Tag Archive for: Caney Creek

San Jacinto Flood Planning Group Releases Draft Recommendations

The Texas Water Development Board’s Region 6 San Jacinto Flood Planning Group has released the first draft of its recommendations. You can download the full 295-page Volume One document here (executive summary and all chapters). But the vast majority of the document focuses on methodology and research design. For convenience, I’ve extracted Chapter 5, the 35-pages that discuss recommendations, and summarized them below.

The draft recommendations include:

  • Almost $200 million of additional studies, analysis, models and mapping
  • $27.9 billion in projects.

The projects spread throughout the entire watershed. But here, I’ll focus on those in the northern portion of Harris and the southern portion of Montgomery Counties for brevity.

Halls Bayou

The Flood Planning Group recommends five projects in Halls Bayou totaling $99.65 million, all in collaboration with Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD). They include:

  • Channel conveyance Improvements on several tributaries
  • Stormwater detention improvements near Hardy West
  • Stormwater detention and channel conveyance improvements along the main stem.

These projects had a positive 1.46 Benefit/Cost Ratio PLUS additional community benefits hard to quantify. They would remove the floodplain from more than 3,000 structures and benefit more than 9,300 people. See pages 5-14 through 5-16.

White Oak Bayou

The Flood Planning Group recommends five channel improvement and detention basin projects for $120 million along White Oak Bayou. The flood planning group determined a benefit/cost ratio of .80 for these projects, meaning costs exceeded benefits. Regardless, they feel there are many community benefits that cannot be quantified. They include removing flood risk from seven miles of roads. See pages 5-15 through 5/18.

Greens Bayou

Greens Bayou would receive $120 million of improvements (construction costs only). They include projects in Fountainview Sections 1 & 2, Castlewood Sections 3 & 4, North Forest, Mid-Reach Greens, Parkland Estates, and Humble Road Place.

A bypass channel under the railroad that parallels US 59 could reduce upstream water surface elevations during extreme events. And a mitigation basin downstream would absorb any adverse impacts in Parkland Estates and Humble Road Place from the bypass channel.

The BCR for all Greens Bayou improvements equals 2.13, meaning benefits double costs. More than 20,000 individuals and 2,000 structures would benefit. See pages 5-18 through 5-20.

San Jacinto River

The Flood Planning Group recommends numerous projects associated with the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto River and their tributaries. It based these recommendations on the San Jacinto River Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan and a 2018 LiDAR study. See pages 5-21 through 5-31.

Caney Creek

Recommendations include channelizing part of Caney Creek and offsetting that with two dry-dam detention basins: one at FM1097 and the other at SH105. Together, they would store more than 40,000 acre feet of stormwater. That’s enough to hold a foot of stormwater falling across 62.5 square miles! Channelization would occur near the confluence of Caney Creek with the East Fork. That’s near Lake Houston and East End Parks. The projects would remove 42 miles of roadway and 2,422 structures from the 1% annual chance floodplain.

East Fork

A 48-ft tall concrete dam would create a 1.60-mile-long earthen impoundment that captures runoff from Winters Bayou. The dry dam would have five reinforced 10×10 concrete culverts and twin 300′ backup spillways. It would cover almost 2,500 acres and hold 45,000 acre feet of floodwater. That’s enough to hold a foot of stormwater falling over 28.8 square miles.

Lake Creek

Lake Creek would receive some channelization and two dry-dam detention basins holding 37,250 acre feet of storage, enough to hold a foot of stormwater falling over 58 square miles.

Peach Creek

Recommendations also call for partial channelization and two dry-dam detention basins along Peach Creek.

  • The Walker Detention basin would occupy 1,200 acres, hold 36,000 acre feet of stormwater, and cost $200 million.
  • The SH105 Detention basin would occupy 3,000 acres, hold 36,000 acre feet, and cost $400 million.
  • The total 72,000 acre feet of capacity would hold a foot of stormwater falling over 112.5 square miles.
Spring Creek

This project would channelize 15.7 miles of stream at I-45 and through the Woodlands. It would also create two detention basins on Birch and Walnut Creek tributaries to help reduce flood risk downstream. Together, the projects would create more than 35,000 acre feet of floodwater storage capacity, enough to hold a foot of rain falling over 54.8 square miles. The report did not break out the costs.

West Fork

The Flood Planning Group recommends widening and channelizing 5.7 miles of the West Fork near Highway 242. They would create 12,400 acre feet of mitigation storage by widening the river to 750 feet and creating a 2-foot bench above the stream bed. That would involve shaving down the floodplain to 2 feet above the waterline.

Farther downstream, in the Kingwood Area, they would also increase conveyance by widening a 5-mile-long stretch of the West Fork with 3,500-foot wide of benching. This project would require 923 acre-feet of mitigation storage

That would increase total floodwater storage in both locations by 13,423 feet – enough to hold a foot of rain falling across 20.9 square miles.

Is It Enough?

If all these detention basins get built, they could hold a foot of stormwater falling over 337.5 square miles upstream from Kingwood. That’s a lot. In conjunction with other strategies such as dredging and adding more floodgates to the Lake Houston dam, they should help reduce flood risk in the Lake Houston Area … if they aren’t negated elsewhere.

Other portions of the recommendations stress the need for additional strategies. They include but are not limited to:

  • A regional approach to flood mitigation
  • Floodplain preservation
  • Natural solutions
  • Minimum building setbacks
  • More stringent building codes
  • Better drainage regulations
  • Uniform regulations across the watershed
  • Adoption of standards for determining “no adverse impact”

Also note, that these recommendations would take decades to implement and that many would need to be implemented in a specific order. For instance, the State would need to build detention upstream before widening channels downstream. One helps mitigate the other. Without that, you could help people upstream, but hurt people downstream. That flies in the face of HCFCD principles.

To see the locations of all these streams and how much water they conveyed during Harvey, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/8/22

1805 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The Hand of Sand Miners on the San Jacinto

The hand of sand miners weighs heavily on the San Jacinto watershed. Not all miners. But many.

While exploring the river basin by helicopter last week, the contrast between two scenes struck me: 1) The natural blanket of green in Lake Houston Wilderness Park. 2) Sand mines that lined the banks of the East and West Forks for miles.

The trees and natural wetlands inhibit floods. They slow floodwaters down, hold them back during heavy rains, and reduce erosion. The sand mines do not. They may provide some floodwater detention, but the pits are often filled to the brim and their dikes often break.

How you treat the land determines how it treats you. Especially during floods. This aerial photo essay shows how the San Jacinto River Basin used to look and how it looks today.

Lake Houston Wilderness Park

Peach and Caney Creeks border Lake Houston Wilderness Park on the west. The San Jacinto East Fork borders it on the east. The shot below represents the way the whole Lake Houston area used to be.

Looking across the 5000 acres of Lake Houston Wilderness Park – the largest urban nature park in America.

Compare That With These Shots

This first provides a direct comparison.

Sand mine on Caney Creek. Lake Houston Wilderness Park in upper right.

Below, note the difference in water levels between the creek and mine. No doubt, you also noticed a difference in water color. That bright blue/green in the mine water likely comes from high chloride levels.

Site of previous breach from mine into Caney Creek, the subject of a million-dollar lawsuit by the TCEQ and the Texas Attorney General.

More Mine Photos from West Fork

I’ll provide five more shots here, all from the West Fork San Jacinto. They represent more than 500 similar shots I took on 7/22/22.

No Swimming

When I see all this environmental degradation, my mind starts swimming – despite the scary water.

  • How much sediment gets swept downstream in floods?
  • Can this land ever return to productive use?
  • Do other cities allow mining in urban environments upstream from their water sources?
  • What effect does mining have on the water quality in Lake Houston?
  • What percentage of our water bills goes to cleaning up this water?
  • Why doesn’t Texas have performance bonds that ensure sand miners leave the land in habitable shape?

The sand makes concrete. It supports growth. But is all growth good?

  • Is growth in one area at the expense of public safety in another worthwhile?
  • Should we limit the concentration of mines in an area?
  • Why do mines expect the public to pay their cleanup and reclamation costs?
  • Is it safe to build mines below a dam that releases enough water during floods to break the mines’ dikes?
  • Are there no alternatives?

Cycle Continues

New Segment H of the Grand Parkway cutting east through forests will attract more subdivisions that require more sand for more concrete.

I encourage rebuttals from any mine owner who wishes to address these questions.

Posted by Bob Rehak on July 27, 2022

1793 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.

Floodwaters Converging Downstream on Lake Houston

As of Monday morning, the threat to Lake Conroe had passed, but now floodwaters from the rain soaked northwestern portion of the region are converging on Lake Houston. Here’s a roundup of what’s happening where.

Lake Conroe Going Down

The San Jacinto River Authority reduced its discharge rate to from 9275 cubic feet per second (CFS) to 8120 CFS as the level of Lake Conroe continued to recede, but the West Fork came out of its banks at US 59. The West Fork also began flooding Kingwood’s River Grove Park and the abandoned Noxxe Oil Fields between the river and the Forest Cove Little League Fields.

As of 5:09 pm on 5/3/2021

Lake Conroe Re-Opening With Caution

The SJRA issued a press release at 10:15 am. stating that Lake Conroe will reopen to normal lake traffic at noon Monday, May 3. However, boaters are still urged to use extreme caution due to floating debris and submerged objects that may not be fully visible. With submerged bulkheads, lake area residents should also be cautious of electrical outlets and equipment coming into contact with water.

SJRA is currently releasing water from the Lake Conroe dam to gradually lower the water level back to conservation pool of 201’, but SJRA must strike a balance between upstream recovery and downstream danger. For real-time information on Lake Conroe levels, releases, rainfall totals, or stream flows visit www.sjra.net. 

SJRA clarified that it intends to return Lake Conroe to 200 until June 1 per its seasonal lake lowering policy as soon as emergency operations restore it to 201. Normally, SJRA would begin recapture on June 1, not May 1. The seasonal release rate is much lower than the current rate.

Floodwaters Converging Toward South and East

Meanwhile, the glut of rainfall that inundated the northwest portions of Houston last week is starting to converging on areas downstream.

From Harris County Flood Warning System

As of 10:30 am, the San Jacinto East Fork is also way out of its banks at FM1485 and FM1485 is reportedly closed until Friday. That leaves one way in and out of Colony Ridge – FM2090.

The San Jacinto East Fork at FM2090 peaked overnight and is starting to recede, but is still out of its banks. The East Fork is not influenced by the Lake Conroe Dam, which is on the West Fork.

FM2090 at East Fork near Plum Grove on May 3, 2021 at noon.

FM2090 is still open, but Plum Grove resident Michael Shrader reported a steady line of traffic trying to get out of Colony Ridge up to 11:30 PM Sunday night. This underscores the need to develop alternate evacuation routes for the fast growing subdivision.

Meanwhile, the flood threat is receding at Peach Creek and FM2090.

Caney Creek at FM2090 is getting back within its banks.

And the West Fork, however, is still rising. By 9 a.m. (six hours after the hydrograph below) it was out of its banks at US59.

Flood Warning Remains in Effect for West Fork Until Further Notice

At 2:45 PM CDT Monday, the National Weather Service indicated the West Fork was 49.6 feet.

  • Flood stage is 49.3 feet.
  • Minor flooding is occurring and minor flooding is forecast.
  • Forecast…The river is expected to rise to a crest of 49.7 feet late this afternoon. It will then fall below flood stage late Wednesday morning.
  • Impact…At 49.3 feet, Minor lowland flooding begins in the vicinity of the gage. North side turnaround at US 59 begins to flood. Low points on Thelma Road, Aqua Vista Drive, and Riverview Drive begin to flood.
  • Flood History…This crest compares to a previous crest of 49.7 feet on 11/13/2008.

Here are photos taken along the West Fork this morning.

A young couple surveys rising floodwaters at the turnaround under the US59 bridge. The river bank is about a hundred yards in front of them at the sign in the background. This is the northwestern extent of Lake Houston.
A log jam forms from flood debris under the pedestrian bridge over the West Fork.
Floodwater had crept past the edge of Harris County’s Edgewater Park.
However traffic was still flowing on US59 in both directions.
About a third of the abandoned Noxxe Oil Field by the Forest Cove Little League fields was under water.
The soccer fields at River Grove were partially submerged. Yesterday they were mostly dry.
The boardwalk at River Grove was underwater except for the entrance.
There was no immediate threat to Kings Harbor though the dock was only inches above water.
As floodwaters work their way downstream, Lake Houston continues to rise. As of 5:30PM on 5/3, the lake is now up more than 1.6 feet and many docks are starting to go under.

No widespread flooding is expected in the Lake Houston Area. But people who live in low-lying areas or near the lake should take precautions.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/3/2021 based on information from NWS, HCFCD, Jeff Lindner, SJRA, Michael Shrader and personal observation

1343 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 592 since Imelda

Sand Miners Act Like They Own Our Rivers

Who owns our rivers? In Texas, the state owns navigable streams and rivers. People may not obstruct them, drive through them, dump waste in them, or mine them – at least not without a permit. But sand miners constantly violate those laws with only slap-on-the-wrist fines that amount to another “cost of doing business.” Meanwhile, you are the one who pays the price.

Navigable Streams/Rivers Protected for Public

What does “navigable” mean? This Texas Parks & Wildlife web page describes the concept of navigability “in fact” and “in statute.” There is no precise test for whether a stream is navigable in fact. One court observed that “[w]aters, which in their natural state are useful to the public for a considerable portion of the year are navigable.”

Another link to Texas Parks & Wildlife describes stream navigation law, specifically “Private Uses, Obstructions, Bridges and Dams.”

“Since the days of the civil law of Spain and Mexico, obstructions of navigable streams have been forbidden,” the page begins. “Nowadays the Texas Penal Code, the Texas Water Code, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code contain prohibitions against obstructing navigable streams, and the Texas Natural Resources Code forbids unauthorized private structures.”

The Commissioner of the General Land Office has some authority to grant easements for rights of way across navigable or state-owned stream beds.

No Right to Obstruct Navigation

However, in general, no one has the right to obstruct navigation or interfere with recreation.

Parks & Wildlife Code § 90.008 states regarding Public Access: “Except as otherwise allowed by law, a person may not restrict, obstruct, interfere with, or limit public recreational use of a protected freshwater area.”

The “protected freshwater area” referred to above is defined in § 90.001 to be “the portion of the bed, bottom, or bank of a stream navigable by statute up to the gradient boundary.” That gets complicated, but generally, it means between vegetated river banks. Sand bars in a river are normally considered part of the river bed even if above water.

Prohibition Against Motor Vehicles in Rivers

In addition to the restrictions on obstruction of navigability, landowners (and the public) are generally prohibited from operating a motor vehicle in the bed of a navigable waterway (Tex. Parks & Wild. Code Section 90.002).

Prohibition Against Unauthorized Discharges

Numerous posts on this website have dealt with the legal limitations on discharging wastewater from sand mines. In general, it’s supposed to contain no more suspended solids and be no more turbid than natural levels in water upstream from the mine.

The only problem with that concept: when you have 20 square miles of sand mines in a 20 mile stretch of the river, it’s hard to find unpolluted water. In effect, the procedure/standard continually “lowers the bar” as you move downstream.

Out of Sight Makes Blight

What sparked this inquiry? As I fly up and down the West Fork, I see things normally out of public view. Such as miners’ dredge lines stretched across the river, blocking navigation. Such as trucks crossing rivers. Such as mines flushing wastewater down the river. Such as mining the riverbed, without permits or paying appropriate taxes.

Few people ever see these violations. And that has led to boldness on the part of miners. There’s little chance they will be caught. It’s kind of like speeding through a barren desert.

I have no idea whether any of the miners involved in most of the incidents below bothered to obtain permits. I do know that in many cases they have not.

Here is a small sampling of what I see from the air, month after month.

Dredge Pipelines Blocking River

Dredge lines block river at Hallett truck crossing.
Dredge lines blocking river at Hanson Aggregates on West Fork in Conroe.

Vehicles Driving Through River

Truck crossing water at Hallett Mine.
Vehicle about to cross river toward Hanson Aggregates Mine on West Fork

Breaches Dump Wastewater into Drinking Water

Breach at Triple PG mine into Caney Creek that was left open for months, now subject of a lawsuit by the Attorney General.
Another breach left open for months at same mine.
Breach into West Fork at Hallett Mine. Hallett says this was their stormwater outfall. It was open for years, but is now closed.
Plugged breach at Hanson Aggregates on West Fork
Often mines don’t breach directly into a river where it would be obvious. Here, the LMI River Bend mine drains onto adjacent properties which then drain to the West Fork.
Same area as above but closer to breach.

Abandoned Without Reclamation

Equipment abandoned in floodway at abandoned West Fork mine. Note oily scum on water.
Another abandoned River Aggregates mine perpetually leaks turbid water into West Fork. Even though mine is not active, an adjacent Hallett pit often leaks into this one and causes it to overflow.

Pumping Wastewater to River and Adjoining Properties

Triple PG mine pumped wastewater over its dike onto adjoining properties while operating under an injunction. Note how water is higher outside the mine (strip of trees in middle of image) than inside.
Note pipe in dike at Hanson Aggregates mine at allows water to drain out into ditch that runs to river.
Pumping water over the dike at LMI’s Moorehead mine.
Pumping wastewater into West Fork at Hallett Mine
At site of former breach, note how pipes now carry wastewater to West Fork from Hallett Mine. Water experts say that intense blue color is either cyanobacteria or extremely high chloride content in water.

River Mining Without Permit

River mining without permit at Spring Wet Sand and Gravel on West Fork.

Effect on Water Quality

Looking north at confluence of West Fork (top) and Spring Creek by US59. West Fork usually runs murkier than Spring Creek right. Almost all area sand mines are on West Fork.
Same confluence as above but looking west. 56,000,000 gallons of white goop from Liberty Mine breach turned West Fork (right) white.

Contributing to Blockages and Flooding

Rivers transport sand and sediment naturally. But with 20 square miles of sand mines built in the floodway of the West Fork upstream from the Lake Houston Area, miners have increased the potential for erosion 33x compared to the average width of the river. The pictures below, taken shortly after Harvey, show the results.

A six foot high dune not present before Harvey occluded the West Fork by 90% according to the US Army Corps of Engineers. More than 600 homes and hundreds of businesses flooded upstream from this blockage.
West fork San Jacinto Mouth Bar after Harvey. Thousands of homes upstream from this blockage flooded during Harvey. It’s costing taxpayers more than $100 million to remove such blockages.

Please share this post with friends and family. It’s time to start getting ready for the next legislative session.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/30/2020

1005 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.

Triple PG Mine Appears to Violate Injunction

Triple P.G. Sand Development LLC appears to have violated provisions of an injunction by dredging before its trail and flooding neighboring properties with industrial waste water.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing the mine for discharging millions of gallons of process wastewater into the headwaters of Lake Houston last year. On November 25th, 2019, the mining company (operated by a cardiologist from Nacogdoches, Tx., Prabhakar Guniganti, MD), agreed to the terms of a temporary injunction. Within days, his employees apparently started violating it.

Terms of Injunction

In part, the injunction stipulated that the defendant shall:

  • Not conduct any dredging operations at the Facility.
  • Not engage in any operations at its Facility that discharge process wastewater, nor shall Defendant engage in any operations at the Facility that produce process wastewater that must be discharged off Defendant’s property without express prior approval from TCEQ.
  • Immediately and permanently cease and prevent all discharges of any Industrial Waste and/or Process Wastewater from the Facility into or adjacent to waters in the state.
  • Not allow any discharge of water that is in or has ever been in the Facility’s Dredge Ponds without the express prior approval of TCEQ.

Aerial Photos Show Potential Violations

The aerial photos below show that within eight days of agreeing to the injunction, the mine started pumping process wastewater OVER BERMS into a pit that then overflowed onto the property of adjoining landowners and lands adjacent to White Oak Creek.

Before showing you the photos, let me show you a satellite image that helps illustrate the relationship between the different elements of this report.

Overview of mine, area drainage and adjoining properties in Montgomery County.
Note the location of the mine’s stockpile in the satellite photo above for orientation when viewing the photos below.
Brownish creek to right of mine is Caney Creek.
Blue line shows approximate path of White Oak Creek through forest.
Red oval shows adjoining properties in area of interest.
Solid red line shows ditch around perimeter of mine.
Green lines show approximate locations of breaches in Attorney General’s lawsuit.

The lot lines are from the Montgomery County Appraisal District Web Site. The properties within the red oval belong to multiple people or trusts. Guniganti owns the large forested areas outside the red oval and west of the mine. However…

Water pumped out of the mine’s wastewater pond is now flooding neighboring properties within the red oval that he does not own. The mine also dug a ditch around the perimeter of its property (solid red line) through dense forest that channels the process wastewater toward White Oak Creek (solid blue line) and the wetlands along it. It’s not clear, though, whether the wastewater has actually entered the creek yet; the forest canopy limits visibility. Regardless, the injunction says they can’t discharge waste adjacent to waters of the state.

No Flooding That Lasted Months of Adjoining Properties Until Injunction

None of the historical satellite images in Google Earth dating back to 1989 show flooding in the red oval. Some of the properties in the red oval lie in the 100-year flood plain. However, there has been no widespread flooding in this area since Imelda on September 19, 2019.

Nor has there been prolonged flooding as far as I can determine. Photos taken of this exact location on 9/27/2019, ten days after Imelda, show no flooding of the adjacent properties. Likewise, the property was not flooded on 9/14/2017, two weeks after Harvey. I can find no evidence that this area has ever flooded for months before.

Looking south toward stockpile in background. Properties in the forested strip do not belong to Guniganti. On 9/27/2019, ten days after Imelda, they showed no flooding.

For months, I’ve been watching waste water build higher and higher in the area above until it overflowed the pit and invaded neighboring properties. That made me curious and prompted a review of thousands of aerial photos. Here’s what I found.

Photos Taken In November Before Injunction Show Neighboring Land Still Not Flooded

The neighboring properties were NOT flooded on November 4, 2019 (before the injunction). Notice the level of water in the foreground pit – higher than after Imelda, but still waaaay short of overflowing.

Think of the November 4th photo below as the “before” shot. Compare it with other photos below taken from December through March 2020.

Properties in the red oval are between the pit in the foreground and stockpile in background. Note level of water in pit. Photo taken November 4, 2019, looking south. The mine’s process waste water enters the pit immediately to the left of the trees.

After Injunction, Mine Starts PUMPING Waste Water OVER Dike

Eight days AFTER the injunction, on December 3, 2019, I flew over the mine again. I noticed that the mine was pumping water out of its main waste water pond and into the pit in the photo above. But the pit had not yet overflowed. Here’s how the pumping looked. (Note: You can even see the pumping from outer space if you zoom in on this area within Google Earth and look at the Dec. 1 satellite image.)

Close up of pump taken on 12/3/2019. The pumping operation can also be seen in Google Earth satellite photo dated 12/1/19.

On January 20, Pumping Continues From Different Location

I flew over the mine again on January 20, 2020; the pumping from and into the same pits continued – but from a different location.

Looking West. Notice the line running from the arc in the wastewater pond (diagonally from center to lower right).
Looking south. The same line dumps water into the trench (bottom left). The trench then carries the water south (toward the top of the frame) to fill the pond next to the stockpile and flood adjoining properties with waste water.
Looking SE. Here’s what it looked like closer up. Notice the waste water extending into the tree line and ending at the stockpile (upper right). The same pond that had plenty of excess capacity in September and November was now overflowing.
Looking south. This wider shot shows the flooding wastewater curled around the stockpile and headed south into the woods where White Oak Creek flows toward the mine.
Looking SE. Close up of the waste water turning the corner around the stockpile.

From where you lose visibility of the ditch under the forest canopy to White Oak Creek is about 80 yards according to Google Earth.

Floodwaters Even Higher on February 13

On my February 13, 2020, overflight, I captured the following images. They show the floodwater had risen even higher and backed up farther.

Looking SW. On February 13th, the flooding wastewater appeared even higher.
Looking SE. It still curled down the ditch on the west (right) side of the mine and flowed into the woods toward White Oak Creek

Water backed up so far, it even flowed into the utility corridor at the north end of the mine.

Looking East. Water in utility corridor at north end of mine on February 13, 2020

In March, Possible Dredging Observed, Still Flooding Neighboring Properties

In March, one of the first things I noticed was the dredge. The cutterhead, which had been elevated for months, was now DOWN. That usually indicates the dredge is working. And that’s something the injunction prohibited.

Dredge with its cutter head down usually means active dredging.

The pond next to the waste water pit overflowed onto neighboring properties even more. It came right up to the road. Note the huge difference between the levels of the two ponds below.

Note how high the water level is in the pond at the top of the frame compared to the waste pit at the bottom.
Looking SW. Floodwaters stretch into adjoining properties. Stockpile is behind trees in upper left.
Looking SE. Floodwater still fills the ditch running south along west side of stockpile.
Looking NW at wastewater flooding adjoining properties. Stockpile is in lower left.
Looking SE. Adjoining properties are in tree strip in front of stockpile. Notice waste water among the trees.
Looking north from over stockpile toward vast area flooded with waste water.
Looking west. Even more of utility corridor is flooded in March.

Water In, Water Out

Miners use water to clean silt out of the sand before shipment. Note the damp sand coming off the conveyor belts.
Looking south. A river of waste water is seen leaving the processing equipment on March 6, 2020.
Looking NW. The silt-laden waste water even forms a delta in the waste pit. Flooded properties are on the other side of the road that cuts diagonally through the frame from middle left to upper right.

So water is leaving the processing equipment and going into the waste pit. It has to come in from somewhere. But where? As you can see from the photos below, the supply lines for the processing equipment come from the dredge pond.

Looking west. Water goes into the processing equipment from the dredge pond.
Looking North. Wide shot showing dredge with cutterhead down and discharge pipe leading back to shore.

In the shot above, you can see that the lowest pond in the whole operation is the pond receiving ALL the waste water. Why is that?

The Big Questions and Some Possible Answers

So it appears that the mine is pumping water out of the dredge pit, into the waste pit, and finally into the surrounding forest. The big questions are these.

  • Why is the mine keeping the level of the water in the waste pit so low?
  • Why is the mine flooding the surrounding forest and neighboring properties with industrial waste water?
  • Is the waste water polluting White Oak Creek?

To hypothesize some answers to those questions, let’s look at two pictures: the first from February and the second from March.

Looking south. February 20, 2020. Miners have been removing sand from area with all the tracks in the center and the big pond at the lower left.

From this one photo, we can see that to avoid dredging (per the injunction), the miners have started surface mining. But the level of mining is getting down to a) the water table, and b) the level of the waste pit.

Looking NW. March 6, 2020. Three weeks later, mining is now BELOW level of water in the waste pit.

Note the differing levels of water in the forest (top) and waste pit (middle). Also note that the level of the surface mining has now gone far below the level of sediment in the waste pond.

From this photo (and others in the series) we can conjecture what happened. Please note: I have no proof of this. It is only conjecture.

Theory for the Discharge

I suspect that the mine realized that if it were to continue filling orders while it waited for trial on June 22, 2020, it would need to start surface mining AND mine below the level of water in the waste pit. So, I’m guessing they started lowering the level of the pond to keep mining as long as possible.

I’m also guessing that the terms of the injunction and heightened scrutiny by the TCEQ meant they could no longer make excuses about discharging water into the creek. So they discharged into the forest instead…most of which Guniganti owns except for that strip north of the stockpile. If the discharge drained into White Oak Creek deep in the forest, at least it wouldn’t be visible.

Is Discharge Reaching White Oak Creek?

Is the waste-water pollution reaching White Oak Creek? Because of the dense forest canopy, that’s impossible to determine from the air. One could only tell from the ground. And because Guniganti owns all the land around the mine (except for the properties in the red circle), the only way to determine that would be by trespassing. That makes it impossible for ordinary citizens to spot any illegal discharge, such as Tony Buzbee did when he was running for Mayor of Houston. Fortunately, the TCEQ has the right to inspect the property from the ground if it suspects a violation of the restraining order. And they are investigating this.

Summary of Potential Violations

This whole affair once again raises questions about whether sand mines should be permitted in floodways. This mine actually sits at the confluence of TWO. Which is part of the reason why it was sued by the attorney general in the first place. Both Caney and White Oak Creeks captured the pit last year and the TCEQ estimates millions of gallons of process waste water were discharged without a permit into the headwaters of Lake Houston.

Meanwhile, Triple PG appears to be discharging again without the benefit of storms to blame the behavior on. They also appear to be violating terms of their injunction by:

  • Dredging
  • Discharging process wastewater
  • Producing process wastewater that had to be discharged off their property.
  • Discharging water that had been in the Facility’s Dredge Ponds.
  • Discharging Industrial Waste and/or Process Wastewater adjacent to waters of the state (White Oak Creek)

I have contacted the TCEQ twice already about whether they permitted any of these activities. They have not responded yet, citing the ongoing investigation. However, I must believe that had they permitted the activities, they would not be investigating and would have replied immediately. They visited the site yesterday.

Posted by Bob Rehak on March 13, 2020

927 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 176 since Imelda

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.

East Fork Water Shockingly Clear with Mines Closed

The attorney general has had production at the Triple PG mine on Caney Creek shut down and the breaches in the mine’s dikes closed since early November. Also, the Texas Concrete mine in Plum Grove on the East Fork closed. And the TCEQ is forcing them to fix breaches and replant exposed areas before abandoning the mine. It could just be a coincidence, but water clarity on the East Fork and Caney Creek have improved to a shocking degree with both of the major mines out of action. See below. Said Kingwood resident John Knoerzer, “This is the clearest I’ve ever seen the East Fork.”

Photo taken by John Knoerzer on East Fork at East End Park on 12/20/2019.

It’s not Cozumel, but it’s far better than the opaque brown liquid we had.

Return of Eagles

Resident Josh Alberson reports that he’s seen cormorants, pelicans and bald eagles return to the East Fork and Caney Creek. “They were feasting on the white bass.” Says Alberson, “Last Sunday, we saw more birds than we had every seen working. It was National Geographic worthy, but I couldn’t get close enough to get any quality pics or video.” He attributes all the birds to both the bass and the clarity of the water. “It helps the birds spot the prey,” he says.

Only problem: there’s so much sand in Caney Creek that it’s hard to boat upstream. Josh Alberson informs me that his jet boat got stuck on a giant sand bar immediately downstream from the Triple PG mine. Boats with propellers can’t get through at all, he says.

Please Help Document Wildlife and Water Clarity

It seems to me that this change, if it is permanent, is important to document. Any boaters or jet skiers who can make it upstream, please send pics through the submissions page on this web site.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/21/2019

844 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 93 since Imelda

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.

How Much Water Came from Where on the East Fork During Imelda ?

The San Jacinto East Fork watershed is immense. Many homes, vehicles, businesses and properties flooded along it during Imelda. Northeast Harris and East Montgomery counties, which contain the East Fork and its tributaries, received some of the heaviest rainfalls during that storm. So how much water came down them? And how did the peaks compare to Harvey?

East Fork Totals Computed by Harris County Flood Control

Jeff Lindner, Harris County Flood Control’s meteorologist computed the peak flows in cubic feet per second for ReduceFlooding.com.

He used the following gages. They are the closest to Kingwood and Huffman :

  • Peach Creek at FM2090
  • East Fork at FM1485
  • Caney Creek at FM2090

The peak flows in cubic feet per second past these gages during Imelda were:

  • East Fork = 34,600 cfs
  • Peach Creek = 32,800 cfs
  • Caney Creek = 9,230 cfs
  • Total = 76,630 cfs

Numbers Probably Understate True Peaks

The peaks probably exceeded those farther downstream. But we have no way of telling by how much because those are the closest gages to Lake Houston.

Many storm drains and smaller tributaries without gages enter into the flow downstream of those gages. For instance, White Oak Creak, Taylor Gully, Red Gully, Mills Branch, Luce Bayou and more all enter into the East Fork before it reaches Lake Houston. And all of those carry a lot of runoff from developed areas, i.e., areas with a lot of impervious cover, meaning high runoff rates.

East Fork San Jacinto and its tributaries. Source: https://www.harriscountyfemt.org

Net: Look at the 76,630 cubic feet per second as a minimum.

Comparison of Harvey to Imelda

How did the peaks on these three tributaries compare to Harvey? Consulting the SJRA’s peak flow map from Harvey, we can see that Harvey dumped much more rain:

  • Caney Creek = 20,00 cfs
  • Peach Creek = 31,300 cfs
  • East Fork = 119,000 cfs
  • Total = 170,000

So Harvey generated peak flows rates twice as high as Imelda. Only Peach Creek had a higher peak during Imelda than Harvey.

Importance of Looking Upstream when Comparing Storms

Remember, when comparing storms, it’s not just how much rain fell on you. It’s how much fell upstream from you. Rainfall patterns can produce dramatically different flooding patterns. During Imelda, while 20 inches of rain were falling on Patton Village, Lake Conroe received only two inches.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/17/2019, with thanks to Jeff Lindner and Harris County Flood Control

779 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 28 since Imelda

Triple PG Mine Dikes Breach in Multiple Places, Contributing to Giant East Fork Sand Buildups

Of all the sand mines on the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto, the Triple PG Mine is unique. It alone sits inside the confluence of TWO floodways. The Prabhakar Guniganti family owns the mine. So far they have cleared, grubbed and mined about 700 of the 2000 acres they own in the area. But that hasn’t stopped them from receiving timber exemptions from the Montgomery County Appraisal District on the land being mined (that has no timber).

After Harvey, when I found 30 acres of sand up to 15 feet deep covering East End Park (just downstream from the mine), I rented a helicopter to see where the sand came from. That’s when I discovered this horrific mine for the first time.

Owned by Cardiologist Turned Sand Miner

Prabhakar Guniganti is a cardiologist from Nacogdoches who has broadened his practice into mining and land development.

I hope he’s better at cardiology than mining. His mine has received 15 citations in the last two years from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (see the MSHA site for a key to the citations). The one highlighted in yellow had to do with a breach.

Fifteen in two years averages out to more than one every other month. And that does not even include notices of enforcement from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, for instance when Tony Buzbee, candidate for Mayor discovered a massive breach in the dike of the Triple PG mine back in May.

Will This Never Stop?

Last week, Charlie Fahrmeier, a Lake Houston Area resident and an expert in sediment control, observed the same breach open AGAIN. Right above East End Park, which was destroyed by sand AGAIN.

So Friday, I rented another helicopter to see what I could see. What I saw turned my stomach. There was more than one breach. There were at least two and possibly three.

It appeared that Caney Creek (from the north) and White Oak Bayou from the west “captured the pit.” The streams then apparently crossed the mine sweeping out through the breach on the southeast side back into Caney Creek and then down the East Fork of the San Jacinto River.

White Oak Creek approaches the mine from the west and Caney Creek runs along its north and east sides. From the images below, taken a week after Imelda, it appears that the both creeks captured the mine and cut across it. From FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer.

Where Breaches Occurred

The TCEQ fined Triple PG $16,875 for breaches one and two that were first reported after the May 7th storm. TCEQ has opened another investigation into the most recent breaches. Fines could be more substantial this time.

Three Breaches from the Air

Looking north from over the pit toward Caney Creek out of frame on the top. Water likely entered the mine from the north as Caney Creek reached flood stage and cut across the point bar above the mine.
Taken 9/27/19.

A reverse shot shows how water tore through the mine.

Looking south from over Caney Creek, you can see how current ripped through the mine. The road across the mine in the middle of the frame had been recently repaired when I took this shot on 9/27/19.
At the far end of the shot above on the west (right) side of the mine, I found this breach near White Oak Creek. Taken 9/27/19.
Looking east, directly across the mine, I saw this breach in the same location as the May breach. That’s Caney Creek in the background. Taken 9/27/19.
This close up shot of the same breach looking west from over Caney Creek shows how flimsy the repair was from earlier in the year. It was nothing but some sand dumped into a hole. Taken 9/27/19.

Designed to Fail?

Two engineers told me that patch looked like it was “designed to fail.” Mine Safety and Health Administration regulation §56.20010 regarding retaining dams specifies that “If failure of a water or silt retaining dam will create a hazard, it shall be of substantial construction and inspected at regular intervals.” Clearly, sand is not substantial. “Built properly, that repair would not have reopened in this past flood,” said Fahrmeier.

 TCEQ Requirements for Dike Construction and Repairs

Here are the TCEQ requirements for constructing dikes and levees. Note the paragraph on page 2 about structural integrity. “Construction must be based upon sound engineering principles. Structural integrity must withstand any waters which the levee or other improvement is intended to restrain or carry, considering all topographic features, including existing levees.”

These dikes had the structural integrity of a sand castle at a beach when the tide comes in.

Also interesting: Paragraph 4, Rights of Third Parties to be Protected. It’s a good read as far as regulations go.

Certainly, East End Park, just downstream was not protected.

KSA just finished cleaning up East End Park from Harvey. The organization spent close to $200,000 to restore trails covered in sand that reached to the treetops. Now the entire Kingwood community will have to sacrifice again. This area used to be a boardwalk over wetlands. The sign used to be shoulder high. Now it’s knee high.
Another trail covered in sand and silt. Not all of this came from the mine; some came from river erosion. But the serious problems first appeared after the mine.

How to Tell Mine from River Sedimentation

Charlie Fahrmeier who first discovered the most recent breach said that when he discovered it, water and sediment was streaming out of the mine. The water color was distinctly different from the color of water coming down Caney Creek. If the creek were responsible for all the sedimentation, the colors would have been reversed.

Caney Creek Now Averages 1.7 Feet Deep

In a future post, I will examine the growing mouth bar on the East Fork. That’s right. The East Fork and Caney Creek are barely navigable now. John Alberson took his jet boat up Caney Creek today and noted giant sand bars stretching across the river below the pit. He said the deepest part of the creek was 1.7 feet. The more sand there is in the creek and East Fork, the less room there is for water, so the higher the water rises during a flood.

How to File a Complaint With Mine Safety Authorities

I encourage everyone to file a Hazardous Condition Complaint with MSHA.  You can do it online at https://lakmshaegov01.msha.gov/HazardousConditionComplaint.aspx.  If they get enough complaints it could elevate the review. 

Here’s some information you’ll need to file:

  • Mine ID: 4104950
  • Mine Name: Triple PG Sand
  • Mine Operator: Triple PG Sand Development LLC
  • Mine is in two zip codes but breaches appear to be in 77365.
  • Location of Breach #1: Long 30.102968°, Lat -95.171932°
  • Location of Breach #2: Long 30.055360°, Lat -95.104712°
  • Location of Breach #3: 30.065451°, Lat -95.102904°

Please help shut this mine down. It’s dumping its process water loaded with sediment and chlorides into your drinking water. Moreover, the City doesn’t have enough money to dredge the East Fork and its tributaries every time we get a big rain. Let’s stop this problem at the source. We need sand for concrete, but we don’t need it from this mine.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/29/2019

761 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in the post represent my opinions on matters of public interest and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.