Tag Archive for: sand mines

SJRA Seeks Public Input on Sediment Trap Proposal

The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) recently completed a 246-page conceptual design study, in partnership with the Harris County Flood Control District, that explored the feasibility of implementing sediment trapping facilities (“sand traps”). The purpose: to remove sediment from the West or East Fork of the San Jacinto River. The results and findings of this study have been documented in an engineering report entitled “San Jacinto River and Tributaries Sediment Removal and Sand Trap Development.” 

Prior to proceeding to preliminary engineering design and any subsequent project phases, SJRA is seeking public input on the proposed project alternatives detailed in the report. The full report, as well as a brief summary document, are located on SJRA’s Flood Management Division website. 

How to Provide Input or Ask Questions

Please submit input and questions via email to floodmanagementdivision@sjra.net. 

Deadline: No later than April 29, 2022

Caution: The full study is dated 1/7/22. But the “brief summary” is dated 3/9/22. Make sure you at least read the executive study of the full report as well as the brief summary. There are important differences.

Overview/Purpose

SJRA says the purpose of the sediment trap study was to assess the feasibility of implementing a pilot project to trap and remove sediment from the West OR East Fork of the San Jacinto. The study only assessed locations where one or more Aggregate Production Operations (APOs) could partner with the the SJRA. They restricted the study this way to reduce costs; the SJRA does not have a source of funding to clean out sand traps and would rely on sand miners.

Initial Concerns

The decisions to:

  • Define the study objective as sediment reduction, not damage reduction and…
  • Only consider locations near sand mines…

…give me mixed emotions about this project.

Pros

On one hand, I look at this and say, “It’s a pilot project. Try it and see if there’s a benefit.” Sediment IS a problem and they believe they can remove up to 100% of the annual sediment load (from the West Fork).

Cons

On the other hand, the study authors, Freese & Nichols (F&N) claimed (in the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Study) that of all the sediment coming into Lake Houston, two thirds comes from Spring and Cypress Creeks while only 13% comes from the West Fork upstream of US59.

Perhaps that’s because they’re using model inputs from a sediment gage at I-45 located 8.5 miles upstream from most of the large West Fork sand mines (page 34, paragraph 3 of full study).

Also, in their discussion of downstream sedimentation mitigation (page 51, paragraph 3 of full study), F&N says that their evaluation was confined to areas where natural processes rather than breeches of sand mine ponds likely contributed to sediment deposition. To see how limiting that is, see the photos of sand mine breeches and their results in this post.

West Fork Mouth Bar
The “Mouth Bar,” a giant sand bar that blocked the West Fork of the San Jacinto, backing the river up into Kingwood and Humble. Thousands of homes and businesses flooded behind this blockage. The above-water portion has since been removed, but most of the underwater portion remains.

In the entire 246-page F&N study and the three-page summary, the word “damage” occurs only once…in relation to erosion damage, NOT flood damage.

It appears that F&N did not even look at creating sand traps where they were most needed, in the headwaters of Lake Houston, because of cost and logistical considerations. Yet the Army Corps, City of Houston, and State of Texas are spending $200 million to dredge that area. One wonders whether SJRA should have looked harder for partners to clean out the traps.

Finally, if sediment traps only work financially near sand mines, the “solution” will not work on other tributaries that F&N alleges contribute 5X more sediment than the West Fork. They just don’t have the sand mines that the West Fork has.

Nature of Proposed Solution

Five years after Harvey, we have a conceptual design and a recommended location: rock-lined channels cut through one or two point bars at the West Fork Hallett mine.

Page 8 of the F&N study shows this schematic of the recommended solution.

The shot below shows the same area in real life. To put the magnitude of the proposed solution into perspective, the solution would cover a little more than an acre. But sand mines like Hallett cover 20 square miles on the banks of the West Fork between US59 and I-45.

2021 photo of sand bar outsde Hallett mine that would have a narrow channel cut through it to trap sand.

My Biggest Fears

My biggest fears with the proposed pilot study are that it:

  1. Asks people to chose from a limited menu.
  2. Could divert attention from better solutions that would reduce flood risk faster in the headwaters of Lake Houston.
  3. Might make the public think the problem is solved.
  4. Could open the door to river mining and further destabilize the riverine environment.
  5. Is not a transferrable solution.

For a pilot study, that last point is troubling.

Also, F&N worries that removing too much sediment from the West Fork could create a “hungry-water” effect that increases erosion downstream. But they have no way of directly measuring how much sediment the West Fork transports. Or what percentage they would remove. That’s because they’re relying on a sediment gage upstream from the sand mines. This introduces an element of risk in the pilot study.

Recommendations Should Be Based on a Holistic Examination of Alternatives

Note lack of vegetation on this steep-sided, eroding bank of Hallett mine on West Fork in foreground.

Before moving forward with the pilot study, I suggest a more holistic examination of additional alternatives that might have a greater impact on reducing flood damage, not just sedimentation. Examples include, but are not limited to:

More on the sand trap proposal in coming days. In the meantime, please review the SJRA’s sediment trap proposal and forward your comments to the SJRA. I will also print thoughtful letters, both pro and con, from responsible parties. Send them to: https://reduceflooding.com/contact-us/.

Posted by Bob Rehak on March 27, 2022

1671 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

How Soon We Forget!

How soon we forget. Hurricane Harvey was just 4.5 years ago. Since then I have documented dozens, if not hundreds of questionable practices that erode margins of flood safety.

It Didn’t Have to Be That Bad

Harvey was the largest rainfall event in the history of North America. However, with better regulations and construction practices, it didn’t have to be as destructive as it was.

  • Lax regulations;
  • Willful blindness;
  • Development and construction practices that pushed the safety envelope;
  • Relentless destruction of forests and wetlands near rivers and streams;
  • And homebuyers who didn’t realize their true flood risk…

…made Harvey’s destruction worse than it otherwise would have been.

No one factor by itself would explain Harvey’s destruction. But put them all together, and it’s like “death of a thousand cuts.”

The sheer volume of material – more than 1,000,000 words on this site – makes it difficult for people to see the big picture sometimes. To put 1,000,000 words into perspective, the average novel contains only about 100,000. So I’m condensing the website into a book that includes the themes below.

No One Wins Arguments with Mother Nature

During an interview with Milan Saunders and his daughter Lori, Milan said, “No one wins arguments with Mother Nature.” How profound! It doesn’t matter how many surveys, studies and engineer stamps you have on your home’s title. If you don’t:

  • Respect the rivers.
  • Give them room to roam.
  • Protect wetlands.
  • Allow plenty of margin for safety…

…you will flood.

Thought courtesy of Milan Saunders, Chairman/CEO of Plains State Bank. That’s his daughter Lori’s house during Harvey.

Understanding the Causes of Flooding

Excess sedimentation is one of them. Sediment pollution is the single most common source of pollution in U.S. waters. Approximately 30% is caused by natural erosion, and the remaining 70% is caused by human activity.

Large islands built up during Harvey blocked both drainage ditches and rivers. Below, you can see a large sand island (top) built up at the confluence of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch where it reaches the San Jacinto West Fork at River Grove Park. This sand bar reached 10-12 feet in height above the waterline and helped back water up into Trailwood, the Barrington and Kingwood Lakes and Kings Forest. Before the Army Corps dredged this island, River Grove flooded five times in six months. It hasn’t flooded since.

The Kingwood Diversion Ditch and West Fork San Jacinto were almost totally blocked by sediment dams deposited during Harvey.

The second photo above was taken a few hundred yards downstream on the West Fork from the first. It shows “Sand Island” – so nicknamed by the Army Corps. It took the Corps months to dredge this island which they say had blocked the West Fork by 90%.

A certain amount of this sedimentation can be explained by natural erosion. But mankind also contributed to the sheer volume by other practices which I will discuss below.

Respect the Rivers

The red polygons in the satellite image below surround 20-square miles of sand mines on the West Fork of the San Jacinto in a 20 mile reach of river between I-45 and I-69. That exposes a mile-wide swath of sediment to erosion during floods and increases the potential for erosion by 33x compared the river’s normal width.

Even without floods, mines sometimes flush their waste into the rivers. The shot below on the top right shows the day the West Fork turned white. The TCEQ found the source of the pollution upstream: a sand mine that had flushed 56 million gallons of sludge into the West Fork (bottom right).

Influence of sand mines of West Fork San Jacinto water quality.

End the War on Wetlands

Wetlands are nature’s detention ponds. During storms, they hold water back so it won’t flood people downstream. But we seem to want to eradicate wetlands. The images below show the Colony Ridge development in Liberty County. Wetlands (right) are being cleared (left) to make way for the world’s largest trailer park. The acceleration of runoff wiped out FM1010 during Harvey. The road still has not been repaired.

Colony Ridge in Liberty County.

Conservation Costs Much Less than Mitigation

Halls Bayou at I-69 near Fiesta. Image on left shows whole subdivisions that that to be bought out before detention ponds on right could be built.

All across Harris County, especially in older areas inside Beltway 8, apartment complexes, homes and businesses are built right next to bayous and channels. This makes it difficult to enlarge streams or build detention ponds when necessary. One study showed that preservation of floodplains is 5X more cost effective than mitigation after homes flood. Yet private developers keep crowding bayous and residents keep demanding public solutions.

Respecting Individuals’ Property Rights While Protecting Others’

In Texas, it sometimes feels that an individual’s right to do what he/she wants with property trumps others’ rights NOT to flood. You may think you’re protected by all those public servants reviewing and approving plans. But what happens when developers and contractors decide to ignore the approved plans? Here’s a prime example: the Laurel Springs RV Resort near Lakewood Cove.

The approved plans said that “Stormwater runoff shall not cross property lines.” So what did the contractors do? They pumped their stormwater over the development’s detention pond wall. When that took too long, they dug a trench through the wall. Then they laid pipes through the wall to permanently empty the sludge into the wetlands of Harris County’s new Edgewater Park.

This apparently violated the developer’s City of Houston permit, the Texas Water Code, TCEQ’s construction permit and the developer’s stormwater pollution prevention plan. Four investigations are currently swirling around this development. The contractor also cut down approximately 50 feet of trees in Edgewater Park along the entire boundary line and received a cease-and-desist letter from the Harris County Attorney. But the damage is done.

Balance Upstream and Downstream Interests

About 10% of all the water coming down the West Fork at the peak of Harvey came from Crystal Creek in Montgomery County. But the wetlands near the headwaters of Crystal Creek are currently under development. And the developer is avoiding building detention ponds with a “beat-the-peak” survey. This loophole allowed by Montgomery County says that if you get your stormwater to the river faster than the peak of a flood arrives, then you’re not adding to the peak of a flood and you don’t have to build detention ponds. So developers conduct timing surveys to reduce costs and maximize salable land.

What happens when upstream areas develop without consideration for the impact on downstream property owners.

Of course, speeding up the flow of water in a flood is the opposite of what you want to do. To reduce flooding, you should hold back as much water as possible.

The slide above shows part of a new development called Madera at SH242 and FM1314 being built on wetlands near Crystal Creek.

The graph on the right shows what happened on Brays Bayou without suitable detention upstream. Floodwaters peak higher, sooner. Harris County has spent more than $700 million in the last 20 years to remediate flooding problems along Brays.

How much will we need to spend when more areas like Madera get built upstream on the West Fork?

How Quickly We Forget!

FEMA’s Base-Flood-Elevation Viewer shows that in that same area, developers have already built homes that could go under 1-5 feet of water in a 100-year flood. These homes are actually in a ten-year flood zone. And yet more homes are being built nearby. On even more marginal land!

In recent years, the price of land as a percent of a new home’s cost has risen from a historical average of 25% to approximately 40% today. This puts pressure on developers to seek out cheaper land in floodplains, reduce costs by avoiding detention pond requirements, pave over wetlands, and reduce lot sizes resulting in more impervious cover. All contribute to flooding.

Of course, smart homebuyers would not make such risky investments. But few lack the expertise to gauge flood risk. Educating such homebuyers will be one of the major objectives of the book I hope to write.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/23/2022

1639 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Sand-Mine Structural Control BMPs Could Make Difference in Next Flood

In an effort to reduce sediment escaping into the San Jacinto River from sand mines, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has issued Draft Guidelines on Best Management Practices (BMPs). Yesterday, I discussed vegetative controls for erosion. Today, I will discuss structural control. The two types often work together or in sequence.

At the very end of this post, I make some recommendations to strengthen BMPs, and describe how to submit public comments.

Structural Controls

Structural controls do several things:

  • Divert runoff away from disturbed areas
  • Reduce runoff velocities
  • Filter sediment
  • Remove sediment by ponding.

They include the following.

Temporary Structures (Section 2.2.1)

Installed before and during construction. After removing temporary stormwater controls the areas disturbed by the temporary structures must be revegetated.

Permanent Structures (Section 2.2.2)

Permanent structures remaining after construction. Once construction of areas outside of the sand-mining pit has ceased, permanent structural control BMPs must be implemented and operational.

Diversion Ridges, Berms or Channels of Stabilized Soil (Section 2.2.3)

These divert runoff into “sediment basins.” If they remain in place more than 30 days, they must be covered with temporary or permanent vegetation. Maximum allowable drainage area is five acres.

Silt Fences (Section 2.2.4)

Silt fences capture sediment from sheet flow. Six to eight inches of the fence material must be buried in a trench about four inches deep and four inches wide. Silt fences that are not buried have no useful function. They must never be installed across streams. Fencing must be removed when sediment deposits reach one-half the fence height.

Straw Bales (Section 2.2.4 Continued)

Can also be used as sediment barriers in small areas. Maximum grade: 3:1. Water depth must not exceed one foot at any point. Bales with bindings must be entrenched a minimum of four inches and anchored with stakes. Straw bales that are not buried are improperly installed.

Sediment Basins (Section 2.2.5)

Allow retention of sediment “prior to discharge” or recycling. Side slopes must be 2:1 or less. Sediment must be removed when the volume has been reduced to 27 cubic yards per acre of drainage area. Dikes must be well compacted and vegetated. Installed prior to construction but not in flowing streams. Use diversions to direct drainage to basins.

Better structural controls might have prevented a sand mine upstream from discharging 56,000 million gallons of white sludge into the West Fork in 2019.
Riprap Outlet Protection (Section 2.2.6)

Riprap outlet protection must be placed at the outlet end of culverts or channels to reduce the depth, velocity, and energy of water so that the flow will not erode the receiving stream.

Check Dams (Section 2.2.7)

Small dams across swales or drainage ditches that reduce flow velocity and erosion. Not used in flowing streams. Maximum height: two feet. Center must be at least six inches lower than the outer edges to prevent erosion around the edges. The maximum spacing between dams must be such that the toe of the upstream dam is at the same elevation as the top of the downstream dam.

Accumulated sediment must be removed from behind the check dams when it reaches one half the dam height. Erosion around dam edges must be corrected immediately, ensuring that the dam center is six inches lower than the edges.

 Construction Entrance/Exits (Section 2.2.8)

Aggregate must stabilize entrances and exits to reduce sediment tracked onto public roads. Aggregate must be at least six inches thick and 50 feet long. Tire washing may also be needed.

Housekeeping Practices (Section 2.2.9)

Petroleum products, paints, solvents, litter, debris, sanitary waste, and sediment from unstabilized areas, TCEQ BMPs specify:

  • Designated areas for equipment maintenance and repair;
  • Waste receptacles at convenient locations;
  • Regular collection of waste;
  • Protected storage areas for chemicals, paints, solvents, fertilizers, and other potentially toxic or hazardous materials; and
  • Adequately maintained sanitary facilities.
Post-Construction/Stormwater-Management Measures (Section 2.2.10)

Control measures must be installed to control pollutants in stormwater after construction is complete. These controls include, but are not limited to:

  • Retention ponds. Minimum volume is the first inch or half inch of stormwater runoff containing the first flush of pollutants.
  • Vegetated Swales and Natural Depressions. There are grass-lined areas that filter sediments from runoff, thus helping to prevent erosion. Vegetated swales must have side slopes of 4:1 or less.

General

As with vegetative controls, operators must inspect structural controls once every seven (7) calendar days. That includes controls in areas used for storage of materials; maintenance areas; plus site entrances and exits.

Operators must replace or modify ineffective or damaged structural controls “in a timely manner, but no later than the next anticipated storm event.”

Recommendations for Public Comment Structural Controls

As we saw in yesterday’s post on vegetative controls, I have often seen gaps between real and ideal. However, for this post, I realized in looking back through thousands of aerial photos today, that I have never photographed one:

  • Stabilized channel
  • Silt fence
  • Straw bale
  • Check dam
  • Outlet stabilized by riprap or
  • Vegetated swale

…on a sand mine site. Period. Let alone one that met these requirements.

I’m not saying they don’t exist. I’m just saying that I’ve never seen them on the days I flew over.

Maybe operators feel they don’t need them. Or maybe they’re just not using them for other reasons.

So once again, I recommend that you write the TCEQ and ask them to put teeth into their BMP requirements.

In addition, I recommend you request:

  • Stronger wording on the general requirement to fix damaged or ineffective structural controls in a “timely manner.” That’s just too subjective. It lets operators defer maintenance way past the point it may be needed.
  • Clarification on “prior to discharging” in section 2.2.5. Are operators capturing sediment only to discharge it into the river at a later time? What do they mean by discharge? Where?
  • Detention ponds big enough to catch an inch of rain in an area where Atlas 14 requirements specify 16.9 inches of rain in 24 hours? (Section 2.2.10) That seems wholly inadequate. Harris County Flood Control District recommends minimum detention volumes for developments at .65 acre feet per acre for areas up to 640 acres. That’s about 8 inches of rainfall.

Please submit your thoughts on structural control and other BMPs to the TCEQ by emailing Macayla.Coleman@Tceq.Texas.gov with the subject line “BMPs Guidance Document” before August 19, 2021.

The house you save could be your own.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/13/2021

1445 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Environmental Regulation Committee Taking Public Comments on Three APO Bills

The Environmental Regulation Committee of the Texas House of Representatives will hear public testimony on three bills concerning sand mines/aggregate production operations on Monday, April 19, 2021. You don’t need to go all the way to Austin to testify. You can leave your comments on the Committee’s website. Just remember, there’s a 5000 character limit. See more about the bills below.

HB 767: Best Practices for Sand Mines

HB767 by Dan Huberty would require the TCEQ to establish best practices for sand mines and publish them on its website. Right now, Texas is one of the few states that doesn’t have a codified set of best practices. Granted, though, some are embodied in the terms of permits and federal laws. But the public never sees these. And many best practices common in other states are notably absent in Texas. For instance, there are no setbacks specified for sand mines from rivers in Texas. Companies can mine right up to the edge of rivers…in the floodway. Then when floods happen, dikes collapse and sediment gets washed downstream.

The Bayou Land Conservancy submitted this letter in support of HB 767. Two key points:

  • Best management practices (BMPs) would provide guidance for the industry and expectations for the community about how these facilities will be managed and the legacy they will leave.
  • BMPs would aid stakeholders in identifying which companies are interested in working with and protecting nearby communities.

HB 767 is scheduled for public hearings in Environmental Regulation on 4/19/2021. To learn more about the bill, click here. To support the bill, go to this web page and leave your comments. It’s quick and easy.

HB 291: Reclamation Plans and Performance Bonds for Sand Mines

HB 291 by Representatives Murr and Wilson calls for sand mines to file a reclamation plan before they get a permit to start mining, estimate the cost of the reclamation, and post a performance bond in that amount. Every time the mine expands, the owners would have to update the plan. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that miners simply don’t walk away from mines after the last ounce of profit is milked from them. That’s what many do now. The East and West Forks of the San Jacinto are littered with abandoned mines and rusting equipment. This bill also specifies the types of things that would have to go into the reclamation plan. It is scheduled for a hearing in the Environmental Regulation committee on 4/19/2021. To learn more about the bill, click here.
To support the bill, go to this web page and leave your comments.

HB 1912: Limiting Sand Mine Pollution

HB 1912 by Wilson would limit air-, light-, noise-, and water pollution; and soil erosion. It also sets limits, mandates monitoring equipment, and requires financial assurance for handling violations. Aggregate production operations throughout the state have had these problems. To learn more about the bill, click here. To support the bill, go to this web page and leave your comments.

Video Broadcast of Meeting

A live video broadcast of this hearing will be available here: https://house.texas.gov/video-audio/. The meeting starts at 2 p.m. or after adjournment of the House for the day.

Texas residents who wish to electronically submit comments related to this and other bills without testifying in person can do so until the hearing is adjourned by visiting: https://comments.house.texas.gov/home?c=c260.

One Sneaky, Bad Bill to Fight

Representative Harris of Hillsboro, TX has introduced HB 2144. Keep this on your radar. It takes away a private citizen’s right to sue for nuisance. For instance, if a sand mine were spewing silicon dust on your property, polluting your water, or flooding your home, you would have to convince the state to sue them. Good luck with that.

“Only the state or a political subdivision of this state may bring a public nuisance action…”

HB2144

This bill has already passed out of committee. So the only way to fight it now is with amendments or on the house floor when it comes up for a vote. I suggest you contact your representatives and try to get them to fight this bill. To learn more about the bill, click here. It does not have a companion bill in the senate but, if approved in the House, would go there for consideration.

Today, nuisance is the most frequently pled theory of liability under common law tort for environmental litigation. Under public nuisance, a plaintiff, either a government entity or a private individual, may bring suit if there are damages, interference, or inconvenience to the health or safety of the public at large. 

HB 2144 would restrict public nuisance law only to cases where a person causes an unlawful condition, namely “an ongoing circumstance or effect … that is expressly prohibited by the laws of [Texas].” Further, the bill specifically provides that persons or entities engaged in “lawful manufacturing, distributing, selling, advertising, or promoting a lawful product” cannot be a public nuisance.  This ignores the fact that people and property can be seriously harmed even though no statute or regulation is violated – that’s one of the reasons we have common law causes like nuisance to begin with!  HB 2144 would remove the ability for the government or individuals to stop such harms from occurring or to seek redress.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/15/2021

1326 Days after Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Action Alert: Aggregate Production Testimony Needed

Deadline 5pm today, Friday, 9/25: We need you!

Please sign up to speak at an ONLINE/VIRTUAL town hall meeting about sand mines and/or other aggregate production operations (APOs). The meeting will be Thursday, 10/1 for the House Interim Committee on Aggregate Production Operations. Please send an email to both jeff.frazier_hc@house.texas.gov and jeff.frazier@house.texas.gov stating your name, contact info, and your request to speak at the 10/1 town hall.

Probably not everyone will be called on to speak, but we want the committee to know that this affects vast numbers of people. It’s CRITICAL to communicate how many of us are negatively affected by existing and planned sand mines, quarries, concrete plants, and other APOs.

All of the House Interim Committee members will be present and this will be similar to speaking in front of the committee at the Capitol in Austin–but online.

Speakers will also come from the Hill County where APOs are severely impacting quality of life.

Examples of Problems in Lake Houston Area

Mouth bar on the West Fork San Jacinto that mostly formed during Hurricane Harvey. It backed up water and contributed to flooding thousands of homes and businesses. Much of the sediment came from 20 square miles of sand mines immediately upstream. Cleanup cost to state and federal governments so far: about $150 million.
The day the West Fork (right) ran white after the LMI Mine upstream put 56 million gallons of process wastewater into the drinking water for 2 million people (Source: TCEQ).
Breach at Triple PG mine one White Oak Creek emitted process wastewater into headwaters of Lake Houston, the source of drinking water for 2 million people. Attorney General is suing mine for approximately $1 million.
Concentrated silt after sand is washed. Exposed in floodway of the San Jacinto West Fork.
River mining without a permit at the Spring Wet Sand and Gravel Plant on the west fork.

Speak for Up to 3 Minutes

Be prepared to speak for up to three minutes about how YOU personally have been or will be impacted by quarries, concrete batch plants, or asphalt plants. Pick one or two of these key issues that most affect you personally:

???? Air particulate emissions
???? Water use and availability
???? Water pollution and flooding
???? Rapid development of APOs without adequate regulatory oversight, mine planning, or reclamation
???? Truck traffic
???? Nuisance issues: blasting, noise, odor, light trespass, visible blight
???? Economic impacts, devaluation of property

URGENT: DO TODAY BEFORE 5pm

Just send in an email requesting to speak. You’ll have a week to plan and prep. Thanks for helping protect our families and community!

If possible, it is VERY IMPORTANT to speak at this meeting. However, if you aren’t selected to speak, or you don’t get your request submitted in time, there will be an additional opportunity later this month to submit written testimonial. We’ll send more info on this in the upcoming days and weeks.

SEND EMAIL

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/25/2020

1123 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Approximately 1,000 Plaintiffs File Suit Against Sand Mines in Harvey Flooding

On February 20th of this year, approximately 1,000 plaintiffs filed a 118-page lawsuit against 55 sand mining companies in the San Jacinto River Basin. Plaintiffs allege that the miners harmed them by decreasing the capacity and depth of Lake Houston and its tributaries by wrongfully discharging and negligently allowing the release of materials into waterways. That reduction of capacity, they say, contributed to flooding their homes and businesses.

Western half of LMI River Road mine in floodway and flood plain of San Jacinto West Fork. Note also in foreground how the mine undermined five pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids.

Background

To support their claims (¶613), plaintiffs cite violations of Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) regulations and the U.S. Clean Water Act. They claim:

  • Excessive, unauthorized discharge of silt into waterways
  • Failure to:
    • Obtain stormwater discharge permits
    • Prevent unauthorized discharges
    • Minimize generation of dust and off-site tracking

Past and Present Activities Cited

Some defendants, they say, operated above permit limits and others operated without any permits at all (¶614).

Plaintiffs say (¶615) that defendants have operated immediately adjacent to various waterways and in the flood plain, clearcutting all vegetation, and digging pits within feet of the riverbanks. Thus, there are no real barriers between mines and the rivers, they claim. Further, they allege that defendants have no plans in place for protection and preservation of their pits and loose sand during flood events, which occur frequently.

Then Came Harvey

Hurricane Harvey, they say, inundated mines and “thousands of acres of sand washed downstream, clogging the rivers and lakes, resulting in flood waters moving outside the banks and outside the flood plain, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.”

Washed out road INSIDE sand mine during Harvey.
Submerged sand mines in the floodway of the San Jacinto West Fork during Hurricane Harvey in 2017

Alleged Violations of Water Code

The defendants had a duty to implement procedures to reduce the discharge of sediment into waterways, but did not, according to the plaintiffs. Thus, the proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries involved negligence and negligence per se. Defendants allegedly breached their duties under sections 11.086, 26.039, and 26.121 of the Texas Water Code, thus causing flooding and damage to plaintiffs’ property.

To prove negligence, personal injury plaintiffs must show that the defendants’ conduct fell below the applicable standard of care and that their actions were the actual and proximate cause of harm. 

In cases of negligence per se, defendants’ actions are assumed to be unreasonable if the conduct violates an applicable rule, regulation, or statute. That’s why lawyers cite the Texas Water Code, plus TCEQ and EPA regulations.

  • 11.086 of the Texas Water Code provides that no person impound the natural flow of surface waters, or permit impounding to continue, in a manner that damages property of another by the overflow of the water diverted or impounded.
  • 26.039 specifies that mine operators must notify the TCEQ of accidental discharges or spills that cause or may cause pollution as soon as possible.
  • 26.121 prohibits discharge of pollutants. Both the EPA and TCEQ consider sediment a pollutant.

Specific Omissions

Specific omissions, say the plaintiffs, include failing to:

  • Locate sand mines outside of floodways
  • Increase the width of dikes
  • Decrease the slope of dikes
  • Control erosion with vegetation
  • Replant areas not actively being mined
  • Protect stockpiles from flooding
  • Mine only above the deepest part of the river
Flooding from Hurricane Harvey in Kingwood’s Town Center where 100% of businesses were disrupted, most for approximately a year. Some still have not reopened. Photo by John Knoezer.

Nuisance Claim

The plaintiffs also allege nuisance. Under Texas law, nuisance refers to a type of legal injustice involving interference with the use and enjoyment of property. Specifically, plaintiffs say that the defendants’ negligent conduct caused paintiffs’ flooding, thus depriving them of the use of their homes.

Complaint against Forestar by Barrington Residents

On page 108, a subset of plaintiffs (those who live in the Barrington), lodge a complaint against Forestar (USA) Real Estate Group Inc. They allege that Forestar developed, marketed and sold homes in the subdivision without any standards for determining the elevation of a house relative to flood risk.

The Long Ride to Safety During Harvey. Barrington Photo by Julie Yandell.
The Long Ride to Safety During Harvey. Barrington Photo by Julie Yandell.

“Despite having actual knowledge of the possibility of flooding in the Barrington Subdivision, Forestar did not advise homebuyers to purchase flood insurance,” says the complaint (¶640). “Nor did Forestar advise the residents of the Barrington Subdivision of its location on a floodplain, or that their elevations were changed due to lots being filled with dirt” when residents purchased homes.

Nevertheless, the complaint continues (¶643), homes were built at an “unreasonably low” elevation, given their location near the West Fork San Jacinto. “Forestar knew, or should have known, that houses needed to be built at an elevation adequate to prevent and/or reduce the likelihood of flooding.”

Clean out after Harvey in the Barrington. By Joy Dominique.
Clean out after Harvey in the Barrington. By Joy Dominique.

Damages Alleged

Plaintiffs allege damages that include:

  • Cost of repairs to real property
  • Cost of replacing personal property
  • Lost of use of real and personal property
  • Diminution of market value
  • Loss of income, business income, profits and business equipment
  • Loss of good will and reputation
  • Consequential costs, such as loss of time from work and alternate living expenses
  • Mental anguish
  • Pre- and post-judgement interest
  • Court costs

Conscious Indifference and Gross Negligence

¶658 asserts that the conduct of all defendants (sand mines and Forestar) qualifies as gross negligence under Texas law. The plaintiffs say that the defendants acts of omission involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of harm to others. Plus, “Defendants had actual subjective awareness of the risk involved in the above described acts or omissions, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety and welfare of plaintiffs and others.”

Where Case Stands

129th District Court Judge Michael Gomez signed a docket control order on 2/28/2020 that calls for:

  • All parties in the suit to be added and served with notice by 8/19/2020
  • Close of pleadings and start of mediation on 12/16/2020
  • End of discovery on 1/15/2021
  • All motions and pleas heard by 1/15/2021
  • Trial, if necessary, on 2/15/2021

To date, there have been several motions to transfer venue, dismiss the case, and change the judge.

Only Triple PG Sand Development, LLC has filed an answer to the plaintiffs’ claims; the company filed a general denial.

In a separate case, the Attorney General of Texas is suing Triple PG for failing to prevent and repair breaches in dikes that resulted in repeated unauthorized discharges of process wastewater and sediment into Caney Creek. Caney Creek joins the East Fork San Jacinto just downstream from Triple PG. Triple PG currently operates under an injunction that bars it from dredging.

Breach of Triple PG mine into Caney Creek and the headwaters of Lake Houston

Editorial Opinion

If successful, this case may force sand mines to operate more responsibly, now and in the future. For instance, it might force them to move farther back from rivers and out of floodways. Having taken thousands of photos of leaking sand mines from the air since Harvey, in my opinion, that might benefit everyone, not just the plaintiffs.

Giant sand bar at the mouth of the West Fork which backed water up through much of Kingwood, Atascocita and Humble.
Mouth bar on the East Fork San Jacinto grew by thousands of feet during Harvey and Imelda. Downstream from Triple PG and Texas Concrete Mines.

To read the entire lawsuit, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on August 2, 2020

1069 Days after Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

As Heavy Rains Approach, Triple PG Wastewater Higher on Neighboring Properties Than In Its Settling Pond

Aerial photos taken on 5/11/2020 show wastewater on neighboring properties outside the Triple PG mine in Porter are higher than in the mine’s settling pond. If heavy rains materialize this weekend as predicted, that wastewater could be flushed downstream into the drinking water for 2 million people.

Mine Has History of Dumping and Pumping

Earlier this year, I photographed the mine pumping wastewater from its settling pond toward the neighboring properties. A TCEQ investigation confirmed that wastewater had exited the mine for the fourth time in a year. Investigators found that the wastewater had levels of suspended solids 676% higher than water from nearby White Oak Creek. But they also found that elevation differences had confined the wastewater and kept it from entering the wetlands near White Oak Creek.

Heavy Rains, Flash Flooding Could Flush Water Downstream

However, heavy rains predicted for later today and Saturday could change that. Jeff Lindner, Harris County Flood Control meteorologist says rainfall rates of 1-3 inches per hour will be possible and there is a slight (10-20%) risk of flash flooding, both days. Isolated totals could reach 6 inches on Saturday, he predicts.

How High Is Water On Neighboring Properties

So how high is the water outside the mine compared to inside?

In the photo below, note the two sets of arrows on either side of the road. The strip of trees under the upper right arrow does not belong to the mine. However, the land under the lower right arrow does belong to the mine. I included the second set of arrows because they are closer to the camera and that makes it easier to see the elevation difference in the water. Notice how much higher the water is on the right than on the left relative to the road.

Looking south at Triple PG mine in Porter. Photo taken 5/11/2020.
Looking east over flooded properties (inside tree-line) that neighbor mine. Photo taken 5/11/2020.
Terms of a temporary injunction restrict the mine from using its dredge. So the mine has started dry (or semi-dry) excavation. That meant removing wastewater from this pit. Photo taken 5/11/2020.

On January 20, 2020, I photographed the mine pumping water out of its settling pond toward adjoining properties. See below. The pit above can be seen in the upper left of the photo below.

See the pipe cutting diagonally from the middle of the frame to the lower right. Also note, the pond in the upper left of this image corresponds to the pond in the foreground of the image below. Note water level on January 20, 2020
By February 13, three weeks later, that pond was largely empty. It is common for mines to pump water from one pond to another. But illegal to pump water outside the mine.

Why Mines Should Not Flaunt Rules

If approaching storms flush sediment- and chloride-laden wastewater downstream, it will end up in the San Jacinto East Fork and Lake Houston, the source of drinking water for 2 million people.

This underscores the need for the state legislature to pass laws that move mines out of the floodway. The Triple PG mine actually sits at the confluence of two floodways. That makes it vulnerable and dangerous…especially when an operator apparently flaunts rules designed to protect the safety of the public.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/15/2020

990 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 239 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.

Are Sand Mine Dikes Designed to Fail?

After 2.5 years of examining photos and videos of the so-called “dikes” in sand mines, I have come to believe that some are designed to fail. In some cases, mines cause them to fail.

In most cases, the “dikes” are not really dikes. They’re just the edges of pits that miners have excavated. Or roads around the pits made of sand that easily erode.

And because miners mine so close to the river, when those pits fill with water, they overflow. The resulting erosion cuts channels between the pit and the river that allow the pits to discharge a portion of their wastewater. Lake Houston and public drinking water become collateral damage.

High Cost of Flimsy Construction

After the storm, miners throw some sand in the breach and wait for it to happen again. The sand creates only the appearance of a fix.

Month after month, I’ve photographed active breaches, “patched” breaches, and scars in the landscape from older breaches. Many reopen multiple times.

Breaches are so common that, in my opinion, they may be part of some miners’ business plans.

High Cost of Silt

If discharges consisted of plain water, I might not care. But the water usually carries silt with it. Miner’s settling ponds can fill with silt which has little marketable value. Flushing it downriver solves another problem.

Miners externalize their cleanup costs by foisting them off on an unsuspecting public. That sediment clogs rivers that must be dredged to avoid flooding. It reduces the capacity of the lake. And it escalates the City’s water treatment costs.

A retired high-level Public Works manager told me he routinely investigated and found breaches at sand mines during floods. In his opinion, many of the breaches were intentional and the floods created the perfect “cover” for the illegal discharges. “Blame it on Mother Nature,” he said.

West Fork Images from February Flyover

Below, a sampling of more than 1000 images I took on 2/13/2020. The first batch shows mines on the San Jacinto West Fork between SH242 and US59. I traveled NW to SE toward 59. I’ve arranged images in the same order.

Sand mine pond and water’s path to the river (right). Pond is full to the brim and will overflow on a minor rain.
Another angle looking north toward the same breach.
West Fork is migrating toward pit on right and will soon enter it. A powerful argument for reasonable setbacks from river.
Dike erosion at Liberty Materials Mine. The TCEQ alleges this mine discharged 56 million gallons of that white gunk into the West Fork last November. This breach has been like this for months.
Another pond at the same mine. The only thing holding back another illegal discharge is a feeble road made of sand. See close up in next pic of area near poll just left of center.
Close up of road in upper left of previous photo. Note how water seeping through it is already causing road to collapse.
Silt spreading into settling pond. See also reverse shot below.
Reverse angle from previous shot, but same pond. See West Fork in background and note how road in foreground was cut by spreading silt.
Site of previous double breach at RGI mine. Note gray area in second row of dikes. Process water from the pond behind it broke into the settling pond in the foreground and from there into the West Fork. TCEQ cited owners.
Two separate ponds may have shared this same “wash” to the river (foreground). Pond in middle right is actively discharging into river. See reverse angle in next shot.
Same discharge as in previous shot. From this angle it is easier to see the active discharge.
Same breach from third angle. From this angle, you can clearly see the path and the discharge.
This pond has been discharging into the river for months. Note the difference in the color of the river water and discharge water. This indicates the discharge water is still holding silt.
Reverse shot of same breach highlights both the path and the color difference of the discharge.
This pond is leaking into a drainage channel that parallels Northpark Drive south of Oakhurst.
Former breach at Eagle mine on Sorters Road. West Fork in foreground.
Scars from previous breaches. One of these was intentional, though I’m not sure which. See video below.
Video by resident who wishes to remain anonymous shows intentional breach at the mine above.
Another scar from previous breach.
Confluence of Spring Creek (left) and West Fork San Jacinto (right). Facing west. Note color difference in water. It’s frequently visible.
Same area looking southeast toward Humble. West Fork on left.
Same area looking NE toward Kingwood. West Fork comes in from left.
Between the 59 bridge in the previous shot and this area, the Army Corps spent more than $90 million removing sediment from the West Fork. The City, County and State could spend another $35 million removing this blockage.

East Fork Images from February Flyover

Breach into Caney Creek at Triple PG sand mine was open for months and became the focus of a suit by the Attorney General. Note steepness of sides of “fix,” and erosion along side. Best Management Practices call for sloping and planting sides of dikes to reduce erosion.
Wider shot shows just how much forest was blown out in this breach, leading one to wonder whether this was caused solely by nature.
Another former breach into Caney Creek from the Triple PG mine. Only this eroding road stands between the mine and the creek.
Also at the Triple PG mine in Porter, this breach into White Oak Creek remained open for months. It, too, was the subject the Attorney General’s lawsuit. A restraining order against the mine calls for repairs to be certified by a professional engineer. This looks as though they may have tried to add concrete to the sand and stabilize it with rebar. However, note that the concrete, if that’s what it is, doesn’t rise much above the water. The road is made from eroding sand that will blow out in the next storm.
Reverse shot of same breach looking west. No concrete or rebar visible here – only rilling along steep sides of road. Rilling is the term for those vertical erosion channels.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/24/2020

909 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 158 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.

Progress on Pipeline Repairs at Sand Mines

In the last month, workers made progress on pipeline bed repairs to two area sand mines. But repairs at one sand mine look substantial. At another, they look superficial. Triple PG in Porter is still edging into the danger zone.

Exposed by Erosion When Mining Came Too Close

In December and January, I posted about pipelines exposed when sand miners mined too close to them. Floodwaters then swept through the mines and undercut the pipelines, creating safety hazards.

Pipelines exposed by erosion at Liberty Materials Mine in Conroe. Photo taken January 20, 2020.

Several HVL (highly volatile liquid) pipelines (above) and one natural gas pipeline (below) were affected at mines in Conroe and Porter.

Exposed natural gas pipeline at Triple PG mine near Caney Creek in Porter. Photo taken December 3, 2019.

Here’s where things stand on repairs at both mines as of last week..

Triple PG Mine in Porter: Another Big Cover Up

The Triple PG Mine in Porter has covered up the exposed natural gas pipeline with sand. As of 2/13/2020, Triple PG had made no other visible attempts to stabilize the area, which is subject to repeated erosion. Harvey first exposed the pipeline, which Triple PG subsequently covered. Then Imelda re-exposed it. And Triple PG re-covered it.

Fresh sand covers exposed natural gas pipeline. Will it be washed away a third time in the next big storm?

Readers may remember that after Harvey, Kinder Morgan tunneled 75 feet under the mine and spliced in a replacement for the section that had been exposed. They then filled the cutoff section with inert gas. So the exposed section was not active.

Still, without further stabilization, the pipeline will likely be exposed again and again by future storms.

Triple PG still has made no attempt to stabilize erosion creeping toward the HVL pipelines that cross the mine in a utility corridor. The same erosion that exposed the natural gas pipeline will threaten those in future storms.

Five pipelines carry highly volatile liquids through this utility corridor. Triple PG mines sand from either side of them. During floods, Caney Creek runs through this mine creating the erosion you see here.

Liberty Materials Mine in Conroe: Fix Nearing Completion

At a Liberty Materials Mine in Conroe, a much more substantial fix is underway by the pipelines. The mine spanned both sides of the utility corridor. Water from one side, trying to get to the river on the other, washed under several HVL pipelines, exposing them.

Repairs began in January and were well under way in February. Crews first expanded the washed out area under the pipelines. Then they placed two giant culverts under the pipelines to allow water to move from one side to the other. They also cemented the culverts in place and drove vertical steel reinforcements in the ground to prevent re-exposure of the pipelines.

Two giant culverts will now carry water under the pipelines. Shown above: the outfall.
Steel reinforcements rise above the level of the pipelines to help retard erosion. Photo taken 2/13/2020.
Rip rap and other reinforcements will also help retard erosion.
Inlets for the culverts. Photo taken 2/13/2020.
Looking west toward The Woodlands. San Jacinto West Fork is at far end of sand mine. Note all the sand and sediment that has washed under this area to the far side of the steel reinforcements.

As of 2/13/2020, crews were filling dirt in under, around and over the pipelines.

The repairs here appear much more substantial than in the Triple PG mine. I just hope the volume of sand washing from one section of the mine to the other does not clog the culverts. The steel reinforcements will protect the pipelines in this location, but water has a habit of flowing around obstacles.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/23/2020

908 Days after Hurricane Harvey 157 since Imelda

Latest Sand Mine Breaches and Near Breaches

In the continuing saga of sand mining on the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto, I present the results of my January 20, 2020, flyover. I found three breaches and two near breaches between I-45 and the East Fork. See below.

Liberty Materials Mine in Conroe

Let’s start upriver on the San Jacinto West Fork near Conroe. These first two images come from the Liberty Materials Mine that the TCEQ cited for allegedly discharging 56 million gallons of white slime into the river.

In this photo you can see that road (upper right) has repairs blocking a previous breach. However, discharge continues to flow through the dike. This indicates potential structural instability that might jeopardize the dike in a major flood and cause another massive discharge.
A couple hundred yards away at the same mine, there’s so little road left, driving a car across it could cause collapse of the remaining dike. That jeopardizes safety of workers and the safety of drinking water. Only four or five feet separates a massive mining pond from the West Fork in the foreground.

There sure is a lot riding on that little spit of sand. If this one blows out, I pray the TCEQ and Attorney General goes after them for gross negligence. How could they ignore this?

Hallett Mine in Porter

The next two shots come from the Hallett Mine in Porter. They show the same issue from two different angles.

Looking toward the pond.
Looking toward the West Fork. Another portion of the mine lies on the far side of the river.

Abandoned Mine in Porter

This is the drainage ditch that parallels Northpark Drive before it enters the river. This mine appears to be abandoned. Regardless, sediment, seems to consistently wash out of it. This breach has been open for since 2015.

Triple PG Sand Mine in Porter on Caney Creek

The Attorney General is suing this mine for breaches that remained open for months after the May floods last year. Currently, the mine is operating (but not dredging) under a temporary injunction until the case goes to trial on June 22. While mine owners have closed other breaches on White Oak and Caney Creeks, this breach remains open. Technically, it doesn’t connect with with river until a flood. But during floods, photographic evidence shows that Caney Creek reroutes itself through the mine, raising pressure that causes dikes in other places to collapse.

The shot below shows headward erosion toward five pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids.

Such breaches and near breaches create a good argument for creating minimum setbacks for mines from the creeks and rivers that supply our drinking water.

Sadly, legislation that could have done that died in committee during the last session. But there’s always next year. I will continue to monitor how well the mines do until new measures can be reintroduced. Pressure is building throughout the state to control air and water pollution from aggregate mines.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/12/2020

897 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.