

Multiple Changes in Ownership Delay Trial

However, through a series of legal maneuverings that included multiple changes in attorneys and ownership (through shell companies), the case in Travis County District Court still has not come to trial five years later. After all this time, we are pretty much right back where we started – with pit capture between White Oak and Caney Creeks.

Prabakar Guniganti, a cardiologist from Nacogdoches, has transferred ownership of most of the mine to shell companies. The Montgomery County Appraisal District shows that the Guniganti 1999 Children’s Trust and the Guniganti 1992 Credit Shelter Trusts now own most of the mine. Some parcels rotated through different shell companies three times within two years.

The portion of the mine where the breaches occurred in 2019 and 2024 is in Harris County, just inside the Montgomery County Line. The Guniganti Children’s 1999 Trust now owns that.

Change in Mine Operator, Too

The sign at the mine entrance now reads “Texas Fracsand Materials,” a company reportedly hired to operate the mine. Sam Kurre serves as CEO of Texas Frac Sand Materials Inc. It was established in 2019, the same year as the AG’s lawsuit against Guniganti.

Entrance sign shows operator of the mine owned by Guniganti shell companies.

Kurre claims his company operates mines with more than a $100 million in reserves. But real estate records show the mine claims ag and timber exemptions.

Thus…

The Montgomery County Appraisal District gave a net appraisal of just $74,800 to one 809-acre parcel within the mine.

The mine’s area exceeds 1,000 acres in total.

In stark contrast, a 10-acre sliver of the mine within Harris County does not get the ag/timber exemption and appraises for virtually the same amount – $78,829.

No wonder Montgomery County attracts so many sand mines! Compared to Harris County, 800 acres of prime, income producing land are going untaxed.

Sand Subsidized by Other Property Owners

Kurre’s website claims he produces 2 million tons of sand annually from Guniganti’s location. However, appraisal district records show that Montgomery County classifies most of it as pastureland.

Guniganti should be able to afford some pretty good lawyers with numbers like these. Maybe that’s why he’s strung this out for five years…despite no lasting improvement to the dikes.

Meanwhile, people downstream of the sand-pit capture between White Oak and Caney Creeks complain of rapidly building sediment in their rivers and streams. They fear it could lead to flooding. As a consequence, they are clamoring for more costly dredging. But, it will be up to ordinary folks in a different county to subsidize that!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/16/2024

2544 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.

Texas’ First State Flood Plan Released

8/15/24 – The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) released the state’s first state flood plan today. And it’s full of eye-popping factoids.

For instance: More than a quarter of the state’s land and one sixth of the state’s population are in floodplains. So flood mitigation and prevention rank as high priorities. The entire plan stretches more than 500 pages. It listed and prioritized 147 pages of evaluations/studies, projects, strategies in tiny type.

Fifteen regional groups, each representing one of the major river basins in Texas, compiled the plan.

I will dig into more detail in coming days. But today, here are some quick facts from the executive summary to whet your appetite.

Structures Affected by Flooding

Planning groups identified approximately 878,100 buildings within the 1 percent (100-year) annual chance floodplain, and an additional 786,100 buildings within the 0.2 percent (500-year) annual chance floodplain. Total: 1,664,200.

*Figure ES-4 from Executive Summary. Existing residential buildings in the 1% (100-year) annual chance floodplain.*

More than 6,258 hospitals, emergency medical services, fire stations, police stations, and schools are within the 1 percent (100-year) and 0.2 percent (500-year) annual chance floodplains.

Regional flood planning groups also identified 9,322 low water crossings within flood hazard areas.

Increases in Flooding Forecast

The projected future condition 1 percent (100-year) annual chance floodplain is estimated to increase by 11 percent over the existing flood hazard area to a total of 62,245 square miles.

The regional flood planning groups project an increase of approximately 2.6 million people and 740,000 buildings in the 1 percent annual chance floodplain under projected future condition flood hazard.

Boggling Number of Recommendations

The regional flood planning groups recommended 4,609 flood risk reduction solutions: 3,097 flood management evaluations, 615 flood mitigation projects, and 897 flood management strategies in the regional flood plans with an estimated total implementation cost of more than $54.5 billion.

Floodplain Buildings

A total of 1,239 Texas communities and counties with flood-related authority participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.

More than 500 Texas entities have floodplain management standards that exceed National Flood Insurance Program minimum standards.

Costs

The plan includes recommendations in three categories: Evaluations/surveys; Projects, Strategies. The total cost of recommended:

Flood management evaluations exceeds $2.6 billion.
Flood mitigation projects totals is more than $49.1 billion; nearly half of this cost is associated with the Galveston Bay Surge Protection Coastal Storm Risk Management project.
Flood management strategies exceeds $2.8 billion.

Planning groups reported sponsors requiring financial assistance with 80-90 percent of the costs to implement recommended flood risk reduction solutions.

Potential Benefits

Planning groups reported an estimated 843,339 people and 214,292 buildings would be removed from the 1 percent annual chance floodplain if the state flood plan was implemented.

Three regions identified potential water supply benefits for 37 recommended flood mitigation projects and one region recommended a flood management strategy with a potential water supply benefit.

Legislative and Policy Recommendations Included

The flood planning groups included legislative, administrative, and policy recommendations in the regional flood plans, and their policy recommendations informed the development of many of the legislative and floodplain management recommendations in this plan.

For More Information

This page on the TWDB site contains all the elements from the first state flood plan. But warning, the file sizes are large. And the spreadsheet listing all the projects is wide and best viewed on a large monitor.

I have reduced the file size of three of Texas State Flood Plan docs and am posting them here to make them easier to download.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/15/24

2543 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Ramsey to Discuss Proposed County Tax Increase Thursday Night at Town Hall

Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Thomas Ramsey PE will discuss the proposed 2024 budget and a potential county tax increase Wednesday at 6 PM at the George H.W. Bush Community Center in Spring.

The community center is at 6827 Cypresswood Drive.

Bring Your Questions

Scan the QR code below to familiarize yourself with the budget. After answering a few high-level questions, it takes you to a summary of this year’s shortfall and ways you could make it up – if you don’t want to raise taxes.

Where to Review the Proposed Budget

The web address listed on the right takes you to a page that includes links to the actual budget documents for past years and this year. Comparing them lets you see how priorities have changed.

The amount of expenses you have to cut if you don’t want to increase taxes is about $200 million.

At the same time, we have critical needs in criminal justice and “maintenance and operations.” For instance, Beryl just trashed the entire county. I’ve created several recent posts that talk about the need to clear ditches and streams of blockages.

Here’s a Harris County Flood Control District presentation that summarizes its needs. And HCFCD is just one department within the county. So what to do?

Come prepared to talk about what you would cut.

Commissioner Ramsey should have a few suggestions in that regard.

Your Needs, Your Dollars, Your Decision

I’m not going to make any recommendations about the proposed county tax increase. While there certainly are legitimate needs, I’ve been burned too many times in recent years by broken promises under the guise of equity.

In selling the 2018 Flood Bond, the county told us it would fix the worst flooding first. But we’re no longer allocating bond money on the basis of flood damage.

With the 2022 Bond, Democrats promised to give each precinct a guaranteed minimum. That lasted until the day after voters approved the bond. How many times will people fall for the false promises?

Some Thought Starters and Head Scratchers

I’d like to see wasteful spending cut. For instance, today we learned about corruption charges by County DA Kim Ogg brought against a county employee responsible for distributing ballot paper during the botched 2022 election.

According to the complaint, the employee allegedly held a private-sector engineering job that paid $250,000 while also being paid $90,000 by the county to distribute ballot paper. Miraculously, most of the paper he failed to distribute was in Republican-leaning precincts.

By the way, on Election Day 2022, the employee reported working 18 hours for Harris County but also claimed to work 8 hours for his other employer.

Then, of course, there was the whole issue of replacing an election system that had worked well for years (in which elected officials oversaw elections) with an Elections Administrator’s Office. Someone with no election experience headed that office, which terribly botched the narrow 2022 election. She hired more political friends, also with no experience.

Luckily, that $15-million line item got the axe. See page 101 in the budget.

But the $21-million budget for the Office of County Administration did not. That was another Hidalgo innovation that previous administrations did not feel the need for. That department’s budget tripled in two years. (Line 200, Page 100)

And can someone tell me why public defender expenses have more than doubled in less than 2 years? (Page 101)

The closer you look at this year’s proposed budget, the more questions you will have. Bring your list to the:

George HW Bush Community Center

Thursday at 6PM.

6827 Cypresswood Drive, Spring, TX

Please don’t blame the proposed county tax increase on Commissioner Ramsey. He is a conservative voice of reason and responsibility on Commissioners Court.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/14/24

2542 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.

2024 Hurricane Season Update, PTC 5 Status and Learning Resources

8/12/24 – An August 8 update to NOAA’s 2024 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook still calls for an extremely active hurricane season with 17-24 named storms, including four so far with a fifth brewing in the Atlantic. The main difference between this and NOAA’s May predictions? A higher confidence level.

The main factors that affect the latest predictions for the 2024 hurricane season include:

Sea surface temperatures remain near record highs in the Atlantic main development region
Weaker-than-normal trade winds
Near record-low vertical wind sheer
Above-normal West African monsoon rains
No El Niño is expected to develop this year.
We are in the warm phase of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO)
Development to date, including Beryl and Debbie and an impending Ernesto, puts us ahead of the 30-year running average.

For more on the science behind the outlook, visit NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center.

#5 in the Hurricane Season About to Form

As of 2PM EDT, NHC indicated that sustained winds from Potential Tropical Cyclone (PTC) 5 averaged 35 MPH. That puts it just 4 MPH from becoming the fifth named storm of the year, Ernesto. Here’s what it looks like this afternoon.

NHC gives PTC 5 a 100% chance of formation. It should intensify into a tropical storm later today and a hurricane by Thursday. However, it will curve northward into the open Atlantic and does not pose a threat to the Gulf Coast.

We normally don’t get a fifth named storm in the Atlantic until August 22. After that, we normally get a named storm every 7-10 days through October 11. This year, they will likely be more frequent.

Teach Your Family about Hurricanes

The National Hurricane Center website provides an almost bottomless well of free, educational resources. Today, I clicked on Outreach Resources and found presentations and publications geared to all age and professional levels.

Learning Opportunities for K-12 Students (Resources for Teachers) includes:

Hurricane Readiness for Coastal Communities

Hurricane Basics (14 MB)
NWS Products (15 MB)
Forecast Uncertainty (23 MB)
Making Better Decisions (10 MB)
Student Guide (42 MB)

The guide (#5) contains a narrative embellishes the slides in the first four presentations.

Hurricane Readiness for Inland Communities

Tropical Cyclone Basics (36 MB)
National Weather Service Products (26 MB)
Understanding Forecast Uncertainty (7.5 MB)
Inland Hurricane Preparation in Practice (23 MB)
Student Manual (30 MB)

Again, #5 contains additional explanation when slide graphics in presentations 1-4 may not be totally intuitive.

Information that Saves Lives

FEMA geared the presentations in the second two groups to adults, both in an out of government. The coastal presentations contain more emphasis on storm surge. The inland presentations emphasize riverine flooding from the heavy rains that often accompany hurricanes.

The information in both groups can benefit teachers, parents, first responders, emergency managers, and government leaders.

They explain various tools, terms and graphics used by NOAA, NHC, NWS, and NHP to help everyone make informed decisions when planning for and responding to hurricane threats.

For instance, I found the discussion on inundation mapping that involved forecasts and “nowcasts” very illuminating. Ditto for the discussion about how NHC determines the timing and probabilities in its graphics. How much water it takes to make cars float and lose traction. How emergency planners work together. And more. Much more.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/12/24

2540 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Tree Lane Bridge Repairs Finally Starting Again…Hopefully For Last Time

8/11/24 – Tree Lane Bridge repairs are finally starting…again. By my count, this will make the fifth time if you include the 2020 and 2022 repairs that each failed within months, and two aborted starts earlier this year. Hopefully, Houston Public Works will complete the repairs this time and they will stick.

Third Round of Repairs in Five Years

The current rehab project is the third in five years. That speaks to the quality of engineering, contracting and supervision in Houston Public Works. See the list of my articles about Tree Lane Bridge problems below. I’ve listed them in reverse chronological order.

6/28/24 Tree Lane Project Supposed to be Done Today, But Hasn’t Started

4/9/24 City Begins Tree Lane Bridge Repairs

2/21/24 CoH Public Works Kicks Off Tree Lane Bridge Rehab Project

11/28/23 Tree Lane Bridge over Bens Branch Still Standing

6/12/23 Flood Damage To Tree Lane Bridge Over Ben’s Branch Accelerates

1/29/23 Tree Lane Bridge over Ben’s Branch Damaged…Again

3/21/22 How Insufficiently Mitigated Upstream Development Imposes Taxation without Representation on Downstream Residents

3/31/20 City Completes Repairs on Tree Lane Bridge, But Concerns Remain

2/29/20 Tree Lane Bridge over Ben’s Branch: Before and After Repairs

12/2/19 Tree Lane Bridge vs. Power of Moving Water

Unexplained Delays, Changes

Construction of the most recent repair project was to have started in February this year. But contractors finally showed up 1.5 months later in early April. They did some tree trimming, parked their equipment and disappeared.

The project was to have been completed by 6/28 this year. But on 6/28, the job site was vacant, except for the equipment which had been parked months earlier. The biggest visible change: additional erosion, most likely due to the May flood, threatened a giant excavator that had been parked close to Bens Branch.

*Erosion creeped toward parked excavator. Photo taken 6/17/24.*

In June, I asked about delays and was informed by the project manager that they were waiting on unspecified utilities to move newly discovered utility lines.

In fairness, on 6/17/24, I did observe a utility crew burying cable in the vicinity. Public Works said on 7/2/24 that “all utility relocates have been completed.” However, as of 8/11, a water line and a cable are still clearly visible at the bottom of the creek and in the way of the project. See below.

*Photo taken 8/11/24, six months after project start. Those exposed lines show up in photos taken in 2019.*

The announcement of the most recent delay was even more vague. It announced “changes” due to “unforeseen circumstances” as the cause. I emailed and went online to find specifics. But not a clue!

Was it weather? Management? Engineering? Priorities? More utility conflicts? War in Ukraine? The school lunch menu?

Are the contractors even working off the right plans? The plans currently posted on Engage Houston have three different dates on them: 2018, 2022 and 2023. But I see nothing dated 2024. What delayed the project six months?

Contractors Return Just in Time for Back-to-School Traffic

After equipment sat idle virtually all summer, contractors returned to the job site just in time for the start of school. The bridge sits next to Bear Branch Elementary, which more than 600 students attend.

Last week, I made the mistake of trying to cross the bridge at 8AM. After project managers promised that construction activity would NOT interfere with school traffic, there the contractors were…with traffic at a standstill and backed up five blocks.

Later that afternoon, I received an email from the project manager. This email announced that the project would finish in “Fall 2024.” I would remind you that technically Fall lasts through December 21. That’s more than 4 months away. And more than 4 years after the 2020 repairs. But who ‘s counting?

Photos as of 8/11/2024

I took the photos below this afternoon so you can see how much progress has been made since February.

*Looking N from S side of bridge at work on E wall.*

Note all the construction debris piled in the middle of the creek, waiting for more heavy rain.

*Looking S from N side of bridge at W side work.*

Vegas is taking odds on whether Public Works will be able to live within its $909,000 estimate for this job.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/11/24

2539 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.