Photo taken 2/12/2020 on West Fork San Jacinto from helicopter.
While photographing the West Fork from a helicopter Thursday, I saw something large from the corner of my eye. I looked up and was treated to a magnificent sight – a bald eagle in flight … right beside us. I quickly zoomed my lens out to 300mm and snagged this air-to-air shot.
We were in the vicinity of the Romerica property just downstream from River Grove Park. You may remember a year ago that two developers from Mexico wanted to build 500-foot high-rises right next to the river. The community rose up in protest. One of the biggest concerns: the effect on bald eagles nesting in the area.
The company reserved the right to refile in the future. In the meantime, it appears that the eagle(s) living there have no intent to move.
The Herons Kingwood recently took down its website. However, the domain name is still registered. I have contacted the agent for the company to inquire about the project’s status. Emails have not yet been returned.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/13/2020
899 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/EagleInFlight.jpg?fit=1200%2C818&ssl=18181200adminadmin2020-02-13 21:38:512020-02-13 22:00:46Bald Eagle Sighted Over Romerica Property
With 2019 almost behind us, we should look back to see what we accomplished on flood mitigation. Tomorrow, I’ll take a look at the stories that will likely define 2020.
Limited Dredging
In 2018, FEMA and the Army Corps announced that they would dredge 2.1 miles of the San Jacinto West Fork when they were given authority to dredge 8 miles. Questions immediately started to swirl about why they were not dredging all the way to Lake Houston. The answer was “part of the mouth bar was there before Harvey and we can only spend disaster relief funds on what Harvey deposited.”
The mouth bar as it existed shortly after Hurricane Harvey. Photo taken 9/14/2017.
Regardless, they left the biggest blockage in the river. Imelda washed a tremendous amount of sediment downriver. In mid-October, RD Kissling sent me a photo from his kayak. He as standing in water less than knee deep 700 yards south of the mouth bar. It’s important to understand that sand bars are like ice bergs. You only see the tip above water. Most of the bar exists below water. And much of this mouth bar remains to be removed.
To learn more about this controversy, search this site using the key words “mouth bar.”
Flood Mitigation Legislation: A Big Win
No one budgets for disasters, such as Hurricane Harvey. So after the disaster, cities and counties had to scramble for grant money to even qualify for matching funds from the Federal government. More than two and a half years after the event, money is finally starting to trickle down to the areas that need it to implement flood mitigation projects. That’s thanks in large part to Senator Brandon Creighton who authored Senate Bill 7.
SB7 creates dedicated Texas Infrastructure and Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Funds for flood control planning and the funding of flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects. The Texas Water Development Board is finalizing rules for the distribution of those funds right now. SB500, a supplemental appropriations bill, includes funding for SB7 and an amendment that would dedicate $30 million for dredging at the confluence of the San Jacinto and Lake Houston. State Representative Dan Huberty authored the amendment to SB500 that provides the $30 million.
For more information about legislation affecting this area, see the Legislation page of this web site or search using the key words “SB7” or “SB500.”
Sand Mining Legislation: One Small Gain, Some Big Losses
Activists statewide pushed for legislation to reign in the excesses of an out-of-control aggregate industry. Here in the Houston area, State Representative Dan Huberty introduced HB 907. It passed and doubles the penalties for not registering a sand mining operation. It also increases the frequency of inspection from every three years to two years and established a registry of active sand mines.
Picture of the West Fork of the San Jacinto the day it turned white (11/4/2019). The TCEQ later issued a notice of enforcement to the Liberty Materials mine upstream for dumping 56 million gallons of white goopy pollution into the West Fork.Water samples indicated 25 times the normal amount of suspended solids.
That was the only bill that the high powered lobbyists of TACA (the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association) would allow to pass. That’s mostly because their members are already registered.
However, other important bills died in committee due to the lobbying power of TACA.
HB 908 would have provided for penalties up to $50,000 for water code violations and every-other-year inspections.
HB 909 would have created best management practices for sand mines.
HB 1671 would have extended water quality protections to the West Fork of the San Jacinto currently enjoyed by the John Graves District on the Brazos and attached penalties for non-compliance with best practices defined under HB909.
HB 2871. Would require sand mines and other aggregate production operations to acquire a reclamation permit and to file a performance bond ensuring reclamation.
For more information about sand mining in the Lake Houston area, see the Sand Mining page of this web site. You can also search on the key words “sand mining, TACA, Triple PG, TCEQ, breach, Liberty, and white water.”
Artist’s conceptual drawing of a high-rise development called The Herons: Kingwood.
The tallest buildings would have been 500 feet and located on the edge of the current floodway. That floodway will almost certainly expand in light of new Atlas-14 rainfall data. The developers also announced a marina that would have held 640 40-foot boats and 200 jet skis. There were no evacuation routes that would have remained above water in the event of a flood.
The developer’s web site now says the project is on hold, pending improvements to the West Fork and Lake Houston.
For more information on this development, see the High Rises page of this web site or search for the key words “Romerica, high rises, eagle, or The Herons.”
The $2.5 Billion Flood Bond Equity Flap
When the wording for Harris County’s historic $2.5 billion flood bond offering was worked out in early 2018, leaders from the Humble/Kingwood area in Precinct 4 argued to include the notion of an equitable distribution of funds. Why? Historically the Flood Control District had focused more on projects in other parts of the county, especially Precinct 1, that Precinct 4.
In one meeting after another, Ellis’ ringers showed up in commissioners court to complain about discrimination in the distribution of funds for buyouts, construction spending, and more. Yet in every category, Ellis’ precinct already had the lion’s share of funding.
This is an on-going controversy that affects everyone in the Lake Houston area. Ellis is looting transportation dollars from Precinct 4. You have to hand it to Ellis. Even if he doesn’t know what equity means, he knows how to work the system.
For more information on this topic, search this site using the key words “equity or Ellis.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that the language in the summary of the referendum on the ballot was misleading. It failed to disclose that the money would be raised through a new tax. So the Court ordered a revote.
In 2018, the Mayor “resold” the fee by saying, “If you want a lockbox around the money, vote FOR Proposition A. If you don’t want a lockbox around the money, vote AGAINST it.”
It was another artful dodge. There was nothing in the language of the bill to create a lockbox. The language in Prop A was almost identical to the original bill. But the funding formula was even looser!
Unaware voters once again approved the fee. And the Mayor continued to divert money from the fund. These diversions became a central element in the Mayoral campaign this year after thousands of people flooded in May and again during Imelda.
Nevertheless, the Mayor won re-election.
To learn more about this topic, search this site using the key word “Proposition A.”
10 New Gates for Lake Houston
The flood gates on Lake Conroe can release water 15 times faster than the gates on Lake Houston. During Harvey, that bottleneck contributed to the flooding of thousands of homes. A study showed that additional gates would have lowered the water level by almost two feet in the event of another Harvey. During smaller storms, the gates would also help pre-release water faster to create a buffer against possible flooding.
Lake Houston can shed water at 10,000 cubic feet per second. Lake Conroe can shed it at 150,000 cubic feet per second.
The City of Houston applied for a grant from FEMA and the Texas Division of Emergency Management to add ten new gates. FEMA approved the project. It’s happening in two phases. The first includes design and an environmental survey. The second includes construction. Each will take 18 months. We’re now six months into Phase One.
Details of dam improvement project.
For more information on this topic, search this site using the key word “gates.”
Temporary Seasonal Lowering of Lake Conroe
After Harvey, people in the Lake Houston area started pleading for more upstream detention, dredging and gates. Dredging started immediately. The project to add more gates to the Lake Houston spillway has also started. Upstream detention is still years way. The San Jacinto Watershed Study is only now beginning to identify possible locations.
Many lakefront property owners on Lake Conroe, however, claim the lowering hurts their property values and damages their bulkheads. Buses full of protesters showed up at the December SJRA Board meeting wearing red shirts that say, “Stop the Drop.” So many came that two busloads full of people had to be turned away.
Angry Lake Conroe residents showed up at the last SJRA board meeting in busloads.
Net: the policy to lower Lake Conroe temporarily is under assault. The SJRA will likely vote on whether to continue the policy in February. The SJRA will hold two additional meetings at the Lonestar Convention and Conference Center in January and February to give everyone who wants to provide input a chance to do so.
For more information on this topic, search this site using the key words “lake lowering.”
This is another issue that will carry over into 2020.
For more information on this topic, search this site using the keywords “Perry Homes, Woodridge Village, Figure Four Development, PSWA, Elm Grove, Spurlock, cease and desist, detention, what went wrong, North Kingwood Forest, or drainage criteria.”
There’s your digest of the biggest stories of 2019. 2020 to follow.
Posted by Bob Rehak on December 19, 2019
842 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 92 since Imelda
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Slide11.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2019-12-19 11:45:402019-12-19 12:01:13The Biggest Stories of 2019
Yet more drone footage by local resident and videographer Jim Zura of Zura Productions revealed that Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest weren’t the only areas with flooding problems on May 7, 2019. The low-lying Romerica land is in the floodway and floodplain of the San Jacinto West Fork. A large part of the property is also classified as wetlands.
Flood Follies
May continued the developers’ long standing tradition of flooding follies.
Zura Videos Show Scope of Flooding Day After May 7
Zura filmed three short drone videos linked below. The first two from River Grove Park show the extent of Romerica’s flooding problems on May 7. The third shows street flooding on May 3 on much higher ground.
Romerica has reportedly decided to reapply for a permit from the Army Corps. As they develop the required surveys and studies coming out of Round One, they have taken down many of the websites that previously caused them so many problems. For instance, they removed the site offering EB-5 visas to foreign investors through their American Vision program. However, I have screen captures of all the suspect websites.
Zura’s video underscores the folly of developing this property into anything other than a park. I hope Mr. Haddad and Mr. Covarrubias watch these videos closely.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Zura-RG-Romerica.jpg?fit=1500%2C838&ssl=18381500adminadmin2019-06-11 21:44:272019-06-11 21:47:25Zura Drone Videos Reveal Romerica Had Flooding Problems on May 7 Also
From the date on the USFWS letter, February 28, it appears that USFWS arrived at its recommendation even before the close of the public comment period on March 1.
The applicant understated the likely impact on waters and wetlands resulting from fill material, raised buildings, infrastructure development and construction activities. They called the applicant’s proposal “misleading.”
USFWS expressed concerns about:
Bird strikes and mortalities associated with the high-rise buildings
The loss of highly functioning forested wetlands
Significant reduction in biological functions, particularly those related to fish and wildlife habitat
Water quality issues
A marina district built entirely within the floodway
The absence of appropriate stormwater management
Failure to fully disclose impacts on wetlands and surrounding properties
Inconsistencies in access road descriptions
Failure to fully disclose the project’s footprint impacts
Failure to provide an analysis of practicable alternatives to the proposed wetland and stream fill
Failure to demonstrate that the project meets the requirements of the EPA’s CWA 404(b)(1) guidelines
An incomplete compensatory mitigation plan
Improper assessment of the high level of functions of the onsite aquatic resources and surrounding upland habitats
An inadequate bald eagle survey
Disturbance and loss of bald eagle habitat.
Conclusion and Recommendation of USFWS
The USFWS recommended “permit denial due to the application’s deficiencies.”
Reaction
I’m happy that a government agency validated the concerns of residents, especially the numerous deficiencies that became so glaringly obvious during the public comment period. Example: when I asked one of the engineers at the March 18th public meeting where all the fill would be put, he couldn’t tell me. It seemed like a simple, but important question. Turns out it was.
Jill Boullion, Executive Director of the Bayou Land Conservancy said, “The Bayou Land Conservancy is gratified that US Fish & Wildlife service has confirmed our opinion that the Romerica project site is ecologically rich and diverse. It is, in its natural state, already providing the community immeasurable services. We believe the highest good for the community is to preserve this valuable resource, not develop it.”
Romerica’s spokesperson, Leah Howard Manlove, contacted me earlier this week to say that the Romerica team would meet next week to discuss their options and a plan of action. At this point, Romerica has two options: answer all the questions and concerns raised during the public comment period or quietly let the project die.
Posted by Bob Rehak on May 10, 2019
619 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy and are protected under 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/2019/04/DSC06408.jpg?fit=2031%2C1648&ssl=116482031adminadmin2019-05-10 16:07:302019-05-10 19:51:28U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Urged Corps to Deny Romerica Permit
This morning, local videographer Jim Zura took his drone down to River Grove Park and photographed the Romerica property flooding for the seventh time in 14 months. It proves that there’s a developer born every minute!
The history of this land involves half a dozen different developers, each with big dreams, determined to get rich in that promised land between buying low and selling high. Ultimately, though, they end up selling to another starry-eyed developer after reality sets in.
Investing $5 billion in a floodway that carries 240,000 cubic feet per second! That’s Brooklyn-Bridge smart. Expecting 15,000 condo buyers to wade into the wacky dream with you? It would be easier to sell high rises at the end of an airport runway.
Might be time to cut your losses, Mr. Haddad. Just sayin’. All those high priced consultants will be happy to keep selling you hope as long as you’re paying them.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/8/19
617 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post are 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Screen-Shot-2019-05-08-at-9.54.33-PM-copy.jpg?fit=1500%2C870&ssl=18701500adminadmin2019-05-08 21:59:412019-05-08 22:11:20There’s a Developer Born Every Minute!
After receiving 727 public comments, Kingwood Marina developer, Romerica Investments, LLC, asked Corps regulators on April 24, to “temporarily suspend an Individual Permit Application (SWG-2016-00384).”
Romercia’s environmental consultants said in a letter to Corps regulators, they made the request based on the large volume of comments provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on March 28.
The request acknowledged, “It will take several months to conduct the surveys and studies needed to respond fully to these comments.”
Interview withCorps’ Chief of Evaluation Branch
Last week, I spoke with Janet Botello, Chief of the Evaluation Branch of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Galveston District. We talked about what comes next for Romerica after its permit application for the proposed high-rise development in Kingwood was withdrawn by the Corps. Bottom line: if they reapply, we would likely have another public comment period.
In this satellite image taken on 2/23/19, you can see the West Fork San Jacinto at the bottom, River Grove Park at the left, Kingwood Country Club on the right and the Barrington at the top. Romerica hopes to build multiple 25-50 high rises between the little lake in the center and the golf course fairways below the Barrington.
Difference: Suspension vs. Withdrawal
Rehak: “Romerica requested a suspension of their permit application. The Army Corps withdrew it. What’s the difference? Is there any legal significance?”
Botello: “The correct wording in this case is “withdrawal.” There IS a legal difference. There is a provision within our regulations for suspending a permit. But that only occurs when a permit has actually been issued. In this case, the permit was not issued; there was only an application. We never made a final decision. So the pending application was withdrawn.”
Another Public Comment Period Likely
Rehak: “If they reapply, would there be another public comment period during the evaluation of new application?”
Botello: “I am comfortable in saying that there probably will be another public comment period based on the number of public interest factors and concerns that were raised and potential changes that could occur. But we won’t know for sure until we get the revised packet of information.”
Rehak: “How frequently does this happen?”
Botello: “It’s common. If a significant number of comments are raised during the public comment period and applicants aren’t prepared to address them within 30 days, we withdraw it. Then they go back and try to answer the concerns that were raised or revise their plans. Conversely, if they can answer and fully address concerns within 30 days, we keep evaluating the permit and we go ahead with the next step. If not, we withdraw it and give them time on their own to address the public concerns.”
Next Steps If Romerica Reapplies
Rehak: “What will be the next steps if Romerica reapplies?”
Botello: “First, we will evaluate the new submittal internally for a review of the Corps’ concerns. Then we will draft a public notice for public review – to gather public concerns. Then typically, we gather up the comments and concerns raised after that 30-day period, and forward them again to the applicant. They will have to respond within 30 days and then we will gather their responses and determine what steps are appropriate.”
Where We Are At
Romerica has not returned phone calls to discuss their intentions. If other agencies had concerns as serious as the TCEQ’s, this project could die quietly. If Romerica reapplies, which they have said they will do, the developer will likely have to significantly revise plans, and start over with a lengthy permitting process including a new public comment period.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/6/2019
615 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/HighRiseHell.jpg?fit=1500%2C936&ssl=19361500adminadmin2019-05-06 16:40:492019-05-06 16:41:17Interview with Corps’ Chief of Evaluation: What’s Next for Romerica?
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ’s) letter to the Corps expresses eight pages of concerns. Keep in mind that it was dated March 1. So the developer had it for TWO MONTHS. Also remember! TCEQ was reviewing ONLY water-quality issues posed by the development.
For everyone else, I have summarized the main concerns below.
Title 30, Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Chapter 279.ll(c)(l), states that “No discharge shall be certified if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, … ” “Please have the applicant clarify the purpose and need for the project, as portions of the proposed project are not aquatic-dependent.”
From the public notice, the applicant states that “they have avoided and minimized environmental impacts by configuring the location of the proposed structures and reducing the size of the lakes within each district.” “This statement does not detail how and where wetland and stream impacts were avoided or minimized. Please have the applicant explain how and where impacts to stream and wetland resources were minimized and avoided.”
“The applicant proposes to develop a mitigation site or purchase credits but says nothing more…The compensatory mitigation plan must include the objectives, site selection, the site protection instrument, baseline information, how the compensatory mitigation will provide required compensation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources, a mitigation work plan, maintenance plan, ecological performance standards, monitoring requirements, long-term management plan, adaptive management plan, financial assurances, and other information per the mitigation rule requirements.”
“During the site visit, the resource agencies and the applicant’s representative noticed several streams that were not accounted for in the impacts tables. Please have the applicant incorporate the additional streams and revise the total amount of project impacts accordingly.”
“There are several impacts within the commercial district that appear to be unaccounted for or are unidentified. Please have the applicant revise the impacts table to account for all resources that will be converted.”
“Please have the applicant determine if project specific locations (PSLs) such as borrow, stockpiling, staging, and equipment parking areas associated with the project will impact wetlands. These PSL impacts should be included in the accounting of total project impacts.”
“Several wetlands within the proposed project boundary will be hydrologically disconnected from the current floodplain. Please have the applicant revise the impacts tables to include wetland and stream resources that will be affected secondarily by the proposed project and address the cumulative effect of each district on the interconnectedness of the onsite wetlands.”
“Please have the applicant explain in detail what measures will be taken to avoid groundwater and surface water contamination from construction activities.”
“Please have the applicant provide a hydraulic analysis of the site to account for current site conditions, projected increased impervious surface runoff, as well as drainage patterns for the site, and describe how water quality on and off the project site will be protected from impacts such as erosion.”
“Stormwater drainage from residential and commercial lots should be routed away from the West Fork San Jacinto River, the marina, and stream resources onsite. Stormwater should be redirected and routed to stormwater treatment features before entering the aforementioned resources. Please have the applicant provide details on how the replacement of lost onsite water quality functions will be addressed.”
Other Issues Outlined in Letter
How an expanded Woodland Hills Drive would affect stream crossings
The purpose and design of the so-called “water-quality ponds”
The design of channels and marinas; their connectivity to the San Jacinto; and their impact on water quality
The impact of boat channels on water-oxygen levels
Channels that cross wetland habitat
Box culverts instead of bridges
Channel widths (100-foot wide for a channel 4-feet deep)
Channels crossing property Romerica doesn’t own
Slope of channels
Diversion of stormwater from roads and parking lots away from channels
Dead-end channels
How domestic wastewater will be collected and treated
Dissolved oxygen monitoring and reporting
Applicants characterization of stream types (intermittent vs. perennial); requests “an accurate assessment.”
Conservation easements on the property. (21.90 acres of wetlands are covered by a conservation easement located within the residential and commercial portions of the proposed development. “Please have the applicant verify that the conservation easement will be protected from potential development and ensure the preserved wetlands will not be impacted, directly or indirectly, from the construction of the proposed project.”
Start Over?
There may be no good answers to some of these questions and concerns. SWCA, CivilTech and Romerica must be re-evaluating the impact of these questions on the economics of their project.
This isn’t the type of stuff you need another week to figure out. These questions will make the developers rethink their commitment to the entire project.
Finding answers will likely involve a redesign of the project and that could cost more than the land itself.
Keep in mind that water quality was just one of 20 different areas that the Corps is evaluating.
TCEQ Didn’t Have Enough Info to Make Decision
I asked Peter Schaefer, a team leader within the TCEQ Water Quality Assessment Section, whether the TCEQ had made a recommendation to the Corps on this project. He said “No.”
The reason: “Because TCEQ did not receive a response to our comment letter, and the applicant had not begun the process of working with us and the Corps to address the concerns raised in the letter, TCEQ was not in a position to make a decision on the project,” said Schaeffer. Hence the detailed requests for more information.
Schaefer added, “A typical 404/401 permitting process would normally take several months, if not a year or more, for the applicant to address comments from TCEQ, Corps, resource agencies, and the public. Because of the magnitude and nature of this project, it would likely have required much more time, coordination, discussion, project revision(s), and perhaps additional public notice(s) to get to the point where the Corps was prepared to complete a Decision Document.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/1/2019
610 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Pieces-of-Romerica-Dev-e1546040851855.png?fit=1500%2C1095&ssl=110951500adminadmin2019-04-30 23:55:582019-05-01 00:04:00TCEQ Lists Water-Quality Concerns About Romerica High-Rise Permit
Artists rendering of several towers near the proposed marina with the Barrington in the background.
Romerica Could Not Meet Deadline
In a letter dated April 24, SWCA, Romerica’s environmental consultant, requested a “suspension” of the permit application. They said they needed more time to answer issues raised in 727 letters of protest. SWCA also said they would have to conduct additional surveys and field work requiring more than the 30 days allowed for them to respond. The official deadline for filing responses was April 27.
Withdrawal “Without Prejudice”
Instead of suspending the permit, the Corps “withdrew it without prejudice.” The Corps invited SWCA and Romerica to reapply at some future time when they had completed answers to the issues raised by concerned residents and environmental groups.
Leah Howard of Manlove Marketing and Communications, Romerica’s official point of contact for the application, was not available for comment at press time. However, a third party who talked to her earlier in the day said that their team wanted “to do a good and complete job with citizens’ questions, and that 30 days just wasn’t enough time.”
Another third party source quoted her as saying, “Due to Harvey, Romerica will complete several new studies and surveys for due diligence which will shed more light on the larger issue Lake Houston faces. After completion of the necessary work, Romerica and the USACE will reactivate the permit and more information will be provided at that time.”
Issues Still to Be Clarified
It is unclear at this time whether a new application would obligate Romerica to go through an additional public comment period. However the letter sent from the Corps to the developer states, “Resultant project modifications may require additional coordination.”
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Herons.jpg?fit=1500%2C2000&ssl=120001500adminadmin2019-04-30 15:31:532019-04-30 16:56:35High-Rise Permit Application Withdrawn by Corps
Jim Zura has posted three videos he shot at Romerica’s public meeting in the Kingwood Community Center on March 18, 2019. The first covers questions I asked Gabriel Haddad, one of Romerica’s two principles, before the meeting officially started. The next two cover questions and answers asked by community members after the formal presentations by Romerica and its suppliers.
Additional Videos to Follow
Zura says additional video will follow. He does national quality work from his base right here in Kingwood. Zura volunteered his services to the community on this project out of concern for the impact the development could have on the community. Please note: Zura fought a high level of ambient crowd noise to obtain these videos. While they won’t win an Emmy for sound quality, they very adequately capture the responses and promises made to the community regarding this controversial development.
The first video is me going one-on-one with Romerica developer Gabriel Haddad.
Rehak (left) interviewing Haddad (right) at the Kingwood Community Center Public Meeting. That’s Dianne Lansden of the Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Initiative in the background.
After presentations by Romerica and its associates, the audience got a chance to ask questions from the floor. Below is the first thirty minutes of the Q&A session.
I ask Mr. Haddad how his development will generate $135 million in tax revenues and point out that that’s more than the rest of Kingwood combined contributes to the City of Houston or Harris County. He responds that that’s only if it’s all built out. I ask, “How likely is that?” He responds: “Not very.” Mr. Haddad then goes on to describe why and blames sedimentation in the river.
Other topics we discussed included:
How he plans to get around the deed restrictions by Friendswood
Long-range plans if he can’t get a permit
Evacuation in the event of a flood
Noise
School district overcrowding
His maze of companies
Changing architectural firms in mid-stream, no pun intended
Mr. Haddad answers one or two questions somewhat directly, pivots on others, and claims they’re still working out details on the rest.
Audience Q&A: Part 1
Audience Q&A went for a total of 50 minutes. Unfortunately, some people turned questions into rants. Other people shouted questions from the floor that were not picked up by the microphone. So I’m not going to attempt to transcribe the entire session, but will provide time codes for the questions I could understand. That way you can fast forward to specific segments that may interest you. All time codes are approximate:
0:00 Concern about impact on land adjacent to the Romerica development
2:00 Concern about flooding and how it will be mitigated
3:15 Statement by lady who says she wants “Livable Forest,” not high-rises.
3:45 Are you not worried about building high-rises at ground zero for the worst natural disaster in U.S. history?
6:45 How are you getting around single-family residential deed restrictions?
8:45 Who do you expect to invest and what kind of businesses do you expect to attract? Concerned about inaccessibility of location. Says they will find other locations more attractive. (No response from developer.)
10:20. Gentleman asks for vote from floor about who approves/disapproves of development.
13:50 Lady observes that every home that flooded had surveys done assuring the owners that it would not. What makes your development different?
15:00 Have you engaged hydrologists and do you have money set aside to restore the property if the development fails.
17:30 Lady doesn’t like comparison to Woodlands. Says she moved here because it wasn’t so commercial.
18:20 Concern about lack of plans for traffic and noise mitigation.
22:20 Are you willing to pay for dredging?
24:15 How are you going to evacuate people from a dead-end road? Are you going to elevate Woodland Hills Drive?
Audience Q&A: Part 2
The same caveats apply here:
0:00 Concerns about loss of view and quiet?
2:50 Will you listen to and respect the will of the community?
3:30 Will ALL construction be postponed until solution is found for flooding? How will new flood maps and watershed study affect your plans? What’s the time frame for your development? (Hint: Answer: We will not do anything until there is a flooding solution.)
9:10 What is the source of your funding?
12:15 Do you have backup and failsafe plans?
13:15 How will you address flood levels that get worse with time?
Next Steps
As in my interview questions, sometimes the answers were direct and sometimes they weren’t. Sometimes, they just let people rant and didn’t answer at all. By the time Romerica wrapped everything up, most of the audience had left and they were turning out the lights.
Since the meeting, they have had more than a month to address the concerns that more than 700 people and groups submitted in protest letters to the Army Corps.
Now the Corps needs to sift through all their responses and make sure they addressed valid concerns. You can expect plans to change. Romerica has already posted online that they are planning to elevate the entire development another six to ten feet. That will likely involve more fill and stimulate more concerns about flooding.
Thoughts expressed in this post represent my opinions on matters of public interest. 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 April 28, 2019
607 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/PublicMeetingPart1.jpg?fit=1500%2C836&ssl=18361500adminadmin2019-04-28 21:27:122019-04-28 21:36:11Zura Productions Posts Interview with High-Rise Developer and Q&A From Public Meeting
A reminder. Today, Romerica Investments, LLC. owes the Army Corps of Engineers answers to all of the questions, comments and concerns raised during the public comment period for its proposed high-rise development and marina resort.
More than 700 Protest Letters Filed
The Corps is ruling on a permit application for a 3.2 million square foot development near the floodway of the San Jacinto West Fork. The proposed development would surround the Barrington, and be adjacent to Kingwood Lakes, Trailwood, King’s Cove Deer Ridge Estates, Deer Ridge Park and River Grove Park.
It will be interesting to see how Romerica responds to all these concerns. They can change their plans for the future. But they can’t change their past.
At a public meeting held AFTER the public comment period, Gabriel M. Haddad, co-owner, of a maze of related companies, partnerships, LLPs and LLCs in different countries and states, said it could take up to two years for the Corps to rule on his permit application.
The Corporate Maze Related to Romerica
I have a call in to the Corps to discuss next steps and how long they will take. Stay tuned.
Note: Ideas expressed in the post represent my opinions on matters of public interest. 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 4/27/2019
606 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Woodland-hills-map.png?fit=1061%2C1024&ssl=110241061adminadmin2019-04-27 20:56:202019-04-27 21:14:43Answer Day for High-Rise Developer
