Tag Archive for: SJRA

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.

April 7 Meeting on Spring Creek Flood Control Dams

Spring Creek Flood Control Dams are back in the news. The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) recently announced the first of three meetings related to a feasibility study. So save the date – April 7.

According to Matt Barrett of the SJRA, this feasibility study is a continuation of the Spring Creek Siting Study which came out of the San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan project (SJMDP). The Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) and multiple partner agencies including SJRA developed the Master Drainage Plan. 

Overview of Feasibility Study 

The Spring Creek Siting Study from December 2020 explored multiple alternative locations that could provide flood-mitigation benefits to the Spring Creek watershed. Two of the more cost-effective were dams on Walnut and Birch Creeks.   

The Spring Creek Flood Control Dams Feasibility Study will include:

  • A conceptual design for each dam
  • Benefits and costs for each dam and a combination of the two dams.  

The goal: to determine the most feasible and economical alternative(s) for possible future design and construction. 

The cost of the study is estimated at $1 million. The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Flood Infrastructure Fund (FIF) grant program will provide half.  City of Humble, HCFCD, and five (5) Municipal Utility Districts will fund the other half.  SJRA is performing in-kind services to reduce the local match amount to be funded by the Partners. 

One Crucial Step of Many

This project is currently only in the feasibility phase. Construction of one or both dams, if feasible, would likely not occur for several years. Partners still need to identify a project sponsor and funding. They also need to perform final design, obtain environmental permits, and acquire land.

Details of Public Input Meeting

Public input and participation are critical components of this study, and SJRA wants to hear from you.  A public meeting related to the study will be held on/at the following date and location:

Thursday, April 7, 2022 

6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 

Fields Store Community Center 

26098 FM 362 

Waller, Texas  77484 

The meeting will be in an open-house format, allowing members of the public to come and go at their convenience at any time between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.  A five-minute, high-level, project-summary presentation will be given at 6:00 p.m., 6:30 p.m., 7:00 p.m., and 7:30 p.m.  

Between these presentations, project team members will answer questions and collect input.  If you can’t attend in person, you can view the summary presentation on SJRA’s Facebook page following the meeting. You may also submit questions via email and the project team will answer them. 

Project Location

Below, see preliminary maps.  These project areas could change based on the results of study efforts. 

The proposed Spring Creek Flood Control Dams would lie in far northeastern Waller County, a few miles west of Magnolia in Montgomery County.

The next map shows parcels of land that partners would need to acquire to develop the project(s).

Preliminary map of Birch and Walnut Creeks flood control dams. Extent of inundation limits subject to change during study.
One more public engagement meeting will be held this summer. The third will happen after partners release the draft report in February, next year.

Projected Benefits of Projects

As presently conceived, the Birch Creek dam could reduce water surface elevations by a half foot in a 100-year storm for almost 26 miles downstream. The larger Walnut Creek dam could produce a similar benefit for 41 miles downstream.

Each would cut the annual chance of exceedance (ACE) in half for the people in the affected areas. Thus, a hundred year storm would only have the impact of a 50-year storm.

Barrett currently estimates that the Birch Creek Dam could remove 815 structures from the 100-year floodplain and the Walnut Creek Dam could remove 1205. However, he also points out that those numbers will likely change as a result of updated modeling in the current study now underway.

How much would these dams benefit people in the Lake Houston Area? Barrett admits the impact would be small that far downstream. But he also points out that these represent the first two of 16 similar projects proposed in the Master Drainage Plan, and that they could have a major cumulative impact.

Every little bit helps. Even if you can’t attend the meeting, I hope you submit a public comment via email in support of the project.

How to Learn More and Provide Public Comment

For a fact sheet on each of the two proposed dams, click here.

For more information about the Spring Creek Flood Control Dams Feasibility Study, please visit www.SpringCreekStudy.com.

You can submit comments at the public meeting and throughout the duration of the study. Email comments to floodmanagementdivision@sjra.net, or submitted online at www.SpringCreekStudy.com. 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/18/2022

1662 Days since Hurricane Harvey

1985 Upper San Jacinto Flood Control Study Prophetic, But Largely Unheeded

This morning, I came across a 1985 study by Wayne Smith and Associates for the Texas Water Development Board and the San Jacinto River Authority. It’s called the San Jacinto Upper Watershed Drainage Improvement and Flood Control Planning Study.

For an engineering study, it’s exceptionally easy to understand and the recommendations were prophetic. It almost reads like a primer for flood control.

Recommendations of specific projects aside, the principal recommendations are as valid today as they were then. Had only someone acted on them.

Make sure you at least read Chapter 5: Conclusions and Chapter 6: Examination and Recommendation of Basic Design Criteria for Watershed. Together, they total just five pages.

Purpose of Upper San Jacinto Study

The Upper San Jacinto study had four main goals:

  • Develop a comprehensive stormwater drainage plan
  • Recommend specific improvements
  • Evaluate/compare alternatives
  • Provide drainage authorities with information necessary to control flooding.

Problems of Rapid Development in Flat Areas

The study begins with a discussion of the problems of rapid development in flat areas. The Upper San Jacinto Watershed covers 1200 square miles. It includes all of Montgomery County and parts of Walker, Grimes, Waller, San Jacinto, and Liberty Counties. For the purposes of this study, the Harris/Montgomery County line formed the southernmost boundary.

Seven major streams comprise the watershed: the West Fork, Lake Creek, Spring Creek, East Fork, Caney Creek, Peach Creek, Luce Bayou and Tarkington Bayou.

The topography changes from rolling hills in the north and west to flat coastal plains in the south and east. The lack of slope in the southern and eastern regions seriously affects the ability of streams to drain stormwater.

The authors warned that as development would move northward, hydraulic “improvements” would alter natural stream patterns by increasing flow velocities and reducing ponding.

Without sufficient retention, development can accelerate runoff, leading to faster, higher peaks that contribute to flooding.

Even before urban development, they said, channels in the Upper San Jacinto Watershed did not have adequate capacity to transport runoff from large storms.

In 1985, at the time of the report, less than 5% of the land area in the watershed was developed. The Woodlands was relatively new and still building out. The report warned that because of development, increases in impervious cover “will require a more efficient drainage system to collect and transport runoff.”

The report lauded the type of development in The Woodlands, where, “discharges are no higher today than they were years ago in the undeveloped stages.” However, the report also cautioned that “…with most of the current development in the southern and eastern extremities of Montgomery County, watershed flooding problems may be greatly enhanced by urbanization.”

The report even prophesied ever greater amounts of subsidence moving north with urbanization.

The chapter which discussed planning said, “Right of way and reservoir land acquisition should occur while the land is open and available.” Sadly, with the exception of Lake Conroe, which had already been built, none of that happened.

Benefit/Cost Ratios of Regional Detention in Undeveloped Areas

The last advice sounds so simple, one wonders why no one acted on it. However, as I read through the economic analyses of alternatives (reservoirs, channel improvements, etc.), the reason became blindingly clear.

So few people lived in undeveloped areas in the Upper San Jacinto Watershed in 1985 that the annual flood damages are minuscule. For instance, there were only 39 structures in four Lake Creek floodplain areas that the authors examined. Annual damages totaled only $9,600. That made the Benefit/Cost Ratios (BCRs) for the various mitigation alternatives that they developed come out to less than .001 in some cases and .09 at most. Benefits equal costs at 1.0. So FEMA usually demands BCRs exceed 1.

But compare the cost of a reservoir then and now. In 1985, the authors estimated the total cost of a Walnut Creek reservoir (a tributary to Spring Creek) to be only $41,000,000. Today, the cost would be $132 million – more than 3X. But it would take many more homes out of the floodplain. So the BCR today could be 1.04 making the project doable (see page 44)…although much more expensive and much to late to help those who flooded recently.

It’s instructive to compare the project costs in the 1985 plan to those in the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Study released last December. Reliance on the BCR in this case seems to dis-incentivize future planning and cost reduction. There’s a major opportunity for improvement.

To get around this problem, the Harris County Flood Control District started its Frontier Program. The program buys up land for regional detention ponds (those that serve multiple developments), and then resells detention capacity back to developers for future use. Because regional detention is usually more efficient than developers building individual detention ponds on their own, it can actually lower developers’ costs while protecting the public and conserving money long term.

Most High-Level Recommendations Still Valid

Page 43 of the 1985 report makes six high-level recommendations (apart from specific projects) that are as valid today as they were then.

  1. Create a central agency to control, monitor, remedy and finance flood control for the entire watershed.
  2. Control development within the 100-year floodplain and prohibit it in the floodway with laws and regulations.
  3. Establish minimum building slab elevations in flood-prone areas.
  4. Limit fill in the floodplain.
  5. Develop procedures to follow when allowing floodplain development, i.e., not obstructing 100-year floods.
  6. Develop specific criteria, procedures and requirements for downstream impact analysis to compare Development A with Development B, and to analyze their combined effects.

Regular readers of this site have heard many of these recommendations before. The surprise, if there is one, is that we haven’t adopted them all already or that we haven’t adopted them consistently. Even where recommendations have been adopted, they are enforced inconsistently.

For future reference, the 1985 report can also be found on the reports page under the SJRA tab.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/19/2021

1482 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 731 since Imelda

MoCo Judge Dismisses Lake Conroe Association Lawsuit Against SJRA With Prejudice

Judge Michael Mayes of the 284th Judicial District Court in Montgomery County filed an order today dismissing the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) lawsuit against the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA). But the most significant part of the dismissal was the way he did it.

Judge Mays dismissed the case WITH PREJUDICE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

Meaning of “With Prejudice” and “Want of Jurisdiction”

“With prejudice” means that the plaintiff cannot refile charges in another court. Basically, the court is saying that it found the case meritless. One lawyer told me, “It’s like saying, ‘Don’t waste the court’s time anymore.'”

The massive floodgates on Lake Conroe (above) have 15X the release capacity of Lake Houston’s. The seasonal lake lowering program was conceived in part as a way to give Lake Houston more time to shed water in advance of major storms.

Re: Plea to the Jurisdiction, according to the website Houston Courts and Cases, “In Texas…A plea to the jurisdiction can challenge either the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s pleadings or the existence of jurisdictional facts.”

In April 2021, the Judge dismissed the case against the City of Houston for want of jurisdiction, but the case against the SJRA remained active until today.

The ruling means that the SJRA’s Seasonal Lake Lowering Plan may remain in effect.

Purpose of Lake Lowering Plan

The Seasonal Lake-Lowering Plan was conceived shortly after Harvey as a way to provide an extra measure of flood protection for the Lake Houston Area while it implemented other flood-mitigation measures such as dredging and additional gates for the Lake Houston spillway. By creating extra storage capacity within Lake Conroe during the wettest months of the year, the SJRA hoped to reduce the risk associated with another massive release like the 79,000 cubic feet per second during Harvey. By itself, that was the ninth largest flood in West Fork history.

2800 Pages of Legal Briefs Come to a 102-Word End

The Lake Conroe Association pulled out the stops for this lawsuit. It filed approximately 2800 pages of legal briefs in four months, ran out of money, and started begging with residents to donate more so it could continue the fight. Today’s ruling will put an end to that.

Reality repeatedly contradicted the LCA’s factual claims. LCA claimed:

  • Home values around Lake Conroe would plummet because of the plan. They increased.
  • The school district would run out of money. It didn’t.
  • Nature would not be able to recharge the lake after a lowering. It did. Repeatedly.
  • Lake Conroe was not conceived as a flood-control lake. Flood control is a key element of SJRA’s charter.
  • The lowering would not help protect people in the Lake Houston Area. It did.
  • The City of Houston committed fraud … by calling for the release of its own water.

In contrast to (or maybe because of) the 2800 pages of legal briefs, today’s court order was mercifully brief – 102 words.

“On this 30th day of August, 2021, came on before the Court San Jacinto River Authority’s Plea to the Jurisdiction, and after considering same, all Answers, Responses, Replies, pleadings, stipulations, evidence, affidavits and attachments filed by the parties, all statutory and caselaw authorities, and all arguments relating thereto, the Court was of the opinion that the following Order should be entered; it is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that San Jacinto River Authority’s Plea to the Jurisdiction be, and it is hereby, GRANTED AND SUSTAINED, and that the above Cause be, and it is hereby, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.”

Now a Meaningful Dialog Can Begin

I’m sure this must come as a bitter blow for some residents of Lake Conroe who supported the long court battle. But perhaps some good will come from the clarity that now exists.

Hopefully, this will open the door to reasonable people who wish to craft a long-term joint management plan for both Lake Conroe and Lake Houston. The people of this region are inextricably bound together by the need to balance water and flood control. Perhaps now we can start a meaningful dialog that addresses both.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/30/2021

1162 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Lake Lowering to Start as Peak of Hurricane Season Nears

According to its lake lowering policy adopted last year, the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) should start to drop the level of Lake Conroe this weekend.

Text of Lake-Lowering Policy

The lake-lowering policy states:

“Beginning August 1, release only an amount of water from Lake Conroe to create a one foot capacity to catch rainfall and storm runoff (from 201’ msl to 200’ msl). After September 1, increase capacity an additional six inches (from 200’ msl to 199.5’ msl). If a named storm is predicted to impact our region, the COH may initiate an additional release of six inches (to 199’ msl) by notifying SJRA in writing of their call for release. Recapture beginning October 1.”

As of 5PM Friday, 7/30/21, Lake Conroe stood at 200.87 feet. The only release from the lake was the water feeding the SJRA water treatment plant to supply drinking water to area customers (GRP Diversion).

Before the SJRA can lower the lake, however, the City of Houston (COH) must call for the lowering to start. And according to a spokesman in Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin’s office, the City has called for the release to start.

The City owns two thirds of the water in the Lake and the release will come out of the City’s portion. When the numbers in the box labeled “COH diversion” on the SJRA’s dashboard increase, you’ll know the seasonal release has started.

Lake Conroe Association Still Fighting

In the past, releases have been hotly debated. The Lake Conroe Association has sued the City and SJRA in Montgomery County District Court. The litigants have filed 80 documents totaling more than 2800 pages in the last 121 days. That’s more than 23 pages per day! Some of the plaintiff’s arguments border on ridiculous in my opinion.

  • LCA claimed the tax base and property values in Montgomery County would collapse because of the lake lowering. But they’ve gone up.
  • LCA also claimed that Lake Conroe could not refill itself in the summer months. But it has.
  • Finally, LCA alleges fraud when the City calls for the release of its own property.

Isn’t that kind of like a neighbor of a bank alleging fraud when a depositor makes a withdrawal?

To read all the documents yourself, go to the Montgomery County District Clerk’s website.

Judge Mike Mays set a hearing date for Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 2PM.

Approaching Peak of Hurricane Season

So how is this hurricane season going so far?

The National Hurricane Center (NHC) predicts no tropical activity anywhere in the Atlantic basin for the next five days. That includes the Gulf of Mexico.

However, we’ve already had five named storms this year. And NHC observes…

“In terms of Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE), which measures the strength and duration of tropical storms and hurricanes, activity in the basin so far in 2021 is well above average at more than twice the climatological value.”

National Hurricane Center

If history is a guide, the four charts below from the NHC Climatology Page hint at what we can likely expect in the coming months.

We’re about to enter the month where the number of named storms starts to climb most rapidly. Remember, Harvey was an August storm. Source: NHC.

The fact that we only had one named storm in July (Elsa) is not unusual; it’s average. But keep in mind that Elsa was the earliest named “E” storm on record.

This chart shows the distribution of storms throughout the season. The peak happens from mid-August to late October.
Galveston, Harris, Brazoria, and Chambers Counties get the most hurricane strikes in Texas.
Hurricane Strikes in Continental US by State and By Year since 1950

All in all, the Atlantic this time of year is like a casino. You have to play the odds. And that’s what the temporary seasonal lake lowering policy is designed to do – reduce the risk of huge property losses by creating extra capacity in Lake Conroe to help offset heavy rainfall and the need for large releases.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/30/21

1431 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.

SJRA Board Accepts Grant Funding for Three Studies

Yesterday, the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) Board accepted three grants from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to conduct studies for various projects. This was expected. The SJRA had applied for each of the grants about a year ago. The vote, however, now obligates the SJRA. It’s somewhat like applying for a loan and then signing the contract after it is approved.

Three Studies Now Teed Up

The SJRA and its partners can now officially start three studies:

  • An upper San Jacinto Watershed regional sedimentation study
  • A conceptual engineering feasibility study for flood-control dams in the Spring Creek Watershed
  • A joint reservoir operations study between Lake Conroe and Lake Houston
Lake Houston Gates can discharge only 10,000 CFS (left), while Lake Conroe’s can discharge 150,000 CFS. To help provide better watershed management, the Coastal Water Authority is studying the addition of 1000 crest gates to Lake Houston, necessitating the joint reservoir operations study.

Why Flood Mitigation Takes So Long

We are all learning together how long flood mitigation takes. It’s somewhat frustrating to see a conceptual engineering feasibility study being kicked off one month from the fourth anniversary of Hurricane Harvey.

I’m not pointing fingers at the SJRA, its partners, the TWDB, or the State. If you took the time to read all of the approximately 1500 posts on ReduceFlooding.com, you would see that:

  • Harvey happened right after the 2017 legislature finished its work.
  • Eighteen months elapsed before the legislature met again.
  • It took another nine months for the legislature and governor to approve flood mitigation funding.
  • Then, the TWDB needed to define rules for the distribution of funds, solicit public comment, refine the rules, solicit grant applications, and evaluate them in a competitive context.
  • Finally, add time for related preliminary studies such as the Lake Houston Spillway Improvement Project, the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Study, a sand trap study, and a siting study for the flood-control dams.
  • And don’t forget the time to find partners and develop political consensus around solutions.

Still Years from Construction

The truly scary thing is that even when these studies are completed, we still could be years from construction and more years from completion of any of these projects.

For instance, we just started final engineering on the Lake Houston Spillway Improvement Project. Best-case projections show completion of the project in mid 2024 – 7 years after Harvey.

The system seems set up to protect money more than people. We certainly don’t want people rushing off, building half-baked projects that endanger people downstream, the environment, or the safety of a dam…especially if they produce no demonstrable benefit.

But we also don’t want people to flood multiple times waiting for flood-mitigation improvements. And some have. Remember Imelda? Just a thought as we head into the heart of hurricane season.

Studies Could Take 18 Months to 4 Years

The Spring Creek Flood-control Dam study will take 18 months. The Joint Reservoir Operations Study will take 3 years. And the Sediment Study is scheduled to take 4 years, though Matt Barrett, SJRA’s flood-mitigation director, is trying to compress that to 18 months.

If you missed the original post about these three studies, you can find more details here. SJRA partners in these projects include Harris County Flood Control, City of Houston, City of Humble, Montgomery County and five utility districts.

Posted by Bob Rehak on July 23, 2021

1424 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 673 since Imelda

SJRA to Consider Three Flood-Mitigation Studies Thursday

SJRA directors will consider accepting grant funding for three flood-mitigation studies at their board meeting on Thursday, 7/22/21. The studies include:

  • A joint reservoir operations study between Lake Conroe and Lake Houston
  • An upper San Jacinto Watershed regional sedimentation study
  • A conceptual engineering feasibility study for flood-control dams in the Spring Creek Watershed

The board will also consider executing escrow agreements related to each grant. TWDB grants work on a reimbursement basis. At the start of the project, TWDB puts the grant money into an escrow account. Then funds are drawn down as vendors submit invoices and TWDB approves them.

I posted previously about grant applications for these projects. Now that the grants have been approved, work can actually begin once the board agrees to accept the money. See details below about each project.

Joint Reservoir Operations Study

The addition of 1000-feet of crest gates to the Lake Houston Dam is a game changer for the way reservoirs on the San Jacinto work together. Right now, the gates on Lake Houston have a discharge capacity of only 10,000 cubic feet per second (CFS). The discharge capacity of the crest gates would increase that by more than 4X to 45,000 cfs. It’s still not the 150,000 CFS of Lake Conroe gates, but percentage-wise it’s much closer.

Thus, operators need to re-examine how best to synchronize their operations and plans. For instance, pre-releasing water in advance of a storm might be more viable now as a flood-mitigation strategy.

Another element of this study is a “flow forecasting tool.” It would predict rises in Lake Houston depending on the flow rates in tributaries during major storms. Matt Barrett, SJRA’s flood-mitigation director, says this tool could be useful for flood warnings and evacuations. If you knew that lake water would rise X feet in Y hours, and that your slab was a foot below X, you’d know exactly how much time you had to pack up your valuables and get out.

This study is being conducted with help from the Cities of Houston and Humble.

Upper San Jacinto Basin Sedimentation Study

The upper basin of the San Jacinto River includes everything above Lake Houston. This study has three goals:

  • Understand where the sediment is coming from
  • Learn where it ends up
  • Develop a management plan to handle it.

For the record, here is the scope of work. Note that stakeholder input and public meetings will be a big component of this project (Task 2). Tasks 3 and 6 include evaluation of sand mines. And Task 7 includes “Sand and Gravel Mining Best Management Practices.”

The San Jacinto West Fork has more than 20-square miles of sand mines in the 20-mile stretch between I-69 and I-45, exposing a swath of sediment averaging a mile wide.

The sedimentation study is being conducted with financial help from the Cities of Houston and Humble, and the Harris County Flood Control District.

A related sand-trap study is nearly complete. The SJRA should release it next month for public input.

Spring Creek Flood Control Dam Feasibility Study

About a year ago, SJRA applied for a TWDB grant to study the feasibility of building two flood control dams in the upper Spring Creek Watershed. The partners identified two preferred locations from a previous siting study that considered dozens. The two included Walnut and Birch Creek tributaries.

The objective now: to see whether the benefits justify the costs. Said another way, will the dams reduce flooding and protect enough structures to make the cost of building them worthwhile?

Together, they would have a combined capacity of 20,000 acre feet. That’s significant. But it would provide more benefit to people in the upper Spring Creek watershed than the Lake Houston Area.

The scope of work includes:

  • Environmental due diligence
  • Site investigations
  • Literature and mapping review
  • Permitting requirement investigations
  • Desktop surveys/assessments
  • Preliminary coordination with permitting agency
  • Conceptual design of dams to determine feasibility – geotechnical borings, alternative configurations development, H&H modeling analysis, etc.
  • Cost estimate development – dam construction costs, as well as costs related to land acquisition, utility conflicts and relocations, environmental mitigation, O&M, etc.
  • Update benefit/cost ratios (BCR) from SJRWMDP using data developed as part of this effort.

Partners in this effort include the SJRA, HCFCD, City of Humble, and five municipal utility districts. To learn more about these projects and others, consult pages 19 and 21 of this PDF.

To View or Participate in the Board Meeting

The SJRA board meeting starts at 8am.

If you choose to participate via webinar, register at this link and use webinar ID 950-202-179.

If you use the GoToWebinar App, you will have the opportunity to provide public comments.

To view the Agenda, visit SJRA’s website at: 07-22-21 Agenda and Coversheets.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/22/21

1423 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.

LCA Claims “Seasonal Lake Lowering Policy Does Not Allow Lake Conroe to Refill Through Rainfall in Spring, Fall”

Never says never. Especially in a lawsuit. It didn’t take long to disprove that claim! Two days after LCA filed the claim on April 28th, the SJRA had to open its gates to keep Lake Conroe homes and businesses from flooding. And they are still releasing water…three weeks later.

SJRA Dashboard as of 6pm Friday night, 5/21/2021. Normal level is 201. Despite near constant releases this month, the lake’s level has remained above average.

This afternoon, I read the third supplement to the petition by the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) in its lawsuit against the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) and nearly busted a gut laughing. After a week where we received more than half the rain for the year so far, I needed the comic relief. And got it.

Two licensed professional engineers – with more than 80 years of experience between them – filed affidavits. They claim that the SJRA’s seasonal lake lowering policy “does not allow Lake Conroe to refill through rainfall in the Spring and Fall.” Their claim is repeated over and over again in affidavits by others.

Lake Conroe Association’s Third Supplement to its Original Petition

SJRA Forced to Go Beyond Seasonal Lowering to Avoid Flooding

Twice this month, the SJRA has had to release water from Lake Conroe above and beyond the seasonal lowering policy to prevent flooding. After the May Day event, they released almost 10,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) for several days to keep the homes and businesses around Lake Conroe from flooding.

The boats are in slips, but the docks are underwater. Near Monty’s Lighthouse and Fajita Jacks on Lake Conroe on 5/1/2021, when the water level exceeded 203 feet halfway through the Spring seasonal lowering.

The rains this week have been more spread out, but the SJRA still had to release almost 3,000 CFS most days to reduce flood risk around Lake Conroe.

Engineers rarely deal in absolutes. They deal in extremes and qualify almost everything they say. But these intrepid professionals stepped over the edge on the far side of reality. Mother Nature always gets the last word.

One of Many Exaggerated Claims

The LCA lawsuit seeks to stop the SJRA’s seasonal lake lowering policy. The “refill” claim is just one of many exaggerated claims that LCA has made.

This lawsuit overflows with self-destructive claims and internal contradictions.

Say That Again!

The latest filing claims that the Lake Conroe Association has the authority to speak for all of its members because LCA feels it proved actual or imminent damages to at least one of its members. In logic, they call that “the fallacy of generalization.” I know at least one influential member of LCA who disagrees vehemently with the lawsuit. So which of those two individuals should we listen to?

LCA also asserts that the Association’s rights are “in every practical sense identical” with “its members.” Its interests, however, may not be.

Some may not find flooding enjoyable.

In its original petition, LCA claimed that its purpose was “over-seeing, directing, initiating, and promulgating programs that directly affect the control, use, and enjoyment of Lake Conroe…” Had it not been for the seasonal lake lowering policy, many homes and businesses upstream or down would likely have flooded after the May Day rains.

In the same sentence about enjoyment, LCA also claims that Lake Conroe is operated exclusively for the benefit of the citizens of Montgomery County, Texas.

Did they really mean to say that Lake Conroe is operated exclusively for MoCo residents when the City of Houston owns two thirds of the water in it?

At one point, the lawsuit claims the sole purpose of Lake Conroe is to supply drinking water. But most of LCA’s complaints refer to lost recreational opportunities.

The second supporting document LCA filed sought relief for irreparable damages but did not specify what those were. Previously LCA members have complained about:

Could Dredging Costs Be The Real Issue?

But LCA’s latest filing reveals what could be the real issue here: dredging. Reportedly, the former president of the LCA had shallow water next to some lakefront property he was trying to sell. But with the water lowered, shallowness made the property less marketable.

Shallow water especially impacts residents at the north end (headwaters) of the lake.

Some LCA affidavits claim that access channels to the lake have been cut off by siltation. This latest filing references dredging in numerous places.

Wildwood Shores claims the estimated cost to dredge area canals exceeds one million dollars. They have hired an engineering company to set up a multi-year dredging plan that would spread out the costs. But they worry that the costs may still not be affordable. Dredging companies have explained the costs of dewatering the dredged materials; hauling them out of the floodplain; and the Army Corps’ permitting process.

Residents from Wildwood Shores, an area without fire hydrants, also claim that the Sam Houston National Forest could burn down if a house fire gets out of control and the local fire department can’t find a way to draw water from the lake.

I wonder if they’ve compared the cost of dredging to putting in a water well and tank from which tanker trucks can refill. I googled “cost of water tanks” and quickly found one that holds 90,000 gallons for $35,000. That’s a lot less than a million dollars for dredging. And the capacity would be enough to fill up at least 30 of the tanker trucks they reference in the lawsuit. The engineer who filed that affidavit didn’t explore that option. Perhaps because he had something else in mind…like boating, for instance.

Let’s Focus on the Real Issues and Work Together

I’m not trying to minimize the:

  • Loss of recreational opportunities
  • Inconvenience of silt
  • Expense of dredging.

We in the Lake Houston Area have been grappling with those same issues…on top of the flooding that silt dams contribute to. They are all real.

But making claims that are false at face value; inventing one doomsday scenario after another; and ignoring reasonable, cost-effective alternatives only undermine your own credibility.

Keeping water high is a temporary solution at best. Eventually, silt will pop up all around Lake Conroe. Especially after heavy rains.

Until you start enforcing regulations that reduce the effects of egregious development (including sedimentation) and form a Flood Control District to help dredge, this problem will dog you.

Realize that we’re all in this together – upstream and down. Let’s focus on ways to mitigate our mutual problems, not fight each other for a temporary advantage.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/22/2021

1362 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.

MoCo Judge Dismisses Lake Conroe Association Suit to Block Seasonal Lake Lowering

It has been a busy ten days at the Montgomery County Courthouse. On March 31, the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) filed a lawsuit to block the seasonal lowering of the lake. But a hearing was not set until April 19. Meanwhile, the SJRA and City of Houston initiated a release of 450 cubic feet per second on April 1. That prompted the LCA to request an immediate order to stop the release on April 6. And that may have backfired on the Association. It forced the judge to look at the case sooner. And today, the judge dismissed the entire suit with respect to the City of Houston for lack of jurisdiction. Co-defendant SJRA has yet to file its response in the case, so the judge could not rule on that.

Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In its initial response to the LCA suit, the City argued what lawyers call a “plea to the jurisdiction.” The City claimed that LCA lawyers relied on outdated case law, that the City enjoyed governmental immunity, and that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The arguments re: immunity are complicated and technical. Briefly, Texas law gives governmental entities broad immunity. Plaintiffs must challenge the validity of a statute under which a government took action to challenge the government’s action. But, says the City, the seasonal lake lowering policy is not a statute or ordinance; it is simply a policy. Thus, “Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action is barred by governmental immunity.”

More Hail Mary’s

To stop the seasonal release once it started, Plaintiffs then filed their first supplement to the Application for a temporary restraining order. They also filed a Supplement to their Original Petition. And a second supplement. The filings claimed that the release of 450 CFS was:

  • Causing irreparable harm
  • A public nuisance
  • A “taking” of their property
  • An unreasonable loss of water
  • Diminishing their enjoyment of the lake

The City of Houston answered these allegations one by one in a seven-page brief filed on 4/7/2021. I’ll dispense with the legal arguments; you can read them for yourself. They discuss whether the allegations have merit and meet the legal definitions involved.

Even without a law degree, it appears on the surface that the only claim with validity is the enjoyment claim. But balanced against the City’s property rights (in the water), plus the potential flood-reduction and property-protection benefits, it pales.

Judge’s Ruling

Suffice it to say, that around 9 a.m. today, the judge agreed with the City of Houston’s Plea to the Jurisdiction. “The Court having considered the Plea and the response, if any, is of the opinion that it should in all things be SUSTAINED.”

“IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED that City of Houston’s Plea to the Jurisdiction is SUSTAINED and that Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Judge in LCA Case

Altogether, plaintiff’s filed 86 pages of legal briefs so far. I’m glad I’m not a Lake Conroe homeowner paying the bill for that!

Irreparable Harm? Really?

Some LCA claims stretched credulity. A 1-foot reduction causing irreparable harm? Really?!! During public testimony before a special SJRA Board meeting this morning, Lake Conroe callers mentioned that sales tax receipts are up, boaters are enjoying the lake, and home values are also up substantially since the seasonal lake lowering policy started.

Boats on Lake Conroe during last year’s seasonal lowering in the Spring.

Homeowners around Lake Conroe should demand to learn what and who is really behind this exercise.

Effect on SJRA

To date, the City of Houston has taken the lead on various pleadings. That makes sense because the lake lowering program involves its water.

The judge’s order this morning did not affect the SJRA. That’s because SJRA has not yet filed any answer, pleadings, or briefs in the case. The extent of SJRA activities on this case so far was to brief its board this morning and get its support to engage outside legal counsel. The board approved hiring two firms. Expect more from the SJRA in the coming days.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/9/2021

1319 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.

SJRA Began Spring Seasonal Release on April 1

The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) began slowly releasing water yesterday afternoon to lower the level of Lake Conroe to 200 feet per the temporary seasonal release policy adopted more than a year ago. When the seasonal release began, the lake stood at 201.01 feet – its normal target level. By noon today, the level stood at 200.94 feet.

Screen capture of SJRA dashboard as of 4:50PM yesterday.

Community Impact claims the release started at 4:20PM on 4/1/2020.

These pictures show the release.

Start of SJRA spring release. What 450 cubic feet per second looks like.
The slow release is designed to help protect downstream interests.
Looking back toward Lake Conroe.

Lake Lowering Policy by the Numbers

In the spring, SJRA lowers the lake one foot, starting April 1 and begins recapturing water on June 1.

In the summer and fall, it’s a little more complicated. On August 1, SJRA releases water again to reduce the lake level back to 200. Beginning Sept. 1, they take the water down another six inches. But the City of Houston may call for it to be lowered another six inches (to 199) if a named storm is predicted in the Gulf.

Statistically, the peak of hurricane season is September 10. The lake-lowering policy builds additional capacity to absorb heavy rains that could threaten the dam, and help prevent massive releases that cause downstream flooding.

Upstream/Downstream Differences of Opinion

Downstream residents love the policy. They saw their communities destroyed during Harvey when the SJRA started releasing 80,000 cubic feet per second. Many Lake Conroe residents who flooded during Harvey also love the policy.

But some Lake Conroe residents feel inconvenienced and persuaded the Lake Conroe Association to file a lawsuit requesting a temporary restraining order to stop the lake lowering. A Montgomery County judge scheduled arguments in the lawsuit for April 16th, two weeks from now.

One resident who joined the suit claims the lower lake levels forced her to repair her bulkhead at a cost of $2000. And a bait shop owner claims he was driven out of business in 2018 when people couldn’t get their boats in the water.

But pictures taken during last year’s lowering show plenty of boaters having plenty of fun despite the lower level. Evaporation often takes the lake down partway to the target level anyway. So, the SJRA may only need to release inches rather than feet to reach its target level – especially in late summer.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/2/2021

1312 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.