My last update on Woodridge construction was 18 days ago and little has changed since then according to Elm Grove resident Jeff Miller who tracks construction progress on the site.
The culvert under the street that connects the northern and southern portions of Woodridge Village is now complete. But the street itself has no concrete or curbs.Photo courtesy of Jeff Miller.
According to Miller, “The culvert across Taylor Gully and cement structure around it are complete and ready for the road crew to pave over it.”
The trees that used to separate the northern and southern halves of the development are gone.Photo courtesy of Jeff Miller.
“The clearing continues in the northern section. More trees are laying down and turning brown. I have seen some activity like preliminary marking of the future detention pond N1,” says Miller.
The overflow channel between Taylor Gully and detention pond S2 just north of Village Springs in Elm Grove is being lined with rocks and concrete.Video courtesy of Jeff Miller.Looking west and panning north. This clip shows that the construction company has hydromulched the berm that separates Woodridge Village from Elm Grove. Video courtesy of Jeff Miller.
“The berm, swale and backslope interceptor structures seem to be complete on the southern border with Elm Grove,” continued Miller. “They have sprayed the slopes with a green fertilizer/seed mixture.”
On the plus side, maybe the grass will help prevent more erosion.
Posted by Bob Rehak with help from Jeff Miller
735 Days since Hurricane Harvey and almost 4 months since the Elm Grove flood
The thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great state of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Culverts-NS-Street-Woodridge.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2019-09-03 10:08:052019-09-04 04:32:53Woodridge Village Construction Near Standstill
The contractor also failed to repair a culvert running next to North Kingwood Forest. Engineers warned that the damaged culvert had to be replaced.
Finally the engineers may have mischaracterized the soil in modeling assumptions. They classified soil as sandy loam instead of clay. That could have skewed a key factor in runoff models by 2X to 3X.
Parts of Porter Also Flooded That Were Not in Any Recognized Flood Zone
LJA’s letter also shows that residents who flooded in Porter on the western edge of the new Woodridge development were NOT in either 100-year or 500-year flood zones. This supports the claims of Porter flood victims, such as Gretchen Dunlap-Smith. They say they never flooded before. They also claim that Rebel Contractors pushed dirt up against the western edge of the development while filling in natural drainage and wetlands. These actions likely constrained drainage on May 7th, before the contractor began installing storm sewers, drainage ditches and detention ponds in that area.
Flood Plain Maps Show What Developer’s Team Knew Before Permit Granted
Section 1.5 of LJA’s letter to Montgomery County states, “The project site is shown on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel 48339C0750H for Montgomery County, Texas and Incorporated Areas, revised August 18, 2014. The area just across the county boundary from the project site is shown on FIRM panel 48201C0305L for Harris County, Texas and Incorporated Areas, revised June 18, 2007.” On Page 51, the letter shows existing floodplains on the map below.
Page 51 from LJA letter to Montgomery County Engineer.The dark purple lines show the boundaries of the new development. The light purple and gray areas below the new development show the 100-year and 500-year flood plains in Elm Grove, North Kingwood Forest, Mills Branch and Woodstream Villages.Drainage on the developer’s two tracts is sloped toward Taylor Gully, Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest in red circle.
Clearcutting of the S2 detention pond area finished last November according to Nancy Vera of Elm Grove. However, only detention pond S1 and the flow-restricting box culvert next to Vera’s house had been substantially completed by May 7. Neither N1, nor the drainage ditch connecting it with N2 were excavated on May 7th; they still have not been excavated.
At the time of the May 7th flood, only detention pond S-1 had been installed. N-2 is on land owned by Montgomery County and was at least partially excavated in 2006, but none of the devices regulating flow into or out of it had been installed on May 7th.
LJA Engineering’s models assumed all the detention ponds are in and functioning, but we know they were not at the time of the flood. Instead of installing drainage first, the contractor focused on clearcutting and grading the northern section of land which exacerbated flooding on the southern section.
Drain Pipe Should Have Been Replaced
Page 3-1 of the LJA Letter mentions, “…an existing 36-inch-diameter x 290-foot HDPE culvert in Taylor Gully at the downstream end of the project. The upstream end of the culvert is within Montgomery County and the downstream end is within Harris County. Because of its poor structural condition, this culvert needs to be replaced.”
Intake end of the pipe referenced on page 3-1 of LJA Engineer’s letter to Montgomery County.Photo taken on May 12, 2019.
Judging by the poor condition of the pipe after the May 7th flood and the lack of disturbed soil around it, I feel it’s safe to say that it wasn’t replaced at the time of the flood.
Modeling May Have Included Faulty Assumption About Soil
Major factors affecting the runoff coefficient for a watershed are land use, slope, and soil type. We know the contractor increased the runoff rate when it clearcut the forest and altered the slope of land. But I had not previously focused on how the engineers characterized the soil type, which affects water infiltration.
Sandy soils absorb more rain, generally reducing runoff.
Soils with more clay absorb less rain, generally increasing runoff.
In modeling runoff and flooding potential for Woodridge Village and downstream areas, LJA Engineers used the Army Corps’ Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS). Page 216 of the user guide for that program states that, “The sand percentage accounts for the effect of infiltration and surface runoff properties on hydrograph generation. Zero percent indicates essentially all-clay soils with characteristically low infiltration rates. Conversely, 100 percent indicates essentially all-sandy soils with characteristically high infiltration rates.”
BrighthubEngineering.com estimates infiltration rates in inches per hour for different types of soil. They show the rate for clay-based soils to average one-third to one-half the rate for sandy loam. That means…
The characterization of the soil could have skewed this component of LJA’s modeling by 2X to 3X. Certainly, that merits further investigation and verification of LJA Engineering’s results before contractors begin pouring concrete.
New Discoveries Argue for Independent Engineering Investigation
All of these observations argue for an independent investigation into the engineering of and construction practices on this site. They raise serious questions about the accuracy of LJA’s conclusions and whether their plans will protect downstream residents from future flooding.
Let’s pray that Montgomery County and the City of Houston commission a forensic investigation into the causes of this flooding. That’s the only way we’ll be able to prevent similar flooding in the future. By the time these issues work their way through the court system, contractors will have built homes and streets that could forever alter downstream flood potential. Harris County and the Federal government could be stuck with hundreds of buyouts costing tens of millions of dollars. A second opinion might save a lot of heartbreak, misery, and tax dollars. Better safe than sorry.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/2/2019
642 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Flood-Impact-on-EG.jpg?fit=1500%2C998&ssl=19981500adminadmin2019-06-02 22:50:562019-06-02 22:51:06Even More Discoveries Demand Independent Investigation into Causes of Flooding Around Woodridge Village
On the plans, LJA Engineers calls it S2 – the second detention pond in the southern portion of the new Woodridge development north of Elm Grove. Even though all drainage on the 268 clearcut acres slopes toward S2, the developer did not start building this crucial pond before the May 7 storm that flooded Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest. The pond will ultimately hold 49.4 acre feet of water during a storm, but holds something less now because Rebel Contractors has not yet fully excavated it. Further, it appears that less than 10% of the site’s required detention was fully excavated when May storms struck.
Rebel Contractors Starts Expanding S2 After Flood
At the time of the May 7 flood, it appears that Rebel Contractors had not yet begun excavating the largest part of S2. I could see only a ditch connecting S1 with the large box culvert at the entry to Taylor Gully.
Photo taken on May 11, four days after Elm Grove Flood, shows extent of excavation for crucial S2 detention pond. Only this ditch connected S1 pond with Taylor Gully. Photo looks northeast, where giant pond should extend almost to tree line on both sides of image.
In the last seven days, however, Rebel has roughed out the pond. You can see it starting to assume its final shape, though it has not yet reached its final size or depth. See pictures below.
On Friday, May 24, I observed a steady parade of haulers moving earth from the future detention pond, S2. The contractor is using the excavated material to raise the height of streets and home pads elsewhere on the property in a process called “cut and fill.”
According to numerous residents that I have talked to, much of this area once consisted of wetlands. To develop such property, contractors use a process called “cut and fill.” They build up one area, by excavating another.
S2 pond in early stages of development. Plans show this should ultimately cover more than three acres and be 15 feet deep.Photo taken 5/25/19looking west from Taylor Gully toward Woodland Hills Drive.Plans for Woodridge Village show five detention ponds. Before the May 7 storm, it appears that only S1 was in place though even it was not finished. This raises the question, “Why did the developer focus on clearcutting the northern section before finishing crucial detention ponds on the southern section, where all the water from the north would flow?”
Only S1 Pond Fully Excavated at Time of Storm
Houston City Council Member Dave Martin investigating job site shortly after the May 7 flood on May 9. Shown here: The area that will become detention pond S1. It appeared to be the only semi-functioning detention pond on the entire 268 acres. This photo shows it almost fully excavated but not fully finished. Contractor will eventually slope right side to create more detention capacity and vegetate both sides to reduce erosion.
91% of Detention Capacity Not Completed at Time of Storm
Ultimately, the 268 acre site should hold five detention ponds with a total of 292.3 acre feet of storage. An acre foot would cover one acre to a depth of one foot. The bullet points below summarize the total storage of each pond in the map above.
N1 = 16.9 acre feet (not started)
N2 = 143.3 acre feet (started, but does not appear complete)
N3 = 56.4 acre feet (does not appear to be started)
S1 = 26.3 acre feet (mostly functioning, but not finished)
S2 = 49.4 acre feet (not exacted at time of May 7 storm)
Total = 292.3 acre feet
Not Started or Incomplete on May 7 = 91%
People in construction often use the term “substantially complete” to mean functional, but not fully finished.
Detention ponds collect runoff during a heavy rain. Then they release it at a slow, controlled rate that drainage ditches like Taylor Gully can handle without flooding people downstream. That’s the theory anyway. They do this by restricting the outflow compared to inflow. However, to function, they have to be BUILT.
How Much Rain Detention Ponds Should Have Held vs How Much Fell
Had all five ponds been complete on May 7, the entire site should have detained 1.1 feet of rain, a little more than 13 inches. However, we received less than 8 inches.
Jeff Lindner, the Harris County meteorologist, issued a statement on May 13 summarizing the storm that flooded Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest. In it, he said, “A 30-min rate of 2.9 inches was recorded at US 59 and the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and a 1 hour rate of 4.0 inches. A 6-hr rainfall rate of 7.9 inches was recorded at the East Fork of the San Jacinto River and FM 1485. Rainfall rates between the 15-min and 6-hr time periods on Tuesday afternoon and evening averaged between a 2-yr and 50-yr frequency over the extreme northeast portions of Harris into southeast Montgomery Counties.”
Questions Owners and Contractors Need to Answer
In the last four years, we received three so-called 500-year storms. Two happened in the spring.
Knowing that, why did Rebel Contractors wait six months after clearing to begin excavating S2, the detention pond adjacent to areas that flooded?
Why did Rebel grade the rest of the site to funnel water toward Elm Grove before detention was in place?
Did economics factors push Rebel Contractors to clearcut the entire site before constructing detention that could control the runoff?
Why did Rebel Contractors fill in existing drainage features that could have helped reduce flooding before starting work on S2?
Why did Figure Four Partners claim that many of the detention ponds were complete?
If Figure Four improved drainage, why did homes flood that never flooded before?
Silt fences were supposed to be put up before any land was cleared. However, they were not put up until AFTER the flood on May 7. Why?
I hope I live long enough to learn the answers! I hope officials care enough to look for the answers! Tens of thousands of Kingwood homes did NOT flood during the May 7th storm; 196 homes next to this development did. They deserve answers.
All thoughts in this post are my opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/26/2019
635 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/S2-Expansion_05.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-05-26 00:47:532019-05-27 04:18:48Key Woodridge Detention Pond Missing, Only Small Percent of Total Detention Developed Before Elm Grove Flooded
This is like the judge in a case hiring the defendant to render expert opinions for the plaintiffs. This story speaks to an overly cozy relationship between developers, engineers, contractors and regulators that can harm the citizens that government agencies are supposed to protect.
Bill King, a candidate for mayor of Houston, called this story “unbelievable.” “This kind of stuff has to stop,” he said.
Tony Buzbee, another mayoral candidate, also running on a reform platform, felt the same way. Buzbee said he was aware of no law that prohibited such conflicts in Texas. However, he felt this was highly unethical.
TCEQ Letter Provided Red Flag That Led to Discovery
After the flood on May 7th, I submitted a complaint to the TCEQ. It alleged that lack of detention in the Woodbridge development contributed to flooding in Elm Grove; that the site lacked silt fences; and that no berms existed to deflect floodwater from surrounding neighborhoods. I also pointed out that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permits were NOT posted at the entrances to the job site. However, the TCEQ boiled all of that down to a one word complaint: flooding.
When I opened up their response today, my jaw dropped so far, so fast, it almost required a trip to the dentist. First, it referenced flooding on May 20, two weeks after the actual flooding, and four days AFTER they mailed their letter to me. But let’s assume that’s an innocent typo.
The big concern: TCEQ said my “request for assistance can be more appropriately handled through LJA Engineering FOR Montgomery County.” (Emphasis added.) Regular readers will remember that LJA Engineering developed the plans for Woodridge Village. Now they’re investigating what went wrong with the plans???
To clarify what the TCEQ meant by “FOR Montgomery County,” I called Nicole Morris at the TCEQ. A co-worker, Mr. Weston, called me back a short while later. He said that, “Yes, Montgomery County hired LJA Engineering to investigate these complaints.”
TCEQ Refers Me to Company that Engineered Site
The TCEQ letter also suggested I call LJA and referred me to a Mr. John Concienne. So I called him. The conversation lasted about 15 minutes. Headline: He works for their environmental division, not the one that developed the plans, and felt that excused the conflict.
Mr. Concienne seemed open about some things, but guarded about others. He repeatedly emphasized that he could only comment about what he saw on May 15. He also mischaracterized the nature of my complaint. Here’s how the conversation went.
Rehak: Mr. Concienne, my name is Bob Rehak. I’m calling in regard to the Elm Grove flooding that happened a couple weeks ago. I got a letter from the TCEQ that said you were handling complaints for Montgomery County. Is that true?
Concienne: Yes, sir. That is true.
Rehak: What exactly is LJA’s role for Montgomery County. Help me understand that.
Concienne: So, we are their stormwater consultant. We manage their permits.
Rehak: But weren’t you also the engineers on that Woodridge Village development?
Concienne: Yeah…so…well…I do believe that we did the design on that, but … um … but I’m not in the engineering group so I don’t have a ton of details on that. But yes, I do believe that we did the design work on that.
Rehak: Is that a conflict of interest?
Concienne: No. So we’ve dealt with that before. We have both an engineering side of our firm as well as an environmental side of our firm.
Rehak: OK… (Long pause)
Blaming Bad Execution
Concienne: So the way that’s laid out, we just do the design work, but we’re not the operators. We don’t have operational control of the site. Actually, my understanding is that there are two operators out there right now. I believe one of them is Rebel Contractors.
Rehak: Yes?
Concienne: And I believe that the other one is Figure Four Partners.
Rehak: OK.
Concienne: And so whenever we do an inspection on behalf of Montgomery County, we work directly with the operators who have acquired their permit from the county. That’s who we deal with. So…when we did that inspection out there, we actually submitted that to Revel Contractors who was onsite that day.
Initial Investigation Focuses on Silt, Not Flood Issues
Rehak: And what were your findings regarding the flooding? Can you tell me?
Concienne: Our inspector found three long stretches of the property that needed additional perimeter control. Along the southern perimeter from Woodland Hills Drive east to Friarwood Trail. That all needed perimeter controls put up.
Rehak: Do you mean silt fences?
Concienne: Yes, sir. Also along the drainage ditch running north to south along Needham Road to Taylor Gully. And also along the drainage ditch of the west side of the northernmost area adjacent to Webb Street. We found one surface inlet that was on their site that did not have controls around it. And then also there were two entrances and exits around the site that needed to be restabilized with bull rock. There’s one at Fair Grove Drive and one at Webb Street.
Couldn’t Remember Missing Detention
Rehak: What about detention on the property? Did you find anything unusual there?
Concienne: At the time of our inspection, they had a pretty sizable detention pond that they had put up. At the time of our inspection…now I can’t speak to what was present prior to that, but at the time of our inspection, they did have a rock berm inside the detention structure. And so…that was in place. (Note: They also installed that the day before the inspection.) Now the detention structure was not vegetated. It was all bare ground. So obviously…ideally…that would be vegetated, but it looked like it had just been developed. I would say it was a foot and a half to two feet tall inside of a wire material. And so it looks like that was in place. They did have a linear detention structure built on site.
5/15/19 photo by Jeff Miller shows rock berm placed in front of culvert just before LJA inspection.
Same culvert on 5/11, 4 Days after Elm Grove, shows that silt protection was not in place before inspection.
Rehak: What was the date of your inspection?
Concienne: May 15th.
Rehak: Did you see any detention north of Village Springs Drive? That’s the big detention area at the far eastern end of the proposed subdivision.
Concienne: I would have to go back and review my photographs of the inspection. But I don’t recall whether there were any other detention structures other than that one large linear structure that went into some concrete culverts and then discharged downstream. That’s the only one I remember seeing when I went through the photographs.
5/16/19 photo by Jeff Miller shows contractor excavating detention pond AFTER 5/15 inspection. But inspector claims he could not remember whether pond was there at time of inspection.
Rehak: There was supposed to be a huge pond attached to that.
Concienne: (Referring to the missing detention pond that was supposed to hold 43 acre feet of water.) I don’t recall seeing that in the photographs.
Remedial Action Started 36 Hours before First Inspection
Note: On the two days before LJA inspected the site, Rebel Contractors installed the rock berm and silt fencing along the southern border. Later, Concienne tells me that the silt fencing should have been up before any clearing even took place…almost seven months ago. Rebel Contractors still has not installed silt fencing everywhere they should.
Rehak: So you did an inspection on the 15th, and I can promise you that that detention wasn’t there on the 15th, but it is there now. It took them about a day to dig it. I’m wondering why it took them six months to put it in if it only took a day to do.
Concienne: Well, uh, yeah. Well, I’m not sure. I know there was obviously some flooding issues there around that area…
Rehak: That’s an understatement!
Concienne: That’s what kind of triggered all this. But on the stormwater quality end of it, like I said, we’re just looking at whatever’s present when we do our inspection. And so we document what was there the first time. And we document what has changed when we go there on Thursday. We requested some pretty extensive work. I know there are some long stretches of perimeter fencing so…there’s a chance that they may not have done it. I’m not sure.
LJA Explanation Conflicts with TCEQ
Rehak: So the complaint I lodged with the TCEQ had to do with flooding. And they referred me to you for answers on that. Now you’re telling me that you … don’t have anything to do with the flooding part???!!!
Concienne: Well, so, the construction general permit that that complaint was placed under with the TCEQ, is purely a stormwater quality permit. This does not involve quantity of water in any way. I know there’s certainly the possibility that silt left the site and potentially impacted things downstream…and we try to make that determination when we’re in the field…but for the most part that’s a stormwater quality permit and the TCEQ will tell you that they don’t deal with capacity at all. Now if there’s anything beyond that in terms of flooding, what degree there was, why the flooding occurred, that sort of thing, that’s a capacity issue, generally speaking.
Rehak: Who’s investigating that?
Doesn’t Know Who Is Investigating Flooding
Concienne: I’m not sure. I have a copy of the complaint from the TCEQ and like I said, this was a stormwater quality complaint that the TCEQ deals with. So um…any complaint that’s registered with the TCEQ is going to deal with quality, not quantity at all. (See how the TCEQ characterized the complaint as flooding!)
Rehak: So you don’t know if anyone is investigating the quantity part?
Concienne: You mean like why people flooded?
Rehak: Yes.
Concienne: Like I said, I wouldn’t make that determination. I’m not a hydrology guy at all.
Contractor Did Things Out of Order
One other thing struck me as odd: the timing of the erection of silt fencing on May 13 and 14.
Rehak: This site has been cleared for over 6 months and it didn’t have those silt detention things in place. Residents were complaining about mud in the streets for months. How long does it normally take after clearing before they should put the silt fences up?
No silt fences and mud in the street six months after contractor finished clearing site. Photo taken on 5/8.
Concienne: It’s supposed to be up before it’s cleared. The permit requires those controls are in place before any grading takes place. So those controls definitely should have been in place. We actually cited them on four different counts when we were out there. Now what the TCEQ will ultimately do with them? There’s a strong possibility they will get some type of enforcement.
Huge Questions Remain for LJA Engineering and Montgomery County
If LJA was responsible for permit compliance, why did LJA not inspect the site to make sure silt fencing was in place before grading began?
Why does LJA repeatedly emphasize that they can’t speak to what was on site before their inspection?
Why did Rebel Contractors suddenly start complying with permit requirements one day before the inspection? Were they tipped off?
Why did TCEQ refer me to LJA to answer flooding questions, when LJA denied it had any responsibility for flooding questions?
Why is one arm of LJA investigating a project that another arm designed?
Can LJA really provide an unbiased investigation of Figure Four Partners, the developer that hired it?
Knowing the potential for ethical conflict, why did Montgomery County not hire some other company for this particular investigation?
If LJA has a blanket contract to review all permit applications for Montgomery County, why does it not recuse itself from investigations involving itself and its clients?
At this hour, silt fences and bull rock still have not been installed everywhere they should be. Why?
Obviously, none of these parties (LJA Engineers, Figure Four Partners, and Rebel Contractors) are afraid of consequences from TCEQ or Montgomery County. The biggest question of all is “Why?” I talked to several Porter residents who complained bitterly to Montgomery County about the practices on this construction site. They said their calls to the County and the Sheriff’s Office fell on deaf ears. “It was like all the communication was going into a black hole,” one told me. That family sold its home and moved back to Harris County four months before the flood.
Gretchen Dunlap-Smith took the pictures below on 5/21/19, six days after the LJA inspection. They show the area near the Webb Street entrance in Porter where Rebel Contractors was ordered to install silt fending. Note the continued failure to meet requirements.
No silt fences to the left.
No silt fences to the right
Northwest corner of development.
Looking south toward Taylor Gully, no silt fences.
Webb Street Entrance. Still no bull rock that would allow trucks to enter without running across neighbor’s lawn.
Damage to neighbor’s lawn and public street because of inadequate entrance.
So many questions, so many compliance failures, so few consequences…with only a week before the start of hurricane season!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/21/2019 with photos from Gretchen Dunlap-Smith and Jeff Miller
630 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP law of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/51siltfence052119.jpg?fit=1080%2C810&ssl=18101080adminadmin2019-05-21 23:23:302019-05-22 07:14:03Elm Grove Update: Montgomery County Hired Company that Designed Woodridge to Investigate Woodridge Permit Violations
Street flooding in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest…
… turned into home flooding when sheet flow from the Woodridge Village was added to the street flooding on May 7 flood
Taylor Gully near the peak. Shortly after this shot was taken it overflowed into the park on the opposite bank, upper right.
Scene along Village Springs in Elm Grove after the May 7 flood.At least 196 homes in the neighborhood flooded.Abel Vera now lives in a world without walls.
It May Be Time to Rethink That Assertion, LJA!
In the conclusion of the cover letter of the report dated 8/28/18, Phyllis Mbewe, the project manager of hydrology and hydraulics for LJA Engineering guarantees Dan Wild, Montgomery County’s assistant engineer, that there will be:
No downstream impacts to Taylor Gully water surface elevations
No adverse drainage impacts to neighboring communities (such as Elm Grove or North Kingwood Forest).
She says, “…the proposed development of the 268-acre tract creates no adverse drainage impacts for events up to and including the 100-year event.”
If you are an engineer or hydrologist, please help. Review these plans and give me your thoughts. You may remain anonymous if you wish. Please email me through the contact page of this web site. 196 families really need your help. The house you save may be your own…the next time around.
Posted by Bob Rehak on May 16, 2019
625 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Rescue-Truck.jpg?fit=1500%2C729&ssl=17291500adminadmin2019-05-15 21:45:572019-05-16 08:28:36LJA Engineering Report Says “No Adverse Drainage Impacts” to Neighboring Developments or Taylor Gully
In the statement, Figure Four denied any responsibility for the flooding and blamed it on an act of God. Further, they invoked the shield of government approval, saying their plans were approved by the City of Houston and Montgomery County.
“While our hearts go out to the homeowners that recently flooded in the Elm Grove Subdivision, the flooding there this week had absolutely nothing to do with the Figure Four and Perry Homes project nearby.”
“As virtually every media outlet in the region has reported this week, and Harris County Flood Control meteorologist Jeff Lindner confirmed, Tuesday’s rainfalls at times matched the intensity of Hurricane Harvey. The Houston Chronicle reported that “The rainfall was particularly severe in suburban areas such as Kingwood …”
“Though our project is still in the land clearing stage, many of the detention ponds are complete – providing improved drainage to the area that did not previously exist. Additionally, the drainage study and construction plans for the Figure Four project were completed by LJA Engineering, an experienced and highly respected firm and approved by the County. All City and County permits were obtained and all applicable building codes have been followed.
“Several questions have been asked about a concrete structure on the project. This structure is the outfall control device and part of the permitted and approved drainage plan. The outfall control device functioned as designed on Tuesday night. Similar to the detention ponds, the outflow control structure improved drainage in the area.”
– End of Statement –
Concrete structure referred to in statement above.
Flaws in Argument
At the risk of clarifying the obvious, I would point out that:
Elm Grove didn’t flood during Harvey.
The improved drainage did not work as well as the previous natural drainage, which the developer filled in.
The “many” completed detention ponds, none of which I could see in drone footage, were not up to the task.
If the outflow control structure “improved drainage,” why did 400 homes flood that didn’t flood before?
Summary of Woodlands Case and Court Documents
In the lawsuit against LJA Engineering, Inc., plaintiffs alleged that the engineers failed to prepare for, or consciously ignored, a foreseeable weather event, which resulted in the flooding of homes and caused catastrophic losses.
While never really addressing the merits of the allegations, the defendant denied the allegations and responded with 25 reasons why they should not be held accountable. For instance, the defendant responded that the flooding was an act of God. They also claimed the defendants assumed risk when they bought their homes; that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by unspecified third parties; and that the plaintiffs’ own acts or omissions caused or contributed to their alleged injuries.
LJA and co-defendants Woodlands Land Development, L.P. and The Howard Hughes Corporation, pled for abatement of the case, claiming that the plaintiffs failed to provide them with sixty-day advance written notice of the claims. The judge then abated the case on 4/22/19.
Difference Between Woodlands and Elm Grove Cases
The Woodlands and Elm Grove situations are similar in that they both involved extreme weather events and flood damage. However, there are also some major differences. In the Woodlands case, plaintiffs occupied the land developed by the defendants. In Elm Grove, neighboring land owners were damaged during development of adjoining property.
Also, in the Woodlands case, plaintiffs alleged that the property had flooded in 1994, that defendants knew it, and that they failed to raise the property high enough to prevent flooding during Harvey. However, Elm Grove did not flood either in 1994 or during Harvey. It flooded only after clear cutting and the beginning of earthwork on the Figure Four Partner’s property.
It will be interesting to see whether any lawsuits emerge from those damaged in Elm Grove.
In the Figure Four Statement, you can see how the company is already setting up themes for their legal defense if necessary. LJA Engineering invoked the same themes during its defense of the Woodlands allegations.
In Other Developments Saturday…
Yesterday was filled with new developments and discoveries:
Elm Grove held a public meeting with a law firm to inform flooded residents of their legal rights.
Many residents of Porter came to the meeting to complain of drainage issues on the northern and western sides of the project.
It became clear that another 175-acre parcel of land was a part of the project. That parcel has also been clear cut, but no drainage “improvements” were visible.
No other precautions were visible to prevent runoff of silt such as berms, sand bags, or silt fences.
Water was ponding on neighbors’ property.
No stormwater pollution prevention permits were posted at any of the entrances to the job site that I could see. That in itself may be a violation of state regulations.
Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo still had not visited Kingwood or declared a disaster. Such a declaration would make residents available for assistance from government agencies.
Additional Parcel Triples Clear-Cut Acreage
Saturday, Porter residents called to my attention the fact that Figure Four Partners was also developing an even larger tract of land not visible from Kingwood.
Location of Woodridge Village, Section 3. MCAD lists it as 161.74 acres, but plat shows it as 175.
This link shows a plat of the northern 175 acres, which Figure Four Partners called “Woodridge Village Section 3.” For those who are interested in contacting the developer or engineering company, the plat shows their addresses and phone numbers.
Elm Grove is on the right out of frame. Note the slope toward Elm Grove.Another angle on the northern tract shows clear-cutting in progress and the slope toward Elm Grove.Looking south, directly toward Elm Grove and the area that flooded so badly. Elm Grove and another giant clear-cut tract belonging to Figure Four Partners are beyond the tree line.Flooded Porter residence that backs up to Figure Four development. Residents in both Sherwood Trails and Porter who border the development complain of the build up of stagnant, stinking water because of altered drainage.
Meanwhile, Clean-Up Continues in Elm Grove
Debris washed into Elm Grove from developer’s property shows how high water flowed in down Village Springs Drive.Home after home along Village Springs Drive had debris piled head highas residents mucked out their homes.Oh, that low, down-in-the-dumpster feeling...Since the flood on Tuesday, Houston City Council Member Dave Martin has been inspecting the clear cut area adjacent to Elm Grove, coordinating City clean-up efforts, and meeting with affected residents. Houston Mayoral Candidate Bill King (l) consults with flooded resident Abel Vera (r) about events that unfolded during the flood.Piles of dirt in the background are roughly sitting on top of the original stream on the property that was filled in by the developer.Vera’s home is directly behind him. This is one of at least a half dozen trips King has made to Kingwood in the last year to understand flooding issues in the area.Flooded Elm Grove and Porter residents attending a meeting at Good Shepherd Episcopal Church to learn about their legal options.Shot shows approximately half of the crowd.
Posted by Bob Rehak on May 12, 2019
621 Days After Hurricane Harvey
Thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy. They are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great state of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ElmGroveFlood_01_15.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-05-12 03:07:222019-05-12 04:28:56Figure Four Partners Denies All Responsibility for Elm Grove Flooding; Blames God
