Tony Buzbee and Bill King both understand the importance of Kingwood in the upcoming Mayoral election. In the 2015 runoff, Sylvester Turner won by 4,000 votes city wide. But more than 28,000 registered voters in Kingwood didn’t vote, largely because of a major storm on Election Day. Storms may again shape this election, but in a different way.
Slow Pace of Mitigation Creates Opening
Since Hurricane Harvey, identifying the causes of flooding in the Kingwood area and mitigating them have dominated public discourse. Now both candidates running against incumbent Mayor Sylvester Turner are courting Kingwood residents. We could be the swing vote in the next election. And the slow pace of mitigation since Harvey could give them the opening they seek. Especially after recent flooding in Elm Grove reignited waves of anxiety.
King has met with many area residents on numerous occasions for the last year. He has slogged through swamps and sand dunes with me on more than one occasion, trying to see first hand how the San Jacinto became clogged with sediment, in part, due to sand mines in the floodway.
Buzbee joined the race later, but didn’t waste time wading into the issues. He asked local activists to arrange a trip to the mouth bar and a sand mine for him. When we got to the mouth bar, the former marine captain literally sprang out of the boat and waded ashore like he was taking a beach at Normandy.
Buzbee Sees Firsthand the Breach of Sand Mine Dike
Upriver, at the sand mine, we saw a tangible example of a theoretical discussion I had been having with him for several months – a sand mine discharging silt and wastewater into the river. We discovered, by accident, a massive breach in the dike of the Triple-P mine in Porter.
As we turned a bend on Caney Creek, suddenly we realized we were no longer on the creek. We were in a channel that connected the creek to the Triple-P Mine in Porter.
About 50 to 100 feet of the dike had vanished. From the way trees laid down, it looked as though the wall of the mine had been blown outward by floodwaters.
Breach in dike. The tree laying down in the background at about a 10 degree angle is on Caney Creek which flows left to right in this shot.
Danger of Floodway Mining Comes to Life
Suddenly, all the tumblers clicked into place. Buzbee said, “So that’s what you’ve been talking about!” The danger of building mines in the floodway became apparent. It was what they call in science “The Aha Moment!” I could see him connecting thoughts that were previously unconnected, such as sand mine and mouth bar. He got it.
Luckily for Kingwood residents, a video crew was present when he got it. Here, on video, is Buzbee’s voyage of discovery.
While I have tried to keep flood discussions apolitical, inevitably the solutions are political. Hence, I am wading into some uncharted waters. I told Buzbee and King the same thing I will tell any candidate for any office. I will help you understand the causes of flooding in this area and what we need to mitigate them. My hope is that by making this part of the political debate, the candidates will focus awareness on the problems that leads to solutions.
I also make this promise to all candidates – incumbents and challengers alike. People deserve to hear what you have to say about flooding. Send me your thoughts or videos and I will publish them.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/24/2019 with special thanks to Josh Alberson and his boat
633 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Buzbee.jpg?fit=1500%2C838&ssl=18381500adminadmin2019-05-24 20:58:242019-05-24 21:11:00Buzbee Video Puts Mouth Bar, Sand Mining at Center Stage In Mayoral Election
Houston City Council Member Dave Martin announced today that the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) has authorized the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to remove sand and siltation from the Lake Houston mouth bar.
History of Project
In 2018, USACE first began removing debris deposited during Hurricane Harvey from the San Jacinto River under FEMA Mission Assignment (DR 4332). The assignment directed USACE to restore the river to pre-Harvey conditions.
DR 4332 has removed debris from three out of four identified sections of the San Jacinto River. Contractors should finish the last segment (shown in blue below) in May.
Original segments identified by USACE. The orange and green segments are complete. The blue segment should be finished with another week or so. And the purple segment is the one yet to be done – including the mouth bar.
FEMA did not approve the fourth section, in the original scope of work for DR 4332. Last month, the City of Houston filed an application for mouth bar removal as well as an additional dredge material disposal site. FEMA and USACE have been reviewing it since then, according to Council Member Martin.
The State of Texas, the City of Houston, as well as multiple stakeholders from the Lake Houston area, requested FEMA to expedite authorization of a Mission Assignment for debris removal and dredging of the mouth bar while the equipment is still in the river. The hope: to save taxpayers the cost of a second mobilization effort. Mobilization for the first assignment cost approximately $18 million.
FEMA Issues Directive of Mission Assignment
At a meeting last week in Austin, FEMA issued a directive of Mission Assignment to USACE for dredging of the mouth bar at the confluence of the San Jacinto River and Lake Houston.
The City requested removal of 1.4 million cubic yards of sediment. It is unclear at this time how much FEMA will fund, exactly where it will be stored, and whether matching funds will come from other sources. FEMA, TDEM, City of Houston, and USACE are still working to determine the amount of silt deposited by Hurricane Harvey.
Dredging of Final Segment To Begin Within 30 Days
Martin hopes the calculation will be finalized next week, and expects dredging to begin within 30 days.
The Great Lakes Dredge is still docked at the USACE Command Post while it awaits FEMA and USACE to finalize mouth bar dredging details with the City and State.
Kudos to Mission Team
In his press release, Martin issued “a huge thank you to our federal partners Congressman Dan Crenshaw, Field Representative for Congressman Crenshaw, Kaaren Cambio, Congressman Kevin Brady, Senator Ted Cruz, and Senator John Cornyn for their support as they have all been meeting regularly with FEMA and discussing this project.”
“This is a huge project for our area,” said Martin, “and it would not be possible without the on-going support and push from Governor Greg Abbott and Chief Nim Kidd, Texas Department of Emergency Management (TDEM), as well as Mayor Sylvester Turner and Stephen Costello, Chief Recovery Officer – City of Houston.”
Martin also gave additional thanks to Jenna Armstrong and Mark Mitchell from the Lake Houston Area Chamber of Commerce for coordinating a letter writing campaign.
Breathing a Bit Easier Tonight
During floods earlier this year, I noticed a ten foot difference at times at gauges on either side of the mouth bar. It is acting like a dam behind the dam.
With the start of Hurricane season on June 1, residents of Kingwood and Humble will breathe a little easier tonight. Hopefully, the Corps and its contractors will be able to at least dredge a channel through the mouth bar area before the peak of the Atlantic season from mid-August through September.
The SJRA has agreed to continue lowering Lake Conroe during that period by 2 feet versus its normal level as an additional buffer against flooding.
My thanks to Council Member Dave Martin for pushing this project so tirelessly, and to Kaaren Cambio and Mark Micheletti for leading to effort to lower Lake Conroe again this year. Neither effort has been easy. Finally, kudos also to Tim Garfield and R.D. Kissling, two local retired geologists for their efforts in helping people understand the dangers posed by the mouth bar.
Posted by Bob Rehak on April 26, 2019
605 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Segments.jpg?fit=1500%2C821&ssl=18211500adminadmin2019-04-26 16:52:392019-04-26 18:48:17Houston Council Member Dave Martin Issues Mouth Bar Update
Last month, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers predicted that dredging could take until early May. They allowed another month for de-mobilization. However, one of the two dredgers on the job, Great Lakes, finished this week. Their early finish could affect a series of decisions on the mouth bar.
Sand Bar blocking the West Fork of the San Jacinto where it enters Lake Houston. The City estimates that 1.4 million cubic yards of sediment was deposited in this area during Harvey.
Early Finish, New Possibilities
The early finish could let mouth-bar dredging start sooner. However, it also could put pressure on the Corps to consider options not in play a week ago.
At the end of March, the City of Houston submitted an application to FEMA to fund mouth bar dredging. The purpose: remove 1.4 million cubic yards of sediment from the giant sand bar at the mouth of the San Jacinto West Fork. Separately, the City also submitted a permit application to the Army Corps to store the dredging spoils on property in Humble, across from Kingwood’s River Grove Park.
Officials hoped that decisions could be made on both requests before the dredgers began demobilizing. That could save up to $18 million in re-mobilization fees. From a taxpayer-savings point of view, it’s more economical to keep the dredgers dredging than organize a second separate project.
However, Great Lake’s early finish is forcing everyone from Galveston to Houston to Austin to Washington to scramble.
Great Lakes’ dredge is back at the dock at the Corps’ command site in Humble.
New Possibilities
As of this afternoon, the Army Corps said it was still reviewing the storage application permit to use the property in Humble. The permit review plus site prep, if approved, could take months though.
This raised the question of a backup site and the obvious one in my mind is one the Corps is already using – Placement Area #2 (PA2) on Sorters Road south of Kingwood College.
But that would require a much longer run, additional booster pumps, more pipe, and most likely…the larger, more powerful dredge that just finished.
Experts tell me that it is technically feasible to pump the sand all the way from the mouth bar to PA2 – IF the sand mine operator would allow it.
Evaluating Alternatives
Will the higher cost of the longer run eat up any savings that come from avoiding a second mobilization? The Corps has not yet had time to explore all possibilities and run the numbers, but it’s good to know another possibility may exist…
…if FEMA acts right away
…if the Humble property runs into problems
…if the Corps needs to move quickly to take advantage of the larger dredge.
To help keep all options open, officials throughout Texas at every level have leaped into action.
City officials have scrambled also. Dave Martin, Houston City Council Member said, “I’ve been in communication all day, and had multiple conversations with Great Lakes; Congressman Dan Crenshaw’s office; Chief Nim Kidd of the Texas Division of Emergency Management; Stephen Costello, the City’s Chief Recover Officer, and more.” Reportedly, even Governor Abbott got involved at one point.
According to Martin, “Our #1 goal is a Mission Assignment.”
Still Time to Save Re-mobilization Costs
Martin added,”Nothing is being disassembled, yet. They are not removing any pipe yet. They are taking advantage of this down time to check the pipe’s condition so that it can be replaced if necessary. I’m guardedly optimistic at this time.”
One experienced dredger explained that pipe can wear out. Coarse sand, he said, can be very abrasive, especially with steel pipe.
So for the time being, dredgers are performing necessary maintenance and inspections. That could take days or weeks. However, it probably will not keep them here months. Bottom line: the clock is ticking … louder now than before.
Contractors can’t tolerate downtime indefinitely. How long they decide to wait will most likely depend on the certainty of future work. That depends on FEMA and how quickly it acts.
Update on Funding
FEMA has not yet committed any funding. Stephen Costello has said in the past that the amount they fund will depend on their assessment of the City’s assessment. The two sides need to agree on how much mouth-bar sediment came from Harvey.
Mayor Sylvester Turner has committed $18 million from the City, according to City Council Member Martin. And the County committed $10 million in last year’s flood bond.
Keep in mind though that we must also budget for dredging beyond the mouth bar. We need East Fork, remainder of the West Fork, and maintenance dredging.
All the pieces are falling into place. Keep your fingers crossed and your eyes on FEMA. This is a high-stakes, political drama for the Lake Houston area!
Posted by Bob Rehak on April 12, 2019
591 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GLDD-Dredge-Back-At-Dock.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-04-12 14:48:222019-04-12 20:29:50Great Lakes Finishes Dredging Early; Accelerates Need for Mouth Bar Decision
Five days ago, State Representative Dan Huberty offered an amendment to Senate Bill 500 (SB500). SB500 is the omnibus Senate appropriations bill making its way through the House. It contains appropriations for everything from health care to education to criminal justice and highways and more.
Texas Capitol Building in Austin from the South Grounds
After the first reading, House members could file amendments of their own. They voted on amendments in the second reading. Tomorrow, if the House follows procedures, all members will get a chance to vote on the SB500, as amended by the House. It’s rare that a non-controversial spending bill like this would be voted down during the third reading. Regardless, tomorrow is the Huberty amendment’s SECOND major hurdle.
Conference Committee Next if Bill Approved
Because differences now exist between the House and Senate versions of the bill, the bill will go to a “conference committee.”
The conference committee will then try to reconcile, compromise on or accept differences in the bills approved by the Senate and House. Surviving the conference committee represents the THIRD major hurdle.
Re-Votes in House and Senate, Then On to Governor
Assuming the amendment is still alive at that point, the conference committee version will go back to both chambers for a final vote. According to rules of the Texas Legislature, the final vote on a conference committee bill must be straight YEA or NAY. Amendments may no longer be offered. Those votes in the House and Senate will represent the FOURTH and FIFTH hurdles.
Obtaining the governor’s signature will be SIXTH.
Next Steps
Next stops:
Final vote in the House on March 28
Conference committee
Re-votes on revised bill in House and Senate
Governor’s desk
Mouth Bar!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/27/2019
575 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/capitolc_1024.jpg?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=17681024adminadmin2019-03-27 19:44:032019-03-27 19:44:31Huberty Amendment to Appropriate Money for Dredging Mouth Bar Passes First of Six Hurdles Today
Senate Bill 500 is an omnibus appropriations bill passed by the Texas Senate on March 13. The bill passed to the House for committee review and consideration the same day. Last Friday, March 22, State Representative Dan Huberty offered an amendment to SB 500. It would allocate $30 million to dredging the mouth bar where the West Fork of the San Jacinto meets Lake Huston.
Text of Huberty Amendment
The text reads:
“Out of the funds appropriated in Subsection (1), $30 million dollars is dedicated to the Texas Water Development Board to provide a grant to Harris County for the purchase and operation of equipment to remove accumulated siltation and sediment deposits located at the confluence of the San Jacinto River and Lake Houston.”
Great News for West Fork Residents
This is great news for Lake Houston and West Fork residents. We faced six floods last year on relatively small rains. The mouth bar and other sediment dams left by Harvey created backwater effects that exaggerated flood heights. The exaggerated response of the river to these modest rains forced the City to prerelease water to avoid flooding.
It’s not clear how much funding the City will get from FEMA, if any, to address the mouth bar. The two sides have been arguing for more than a year about how much of the sediment is due to Harvey. Stephen Costello, the City’s Chief Recovery Officer, told a town hall meeting in Kingwood last week that there was at least 1.5 million cubic yards of sediment that needs to be removed to restore the river’s natural conveyance. Local geologists estimated that at least a third of that was due to Harvey.
Matching Funds for County
Last year, the County Flood Bond approved by voters in August included a $10 million match for dredging of the East Fork, West Fork and Lake Houston. The project description read: “Potential partnership project with the City of Houston, Coastal Water Authority, and the State of Texas to permit, design, and complete dredging of the East Fork, West Fork and Lake Houston area waterways to reduce flooding risks.”
The County expected to provide one-fifth of the total $50 million projected cost.
If the Huberty amendment and the appropriations bill pass, suddenly we have a clear path to funding… regardless of what FEMA does and how long it takes their money to get here.
Includes Purchase of Equipment
The Huberty amendment calls for the purchase and operation of equipment. That means the equipment could be owned and used wherever needed. For about a year, the Army Corps has emphasized the need for maintenance dredging to prevent re-accumulation of massive deposits.
Matching Funds Mean Higher Priority
There’s a lot to like about this simple amendment. Consider this. Many have worried lately about prioritization of flood bond projects, i.e., which would kick off first. Readily available matching funds would give the dredging project a very high priority. That would accelerate execution of the project.
Posted by Bob Rehak on March 25
573 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Cutterhead.jpg?fit=856%2C914&ssl=1914856adminadmin2019-03-25 20:43:282019-03-25 20:44:00Huberty Proposes Amendment to Appropriations Bill that Would Allocate $30 Million to Dredge Mouth Bar
To hear the City tell it, we’re days away from agreement to dredge 1.5 million cubic yards of the mouth bar. To hear Congressman Dan Crenshaw tell it, the permit application hasn’t even been filed yet.
So where do things really stand. A reader asked last weekend, whether the Houston Chronicle story about the meeting was accurate.
The Chronicle headline said, “Crenshaw frustrated with delayed application for federal funds to remove notorious Kingwood mouth bar.”
Specifically, the reader asked, “Based on your knowledge, is this factual (City of Houston dragging its feet) or just politicians pointing the finger at each other?”
Before I step into the cross-fire, let me say this. Officials have conducted most meetings on this subject behind closed doors. But I shall attempt to answer the reader’s question based on public statements and documents supplied by Houston City Council member Dave Martin and the Army Corps.
Mouth Bar Chronology
To answer the “Is it foot-dragging or finger-pointing” question, I need to go back to the period after Harvey and put this subject in a historical context. Foot dragging depends on where you want to start the clock ticking. So bear with me.
2017: Post Harvey Discovery and Early Efforts to Raise Awareness
September, 14, 2017 – Two weeks after Harvey, I photographed the mouth bar from a helicopter. In the next few months, I began calling attention to it and other sediment problems every way I could. They included this web site, newspaper articles, and testimony before Texas Senate and House committees. At the House Natural Resources Committee hearing at the GRB, Dave Martin was present.
Mouth Bar of the West Fork of the San Jacinto. Like an iceberg, most of it is below water. To get past this blockage, water must flow uphill more than 30 feet.
Early 2018: Early Efforts to Forge Political Consensus
February of 2018 – Houston City Council Member Dave Martin began calling Governor Greg Abbott for help on an almost daily basis.
March, 15, 2018 – Governor Abbott visited Kingwood, took an aerial tour of the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto and met with local officials. After the meeting, he announced that, using Hazard Mitigation Funds, he was authorizing the Texas Department of Emergency Management (TDEM) to spend $3 million to jumpstart the engineering and permitting process to determine where dredging should take place on the San Jacinto River.
May 9, 2018 – The Corps announced that it had completed the value engineering phase of its Emergency West Fork Dredging Program.
May 28, 2018 – DRC (under a contract with the City of Houston) began removing debris from Lake Houston to clear the way for dredging.
Mid-2018: Mouth Bar Excluded from Scope, Scramble to Identify Solutions
May 30, 2018 – The Army Corps announced the scope of its dredging program, was a mere 2.1 miles from River Grove Park to a little east of the West Lake Houston Parkway Bridge. Shocked, concerned residents begin to ask questions about the omission of the mouth bar. The struggle to include it began then. Phone calls and meetings with Corps representatives revealed that the Corps’ main concern was that part of the bar existed BEFORE Harvey. They said that under the Stafford Act, they could only address sediment deposited DURING Harvey. The Stafford Act is the enabling legislation for FEMA. This set the stage for the conflict still at the center of this controversy.
July 26, 2018 – Members of the Lake Houston Area Flood Prevention initiative meet with County Judge Ed Emmett to discuss priorities for the upcoming flood bond including additional dredging for the mouth bar.
August 9, 2018 – Houston City Council Member Dave Martin holds a meeting to line up the support of Senators Cruz and Cornyn for extending dredging to the mouth bar.
August 21, 2018 – Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Group meets with Ted Poe to urge extension of dredging.
August 25, 2018 – Harris County voters approved a flood bond package that included money to extend dredging.
October 9, 2018 – At a Town Hall Meeting, Council Member Martin and Mayor Turner announced a meeting to be held in Austin on October 11. Purpose: to determine how to get the mouth bar included in the scope of the current dredging project to save $18 million.
October 11, 2018 – All parties reach agreement in principle to dredge the mouth bar at the famous “Everybody but Trump” meeting in Austin. Costello’s conference report indicates that USACE was to analyze the most recent LIDAR and bathymetric data to determine the total volume of Harvey-deposited debris in the area and evaluate its inclusion into the ongoing operation.
December 14, 2018 – According to Costello’s same notes, the Corps recommended that the City contract Dr. Tim Dellapenna, a professor of geomorphology at Texas A&M Galveston. The Corps suggested he could analyze core samples for color and consistency to see if he could find layering traceable to Harvey. As of Jan. 8, 2019, the City still had not finalized a contract with Dellapena.
Storage Permit Controversy and Delays
Costello’s notes on the December 14th meeting also indicate that he had applied to the Corps for a permit to dispose of the dredged material. “A nationwide permit was submitted and subsequently denied by the USACE. We are meeting with all parties involved to discuss the next course of action required to obtain the necessary permits,” says the letter.
It would be another FOUR months before this meeting happened…by conference call.
A confidential source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, indicates a difference of opinion about the permit application. The source says the permit application, filed sometime in November of 2018, was NOT DENIED and that the Corps simply requested more information.
The City still has NOT supplied the additional information, nor has it reapplied for the permit.
Specifically, the Corps wanted to know how much material would be excavated, where it would be stored on the landowner’s property, whether there were any mitigation requirements, and whether there were alternative disposal sites in case the primary site proved unacceptable for some reason. There was also some confusion over the type of nationwide permit (NWP) requested. According to one source, the permit requested was for drying/dewatering the spoils and then hauling them off-site. However, the landowner wanted to keep the fill and use it to raise the level of his property.
“Tomorrow Afternoon”
On January 14, 2019, Costello told a group of Lake Houston Area leaders that he hoped to be taking core samples “tomorrow afternoon” and have results by the end of January. That did not happen.
Using a high frequency “Chirp-type” acoustic sub-bottom profiler data-acquisition tool
Core sampling
Sediment analysis
Note that on five other occasions between mid-January or mid-March, Costello told people that the City would be taking core samples “tomorrow afternoon.” Martin says they finally took the core samples the week before the March 21st town hall meeting.
No explanation was given for these delays. With $18 million dollars in remobilization fees at stake, no one ever even acknowledged the delays.
Core Sample Results
The results that Costello reported at the town hall meeting – $1.5 billion cubic yards – were preliminary estimates. At the meeting, Costello said he expected the final number “tomorrow afternoon” (there’s that phrase again) and that he would send the final report to FEMA no later than Monday, March 25. He vowed to refile an amended permit with the Corps by Friday, March 29. As of 5PM Monday, Costello still has not replied to inquires about whether he transmitted the results to FEMA.
Estimated depth of Harvey Deposits at core sample locations. Shown by Stephen Costello, City of Houston Chief Recovery Officer and Kingwood Town Hall Meeting on 3/21/2019. For a high resolution pdf of this image suitable for printing, click here.
Remember, there are two issues: FEMA controls funding; the Corps controls permitting for the storage.
Note that FEMA wants to limit funding to Harvey-related damage only; but the Corps is looking for a disposal site that could hold far more sediment, i.e., for pre-Harvey material. Other sources (City, County, State) could fund removal of pre-Harvey sediment to restore the full conveyance of the river. Having one site that could handle everything could save considerable permitting work.
Also lost in the Town Hall political pep rally was the fact that the Corps volunteered to prescreen the application to make sure it was complete and that the the city filed the right type of nationwide permit this time.
When the City says “We are moving as fast as humanly possible,” that sounds like a bit of exaggeration. It took the City four months to acquire the core samples needed to determine the Pre-Harvey volume of the mouth bar. Ultimately, they did it in an afternoon when facing the deadline of last week’s town hall meeting.
Next Steps vs. Deadline to Save $18 Million
So will the City be able to save the $18 million. The current dredging program is due to demobilize in a little more than a month, at the end of April. Before then:
FEMA must rule on findings of the core sampling before it can fund the mouth bar project (or at least the initial phase of it).
Several parties must audit any grant.
City must refile the correct type of permit with additional information.
Corps must review and comment.
Corps must hold a 30-day public comment period by Federal law.
Corps must issue final ruling on permit application.
That looks like at least several months worth of work.. So no, it doesn’t look like the City will be able to save taxpayers $18 million unless they can pull off a miracle.
Is the City moving “as fast as humanly possible?” as one city official said at the Town Hall meeting last week.
You be the judge. How long this has taken depends on where you want to start the clock ticking. It’s not as clear as either side would have you believe. Still there are huge gaps in the timetable that need to be explained to the public…especially if we lose $18 million.
Late-Breaking News: Huberty Amendment to CSSB 500 on Mouth Bar
Meanwhile, State Representative Dan Huberty filed this amendment to CSSB 500 on March 22. It would provide $30 million for dredging the mouth bar. (CSSB stands for Committee Substitute Senate Bill. SB 500 is an omnibus spending bill approved by the Senate, now being considered in the Texas House as CSSB 500.) That money, if approved, could go a long way toward dredging the portion of the mouth bar that FEMA doesn’t fund and the rest of the West Fork.
Posted by Bob Rehak on March 25, 2019
573 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LakeHouston_TopLayer_rev0-e1553548021432.jpg?fit=1500%2C971&ssl=19711500adminadmin2019-03-25 17:06:502019-03-25 17:07:18After Town Hall Meeting, Confusion Still Swirls Around Status of Mouth Bar
Two top geologists, now retired from one of the world’s leading oil companies, have developed a reliable and repeatable way to estimate the volume of sediment deposited in the West Fork mouth bar by Hurricane Harvey. They calculate that Harvey deposited at least 268,000 cubic yards of sediment in that area alone.
Stream mouth bar where the West Fork of the San Jacinto meets Lake Houston creates a sediment dam. It backs water up throughout the entire Hunble/Kingwood area during floods. Water must flow uphill approximately 40 feet to get over this hump.
No Pre-Harvey Measurements Hampered Dredging Program Approval
According to the Army Corps of Engineers and Stephen Costello, the City of Houston’s Chief Resiliency Officer, the lack of a reliable way to estimate the volume due to Harvey was a major stumbling block in funding the dredging effort. The City, FEMA and the Corps have reportedly been arguing about this for at least nine months. The issue has to do with the Stafford Act, FEMA’s enabling legislation. The Stafford Act prohibits FEMA from spending disaster relief funds on cleanup not related to the disaster in question.
Because the City of Houston had no reliable sedimentation survey taken immediately before Harvey, calculating the volume due to Harvey became problematic.
How a Mouth Bar Forms
A mouth bar forms at the mouth of a river where it meets still water (in our case, Lake Houston). As moving water encounters the still water, coarser sediment like sand is deposited. It begins building up and up until sand bars emerge above the surface.
The Insight that Led to a Reliable Way to Estimate Volume
Mainly sand comprises the mouth bar; sand moves only during major floods. The sand above water can only be deposited when floodwater is much higher than the top of the bar. That insight became the key to unlocking the mystery of how much sand Harvey deposited.
RD Kissling and Tim Garfield reasoned that if they could calculate the percentage of above-water growth during Harvey from satellite images, they could then apply that same percentage to the total volume of sand deposited below water between 2011 and 2018.
Calculation for visible “above water” growth of the mouth bar during Harvey.
But to determine the total volume added between 2011 and 2018, they first had to:
Digitize the difference map
Create polygons around the different colors
Calculate the area of the polygons
Multiply area times thickness for each
Add up the results.
Digitized difference map shows boundaries between areas of different thickness.Multiplying the area of the polygons times the thickness from the difference map yielded volumes for each area.
Tetra Tech Delays May Push Project Past Deadline
According to Costello, the City hired a company called Tetra Tech in early January to calculate the Harvey volume. He said they would do that by harvesting and analyzing core samples. The City expected the results of their study by the end of January. But when I talked to Costello in mid-February, he said Tetra Tech still had not finished harvesting core samples and that he wasn’t expecting results of their analysis until the end of February or early March.
Pro Bono Effort Might Save Taxpayers $18 Million
Kissling and Garfield developed their methodology and donated their time to help save money and to get the mouth bar removed before the start of the next hurricane season. If the current dredging program can be extended before the end of April, taxpayers could save the cost of recommissioning all the equipment. That could total $18 million.
The two geologists reasoned that their methodology would give all parties a basis for allowing the dredging to continue. Then, if Tetra Tech came back later with a different figure, the contract could be adjusted up or down.
I am presenting it here to start a dialog that leads to additional dredging without incurring the cost of remobilizing the massive amount of equipment now on the river.
Estimate is Only a Fraction of What Needs to Be Removed
Kissling and Garfield emphasize that this is just a start. Even if all 268,000 cubic yards were removed, the river would still be up to 20 feet shallower than at the time of impoundment. They hope this leads to a broader discussion of additional dredging which could be financed through other sources, such as the county flood bond and Proposition A. Finally, they point out the need for maintenance dredging after major floods to keep the sediment buildup at sub-critical levels.
Said Garfield, “We are confident this estimate of Harvey-specific sedimentation on the mouth bar is reasonable and should be used to support FEMA funded continuation of dredging. However, removing that volume alone still won’t solve the problem, because the mouth bar is much bigger than that and it remains the largest restriction of flow conveyance to the lake.”
Garfield continued:
“At a minimum, to restore flow and reduce flood risk, a 300-400’ wide channel 20’-25’ deep needs to be dredged to connect the river from the upstream dredging now nearing completion, through the mouth bar, to the FM1960 bridge. That is at least 5 or 6 times as much sediment as our estimate of what FEMA can fund, but without that the recent dredging alone has not solved the flood risk problem in our area.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on February 24, 2019 with help from R.D. Kissling and Tim Garfield
544 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Harvey-SanJac_437-cropped-e1775595968700.jpg?fit=1100%2C456&ssl=14561100adminadmin2019-02-23 22:18:462019-02-24 18:58:59Local Geologists Develop Way to Estimate Volume of Sediment in Mouth Bar Due to Harvey
According to Stephen Costello, Chief Resiliency Officer for The City of Houston, the City contracted with a company called Tetra Tech to take core samples earlier this week from and around the mouth bar on the West Fork of the San Jacinto.
Why Core Samples?
The mouth bar is a giant sand bar at the mouth of the river where it meets the lake. The size of it has concerned residents throughout the Lake Houston Area since Harvey. It has the potential to back water up on both sides of the river and worsen flooding.
Some background. The Army Corps initially excluded the mouth bar from its current dredging program on the west fork. Their reason: a small part of the bar existed before Harvey. FEMA, which is funding the dredging, by law cannot spend money on remediation for things that existed before the disaster in question.
It took months for the City, FEMA and the Army Corps to agree on a way to estimate the volume of sand deposited by Harvey. The answer says Costello: something called the Stockton protocol that he says was developed after Superstorm Sandy at Stockton University in New Jersey.
Analysis Due by End of February
The core samples will be key to estimating pre- and post-Harvey volumes. Costello says engineers will look at density and color of sand grains to help estimate where sediment from one storm stops and another starts.
Costello hopes engineers will complete their analysis by the end of February. In the meantime two other efforts are proceeding simultaneously.
Search for Suitable Disposal Site Continues
The Corps will evaluate one property for suitability as above-ground storage. Separately, others are also out looking at sub-surface storage sites (i.e., old sand pits). Several have been located. The cost and safety of above ground and below ground storage will be weighed against the possibility of hauling material off by truck. Distance between the dredge and disposal sites also affects pumping costs.
All this will take time, especially if a full-blown environmental study is necessary for the above-ground option. Costello says the Corps has told him that could take four months to two years.
Evaluating Plan B
Because of delays, Costello is starting to worry that delays may cost taxpayers the opportunity to save $18 million. That’s the cost to remobilize a second dredging project if the current dredging project cannot be extended.
Accordingly, Costello is pursuing two options. The first involves praying (that’s a joke). The second involves working back through the Texas Division of Emergency Management to get FEMA to declare the mouth bar part of the original emergency mission. The Corps seems to move much faster when orders come from FEMA, several sources tell me. Maybe we should start praying too. (That’s not a joke.)
Money, according to Costello, should not be a problem. FEMA has approved the use of debris cleanup money from Harvey for dredging. He believes enough money remains in that fund to cover the City’s cost share.
Where Current Dredging Project Stands
The Corps estimates that the current dredging project is 45% complete. They hope to complete dredging by the end of April.
City contractors are still removing downed trees from Lake Houston as a result of Hurricane Harvey’s destruction. The Callan Dredge is currently working the area near Kings Harbor at the West Lake Houston Parkway Bridge. The immensity of the equipment underscores the need to keep crews working at the end of the current project on the mouth bar. Remobilizing all this equipment could cost $18 million or more if delays create a need to remobilize.
Posted by Bob Rehak on February 7, 2018
527 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CallanAtWLHP_01.jpg?fit=1500%2C722&ssl=17221500adminadmin2019-02-07 18:43:362019-02-07 18:43:42City Analyzing Samples from Mouth Bar In Hopes of Determining Volume Due to Harvey
Note: This post contains a correction to Matt Zeve’s title; he is Deputy Executive Director at Harris County Flood Control.
The Army Corps of Engineers today released this graphic showing the extent of West Fork dredging progress to date. Dredging will extend from River Grove Park on the west King’s Harbor on the east.
Great Lakes subcontracted part of the job because it was time sensitive and Callan had a dredge that could start quickly. In fact, Callan began sooner than Great Lakes. Both companies spent considerable time on site assembling the dredges. Welding more than six miles of 24 inch HDPE dredge pipe and maneuvering it into place also required upfront time. Then both companies had to calibrate dredging rates with three booster pumps. Make no mistake; this is a huge undertaking.
Two months after the contract award, the first dredge moved downriver to its starting position on September 19th. A month later, on October 25th, the second dredge moved downriver. So out of the the 9 months, it took two and three months respectively just to start the dredging. Then we had three floods between December 7 and January 7 that caused pauses in the action.
Slow but Steady Progress
Backing out floods and prep time, we need to evaluate the progress shown above on a SIX month “actual-dredging” timetable, not the nine months budgeted for the entire job. Visually, it appears that they are roughly half completed and roughly half of the six months has expired. That’s reassuring. Especially knowing that the dredging has proved more difficult than expected. Crews periodically must stop to remove roots and aquatic vegetation from the dredge cutter heads.
Nagging Uncertainty Remains about Mouth Bar and Upstream
The questions readers keep asking, though, are “Will we be able to save all of that investment in upfront time?” And “Will we be able to start dredging the mouth bar before the start of next hurricane season starts on June 1?”
Corps bids showed that mobilization and demobilization cost 25% of the total job, roughly $18 million. Starting the mouth bar project as soon as the current project completes could save that money. It’s enough to do a lot more dredging. Maybe even open up the boat launch that the County hopes to build at its new Edgewater Park near US 59.
New Congressman Dan Crenshaw Jumping In
Dan Crenshaw, the Lake Houston Area’s new US Congressman seems to be jumping into flooding issues with both feet. He announced today that he has been appointed to Congressional Budget and Homeland Security committees. The budget committee assignment should put him in a good position to help accelerate flood mitigation measures.
Crenshaw has already met with Harris County with Flood Control District Deputy Executive Director Matt Zeve and Professional Engineer Ian Hudson to get an update on projects in Texas’s Second Congressional District. Those include both cleanup projects and flood mitigation projects. Crenshaw also met on Monday with Houston City Councilman Dave Martin, in which they discussed the importance of these projects. I also hear he is meeting the Army Corps and developers of the new high-rise project proposed for Kingwood.
New Congressman Dan Crenshaw (center) with Matt Zeve of Harris County Flood Control (r) and Ian Hudson (l).
Said Crenshaw, “Our district has been through so much because of Hurricane Harvey. I’m grateful for all the hard work our local and federal officials have done to prepare us for the next storm. I’m excited to get to work to ensure the people of TX-02 are able to make a full recovery and put Harvey in the rearview mirror.”
Something tells me that Crenshaw will bring the zeal of a SEAL to this job.
Posted on January 23, 2019 by Bob Rehak
512 days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/23-jan-2018-Dredging-Progress.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2019-01-23 17:41:232019-01-24 15:14:41Progress to Date on West Fork Dredging
High-rise development in the floodplain has pushed Lake Houston Area flood mitigation projects out of the headlines lately. So here’s an update on where things stand from Stephen Costello, the City of Houston’s chief resiliency officer and Mayor Turner’s flood czar.
Extending Dredging to Include Mouth Bar
It’s becoming increasing unlikely that we’ll be able to piggyback on the current dredging project. The City and Federal Government are still arguing about how much of the mouth bar existed before Harvey.
The mouth bar almost totally blocks the West Fork where it meets Lake Houston. FEMA and the City of Houston have argued for almost a year over how much existed before Harvey.
Regular readers may remember that FEMA and the Corps stonewalled action on the mouth bar because of the Stafford Act. The Stafford act is the enabling legislation for FEMA. It bars using disaster relief funds to address pre-disaster issues such as deferred maintenance.
The two sides argued for almost a year about how much of the bar existed before Harvey and how much resulted from Harvey. They have finally agreed on a procedure to answer that question. It’s called the Stockton Protocol and was developed at Stockton University in New Jersey to answer similar questions after Superstorm Sandy.
The protocol involves analysis of core samples from the mouth bar. According to Costello, the City hired a geomorphologist to harvest the core samples last week. It should take two to three weeks to analyze the layers in them.
Mouth Bar Disposal Issues Drag Out, Too
Another issue regarding the mouth bar has to do with disposal of the dredged materials. The City and the Corps have tried to agree on and permit a site since October 11 of last year. Three issues come into play when evaluating such sites: volume, cost and environmental considerations.
Next phases of dredging (proposed)
The site must be large enough to accommodate the volume of dredged materials.
The site must also be close to help hold down costs. The farther the site, the higher the costs. The amount of booster pumps, diesel fuel, pipeline, and manpower needed all increase with distance.
Re: environmental considerations, the Corps would prefer a below-ground site such as an old sand pit. That reduces the chance that sand and silt will end up back in the river during the next flood. It also eliminates the issue of possibly reducing the volume of the floodplain. On the other hand, above ground sites are easier to find and one exists that is much closer than any abandoned mine.
At the moment, managers are trying to find the optimal solution given all three variables.
Of course, the volume issue will depend on how much FEMA agrees to remove – after analysis of core samples and after the federal government resumes business.
Rapidly Shrinking Window to Save $18 Million
Before this process started dragging out, taxpayers had a chance to save $18 million. That represents the cost of mobilization and demobilization of the current dredging program on the West Fork. Piggybacking the mouth bar project on top of the current project would eliminate that cost for Phase II because the people and equipment would already be on site and could just continue working.
The current project should end in late April or early May. Costello says the City is already starting to look at contingency plans in case the shutdown drags on or permitting the disposal site becomes problematic.
Contingency Plans Considered
DRC, the company engaged to clean up debris in the lake, also does dredging. DRC has already bid the job and agreed to work for the same price as the current dredgers.
The leading permittee for the disposal site has agreed to store the dredges on his property if necessary until Phase II kicks off.
Current Barriers to Reaching An Agreement
But in the meantime, huge questions remain about volume and cost. With core samplings not yet analyzed, it’s hard to determine how much material will have to be removed from the river. So it’s also hard to determine whether the available money will stretch far enough to remove everything FEMA approves. At this point, the City has committed $15 million and the State $50 million. FEMA remains the big question mark.
Next steps:
Analyze core samples and agree on volume to be removed
Agree on disposal site and permit it
Determine available funds
Develop a dredging plan optimized for all variables above
Execute the plan
Status of New Gates for Lake Houston Dam
New gates for the Lake Houston dam also remain in limbo. Costello met with FEMA in December and again in early January. FEMA questions the benefit/cost analysis presented by the City. The City originally estimated a 2.8 b/c ratio for the project. That put it high on everyone’s priority lists. However, that may come down. Costello still believes the ratio will come in above 1.0, the cutoff (because benefits still exceed costs). A consultant is currently reconfiguring the estimate.
Lake Houston Dam is primarily a spillway. Small floodgates can lower lake if given enough time. But that requires starting before weather predictions acquire a high degree of certainty, thus raising the risk of wasting water if the forecast changes.
Concern about Potential for Downstream Impact
FEMA also wants assurances that new gates will not negatively impact downstream residents. The City remains confident that downstream residents will not experience impacts. The purpose of the gates is to be able to pre-release water at a controlled rate before storms hit to minimize the volume going over the spillway. Also, the county is reportedly offering buyouts to vulnerable homeowners below the dam.
If the City cannot convince FEMA that the threat to downstream residents will not increase, the City will have to look for an alternative source of funding, such as adding a penny to water bills.
Next Steps on Additional Gates
Assuming Costello can convince FEMA that there will be no negative impact downstream, the next steps would be:
Final design
Permitting
Construction
Each phase could take six months to two years, depending on unforeseen obstacles, such as political headwinds and completion of the long-awaited San Jacinto River Basin Watershed Survey.
San Jacinto Watershed Survey Status
In March of last year, the SJRA proposed a new survey of the entire San Jacinto Watershed. Projects such as maintenance dredging, additional gates, and additional upstream detention, all depend on the outcome of this study.
To properly design gates, for instance, engineers need to know the volume of water they need to shed in a given period of time.
To properly design maintenance dredging, they also need to know how fast the river is and lake are silting up.
The estimated cost of this study was about $2 million. Consultants have been ready and waiting since last April for the green light. Unfortunately, FEMA went back and forth with the SJRA and its partners on this project for eight months. According to Costello, FEMA was ready to write the check in December when the Federal Government shut down.
Next Steps:
Deposit FEMA check
Execute study
Final report
Expect this one to take 18 months from the start date.
Need to Mitigate Mitigation Funding
The saga of this study epitomizes the need to improve disaster mitigation procedures. Flooding along the Gulf Coast is foreseeable. If we budgeted for it, we wouldn’t have to depend on Washington and could save years on these projects. Two million dollars is not a great amount of money when spread out among the two million people who would benefit.
It Took 6 Months to Win the War for Texas Independence
It’s taking twice that long for FEMA to cut a check.
Think we have lost our edge? We need to get proactive and self-reliant about these things if we want the region to grow. It’s already been a year and a half since Harvey. It will take another year and a half to complete the study. Three years before the serious work of actual mitigation begins! We can do better. We must demand that our leaders reform the way the mitigation business works.
As always, these 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.
Posted by Bob Rehak on January 21, 2019
511 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/LakeHoustonDam.jpg?fit=1500%2C805&ssl=18051500adminadmin2019-01-22 10:12:582019-01-22 10:24:48January Update on Lake Houston Area Flood Mitigation Projects
