6/20/26 – The EPA has published a nationwide study of studies focused on quantifying the economic benefits of healthy watersheds. This 9-page PDF provides a high-level introduction to the EPA’s Healthy Watersheds Program.
The fact sheet also provides dozens of timely examples that support preserving 5,300 acres west of Kingwood instead of developing it.
The studies fall into six categories:
Lower water treatment costs
Reduced costs associated with flood protection and other natural hazards
Improving food supply through hunting and fishing
Promoting recreation and tourism
Quality of life and health benefits
Increased property values
Nationwide Scope, Wide Variety of Metrics
Scientists from Alaska to Florida and New England to Hawaii conducted the 35 studies cited in the fact sheet. They used a wide variety of metrics to estimate economic benefits. See several examples below.
In Iowa, riparian buffers for agricultural land reduced water treatment costs in the Raccoon River watershed by $2.63 million annually.
In Maine, forest conservation efforts contributed to such exceptional water quality in the Sebago Lake watershed that Portland Water District has avoided the need for a $150 million water treatment plant. They report a payback of $4.80 to $8.90 per dollar invested.
New York City saved an estimated $8-10 billion in costs to build a water treatment facility by preserving 140,000 acres of forests in the watershed that supplies residents with drinking water.
In Tampa, mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrasses provide flood-protection benefits valued at $31 million per year by preventing property damage from 100-year floods.
28,000 protected acres of greenway along the Meramec River reduce flood damage by an average of $31 million annually for residents downstream by promoting infiltration and reducing runoff rates.
In Middlebury, Vermont, protected wetlands and floodplains reduce flood damage to homes and businesses by an average of 54-78% per flood event by storing and slowly releasing floodwaters.
These studies are consistent with other studies I have reported. For instance, proximity to parks can increase home values by up to 20%. The parks also provide flood-reduction benefits.
Timely Lessons for Proposed Scarborough Development
The EPA publication provides timely lessons for the entire Lake Houston/Southern Montgomery County Area. A Dallas-based company named Scarborough has proposed developing 5,300 acres in floodplains and floodways west of Kingwood.
According to hydrologists, if Scarborough develops the land, it would be like “aiming a firehose at Humble and Kingwood.” But it doesn’t have to be that way.
You can help preserve this land, improve water quality in Lake Houston, reduce flooding, increase home values and provide healthy recreational opportunities.
If you haven’t already signed the petition at Change.org to block development of this floodplain property, please do so now. We’re closing in on 10,000 signatures. Both the Houston City Council and Harris County Commissioners Court have unanimously passed resolutions against developing the land.
Please help. Join thousands of your neighbors. Sign the petition now.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/20/2026
3217 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Ryko-Floodplains-Streams.jpg?fit=1100%2C723&ssl=17231100adminadmin2026-06-20 01:01:252026-06-20 18:16:38Economic Benefits of Healthy Watersheds
1/4/26 – January 5, 2026 is the last day to file public comments on a proposed new definition of Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS). The new definition could eliminate federal protections for roughly 80% of the wetlands in the United States.
A regulatory impact analysis by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that approximately 70 – 75 million acres of wetlands would no longer be protected, including approximately three quarters of the 3.1 million acres of wetlands in Texas.
70 – 75 million acres represent an area roughly the size of Arizona, Nevada, or Colorado and almost twice the size of Florida. And it’s more than 175 times larger than Houston.
Under the new definition, only wetlands with a relatively permanent, continuous surface connection to navigable Waters of the U.S. would enjoy federal protection. That pretty much limits federal protection only to swamps that directly border major rivers and streams.
Texas does not have its own regulatory protection program for inland forested wetlands such as those common in the San Jacinto river basin.
How Wetlands Reduce Flooding
Wetlands reduce flood risk by storing, slowing, spreading, and dissipating floodwaters before those waters reach downstream channels, neighborhoods, and infrastructure. They act as natural detention basins, providing temporary storage during heavy rainfalls. They fill first, reducing the volume and rate of water entering streams.
Wetlands also contain dense vegetation that slows runoff, reduces erosion, and minimizes channel scouring downstream.
They spread floods laterally across wide areas. This directly reduces flood heights, velocities and structural damage.
Many wetlands disconnect runoff from channels; they intercept it before it ever reaches streams or bayous. But when developers fill in and pave over wetlands, runoff becomes directly connected. Floods peak higher and faster.
The loss of federal protection for wetlands will shift flood mitigation costs downstream from developers to the public, and from no-cost natural solutions to high-cost engineered solutions, such as regional detention basins, channel widening, lining channels with concrete, bridge widening, dikes, reservoirs, etc.
Flood control districts, reservoir operators, and watershed planners consistently view wetlands as critical flood-risk infrastructure, even when not labeled as such.
Bottom line:
Wetlands reduce flooding by doing four things simultaneously:
Storing water
Slowing flow
Spreading out flood waters
Delaying aggregation of floodwaters.
Lose enough wetlands in a watershed and floods become higher, faster, and more destructive, even if rainfall statistics stay the same.
How You Can Help Save Wetlands
Protest the proposed changes by cutting and pasting the text between the two lines below. Don’t forget to add your name and contact info at the end of the entry form. The deadline for filing a public comment is Monday, January 5, 2025.
Re: the proposed 2025 definition of “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) as it relates to wetlands the Lake Houston watershed.
This represents one of the most hydraulically and sediment-sensitive locations in Southeast Texas. The wetlands and floodplain features here perform essential functions that directly affect downstream flood risk, sediment transport, and the long-term storage capacity of Lake Houston. Narrowing federal jurisdiction over these wetlands would have costly consequences that the proposal does not adequately analyze.
1. Wetlands upstream function as critical flood-storage infrastructure
Wetlands upstream operate as distributed flood-storage and flow-attenuation systems. During ordinary wet-season events, these wetlands temporarily store runoff, slow overland flow, and desynchronize flood peaks arriving from multiple tributaries. This attenuation function is particularly important at confluences, where coincident peak flows dramatically increase flood stage and velocity.
Loss or fragmentation of these wetlands will not merely redistribute water locally; it will shift flood risk downstream into into the Lake Houston area. Engineered detention required at individual development sites does not replicate this basin-scale function and cannot offset cumulative wetland losses across multiple upstream parcels.
2. Wetland loss directly increases sediment delivery to Lake Houston
The wetlands upstream serve as sediment traps. During flood events, reduced velocities across wetland landscapes allow suspended sediment to settle before reaching the active channel network. This function is especially important for a lake losing storage capacity that supplies water for 2 million people.
When wetlands are filled, drained, or disconnected, sediment that was previously stored on the landscape is instead delivered downstream. The result is accelerated shoaling of channels and increased sediment deposition in Lake Houston, reducing conveyance, increasing flood stages for equivalent flows, and shortening the functional life of public infrastructure.
3. Loss of storage capacity in Lake Houston imposes real and recurring public costs
Sedimentation has already measurably reduced the effective storage and conveyance capacity of Lake Houston. Maintaining that capacity has required repeated large-scale dredging projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars, funded largely by federal and state appropriations.
Upstream wetland loss increases the frequency and scale of these dredging needs. Each acre of wetland lost upstream effectively shifts long-term sediment-management costs from private land conversion decisions to the public. The proposed WOTUS definition does not quantify or even acknowledge this cost transfer.
4. Federal withdrawal from jurisdiction coincides with a pullback in mitigation funding
As federal jurisdiction over wetlands contracts, so too does the availability of federal mitigation and restoration funding that historically offset unavoidable impacts. This includes reduced applicability of Clean Water Act Section 404 mitigation and fewer mitigation-bank credits.
The combined effect is a double loss: fewer protected wetlands and fewer resources to restore or compensate for their loss. This creates a structural funding gap that local governments cannot realistically fill.
5. The proposed definition fails to address cumulative watershed-scale impacts
The proposal’s emphasis on parcel-level “continuous surface connection” tests ignores cumulative impacts across sub-basins. In the Lake Houston area, hundreds of small wetland losses—each individually deemed non-jurisdictional—can collectively produce measurable increases in flood peaks, sediment loads, and public costs.
The agencies should evaluate jurisdiction and impacts at the basin scale rather than relying on binary, site-specific connectivity tests that are not representative of watershed hydrology.
Requested revisions
I respectfully request that the agencies revise the proposed definition to:
Retain federal jurisdiction over wetlands that provide flood-storage and sediment-attenuation functions upstream of relatively permanent waters and reservoirs, even where surface connectivity is seasonal rather than continuous year-round.
Treat wetlands upstream of dams and reservoirs as integral components of the same hydrologic system, rather than as disconnected features.
Evaluate and disclose cumulative impacts to flood risk, sedimentation, reservoir capacity, and public dredging costs resulting from reduced wetland protection.
Address the loss of federal mitigation and restoration funding that accompanies jurisdictional withdrawal and explain how watershed-scale impacts will be managed in its absence.
Absent these changes, the proposed definition risks increasing downstream flood damages, accelerating sedimentation in Lake Houston, and shifting long-term infrastructure costs from private development to the public.
Cut and paste the text between the lines above and submit it to:
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Cypress-Swamp.jpg?fit=1100%2C1469&ssl=114691100adminadmin2026-01-04 18:16:122026-01-04 19:50:11Last Day to Save Wetlands
A new definition of “Waters of the U.S.” proposed by the Army Corps and EPA would eliminate the federal brakes on development of upstream wetlands, such as those in the Lake Houston Area and Montgomery County. Time is running out to file a protest letter. Less than a month remains before the close of public comment; the government must receive your letter by January 5, 2026.
I received the Bayou Land Conservancy’s protest letter this morning and am reprinting it here verbatim in case you want to borrow language from it. First, some context.
What’s at Stake?
Wetlands near Lake Houston where Romerica wanted to build a 50-story high rise and now wants to build a luxury resort.Wetlands near confluence of Spring Creek and West Fork being filled by developer
Immediately across the river…
A Dallas-based developer is trying to develop 5300 acres laced with wetlands.Wetlands near Kings Point and Royal Shores on East Fork above Lake Houston
The old definition of “Waters of the U.S.” gave the EPA and Army Corps legal authority to protect wetlands far upstream. Wetlands act as nature’s sponges. They soak up floodwater, reducing downstream impacts. They also clean water, reducing filtration costs. And finally, they provide habitat for wildlife that enriches the human experience.
What’s Changing?
The proposed new definition would stop Army Corps and EPA jurisdiction at the first dam on a river. Anything upstream would no longer enjoy federal protection. Local governments often do not regulate development of wetlands; historically they have relied on the federal government to do that.
The regulatory vacuum created by the change would open up millions of acres to development, especially in fast growing areas like north Houston where flood-prone wetlands are cheap and plentiful. Increases in impervious cover in wetland areas that once retained water will likely increase flood risk for everyone living downstream.
Bayou Land Conservancy Letter
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0322
To: Administrator Zeldin, Environmental Protection Agency
Re: Opposition to Updated Definition of Waters of the United States (89 FR 79549, November 20, 2025)
The Bayou Land Conservancy (BLC) submits this comment letter in strong opposition to the updated definition of “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army.
About Bayou Land Conservancy and Our Standing
Bayou Land Conservancy is a community-sponsored land trust working to permanently preserve land along streams for flood control, clean water, and wildlife. As an accredited land trust, we are the primary non-profit organization preserving land within the watersheds that feed into Lake Houston, focusing our efforts on northern Harris and Montgomery counties. Since 1996 BLC has permanently preserved more than 15,000 acres of land in southeast Texas.
BLC has direct standing to comment on this proposed rule because we are not merely observers; we are property interest holders and stewards of the very landscapes this rule affects. We hold perpetual conservation easements and own fee-simple land throughout this region. Our legal obligation is to protect the conservation values of these properties in perpetuity.
Because water flows downhill, the integrity of the lands we protect is inextricably linked to the regulatory status of the waters flowing through and above them. If the definition of WOTUS is narrowed to exclude ephemeral streams and adjacent wetlands, the conservation values we are legally bound to uphold, specifically water quality maintenance and flood storage, are put at direct risk by upstream unregulated activity. Therefore, BLC submits these comments as a directly affected stakeholder whose ability to fulfill its non-profit mission is threatened by the proposed reduction in federal jurisdiction.
The Critical Importance of the Lake Houston Watershed
The Lake Houston watershed is not merely an ecological region; it is a vital piece of the Houston-Galveston metropolitan area’s public infrastructure. Lake Houston is the largest single source of surface drinking water for the City of Houston. Protecting the quality and quantity of water flowing into this reservoir is a non-negotiable imperative for public health and economic stability for millions of residents.
Our area is defined by some of the fastest-growing communities in the nation, including The Woodlands, Conroe, Tomball, and Kingwood. This rapid urbanization creates immense pressure on the natural systems, increasing runoff, sedimentation, and pollutant loads. The Clean Water Act applied broadly is essential to mitigate these impacts.
Hydrological Features at Risk
The proposed updated definition, if finalized, risks removing federal protections from essential water features that are demonstrably connected to Lake Houston and its major tributaries. A narrow definition that excludes ephemeral streams or wetlands without a continuous surface connection ignores the scientific reality of our region’s hydrology.
Specific features at risk in our area include:
The San Jacinto River System (West Fork and East Fork):
As the primary artery feeding Lake Houston, the San Jacinto River relies heavily on a vast network of headwater streams. In Montgomery County, many of these headwaters are ephemeral, flowing only after our region’s intense rain events. If these “temporary” streams lose protection, they become prime targets for development-related filling. This would sever the hydrological connection that sustains the river’s base flow and water quality, turning the San Jacinto into little more than a conveyance channel for untreated stormwater.
Spring Creek:
Serving as the natural border between Harris and Montgomery counties, Spring Creek is one of the most pristine waterways remaining in the region. Its sandy banks and associated wetlands act as a massive filtration system. However, the health of Spring Creek is dependent on the lateral connectivity of adjacent wetlands that may not have a “continuous surface connection” year-round. Excluding these adjacent wetlands from WOTUS protection would allow for their destruction, leading to immediate sedimentation of the creek, choking off aquatic life and destroying the recreational value of the Spring Creek Greenway.
Lake Creek:
This major tributary flows into the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and drains a rapidly developing portion of Montgomery County. The watershed is characterized by “flashy” hydrology; it rises and falls quickly. The wetlands surrounding Lake Creek are critical for slowing this water down. Removing protection from the smaller, non-perennial feeders of Lake Creek will eliminate the natural braking system for floodwaters, increasing the velocity and height of flood peaks downstream in densely populated areas.
Palmetto and Bottomland Hardwood Wetlands:
Our region is home to unique forested wetlands that may be separated from the main channel by natural berms or levees. Under a restricted WOTUS definition, these vital flood-storage basins could be deemed “isolated” and paved over. This would result in a direct transfer of flood volume from undeveloped land into the living rooms of downstream residents.
Additionally, three important factors should also be considered in noting BLC’s opposition to this proposal:
Drinking Water Quality
Unprotected upstream wetlands and tributaries will be subject to increased filling, dredging, and chemical/sediment runoff from development, industrial activity, and agriculture. This degradation will lead to a marked decrease in water quality in Lake Houston, requiring exponentially higher treatment costs for the City of Houston and increasing the risk of contamination.
Flood Mitigation
The wetlands and ephemeral stream systems BLC works to protect act as natural sponges, reducing the velocity and volume of stormwater during increasingly frequent high-intensity rain events. Stripping WOTUS protection from these features will allow for their unmitigated destruction, directly exacerbating the already severe and costly flooding issues in northern Harris and Montgomery counties. Protecting these small, non-perennial waters is directly linked to the safety and resilience of downstream communities like Kingwood and Humble.
Conservation Mission
A narrower WOTUS definition undermines the BLC’s mission, and the conservation investments made by public and private partners across the watershed. If the federal backstop of the Clean Water Act is removed from key headwater systems, state and local regulations will be insufficient to protect the water quality and flood storage capacity essential for this rapidly expanding region.
Conclusion and Request
The BLC respectfully urges the EPA and the Department of the Army to reconsider the updated definition of WOTUS and adopt a definition that robustly protects the waters of the United States, including all tributaries and adjacent wetlands that have a significant nexus to navigable waters. For the Lake Houston watershed, a narrow interpretation of WOTUS threatens the largest source of drinking water for the City of Houston, jeopardizes our communities’ flood resilience, and contravenes the fundamental goals of the Clean Water Act.
We urge the agencies to maintain comprehensive jurisdiction over all features that provide filtration and flood control benefits to downstream communities and critical public drinking water sources. Sincerely,
Signed,
Jill Boullion
Executive Director
Bayou Land Conservancy
Please Help
Every voice counts. Make sure the government hears yours. Please compose a letter protesting the proposed changes to the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” This post that I wrote in November contains more background on the issue.
Please feel free to write your own comment or adapt language from the letter above. But do it NOW. And get your friends and neighbors to do it too! Perhaps nothing you can personally do will have a greater impact on your safety and the safety of your home or business in the next flood.
If this proposed definition is adopted as is, it will make it easier for developers like the one I posted about yesterday to fill in wetlands near rivers and streams.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/10/2025
3025 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250411-Swamp-area-with-6-to-12-inch-deep-water-a-week-after-a-rain.jpg?fit=1100%2C716&ssl=17161100adminadmin2025-12-10 15:39:222025-12-10 15:50:03BLC Letter Protests Redefinition of “Waters of the U.S.”
11/22/2025 – The EPA announced new interpretations of rules this week that have protected wetlands and water quality throughout America for more than five decades. According to the New York Times, the new guidelines could remove millions of acres of wetlands from Federal protection including those in the Lake Houston Area.
Those wetlands help soak up water, reducing flood risk. They also clean water and provide habitat for wildlife. And that’s a large part of what makes living in this area so attractive.
Great egret photographed near East End Park
Before the EPA
Those of us old enough to remember a time before the EPA can remember the stinking, fetid, poisonous messes our rivers and lakes had become. The Cuyahoga River near where I was born in Cleveland, Ohio, had caught on fire 13 times before the EPA was formed. It was a testament to the failure of local governments to withstand industry pressures.
The Cuyahoga River caught fire a total of 13 times dating back to 1868. It was one of the most polluted rivers in America. Photo: Cleveland State University Library.
But this week, Washington moved to weaken the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act, two bedrock laws of environmental protection. The moves come as part of a broader deregulatory effort.
Ironically, the announced motive for the federal government getting out of the wetlands-protection business was to return authority for that to the states. That theory proved ineffective decades ago. But almost two thirds of Americans alive today, weren’t even born in 1970.
The regulatory vacuum left by the Federal government will open up a window for wetlands exploitation before the Texas legislature meets again for two more years. Developers are already lined up waiting to develop wetlands in the Lake Houston Area. Yesterday, I posted about Scarborough, Holley and Signorelli.
You can bet this will trigger a “swamp rush” among developers who see the opportunity to buy low and sell high. Unfortunately, we’ve seen over and over again, how wetlands tend to be in areas that flood. It will only be a matter of time before they do.
And then all those homes sold to unsuspecting couples – who were promised that their homes met all government requirements – will be left holding a soggy title to a home they will have trouble selling for dimes on the dollar.
The Houston Chronicle recently documented 65,000 homes built in Houston-area floodplains since Hurricane Harvey. How soon people have forgotten! We are witnessing another disaster in the making – one that could be even harder to recover from next time.
But the changes aren’t a done deal yet. America still has a choice.
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
11/21/25 – The Federal Government is again changing the rules that protect wetlands. The changes could reduce the volume of wetlands that enjoy federal protection by altering the definition of “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act to align with Supreme Court rulings.
The Government has opened public comment on the proposed language for 45 days – until January 5, 2026. Wetlands above dams and wetlands without continuous surface flow could be radically affected.
Reason for Changes
The proposed changes include clarification of many definitions that previously caused confusion and controversy because of their ambiguity.
Every day, regulators must draw black-and-white distinctions in a world characterized by infinite shades of gray. For instance, does a “continuous surface connection” to “waters of the U.S.” include wetlands going through a drought? Wetlands separated from a river by a dike? Wetlands that are only wet during the rainy season? Or wetlands upstream from a water-supply dam like Lake Houston or Lake Conroe?
The 49-page entry in the Federal Register notice states that the proposed definitions/changes seek to avoid “impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to waters (including boundary waters) of such States.” See 33 U.S.C. 1370.
Said another way, Federal Government seems to be turfing the task of interpreting some gray areas back to local jurisdictions. The notice says, “States and Tribes are free to address rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, and other features that do not meet the definition of “relatively permanent” as “waters of the State” or “waters of the Tribe” under their own laws to the extent they deem appropriate.
However, Texas largely relies on federal wetland protection. The state’s role is limited to certification, advisory review, and coastal management. I’m not aware of any comprehensive Texas law that independently protects inland wetlands from filling or drainage.
The Federal Register describes the changes and how they could affect different interest groups, situations and locations. I couldn’t possibly summarize them all in one page. But I will address one.
Wetlands Threatened in Lake Houston Area
Right now in the Lake Houston Area, we are looking at several major proposed developments that want to build over wetlands.
Crossing at the Commons of Lake Houston. See wetlands in center.
And farther downstream on the East Fork, Ron Holley wants to build over wetlands both north and south of Royal Shores. Note the green areas east of High Valley and Royal Shores Drive in the wetlands map below.
All the areas above are upstream from the Lake Houston dam. Make sure you note the following sentence under the proposed “Definition of Tributary.”
“Such waters [above a dam] would not sever upstream jurisdiction for tributaries if they have relatively permanent flow, or in the case of adjacent wetlands, if relatively permanent flow occurs through the wetlands, connecting the upstream and downstream portions of the tributary network.”
That says to me:
Wetlands above dams and without permanent flow would no longer be considered jurisdictional and therefore no longer enjoy the Corps’ protection.
Bob Rehak Interpretation
In my reading, this removes any incentive for developers to protect nature’s sponges and it increases flood risk for others who may live nearby or downstream.
What’s your interpretation? How do you feel? The EPA and Army Corps are seeking your input on such language. Such obscure definitions/interpretations could affect your family’s future safety and the value of your home.
Jill Boullion, Executive Director of the Bayou Land Conservancy had this to say. “Narrowing the definition of ‘Waters of the US (WOTUS)’ will not serve the Houston region well. Our region has already lost thousands of acres of wetlands over recent decades.”
She continued, “Wetlands protect our homes from flooding, clean our drinking water, and provide vital habitat for native plants and animals. Requiring a continuous surface connection to navigable water would immediately open many wetlands to being paved over. Due to the dry weather this year, many wetlands are currently dry but still serve an important purpose for a healthy community.”
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Scarborough-Wetlands.png?fit=1100%2C661&ssl=16611100adminadmin2025-11-21 16:40:282025-11-22 16:33:40Federal Government Changing Rules that Protect Wetlands
3/22/25 – Enough of the pendulum politics already! We seem to swing from the left to the right and from overregulation to no regulation, oblivious to any middle ground.
The latest agency in the Washington crosshairs: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). No doubt, most business people can cite an extreme example of EPA overregulation. And no doubt, many will welcome a relaxation of environmental regulations.
But the last 45 years have proven that businesses can make a fair profit while still protecting the environment, jobs and public health.
Those old enough to remember a time before the EPA know what I’m talking about. As I read several stories today about the gutting of the EPA, I not-so-fondly remembered scary images from my early childhood growing up in the Cleveland and Pittsburgh areas in the 1950s.
Choking, eye-watering smokestacks of the steel mills in Pittsburgh. The mills belched so much pollution that my father had to take a change of shirts to work. A white shirt would turn gray by midday.
The Cuyahoga River caught fire a total of 13 times dating back to 1868. It was one of the most polluted rivers in America. Photo: Cleveland State University Library.
At one time, people thought such horrors were the price of jobs and prosperity!
But the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen fifty-fold in the 45 years after the formation of the EPA in 1970. That’s far more than the seven-fold rise in the 45 years before the EPA.
Is Changing EPA’s Mission a Wink-Wink to Polluters?
I just finished reading two articles in the New York Times about the EPA. The first began, “The Trump administration said it would repeal dozens of the nation’s most significant environmental regulations, including limits on pollution from tailpipes and smokestacks, protections for wetlands…” Yada Yada.
The second article quoted Lee Zeldrin, new head of the EPA. He reportedly said, “Those changes…would allow the agency to better focus on its core mission and powering the Great American Comeback.”
The core mission no longer seems to be environmental protection as the name of the agency implies. According to Zeldrin, the core mission is now lowering the costs of “buying a car, heating a home and running a business.”
The same article also quoted Ann E. Carlson, a professor of environmental law at the UCLA School of Law. She said the changes at EPA are “…essentially a wink, wink to…pollute with what may be close to impunity.”
Need for Consistency
No doubt, most business people in Texas can cite an example of EPA overregulation. And no doubt, many will welcome a relaxation of environmental regulations.
But consider this. In general, one of the primary needs of most businesses is consistency. What CEO would invest a billion dollars in a new plant knowing that a change in the Oval Office could cause a regulatory flip back in the opposite direction before construction of the plant even finished?
Such uncertainty slows businesses down. It makes planning, forecasting, and decision-making much more difficult as business leaders weigh political probabilities.
Opportunities Overlooked
In my opinion, rather than only trying to make government more efficient with a chainsaw, we should be trying to make it work better. And when it comes to flood mitigation, opportunities abound.
Last night, I published an article about how Montgomery County has spent an incredible eight years running the grant gauntlet to obtain money to clean logjams out of its streams. And it could still be another year or more before the work can even begin. The work will likely take only months.
But instead of focusing on such obvious opportunities, we are simply lopping off branches of government that we still need.
Why We Still Need a Strong EPA
As I not-so-fondly reminisced about those horrific images from my childhood, I received a text about Hallett’s sand mine on the West Fork San Jacinto. The text contained a video showing the mine still leaking wastewater into the public water supply – after a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) investigation.
State, county and local government agencies, such as TCEQ, are far more susceptible to lobbying groups, such as the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association, than a Federal agency like the EPA.
The video shows a road acting like a berm to keep wastewater from escaping. But close scrutiny shows the wastewater going under the road, rather than over it, as it used to.
Video supplied by concerned nearby resident shows wastewater now goes under road instead of over it.
Historically, different levels of government in the U.S. complement each other. When local levels fail, we need other levels to help. Without the EPA as a backstop for the TCEQ, you will likely not only experience higher flood risk, but higher health risks, too.
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/CuyahogaFire.jpg?fit=1500%2C997&ssl=19971500adminadmin2025-03-22 21:32:112025-03-24 08:33:20Editorial: The Perils of Pendulum Politics
1/6/2025 – Before New Year’s Day, I posted about the lack of best management practices (BMPs) at the Foster Elementary reconstruction site in Kingwood. A contractor let sediment-laden runoff escape the site, fill the street and flow into unprotected storm drains. Photos taken yesterday after a storm front passed show that it’s still happening.
Partial List of Sediment Control BMPs for Construction Sites
The EPA considers sediment a major source of pollution. And not following best practices to control it can clog storm drains, channels and streams, raising flood risk. I quote from the Agency’s brochure: “Sediment fills up storm drains and catch basins to carry water away from roads and homes, which increases the potential for flooding.”
To reduce the potential for flooding, the EPA recommends several best practices. They include, but are not limited to:
1. Silt Fencing around the perimeter to intercept and slow down runoff, so sediment can settle before water flows off the construction site.
2. Stormwater-Inlet Protection, such as sandbags, placed around stormwater inlets to capture sediment before it enters the storm drainage system.
3. Sediment Control Logs (Wattles) filled with straw or other materials to capture sediment before it leaves the site.
4. Mulching with organic materials such as straw, hay, or wood chips to help to protect soil.
5. Sediment Basins & Traps to capture sediment from runoff until it settles out of suspension.
6. Erosion Control Mats or Blankets to stabilize disturbed soil and prevent erosion.
7. Stormwater Diversion Channels to direct runoff to sediment-control ponds or a controlled discharge areas.
8. Construction Entrance/Exit Stabilization with gravel to minimize tracking of mud onto roads from construction vehicles.
9. Geotextiles to stabilize soil.
Slight Improvement, But Still Lacking
After the last post, the Humble ISD contractor did add straw wattles (#3 – sediment control logs) in front of the main construction site entrance.
But storm drain inlets remained unprotected. And part of the perimeter lacked silt fence.
As a result, sediment still escaped the site, entered the street, and entered the storm sewer. See the photos below taken by Chris Summers, a local resident and retired commercial photographer, after a recent storm front dropped .84 inches of rain on 1/5/25.
Entrance to construction site shows wattle roll that was not present for previous storm.
While that showed some improvement, other parts of the perimeter still lacked protection and let water escape.
No silt fence.Wattle roll did not cover the critical area, letting sediment laden water escape into storm sewer.Also, inlet not protected with sand bags.
Summers says he took the photos above after the storm front on 1/5/25 passed through.
How much effort does it take to drop a couple sand bags next to a storm sewer inlet? Could it cost much more than coffee and a danish? There’s just no excuse for this.
Sound Off to the School Board
I have already emailed members of the Humble ISD school board and suggest you do, too. We have lots of good contractors in the area that know how to follow best practices.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/6/25with photos by Chris Summers
2687 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/079-031-storm-runoff.jpg?fit=1000%2C563&ssl=15631000adminadmin2025-01-06 20:38:462025-01-07 06:53:31Contractor Only Partially Complies with BMPs at Foster Elementary Reconstruction Site
Long after floods recede, the residue of toxic chemicals carried by the water can leave a lasting legacy of loss. It can remain in homes and yards, affecting the health of both homeowners and neighborhoods. During Hurricane Harvey, for instance, sewage contaminated the cleanups of both Kingwood College and Kingwood High School. Decontamination, cleanup and repairs took years in each case. But individual residents often don’t have the money to afford expensive decontamination.
Flooding Near Rail Yards and Creosote
One of the most heartbreaking cases in the City of Houston/Harris County has to do with a controversial, decades-long creosote/dioxin cleanup effort associated with the Union Pacific Railroad yard in the Fifth Ward. The Texas Department of Health Services has identified several cancer clusters in the area. And the types of cancers found near the former “Wood Preserving Works” at 4910 Liberty Road in Houston have been associated with the types of chemicals used on the site for decades.
Wood Treatment Facility was located at far end of this yard.FEMA flood map shows how tracks constrict the flow of floodwaters in Hunting Bayou. Water flows from upper left to lower right.Tan = 500 year floodplain. Aqua = 100 year.
Residents interviewed for this article discussed several pathways for possible contamination: airborne dust, groundwater, floodwater/runoff, and clothing of workers. Site runoff mixed with floodwater appears to be one of the most likely.
The map above and the photos below clearly show that the site is elevated compared to surrounding neighborhoods. And residents tell stories of multi-colored sheens on runoff channeled through their streets.
Dueling Studies
UP inherited the site in 1997 after a merger with Southern Pacific. Southern Pacific treated railroad ties with creosote at the site between 1899 and 1984. The creosote is a preservative that keeps ties from rotting and causing derailments.
Union Pacific says it has has found no relationship between the site and cancer clusters in surrounding neighborhoods after 30 years of study.
However, in 2020, the Texas Department of State Health Services published a study covering the years from 2000 to 2016. The study compared cancer rates in the area near the rail yards with those throughout Houston and Texas as the baseline. Researchers identified several cancer clusters in the Fifth Ward neighborhoods you see above.
But UP questions the validity of that study. The company claims that “The area also includes an industrial complex containing about 200 TCEQ-regulated cleanup sites and two superfund projects. The former Houston Wood Preserving Works site represents 33 acres, or less than .4 percent of the total cancer-cluster territory.”
Then yesterday, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner held a press conference. He escalated the conflict. Turner, who has just five months left in office, says he supported the additional study but, “we have studied the problem enough. The time for action is now. Time is the enemy.”
Turner urged relocating people in the most contaminated areas closest to the site. He emphasized finding safer places in the same general area to reduce the impact of relocation.
“Let me emphasize this,” said Turner. “Time is the enemy of people living in the highly exposed and dangerous zone with limited means to do anything else. How many more people must be diagnosed with cancer? How many more people – and specifically, how many more children – must die? How many more families must be trapped in a known danger zone while we watch, test and litigate? The city cannot and will not continue to wait until we know every single thing.“
The Mayor continued, “We know enough. The cancer cluster is clear. The presence of creosote beneath homes at levels above cleanup standards is clear. The presence of elevated levels of cancer-causing dioxin detected at some homes through the city’s limited studies is clear. You simply can’t wait for the test to be completed, and watch and litigate it, and then start the process further down the road.”
Mayor Recommends Relocating Residents within 2-3 Block Radius of Site
“Today, I’m announcing a strike-force team composed of representatives of the city’s Health and Human Services, Housing and Community Development, Real-Estate Recovery, and legal teams, along with outside sources. They will begin work in earnest on a program to help relocate residents living above the creosote plume and in a 2 to 3 block radius around the site.”
If the results of the EPA’s Union-Pacific investigation reveal broader areas of impact, Turner says the program will be expanded to help those people, too.
Turner concluded with a personal anecdote that related to his own experience with cancer. He said that with cancer, “Time is your enemy.” That’s why he wanted to get people out of harm’s way who can’t fend for themselves.
Lasting Legacy of Loss – Case After Case of Cancer, Boarded Up Homes
When I flew over the UP site last year, I was astounded by its size. Ken Williams, chairman of the Harris County Community Resilience Flood Task Force who lives nearby, introduced me to some people in the neighborhood, including Keith Downey, the local Super-Neighborhood Council President.
They gave me a tour. It was one of my more gut-wrenching experiences since Harvey.
I also met a young lady, Sandra Edwards, who grew up across the street from the UP site. She walked us up and down the block, stopping in front of each house, to tell us the stories of the occupants. Within a half block, we counted about a dozen neighbors who had died or were dying from cancer.
Sandra Edwards, concerned neighbor turned activistEvery other home it seemed was abandoned. One that wasn’t abandoned had children’s play equipment in the front. But the EPA warns not to let kids play in the dirt because of soil contamination.Many of the homes had reportedly been victimizedby arson. Edwards talked of a developer trying to buy up properties to redevelop the neighborhood whose future is still in doubt.Edwards in front of former creosote site. Note slope. Water runs into neighborhood according to Edwards.Looking NNE across creosote site. Note Fleming Middle School five blocks north, left of center near top of frame.
I returned to the neighborhood several times between July and December to photograph the progress of cleanup.
In November, cleanup was still going strong.Note the covered dumpsters to keep excavated dirt from blowing out. Also note plastic liners under dumpsters to keep polluted rainwater from soaking back into soil.
Many of the people living here inherited homes that their parents or grandparents owned before there was an EPA and people knew about the dangers of substances such as creosote and dioxins.
This lasting legacy of loss has been developing for decades. It could be decades more before the parties find a mutually agreeable solution.
Check back for more news as it develops. For more information see this list of studies conducted by the Houston Health Department.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/14/23
2145 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/20221112-RJR_1077.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2023-07-14 19:00:282023-07-15 09:50:05How Floods Can Leave a Lasting Legacy of Loss
For a variety of reasons, many new developments seem to be “on pause” these days. Developers clear and grade land. Then it may sit undeveloped for months or even years.
This leaves exposed soil unprotected by vegetation. That makes it more susceptible to erosion for longer periods. And the eroded soil can clog streams and creeks with excess sediment. That reduces conveyance and can contribute to potential flooding. The EPA classifies sediment as the most common pollutant in American rivers and streams.
I am not alleging that all of the developments below have flooded other properties – though some have. But in extreme storms, they may contribute to conditions that increase flood risk.
That raises the question: Can we reduce that risk? That, of course, requires understanding what’s slowing development. But let me show you some examples of stalled developments first.
Unprotected Soil
No one keeps statistics on how long cleared land remains undeveloped. But suddenly, it feels as though stalled developments surround us. Below are pictures of just a handful taken in the last few months near the Montgomery/Harris County border.
Royal Pines in Porter
Royal Pines in Montgomery County on White Oak Creek has flooded neighbors’ properties multiple times in the last six months. White Oak Creek actually rerouted itself across a portion of the development.Royal Pines border with White Oak Creek (in woods). Note sediment escaping propertyinto creek.After a 4-inch rain in January, White Oak Creek branched and started flowing across the cleared area.Truck of Royal Pines neighbor one day after being washed.Flooding isn’t the only problem.
The neighbor stated that she spoke with the MoCo Engineers’ office last Friday and the stormwater detention plan still had not been approved. According to the neighbor, the developer was told by the county last January to submit revised detention and berm plans. The engineer also requested the developer to divert the runoff away from the neighbor’s property. But the developer evidently went ahead and built a detention basin without revising the plans. The development still floods neighbors’ property after every appreciable rain.
New trailer park development in NW Harris County is sending sediment into the headwaters of Spring Creek. See below.
As you approach the creek, the slope increases…
…and despite the best efforts of the developer, sediment is escaping into the creek.A river of mud……is flowing into Spring Creek.
Townsen Landing in Humble
A small part of Townsen Landing in Humble. The developer cleared land, but no homes have been built in the last year.
Valley Ranch in New Caney/Porter
Valley Ranch Medical Center construction in November 202120 months later they were building detention basins and channels to connect them. In March 2023, uncontrolled runoff was sending sediment into a ditch behind homes and businesses along FM1314.
Multiple Reasons for Development Delays
To do something about development delays, you need to understand the causes first. Those most often cited by developers and media have to do with:
Regulations. For instance, Magnolia officials enacted a moratorium on permit applications in December 2022 over concerns the city’s water supply couldn’t keep pace with growth in the area. The moratorium impacts new as well as current development projects.
Developers rank permitting delays as one of their biggest headaches.
Increasing land prices push developers into marginal, flood-prone land as a way to help control costs. But such land also causes permitting delays. Developers struggle with extra layers of studies and approvals from flood plain managers that can slow projects.
Rising interest rates that may undermine developers/builders economic assumptions.
Shortages of building materials. For instance, a global cement shortage, often linked to the war in Ukraine, makes planning difficult for land developers and road builders. According to a source at the Houston Contractors Association, Texas pours more concrete annually than the next two states (CA and FL) combined.
The pandemic, which led to other supply and labor shortages.
Such issues often loom larger for less experienced developers whose pockets may not be as deep as their more experienced competitors.
Regardless, silt fences are woefully inadequate in dealing with issues such as these.
Need to Re-Evaluate Construction and Permitting Practices
Some suggestions. Many areas do not require a permit to clear and grade land. Developers may begin the process assuming normal permitting time for their plans, but then run into unforeseen hiccups. As regulations have gotten more complex in the post-Harvey world, this has become increasingly common. Perhaps we need to require:
Permit approvals before clearing and grading.
Vegetated buffers around the perimeter of properties during development.
Berms to protect neighbors and waterways during development
Clearing and installing drainage in a portion of a property before moving onto another portion of the property (phased development).
Governments throughout the region to standardize construction requirements.
Governments to hire enough people to review plans a timely way.
Some or all of the above.
Other ideas suggested by readers:
Do not develop on land not suited for development in the first place.
Stop developing so close to waterways.
Zone land to allow natural drainage to exist in harmony with human occupancy.
Keep some areas prone to flooding heavily vegetated permanently.
Half Billion Dollars for Sediment Removal
Sound expensive? Consider this.
Since Harvey, we have spent/plan to spend approximately a half billion dollars on dredging and sediment removal. Half of that has been spent on the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto, plus channels/streams around Lake Houston. The other half will be spent on sediment removal in:
Willow Creek
White Oak Bayou
Spring Creek
Little Cypress Creek
Greens Bayou
Cypress Creek
Barker Reservoir
Addicks Reservoir
We must find a compromise that works for everyone. People need places to live. Especially places that don’t flood.
Posted by Bob Rehakon June 7, 2023
2108 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/20221006-DJI_0849.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2023-06-07 19:53:512023-06-11 13:21:23How Development Delays Can Impact Flooding
The definition of “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) is changing again thanks to a new ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. It could put half of the nation’s wetlands in peril and that could significantly affect flooding.
The Ping-Pong Match over Wetland Protection
I first started covering the definition of WOTUS in January of this year in a story about Biden’s changes to Trump’s changes to Obama’s changes.
The WOTUS definition defines the areas subject to EPA clean water regulations. At issue: How far up in the branching structure of a river may the government enforce regulations? As far as it’s navigable? One level up from that? Two? Three? Infinitely?
Clarity is a good thing. But the last time I looked up WOTUS, the definition stretched for more than 100-pages. It has changed numerous times since 2015. And different government agencies follow different definitions. Complexity, change, ambiguity and conflict now give bureaucrats and developers almost unlimited power to interpret definitions as they see fit.
Local Example of Damage
For instance, when the developers of Woodridge Village clearcut their property, filled in wetlands and sent tons of sludge down Taylor Gully into Lake Houston, the question became “Were they acting legally?” The developer found no wetlands on their property even though wetlands were clearly indicated on the USGS National Wetlands Inventory.
Complaints piled into the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps found that, even though the property contained wetlands, the wetlands lay outside the jurisdiction of the Corps to regulate.
Resident examines massive erosion on Woodridge Village flowing down Taylor Gully into Lake Houstonin 2019.
Bureaucratic Overreach?
The Trump-era definition, finalized in 2020, was long sought by developers who complained about federal overreach. They said the WOTUS definition stretched into gullies, creeks and wetlands on private property.
But Biden reversed the Trump definition and now the US Supreme Court has reversed the Biden definition. That makes the fourth time the rules have been reversed since 2015. Worse, the EPA and Corps use overlapping, but different rules.
And as far as I can tell, the limit of regulation does not vary with the magnitude of violation, a serious flaw in my opinion.
NYT Article Puts Most Recent Changes in Perspective
A New York Times essay by Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation summarized the most recent changes. Says Murphy, “The Environmental Protection Agency has long interpreted the Clean Water Act as protecting most of the nation’s wetlands from pollution. But now the court has significantly limited the reach of the law…”
The Court’s new definition hinges on the wetlands having “a continuous surface connection” to bodies of water such as streams, rivers, lakes and oceans. At least half of the nation’s wetlands could lose protection under this ruling, which provides an even narrower definition of “protected waters” than the Trump administration had sought, according to Murphy.
Congress has long failed to clarify language in the Clean Water Act that caused confusion among judges and put the law in the Supreme Court’s cross hairs.
Wetlands are nature’s sponges. They act as natural detention basins that hold back stormwaters and that has a direct impact on flooding.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who filed a concurring opinion in the judgment, acknowledged its impact, writing that it would have “significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States.”
How Revised Definition Could Affect Local Development
Need an example. Look no further than the Colony Ridge development in Liberty County, where the developer is filling in and paving over wetlands…some immediately adjacent to wetland mitigation banks.
Colony Ridge WetlandsColony Ridge wetlands being drained for development.
Many residents in adjoining communities such as Plum Grove and Huffman have complained bitterly about worsening flooding in their areas, which they attribute to such development practices.
I hope Congress can finally find a workable definition of WOTUS that protects public safety while allowing responsible development. The constantly changing definitions of WOTUS help no one.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/31/23
2101 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Wetlands-Mapper-Highlighted.jpg?fit=1200%2C565&ssl=15651200adminadmin2023-05-31 11:48:022023-05-31 12:01:02How a Controversial, Little Understood Definition Affects Flooding
