This month, you have three opportunities to attend meetings that could help reduce flooding in the Lake Houston area.
TWDB Visits Tomball to Solicit Input on State’s First Flood Plan
On Friday, August 9, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) will hold a meeting in Tomball. Purpose: to solicit public opinion on rules and guidelines for Texas’ first statewide flood plan. Here’s more information about the event and the TWDB. The TWDB is the state’s water agency. It’s primary mission is developing and maintaining lakes and reservoirs that support economic growth. This year, the legislature put them into the flood mitigation business, too. They’re looking for the best ways to spend $800 million on flood mitigation from the state’s Rainy Day Fund. TWDB will hold the event at:
Beckendorf Conference Center at Lone Star College–Tomball
30555 Tomball Pkwy.
Tomball, TX 77375
9:30-11:30 a.m.
Friday, August 9
Sign up for more information about these meetings and other flood information at the TWDB’s website. You can also contact the TWDB at (512) 463-8725 or flood@twdb.texas.gov.
TWDB Makes Repeat Appearance at Houston City Hall
If you can’t make the event in Tomball, you have another chance. TWDB will repeat the event at:
Houston City Hall
Council Chamber, 2nd Floor
901 Bagby Street
Houston, TX 77002
9:30 to 11:30
Friday, August 23
Montgomery County Will Hear Testimony on Closing Detention Loophole
You don’t have to be a Montgomery County resident to testify. As downstream residents of the Lake Houston Area, you may be affected by this more than Montgomery County residents are.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/7/2019
708 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SchoolBus.jpg?fit=1500%2C1689&ssl=116891500adminadmin2019-08-06 21:55:552019-08-06 21:56:05Mark Your Calendar: Important Meetings Related to Flooding
Aeschylus, the ancient Greek playwright coined the phrase, “The first casualty in war is truth.” The same is true of water wars. In an attempt to justify unlimited groundwater pumping from the Jasper aquifer, a headline in a Montgomery County online newspaper trumpeted, “University Of Houston Study Shows No Linkage Between Deep Groundwater Production And Subsidence In Montgomery County.” But wait! Is that what the study really said? The article did not provide a link to the actual study. So how could you tell if the review was accurate? It’s not. Below are just a few of the reasons why.
Contradictions Between Study and Newspaper’s Summary
The UH study didn’t study Montgomery County. It looked only at Harris-Galveston Subsidence District Regulatory Areas 1 and 2. They cover only SOUTHERN Harris and Galveston counties! Researchers found no subsidence associated with the Jasper there. That’s because virtually no one pumps the Jasper there (See Jasper well location map below). The article’s anonymous author forgot to mention that though.
“Don’t Extrapolate Results,” But They Did
The UH study also carefully cautions readers not to extrapolate the results from the study area to other areas. But the newspaper did it and forgot to mention the caution also.
Newspaper Falsely Claims Study Suggests “No Subsidence”
The newspaper author claimed that the study “suggests that Montgomery County utilities, municipalities, homeowner’s associations, and other large-scale groundwater users could draw water production from the Jasper aquifer without causing any subsidence at the surface of Montgomery County.” The UH study makes no such suggestion.
Claimed “No Need for Regulation,” Contrary to UH Findings
The newspaper author goes on to claim that the study “also suggests that, as long as groundwater production comes from the Jasper or lower formations (such as the Upper Catahoula Formation), there is little need, if any, for any groundwater regulation whatsoever.” Again, the UH study makes no such suggestion.
Quite the contrary, the UH study says that regulation was effective in slowing the subsidence found in other aquifers along the gulf coast that were being depleted, such as the Evangeline and Chicot.
Newspaper Claim of 100% Annual Recharge Not Substantiated by Study
The newspaper author also says that, “Since the quantity of groundwater in Montgomery County is essentially unlimited, and since Montgomery County aquifers enjoy almost 100% recharge annually after production drawdowns have occurred, there would seem to be no reason whatsoever to regulate groundwater production from the Jasper aquifer and the Catahoula aquifer.” The study makes no mention of recharge rates in either of those aquifers.
Newspaper Implies “No Need for Regulation” but Study Says It Helped
Finally, the anonymous newspaper author concludes by saying, “The University of Houston study suggests that it’s time for the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District to bring the entire over-regulation of groundwater to a crashing halt.” The study made no such recommendation.
Inferring that the UH scientists even implied that would require turning the the study’s findings on their head. Quite the contrary. The study explicitly states that regulations implemented in 1975 with the formation of the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District slowed out-of-control subsidence.
Newspaper Article Not Signed
Jumpin’ Jasper! What’s going on here? Who wrote this unsigned article? Was it someone who stands to profit financially from pumping the Jasper dry?
Why Water Not Pumped From Southern Part of Jasper
For the record, the Jasper dips toward the coast along a roughly north-to-south axis. The Jasper aquifer contains fresh water in Montgomery County and northern Harris County. But south of that, it becomes brackish. The water is too salty to use. That’s a big reason why virtually no one pumps it in the southern part of the region.
This map shows the freshwater limits of the Jasper aquifer in 2010. For the most part, the freshwater portion of the Jasper aquifer does not extend to the area of interest studied by the UH scholars.
The down-dip part of the Jasper toward the coast also goes very deep. At the southern limit of freshwater, depth ranges to thousands of feet in places (see bottom of colored area below). Why would you drill that deep if you could get fresher water from aquifers like the Chicot and Evangeline much closer to the surface?
Subsidence Already Noted in Northern Part of Jasper
Those are the reasons why the UH scholars do not associate subsidence with the Jasper in southern Harris and Montgomery Counties. That does NOT mean subsidence won’t happen in other areas where utilities DO pump the Jasper. It already has.
However, USGS well-water height readings north of Highway 99 show severe drawdown near the population centers in southern Montgomery and northern Harris Counties. And surprise, surprise! That also happens to be the area where most subsidence has occurred in Montgomery County.
Unsustainable Pumping Rates
While the advocates of unlimited groundwater pumping want you to believe that the aquifer recharge rates in Montgomery County equal the drawdown rate, they don’t. The Jasper aquifer is being drawn down in populated places at more than 10 FEET per year (see graph below). But USGS estimates that the recharge rate for the Jasper is as little as ONE-TENTH of an INCH per year. That means some utilities have been using up Jasper water 1200 times faster than nature replaces it.
This well drilled in the Jasper aquifer near the Woodlands showed an average decline of approximately 10 feet per year (about 180 feet in 18 years).
Ground level declines produce fault movement and subsidence. They translate to infrastructure damage and flooding.
As water levels decline, water wells begin to have problems producing. They lose “yield,” which means they can’t produce as much water in a given time period. This requires the wells to run longer to meet demand. It costs more to lift water. Longer run times increase maintenance costs. Pumps have to be lowered. The motors have to be upsized, which requires electrical rewiring.
Some well pumps can’t be lowered any farther, which may mean abandoning and replacing the well. Some water level decline is expected. But those who argue that Montgomery County has an unlimited supply of water are just ludicrous. The harder you pump, the more decline you get, and with that comes all the consequences of declines.
Why People Want to Believe the Unbelievable
Montgomery County residents have found the change from well to surface water financially difficult. People WANT to believe that unlimited groundwater pumping is safe. I just hope they don’t wind up putting all their water lillies in one pond, so to speak.
Selective Perception Amplified by Selective Deception
Selective perception is a well known cognitive bias. It describes the process by which people perceive what they want to in media messages while ignoring opposing viewpoints. However, in this case, it seems that selective deception is amplifying the bias.
Don’t take my word. Read the newspaper article and then read the actual study on which the article is based. I provide links so you can make up your own mind; the newspaper article did not.
Other Useful References
Below are some other useful publications from the U.S. Geological Survey which is part of the Department of the Interior.
USGS Subsidence home page. Contains dozens of useful publications on Texas Gulf Coast Groundwater and Land Subsidence, plus raw data in numerous formats.
Note: All thoughts in this post represent my opinions on matters of public interest and safety. 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/2019/07/Screen-Shot-2019-07-26-at-12.33.30-AM-copy.jpg?fit=1500%2C715&ssl=17151500adminadmin2019-07-27 01:22:302019-07-27 02:27:17Truth is the First Casualty In Water Wars, Too
An old-West saying proclaimed, “Steal my horse; carry off my wife; but don’t touch my water.” Texans fight over water. Even here in the Gulf Coast area. In fact, in Montgomery County, we have a good, old-fashioned water war erupting. Last week in Conroe, it escalated again, putting millions of residents in surrounding counties at risk. Here’s the latest volley in a shot heard across the Gulf Coast.
To someone who hasn’t been following this controversy closely, that resolution sounded innocent enough. Like a little squabble about objectives. But it’s much more.
One side says unlimited pumping has no negative consequences and that restricting the pumping of groundwater violates their constitutional property rights, impinges their freedom, and restricts their ability to grow. They also feel that the forced conversion to surface water is a monopoly conspiracy to run up prices needlessly. They see the other side as over-reaching bureaucrats eager to impose needless and expensive regulation on a population strapped by high water rates (even though Moco surface water rates compare favorably with others throughout the region).
The other side says unlimited pumping will cause subsidence, increase flooding, deplete aquifers, and deny others their fair share of groundwater. They see the other side as selfish water hogs, oblivious to the future, blind to science, and set on an unsustainable course.
Wowsers! How’d we get to this point?
Surface Water Vs. Groundwater: Pros and Cons
Several aquifers lie under the Houston region. Decades ago, people in neighboring counties learned that excessive pumping from these aquifers caused both depletion and subsidence. So they started converting to surface water to limit flood threats and property damage.
However, surface water is inherently more expensive for several reasons:
You have to buy land to create lakes.
You have to build dams and water treatment systems.
You have to build extensive water distribution networks instead of pumping it from under your feet.
All of that creates incentives to continue pumping groundwater.
So groups advocating cheaper water in Montgomery County found two hydrologists who, surprise, surprise, told them subsidence and depletion won’t happen there – even though the area is already subsiding and water well levels have been in decline!
Large amounts of subsidence are already visible in southern Montgomery County where most groundwater pumping takes place.
State Law Requires Neighboring Counties to Approve Pumpage
The state developed Chapter 36 of the Texas Water Code in large part to protect the public interest from private interests. It governs groups such as the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District in Montgomery County.
Chapter 36 legislates goals for districts. They include:
Conservation
Preservation
Protection
Recharging
Prevention of waste
Control of subsidence
Protection of property rights
Balancing conservation and development of groundwater
Using best available science.
Four Steps to Manage Groundwater
By law and convention, groundwater and subsidence districts manage groundwater with a four-step process.
First, they set goals by defining “desired future conditions.”
Second, they model how much groundwater they can pump to meet those goals.
Third, they develop a plan for achieving the goals.
Fourth, they develop rules for implementing the plan.
It’s enlightening to see how those steps have played out in Montgomery County.
Step One: Define Desired Future Conditions
Groundwater management AREAs (GMAs) set “desired future conditions” (DFCs) or goals for a region. This helps prevent selfish decisions by individual groundwater conservation DISTRICTS (GCDs).
Under current law, goals are now set by a vote of all the GCDs in a GMA.
Instead of your local GCD setting goals for its area, the district must go to the GMA and convince the larger group of GCDs to approve goals for the area. This limits local control, but prevents one district from allowing the aquifer to be mined to the detriment of surrounding counties.
Legislators have divided the Sate into 16 groundwater management areas. Multiple groundwater conservation districts comprise each area (see below).For a high res pdf of this map, click here.GMA 14 includes 20 counties (including Harris and Montgomery), five groundwater conservation districts and two subsidence districts. For a high res PDF of this map, click here.
After the districts in a GMA set the DFC or goal, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) sets the Modeled Available Groundwater (MAG). This is the volume of groundwater that can be pumped in a particular area while still meeting the DFC goal.
For example, if Montgomery County wants to maintain stable water levels in the aquifer (at today’s height), then producers can pump approximately 65,000 acre feet per year. Prior to the introduction of surface water in 2015, producers were already pumping in excess of 90,000 acre feet per year.
Step 3: GCD Develops Management Plan
Once TWDB sets the MAG limit, then the GCD is supposed to develop a management plan that includes the approved DFC and MAG. The plan describes how they will achieve the DFC goals.
The TWDB rejected the Lone Star Conservation District’s (LSGCD) plan because it did not include a DFC and MAG approved by the rest of the districts in GMA 14.
The LSGCD board doesn’t like the DFC that was approved by the other GCDs because it would limit pumpage to a sustainable amount. They think mining the aquifer will have NO negative consequences, either to them or to neighboring counties.
They don’t want to be stuck with the 2010 DFC because those DFCs limit pumpage to a sustainable amount. Their problem:
Texas law doesn’t allow TWDB to approve just any DFC that LSGCD wants. All GCDs in the area must approve the goal.
Step 4: GCD Adopts Rules to Meet Goals
Once TWDB approves the management plan, a GCD must adopt rules to achieve its goals. Most often, this means adopting rules that limit pumpage to no more than the MAG (limit).
However, GCDs can structure rules many different ways to accomplish their goal. For instance, they could proportionally limit everyone’s pumpage by the same percentage. Or establish different classes of users with different rules for each, etc.
To confirm the latter, I downloaded and reviewed the 2010 GMA-14 report on desired future conditions from the TWDB website. On pages 30/31, it lists the goals for Montgomery County’s LSGCD. The goals say things like, “From estimated year 2008 conditions, the average draw down of the Chicot aquifer should not exceed approximately 3 feet after 8 years.” They go into similar detail for other aquifers, but using different dates, time spans and depletion rates.
These goals are, in fact, different from the rules that the judge found unenforceable.
Section on Subsidence in Executive Summary
Note the executive summary in the last report. It says:
“Subsidence is a major factor in GMA 14. The GMA 14 consultants spent considerable time and effort to evaluate potential impacts by the DFCs on subsidence. The only means of preventing subsidence is stabilizing groundwater levels throughout the Gulf Coast Aquifer System. The District Representatives concluded that the only means of stabilizing groundwater levels is to limit groundwater production.”
This report was approved unanimously by every subsidence and groundwater conservation district in the management area plus their consultants.
Complaints by other Districts
If you have a hard time following this (and many people will), consider what other experts in GMA-14 say in their letters to the Texas Water Development Board when protesting the action of the LSGCD:
City of Houston Public Works: “Houston is concerned that (LSGCD’s) Management Plan … does not safeguard aquifer recharge and recovery and does not support efforts to address subsidence.”
Montgomery County Water Control and Improvement District #1: Complains about the loss of wells due to water level declines and the expenditure of millions of dollars to drill new wells and reset pumps. Requests TWDB to reject the LSGCD Management Plan.
West Harris County Regional Water Authority: Urges TWDB to reject LSGCD Management Plan because of the impact it will have on groundwater availability and subsidence in northern Harris County.
Woodlands Joint Powers Authority: Requests TWDB to reject LSGCD Management Plan citing pumping of groundwater above sustainable levels, risk of additional water level declines, land subsidence, and flooding that would negatively impact private property rights throughout the region.
Harris-Galveston Subsidence District: The LSGCD management plan… “underrepresents the amount of subsidence that has occurred in Montgomery County. … Any additional withdrawal could cause pressure declines in Northern Harris County and additional subsidence.”
Protect Your Own Interests
Every person and entity who stands to be negatively impacted by LSGCD and Conroe’s actions should make their voices heard. They should notify TWDB that they oppose LSGCD’s appeal and support DFCs that prevent water-level declines and subsidence. They also should notify newspapers, neighbors, and community groups. Subsidence is irreversible. A few years of unlimited pumping can produce water level declines that take hundreds of years to reverse.
So speak up NOW.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/20/2019
690 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts in this post are my opinions on matters of public interest and are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great state of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/GMA14_GCD_map-small.jpg?fit=1500%2C1140&ssl=111401500adminadmin2019-07-20 01:26:332019-07-22 12:09:00MoCo Water War Escalates, Putting Millions in Crossfire
A close reading of the Woodridge Village Section One plat shows that the Montgomery County engineer disclaimed any responsibility for the impact of Woodridge Village both upstream and downstream, in fact, anywhere in the watershed. At the same time, the county engineer certified that the plans developed by LJA Engineering met all the requirements of Montgomery County Commissioners. See below.
Enlargement from first page of plat for Woodridge Village.
Gaps in Regulations
On May 7th, at least 196 homes flooded downstream of Woodridge Village. Many other homes in Porter also flooded on the upstream side of the subdivision.
This raises the question of whether Montgomery County floodplain regulations are sufficient to protect neighboring residents.
To complicate matters, the flooding happened before construction of several detention ponds – despite the fact that the land near the area that flooded had been clearcut for more than six months. However…
According to Montgomery County’s Floodplain Administrator, County regulations look only at pre- and post-construction runoff rates. They do not address anything that happens during construction.
Montgomery County has no regulations that dictate the sequence of construction. For instance, could building detention ponds on one section of land before clearcutting another have reduced flood risk and averted disaster?
Need for More Consistency to Protect Neighbors
I have previously posted about the differences in floodplain building regulations in various jurisdictions. These differences cause confusion for residents and property owners. They may feel protected when builders ten feet away on the other side of a county or city line play by an entirely different set of rules.
These gaps in regulation provide a good example of why the State of Texas should step in and bring some uniformity to guidelines. We need sensible regulations that enable growth without endangering downstream residents.
The thoughts 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 statute of the great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/24/2019
664 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Screen-Shot-2019-06-23-at-5.59.29-PM-e1561331450467.png?fit=1500%2C445&ssl=14451500adminadmin2019-06-23 19:39:052019-06-23 20:01:43Fine Print: Montgomery County Engineer Disclaimed Responsibility for Impact of Woodridge on Upstream and Downstream Drainage
Houston Council Member Dave Martin announced that the City of Houston and Montgomery County will host a flood claims workshop from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 19, 2019.
Kingwood Community Center
4102 Rustic Woods
Kingwood, Texas 77345
This event is for anyone (resident or business owner) who has: a) suffered flood damages, b) has flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and c) has questions about the policy claims process. FEMA representatives will be available to provide resources and answer questions. It does not matter what event caused the flood damage. Although the time has passed for submitting a Harvey claim, some people may still be struggling with the process. If they are protesting a settlement, they might benefit from this event.
The contractor also failed to repair a culvert running next to North Kingwood Forest. Engineers warned that the damaged culvert had to be replaced.
Finally the engineers may have mischaracterized the soil in modeling assumptions. They classified soil as sandy loam instead of clay. That could have skewed a key factor in runoff models by 2X to 3X.
Parts of Porter Also Flooded That Were Not in Any Recognized Flood Zone
LJA’s letter also shows that residents who flooded in Porter on the western edge of the new Woodridge development were NOT in either 100-year or 500-year flood zones. This supports the claims of Porter flood victims, such as Gretchen Dunlap-Smith. They say they never flooded before. They also claim that Rebel Contractors pushed dirt up against the western edge of the development while filling in natural drainage and wetlands. These actions likely constrained drainage on May 7th, before the contractor began installing storm sewers, drainage ditches and detention ponds in that area.
Flood Plain Maps Show What Developer’s Team Knew Before Permit Granted
Section 1.5 of LJA’s letter to Montgomery County states, “The project site is shown on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel 48339C0750H for Montgomery County, Texas and Incorporated Areas, revised August 18, 2014. The area just across the county boundary from the project site is shown on FIRM panel 48201C0305L for Harris County, Texas and Incorporated Areas, revised June 18, 2007.” On Page 51, the letter shows existing floodplains on the map below.
Page 51 from LJA letter to Montgomery County Engineer.The dark purple lines show the boundaries of the new development. The light purple and gray areas below the new development show the 100-year and 500-year flood plains in Elm Grove, North Kingwood Forest, Mills Branch and Woodstream Villages.Drainage on the developer’s two tracts is sloped toward Taylor Gully, Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest in red circle.
Clearcutting of the S2 detention pond area finished last November according to Nancy Vera of Elm Grove. However, only detention pond S1 and the flow-restricting box culvert next to Vera’s house had been substantially completed by May 7. Neither N1, nor the drainage ditch connecting it with N2 were excavated on May 7th; they still have not been excavated.
At the time of the May 7th flood, only detention pond S-1 had been installed. N-2 is on land owned by Montgomery County and was at least partially excavated in 2006, but none of the devices regulating flow into or out of it had been installed on May 7th.
LJA Engineering’s models assumed all the detention ponds are in and functioning, but we know they were not at the time of the flood. Instead of installing drainage first, the contractor focused on clearcutting and grading the northern section of land which exacerbated flooding on the southern section.
Drain Pipe Should Have Been Replaced
Page 3-1 of the LJA Letter mentions, “…an existing 36-inch-diameter x 290-foot HDPE culvert in Taylor Gully at the downstream end of the project. The upstream end of the culvert is within Montgomery County and the downstream end is within Harris County. Because of its poor structural condition, this culvert needs to be replaced.”
Intake end of the pipe referenced on page 3-1 of LJA Engineer’s letter to Montgomery County.Photo taken on May 12, 2019.
Judging by the poor condition of the pipe after the May 7th flood and the lack of disturbed soil around it, I feel it’s safe to say that it wasn’t replaced at the time of the flood.
Modeling May Have Included Faulty Assumption About Soil
Major factors affecting the runoff coefficient for a watershed are land use, slope, and soil type. We know the contractor increased the runoff rate when it clearcut the forest and altered the slope of land. But I had not previously focused on how the engineers characterized the soil type, which affects water infiltration.
Sandy soils absorb more rain, generally reducing runoff.
Soils with more clay absorb less rain, generally increasing runoff.
In modeling runoff and flooding potential for Woodridge Village and downstream areas, LJA Engineers used the Army Corps’ Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS). Page 216 of the user guide for that program states that, “The sand percentage accounts for the effect of infiltration and surface runoff properties on hydrograph generation. Zero percent indicates essentially all-clay soils with characteristically low infiltration rates. Conversely, 100 percent indicates essentially all-sandy soils with characteristically high infiltration rates.”
BrighthubEngineering.com estimates infiltration rates in inches per hour for different types of soil. They show the rate for clay-based soils to average one-third to one-half the rate for sandy loam. That means…
The characterization of the soil could have skewed this component of LJA’s modeling by 2X to 3X. Certainly, that merits further investigation and verification of LJA Engineering’s results before contractors begin pouring concrete.
New Discoveries Argue for Independent Engineering Investigation
All of these observations argue for an independent investigation into the engineering of and construction practices on this site. They raise serious questions about the accuracy of LJA’s conclusions and whether their plans will protect downstream residents from future flooding.
Let’s pray that Montgomery County and the City of Houston commission a forensic investigation into the causes of this flooding. That’s the only way we’ll be able to prevent similar flooding in the future. By the time these issues work their way through the court system, contractors will have built homes and streets that could forever alter downstream flood potential. Harris County and the Federal government could be stuck with hundreds of buyouts costing tens of millions of dollars. A second opinion might save a lot of heartbreak, misery, and tax dollars. Better safe than sorry.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/2/2019
642 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Flood-Impact-on-EG.jpg?fit=1500%2C998&ssl=19981500adminadmin2019-06-02 22:50:562019-06-02 22:51:06Even More Discoveries Demand Independent Investigation into Causes of Flooding Around Woodridge Village
Earlier this year, I posted about FEMA funding approval of the San Jacinto River Basin Study. The four partners in the project, Harris County Flood Control, SJRA, Montgomery County and City of Houston, have released a fact sheet that outlines the objectives and scope of their study.
The study will cover 3000 square miles from the upper reaches of the San Jacinto River watershed in Walker, San Jacinto and Grimes Counties in the north to I-10 on the south.
Map of 3000 square-mile study area
Now called the “San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan,” goals include:
Identifying the region’s vulnerabilities to flood hazards using Atlas 14 rainfall totals
Developing approaches to enhance public information and flood-level assessment capabilities during a flood
Evaluating flood mitigation strategies to improve community resilience
Providing a comprehensive Flood Mitigation Plan that supports the needs and objectives of each regional partner.
Download the PDF to learn more. This is not a detailed discussion, just a two-page, high-level overview. To read the entire detailed document that FEMA approved, click here.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Watershed.jpg?fit=900%2C1169&ssl=11169900adminadmin2019-05-28 21:57:512019-05-29 09:38:40Partners Outline Goals and Scope of San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan
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
In March last year, the San Jacinto River Authority, City of Houston, Montgomery County and Harris County proposed a river basin study of the San Jacinto.
Scope of River Basin Study
The scope includes evaluating the cost effectiveness and feasibility of a variety of flood mitigation projects. They include additional gates for the Lake Houston Dam, additional dredging and additional upstream detention – all important for the Lake Houston Area.
West Fork Sand Mine Complex inundated by Harvey.
But the scope also includes many other potential projects. The $2+ million grant request to FEMA covered the entire San Jacinto River basin including the East and West Forks.
10 Months of Delays
Then the grant request fell into a great black hole. Nine months went by while FEMA pondered and tweaked the 15-page grant application. Finally, FEMA was ready to write the check in December…when the government shut down.
Finally, a Green Light
Today, however, I got news that FEMA finally green-lighted the project through TDEM, the Texas Division of Emergency Management. TDEM coordinates all FEMA requests for the State of Texas.
This will benefit multiple counties throughout entire basin. It’s not often this many governmental entities come together to impact an area this large.
Residents of Kingwood Village Estates trying to escape as Harvey’s floodwaters rose. 12 residents died as a result of injuries sustained during evacuation or the stress from losing their homes.
All parties have reportedly signed inter-local agreements (ILAs) already. An ILA is like a contract between governmental entities.
Next Steps Before Kickoff
Next steps: Harris County Flood Control will present details of the grant package to Harris County Commissioners Court at the Court’s Feb 12th meeting.
Following court acceptance of the grant, HCFCD hopes to obtain Commissioner’s Court approval of the agreement with the consulting firms that will execute the river basin study.
All those involved hope for an official study kickoff in late February/early March.
Among many other things, study will examine sedimentation and its role in flooding.
Originally, the study was to have taken approximately a year. However, additional FEMA requirements mean it will now take 18 months. That means we should be looking at recommendations 3 years after Harvey. Then the partners will submit additional grants to FEMA for projects that result from the study.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/KVE-2017-Flood.jpg?fit=1500%2C968&ssl=19681500adminadmin2019-01-29 20:26:442019-01-29 20:40:32Log Jam Finally Broken on Long-Awaited Regional San Jacinto River Basin Study
Guidelines for floodplain development can bewilder even professionals. Overlapping jurisdictions often have different guidelines. And guidelines often change, as Houston’s just did. Houston now manages the 100-year and 500-year floodplains differently. Cities also have building codes that include more requirements.
Site of the proposed new marina and high rise development. Shot from over the West Fork shortly after Harvey. Note sand deposited by Harvey. 25 and 50-story high-rises would be built on the narrow strip between the lake and the Barrington at the top of frame.
Overview
People ARE generally allowed to build and place fill in floodplains. However, they must follow local floodplain guidelines and obtain permits that restrict what they can do. They must also submit environmental surveys, mitigate wetlands, and provide hydrologic and hydraulic studies. In Houston, they may move earth from one location to another within a floodplain, but not add to the total volume. The general rule of thumb: zero negative impact on the conveyance of the river.
If a development destroys wetlands, wetland credits must be purchased from a mitigation bank. Mitigation banks place conservation easements on some of our most valuable wetlands. By helping to finance conservation of those areas, destruction of less valuable wetlands elsewhere may be permitted. Generally but not always, the mitigation credits must be within the same watershed. However, this is not always the case. Extenuating circumstances may exist.
KSA once considered placing East End Park in a mitigation bank as a way to help finance its long range parks plan. The conservation easement would ensure that the character of the park never changed. And the money raised would have provided needed improvements to other parks at no cost to residents.
Federal Guidelines and How They Relate to Local
FEMA establishes minimum standards for a community to enroll in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). By enrolling and administering floodplain regulations, it allows their residents the opportunity to purchase Flood Insurance through the NFIP. You must at least build at FEMA’s base flood elevation (BFE). But communities can and do set higher standards. And each may have different guidelines.
Engineers and regulators often talk about “freeboard factors.” Freeboard, a nautical term, means “the height of a ships side between the waterline and the deck.” In a flooding context, freeboard means minimum elevation above the BFE. You often see it described as “BFE + 1 ft.” Or 2 feet. Or X feet. Think of it as a safety margin. Any freeboard above the BFE is considered a local community’s higher standard.
To provide a context, below are links to some of the floodplain management orders/ordinances.
Note Chapters 9 and 13. They changed on September 1, 2018. Changes address building code issues for FEMA X zones. Zone X includes the 500 year flood plain. Many such areas flooded during Harvey.
If a development affects a major waterway like the San Jacinto River, its wetlands, its flow, or endangered wildlife, the Army Corps will also review studies submitted as part of the permitting process. They would look at applications from the point of view of the EPA and Clean Water Act, especially Section 404.Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. … For most discharges that will have only minimal adverse effects, a general permit may be suitable. This is the major focus of the permitting process now underway for the high-rise development in Kingwood.
TCEQ
The Clean Water Act also contains a section 401. It specifically focuses on how States and Tribes can use their water quality standards in Section 401 certifications to protect wetlands. States and Tribes can review and approve, condition, or deny any Federal permits or licenses that may result in a discharge to waters of United States within their borders, including wetlands. States and Tribes make their decisions to deny, certify, or condition permits or licenses primarily by ensuring the activity will comply with applicable water quality standards. In addition, States and Tribes look at whether the activity will violate effluent limitations, new source performance standards, toxic pollutants restrictions and other water resource requirements of State or Tribal law.
Jurisdictional Divides
The Houston ordinance only applies to Houston’s jurisdiction. Houston does not influence neighbors and cannot control or force their policies on other jurisdictions. That is important since Kingwood is surrounded by Humble, unincorporated Harris County (Atascocita and Huffman), and unincorporated Montgomery County.
The Key
Understand that if a developer/individual meets the requirements identified in the floodplain ordinance(s), they can develop in the floodplain (including the floodway). Floodplain administrators must follow the law. However, they try to discourage dangerous floodplain development by “working to rule.” By strictly following all rules with no wiggle room, floodplain administrators can drag permitting processes out. A knowledgeable floodplain administrator can find problems with plans, surveys, and engineering reports for years. By requesting revisions, they can make life so difficult for applicants that it affects the economics of their developments. Eventually they may decide that a project falls into that great black box called “too hard to do,” and walk away.
Words of Wisdom
A regulator told me today that the more people who protest a permit, the harder they are to ignore.
If you have concerns about the high rise development in Kingwood, make sure you register them with the Army Corps (which is currently reviewing the permitting from a CWA 404 perspective). The deadline: January 29.
Comments and requests for additional information should reference USACE file number, SWG-2016-00384, and should be submitted to:
Evaluation Branch, North Unit
Regulatory Division, CESWG-RD-E
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1229
Galveston, Texas 77553-1229
409-766-3869 Phone
409-766-6301 Fax
swg_public_notice@usace.army.mil
Posted By Bob Rehak on January 9, 2019
498 Days Since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Harvey-SanJac_179-e1546828712317.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-01-06 21:33:032019-01-13 12:35:07Guide to Lake Houston Area Floodplain Regulations
