This post is for all those unfortunate people who have suffered repetitive flood damage. Learn how you may qualify for federal assistance to elevate your home.
On Tuesday, October 15, at 6:30 p.m., the City of Houston will host a meeting about mitigation grant assistance for repetitive flood-damaged properties at the Kingwood Community Center.
The community center is at 4102 Rustic Woods, Kingwood, TX 77345 on the corner of West Lake Houston Parkway, near the Kingwood Park ‘N Ride.
Many families in Elm Grove who flooded in May also flooded in September and should explore the options in this meeting. Regardless of where you live in the City, if your home has flooded at least twice, you may be eligible to have your home elevated.
Homeowners can speak with the City regarding options. To quality, property owners must:
Hold a National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policy.
Reside within Houston city limits.
Have flooded at least twice.
Below is more information.
Information about Tuesday’s meeting
Info About the Program.
Please submit the voluntary interest form available here.
Thanks to Houston City Council Member Dave Martin for setting this up.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/13/2019
775 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 24 since Imelda
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ElmGroveFlood_13.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-10-13 18:02:522019-10-13 18:17:40City To Host Meeting Tuesday, 6:30, At Kingwood Community Center for Homeowners Who Suffered Repetitive Flood Damage
On October 1st, Governor Greg Abbott sent a disaster-request letter to President Trump in response to the damage caused by Tropical Storm Imelda. The 31-page letter to President Trump lays out the case for Federal aid. It also includes an impressive catalog of storm-related damages.
The thirteen counties impacted by Tropical Storm Imelda (Imelda) are still recovering from previous disasters, including Hurricane Harvey. The population of the counties affected by Imelda exceeds 7.59 million people. That represents more than a quarter of the state’s population.
Six Counties Declared Disaster Area
Abbott requested a Presidential Disaster Declaration for the six counties in the Gulf Coast region that sustained severe flooding. Today, the President granted Governor Abbott’s request.
That means Individual Assistance for those in Chambers, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, and Orange counties will now become available. The Governor’s press release states that “Individual Assistance includes up to $35,500 per household for damages sustained during the severe weather.”
“This means that even if people did not have flood insurance, they may receive financial aid and low-cost SBA loans,” said Kaaren Cambio, staff assistant for Congressman Dan Crenshaw.
GLO Designated to Lead Disaster Mitigation Efforts
In a separate statement, the Governor announced that Commissioner George P. Bush and the Texas General Land Office will lead the State’s comprehensive disaster mitigation program. Bush will direct more than $4 billion in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant for Mitigation (CDBG-MIT).
The program will prioritize large-scale, regional projects that increase the state’s resilience to disasters statewide, protect lives and mitigate against future hurricanes and other natural disasters. Bush says he will focus on projects that benefit the most Texans. That means “prioritizing regional partnerships to protect Texans from future storms.”
On August 23, 2019, HUD released mandatory rules for the use of more than $4.3 billion in funding for mitigation projects. They covered money appropriated by Congress on February 9, 2018. Before the GLO could begin drafting a state action plan, those rules had to be published in the Federal Register. The GLO has already begun drafting the plan. It should take approximately nine months or more to complete, at which time, the GLO can send it to HUD for approval.
In total, HUD allocated $4,383,085,000 in CDBG-MIT funds to Texas. Altogether, 140 Texas counties are eligible for some part of this allocation of funding for 2015, 2016, and 2017 (Hurricane Harvey) disasters.
ABC13 Says Choice of GLO Was Response to Slow Pace of Recovery
Ted Oberg of ABC13 News reported today that Abbott tapped the GLO because the City of Houston and Harris County were not moving fast enough with their flood mitigation efforts. The article’s headline says, “Slow pace costs Houston, Harris County control of flood money.” It begins, “Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has taken notice of Houston’s slow-moving progress with its Harvey recovery program.”
“Houston and Harris County’s lack of movement on Harvey housing recovery is the reason the city and county will not get a direct allocation. Victims need this money. That’s why this will go through GLO,” Abbott spokesman John Wittman told 13 Investigates’ Ted Oberg.
In the Mayoral Debate on Wednesday, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner said that the city had received $1.3 billion for home repair and recovery.
Oberg reported in June, 2019, that only four people received housing aid as of that date, despite private companies being paid millions to operate the program. Oberg says that the City’s latest figures show that since then, only an additional 11 people have received financial assistance, despite more than 16,400 homeowners expressing interest in it.
As of August 1, of the 4,900 people that the City invited to apply for its federally-funded Homeowner Assistance Programs, less than half submitted an application.
Reaction from Local Officials
According to Oberg, Mayor Sylvester Turner said, “It’s on them now.”
Judge Lina Hidalgo said in a statement to 13 Investigates. “While we’re disappointed in Governor Abbott’s decision to run this program out of Austin instead of providing us local control, we’ll continue to work as a team to make sure we apply every single federal dollar available towards building a stronger, safer Harris County.”
Questions Still Remain
It’s still unclear to me at this hour how the GLO’s focus on large scale mitigation projects affects individual homeowners seeking financial assistance. They seem to tap two different pots of money. But they also seem to have been conflated by the reporting on this issue. Let’s hope that the state can speed things up on both fronts. Flooded homeowners need help immediately, not three years after the disaster.
More than a dozen homes on Dunnam Road near Tailor Gulley flooded for the second time in four months during Imelda.The owner of the home on the left told me he did not apply for federal assistance.
Need to Re-engineer Disaster Mitigation is NOT in Question
Harris County’s Final Harvey report stated: “Based on house flooding assessments, the estimated total number of homes flooded within Harris County is 154,170.” That only 15 homeowners have received HUD financial assistance more than two years after Harvey is an indictment of the whole crazy system that has evolved.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/3/2019
766 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 15 since Imelda
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/EEP_001.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-10-04 20:46:532019-10-04 21:57:48Harris County Declared Federal Disaster Area in Wake of Imelda; State Taking Control of Disaster Mitigation Funding
Over the weekend, Rachel Taylor, a Lake Houston area resident who lives near the mouth bar sent me the video below. It shows an idle dredge near its starting point. The video, plus reports from boaters, fueled speculation that the mouth bar dredging had concluded. That fact was confirmed this afternoon by Houston City Council Member Dave Martin. His office issued a press release stating that FEMA had finished dredging 500,000 cubic yards of sediment from the San Jacinto West Fork Mouth Bar.
Lake Houston area resident Rachel Taylor shot this video of the Great Lakes Dredge on 9/8/2019. The dredge had returned to its starting point, fueling speculation that it had completed its mission assignment.
Said Council Member Dave Martin, “The Federal Emergency Management Administration’s (FEMA) mission assignment modification to address partial removal of the San Jacinto River West Fork mouth-bar has concluded.” The mission assignment authorized the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to remove an additional 497,400 cubic yards of debris from the West Fork near its confluence with Lake Houston. As of September 3, 2019, USACE removed 500,000 cubic yards of debris from the mouth-bar.
However, Martin never accepted the amount of debris included in the mission modification and continues to fight that number to this day.
Running, Year-Long Argument Over Volume
Council Member Martin and the City of Houston, through Chief Recovery Officer Stephen Costello, argued for almost a year to remove more sediment, believing that 500,000 cubic yards was much too low. But their pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
According to Martin, FEMA cannot explain how 497,400 cubic yards was calculated, even while the City of Houston has provided verifiable scientific data showing the volume deposited by Harvey near the mouth bar was 1.4 million cubic yards.
During a meeting in June, 2019, FEMA representatives verified the City’s estimate was sound. That lead Martin to believe another contract extension was feasible. In August, FEMA representatives again stated, “Your (City of Houston) data is NOT bad data”, leaving Martin with lingering questions as to why no additional modification had been granted.
As a result of the most recent meeting held in Austin, Texas, with representatives from FEMA, USACE, Texas Division of Emergency Management, City of Houston, and Governor Greg Abbott’s office, Council Member Martin along with Mayor Sylvester Turner have sent a letter to our Federal Congressional Delegation requesting action be taken to address the Hurricane Harvey debris remaining in the mouth-bar. This letter urges Senator John Cornyn, Senator Ted Cruz, Chairman Kevin Brady, and Congressman Dan Crenshaw to continue to support recovery of our area through requesting an additional mission modification from FEMA. It would enable dredging another one million cubic yards of sediment related to Hurricane Harvey.
Overall, dredging in the San Jacinto removed more than 2 million cubic yards of sediment. That will help reduce the effects of potential future flooding, but it will not restore the conveyance of the river.
Granting a second mission modification allows the use of existing pre-positioned resources as well as an estimated savings of nearly $20 million for mobilization.
The City of Houston has secured a third disposal site, Barry Madden’s property south of the river, that has already received USACE permits for another 500,000 cubic yards of sediment disposal.
Request from Council Member Martin
Martin asks residents who support the request for additional dredging to contact their federal representatives. Martin says he remains committed to removing additional sediment in the mouth-bar and will continue to fight for additional dredging at that location.
Why We Still Have A Problem
Last weekend, boaters, canoeists and kayakers reported that water depth in the mouth bar was only 3-5 feet deep. Even though the Corps has so far refused to release its plans or survey results, that’s very close to the estimate I calculated when dividing 500,000 cubic yards by the acreage within the dredge area.
However, boaters also report the water upstream from the mouth bar is almost 40 feet deep in places.
This will herd water into an underwater box canyon.
As water hits that wall, it will also slow down, dropping more sediment out of suspension faster. That, in turn, will accelerate re-deposition and quickly fill in the area that FEMA just spent $90 million dredging. What a tragic waste of tax dollars!
Benefits of Additional Dredging
Creating a consistently wide and deep channel through the mouth bar that connects upstream areas with the Lake beyond FM1960 will reduce flood damages to properties regionally and provide for increased resilience to transportation systems, water treatment systems, public/private utilities, emergency response facilities, petrochemical industries, and other critical infrastructure, in the West Fork, San Jacinto River Watershed, plus Harris, Montgomery, and Liberty Counties.
Last year, the Corps estimated the flood protection benefits to be on the order of $200 billion.
FEMA regulations allow the agency to restore a river to a prior good condition if a risk to health and human safety exists.
Given that petrochemical industries in the region produce a significant amount of the nation’s petroleum-based energy products, reducing flood risks to these plants and their workers who reside in flood-prone areas will provide greater resiliency and a National security benefit.
Environmental benefits include reduced risks to water treatment plants from flooded sand mines and chemical spills which are threats to human health and safety. Non-monetary benefits include reduced risks to life, especially among residents with insufficient means.
Having barely scratched the surface of the mouth bar of the San Jacinto West Fork, FEMA and the Army Corps will pack up their gear next week and call their job done. Last-ditch pleas by the City of Houston, Harris County and the State of Texas to get the federal government to extend its dredging program have fallen on deaf ears, perhaps because of the shifting of disaster relief funds to the construction of migrant detention facilities.
Mouth bar of the West Fork shortly after start of supplemental dredging. Photo courtesy of BCAeronautics.
Regardless, the bottom line is this: the Corps and FEMA will leave millions of cubic yards of sediment in place without restoring conveyance of the West Fork to a prior good condition.
The pullout caps months of arguments over how much sediment Harvey deposited. The City estimated 1.4 million cubic yards and the Corps 500,000.
According to City Council Member Dave Martin, the Corps agreed Harvey deposited 1.4 million cubic yards of sediment in the river near the mouth bar. The Corps also agreed, said Martin, that there was nothing wrong with the Tetra Tech study that arrived at that total.
Waffling by Corps
As late as last Friday, Martin said, the Corps agreed to write a letter to FEMA, recommending dredging more than the 500,000 cubic yards. The letter would say that almost a million cubic yards of Harvey-related sediment remained in the river and should be removed. However, at a meeting in Austin this Tuesday, the Corps revealed that FEMA told it not to write the letter. The Corps now intends to demobilize equipment as soon as it finishes dredging 500,000 cubic yards from the mouth bar. That should only take until next week.
With the year-long dredging program now almost complete and perhaps less than a quarter of the sediment removed that is required to restore the natural flow of the river, what will happen next? We have some hope.
The Corps has finally approved Berry Madden’s property as a storage site for 500,000 cubic yards. That should be enough to get the next phase of the program started while the City seeks additional storage sites.
The City has committed to a maintenance dredging program according to Martin.
The State and Harris County have earmarked $30 million and $10 million respectively to continue dredging.
Tell them that you support the Category A designation and see the mouth bar removal as crucial to public safety with a letter like the one below.
Sample Letter
Subject: PLEASE CLASSIFY MOUTH BAR REMNANTS AS CATEGORY A
Dear _____________:
Thank you for helping to make dredging of the San Jacinto West Fork a priority. It will help reduce flooding, protect property, save lives, and improve public safety.
However, part of the existing mouth-bar located at the confluence of the San Jacinto River and Lake Houston remains.
I’m writing to enlist your support in urging the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) to designate that remaining debris as Category A for reimbursement.
Category A designation will allow the City of Houston to:
Utilize existing resources and pre-positioned contracts
Save nearly $20 million associated with mobilization
Protect life, property and safety
Field data collected by the City of Houston and provided to FEMA demonstrates that the remaining debris was directly associated with Hurricane Harvey. As of August 20, 2019, the City of Houston has proactively secured a third United States Army Corps of Engineers permitted disposal site needed for the additional debris.
Your assistance is crucial to rehabilitate the San Jacinto River to its prior good condition. Please urge FEMA to grant this Category A designation. It will let the City of Houston continue rebuilding from Harvey.
Sincerely,
INSERT
YOUR NAME
YOUR ADDRESS
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/30/2019with drone photo from BCAeronautics
731 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/BCAeronautics-Mouth-Bar-1.jpg?fit=1500%2C1125&ssl=111251500adminadmin2019-08-30 00:41:112019-08-30 00:46:32FEMA/Corps To Stop Dredging Mouth Bar Before Finishing Job; What You Can Do
ReduceFlooding.com has obtained a copy of the study withheld by the Army Corps that the Corps used to justify dredging only 500,000 cubic yards from the mouth bar of the San Jacinto West Fork. The Corps refused to supply it in response to my Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in June. However, the City of Houston did supply the Corps document in response to a similar FOIA request. Now, thanks to Council Member Dave Martin, the public has an opportunity to compare the two studies side by side for the first time.
Kings River resident near mouth bar wading in knee deep water almost to West Fork channel marker. Caution: do not let children attempt this. Pockets of deeper water may exist that could cause drowning. Picture taken eight days ago. The island being excavated in the distance has since been removed; see last image in post.
After reviewing the Corps document, I can see why the Corps refused to supply it. It has more holes in it than a West Texas stop sign.
History of Controversy
For almost a year, the City and the Army Corps have argued over how much sediment was deposited in the mouth bar of the San Jacinto river by Hurricane Harvey. That determines how much dredging FEMA will fund. Initially, the City recommended working with two Texas Water Development Board sedimentation surveys conducted in 2011 and 2018. But no measurements exist from the period immediately BEFORE Harvey – only AFTER. So the Corps rejected that idea.
The Stockton Protocol combines ultra-high-resolution CHIRP seismic data with core sampling. The seismic identifies layer thickness and the core sampling identifies layer composition. (Note: the process is somewhat like the oil field practice of confirming seismic with core samples from exploratory wells.) The hope: that by analyzing changes in sediment composition (such as color, grain size, roundness, hardness, etc.), researchers can differentiate Harvey sediment from other floods and then measure it accurately.
Core sample from Tetra Tech Study. Different colors and consistencies indicate sediment came from different floods.
The Army Corps recommended a Texas A&M Galveston professor, Dr. Timothy Dellapenna, to do the research. However, the City of Houston and A&M could not agree on contract terms. Therefore, the City hired Tetra Tech, to perform the research that Dr. Dellapena outlined.
At the end of the day, even with 500,000 cubic yards, those two estimates still vary by almost 3X. According to Houston City Council Member Dave Martin, the Corps never explained why they rejected the Tetra Tech analysis.
The Corps simply accepted its own results and started dredging without public explanation or input. The Corps document raises many questions that may or may not have valid answers.
The USGS gauge used by the Corps for its analysis stopped working during the peak of Harveywhen most sediment would have been moving. The Corps report did not acknowledge this.
Corps Analysis Requires Explanations Never Supplied
Why did the Corps:
Base its analysis on a gage at US59 that stopped functioning during the peak of Harvey, when most sediment was moving?
Assume Harvey distributed sediment in the same patterns over the same distances as lesser storms?
Ignore build up of sediment from Tax Day and Memorial Day storms at the mouth bar as a factor that could have increased the percentage of sediment falling out of suspension during Harvey?
Not consider bank erosion downstream from the gage, relying instead on standard charts for “bed-load transport” for sandy rivers?
Ignore approximately 20 square miles of sand mines in the West Fork floodway where loose sand and silt were inundated by 131,000 cubic feet of water per second, unlike previous storms?
Use a 1-D instead of a 2- or 3-D model for this complex environment?
Not publicly disclose model inputs/outputs and data for peer review and validation?
Initially reject the use of two TWDB surveys, then reverse course and base all of their findings on them – without explaining why?
Exclude extreme data from their study, even though Harvey was one of the most extreme rainfall events in U.S. history?
Mislabel all charts, graphs and photos in its report?
Refuse to disclose their report in response to a FOIA request, contrary to official Army policy?
Omit the organization’s name and the author’s name from the report?
Treat the volume that Tetra Tech found related to Harvey in the mouth bar area alone as if it represented the total volume deposited in the entire West Fork by Harvey?
Corps Rejects Use of TWDB Surveys, Then Bases Own Analysis On Them
To estimate Harvey-related volume, the City initially proposed analyzing two Texas Water Development Board sedimentation surveys from 2011 and 2018.
The Corps rejected that idea, suggested the Stockton Protocol, rejected those findings, then based its own analysis on the two TWDB surveys it rejected earlier. This is like following a Three-Card Monte game!
Basically, the Corps tried to estimate the amount of sediment that Harvey’s flow could theoretically carry. That would depend on velocity and sediment size/weight. But the gage at US 59 stopped recording at the peak of Harvey. So they also had to estimate the discharge (volume of flow in cubic feet per second [cfs]). Then they used industry-standard curves to estimate sediment transport based on estimated discharge. But they discarded rates over 45,000 CFS because they produced unexpectedly high values.
They also ignored the presence of mile-wide sand mines upstream. The river ruptured the dikes of those mines and captured the pits during Harvey.
West Fork Sand Mine Complex inundated by Harvey. This reach of the river is normally about 150 feet wide.On this day, the day AFTER Harvey’s peak, the flow was more than a mile wide.
When the industry-standard sediment transport curves yielded unacceptably high results, the Corps resorted to a simple 1-D model (developed earlier for another purpose) to calculate the sediment load, because flows beyond 45,000 cubic feet per second “produced sediment loads far beyond a reasonable range.”
Corps Assumes Harvey Transported Same Percentage To Mouth Bar as Other Storms
One potentially fatal assumption: The Corps assumes that Harvey transported the same percentage of its sediment load to the mouth bar as all other storms between 2011 and 2018. Said another way, they assume that Harvey behaved LIKE all other storms. Yet not all those floods inundated sand mines.
Moreover, had the Corps measured river bank erosion at intervals between 2011 and 2018, they would have found that virtually all of it occurred during Harvey and very little occurred during Tax Day, Memorial Day and other storms.
Quantum Leap in Erosion Not Factored In
Harvey’s erosive power was NOT proportional to other storms, as the photos below show. River banks eroded more than a hundred feet during Harvey in many places. Yet the Corps report never even mentions erosion.
In 2011, the distance from the ridgeline of this home on Riverbend Drive to the West Fork was 326 feet.
On 1/23/2017, after the Tax and Memorial Day Floods, the distance had decreased only 2 feet.
This shows how much shoreline Harvey ALONE eroded. The yellow line is exactly the same length as after the 2016 floods.
After Harvey, the new distance to the river bank was 216 feet – 108 feet less.
The Tax and Memorial Day Floods combined eroded this river bank by 2 feet. Harvey alone eroded it another 108 feet – 50 times more!
Photographic analysis shows similar quantum leaps in erosion related to Harvey elsewhere along the West Fork.
Another home west of River Grove Park lost 27 feet between 2011 and early 2017, but 111 feet in Harvey.
River Grove Park lost 0 feet from 2011 to early 2017, but 74-feet in Harvey.
Romerica lost 62 feet between 2011 and early 2017, but 144 feet in Harvey.
Net: In four days, Harvey eroded from 2X to 75X more sediment than all other storms during the previous six years. It did NOT act proportionally.
The shearing force of 240,000 cubic feet per second coming down the West Fork literally pulled thousands of trees out by their roots and dislodged sediment disproportionately compared to previous floods (see below). The Gallery page of this web site clearly shows the extent of this devastation. It contains 450 images taken from a helicopter on 9/14/2017, two weeks after Harvey.
Hurricane Harvey ripped trees out by their roots to a degree that previous storms did not. This increased erosion exponentially compared to other storms.
Corps Assumes Mouth Bar Growth Did Not Affect Percentage Deposited by Harvey
The Army Corps also assumes that Harvey transported the same fraction of the total sediment load (20%) to the mouth bar that all storms did between 2011 and 2018. That’s a dubious assumption for several reasons:
Previous storms progressively built a wall across the mouth of the West Fork that grew higher and higher during the study period.
As it grew, that wall increasingly slowed water down and likely accelerated the rate of deposition behind it (which helps explain why the Corps had to dredge its way to the mouth bar).
This constant 20% contradicts numerous anecdotal reports from lakeside residents and boaters claiming that Harvey carried vastlymore sediment to the mouth bar (and their yards/docks) than previous storms. The wife of the resident wading across the river in the image above told me that, on a scale of 1 to 5, the Tax and Memorial Days floods deposited sediment in her yard equal to a 1. But Harvey, she said, was a 6. In other words, off the scale.
No wonder the Corps didn’t want the public looking at this!
Taxpayers Deserve Independent Scientific Review
Professionals rarely like to have their conclusions questioned. However, those who have confidence in their conclusions welcome peer and public review. They encourage second opinions and provide all of their data for review. They also welcome the opportunity to explain and defend their results. None of those things happened in this case.
Instead, the Corps concealed its results as if this involved national security, not public safety. Why? That may be the biggest question of all associated with this project.
The Corps has an excellent, hard-earned reputation. This study undermines it.
As mentioned above, the Tetra Tech study may also have flaws, but the Corps never revealed what its concerns were.
Only one thing is certain. Public safety rests on wildly differing studies. Taxpayers deserve an independent scientific review to resolve the differences between these two studies. The City concurs with the findings in this post and also calls for an independent scientific review. The Corps could not be reached for comment; their new public affairs officer does not list her phone number.
Dredging will likely end next week, with the Corps proclaiming it has restored the conveyance of the river to pre-Harvey conditions (when they have no pre-Harvey measurements).
So we need an independent scientific review to happen quickly. Email you Congressmen and Senators immediately.
Corps Plans Still Being Kept from Public
The Corps still has not released its dredging plans, despite a FOIA request made in June when mouth bar dredging started.
If that is an accurate assessment, the Corps would leave a sediment wall under the water approximately 30-35 feet high and 1-2 miles long in the mouth of the West Fork.
Congressman Dan Crenshaw reviews progress of dredging operation on Friday, August 16. Looking southwest towards Atascocita. Notice how the small island in the first image above has now been removed. The mouth bar itself will remain in place, most of it underwater nowwhere it is invisible to the public.
Others Scrambling to Pick Up the Pieces
It may look like the Corps has dredged. But it also looks like the Corps will leave 80-90% of the mouth bar in place. Remember, sand bars are like ice bergs in the sense that what you see above water is small compared to the amount you can’t see below water.
At this point, City, County, State and Federal leaders are scrambling to put together a plan to address the rest of the sediment. Some of that sediment is clearly pre-Harvey. I will discuss options for removal of that portion and maintenance dredging in a future post.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/20/2019
721 Days after Hurricane Harvey
As in previous posts on this subject, I promise the Corps that I will print their rebuttal verbatim if they disagree with any of the points in this post.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/USGS.08069500.140334.00065..20170829.20170830..0..pres_.gif.png?fit=580%2C430&ssl=1430580adminadmin2019-08-20 16:14:592019-08-21 11:07:08Recently Obtained Documents Raise Questions about Amount of Sediment in Mouth Bar Due to Harvey
The Army Corps has released a new summary of its progress on dredging the mouth bar. The report indicates that Great Lakes, the contractor is now 70% complete. They have dredged 350,000 out of 500,000 cubic yards.
Great Lakes started dredging the mouth bar on June 25th, 2019, as part of a $17,085,861 extension of the original contract (FEMA mission assignment SWD-30).
Current area of operation is the blue area on the far right. Sediment removed from that area is being pumped 10 miles back upstream to Placement Area #2, a sand mine near Kingwood College, on the far left.
Between the start of mouth bar dredging and August 12, Great Lakes dredged an average of 6,363 cubic yards per day. If they can keep that pace up, they should be done by approximately Labor Day – three months ahead of schedule. That’s HALF the predicted time.
Remainder of Project Still Not Decided
What comes next? That still has not been finalized. City, County and State officials have been meeting in the background to determine that. The Army Corps still has not accepted or rejected Berry Madden’s property as a third placement area. And the $30 million appropriated by the State for mouth bar dredging won’t even become available until September 1st.
RD Kissling and Tim Garfield, two local geologists who first brought the mouth bar issue to the public’s attention, estimate that 500,000 cubic yards is about one-fourth of the total sediment that must be removed to fully restore conveyance of the West Fork.
How Shallow is It?
The Corps has not yet released (or even developed) plans for mouth bar dredging. We do know the volume they intend to remove, and the general area they intend to remove it from. However, they have refused to divulge how much of a dent their efforts will make in solving the problem.
This photo of a Kings River resident wading across the river shows how shallow it is near the orange channel marker.This resident says boats “beach” behind his property almost every day.Note: Deeper pockets may exist, especially near dredging equipment. The risk of drowning is real. Do not let children attempt this.Photo taken Sunday, August 10, 2019.The resident made it almost to the channel marker without getting his shorts wet.Shot taken with 6X telephoto lens.The lake/river within this area averages two to three feet deep. 500,000 cubic yards would lower the average level by another three feet as this calculation shows.
Problem With Stopping after 500,000 CY
The problem with stopping after the Corps finishes its 500,000 cubic yards is that the river behind this area is much deeper. Where the Corps stopped dredging just past Kings Harbor, the river is now 25-30 feet deep. And places are even deeper according to fishermen. That means water coming downriver will be forced to flow uphill in this area. That will force it to slow down and more sediment will rapidly drop out of suspension. Some experts have suggested dredging a deep channel through this area to help restore full conveyance of the river. However, the Army Corps intends to stop after 500,000 cubic yards.
“Q: What is USACE Galveston District’s plan for the rest of the mouth bar?“
“A. There is no additional work planned for the mouth bar. The current plan for the modification addressing material near the mouth bar can be found on the placemat. USACE Galveston District has no authority to conduct any additional work in the West Fork of the San Jacinto River or Lake Houston. The San Jacinto River is not an authorized federal waterway, the Corps of Engineers dredging operations are currently limited to dredging Harvey-related material. The ongoing work under the contract modification will remove the remainder of material attributable directly to Hurricane Harvey. The sedimentation from recurring annual flows are not within USACE Galveston District’s mission assignment from FEMA. Water flows on the West Fork of San Jacinto River were restored to pre-Harvey levels in December 2018.”
“Q: Who can the public contact for additional concerns with the maintenance of the San Jacinto River?“
“A. For concerns with the maintenance of the San Jacinto River, please contact Harris County Flood Control District, the San Jacinto River Authority and the City of Houston.”
Punt!
Meanwhile the City is still arguing with the Corps about how they arrived at 500,000 cubic yards. More on that later. I have obtained the Corps’ estimate through a FOIA request to the City of Houston. It raises many questions that I am still trying to sort through. More on that later.
Posted by Bob Rehak on August 14, 2019
715 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/MouthBar_01_01.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-08-14 13:46:172019-08-14 13:46:28Army Corps Now 70% Complete with Its Portion of Mouth Bar Dredging
An old-West saying proclaimed, “Steal my horse; carry off my wife; but don’t touch my water.” Texans fight over water. Even here in the Gulf Coast area. In fact, in Montgomery County, we have a good, old-fashioned water war erupting. Last week in Conroe, it escalated again, putting millions of residents in surrounding counties at risk. Here’s the latest volley in a shot heard across the Gulf Coast.
To someone who hasn’t been following this controversy closely, that resolution sounded innocent enough. Like a little squabble about objectives. But it’s much more.
One side says unlimited pumping has no negative consequences and that restricting the pumping of groundwater violates their constitutional property rights, impinges their freedom, and restricts their ability to grow. They also feel that the forced conversion to surface water is a monopoly conspiracy to run up prices needlessly. They see the other side as over-reaching bureaucrats eager to impose needless and expensive regulation on a population strapped by high water rates (even though Moco surface water rates compare favorably with others throughout the region).
The other side says unlimited pumping will cause subsidence, increase flooding, deplete aquifers, and deny others their fair share of groundwater. They see the other side as selfish water hogs, oblivious to the future, blind to science, and set on an unsustainable course.
Wowsers! How’d we get to this point?
Surface Water Vs. Groundwater: Pros and Cons
Several aquifers lie under the Houston region. Decades ago, people in neighboring counties learned that excessive pumping from these aquifers caused both depletion and subsidence. So they started converting to surface water to limit flood threats and property damage.
However, surface water is inherently more expensive for several reasons:
You have to buy land to create lakes.
You have to build dams and water treatment systems.
You have to build extensive water distribution networks instead of pumping it from under your feet.
All of that creates incentives to continue pumping groundwater.
So groups advocating cheaper water in Montgomery County found two hydrologists who, surprise, surprise, told them subsidence and depletion won’t happen there – even though the area is already subsiding and water well levels have been in decline!
Large amounts of subsidence are already visible in southern Montgomery County where most groundwater pumping takes place.
State Law Requires Neighboring Counties to Approve Pumpage
The state developed Chapter 36 of the Texas Water Code in large part to protect the public interest from private interests. It governs groups such as the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District in Montgomery County.
Chapter 36 legislates goals for districts. They include:
Conservation
Preservation
Protection
Recharging
Prevention of waste
Control of subsidence
Protection of property rights
Balancing conservation and development of groundwater
Using best available science.
Four Steps to Manage Groundwater
By law and convention, groundwater and subsidence districts manage groundwater with a four-step process.
First, they set goals by defining “desired future conditions.”
Second, they model how much groundwater they can pump to meet those goals.
Third, they develop a plan for achieving the goals.
Fourth, they develop rules for implementing the plan.
It’s enlightening to see how those steps have played out in Montgomery County.
Step One: Define Desired Future Conditions
Groundwater management AREAs (GMAs) set “desired future conditions” (DFCs) or goals for a region. This helps prevent selfish decisions by individual groundwater conservation DISTRICTS (GCDs).
Under current law, goals are now set by a vote of all the GCDs in a GMA.
Instead of your local GCD setting goals for its area, the district must go to the GMA and convince the larger group of GCDs to approve goals for the area. This limits local control, but prevents one district from allowing the aquifer to be mined to the detriment of surrounding counties.
Legislators have divided the Sate into 16 groundwater management areas. Multiple groundwater conservation districts comprise each area (see below).For a high res pdf of this map, click here.GMA 14 includes 20 counties (including Harris and Montgomery), five groundwater conservation districts and two subsidence districts. For a high res PDF of this map, click here.
After the districts in a GMA set the DFC or goal, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) sets the Modeled Available Groundwater (MAG). This is the volume of groundwater that can be pumped in a particular area while still meeting the DFC goal.
For example, if Montgomery County wants to maintain stable water levels in the aquifer (at today’s height), then producers can pump approximately 65,000 acre feet per year. Prior to the introduction of surface water in 2015, producers were already pumping in excess of 90,000 acre feet per year.
Step 3: GCD Develops Management Plan
Once TWDB sets the MAG limit, then the GCD is supposed to develop a management plan that includes the approved DFC and MAG. The plan describes how they will achieve the DFC goals.
The TWDB rejected the Lone Star Conservation District’s (LSGCD) plan because it did not include a DFC and MAG approved by the rest of the districts in GMA 14.
The LSGCD board doesn’t like the DFC that was approved by the other GCDs because it would limit pumpage to a sustainable amount. They think mining the aquifer will have NO negative consequences, either to them or to neighboring counties.
They don’t want to be stuck with the 2010 DFC because those DFCs limit pumpage to a sustainable amount. Their problem:
Texas law doesn’t allow TWDB to approve just any DFC that LSGCD wants. All GCDs in the area must approve the goal.
Step 4: GCD Adopts Rules to Meet Goals
Once TWDB approves the management plan, a GCD must adopt rules to achieve its goals. Most often, this means adopting rules that limit pumpage to no more than the MAG (limit).
However, GCDs can structure rules many different ways to accomplish their goal. For instance, they could proportionally limit everyone’s pumpage by the same percentage. Or establish different classes of users with different rules for each, etc.
To confirm the latter, I downloaded and reviewed the 2010 GMA-14 report on desired future conditions from the TWDB website. On pages 30/31, it lists the goals for Montgomery County’s LSGCD. The goals say things like, “From estimated year 2008 conditions, the average draw down of the Chicot aquifer should not exceed approximately 3 feet after 8 years.” They go into similar detail for other aquifers, but using different dates, time spans and depletion rates.
These goals are, in fact, different from the rules that the judge found unenforceable.
Section on Subsidence in Executive Summary
Note the executive summary in the last report. It says:
“Subsidence is a major factor in GMA 14. The GMA 14 consultants spent considerable time and effort to evaluate potential impacts by the DFCs on subsidence. The only means of preventing subsidence is stabilizing groundwater levels throughout the Gulf Coast Aquifer System. The District Representatives concluded that the only means of stabilizing groundwater levels is to limit groundwater production.”
This report was approved unanimously by every subsidence and groundwater conservation district in the management area plus their consultants.
Complaints by other Districts
If you have a hard time following this (and many people will), consider what other experts in GMA-14 say in their letters to the Texas Water Development Board when protesting the action of the LSGCD:
City of Houston Public Works: “Houston is concerned that (LSGCD’s) Management Plan … does not safeguard aquifer recharge and recovery and does not support efforts to address subsidence.”
Montgomery County Water Control and Improvement District #1: Complains about the loss of wells due to water level declines and the expenditure of millions of dollars to drill new wells and reset pumps. Requests TWDB to reject the LSGCD Management Plan.
West Harris County Regional Water Authority: Urges TWDB to reject LSGCD Management Plan because of the impact it will have on groundwater availability and subsidence in northern Harris County.
Woodlands Joint Powers Authority: Requests TWDB to reject LSGCD Management Plan citing pumping of groundwater above sustainable levels, risk of additional water level declines, land subsidence, and flooding that would negatively impact private property rights throughout the region.
Harris-Galveston Subsidence District: The LSGCD management plan… “underrepresents the amount of subsidence that has occurred in Montgomery County. … Any additional withdrawal could cause pressure declines in Northern Harris County and additional subsidence.”
Protect Your Own Interests
Every person and entity who stands to be negatively impacted by LSGCD and Conroe’s actions should make their voices heard. They should notify TWDB that they oppose LSGCD’s appeal and support DFCs that prevent water-level declines and subsidence. They also should notify newspapers, neighbors, and community groups. Subsidence is irreversible. A few years of unlimited pumping can produce water level declines that take hundreds of years to reverse.
So speak up NOW.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/20/2019
690 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts in this post are my opinions on matters of public interest and are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great state of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/GMA14_GCD_map-small.jpg?fit=1500%2C1140&ssl=111401500adminadmin2019-07-20 01:26:332019-07-22 12:09:00MoCo Water War Escalates, Putting Millions in Crossfire
Houston Council Member Dave Martin announced that the City of Houston and Montgomery County will host a flood claims workshop from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 19, 2019.
Kingwood Community Center
4102 Rustic Woods
Kingwood, Texas 77345
This event is for anyone (resident or business owner) who has: a) suffered flood damages, b) has flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and c) has questions about the policy claims process. FEMA representatives will be available to provide resources and answer questions. It does not matter what event caused the flood damage. Although the time has passed for submitting a Harvey claim, some people may still be struggling with the process. If they are protesting a settlement, they might benefit from this event.
The contractor also failed to repair a culvert running next to North Kingwood Forest. Engineers warned that the damaged culvert had to be replaced.
Finally the engineers may have mischaracterized the soil in modeling assumptions. They classified soil as sandy loam instead of clay. That could have skewed a key factor in runoff models by 2X to 3X.
Parts of Porter Also Flooded That Were Not in Any Recognized Flood Zone
LJA’s letter also shows that residents who flooded in Porter on the western edge of the new Woodridge development were NOT in either 100-year or 500-year flood zones. This supports the claims of Porter flood victims, such as Gretchen Dunlap-Smith. They say they never flooded before. They also claim that Rebel Contractors pushed dirt up against the western edge of the development while filling in natural drainage and wetlands. These actions likely constrained drainage on May 7th, before the contractor began installing storm sewers, drainage ditches and detention ponds in that area.
Flood Plain Maps Show What Developer’s Team Knew Before Permit Granted
Section 1.5 of LJA’s letter to Montgomery County states, “The project site is shown on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel 48339C0750H for Montgomery County, Texas and Incorporated Areas, revised August 18, 2014. The area just across the county boundary from the project site is shown on FIRM panel 48201C0305L for Harris County, Texas and Incorporated Areas, revised June 18, 2007.” On Page 51, the letter shows existing floodplains on the map below.
Page 51 from LJA letter to Montgomery County Engineer.The dark purple lines show the boundaries of the new development. The light purple and gray areas below the new development show the 100-year and 500-year flood plains in Elm Grove, North Kingwood Forest, Mills Branch and Woodstream Villages.Drainage on the developer’s two tracts is sloped toward Taylor Gully, Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest in red circle.
Clearcutting of the S2 detention pond area finished last November according to Nancy Vera of Elm Grove. However, only detention pond S1 and the flow-restricting box culvert next to Vera’s house had been substantially completed by May 7. Neither N1, nor the drainage ditch connecting it with N2 were excavated on May 7th; they still have not been excavated.
At the time of the May 7th flood, only detention pond S-1 had been installed. N-2 is on land owned by Montgomery County and was at least partially excavated in 2006, but none of the devices regulating flow into or out of it had been installed on May 7th.
LJA Engineering’s models assumed all the detention ponds are in and functioning, but we know they were not at the time of the flood. Instead of installing drainage first, the contractor focused on clearcutting and grading the northern section of land which exacerbated flooding on the southern section.
Drain Pipe Should Have Been Replaced
Page 3-1 of the LJA Letter mentions, “…an existing 36-inch-diameter x 290-foot HDPE culvert in Taylor Gully at the downstream end of the project. The upstream end of the culvert is within Montgomery County and the downstream end is within Harris County. Because of its poor structural condition, this culvert needs to be replaced.”
Intake end of the pipe referenced on page 3-1 of LJA Engineer’s letter to Montgomery County.Photo taken on May 12, 2019.
Judging by the poor condition of the pipe after the May 7th flood and the lack of disturbed soil around it, I feel it’s safe to say that it wasn’t replaced at the time of the flood.
Modeling May Have Included Faulty Assumption About Soil
Major factors affecting the runoff coefficient for a watershed are land use, slope, and soil type. We know the contractor increased the runoff rate when it clearcut the forest and altered the slope of land. But I had not previously focused on how the engineers characterized the soil type, which affects water infiltration.
Sandy soils absorb more rain, generally reducing runoff.
Soils with more clay absorb less rain, generally increasing runoff.
In modeling runoff and flooding potential for Woodridge Village and downstream areas, LJA Engineers used the Army Corps’ Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS). Page 216 of the user guide for that program states that, “The sand percentage accounts for the effect of infiltration and surface runoff properties on hydrograph generation. Zero percent indicates essentially all-clay soils with characteristically low infiltration rates. Conversely, 100 percent indicates essentially all-sandy soils with characteristically high infiltration rates.”
BrighthubEngineering.com estimates infiltration rates in inches per hour for different types of soil. They show the rate for clay-based soils to average one-third to one-half the rate for sandy loam. That means…
The characterization of the soil could have skewed this component of LJA’s modeling by 2X to 3X. Certainly, that merits further investigation and verification of LJA Engineering’s results before contractors begin pouring concrete.
New Discoveries Argue for Independent Engineering Investigation
All of these observations argue for an independent investigation into the engineering of and construction practices on this site. They raise serious questions about the accuracy of LJA’s conclusions and whether their plans will protect downstream residents from future flooding.
Let’s pray that Montgomery County and the City of Houston commission a forensic investigation into the causes of this flooding. That’s the only way we’ll be able to prevent similar flooding in the future. By the time these issues work their way through the court system, contractors will have built homes and streets that could forever alter downstream flood potential. Harris County and the Federal government could be stuck with hundreds of buyouts costing tens of millions of dollars. A second opinion might save a lot of heartbreak, misery, and tax dollars. Better safe than sorry.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/2/2019
642 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Flood-Impact-on-EG.jpg?fit=1500%2C998&ssl=19981500adminadmin2019-06-02 22:50:562019-06-02 22:51:06Even More Discoveries Demand Independent Investigation into Causes of Flooding Around Woodridge Village
Earlier this year, I posted about FEMA funding approval of the San Jacinto River Basin Study. The four partners in the project, Harris County Flood Control, SJRA, Montgomery County and City of Houston, have released a fact sheet that outlines the objectives and scope of their study.
The study will cover 3000 square miles from the upper reaches of the San Jacinto River watershed in Walker, San Jacinto and Grimes Counties in the north to I-10 on the south.
Map of 3000 square-mile study area
Now called the “San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan,” goals include:
Identifying the region’s vulnerabilities to flood hazards using Atlas 14 rainfall totals
Developing approaches to enhance public information and flood-level assessment capabilities during a flood
Evaluating flood mitigation strategies to improve community resilience
Providing a comprehensive Flood Mitigation Plan that supports the needs and objectives of each regional partner.
Download the PDF to learn more. This is not a detailed discussion, just a two-page, high-level overview. To read the entire detailed document that FEMA approved, click here.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Watershed.jpg?fit=900%2C1169&ssl=11169900adminadmin2019-05-28 21:57:512019-05-29 09:38:40Partners Outline Goals and Scope of San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan
