The problem: Changes affect both water quality downstream and land development upstream. That’s why the rules change so often. Competing interests! Public health and safety vs. economic expansion.
The Cuyahoga River caught fire a total of 13 times dating back to 1868. It is still rated one of the most polluted rivers in America by almost every group that compiles lists. Photo: Cleveland State University Library.
The photographers took about 81,000 images, more than 20,000 of which were archived. At least 15,000 have been digitized by the National Archives. They form a time capsule showing the way things were.
Warning: These images are disturbing…for people on both sides of the political net.
Why the Changes This Time?
The AP article by Jim Salter and Michael Phillis says, “The Trump-era rule, finalized in 2020, was long sought by builders, oil and gas developers, farmers and others who complained about federal overreach that they said stretched into gullies, creeks and ravines on farmland and other private property.”
However, the writers continued, “…the Trump rule allowed businesses to dump pollutants into unprotected waterways and fill in some wetlands, threatening public water supplies downstream and harming wildlife and habitat.”
They quoted Kelly Moser, Senior Attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Clean Water Defense Initiative. She said, “Today, the Biden administration restored needed clean water protections so that our nation’s waters are guarded against pollution for fishing, swimming, and as sources of drinking water.”
At Issue: Definition of “Waters of the U.S.”
Meanwhile, courts at various levels are still pondering the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” At issue: How far up in the branching structure of a river may the government enforce regulations? As far as it’s navigable? One level up from that? Two? Three? Infinitely? And do the rules apply to desert areas the same way they do to subtropical areas like SE Texas?
The Biden administration decision is a setback for various industries. It broadens which wetlands, streams and rivers can be regulated under the Clean Water Act.
But given the impacts to public health and the immense economic interests at stake, this won’t be the last time we see the rules change. An army of lobbyists is likely mobilizing right now.
Local Impact
Several developments in the Lake Houston Area contained wetlands affected regulation changes. Consider, for instance, the case of Woodridge Village. The Army Corps ruled that it contained wetlands, but that the wetlands didn’t fall under their jurisdiction because of rules in effect at the time. So there was no violation of the Clean Water Act. Hundreds of homes in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest flooded, partially as a result of the environmental destruction.
Confluence of Spring Creek and West Fork by 59 Bridge. TCEQ found that Liberty Mines discharged 56 million gallons of white waste water into the West Fork.Repeated and multiple breaches atTriple PG mine discharged sediment-laden water directly into Caney Creek. This one lasted for months.
Searching on the word “breach” in ReduceFlooding.com pulls up 116 stories, many of which show multiple breaches.
But mining isn’t the only upstream issue at stake. So is sediment pollution from new development.
Drainage ditch in Artavia.March 2020 in West Fork watershedEroding ditch in Colony Ridge (East Fork Watershed) due to lack of backslope interceptor systems and grass.
Making Private Expenses a Public Cost
The EPA lists sediment as the most common pollutant in rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs. It has contributed to flooding thousands of homes in the Lake Houston Area.
West Fork mouth bar almost totally blocked the river where it meets Lake Houston.East Fork Mouth Bar grew 4000 feet in two years between Harvey and Imelda.
Both mouth bars above have since been dredged at great public expense, but abuses continue. I just wish we could all find a way to live together. This should not be a case of health and safety vs. economic development. We need all three for communities to prosper.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/2/23
1952 days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/RJR_4154.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2023-01-02 11:04:302023-01-02 11:49:14Biden Changes Trump’s Changes to Water Regulations
The month after Woodridge Village flooded Elm Grove Village and North Kingwood Forest for the first time in May, 2019, the TCEQ investigated construction practices there. In the ensuing months, six investigations found 13 violations on the Woodridge site.
Correctly identify receiving waters for the discharge
Implement and maintain effective best management practices.
On TCEQ Commissioners Docket for September 9
Item 29 on their docket reads:
No. 2019-1513-WQ-E. Consideration of an Agreed Order assessing administrative penalties and requiring certain actions of Double Oak Construction, Inc. in Montgomery County; RN110478583; for water quality violations pursuant to Tex. Water Code chs. 7 and 26 and the rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, including specifically 30 Tex. Admin. Code ch. 60.
Water samples taken by the investigators showed that at the outfall:
Total Suspended Solids were 70 times higher compared to upstream
Total Dissolved Solids were almost 18 times higher.
Double Oak had been hired to clear and grub the site. That means removing trees and roots.
Unchecked erosion from site polluted water downstream with suspended solids 70 times higher than upstream.Abel Vera had to grab his car to avoid slipping in ankle-deep sediment on Village Springs. Vera lives next to Woodridge.
Definition of Agreed Order
This enforcement action by the TCEQ falls into a category called an “Agreed Order.” A website called USLegal.com defines an agreed order as: “An Agreed Order refers to a written agreement submitted by the parties to a case resolving the issues between them. Once the agreed order is approved by the court and entered in its minutes, it becomes the order or decree of the court with all of the force and effect that any order would have after a full hearing prior to adjudication.”
However, they add: “…until then, an ‘agreed order’ is no order at all, but merely an agreement of the parties. It has no significance … until a judicial … decision gives it significance.” TCEQ Commissioners will take that step on September 9.
Double Oak Penalties Unclear
Documents supplied in response to a FOIA request did not discuss what the penalties might entail for Double Oak. The company left the construction site long ago. It has since been sold to Harris County Flood Control and the City of Houston for a regional stormwater detention basin and sewage treatment plant. So it’s not as if Double Oak can make good by simply agreeing to clean up its act.
Typically, such cases involve a modest fine. The significance in this case: Double Oak apparently is admitting wrongdoing before a decision or settlement has been reached in hundreds of homeowner lawsuits downstream. More on those at a later date.
1463 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 712 Days since Imelda
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ElmGroveFlood_15_01.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2021-08-31 19:24:382021-08-31 19:32:47TCEQ Commissioners to Consider Agreed Order With Double Oak Construction on Woodridge Village Enforcement Action
At the very end of this post, I make some recommendations to strengthen BMPs, and describe how to submit public comments.
Structural Controls
Structural controls do several things:
Divert runoff away from disturbed areas
Reduce runoff velocities
Filter sediment
Remove sediment by ponding.
They include the following.
Temporary Structures (Section 2.2.1)
Installed before and during construction. After removing temporary stormwater controls the areas disturbed by the temporary structures must be revegetated.
Permanent Structures (Section 2.2.2)
Permanent structures remaining after construction. Once construction of areas outside of the sand-mining pit has ceased, permanent structural control BMPs must be implemented and operational.
Diversion Ridges, Berms or Channels of Stabilized Soil (Section 2.2.3)
These divert runoff into “sediment basins.” If they remain in place more than 30 days, they must be covered with temporary or permanent vegetation. Maximum allowable drainage area is five acres.
Silt Fences (Section 2.2.4)
Silt fences capture sediment from sheet flow. Six to eight inches of the fence material must be buried in a trench about four inches deep and four inches wide. Silt fences that are not buried have no useful function. They must never be installed across streams. Fencing must be removed when sediment deposits reach one-half the fence height.
Straw Bales (Section 2.2.4 Continued)
Can also be used as sediment barriers in small areas. Maximum grade: 3:1. Water depth must not exceed one foot at any point. Bales with bindings must be entrenched a minimum of four inches and anchored with stakes. Straw bales that are not buried are improperly installed.
Sediment Basins (Section 2.2.5)
Allow retention of sediment “prior to discharge” or recycling. Side slopes must be 2:1 or less.Sediment must be removed when the volume has been reduced to 27 cubic yards per acre of drainage area. Dikes must be well compacted and vegetated. Installed prior to construction but not in flowing streams. Use diversions to direct drainage to basins.
Riprap outlet protection must be placed at the outlet end of culverts or channels to reduce the depth, velocity, and energy of water so that the flow will not erode the receiving stream.
Check Dams (Section 2.2.7)
Small dams across swales or drainage ditches that reduce flow velocity and erosion. Not used in flowing streams. Maximum height: two feet. Center must be at least six inches lower than the outer edges to prevent erosion around the edges. The maximum spacing between dams must be such that the toe of the upstream dam is at the same elevation as the top of the downstream dam.
Accumulated sediment must be removed from behind the check dams when it reaches one half the dam height.Erosion around dam edges must be corrected immediately, ensuring that the dam center is six inches lower than the edges.
Construction Entrance/Exits (Section 2.2.8)
Aggregate must stabilize entrances and exits to reduce sediment tracked onto public roads. Aggregate must be at least six inches thick and 50 feet long. Tire washing may also be needed.
Housekeeping Practices (Section 2.2.9)
Petroleum products, paints, solvents, litter, debris, sanitary waste, and sediment from unstabilized areas, TCEQ BMPs specify:
Designated areas for equipment maintenance and repair;
Waste receptacles at convenient locations;
Regular collection of waste;
Protected storage areas for chemicals, paints, solvents, fertilizers, and other potentially toxic or hazardous materials; and
Control measures must be installed to control pollutants in stormwater after construction is complete. These controls include, but are not limited to:
Retention ponds. Minimum volume is the first inch or half inch of stormwater runoff containing the first flush of pollutants.
Vegetated Swales and Natural Depressions. There are grass-lined areas that filter sediments from runoff, thus helping to prevent erosion. Vegetated swales must have side slopes of 4:1 or less.
General
As with vegetative controls, operators must inspect structural controls once every seven (7) calendar days. That includes controls in areas used for storage of materials; maintenance areas; plus site entrances and exits.
Operators must replace or modify ineffective or damaged structural controls “in a timely manner, but no later than the next anticipated storm event.”
Recommendations for Public Comment Structural Controls
As we saw in yesterday’s post on vegetative controls, I have often seen gaps between real and ideal. However, for this post, I realized in looking back through thousands of aerial photos today, that I have never photographed one:
Stabilized channel
Silt fence
Straw bale
Check dam
Outlet stabilized by riprap or
Vegetated swale
…on a sand mine site. Period. Let alone one that met these requirements.
I’m not saying they don’t exist. I’m just saying that I’ve never seen them on the days I flew over.
Maybe operators feel they don’t need them. Or maybe they’re just not using them for other reasons.
So once again, I recommend that you write the TCEQ and ask them to put teeth into their BMP requirements.
In addition, I recommend you request:
Stronger wording on the general requirement to fix damaged or ineffective structural controls in a “timely manner.” That’s just too subjective. It lets operators defer maintenance way past the point it may be needed.
Clarification on “prior to discharging” in section 2.2.5. Are operators capturing sediment only to discharge it into the river at a later time? What do they mean by discharge? Where?
Detention ponds big enough to catch an inch of rain in an area where Atlas 14 requirements specify 16.9 inches of rain in 24 hours? (Section 2.2.10) That seems wholly inadequate. Harris County Flood Control District recommends minimum detention volumes for developments at .65 acre feet per acre for areas up to 640 acres. That’s about 8 inches of rainfall.
Please submit your thoughts on structural control and other BMPs to the TCEQ by emailing Macayla.Coleman@Tceq.Texas.gov with the subject line “BMPs Guidance Document” before August 19, 2021.
The house you save could be your own.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/13/2021
1445 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/2019/11/RJR_4245.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2021-08-13 20:12:092021-08-13 20:33:34Sand-Mine Structural Control BMPs Could Make Difference in Next Flood
After a few drier days during the Memorial Day weekend, wet weather is returning and will last into next week. We should see a high chance (50% or greater) of thunderstorms every day for the next week.
Pattern Similar to Last Month Setting Up
According to Harris County Meteorologist Jeff Lindner, the upcoming pattern will resemble the heavy rains of early last week and similar patterns in 2015 and 2016. Slow moving low-pressure systems over the southwest US will send multiple disturbances across Texas starting today and lasting into early next week.
Harris County Flood Control inspects damage from heavy rains in May to recently repaired Ben’s Branch. Photo courtesy of Chris Bloch.
Onshore winds will ensure a steady influx of Gulf moisture, high humidity and rainfall production. Disturbances will emerge from northeast Mexico into central and south central Texas nearly every day. Clusters and complexes of thunderstorms will develop and move east into the Houston region.
Difficult to Precisely Predict Heavy Downpours
“When exactly each disturbance will rotate out of Mexico is uncertain. And what state the local air mass will be ahead of each disturbance will also be hard to determine,” said Lindner.
But this pattern, he continued, “will support complexes and clusters of thunderstorms from Tuesday onward – with both a heavy rainfall and marginal severe weather threat. Some days will likely have higher threats of both.”
Widespread rainfall of 3-5 inches is likely over the next several days.
Jeff Lindner, Harris County meteorologist
While our minds may be inclined to spread such totals out evenly over the course of 5-7 days, “that is usually not how it works,” warns Lindner. “At this time of year, we could see 1-3 inches fall in a few hours or less as clusters and complexes move across the region.”
Grounds are still wet from the 10-15 inches of rainfall in May. It will not take much rainfall to trigger run-off and renewed rises on area watersheds, especially as rainfall totals accumulate over time.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/1/2021, based on information provided by HCFCD
1372 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Screen-Shot-2021-06-01-at-8.49.26-AM.jpg?fit=1200%2C658&ssl=16581200adminadmin2021-06-01 09:55:452021-06-01 10:06:27High Chance of Thunderstorms Every Day into Next Week
“Backslope interceptors” help prevent erosion that can clog drainage ditches and contribute to flooding. Most people have probably seen them, but never paid much attention to them. Nor do they understand can reduce ditch maintenance costs by lengthening maintenance intervals. This photo essay shows what a difference they can make. All three counties in the Lake Houston Area require them, but Liberty County doesn’t enforce its own regulations. So the visual differences are dramatic.
What Are They? How Do They Work?
We’ve all observed water flowing through drainage ditches. But how does it get into the ditch? Broadly speaking, it can get into the ditch by a) flowing down the banks or b) through pipes. Option A increases erosion. Option B decreases it. B also reduces flood risk and the long-term cost of ditch maintenance.
What is a backslope interceptor? Imagine a small ditch (or swale) parallel to but offset from the main ditch. The swale captures runoff and overland sheet flow before it gets to the main ditch. The swale then funnels the flow into pipes that run under the banks of the main ditch. Keeping large volumes of water off those banks reduces erosion which could otherwise quickly fill the ditch with dirt and reduce its carrying capacity. If erosion reduces carrying capacity enough, water can flood nearby homes and businesses. The illustration below shows how backslope interceptors work.
Real-Life Examples
On 3/3/2021, I flew over three counties: Harris, Montgomery and Liberty. The “with/without” photos below illustrate the difference that properly constructed backslope interceptors can make. I shot the first one over the new Artavia development in southern Montgomery County. Note how the backslope interceptors let the developer establish grass on the banks of the ditch despite construction still in progress.
Ditches WITH Backslope Interceptors
Artavia ditch in Montgomery County. Note series of backslope interceptors behind the maintenance roads that flank the ditch.
Drainage ditch in Atascocita in Harris County. Again, backslope interceptors let grass establish on the sides of ditches, reducing erosion.
Wider shot along same ditch.
Ditches WITHOUT Backslope Interceptors
The rest of these examples came from Colony Ridge in Liberty County.
Lack of backslope interceptors has led to severe erosion. Runoff goes straight down the banks of ditch and into the East Fork San Jacinto.
Close up of same Colony Ridge ditch.
Role in Establishing Grass
The next two photos show the role of backslope interceptors in establishing grass. By preventing bank erosion from sheet flow, the interceptors give grass time to establish and grow, reducing erosion even more.
Ditch in Artavia, a still-developing area in Montgomery County, where developer has recently hydromulched to establish grass.
Liberty County ditch in newly developing part of Colony Ridge, also recently hydromulched. Without backslope interceptors, hydromulch has washed into bottom of ditch and will eventually wash away, leading to more severe erosion.
How Enforcing Regulations Can Reduce Costs, Flooding
Ironically, Liberty County drainage regulations updated in 2019 require developers to install backslope interceptors and plant grass on the banks of drainage ditches.
Page 100 states: “Erosion Control: All drainage facilities must be designed and maintained in a manner which minimizes the potential for damage due to erosion. No bare earthen slopes will be allowed. [Emphasis added] Various slope treatments, including turf establishment, concrete slope paving, and rip- rap, are accepted. Flow velocities should be kept below permissible values for each type of slope treatment. Interceptor structures and backslope swale systemsare required [Emphasis added] to prevent sheet flows from eroding the side slopes of open channels and detention facilities.”
Unfortunately, Liberty County does not enforce its own regulations.
When the developer eventually tries to turn Colony Ridge over to Liberty County, the county will inherit as massive maintenance burden because of non-compliance with these regulations. But even before then, the developer is creating rivers of mud that reduce the conveyance of ditches, and thus contribute to flooding nearby residents in Plum Grove.
This Colony Ridge drainage ditch in Liberty County is rapidly filling in. Residents use it for joy-riding in their ATVs, which further contributes to erosion.
The sediment also contributes to dredging and water purification costs for people downstream in Harris County.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/6/2021
1285 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 534 since Imelda
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
Drainage reports for the controversial Colony Ridge development in Liberty County misrepresent soil types in a way that underestimate runoff by as much as 6X to 9X. As a consequence, the massive development’s ditches and detention ponds are undersized. That contributes to downstream flooding.
In addition, virtually all of the drainage reports supplied by the county in response to my FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request were marked “preliminary” and many were missing. The Assistant County Attorney did not explain why. She said only that she had supplied all documents “responsive to” my request that the county had.
Let’s review soil types first.
USDA Findings Contradict LandPlan Engineering’s
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) classifies soil into four groups (A, B, C, D) that represent rates of rainwater infiltration. GroupA has the highest rate of infiltration and D has the lowest. Think gravelly sand vs. clays.
When USDA analyzed soils in the Colony Ridge area, it found less than 2% in Group A. However, virtually all of LandPlan Engineering, PA reports used model inputs associated with soils in Group A. Hmmmm. Quite a contradiction. LandPlan is the engineering company for Colony Ridge that produced the drainage studies.
USDA says almost no Colony Ridge soils have the lowest rate of infiltration and LandPlan says almost all do.
Comparison of USDA Soil Survey and Landplan Engineering documents
Colony Ridge also has small percentages of soils in intermediate categories:
B = 2.3%
C = 1.2%
Finally, USDA shows some mixed soil types within Colony Ridge. For instance B/D or C/D. But a flood expert and professional engineer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that with mixed soil types, LandPlan should have classified them as Group D. “For all of the areas with B/D and C/D, you should assume that they are D because the soil is disturbed and probably compacted in some way.” So almost 95% of the soils should should be represented with a rate of infiltration equivalent to Group D.
Compacted soil on residential Colony Ridge lot. Note ponding water and damp soil at right. Note also the erosion under back fence next to ditch.Insufficient capacity of ditch contributed to erosion.
Soil Classification Consistently Off in One Direction
Liberty County supplied 39 drainage and construction documents in response to ReduceFlooding.com’s FOIA request. The soil classifications, as shown by the Curve Numbers in the reports all erred in one direction – the direction that favored the developer’s profits.
Almost 95% of the soils should be classified in the least porous group. But virtually allof the “curve numbers” reported by LandPlan Engineering are associated with the most porous group.
By classifying the soils as more porous than they actually are, the engineers could claim there was less runoff and therefore reduce the size of ditches. Likewise, they could reduce or eliminate detention ponds.
What Curve Numbers Mean
Curve Numbers (abbreviated as CN in drainage reports and construction docs) numerically represent the rate of rainwater infiltration. They correlate primarily to soil groups, but also land use and surface conditions. For instance, after soil is paved with concrete, the curve number goes up (indicating less infiltration).
Excerpt from Bella Vista Drainage Report. Note Curve Number for pre-existing conditionsassociated with Group A soils, i.e., those having the highest rate of infiltration.
USDA’s soil report for Bella Vista Section 1 shows that the soils are Group C (69%) and Group D (31%). According to USDA and the flood expert/engineer above, the Curve Number used to calculate detention requirements for the “developed condition” should have been closer to 85. But the Curve Number on which the detention is based is 56 (see below) – a number associated with Group A soils. Note: this is a subset of the larger report for Colony Ridge discussed above.
Bella Vista Section 1 shows post-development Curve Number of only 56, associated with the highest rate of infiltration.
Importance of Accurate Curve Numbers
While Group A can absorb .3 to .45 inches of rainfall per hour, Group D absorbs only 0.00 to 0.05 inches per hour. Had LandPlan used the correct values, they would have had to accommodate 6X to 9X more rainfall.
Texdot
That would have required building larger ditches and detention ponds. But by using the Group A numbers, they could claim:
Floodwaters were soaking in.
Their roadside ditches could hold runoff.
No, fewer, or smaller detention ponds were necessary.
This suggests that LandPlan altered model inputs to achieve the desired output. The flood expert above called LandPlan’s Curve Numbers, “just plain wrong.” “Soils like that just don’t exist in this area,” he said.
The Berg-Oliver report was NOT one of the documents supplied by Liberty County. I found it attached to an affidavit by the former Liberty County Engineer in a lawsuit between the ex-Mayor of Plum Grove and the developer of Colony Ridge.
Role in Downstream Flooding, FM1010 Washout, Erosion
Plum Grove residents report increases in the severity and frequency of flooding since Colony Ridge started clearing land. Water accumulates faster and peaks higher, they say, because of the loss of trees and wetlands. But the extra runoff that engineers have not accounted for in their calculations makes those problems even worse. That’s because Colony Ridge ditches and detention ponds can’t retain the extra runoff.
Mischaracterization of soil types likely also played a role in the washout of FM1010.
During Harvey, Colony Ridge drainage ditches discharged so much water into Rocky Branch that the stream then overtopped and destroyed FM1010. The blowout worsened during Imelda. No one has repaired it yet.
Finally, the “tractive” force (power) of rapidly moving water through undersized ditches accelerated erosion. Downstream, the eroded sediment built up and forms sediment dams that back water up, flooding additional homes in Plum Grove, or near the San Jacinto East Fork and Luce Bayou.
“Preliminary” Plans
My Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Liberty County asked for ALL drainage analyses/surveys and construction plans for Colony Ridge subdivisions. However…
Virtually all of the plans that Liberty County supplied were marked “preliminary.”
None was marked final or approved.
Many were missing altogether.
NOT ONE bore the signature, stamp, or comments of the Liberty County engineer or his agent, LJA Engineering.
The 39 reports/surveys and plans are too large to post here; they comprise 1.5 gigabytes.
Liberty County has yet to clarify why so many of the plans are named “preliminary” or were missing. However, the Assistant County Attorney did verify that she supplied all Colony Ridge documents that pertained to my request.
Missing Documents
Here is a list of NINETEEN missing documents:
Missing Drainage Plans/Analyses (16)
Bella Vista – Section 2
Camino Real – All Four Sections
Grand San Jacinto – All Five Sections
Montebello – All Four Sections
Sante Fe – Sections 1 and 2
Missing Construction Plans (3)
Camino Real – Sections 1 and 2
Grand San Jacinto – Section 2
The problems in the 39 documents that Liberty County DID supply make one wonder what’s in the 19 they DID NOT supply.
Fallacy of Government Oversight
Not only are many documents missing, the ones Liberty County does have appear to be based on false assumptions about soil types.
I’m told by reputable engineers and floodplain administrators that this problem is common. Developers can always find engineers willing to sell favorable opinions – much like junkies know how to find doctors willing to write prescriptions for oxycodone.
Most people don’t have the expertise to evaluate reports like LandPlan’s. The hired guns know it and count on it. Cities and counties could hire engineers to thoroughly check these plans, but they don’t … for several reasons:
Awareness of this problem is low.
There’s no public pressure for counties to hire plan-checking engineers.
Developers make huge political contributions.
Floods often happen years after buildout of subdivisions.
By the time people flood, it’s too late. The damage has already been done. And the people responsible are often long gone.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/26/2020
1215 days since Hurricane Harvey and 464 since Imelda
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
Last year, New York State produced a series of model local laws to increase resilience. The 468-page document is a catalog of ideas for cities and counties to choose from. It covers everything from building in flood-prone areas to maximum lot coverage, land-clearing practices for new developments, stormwater controls, zoning, building elevation and more.
For those who can get past the not-invented-here syndrome, it could provide a valuable resource. As I read it, I found dozens of ideas that could reduce flooding in Houston.
Will New York Approaches Fly in Houston?
While some of the concepts, such as zoning, may seem radical to Houstonians, others have actually already been adopted by Houston. For instance, one of the suggestions was to record the extent of flood-plains on plats, a project the Houston Planning Commission recently adopted. Another is to require elevation of homes that flood repetitively to avoid substantial damage in the future. Houston adopted that one, too, after Harvey.
Another recommendation: prohibit land clearing by developers until AFTER plats are approved. This could likely have helped prevent a lot of flooding on the San Jacinto East Fork where Colony Ridge cleared thousands of acres before even getting plats approved.
The real target for this document is local government officials interested in addressing resiliency issues in their municipal codes. However, the discussions around each proposal also provide interesting background for flood advocates who are lobbying their elected officials.
Best Practices Codified into Local Regulations
The ideas provide of menu of what has worked elsewhere and why.
For greater resiliency, it is a wise best management practice, claim the authors, to ensure that developers design subdivision layouts in a manner that:
Minimizes land disturbance (tree clearing, land grading, soil compaction);
Avoids steep slopes, flood-prone areas and wetlands;
Protects important natural areas and habitats; Limits impervious surfaces;
Does not negatively impact public infrastructure;
Does not overload the roadway system, and
Provides effective stormwater control.
Other Major Areas of Focus
Other major sections deal with protection alternatives for:
The ideas presented here do not represent a complete program that must be adopted from start to finish. They are more like an à la carte menu. Take a little of this. A little of that. Whatever you need. Wherever you need it.
Once local officials identify ideas they could use, the document even provides templates for the wording of resolutions.
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/2020/12/20201207-Aerial-Dec-2020_836.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-12-18 15:32:152020-12-18 15:36:14Model Local Laws to Increase Resilience
But aerial photos taken this week show that drainage ditches in the massive Colony Ridge development rarely have grass on their banks. And while criss-crossing the development in a helicopter on Monday, December 7, 2020, I did not see one backslope interceptor swale. This, DESPITE Colony Ridge being the largest development in Liberty County. Or maybe it’s BECAUSE Colony Ridge is the largest development in the county. Perhaps they think they can flaunt regulations.
Colony Ridge is even larger than any of the cities in Liberty County – by far. You would think that would make violations more visible. But apparently, it makes them less so. Much to the detriment of downstream communities.
What Ditches Should Look Like If Regulations Were Followed
Regs in Liberty County are similar to those in Harris County. Here’s a photo of a drainage ditch in Harris. It shows both grass and interceptor swales in use and how they help prevent erosion. Note the swales behind the shoulders of the ditch. Also notice the concrete structures that help pipe rainwater from the swales to the bottom of the ditch. They prevent water from washing down the ditch slopes and causing erosion. Had the developer followed the regs, which represent best practices, his ditches should look like the one below.
Backslope interceptor swales with drain pipes leading to bottom of ditch help prevent erosion. Photographed in Humble in Harris County.
Erosion Control as Practiced in Colony Ridge/Liberty County
Now, compare that to the following 18 photos. I took all of them over Colony Ridge on Monday. Some show newly developing areas subject to the latest regulations adopted in 2019. Others show areas already developed under regulations from 2004. The older regs required grass, but no interceptor swales. The newer regs require both. No attempt has been made to bring the older ditches up to newer standards despite obvious erosion problems.
Note how the developer has a habit of piling dirt next to the ditches. The TCEQ cited the developer for that practice earlier this year because dirt could wash back into ditches during rains. However, the developer obviously doesn’t fear the TCEQ. He’s still doing it. On a grand scale.
Ditch on right has grass on banks but no backslope interceptor swales.Note dirt piled on banks and how it’s already eroding into ditch. No grass. No swales. Piles of dirton the ditch’s shoulders.Again. No grass. No swales. More dirt on shoulders.Some weeds, but no grass. No swales. And a river of mud.Another river of mud.Rio de Lodo. “Lodo” translates to mud, sludge or mire in English.This ditch has more corrugations than a cardboard factory thanks to the total absence of erosion-control measures.Ditch in new area without erosion control measures near Highway 99 extension (in upper left of frame). Note eroded sediment already moving down the ditch.See close-up detail below.Regulations say that grass should be planted on ditch shoulders immediately after ditch construction.Detail from upper right of previous photo.Note erosion in ditch in foreground and other ditch T-ing into it.Pipe from resident’s home enters ditch at top, accelerating erosion. Enlargement shows brownish liquid dripping from pipe.Even newer stick-built homes on left don’t get erosion protection.Note a wheelbarrow next to the man. Perhaps he’s trying to excavate blockages in the ditchbehind his house.Note how erosion has taken dirt from under fences.Better keep the dog on a leash!The mud in ditches has made them playgrounds for ATVs, further contributing to erosion.The mother of all eroding ditches in Colony Ridge.(BTW, note the absence of fire hydrants on the long street left of ditch.)Baby ditch with another river of mud.Erosion has created a training ground for mountain goats in Colony Ridge.
Externalizing Development Costs
All this erosion (from approximately 12-13,000 acres) eventually winds up in the East Fork of the San Jacinto and Lake Houston. There, taxpayers must pay to have it dredged and filtered out of the water supply.
Meanwhile, the developers cheaping it out are counting their change all the way to the bank.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/10/2020
1199 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 448 since Imelda
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/20201207-Aerial-Dec-2020_1103.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-12-10 14:12:222020-12-11 13:16:11Rivers of Mud: Largest Development in Liberty County Openly Flaunts Drainage Regulations
Professor Emeritus William Dupré, Ph.D., of the University of Houston’s Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences filed a 36-page report with the TCEQ on sand mining in the San Jacinto River Basin. Dupré has broard experience with geologic hazards and risk assessment. He submitted his report in support of the petition filed with the TCEQ by the Lake Houston Area Grassroots Flood Prevention Initiative to establish best management practices (BMPs) for sand mining.
The first issue that Dupré identified is flooding. “With one exception, all sand mines in the San Jacinto River Watershed are located partially or completely within the regulatory floodway, an area delineated by FEMA as having the highest potential for flooding (and erosion) along major waterways. “[T]he floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles and erosion potential…”. (Montgomery County Flood Plain Management Regulations, 2014, p.25)
Floodway Constriction
Dupré notes that partitioning large areas of the floodway from rising floodwaters by levees and dikes can result in increased flooding of adjacent areas.
A good example: sand mines on the north side the San Jacinto West Fork and I-45 have walled off half the floodplain, forcing floodwaters onto neighboring property on the south side.
Sand mines have walled off more than 200 acres west of I-45 and north of the San Jacinto West Fork. See below.The high dikes force floodwater to the other side of the river rather than allowing it to spread out on both sides.The concentration of water in a smaller area also increases the velocity and erosion. For close-up of area inside red circle, see image below.This shows how high the dike around the sand mine is.
Levee Failure Can Flush Pollutants into Waterways
“Flood-induced breaches in levees can also add to the problems of flooding, erosion, and sedimentation downstream,” Dupré says, flushing sediment and other pollutants into adjacent land, wetlands, and waterways. See two examples below.
In the top row, river migration eroded the pit wall which allowed the contents to drain into the West Fork near North Park Drive. In the bottom row, the entire contents of a mine pit drained into the West Fork near Bennett Estates.
In-Stream Mining Disrupts River Habitat
A. Google Earth image of point bar on the west Fork of the San Jacinto River; B. Same bar 5 months later showing un-permitted (i.e. illegal) In-stream “bar-scalping.”
“Since the passage of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977, some states have heavily restricted or banned in-stream mining, as have many countries,” writes Dupré. “These restrictions are mainly based on the significant environmental problems associated with this type of mining.”
Such mining can create major disruptions of riparian habitats by increasing the amount of sediment put into suspension. “Major channel modifications can also occur, including upstream incision (headcutting) and downstream erosion and deposition.”
BMPs Can Make Compliance with Regulations More Efficient
In his paper, Dupré next examines applicable regulations and suggests several BMPs to supplement them. He recommends that:
All APO’s should develop and make available to regulators and the public a Comprehensive Mine Plan and an Environmental Assessment Report on potential impacts before permits are issued.
Likewise, all APO’s should develop and make available to regulators and the public a Reclamation Plan before permits are issued and file a performance bond ensuring reclamation before a production permit is granted. Such permits should have significant civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance.
New mining should be minimized or restricted in delineated floodplains and floodways and channel migration zones (areas most like to be eroded by lateral migration and river avulsion).
Mines should be “prohibited within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels…. A development permit must be secured from the Flood Plain Administrator prior to the placement of fill or other encroachment in the floodway….” (Montgomery County Flood Plain Management Regulations, 2014).
Stockpiles should be located outside the floodway, because of the high potential for erosion (and resultant sediment pollution) during frequent flooding.
Conclusion
Dupré acknowledges that aggregate mining clearly provides valuable material and employment to the state and nation.
Nonetheless, Texas is one of the few states where sand and gravel mines remain largely unregulated. Issues related to flooding, erosion, and sedimentation create many unintended (and undesirable) environmental and economic impacts associated with sand and gravel mines – especially in the San Jacinto River watershed. “I believe there is a clear need for the requirement for BMP’s to better protect the public and the environment,” says Dupré.
TCEQ Public Comment Period Rapidly Coming to a Close For Sand Mining BMPs
On November 11, the TCEQ held a public hearing on a joint proposal between TACA and the Lake Houston Area Grassroots Flood Prevention Initiative to establish best management practices for sand mining in the San Jacinto watershed. The public comment period closes on December 11, 2020 – in just 12 days.
If you want to weigh in on the subject, you can review presentations from the hearing here. TACA and the Lake Houston Area people are in substantial agreement on most points. However, they still differ on four key issues.
Where should the BMPs be enforced? On the main stems of the East and West Forks or on the smaller tributaries, too?
Should there be performance bonds for reclamation?
How far from rivers should the sand mines be set back for safety reasons?
Should compliance with best practices should be voluntary or mandatory?
If you have comments or questions for the TCEQ, please e-mail Outreach@tceq.texas.gov. Make sure to include “Sand Mining Rulemaking” in the subject line of your e-mail.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/29/2020
1188 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/2020/11/image.png?fit=455%2C269&ssl=1269455adminadmin2020-11-29 12:08:222020-11-29 12:14:14UH Geology Professor Weighs in with TCEQ on BMPs Related to Sand Mining
Clarification: General plans, as described below, are primarily about street layouts. However, many people have been trying to raise awareness at the Planning Commission that street patterns are affected to a significant degree by the volume and and layout of drainage and detention features. And, of course with Atlas 14 that is more true than ever. Danny Signorelli, CEO of the Signorelli Companies, took issue with this post. I offered him an opportunity to print a rebuttal verbatim. He refused the offer.
According to residents in other parts of the Commons, Signorelli tried to develop this property before and reportedly wanted to add 4-6 feet of fill to the floodplain. It’s not yet clear what they have in mind for this iteration of the project. However, comparing the general plan to FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer shows that parts of the development are still in the flood plain. (See below.)
No Detention Ponds Shown on Plans
The general plan filed with the planning commission also shows that the developer shows no plans for detention ponds on the property. A best practice to reduce flooding is to “retain your rain.”
Here are satellite and close-up views of where the new subdivision would be relative to the the surrounding area and existing parts of the development.
Crossing At the Commons of Lake Houston is in the Huffman area opposite Lake Houston Park and East End Park on the west side of the East Fork.Crossing at the Commons of Lake Houstonrelative to existing streets in the Commons. From General Plan inset.
Floodplain Issues
Parts of the proposed development will be in the floodplain. And those floodplains will soon expand to include even more homes. See the two dotted lines below.
Close up of PDF above shows how 100-year floodplain (dotted line on left) and 500-year (dotted line on right) would impact proposed homesites.Note the drainage easement in the lower left.FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer shows parts of the proposed new 75.3-acre subdivision would be in the 100- and 500-year floodplain.
Ironically, just last night, the City of Houston and its partners (Harris County Flood Control, Montgomery County and the SJRA) presented a draft of the findings of the San Jacinto River Master Drainage Plan. In it, they recommended avoiding flood plain development to keep people out of harm’s way. See slide below from their presentation.
Slide from San Jacinto River Master Drainage Plan Draft Report shows how adding fill to flood plains can affect other homes in area.
The presenter also discussed how the floodplains were expanding due to revisions of flood maps based on new hydraulic and hydrologic modeling not yet been shared with FEMA.
The 100-year flood plain in many areas will like expand well into the 500. And the 500-year flood plain will likely expand into areas previously not shown in ANY floodplain.
San Jacinto River Master Drainage Plan Draft Report 8/13/2020
Thus, the number of homes affected by floods could greatly expand beyond the number shown above.
Drainage in Commons Already a Problem
Plans also show that homes will be built very close to a drainage easement. Yet existing ditches in the Commons are eroding badly due to lack of maintenance. Below is a picture of one taken in January last year. Residents say the trees are still there and the erosion became much worse during floods in May and Imelda.
Commons drainage ditchphotographed last year.
Less Than One Fourth of Property Now Under Consideration
The tract is 332 acres, but only 75.3 is proposed for development at this time. It is entirely located within the incorporated limits of the City of Houston. The entire tract is adjacent to COH flooding easements for Lake Houston.
How to Voice Concerns, If You Have Them
Here’s how you can voice concerns, if you have them. The City Planning Commission will hold virtual meetings until further notice. So it’s very easy to make public comments. You can sign up to speak by going to the Planning Commission Home Page.
The next Planning Commission meeting is Thursday, August 20, 2020. If you’d like to speak, you must sign up at least 24 hours before the meeting.
Speakers have only TWO MINUTES. Key points to consider:
Floodplain will officially be expanding soon.
Some of these homes are already in it.
Many more soon will be.
That could require fill.
And fill will make flooding worse for other homes near the river on both sides.
No detention ponds or drainage plans are shown.
The Planning Commission should consider these things.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/14/2020
1081 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/2020/08/GE-screenshot.jpg?fit=949%2C708&ssl=1708949adminadmin2020-08-14 17:45:352020-08-16 20:21:30Developer Seeks City Approval to Expand Commons of Lake Houston into Floodplain – Without Detention Ponds
