Commissioners Approve New Formula for Scoring Future Flood Projects

Harris County Commissioners Court approved a motion on 1/10/23 that will change the formula for scoring future flood projects. It gives two thirds of a potential project’s score to population density, building density and social vulnerability, but only 20% to flood risk and nothing to actual flood damage.

Stacking the Deck

The new formula could be used both to compare and eliminate projects. With only 20% of a project’s score determined by flood risk, fixing minor flooding inside the Beltway could soon take precedence over fixing severe flooding outside the Beltway. The formula provides only the illusion of transparency and fails to ensure fairness.

worst first
Chart showing feet above flood stage of 33 gages on misc. bayous in Harris County during Harvey.

During Hurricane Harvey, the highest flooding in the County occurred outside the Beltway along the San Jacinto River, Spring Creek and Cypress Creek.

Evacuation Route during Harvey
North Shore evacuation route during Harvey. Photo by Jim Balcom.

Regardless, despite being the largest watershed in the county and one of the most heavily damaged, few flood-mitigation dollars have come to the San Jacinto Watershed.

Since Harvey, 4.6 more flood-mitigation dollars have gone to the Brays watershed than the county’s largest, the San Jacinto.

Brays is the county’s most populous watershed. It’s also where Commissioner Ellis lives. Could that have anything to do with the factors and weights in the new formula for scoring future flood projects? They include:

  • 45% Project Efficiency
    • 15% Resident Benefits 
    • 30% Structure Benefits 
  • 20% Existing Conditions 
  • 20% Social Vulnerability Index 
  • 5% Long Term Maintenance Costs 
  • 5% Minimizes Environmental Impacts 
  • 5% Potential for Multiple Benefits 

This new formula omits consideration of damage, risk reduction and partnership funding. Partnership funding has provided approximately one third of all Flood Control District funding since 2000. The new formula gives the most weight to building and population density incorporated in the Project Efficiency formula (project cost divided by # residents and structures benefitted). This 15-page PDF explains how projects are scored within each category above.

Other Problems with Formula

The formula for scoring future flood projects, proposed by Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis has many other problems. It also:

  1. Does not differentiate between types of structures while giving them almost a third of the weight. Thus, a mobile home counts for as much as a hospital or college. 
  2. Gives no weight to protecting critical infrastructure such as bridges, hospitals, grocery stores, wastewater treatment plants, etc. 
  3. Omits actual damage from consideration, which “ground-truths” risk assumptions (see Existing Conditions, Page 6).
  4. Eliminates consideration of partnership funds, which have provided almost one third of HCFCD funding since 2000. 
  5. Gives 20% weight to social vulnerability, but ignores the severity of flooding. Thus a low-income home with one inch of flooding counts as much as an entire condo complex swept away by 22-foot deep floodwaters. 
  6. Makes awards more subjective because HCFCD has no way of estimating how many people live in apartment buildings or homes. HCFCD can count buildings in satellite photos, but the number of residents benefitted will always be a guess. Census tracts do not follow floodplain boundaries. 
  7. Undermines efforts to prevent flooding, as opposed to correcting it after people are damaged. Prevention, such as HCFCD’s Frontier Program, is always more cost effective in the long run. 
  8. Places 45% of the weight on cost data that has not yet been determined when deciding whether to explore projects further.

Ellis’ proposal passed 3-1 yesterday. Commissioners Rodney Ellis, Adrian Garcia, and Lesley Briones voted for it. Commissioner Tom Ramsey voted against. County Judge Lina Hidalgo was absent. Commissioner Ellis ran the meeting.

To see the discussion on Ellis’ proposal, click on “Departments 2 of 2” in the meeting video and scroll forward to 3:03:53. The discussion lasts 16 minutes. Below is a summary of key points and their time codes.

Summary of Debate with Video Timecodes

Ellis positions his proposal as a “transparency measure.” 3:04:10

Dr. Tina Petersen, head of the Flood Control District describes it as a “clear, consistent and equitable basis” for comparing projects that the flood control district is undertaking. 3:04:53

Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey says “criteria and frameworks are not necessarily a bad thing,” but then expresses a list of concerns about the proposal, none of which are addressed later in discussion. 3:06:19

Petersen responds that it’s “not perfect.” She says, “there’s no reason we can’t continue to refine this tool.” It’s very “general.” It let’s us “use what we have as a basis for comparison and continue to look forward to opportunities to refine” the tool.

Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia asks whether the proposal will add costs or time to projects. 3:11:00

Petersen says no. “The framework should not require additional costs as long as we don’t look back.”

New Precinct 4 Commissioner Asks Probing Questions

New Precinct 4 Commissioner Briones then asks “how often will it be updated?” 3:13:20

Petersen replies, “We’re not considering making any changes to the framework.” She describes the primary uses as: comparing projects and determining which are eligible for funding from the Flood Resilience Trust.

Briones asks whether the framework incorporates “severity of flooding.”

Petersen points to the “efficiency” metric as the closest thing because it incorporate the number of people and structures benefitted. But Petersen sidesteps the point of the question about “depth of flooding” raised by Ramsey earlier. 3:14:25

Briones questions why partnerships are excluded.

Petersen responds that the framework was designed for use with the flood resilience trust, on projects where partnership dollars were no longer considered a possibility. “It was intended to be a backstop for projects that do not have partnership funding.” Petersen does not mention $750 million in HUD/GLO dollars pending final approval.

Briones next asks whether the framework will provide a threshold for making go/no-go decisions on projects. 3:15:40

Petersen replies, “I want to be clear. It will be used for determining whether a project is eligible for flood resilience trust funds.”

At 3:19:30, Ellis quickly closes debate before someone asks for clarification. The measure passes.

Debate Filled with Unresolved Contradictions

Petersen sidestepped Brione’s tough questions about severity of flooding and the eliminating projects. At one point, Petersen said it was “only a point of comparison.” Later, she said it would determine project “eligibility.”

She also equivocated in her response to Ramsey’s concerns. At first she implied the framework was a first step. Later she said that she didn’t plan to change it. Even though the framework is intended for future projects, most of Petersen’s answers related to the past.

Bellwether Vote

Only one thing is certain.

We’re in for four more years of fog described as transparency!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/11/2023

1961 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.

Development Update on 3 Areas in NW Humble

Three areas in northwest Humble are in various stages of development. Parts or all of these areas flooded during Hurricane Harvey. The flooding was deep enough that reportedly one of the developers is not even going to try to raise the area. Instead, he said he will raise the homes 6-7 feet. Let’s hope that’s enough.

The numbers in the satellite image correspond to the groups of photos below. I took all shots on 1/3/23.

#1 will become light industrial. #2 will become single family residential. #3 will become single- and multi-family residential.

Area #1 – Light Industrial

According to a 2016 map by Skymark, the developer, the first area will become light industrial.

A four-lane divided road leads from the NW corner of Townsen Boulevard to Spring Creek on the north. By Skymark Development.
The road abruptly stops before reaching Spring Creek and the Spring Creek Nature Trail.

The unpaved area between Spring Creek and where the road ends is owned by another developer (Pacific Indio) who also owns the land on the far side of the creek.

The Spring Creek Nature Trail cuts through the woods near the creek and follows it north toward I-45.
Reverse angle shot looking SE toward Deerbook Mall shows large cleared area with stormwater detention basin.

Area #2 – Single Family Residential

Contractors are in the process of building roads into an area west of Target and Kohls. Saratoga Homes reportedly plans to build 357 homes and townhomes on this location.

Looking S from over Townsen Blvd. we can see two large stormwater detention basins (lower and upper left)
Same area, but looking east toward Kohls and Target.

The closer shot below shows that not all the roads have been built yet.

Saratoga plans to build elevated homes here.

Area #3 – Single- and Multi-Family Residential

Looking south toward Sam’s with Townsen Blvd West on right, we can see a large stormwater detention pond that already has grass growing. This area will become single- and multi-family residential, some of which will be dedicated to seniors.

Note last of trees in center foreground being cleared and shredded for mulch.
Spillway from detention basin seems to have a detour built into it. The purpose? Likely to slow the water and avoid erosion at the base of the utility poles. The long ditch on the left will drain Areas 2 and 3.

Together, all three areas comprise approximately 260 acres according to this map on the Skymark Development website.

To learn more about the history of these sites, see the posts below. They contain floodplain and wetland maps.

Onward. Into the danger zone!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/9/23

1959 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Ellis Trying to Change How All Flood-Control Projects Prioritized

Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis has placed an item on the Commissioners Court agenda for 1/10/23 with far reaching ramifications for flood control in Harris County. It would change the way every future project is prioritized using a formula that gives almost half the weight to population and building density. Meanwhile, it ignores the amount of damage, severity of flooding, danger to infrastructure, historical underinvestment, and the difficulty of accurately estimating population in flood zones. Ellis’ recommendation could be used to permanently deny projects to heavily flood-damaged areas like Lake Houston.

Text of Motion

In Agenda Item #250, Ellis seeks: “Request for approval to direct the Harris County Flood Control District (“District”) to assign prioritization scores using the adopted 2022 Prioritization Framework for the Allocation of Funds from the Harris County Flood Resilience Trust to all new flood risk reduction projects funded by the District when requesting Commissioners Court approval to initiate the project, and to transmit those scores as quartiles to Commissioners Court.”

So what is that framework and why do we need it?

History of Recent Efforts to Prioritize Projects

Before the 2018 flood bond, Harris County flood control looked primarily at clusters of repeat damage to define and prioritize projects. That damage also formed the basis for obtaining partner funding in many cases.

However, when the perpetually underfunded Flood Control District received the huge infusion of cash from the 2018 flood bond, a problem arose. Which of the many worthy projects would be launched first? There simply weren’t enough qualified contractors to handle all needs simultaneously.

The text of the 2018 flood bond approved by voters contained a sentence that said, “…Commissioners Court shall provide a process for the equitable distribution of funds…” (See Paragraph 14-G). That became the key to the answer…with some verbal legerdemain by Ellis that turned “distribution” into “prioritization” and “equitable” into “equity.”

2019 Equity Prioritization Framework

In 2019, Ellis proposed (and the Court adopted) the “Prioritization Framework for the Implementation of the Harris County Flood Control District 2018 Bond Projects.” This framework ranked projects with a multi-factor index using the following weights:

  • 25% Flood Risk Reduction
  • 20% Existing Conditions (Drainage Level of Service)
  • 20% Social Vulnerability
  • 10% Project Efficiency
  • 10% Partnership Funding
  • 5% Long Term Maintenance Costs
  • 5% Minimizes Environmental Impacts
  • 5% Potential for Multiple Benefits
  • Total 100%

Commissioners, including Ellis, repeatedly affirmed their intent to complete all projects originally identified as part of the bond. The framework simply prioritized their start dates.

Commissioners also talked a lot about prioritizing “the worst first.” It was a nice sound bite, but never defined. Were the worst areas those with the most damage, deepest flooding, poorest residents, highest risk, or some combination of the above? Notice that the formula above omits flood damage, the traditional way of prioritizing funds and “ground-truthing” flood-risk estimates.

At this point, all of the projects in the bond have started. Their natural lifecycles and complexity will determine their order of completion. So, the debate has shifted from the flood bond to other sources of funding and future projects.

2021 Changes Applied to Flood Resilience Trust

In 2021, Commissioners created a Flood Resilience Trust using Toll-Road funds to backstop potential shortfalls in flood-bond partner contributions. The weighting used to allocate funds from the Trust changed significantly.

  • 25% Structures Benefitted
  • 20% Flooding Frequency
  • 20% Social Vulnerability
  • 10% Cost Per Structure
  • 10% Partnership Funding
  • 5% Maintenance Cost
  • 5% Environmental Impact
  • 5% Secondary Benefits
  • Total 100%

Flood Control used this formula only to prioritize the use of backstop funds in the Trust. Note this version of the formula eliminated both damage and risk reduction from consideration.

2022 Changes

In April, 2022, Commissioners modified the 2021 weights within the Prioritization Framework – still only for Flood Resilience Trust Funds – as follows:

  • 45% Project Efficiency
    • 15% Resident Benefits
    • 30% Structure Benefits
  • 20% Existing Conditions
  • 20% Social Vulnerability Index
  • 5% Long Term Maintenance Costs
  • 5% Minimizes Environmental Impacts
  • 5% Potential for Multiple Benefits

This 2022 formula omits consideration of damage, risk reduction and partnership funding. But it gives weight to population density (project cost divided by # residents benefitted). This 15-page PDF explains how projects are scored within each category above.

2023 Proposal

Commissioner Ellis now proposes applying the 2022 Resilience Trust formula to ALL FUTURE HCFCD PROJECTS.

Problems with Proposal

Flood Control would now use Ellis’ formula to decide which projects make the list, not just which go first.

Thus, the so-called “equity” formula once used to schedule projects could now be used to eliminate projects altogether.

Two thirds of the weight goes to density and social vulnerability. Only 20% relates to flooding.

The projects most likely to be eliminated would be outside the Beltway – in less dense areas that have traditionally received the least funding. In a post-bond, financially constrained environment, the weight given to density will put every project outside the Beltway at a disadvantage.

But the Ellis formula has many other problems, too. It:

  1. Does not differentiate between types of structures while giving them almost a third of the weight. Thus, a mobile home counts for as much as a hospital or college.
  2. Gives no weight to protecting critical infrastructure such as bridges, hospitals, grocery stores, wastewater treatment plants, etc. 
  3. Omits actual damage from consideration, which “ground-truths” risk assumptions (see Existing Conditions, Page 6).
  4. Eliminates consideration of partnership funds, which have provided almost one third of HCFCD funding since 2000.
  5. Gives 20% weight to social vulnerability, but ignores the severity of flooding. Thus a low-income home with one inch of flooding counts as much as an entire condo complex swept away by 22-foot deep floodwaters. 
  6. Makes awards more subjective because HCFCD has no way of estimating how many people live in apartment buildings or homes. HCFCD can count buildings in satellite photos, but the number of residents benefitted will always be a guess. Census tracts do not follow floodplain boundaries.
  7. Undermines efforts to prevent flooding, as opposed to correcting it after people are damaged. Prevention, such as HCFCD’s Frontier Program, is always more cost effective in the long run.
  8. Forces Flood Control to judge projects before the District has engineering and cost data in hand that would help determine whether the projects are worth pursuing. That’s because “ALL FUTURE PROJECTS” include preliminary engineering projects.

Suggestions For Improvement

Below are several suggestions to improve the formula.

  1. Define “worst first.” While the sentiment is noble, in practice, the term has no practical definition. (Ditto for equity.)
  2. Incorporate measurements for severity of flooding and amount of damage. These really define worst.
  3. Prioritize critical infrastructure such as bridges whose loss can jeopardize the economic vitality of the region.
  4. Include partnership funds. They help stretch flood-mitigation tax dollars by almost a third. Even if people sometimes must wait longer to line up partner funding, partner funding helps more people in the long run.
  5. Acknowledge that HUD dollars go disproportionately and preferentially to Low-to-Moderate Income neighborhoods.
  6. Publish level-of-service data, used in the “existing conditions” calculation, for all streams in the county. It seems to be secret. I’ve been trying to get it for a year. Keeping it secret undermines trust in government. How do we know money is really going to the areas with the greatest risk?
  7. Publish results of the new prioritization index periodically, so we can see which projects are being eliminated and why. And so we can understand why 18 of the 20 currently active capital improvement projects are in Precincts 1 and 2.
  8. Publish a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan similar to the City of Houston. Let people see what is coming, when, and for how much. That way we can hold HCFCD and Commissioners accountable. Plus, we can see their “formula” in action.
  9. Acknowledge where money has really gone historically.
  10. Be fair to all. The proposed formula is like playing cards with a stacked deck.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/7/23

1957 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.

Next Leg of San Jacinto West Fork Greenway Now Hike- and Bikeable

The second leg of the Houston Parks Board’s San Jacinto River West Fork Greenway is taking shape nicely. Contractors have apparently finished concrete work and landscaping. It can now be hiked and biked.

Route of San Jacinto West Fork Greenway

The first leg of the three-mile route starts near the entrance to River Grove Park at the south end of Woodland Hills Drive in Kingwood. It used existing residential streets and new trails to snake its way to the Forest Cove Community Center. Then construction paused until demolition of the flooded townhomes on Aqua Vista, Timberline, and Marina Drives finished.

The second leg (dark purple below) follows existing streets through the old townhome site. However, contractors narrowed the streets to one lane. That accommodates bicycle and foot traffic, but limits most vehicle access.

Route of West Fork Greenway between River Grove Park and Edgewater Park.

The newest portion of the trail now extends from the Community Center to Hamblen Road via Timberline Pass, Timberline Drive, Aqua Vista and Burning Tree Court. The last street terminates at Hamblen, just west of the old Forest Cove Golf Course.

A final leg will extend west to Precinct 3’s Edgewater Park, paralleling Hamblen Road, but south of it (light purple).

Timing and Connections

Timing for the final leg has not yet been determined. Houston Parks Board eventually hopes to connect multiple waterways and adjacent hike and bike trail systems in the northern part of Harris County. 

For instance, this project will connect to the Spring Creek Greenway across the old US 59 pedestrian bridge. When complete, it will create one of the longest urban hike-and-bike trail networks in the United States.

Photos of Newest Leg of West Fork Greenway

The pictures below, taken on 1/3/23, show the state of the most recent construction.

Landscaping along new trail (formerly part of Aqua Vista Drive. The trail is half the width of the old street. It should accommodate both hikers and bikers.
Construction on Marina Drive and Timberline Pass. Forest Cove Community Center and Pool in upper left. Looking East.
Reverse angle. Looking south from over Forest Cove Pool.
Looking west from the former turnaround at the end of Aqua Vista.
Facing west at trail connecting old Forest Cove townhome complex with Burning Tree Court. The latter turns north (right) and terminates at Hamblen Road.

More News to Follow When Plans Become Clear

The Parks Board plans to use some of the areas in the old townhome complex for parking. The fate of other streets remains unclear. Likewise, Harris County Precinct 3 has not yet announced plans for the long-awaited Edgewater Park. Harris County Flood Control District which bought out the townhome properties said it plans only to let the area return to green space.

Edgewater Park and this trail were one of the first good things to come out of Harvey. I just hope I live long enough to see them finished! Eventually, they will make a tremendous community asset.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/6/23

1956 days after Hurricane Harvey

Woodridge Village Excavation Rate Ticks Up

The excavation rate of a sixth detention pond on Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) Woodridge Village property increased during the last month of 2022. That brought the total for the year to 73,745 cubic yards of soil removed under Sprint Sand and Gravel’s Excavation and Removal (E&R) Contract.

The reported total at the end of November was 67,529 cubic yards. That means the total for December was 6,216 cubic yards, the most for any month since last July. Compare the previous totals below.

Woodridge Village E&R totals
Weekly totals through November

Excavation under E&R contracts varies depending on demand for fill dirt. Sprint’s contract with Harris County Flood Control District lets it take dirt basically for free and then sell the dirt on the open market to make its money.

The work could more than double the stormwater detention capacity on the site that flooded Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest twice in 2019.

According to HCFCD, E&R agreements provide an opportunity for making progress in advance of future basin construction. These agreements essentially provide a head start in the excavation process before the detention basin is designed and constructed. In these agreements, an excavation company agrees to remove soil from a basin site during an agreed upon time period for minimal compensation. This is a cost-effective way for the material to be removed and it also provides significant savings by minimizing trucking and disposal fees. 

Pictures Taken 1/03/23

Looking west toward the site entrance on Woodland Hills Drive.
Contractors appear to be leaving some existing concrete culverts in place that will allow the new pond to drain into the old one at the top of frame.
Looking NE. The pond could eventually extend as far as the grove of trees in the distance.

Part of a Bigger Package of Improvements

Last month, HCFCD held a virtual public meeting to describe how this would eventually contribute to flood-risk reduction on Taylor Gully.

HCFCD expects that Sprint will excavate the full 500,000 cubic yards stipulated in their contract. That will expand the current stormwater detention capacity by 166%. The property only needed 40% more to meet Atlas-14 requirements. So this will provide a considerable margin of safety.

Other improvements include:

  • A concrete-lined, low-flow channel within the existing channel to expand conveyance from 350 feet downstream of Creek Manor Drive to 1500 feet downstream of Mills Branch Drive. The concrete portion would be four feet deep and 20 feet wide.
  • A new clear-span bridge at Rustling Elms to replace the current bridge over two culverts.
Taylor Gully/Woodridge Village
Scope of preliminary engineering project

For more details and diagrams, see this post on the preliminary engineering recommendations.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/5/23

1955 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 1204 since Imelda

Laurel Springs RV Resort Plans Opening This Month

According to its new website, the controversial Laurel Springs RV Resort near Lakewood Cove plans opening in January 2023. Recent aerial photos show workers putting the finishing touches on the “resort.” Even though the City of Houston permitted 182 spaces, the website advertises 226.

The website also advertises “long-term” stays, something Humble ISD taxpayers expressed concerns about. The concern had to do with RV owners enrolling their children in Humble ISD schools without paying their fair share of taxes. Long-term RV rates start as low as $665 per month. However, Apartments.com lists apartments throughout the Kingwood area with monthly rents starting hundreds of dollars higher.

Photos Taken January 3, 2023

The photos below show the status of construction on 1/3/2023. The portion closest to camera in the first shot, looks ready to go. But workers are still scurrying about the northern portion of the site.

Looking N from southern end of property. Plans for the park claimed only 66% impervious cover.
Last remaining dirt work in NW corner of detention pond.
That triangular space comprises the resort’s dog park. Dachshunds and chihuahuas fit in the narrow end.
Trees planted just before Christmas will soon brush up against utility wires.
Water still ponds in the area below where the resort buried pipes through the dike.

Last year, I caught the Resort on camera discharging silty stormwater into the wetlands of Harris County’s Precinct 3 Edgewater Park. The County Attorney sent a cease-and-desist letter to the owners. And the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said the discharge was not allowed by its permit.

The permit plans stipulate that the site’s detention basin must have a dry bottom within 48 hours of a storm. It hasn’t had a dry bottom in quite a while.

The resort’s website calls the basin a “retention pond.” Retention ponds are designed to hold water permanently.

But the dry bottom was a concession to FAA rules designed to discourage waterfowl from congregating near airports. This site hasn’t been dry in a long time. Maybe air safety is no longer a concern. The FAA reported only 166 bird strikes at Bush Intercontinental last year.

Meanwhile, the Resort’s detention basin/retention pond is half the size required by current regulations.

“Join the Adventure”

The Resort’s new typo-plagued website has about as much attention to detail as its permit applications did. RV owners can only hope they do better with invoices. See below.

Screen capture from home page on 1/4/23. Sticky keyboard? Or did they hire Tony the Tiger as their copywriter? It’s Grrrreat!

A scrolling banner on the website trumpets the Resort’s marketing theme – “Join the Adventure.” It promises to be exactly that – an adventure…right next to the railroad tracks, which the owners forgot to mention.

Posted by Bob on 1/4/23

1954 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.

240 Apartments, 49 Garden Homes Going Up on West Lake Houston Parkway

After more than eight months of clearing, grading and drainage prep, The Residences at Kingwood, a 19.7 acre apartment complex on West Lake Houston Parkway between Upper Lake Drive and Kings Park Way, is finally under construction. The developer’s website says the complex will feature 240 Garden Apartments and 49 Townhomes.

The photos below show that carpenters have started framing buildings on the south end of the property and are working their way north.

First Photos of New Year

All photos below were taken on 1/3/2023, one day after a quarter-inch rain.

Looking S. West Lake Houston Parkway on right. Upper Lake Drive in lower right.
Closer shot of construction at south end of property.
Detention basin seems to be functioning. Harris County specifies a minimum detention rate of .65 acre feet per acre for sites this large. 

Although neighbors have complained of mud on West Lake Houston Parkway and surrounding streets, I have received no complaints of flooding yet.

Location

The map below shows the location of two parcels on West Lake Houston Parkway that comprise the new development. They are approximately halfway between the West Fork at the top of the frame and FM1960 at the bottom.

West Lake Houston Parkway
From HCAD.
The cul-de-sac at the south end of the property (right)will be called Kings River Commercial Drive.

About the Developer and Project

The developer, High Street Residential, is a wholly-owned operating subsidiary of Trammell Crow Company.” In the last 15 years, High Street Residential has completed more than $2.7 billion with a current pipeline of more than 4,500 units.

Trammell Crow Company has been the nation’s #1-ranked commercial developer for nine traight years. On the residential side, High Street has climbed to #3.

The Residences at Kingwood will offer homes ranging in size from one to three bedrooms and will feature stainless steel appliances, in-unit washers and dryers, custom cabinetry, and nine-foot ceiling heights. Select units will also offer walk-in closets, private outdoor space, and one- or two-car garages. The development will feature:

  • A resort-style pool
  • Grilling areas
  • Fitness center with a yoga & Pilates studio, and an outdoor workout area
  • Resident lounge with an art gallery and an entertaining kitchen, along with a conferencing and remote-work suite
  • Pet grooming center
  • On-site storage
  • Putting green, bocce courts, pickle ball court
  • Multiple outdoor dining areas
  • Connection to the Kingwood Greenbelt trail system. 

For more information and project updates, visit www.ResidencesatKingwood.com.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/3/2023

1953 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Biden Changes Trump’s Changes to Water Regulations

The Associated Press reported on December 30, 2021, that the Biden administration had reversed Trump-era changes to water regulations, which themselves were changes to Obama regulations and other previous administrations. This is getting to be like a tennis match. “Advantage Downstream.”

The EPA regulations have changed numerous times over the years. Enforcement changes, too.

The problem: Changes affect both water quality downstream and land development upstream. That’s why the rules change so often. Competing interests! Public health and safety vs. economic expansion.

Rivers Before the EPA and Clean Water Act

About two thirds of Americans alive today had not yet been born when Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River caught fire in 1969. So they have no memory of the event that helped give birth to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970.

The Cuyahoga River caught fire a total of 13 times dating back to 1868. It is still rated one of the most polluted rivers in America by almost every group that compiles lists. Photo: Cleveland State University Library.

Shortly after its founding, the EPA dispatched photographers all around the country to document environmental abuses.

The photographers took about 81,000 images, more than 20,000 of which were archived. At least 15,000 have been digitized by the National Archives. They form a time capsule showing the way things were.

Warning: These images are disturbing…for people on both sides of the political net.

Why the Changes This Time?

The AP article by Jim Salter and Michael Phillis says, “The Trump-era rule, finalized in 2020, was long sought by builders, oil and gas developers, farmers and others who complained about federal overreach that they said stretched into gullies, creeks and ravines on farmland and other private property.”

However, the writers continued, “…the Trump rule allowed businesses to dump pollutants into unprotected waterways and fill in some wetlands, threatening public water supplies downstream and harming wildlife and habitat.”

They quoted Kelly Moser, Senior Attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Clean Water Defense Initiative. She said, “Today, the Biden administration restored needed clean water protections so that our nation’s waters are guarded against pollution for fishing, swimming, and as sources of drinking water.”

At Issue: Definition of “Waters of the U.S.”

Meanwhile, courts at various levels are still pondering the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” At issue: How far up in the branching structure of a river may the government enforce regulations? As far as it’s navigable? One level up from that? Two? Three? Infinitely? And do the rules apply to desert areas the same way they do to subtropical areas like SE Texas?

The Biden administration decision is a setback for various industries. It broadens which wetlands, streams and rivers can be regulated under the Clean Water Act.

But given the impacts to public health and the immense economic interests at stake, this won’t be the last time we see the rules change. An army of lobbyists is likely mobilizing right now.

Local Impact

Several developments in the Lake Houston Area contained wetlands affected regulation changes. Consider, for instance, the case of Woodridge Village. The Army Corps ruled that it contained wetlands, but that the wetlands didn’t fall under their jurisdiction because of rules in effect at the time. So there was no violation of the Clean Water Act. Hundreds of homes in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest flooded, partially as a result of the environmental destruction.

In this area, sediment pollution is one of our most serious concerns. We’ve seen repeated and almost constant releases into the West Fork from 20-square miles of sand mines immediately upstream from us.

Confluence of Spring Creek and West Fork by 59 Bridge. TCEQ found that Liberty Mines discharged 56 million gallons of white waste water into the West Fork.
Repeated and multiple breaches at Triple PG mine discharged sediment-laden water directly into Caney Creek. This one lasted for months.

Searching on the word “breach” in ReduceFlooding.com pulls up 116 stories, many of which show multiple breaches.

But mining isn’t the only upstream issue at stake. So is sediment pollution from new development.

Drainage ditch in Artavia. March 2020 in West Fork watershed
Eroding ditch in Colony Ridge (East Fork Watershed) due to lack of backslope interceptor systems and grass.

Making Private Expenses a Public Cost

The EPA lists sediment as the most common pollutant in rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs. It has contributed to flooding thousands of homes in the Lake Houston Area.

West Fork mouth bar almost totally blocked the river where it meets Lake Houston.
East Fork Mouth Bar grew 4000 feet in two years between Harvey and Imelda.

Both mouth bars above have since been dredged at great public expense, but abuses continue. I just wish we could all find a way to live together. This should not be a case of health and safety vs. economic development. We need all three for communities to prosper.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/2/23

1952 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.

Government Again Moves for Summary Judgment In Addicks-Barker Downstream Cases

On November 21, 2022, the U.S. Government filed a 70-page motion for a summary judgment in the Addicks-Barker Downstream Cases. In 2020, Judge Loren A. Smith dismissed the downstream cases, ruling that the plaintiffs had no right to sue the government for “taking” their property in what he called a 2,000-year storm. However, in June 2022, a federal appeals court reversed Judge Loren’s decision, re-opening the case. The appeals court ruled on a number of procedural issues and remanded the case back to Loren’s court for further consideration.

Both appellants and the government had urged the appeals court to order a summary judgment. But the appeals court declined. It noted that “due to the fact-intensive nature of takings cases, summary judgment should not be granted precipitously.”

Now three years later, the parties are again asking for summary judgement. The government has already filed its motion and the plaintiffs have until January 10, 2023, to respond with their own cross-motion.

Government Claims

In summary, the government contends that the Addicks and Barker dams:

  • Historically prevented far more damage ($16.5 billion through 2016) than the release of water during Harvey caused
  • Reduced plaintiff’s level of flooding by up to 7-8 feet
  • Did not “cause” – in a legal sense – the plaintiffs’ flooding

Further, the government contends that plaintiffs’ claims are based on a single, extraordinary, catastrophic event and any action undertaken by the Corps during the event does not constitute a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment.

Dams Modified in Response to Downstream Development

The government brief contains an illuminating historical discussion (starting on Page 23) of how the Army Corps modified the release capacity of the dams over the years in response to downstream development. Both dams release water through concrete box culverts, some of which have been gated to help the Corps reduce discharges.

The original design from the 1930s included a downstream channel with a capacity of approximately 18,000 cubic feet per second (CFS), and 4 ungated and 1 gated outlets on each dam. They permitted a combined, uncontrolled discharge of floodwater into Buffalo Bayou of approximately 15,700 cfs.

In 1948, the Corps constructed gates on two additional conduits on each dam so that three of the five conduits were gated. This design reduced the combined uncontrolled discharge into Buffalo Bayou to approximately 7,900 cfs, which was considered at that time to be the capacity of that channel.

“However, increasing urban development along Buffalo Bayou in the 1940s and 1950s created a potential flood threat from uncontrolled releases at that level,” says the motion.

The Corps then added gates to additional conduits in the early 1960s to provide more protection to developing downstream areas. With all conduits gated, “[t]he total of all releases, plus local runoff downstream of the dams, would start at 4,000 cfs and be gradually increased to 6,000 cfs except under emergency conditions.”

Later, the motion states, “Continued residential development along Buffalo Bayou downstream of the reservoirs resulted in channel encroachment and by late 1970, water flows in excess of 3,000 cfs in the unimproved channel below the dams would begin to threaten the first floor elevations of some residences, and release rates of 2,500 to 2,800 cfs would produce nuisance type flooding of flower beds, trees and lawns in some areas along Buffalo Bayou and its tributaries.”

Causation Argument

Plaintiffs claimed that the opening of the dams’ gates during Harvey caused their flooding. But the government argues that the plaintiffs must demonstrate what would have happened if the government had not acted at all. In other words, the government argues that “causation” must be “based on the entirety of government actions.” See Page 26. That includes construction of the dams! And without them, the government says on Page 42, “properties along Buffalo Bayou would have experienced much greater flooding.”

“Plaintiffs have not alleged—let alone identified any evidence to prove—that their properties experienced more flooding than they would have experienced if the Corps had never constructed the Project, their claims fail,” the government argues.

Doctrine of Relative Benefits

The government also invokes a legal principle called the “relative benefits doctrine.” Under the relative benefits doctrine, “[e]ven if a causal relationship exists between the Government’s action and plaintiff’s damage . . . no liability attaches if the Government’s conduct bestowed more benefit than detriment on plaintiff’s property.”

The motion then alleges that the benefits to downstream properties far outweigh the Harvey-related damages. A 2016 study the government quotes alleges the dams reduced/avoided damages to downstream properties by $16.5 billion. That total is updated annually and based on a with/without the dams comparison.

Comparison of Peak Inflows/Outflows

The government motion cites the following statistics of the two reservoirs during Harvey:

  • Addicks peak inflow: 70,000 cfs
  • Addicks peak release: 6,500 cfs or 9.3% of the peak inflow.
  • Barker peak inflow: 77,000 cfs,
  • Barker peak outflow: 4,821 cfs or 6.3% of the peak inflow.

Peak flow rates downstream along Buffalo Bayou ranged from 13,800 cfs to 36,400 cfs. The government alleges that at those levels, plaintiffs properties would flooded regardless of discharge from the dams. The government also alleges that without the dams, flooding in Piney Point would have been 7 to 8 feet higher.

The Corps calculated after Harvey that the dams prevented 30,000 structures from flooding.

Government Motion for Summary Judgement, Page 57

In this section of the motion, government lawyers point out that plaintiffs’ properties would have flooded in previous floods such as Tax Day and Memorial Day had it not been for the dams.

What Constitutes a Taking?

In conclusion, the government argues that the flooding during Harvey did not constitute a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment.

  1. It was not intended.
  2. It resulted from an extreme hurricane with unprecedented rainfall.
  3. The government’s role in any flooding of downstream properties was secondary to the severe rainfall.
  4. The dams were designed and built decades before the plaintiffs’ properties.
  5. Releases during Harvey were designed to protect the integrity of the dam.
  6. Flooding of plaintiffs’ property is not frequent enough to rise to the level of a taking.
  7. The failure of government to take certain actions alleged by plaintiffs would constitute a tort a most, not a taking.

A tort is a failure to take action that results in damage to someone.

To see the exact text of the full 70-page motion, click here.

I will let you know how the plaintiffs’ lawyers respond later this month.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/1/2023

1951 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Is Precipitation Increasing with Temperature?

Data provided by the National Weather Service (NWS) shows that precipitation appears to be increasing with temperature in Houston and Harris County. A reader recently asked whether there was a correlation. The hypothesis: in this climate, if temperature increases, then so will evaporation and rainfall. Eighty to 130 years worth of data at different locations show both variables trending up. But most scientists would consider the coefficient of correlation weak to non-existent.

Behind the Theory

The theory is plausible from several perspectives.

  • Warm air holds more moisture than cool air. Warm air also rises. As it cools at higher altitudes, precipitation forms. Think “afternoon thunderstorms on hot summer days.”
  • Precipitation also forms when warm and cool fronts collide.
  • It often forms when warm moisture-laden air streams in from the Gulf.
  • Hurricanes form in the hottest parts of the year.
Distribution of hurricanes by month during the last 100 years.

But the question concerned correlation, not causation.

Other outside factors could reduce precipitation, such as droughts triggered by changes in Pacific Ocean currents. Those who remember the drought from 2011 to 2014 may also remember how hot it was.

But looking at 80 to 130 years of data highlights long-term climate trends. That “evens out” the influence of individual events.

Qualifiers

NWS plotted all available historical data for precipitation and temperature on line graphs and then superimposed trend lines. The graphs show official data from two sources: Houston-Hobby Airport and the “City of Houston.”

I put City of Houston in quotes because the the official City-of-Houston data is currently collected at Bush Intercontinental Airport. But the location has bounced around. So the “City” isn’t one location, but many:

  • Cotton Station (July 1881 – September 1909)
  • Stewart Building at Preston and Fannin (September 1909 – February 1926)
  • Shell Building at Texas and Fannin (March 1926 – August 1938)
  • Federal Building at Franklin and Fannin (August 1938 – May 1969)
  • Intercontinental Airport (June 1969 – Present)

We have less data for Houston-Hobby because Hobby Airport didn’t exist until 1927. That’s when someone turned a 600-acre pasture into a landing field. The City of Houston purchased the field in 1937 and expanded it.

With those qualifiers, see the charts below. Both temperature and rainfall vary from year to year. But rainfall shows extreme variance. Regardless, in all four graphs the trend lines slowly increase.

Houston-Hobby Airport

Mean temps at Hobby increased from 69 to 73 degrees – a 4 degree increase between 1931 and 2022.
During roughly the same time period, precipitation increased approximately 9 inches from about 48 to 57 inches. Also notice the extreme range – from less than 30 to more than 80 inches.

City of Houston Data

The City of Houston data covers a wider time period. Within that, the location varied as noted above. The big jump was from downtown to Bush Intercontinental Airport in 1969. Generally speaking, as you go farther north from the coast, precipitation decreases. But the difference is less than an inch. Atlas 14 shows that a 100-year, 24-hour storm is 17.6 inches at Hobby, 17 inches downtown, and 16.9 inches at Intercontinental.

City data indicates mean temp has increased roughly 4 degrees in last 120 years.
During roughly the same years, precipitation increased about 5-6 inches. Here, the range was even more extreme. From less than 20 inches to 80 – a 4X difference.

So the change in where the City collects official data actually worked against the hypothesis. And it shows.

Summary of Trend Differences

Summarizing the key differences:

  • As the temp trend line increased 4 degrees at Hobby, precipitation increased 9 inches.
  • As temp increased 4 degrees at various City locations, precipitation increased 6 inches.

Low Coefficient of Correlation

Jimmy Fowler of the National Weather Service’s Houston/Galveston office calculated the coefficients of correlation between the two series of data at each location.

For Hobby, the coefficient of correlation is only .03. The City’s is slightly higher at .11.

Jimmy Fowler, Meteorologist, National Weather Service

For those who didn’t study statistics in college, the coefficient of correlation tells you how much one variable changes in response to another.

  • A perfect positive correlation is 1.0. Example: population growth and food consumption.
  • A perfect negative correlation is -1. Example: hours worked and free time.

In both cases, one unit of change in the first variable accounts for an equal unit of change in the second. But most correlations fall between the two extremes with different degrees of strength.

The chart below indicates how scientists would characterize correlation coefficients of .03 and .11. Both are considered “very weak” or having “no association.”

correlation strength
By Wayne W. LaMorte, MD, PhD, MPH, from the Boston University School of Public Health website.

Fit of Trend Lines to Data

So, if the trends are all up, why is the co-efficient of correlation so low? Part of the answer has to do with those R2 (R squared) values you see at the bottom of the charts. They show the data doesn’t conform to the trend lines very well. Temperature fits moderately well. But precipitation shows extreme variance.

A perfect fit (1.0) would show all the data points on the line. As a rule of thumb, 0.8 (80%) or higher is considered a good fit. But the R2 values in these trend lines range from 0.03 to 0.5.

Conclusion

You can read into this data whatever you want depending on your point of view. Climate change advocates might see proof in the consistent slope of the trend lines that warming temperatures and more precipitation are related. A deeper dig into the data reveals the correlation is weak at best and possibly non-existent. Other factors may be at play and influencing the data.

To demonstrate causation, you need to show a directional relationship with no alternative explanations. But with weather, you have a multitude of alternative explanations.

Remember that weather is global and that we looked only at Houston in this instance.

However, a friend who traded weather-related derivatives before retirement tracked hundreds of temperature sites. He found they all trended warmer over time. But he believed the variance resulted primarily from changes in surrounding ground cover, i.e., replacement of natural ground cover with concrete – also known as the urban heat island effect.

He also tracked variance to changes in measurement locations (as with Houston).

Finally, remember that some of the hottest and coldest places on earth get very little precipitation. The Sahara and the North and South Poles are all considered deserts based of the amount of precipitation they get.

Net: I find the similarities in the graphs interesting enough to keep digging. As my friend suggested, it would be interesting to find the coefficient of correlation between population growth and temperature change. I won’t leap to any generalizations at this point.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/30/2022 with thanks to Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist and Jimmy Fowler of the National Weather Service.

1949 Days since Hurricane Harvey