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
Coordinated, fast action by the City, Harris County Flood Control, and concerned citizens reduced flood risk for many homes earlier this month. Together, they eliminated many blockages in drains and ditches that likely prevented many homes from flooding during the storms from May 3 through May 10. Perhaps we can learn from the experience and organize neighborhood groups that spot and report developing situations before they get out of hand and cause floods. Here’s what happened.
Triple Whammy: Three Major Storms
On Friday, May 3, late in the afternoon, heavy rains combined with high winds and possible tornadoes downed trees throughout Kingwood. Tree debris littered the ground everywhere. The City worked throughout the weekend to clear streets and drains. But large amounts of debris remained in yards and along greenbelts.
Then on Tuesday, more intense rains hit and flushed much of that debris into drains and ditches.
The City again sprang into action; Public Works sent crews out to inspect the storm drains for blockages. Camera and clean up crews have been here ever since.
Harris County Flood Control also sent crews out to clear ditches. Due to erosion and high winds, many trees had fallen into the ditches and were creating blockages.
Sadly, many homes did flood on Tuesday. The vast majority of those were near a massive construction site that altered drainage.
But had it not been for fast, coordinated action by the City, County and Citizens, many more homes elsewhere might have flooded on Friday, May 10, when Round Three of heavy rains hit the Lake Houston Area.
Example of How Things Can Go Right
Jennifer Coulter, a Kings Forest resident, reported a small creek totally blocked behind her home. The Coulters flooded badly in Harvey and have been hyper vigilant ever since. Jennifer detected a blockage in the ditch behind her home AFTER Tuesday’s storm on May 7. Here’s what it looked like. Harris County Flood Control sent a team out to clear the blockage BEFORE the Friday storm.
This bridge over a small ditch/creek in Kings Forest had become totally blocked in the previous storms.
Another view of the same ditch showing extent of blockage.
Wide shot illustrates how water would have been forced out of the ditch during a storm because of the blockage.Once blocked, additional debris can quickly pile up, making things even worse.
When notified, HCFCD immediately dispatched a crew. They managed to clear the blockage before the next storm hit. It took about an hour. Here’s what the same ditch looked like when they left.
Free flowing on both sides
A Minor but Important Success
I emailed Coulter after the Friday storm to see how she did. Her response: “Dry here. Looked like the backyard drained well, too. Huge sigh of relief from this address!”
This wasn’t the only success story before Friday’s rains. I’m aware of at least five similar blockages removed before the storm. No homes flooded near those areas that I am aware of…at least as a result of reported blockages.
That’s not to say that no homes flooded anywhere. I am sure some did and that is tragic. But this example underscores the need for better identification of issues and coordination in communicating them.
Importance of the Right Five
Management consultants often talk about the “Right Five” as a key element of success. Success happens when the Right People, get the Right Information, at the Right Time, at the Right Place, in the Right Format.
In this case, residents knew:
The Right People to contact (Flood Control, not the City, and the right people AT Flood Control)
The Right Information to give them (description of problem so they could send crews with the right equipment, photos of what they would encounter, everything they needed to take immediate action).
The Right Place to send them (GPS coordinates, nearest street intersections, and nearest access points for greenbelts).
The Right Format (easy to read and understand; clear; concise; digital for easy transmission to crews in field).
The Right Time (before the storm)
While we are at it, we should also give ourselves a pat on the back. Residents helped clear drains and ditches before the storm, too. That’s not only our right; it’s our duty. The City needs our help. Their crews can’t be everywhere at once; Houston covers a lot of territory.
Organizing to Reduce Flood Risk
How can we learn from our failures and replicate our successes? Last week, the Kings Forest Board of Directors voted to establish a permanent Flood Committee with two objectives:
Raise awareness among residents of issues that contribute to flooding
Identify and communicate problems we can’t resolve on our own to the Right People at the City and County.
In essence, the idea is to create a group like Neighborhood Watch or Crime Stoppers, but focused on flooding: Clog Stoppers! People who can spot problems and report them before they cause flooding.
Major examples of things that contribute to flooding:
Yard waste swept into sewers or dumped on greenbelts
Dead or dying trees about to fall into ditches
Not cutting deadfall into small pieces [large ones block culverts; max 2′ pieces recommended]
Irresponsible construction practices
Sand mining in floodways behind inadequate dikes
People altering drainage illegally
I hope the other community, trail, and commercial associations can form similar committees. Working together through KSA or some other grass roots organization, we can reduce flood risk for everyone. We can also help improve government efficiency by getting the right people, the right information, in the right place, at the right time, in the right format.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/20/2019
629 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/image001.jpg?fit=768%2C1024&ssl=11024768adminadmin2019-05-19 22:25:252019-05-20 06:00:56Homes That Didn’t Flood Because of Quick Action: Example of How to Reduce Flood Risk
Houston City Council Member Dave Martin announced Saturday that Mayor Sylvester Turner has agreed to waive permit fees for the hundreds of residents affected by flooding during the heavy rains during the week of May 7. Details still need to be worked out. More news to follow soon. This is a pleasant development for people whose homes and possessions were destroyed. Every little bit helps! Permit fees are certainly more than the price of peanuts.
Storm damage in Elm Grove where at least 196 homes flooded.
Posted by Bob Rehak on May 19, 2019
628 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ElmGroveFlood_12-1.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-05-19 00:32:372019-05-19 09:10:45City of Houston Intends to Waive Permit Fees for Homes Affected by Flooding May 7-9
Multiple news outlets are reporting that 400 homes flooded in the Kingwood area yesterday due to street and ditch flooding. Street flooding happens when the RAINFALL RATE exceeds the DRAINAGE CAPACITY of storm sewers. Water backs up into streets where it waits until the input and output balance. But when drains are blocked by downed tree limbs, yard waste, and other debris water backs up even higher into homes as it did last night.
Flooded home in Elm Grove
Please Help Clear Drains of Debris
Matt Zeve, Deputy Executive Director of Harris County Flood Control, reminds everyone that, “All citizens have a responsibility to keep their storm sewer inlets and roadside ditches clear of yard debris, trash, and other items that can cause clogging. The City of Houston and Flood Control are not able to police every single ditch and storm sewer inlet out there. We are all in this together.”
It could be your house that you save from flooding in the next rain.
How to Report Debris in Ditches
Some debris will be beyond the capability of homeowners to clear, especially in creeks and drainage ditches. For instance, see the picture below.
Tree down in Ben’s Branch. Photo taken from Tree Lane just east of Bear Branch Elementary.
Clearing such blockages will take professionals with chain saws and lifting equipment.
Call Harris County Flood Control at 713-684-4197 to report these types of issues. Please make sure you know the closest cross streets.
City of Houston Also Requests Your Help in Clearing Drains
Dave Martin, Houston City Council Member said, “This morning, I asked the Mayor, and he agreed, like we did in December 2017 AFTER Harvey…in those flooded/affected areas, we will send cameras down the storm drains and sewers to see if there is any blockage. If there is, we will remediate.”
Martin continued, “We are also ‘re-engineering’ our ‘Adopt a Drain’ program which calls for our Residents to adopt a drain/storm sewer in their neighborhood, and periodically check the siltation/trash/clogging/buildup in THEIR drain.
More Rain on Way
At the start of the week, the National Weather Service forecasted 7-10 inches of rain for the week. Yesterday, when a storm stalled over Kingwood, we got that much in one afternoon. And more IS on the way.
NOAARadar as of noon on Wednesday, 5/8/19.
Today’s Forecast from Flood Control
The next upper level disturbance is already moving into central Texas. The majority of the heavy rainfall should stay to our north today, but our area could certainly see rainfall this afternoon that could result in additional flooding, especially if it falls on areas that were hard hit on Tuesday.
Additionally there is a higher severe weather risk this afternoon especially north of I-10 where large hail, damaging winds, and isolated tornadoes will be possible.
Forecast Thursday-Saturday:
Several complexes and clusters of storms can be expected through the period each capable of dropping multiple inches of rainfall. Expect a moderate risk of flash flooding both Thursday and Friday.
Additional Rainfall Amounts
Widespread rainfall of 5-8 inches with isolated totals of 9-12 inches will be possible today through Saturday. While these totals are spread over a 3 day period, much of what falls will likely fall in bursts with each cluster of storms. Air mass remains very much capable of intense rainfall rates as observed yesterday. Hourly rainfall rates of 2-4 inches per hour will remain possible which will quickly result in urban flash flooding and significant street flooding.
River Report
Grounds are saturated and any additional rainfall…especially in areas that saw heavy rains on Tuesday…is going to run directly into creek, bayous, and rivers that area already highly elevated. If the rainfall forecast does indeed verify, flooding of creeks and bayous in Harris County is certainly possible along with house flooding.
While several creeks and bayous are elevated, all are receding at this time including both the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto River.
Flash Flood Outlook For Wednesday
Flash Flood Outlook For Wednesday
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/8/19 at noon
617 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/pine-at-tree-lane-2.jpg?fit=1080%2C810&ssl=18101080adminadmin2019-05-08 12:48:512019-05-08 19:38:08Clear Debris from Drains Before Next Wave of Rain Hits
Storms during the last two days were traumatic for virtually everyone in the Kingwood area. Tragically, one person lost her life when her car hit a downed tree.
Others lost vehicles, trees, and sleep.
Torrential rains for a brief period – at the rate of 4-5 inches in an hour – flooded streets and vehicles.
They also brought water near or into homes.
Parents picking children up from school waited in rising waters as their students sheltered in place.
A small tornado may have briefly touched down near Town Center.
Kingwood Drive was shut down for hours during the Friday afternoon rush hour.
People traumatized by Harvey were re-traumatized.
People without power waited and wondered for hours about what was going on around them.
Lake Conroe: One Less Worry This Time
Despite all that, we did NOT have to worry about one thing: Lake Conroe opening its flood gates again during this storm. The seasonal lowering policy established last year worked.
The SJRA board voted to lower the lake’s level one foot to 200 mean feet above sea level (MSL) from April 1 to May 31.
That action may have saved the Lake Houston area from additional flooding in the last round of storms.
Releasing Water Continuously At Low Rate Created Extra Capacity
Lake Conroe had released water continuously since April 1 at a slow, controlled rate of 350 to 550 cubic feet per second. However, because of spring rains, Lake Conroe had only dropped about a half foot from 201 to 200.66 feet MSL. Had the releases not happened, the lake would have been an estimated 1-1.5 feet higher, according to Mark Micheletti, an SJRA board member from Kingwood. That means the lake level would have been approaching 202 feet, the level at which the SJRA automatically begins releasing water, when the storm hit. That would have forced the SJRA to release water at a higher rate that could have overloaded the downstream watershed.
Buffer Against Downstream Flooding Worked
In other words, the policy worked. The seasonal lowering provided a buffer against downstream flooding. NOAA shows a double crest on the San Jacinto West Fork at US59 during the last two days that coincided with two waves of storms. At peak flow, the river came within about two feet of going out of its banks.
An additional foot of water released from Lake Conroe would have added two feet to Lake Houston and created flooding.
About a mile downstream at River Grove Park, the water was up, but still within its banks.
Despite torrential rains last night and early this morning, the West Fork remained in its banks. The river was up, but no homes flooded from the river.
Success: No Rivers or Streams Out of Banks
At this hour, neither NOAA, the SJRA, nor Harris County Flood Control, predicts any flooding from yesterday’s storms. In fact, all streams and bayous seem to be receding at this time. That’s one less thing to worry about as we clean up from the latest storm. The SJRA’s seasonal lowering DID help.
Remember, Lake Conroe is almost twice as big as Lake Houston (33 sq. mi. vs 18.5 sq. mi.). So one foot released there translates into almost two feet here. And two feet would likely have forced the San Jacinto out of its banks for the fifth time in a year.
Kudos to the SJRA board, the City of Houston, and the TCEQ for enabling this policy. That, in conjunction with the City’s pre-release policy for Lake Houston, have made a difference.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/5/2019
614 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/hmmt2_hg-1.png?fit=600%2C465&ssl=1465600adminadmin2019-05-04 22:51:322020-01-17 08:59:15One Less Thing to Worry About in Latest Storm: How Seasonal Lowering of Lake Conroe Helped
To hear the City tell it, we’re days away from agreement to dredge 1.5 million cubic yards of the mouth bar. To hear Congressman Dan Crenshaw tell it, the permit application hasn’t even been filed yet.
So where do things really stand. A reader asked last weekend, whether the Houston Chronicle story about the meeting was accurate.
The Chronicle headline said, “Crenshaw frustrated with delayed application for federal funds to remove notorious Kingwood mouth bar.”
Specifically, the reader asked, “Based on your knowledge, is this factual (City of Houston dragging its feet) or just politicians pointing the finger at each other?”
Before I step into the cross-fire, let me say this. Officials have conducted most meetings on this subject behind closed doors. But I shall attempt to answer the reader’s question based on public statements and documents supplied by Houston City Council member Dave Martin and the Army Corps.
Mouth Bar Chronology
To answer the “Is it foot-dragging or finger-pointing” question, I need to go back to the period after Harvey and put this subject in a historical context. Foot dragging depends on where you want to start the clock ticking. So bear with me.
2017: Post Harvey Discovery and Early Efforts to Raise Awareness
September, 14, 2017 – Two weeks after Harvey, I photographed the mouth bar from a helicopter. In the next few months, I began calling attention to it and other sediment problems every way I could. They included this web site, newspaper articles, and testimony before Texas Senate and House committees. At the House Natural Resources Committee hearing at the GRB, Dave Martin was present.
Mouth Bar of the West Fork of the San Jacinto. Like an iceberg, most of it is below water. To get past this blockage, water must flow uphill more than 30 feet.
Early 2018: Early Efforts to Forge Political Consensus
February of 2018 – Houston City Council Member Dave Martin began calling Governor Greg Abbott for help on an almost daily basis.
March, 15, 2018 – Governor Abbott visited Kingwood, took an aerial tour of the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto and met with local officials. After the meeting, he announced that, using Hazard Mitigation Funds, he was authorizing the Texas Department of Emergency Management (TDEM) to spend $3 million to jumpstart the engineering and permitting process to determine where dredging should take place on the San Jacinto River.
May 9, 2018 – The Corps announced that it had completed the value engineering phase of its Emergency West Fork Dredging Program.
May 28, 2018 – DRC (under a contract with the City of Houston) began removing debris from Lake Houston to clear the way for dredging.
Mid-2018: Mouth Bar Excluded from Scope, Scramble to Identify Solutions
May 30, 2018 – The Army Corps announced the scope of its dredging program, was a mere 2.1 miles from River Grove Park to a little east of the West Lake Houston Parkway Bridge. Shocked, concerned residents begin to ask questions about the omission of the mouth bar. The struggle to include it began then. Phone calls and meetings with Corps representatives revealed that the Corps’ main concern was that part of the bar existed BEFORE Harvey. They said that under the Stafford Act, they could only address sediment deposited DURING Harvey. The Stafford Act is the enabling legislation for FEMA. This set the stage for the conflict still at the center of this controversy.
July 26, 2018 – Members of the Lake Houston Area Flood Prevention initiative meet with County Judge Ed Emmett to discuss priorities for the upcoming flood bond including additional dredging for the mouth bar.
August 9, 2018 – Houston City Council Member Dave Martin holds a meeting to line up the support of Senators Cruz and Cornyn for extending dredging to the mouth bar.
August 21, 2018 – Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Group meets with Ted Poe to urge extension of dredging.
August 25, 2018 – Harris County voters approved a flood bond package that included money to extend dredging.
October 9, 2018 – At a Town Hall Meeting, Council Member Martin and Mayor Turner announced a meeting to be held in Austin on October 11. Purpose: to determine how to get the mouth bar included in the scope of the current dredging project to save $18 million.
October 11, 2018 – All parties reach agreement in principle to dredge the mouth bar at the famous “Everybody but Trump” meeting in Austin. Costello’s conference report indicates that USACE was to analyze the most recent LIDAR and bathymetric data to determine the total volume of Harvey-deposited debris in the area and evaluate its inclusion into the ongoing operation.
December 14, 2018 – According to Costello’s same notes, the Corps recommended that the City contract Dr. Tim Dellapenna, a professor of geomorphology at Texas A&M Galveston. The Corps suggested he could analyze core samples for color and consistency to see if he could find layering traceable to Harvey. As of Jan. 8, 2019, the City still had not finalized a contract with Dellapena.
Storage Permit Controversy and Delays
Costello’s notes on the December 14th meeting also indicate that he had applied to the Corps for a permit to dispose of the dredged material. “A nationwide permit was submitted and subsequently denied by the USACE. We are meeting with all parties involved to discuss the next course of action required to obtain the necessary permits,” says the letter.
It would be another FOUR months before this meeting happened…by conference call.
A confidential source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, indicates a difference of opinion about the permit application. The source says the permit application, filed sometime in November of 2018, was NOT DENIED and that the Corps simply requested more information.
The City still has NOT supplied the additional information, nor has it reapplied for the permit.
Specifically, the Corps wanted to know how much material would be excavated, where it would be stored on the landowner’s property, whether there were any mitigation requirements, and whether there were alternative disposal sites in case the primary site proved unacceptable for some reason. There was also some confusion over the type of nationwide permit (NWP) requested. According to one source, the permit requested was for drying/dewatering the spoils and then hauling them off-site. However, the landowner wanted to keep the fill and use it to raise the level of his property.
“Tomorrow Afternoon”
On January 14, 2019, Costello told a group of Lake Houston Area leaders that he hoped to be taking core samples “tomorrow afternoon” and have results by the end of January. That did not happen.
Using a high frequency “Chirp-type” acoustic sub-bottom profiler data-acquisition tool
Core sampling
Sediment analysis
Note that on five other occasions between mid-January or mid-March, Costello told people that the City would be taking core samples “tomorrow afternoon.” Martin says they finally took the core samples the week before the March 21st town hall meeting.
No explanation was given for these delays. With $18 million dollars in remobilization fees at stake, no one ever even acknowledged the delays.
Core Sample Results
The results that Costello reported at the town hall meeting – $1.5 billion cubic yards – were preliminary estimates. At the meeting, Costello said he expected the final number “tomorrow afternoon” (there’s that phrase again) and that he would send the final report to FEMA no later than Monday, March 25. He vowed to refile an amended permit with the Corps by Friday, March 29. As of 5PM Monday, Costello still has not replied to inquires about whether he transmitted the results to FEMA.
Estimated depth of Harvey Deposits at core sample locations. Shown by Stephen Costello, City of Houston Chief Recovery Officer and Kingwood Town Hall Meeting on 3/21/2019. For a high resolution pdf of this image suitable for printing, click here.
Remember, there are two issues: FEMA controls funding; the Corps controls permitting for the storage.
Note that FEMA wants to limit funding to Harvey-related damage only; but the Corps is looking for a disposal site that could hold far more sediment, i.e., for pre-Harvey material. Other sources (City, County, State) could fund removal of pre-Harvey sediment to restore the full conveyance of the river. Having one site that could handle everything could save considerable permitting work.
Also lost in the Town Hall political pep rally was the fact that the Corps volunteered to prescreen the application to make sure it was complete and that the the city filed the right type of nationwide permit this time.
When the City says “We are moving as fast as humanly possible,” that sounds like a bit of exaggeration. It took the City four months to acquire the core samples needed to determine the Pre-Harvey volume of the mouth bar. Ultimately, they did it in an afternoon when facing the deadline of last week’s town hall meeting.
Next Steps vs. Deadline to Save $18 Million
So will the City be able to save the $18 million. The current dredging program is due to demobilize in a little more than a month, at the end of April. Before then:
FEMA must rule on findings of the core sampling before it can fund the mouth bar project (or at least the initial phase of it).
Several parties must audit any grant.
City must refile the correct type of permit with additional information.
Corps must review and comment.
Corps must hold a 30-day public comment period by Federal law.
Corps must issue final ruling on permit application.
That looks like at least several months worth of work.. So no, it doesn’t look like the City will be able to save taxpayers $18 million unless they can pull off a miracle.
Is the City moving “as fast as humanly possible?” as one city official said at the Town Hall meeting last week.
You be the judge. How long this has taken depends on where you want to start the clock ticking. It’s not as clear as either side would have you believe. Still there are huge gaps in the timetable that need to be explained to the public…especially if we lose $18 million.
Late-Breaking News: Huberty Amendment to CSSB 500 on Mouth Bar
Meanwhile, State Representative Dan Huberty filed this amendment to CSSB 500 on March 22. It would provide $30 million for dredging the mouth bar. (CSSB stands for Committee Substitute Senate Bill. SB 500 is an omnibus spending bill approved by the Senate, now being considered in the Texas House as CSSB 500.) That money, if approved, could go a long way toward dredging the portion of the mouth bar that FEMA doesn’t fund and the rest of the West Fork.
Posted by Bob Rehak on March 25, 2019
573 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LakeHouston_TopLayer_rev0-e1553548021432.jpg?fit=1500%2C971&ssl=19711500adminadmin2019-03-25 17:06:502019-03-25 17:07:18After Town Hall Meeting, Confusion Still Swirls Around Status of Mouth Bar
