Tag Archive for: SJRA

San Jacinto River Master Drainage Plan Draft Provides First Look at Final Report Due Out in August

On 7/23/2020, consultants for the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Plan gave the SJRA Board and the public a first look at a draft of the plan. The final report is due out at the end of August. The draft shows the broad outline of the team’s efforts.

Draft Shows Broad Outline of Recommendations

It shows the types of recommendations they will make. However, this draft does not yet include specific recommendations as to prioritization of projects. Those will change before the final report. For instance, much of the draft focuses on upstream detention. But specific detention site recommendations have not yet been finalized.

Funding and Partners

Below are the key slides and a brief explanation of the main point behind each. This drainage study is 75% funded by a FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant and 25% by four local partners: the SJRA, City of Houston, Harris County Flood Control, and Montgomery County.

Scope of Study

The study area covers almost 3,000 square miles and the tributaries listed on the left.
The SJRA primarily has responsibility for the portion of the watershed in Montgomery County. However, the scope of the drainage study extends to other counties including Waller, Grimes, Walker, Liberty, and San Jacinto.

Heat Map Shows Where Most Damage Occurs

The team started by looking at where flooding has occurred historically. The tan areas above show where the most damage has occurred.

Goals and Methodology

The partners started by looking at vulnerabilities and identifying mitigation possibilities. Their main goals are in red. The final report will make specific recommendations for detention, buy-outs and improving conveyance. Recommendations will also improve flood warning and communication.
The team started by integrating and updating all existing hydraulic and hydrologic models in the watershed as reflected on the latest 2018 lidar terrain data. They now take into account new construction, growth, additions to impervious cover, and Atlas-14 rainfall probabilities (which vary by sub-watershed within the larger watershed).
To calibrate and verify its H&H models, the drainage study team examined four historical storms that, together, impacted the entire study area. They then adjusted the models using radar rainfall data, and USGS high water marks and peak flow data. The objective: to make the models reflect “ground truth.”
The team is also looking at strategies to reduce sedimentation. However, this is not a major focus of this study. Their purpose is not to evaluate the relationship between sediment and flooding. Other studies will do that.

Three Main Areas of Focus

This slide shows the three major thrusts of drainage study effort over the last 1.5 years. The primary focus has been on: a) identifying the best locations for upstream detention that can reduce the volume of water coming downstream to populated areas during floods, b) where to install additional gages to improve flood predictions and warning times, and c) improving communication during emergencies.
This shows the steps the drainage team went through to evaluate and rank-order potential sites for detention.

Areas of Highest Potential for Mitigation

Here’s where they found the highest and lowest potential for mitigation. The box explains the watersheds that see the most effective solutions within the SJMDP study area, as explained in the list to the left of the slide.
Some drainage projects recommended in previous plans are no longer possible today because of upstream development. However, areas that once held potential for a single large project still hold potential for several smaller projects that add up to significant flood reduction.

Mitigation Project Funding

The cost all the drainage projects identified adds up to about $3 billion. They only reduce flooding of structures worth about $756 million dollars. Because costs exceed benefits, FEMA will not likely fund all of these.
However, many of the projects are in areas with low to moderate income (brown and tan areas). See the large concentration in the eastern watershed. That opens up other sources of funding, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development where the benefit/cost ratio may not be as important.

Harmonizing Regulations Throughout Region

The team will also make recommendations to harmonize floodplain development regs throughout the region. Continuing to allow unmitigated upstream development in floodplains could destroy any new investment made to protect highly populated downstream areas.

Some Problems May Only Be Solved Through Buyouts

Buyouts usually have a high benefit-to-cost ratio relative to construction projects such as detention ponds. Buyout strategies can target the most vulnerable properties, such as those in the 2- and 5-year floodplains. None of the detention projects recommended by the team will likely remove those from danger.

Steps Still Not Completed

The team has finished the steps in red. They in the process of prioritizing projects and developing a phasing plan. The last bullet point is not part of this study.

More Upstream Gages Needed to Eliminate Blind Spots

The team has also identified locations for additional upstream gages and local partners who can help maintain those gages. Think of these like a “distant early warning” system. They give river forecasters visibility into “blind spots.” Forecasters will be able to add up the rainfall on various tributaries and predict the impact and timing of flooding downstream. That could give people more time to evacuate.

Ways to Improve Communication

The team is also looking at ways to communicate better during flood emergencies. They are looking at inundation mapping, evacuation routes, and improved communication protocols.

Timetable for Remainder of Project

This chart outlines the project workflow. It shows completed steps in red, and incomplete steps in yellow.
The final report with specific recommendations should be released at the end of August or in early September.

Every Little Bit Helps

I can’t wait to see this report in its final form. During the presentation, the presenter talked about reducing flooding downstream at the West Fork and I-45 by up to six feet if all upstream projects are implemented.

One thing to keep in mind: there is no single silver bullet that can solve the regions flood problems. All of these steps are additive. In my personal opinion, a foot here and a foot there can help offset future releases from Lake Conroe. People in the Lake Houston Area benefit from any and all upstream improvements.

Posted by Bob Rehak with thanks to SJRA and HCFCD

1064 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 313 since Imelda

SJRA Report on Spring Lowering of Lake Conroe

After three months of histrionic, apocalyptic debate about SJRA’s policy of seasonally lowering Lake Conroe, the lowering turned out to be neither the end of the world, nor the salvation of the Lake Houston Area. Simply put, no megastorms tested the policy. So there was no proof that it succeeded or failed.

Instead, regular smaller rains kept the lake close to its monthly averages. Neither drought nor excessive heat caused lake levels, property values, business or tax revenues to plummet. Everything functioned much as it normally has since Lake Conroe was built in 1973.

Lake Stayed Near Monthly Averages

In the two months between April 1 and May 31, the lake only dropped below 200 feet by an inch or two for three or four days and then promptly refilled. In fact, at the end of May, 2.5 inches of rain caused the lake to rise above its seasonal norm, prompting a second release.

Two releases and smaller, spread-out rains kept the Lake Houston Area safe and Lake Conroe close to its monthly averages (200.32 for April and 200.44 for May; see below). Source: SJRA Board Presentation 7/23/20.
Lake Conroe seasonal levels by month for 46 years. In April and May, Lake Conroe averages 200.32 and 200.44 respectively. Source SJRA Board Presentation.

During that time, the Lake Houston Area never flooded. Yet Lake Conroe was above its monthly average for the first three weeks of April. And it was only down about three inches for about three weeks in May.

The assertion that Lake Conroe is “normally” at 201 is a myth. That is the level at which the SJRA normally starts releases. Due to evaporation, which can take an inch a day, the lake is almost always well below that. A more accurate term for 201 would be “full pool.”

River Levels Up Slightly, but No Flooding

West Fork river levels rarely rose more than 2 or 3 feet even when rainfall was added to the release rate from Lake Conroe.

Release rates averaged about 600 cubic feet per second (cfs) and rarely exceeded 1000 cfs.

If the exercise proved anything, it was that releasing at those rates didn’t flood anyone.

River levels vs. rainfall for the last two weeks of the spring lowering. Source: SJRA Board Presentation 7/23/20.

Fall Lowering Starts This Saturday

The Houston Area lucked out with Hanna. Had the storm veered towards us, we would have received the torrential rains that swamped the Valley.

This fall, the lowering will be split into two phases: to 200 feet in August and 199.5 in September. The City of Houston has the right to call for an additional half foot in the event of a named storm.

Restatement of SJRA lake lowering policy for this year. Source: SJRA Board Presentation 7/23/20.

Even though Hanna missed us and Gonzalo fizzled, the next storm may not.

Near-Term Tropical Outlook

The NHC gives this disturbance an 80% chance of formation in the next five days. It’s moving west northwest at 15 to 20 mph and should impact the leeward islands late Wednesday.

The fact that Lake Conroe rebounded so quickly will likely calm debate in the future.

The Lake Conroe level at this instant stands at 200.22 feet. That’s less than half an inch below the July average for the last 46 years. Note that that’s also 3.5 inches above the August average.

Finally, note that the target level for August (200 feet) is about an inch ABOVE the normal monthly average. So if evaporation does its job, the SJRA will not have to lower the lake.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/27/2020

1063 Days after Hurricane Harvey

SJRA to Offer First Peak at Master Drainage Study Results Thursday Morning

Due to Covid, the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) Board of Directors will hold its regular board meeting via webinar Thursday morning.  Start time is 8 a.m. One of the more interesting things on the agenda is a first peak at the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Plan. Chuck Gilman, SJRA Director of Water Resources and Flood Management, says that Halff & Associates will provide a high level summary of the results and recommendations. 

Master Drainage Plan Goals

The San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan goals include:

  • Identifying the region’s vulnerabilities to flood hazards using Atlas 14 rainfall totals
  • Developing approaches to enhance public information and flood-level assessment capabilities during a flood
  • Evaluating flood mitigation strategies to improve community resilience
  • Providing a comprehensive Flood Mitigation Plan that supports the needs and objectives of each regional partner.

The study covers more than 3000 square miles!

Scope of Master Drainage Plan Study

The four partners in the project include Harris County Flood Control, SJRA, Montgomery County and City of Houston.

This web site explains the study in more detail, but not the results. At least not yet. The final report should be published in a month or two.

How to Attend the Virtual Meeting

You have to options to “attend” the meeting: webinar or telephone conference call.

For the webinar option, register to participate via this link: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/487269876799947791. Please use Webinar ID: 375-802-867.

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. 

If you choose to participate via the GoToWebinar App, you WILL have the opportunity to provide comments during the designated portion of the meeting.  

You can also LISTEN to the meeting via a telephone conference call, but you will NOT have the opportunity to provide comments if you choose this option. Only webinar participants may comment.

Telephone conference call phone number: 415-655-0052 and the audio access code is 882-885-021.

AGENDA

These meetings can run several hours. For folks who may not be able to see the whole meeting, but want to see the drainage plan presentation, here’s the full agenda. SJRA can not predict when the master drainage plan presentation will start.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 minutes per speaker)

3. DIVISION UPDATES – Receive updates from Operational Divisions and General & Administration Division related to ongoing projects, staff reports, or items on the consent agenda.

  • G & A: Jace Houston, General Manager
  • G & A: Heather Ramsey Cook, Director of Communications and Public Affairs
  • G & A:  Tom Michel, Director of Finance and Administration
  • Woodlands: Chris Meeks, Utility Enterprise O&M Manager
  • GRP: Chris Meeks, Utility Enterprise O&M Manager
  • Lake Conroe: Bret Raley, Lake Conroe Division Manager
  • Highlands: Jay Smith, Highlands Division Manager
  • Flood Management: Chuck Gilman, Director of Water Resources and Flood Management

4. CONSENT AGENDA – This agenda consists of ministerial or “housekeeping” items required by law, such as routine bids, contracts, purchases, resolutions, and orders; items previously approved by Board action, such as adoption of items that are part of an approved budget or capital improvement projects, interlocal agreements, or action which is required by law or delegated to the General Manager; and items of a non-controversial nature. These items will be considered by a single motion unless removed and placed on the Regular Agenda for individual consideration at the request of any Director.

  • G&A
  • RAW WATER ENTERPRISE

5. REGULAR AGENDA

Items requiring individual consideration by the Board of Directors.

G&A

  • Resolution Adopting Policies and Procedures Related to Contracting with Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUBs)

RAW WATER ENTERPRISE

  • Amended and Restated Water Conveyance Contract with Coastal Water Authority
  • Ratify Contract for Time and Materials Services with Masters Advanced Remediation Service, Inc.

6. BRIEFINGS AND PRESENTATIONS

  • Presentation regarding the San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan Project.
  • Presentation regarding the Fiscal Year 2021 Operating Budgets.
  • Presentation regarding the proposed Rate Order for Raw Water Customers.
  • Presentation regarding the proposed Rate Order for Woodlands Division Customers.

7. EXECUTIVE SESSION (Not open to public)

Consultations with attorney regarding:

  • Litigation related to Hurricane Harvey, including additional legal services to be provided by Hunton Andrews Kurth, LLP;
  • Litigation related to GRP water line breaks (Line Segments W2A and W2B); and
  • Expedited Declaratory Judgement Act litigation and other litigation related to GRP.

8. RECONVENE in Open Session

9.  SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT for Lawsuit with Various Parties Associated with GRP Transmission Line Segments W2A and W2B

10.  ANNOUNCEMENTS / FUTURE AGENDA

11.  ADJOURN

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/22/2020

1058 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Details of SJRA Grant Application for Upper River Basin Sedimentation Study

SJRA has applied for a $375,000 grant from the Texas Water Development Board’s (TWDB) Flood Infrastructure Fund to study sedimentation in a six county area:

  • Liberty
  • Waller
  • Grimes
  • San Jacinto
  • Harris
  • Montgomery

The City’s of Conroe and Houston also support the effort.

Sedimentation Known to Limit Floodway Conveyance

Sedimentation in the Upper San Jacinto River Basin says the SJRA, “…is known to impact floodway conveyance capacity.”

SJRA Grant Application

In order to create a plan for implementing potential sediment solutions, this study will develop “sediment budgets” by evaluating the input, output, and storage of sediment for the entire basin, as well as for sub-watersheds within the basin.

Identifying Largest Problem Areas

This process will identify which sub-watersheds in the basin:

  • Produce the most sediment
  • Store the most sediment.

With this information, the SJRA says it can prioritize locations for improvements, mitigate loss of floodway conveyance, and develop best management practices. In regard to the latter, changes of regulations could be considered.

Much Has Changed Since Last Study

KBR conducted the last study on this issue in 1998. Since then, we’ve seen exponential growth of sand mining and development in this watershed. Both have the capacity to change conclusions from the KBR study. So a new study is highly warranted.

Confluence of Spring Creek and West Fork. TCEQ alleges that Liberty Mines discharged 56 million gallons of white waste water into the West Fork.

What’s Included in Study?

Specific tasks anticipated to be included in the scope of work include, but are not necessarily limited to:

  • Upper San Jacinto River Basin watershed characterization
  • Inventory of available existing data
  • Annual sediment output determination
  • Annual sediment storage determination
  • Sediment transport modeling
  • Individual sediment source or storage locations determination
  • Individual site investigations
  • Key stakeholder and permitting agency coordination
  • Development of conceptual solutions and overall implementation strategy
  • Development of Upper San Jacinto River Basin sediment management plan

If approved, the grant would also include development of cost estimates, preliminary exhibits, and preliminary permitting requirement evaluation.

All identified projects, efforts, and practices will be ranked and included in an implementation plan. Ultimately all information will be compiled into a regional sediment management plan, which can guide mitigation efforts in the future.

Building on Other Recent Efforts

The project will take advantage of data and tools developed recently as part of the San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan project (SJRWMDP) now nearing completion.

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) leads that project. It utilizes Atlas 14 rainfall. The project will also utilize data developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Harris County while dredging sediment from the mouth of Lake Houston.

SJRA feels the proposed project will increase benefits gained from state and federal dredging efforts which total approximately $125 million.

Finally, this project will also build on a sand trap development project currently being performed by SJRA in coordination with HCFCD along the West and East Forks of the San Jacinto River. SJRA already submitted a separate abridged application for the next phase of the sand trap development project.

FOUR YEARS to Complete!@#$%

SJRA anticipates that this study will take 4 years to complete! It says the work will only take 18 months or less, but budgeting uncertainties related to COVID-19 will delay the start of the project. With seven partners, the matching funds demanded from each would only about to about $50,000.

However, this delay, says the SJRA, will allow completion of the sand trap preliminary design study so that the SJRA can use that information as input for the sedimentation study.

While this grant application covers only planning and study, it will identify sedimentation solutions, and guide future sedimentation reduction projects, efforts, and practices.

Helping Preserve Water Storage Capacity in Lake Houston

Any sedimentation reduction activity in the Upper San Jacinto River Basin (Lake Houston watershed) should reduce the sediment load entering Lake Houston. That would help preserve volume for water storage. Lake Houston is the main water supply reservoir for approximately 2 million people.

Until SJRA identifies sedimentation solutions, it cannot quantify sedimentation reduction benefits. One of the main goals, however, would be to restore, maintain, or expand storm flow capacity, which could potentially remove structures from the floodplain.

Flood mitigation provided by these future projects/efforts/practices could benefit areas impacted by Hurricane Harvey and Tropical Storm Imelda as well as other major storms such as Hurricanes Ike and Rita, and storms in 1994, 1998, 2015, and 2016.

To review the full application, click here.

To review related applications submitted by SJRA to TWDB, click the Reports page and scroll to the bottom of the SJRA tab.

Four Years Is WAAAAY Too Long

The only thing I don’t like about this study is the three year delay due to COVID. It’s already been three years since Harvey.

Of five recent grants that SJRA applied for, this is the only one that mentions such a delay.

If six counties, the Cities of Conroe and Houston, and the SJRA can’t come up with $50,000 each in matching funds, something’s seriously wrong. It would take more than that to repair ONE flooded home in each of those municipalities and counties. And that makes me wonder whether hidden hands are intentionally delaying this important study.

West Fork Sand Mine cited by TCEQ for unauthorized discharge of 56 million gallons of sediment-laden waste water into West Fork San Jacinto.

If you get in a helicopter and fly around for a day, it’s pretty obvious where the problems are.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/11/2020

1047 Days after Hurricane Harvey

SJRA Applies for TWDB Grant to Study Feasibility of Flood Control Dams in Spring Creek Watershed

The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) has applied for a $500,000 grant from the Texas Water Development Board’s Flood Infrastructure Fund to study the possibility of building two flood control dams in the upper Spring Creek Watershed.

Spring Creek enters the West Fork and Lake Houston at US59. The watershed extends west from there and covers portions of Montgomery, Harris, Grimes, and Waller Counties. Spring Creek itself acts as the county line between Harris and Montgomery Counties.

Feasibility Study Would Build on Basin-Wide Study

The proposed project builds on a Spring Creek Siting Study, currently underway as part of the San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan project. The latter should be released this fall.

The Siting Study, still in draft form, has identified two potential locations. One is along Walnut Creek and the other on Birch Creek.

Both have potential to mitigate flooding in the watershed. SJRA anticipates the Master Watershed Drainage Plan will recommend them for implementation. See draft spec sheets below.

Draft Walnut Creek spec sheet supplied as part of grant application
Draft Birch Creek spec sheet supplied as part of grant application

Notice that neither of these projects comes close to competing with the Barker or Addicks Reservoirs in terms of acre-feet of storage. At roughly 20,000 acre feet combined, they are roughly one twentieth the size of Barker and Addicks combined. That said, the proposed reservoirs could each still reduce flooding by up to half a foot for 25-40 miles downstream.

Grant Covers Everything Up Through Costing

The next phase of efforts related to the reservoirs will require, at a minimum:

  • 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.

Completion of these tasks will determine feasibility and cost-effectiveness. The grant will also help determine what should proceed to preliminary engineering, final design and construction.

Upstream Benefits of Project

Spring Creek watershed flood mitigation will benefit all areas impacted by Hurricane Harvey, as well as storms in 2016 (Tax Day and Memorial Day), 1994, Tropical Storm Imelda and other recent and historical events.

The most substantial benefits would accrue to structures within the Spring Creek Watershed. SJRA estimates the Birch and Walnut Creek reservoirs could remove 918 and 1,412 structures, from the 100-year floodplain based on Atlas-14 data.

Preliminary benefit/cost ratio (BCR) estimates range from 0.55-0.83 for Birch Creek to 0.78-1.06 for Walnut. However, SJRA feels the combined BCR of the two reservoirs could increase to 2.7 if social benefits typically allowed in FEMA grants are also included.

Downstream Benefits

Project benefits also extend farther downstream. In the event of major storms, the dams could delay water migrating downstream. That would help protect thousands of homes and businesses in the Lake Houston convergence zone. Remember the Plea for DDG (Detention, Dredging and Gates)? Adding to upstream detention was one of the three main strategies advocated by Lake Houston Area leaders after Harvey to reduce flooding.

The proposed dams will likely be earthen embankments with minimal permanent storage (i.e. “dry bottom” reservoirs) with and uncontrolled discharge structures and spillways.

Therefore, they will provide no water supply benefit. However, they could collect and trap sediment, which would otherwise flow into Spring Creek, the West Fork, and ultimately Lake Houston. That would reduce the loss of water storage in Lake Houston.

Timing and Partners

SJRA says it can complete the study within 18 months, but future design and construction will take longer.

SJRA will submit a separate application for an Upper San Jacinto River Basin Regional Sedimentation Study. If funded, it could help determine how much sediment the proposed dams could remove.

SJRA has not yet identified funding for operations and maintenance. This grant will not cover land acquisition, but will ultimately be required to implement construction.

For this specific application, SJRA received input from HCFCD, Harris County Precinct 4, Harris-Montgomery Counties MUD 386, Montgomery County, and Woodlands Water Agency.

To review the complete grant application, click here.

Next Steps

This is an abridged application. TWDB reviews abridged applications to rank the most important projects and ensure they have funding for them. If the abridged app is approved, SJRA must complete a more thorough application. TWDB will pass judgement on those before the end of the year.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/10/2020

1046 Days after Hurricane Harvey

SJRA Board to Meet Friday in Closed Session on Pending Harvey Litigation

Friday, July 10, at 11 a.m., the San Jacinto River Authority Board of Directors will meet in a closed session to discuss pending Harvey litigation with their lawyers and consultants.

Kingwood Greens Evacuation During Harvey by Jay Muscat
Kingwood Greens Evacuation During Harvey by Jay Muscat

Special Meeting with No Action on Agenda Items

A meeting notice put out by the SJRA says they will hold the “special” meeting via telephone conference call due to COVID. The notice also said:

There are no items on the agenda for action by said Board of Directors. Accordingly, there will not be an opportunity to provide public comments during the meeting. 

The notice provided a phone number for LISTENING PURPOSES ONLY. 

(936) 588-7199, Conference ID is 660572


AGENDA

  1. CALL TO ORDER (OPEN SESSION)
  2. CLOSED SESSION – The Board of Directors will adjourn to Closed Session for consultations with the Authority’s attorneys, pursuant to Texas Government Code, Section 551.071, regarding pending litigation related to Hurricane Harvey. No action will be taken during or following Closed Session.
  3. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION – The Board of Directors will reconvene in Open Session.
  4. ADJOURN

The publication of the phone number meets a technical requirement for public agencies to conduct public board meetings. But it sounds as if they will immediately go into executive session and adjourn the meeting as soon as they come out.

This made me curious about the status of pending litigation.

Cases Slowed Due to Covid

SJRA is fighting several different cases. According to one lawyer following them, the Medina case appears to be the most active. Attorneys in that case just filed an agreed motion to modify the scheduling order. That sets the SJRA’s “plea to the jurisdiction” hearing in November, 2020.

In Texas, a “plea to the jurisdiction” challenges the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Two SJRA pleas argue that the court should dismiss the case, not that venue should change.

For the full text of the pleas, click on these links:

3 Firms, 9 Lawyers Defending SJRA

The second plea introduces more arguments and develops them more fully. Three firms and nine lawyers signed the supplemental plea. (And the SJRA complains about legal costs!)

They argue that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a valid claim to which SJRA is not immune.

“Indeed, the evidence conclusively demonstrates,” they argue in their conclusion, “that no constitutional taking occurred. The Court should therefore grant SJRA’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.” [Emphasis added.]

(Aside: No constitutional taking? Did they just agree with plaintiffs’ arguments? Plaintiffs allege UNconstitutional taking. Curious wording there!)

Pillars of SJRA’s Argument

To support the dismissal plea, the SJRA argues, in part, that:

  • “SJRA’s engineers established a Gate Operations Policy intended to reduce flows in the river.”
  • The River Authority followed its Gate Operations Policy.
  • The Policy reduced downstream flows during Hurricane Harvey.
  • Other sources – over which SJRA has no control – converge with the West Fork San Jacinto River and contributed to flooding.
  • Very little, if any, of the floodwaters that inundated Plaintiffs’ properties passed through the Lake Conroe Dam.
  • Plaintiffs cannot prove that flooding on individual properties was caused by SJRA actions.
  • SJRA did not intentionally take any action certain to flood any plaintiff’s property.
  • The plaintiffs cannot even show the first element of a “takings” claim – that SJRA’s acts caused damage to their property.

If the judge does NOT dismiss the case, and if COVID allows, the trial will proceed in 2021.

Pleas NOT Good Bedtime Reading

If you flooded during Harvey and want a good night’s sleep, don’t read these documents before bedtime. Here’s just one of the claims that had my brain in turmoil at 3 a.m.

“Texas law makes clear that a dam operator does not commit a taking when it does not release water from the dam in such a way that it increases the flow into the river or negatively changes the character of the flows in the river.”

SJRA Supplemental Plea

The SJRA’s own documents show that it released almost exactly one-third of the water coming down the West Fork between Humble and Kingwood during Harvey. The volume they released at the peak – all by itself – would have been the ninth largest flood in West Fork history … and the sixth largest since Lake Conroe was built almost 50 years ago.

“Very little, if any, of the floodwaters that inundated Plaintiffs’ properties passed through the Lake Conroe Dam.” Really? How can these lawyers refer to their claims as indisputable on page after page?

Hmmmm. I guess that’s why they make a $1000/hour.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/10/2020

1046 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.

Details of SJRA Application to TWDB for Grant to Develop Sand Traps

In March, the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) awarded engineering firm Freese & Nichols a $250,000 work order for “Conceptual Design” of sand traps. Then in June, SJRA applied for a $200,000 grant from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for “Preliminary Design” of sand traps on the West Fork. What’s this all about? How do the projects relate? Are they worthwhile?

West Fork 90% Blocked After Harvey

After Harvey, the Army Corps documented that the West Fork had become 90% blocked by sediment in places. That contributed to the flooding of thousands of homes and businesses. It also triggered a massive dredging program that is still ongoing. Finally, it launched a search for solutions that stretched all the way to Austin (plus, interestingly, Kerrville and San Antonio). See more below.

SB1824 Opens Door for Sand Traps

House Bill 1824 was introduced by State Rep. Murr from Kerrville and sponsored by Senator Flores from San Antonio. Approved last year, it allows SJRA and Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) to remove material from the San Jacinto River and its tributaries to restore, maintain, or expand storm flow capacity without the need for “state permitting” or royalty payments to the state.

SJRA and HCFCD hope to mitigate flooding by constructing one or more “sand traps.” Their plan calls for partnering with Aggregate Production Operations (APOs) in the vicinity of the sand trap(s) to clean them out periodically. It’s not yet clear whether APO’s would do this for a fee, or do it for the sand. One thing is clear, at this point, however. APO’s don’t want to go far. All the locations under consideration are next to sand mines.

Freese & Nichols Already Underway with Phase 1

The first phase of the project, Freese & Nichols’ conceptual design, is currently underway. It includes:

  • Evaluating potential sand trap locations and trapping effectiveness
  • Developing conceptual sand trap designs
  • Determining downstream benefits of potential sand trap solutions
  • Recommending which site(s) to carry forward into preliminary engineering.

Phase 2 of Pilot Goes Further

The goal: to move forward with preliminary engineering on two sites, with the likely construction of at least one. This small scale effort, involving only one or two sand traps, is intended to act as a “pilot” before a more costly, full-scale program.

Preliminary results in the first phase indicate that the sand traps will likely be located along the West Fork.

However, to move beyond conceptual design, even on the pilot, SJRA needs more money to supplement local match resources.

If successful, the TWDB grant application for preliminary design will cover:

  • Environmental permitting investigation
  • Preliminary land acquisition efforts
  • Survey
  • Geotechnical investigation
  • 30% design efforts.

Need for Sediment Control of Some Sort

To date, more than 2.3 million cubic yards of material have been removed from the West Fork, at a cost of more than $90 million. An additional $30 million has been dedicated to continue these efforts. SJRA hopes sand traps will help protect that investment.

It seems, though, that reducing sediment coming out of sand mines might be a simpler, less-risky, more cost-effective solution.

Benefits

Long-term benefits beyond the initial sand trap development “pilot” project are anticipated to potentially extend beyond the immediate benefit area.

Benefits include potential reduction of sediment load entering Lake Houston.

Primary benefit area is in purple along West Fork. Secondary benefit area is in green (Lake Houston).

SJRA can not yet quantify the level of flood mitigation provided by the sand trap(s). However, restoring or expanding storm flow capacity could potentially remove structures from the floodplain, they say. The conceptual design phase currently underway will attempt to evaluate downstream hydraulic benefits.

Timing

If this abridged application succeeds, SJRA will need to submit a more detailed application. TWDB won’t report results on that until late this year.

Freese & Nichols should report the results of their conceptual study this September.

SJRA anticipates it can complete the preliminary engineering study in 18 months. However, construction will take longer – up to 36 months.

Next Steps

If results of this pilot project indicate that sand traps are a feasible and effective solution, a larger program in various locations throughout the basin could be implemented.

Preliminary cost estimates will be developed as part of the conceptual design phase currently underway. So SJRA has not yet determined a benefit/cost ratio.

However, the cost of dredging has proved substantial. And the cost of flooding during Harvey proved astronomical. Reducing those costs just 1% could easily justify the cost of this project.

We have too many unknowns at this point to pass judgment.

  • How much will the project cost?
  • Will sand traps be effective?
  • Who will maintain a trap when a sand mine goes out of business?
  • What will the environmental impact be?
  • Will the traps accelerate erosion and jeopardize infrastructure such as pipelines and bridges?
  • Is this the opening volley in an effort to begin large-scale river mining?

Scientific literature and news reports on sand traps generally indicate mixed results.

I will withhold judgement until I learn more.

To review the abridged application, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/9/2020

1045 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Details of SJRA Grant Application for Flood Early Warning System in San Jacinto county

The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) has applied for a Flood Infrastructure Fund Grant from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to extend its Flood Early Warning System in San Jacinto county. The abridged grant application covers the cost of three new gages that would measure rainfall and flood height (but not flow rates). SJRA would install the gages on:

  • Winters Bayou at SH150
  • San Jacinto East Fork at FM945
  • Peach Creek at FM3081

Complement to Potential HCFCD

These gages would complement four others that Harris County Flood Control District is considering for San Jacinto county.

  • Winters Bayou at FM2693
  • East Fork at SH150
  • Winters Bayou at Tony Tap Road
  • East Fork at SH105
Locations of potential SJRA and HCFCD gages in San Jacinto county

HCFCD could display the information from both its own gages and SJRA gages on its Flood Warning System (FWS) website. The FWS site lets residents view data from all gages throughout the region in one location.

Gage Components and Communications Infrastructure

Equipment installed at each location would include break-away mounting pole, box enclosure with antenna mast, rain gage, river/stream stage sensor, and alert transmitter/sensors.

Components of the system susceptible to water damage would be installed above at least the 0.2% annual chance inundation level, based on Atlas 14 data.

SJRA would transmit data obtained from the gages to its ALERT2 network and display it on its Contrail system. This would let San Jacinto County staff and residents easily access and view the data at any time. These gages would become part of a growing regional network of gages.

Extent of Application

The grant application includes:

  • Verifying that signals can reach SJRA’s repeater tower in Montgomery County.
  • Site survey work at the proposed gage locations
  • Installation of the gages

San Jacinto county would provide ongoing maintenance after training by SJRA staff. That would include including twice-per-year inspection, periodic cleaning, and any required repairs or corrective maintenance.

Project Benefits

The intent of the Flood Early Warning System: to provide early warning to downstream residents, businesses, and property owners. The gages will also help county emergency personnel and responders protect life and personal property which can be moved to a safe location with adequate warning (vehicles, valuables, etc.).

The grant, says the SJRA, would benefit the entire population of San Jacinto County (27,819 in 2018). San Jacinto county lies between Cleveland and Lake Livingston.

Properties downstream of the gages would directly benefit by the proposed flood early warning system (FEWS). But other benefits would extend to the rest of the county. For example:

  • More time to evacuate in advance of a storm could reduce the burden on county-wide emergency services.
  • It could also give the county more time to close roads and tend to other needs during the event.

The gages could also benefit areas downstream of San Jacinto County. For instance, they could provide advance streamflow data to HCFCD.

Gages Located Near Habitual Road Closures

San Jacinto County says multiple major storms have impacted the areas downstream of the proposed gages, including Hurricanes Harvey, Rita, and Ike, as well as storms in 1994, 1998, 2015, and 2016. All caused road closures, high water rescues, etc. These have historically been low population areas, but are growing rapidly.

Additionally, the proposed gage at Peach Creek and FM 3081 could provide some benefits to a small area of Montgomery County, as Peach Creek runs along the county line between San Jacinto and Montgomery Counties. It is possible that some or all of the gaging equipment may be installed on the Montgomery County side of the county line, depending on site conditions.

Cost and Timing

SJRA anticipates the extension of its Flood Early Warning System can be completed in 18 months.

San Jacinto County participated in the process of developing this project. SJRA anticipates the total project will cost $65,000.

All applications for the TWDB Flood Infrastructure Fund Grants go through a two stage process. This abridged application is step one. If TDWB deems the project valuable enough, and if it has enough money, TDWB would invite SJRA to submit a more detailed application for step two.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/8/2020

1044 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Details of Four SJRA Grant Applications for TWDB Flood Infrastructure Funds

Yesterday, I ran an article about Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Flood-Infrastructure-Fund Grant Applications. It incorrectly stated that the City of Houston had applied for six flood infrastructure fund grants. However, five of those listed were actually submitted by other entities, such as the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA). Below is more information about those grant applications.

Elm Grove Project Correctly Attributed to City

The City did apply for a grant to fund construction of a detention basin on the Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village Property north of Elm Grove Village in Kingwood. It was correctly attributed.

Four Projects Should Have Been Attributed to SJRA

The SJRA submitted four of the five applications that were incorrectly attributed.

  1. San Jacinto River Sand Trap Development
  2. Spring Creek Watershed Flood Control Dams Conceptual Engineering
  3. Upper San Jacinto River Basin Regional Sedimentation Study
  4. Lake Conroe-Lake Houston Joint Reservoir Operations Study

Mayor Pro Tem and District E Council Member Dave Martin personally supported those projects, hence the confusion. TWDB rules for Flood Infrastructure Fund Grants place a premium on support by all affected governmental entities within a watershed. Those include cities, counties, MUDs, river authorities, townships, etc.

Details of SJRA Grant Applications

Here’s more information about those four proposals.

  1. The Sand Trap Study currently underway has to do with identifying acceptable locations for the sand traps. Once identified, the new grant would cover the cost of their detailed design. The proposed study would extend work currently underway.
  2. The Spring Creek Watershed Flood Control Dams Conceptual Engineering Grant would cover the cost of partially designing dams. The San Jacinto River Basin Study identified locations for the dams. But it did not look at construction details. The new study would look at things, such as environmental impacts, utility conflicts, height of embankments, size of reservoir, etc. It continues work to date in the Spring Creek Watershed. San Jacinto River Basin Study partners have not yet released the locations.
  3. The Regional Sedimentation study builds on KBR’s work in 2000. KBR studied portions of the watershed that drain into Lake Houston, but not the East Fork, Caney Creek and Peach Creek. The new study has two objectives: understand where sediment is coming from and what can be done to reduce it. For instance, if the sediment is coming from new developments or sand mines, there may be a need to look at regulations that affect those.
  4. The Lake Conroe-Lake Houston Joint Reservoir Operations Study would look at the best ways to operate the two dams under different storm scenarios. It would assume the construction of additional floodgates on Lake Houston. It would also model storms approaching from different directions. The study will answer questions, such as “What would the effect of pre-releasing water into Galveston Bay be on Cities such as Baytown if a hurricane approaches from the south?” The deliverable: an operations plan.

Sedimentation and Its Role in Flooding

Two large sources of sediment: sand mines and new developments. Here the drainage for the Artavia development tries to find a path to the West Fork, through or around two sand mines. One of the mines was cited by the TCEQ for discharging 56-million gallons of sediment-laden wastewater into the West Fork.
The City, County, State and Federal Government are still working to remove the West Fork Mouth Bar, 1040 days after Hurricane Harvey. This bar is partially the result of excess sedimentation. During Harvey, this bar formed a partial dam that contributed to the flooding of more than 4000 homes and businesses.

More East Fork Gages in San Jacinto County

In addition, the SJRA has applied for a grant to purchase several more stream gages in San Jacinto County. San Jacinto County lies between Cleveland and Lake Livingston.

San Jacinto County partnered with the SJRA on that grant and would provide ongoing maintenance and operations if the application is successful.

Benefits of Additional Gages

Those additional gages would extend the flood-warning time for people in the East Fork Watershed. Such information is crucial for developing evacuation plans in emergencies.

The gages would also help inform the gate operations at Lake Houston. During Imelda, the East Fork received ten times more rain than the West Fork, but the West Fork has far more gages. That hindered understanding of where the danger was coming from and when it would strike.

As news becomes available about other grant applications in the San Jacinto Watershed, I will post it here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/4/2020

1040 Days after Hurricane Harvey

SJRA Sunset Review Now Underway

Almost a year ago, I posted about an upcoming sunset review for the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA). That process is now underway. The SJRA submitted a self-evaluation last September and the Sunset Review Commission is now accepting public comments.

The Commission will hold one public meeting on December 9th and 10th, before it makes a final decision about the SJRA on January 13.

The SJRA’s 131-page self-evaluation contains a wealth of information about how the SJRA perceives its performance. It will also give you insight into the challenges they face and how they are responding. I have limited discussion below to SJRA’s flood management division, because that is the focus of this website. The bottom of the post contains information about how to make a public comment if you wish.

Surprising Flood Management Objective

Interestingly, the SJRA does not list Flood Management under its Mission, Principles, or Objectives. It does list Flood Management as a Key Function. However, when asked “Do your key functions continue to serve a clear and ongoing objective,” the SJRA had an interesting response.

“In 2018, SJRA created the Flood Management Division to actively seek federal, state, regional, and local partnerships to coordinate flood management activities across the entire San Jacinto River basin, including Harris County. Flood planning and management activities are typically carried out and funded by local taxing entities since the purpose is to protect life and property.”

SJRA Self-Evaluation Report to Sunset Commission, Page 9, September 2019, emphasis added

They see themselves more as a coordinator than doer. The report then goes on to say, “SJRA did not have taxing authority and therefore was limited in its ability to implement large regional flood management projects….”

Two years after the governor told the SJRA to get into the flood management business and identify sources of funding, the SJRA still has not found the golden goose. In eleven separate places in the document, the SJRA cites a lack of taxing authority as the problem. It also makes several references to the failed initiative to establish a Montgomery County Flood Control District. The proposition failed by a vote of 1,222 “For” and 2,714 “Against” … IN 1985 … 35 years ago!

Biggest Opportunities for Improvement

SJRA says it is constantly looking to improve its operations. “At this time, there are four areas in which we are focusing our efforts in order to improve operations and administration: (i) expanding use of technology and social media, (ii) public communications and engagement, (iii) comprehensive and uniform complaint resolution, and (iv) accessibility of historically under-utilized businesses.”

Flood management is not one of the opportunities for improvement.

Expenditures by Goal

Right now, the SJRA is paying salaries for flood management out of water revenues. The River Authority spent roughly $150,000 in 2018 and budgeted $180,000 for 2019. That was roughly 0.14% of the SJRA’s total budget. And less than most people spent to repair their homes.

Flood management has 0.84 FTEs (less than one full-time employee). That’s because they split their time with other divisions.

Page 32

For fiscal years 2019 and 2020, the Flood Management Division continues to be funded via SJRA Raw Water Enterprise revenues. The total budget for FY 2019 for the Division is $776,748.

Objective of Flood Management Division

The SJRA’s Flood Management Division describes following major activities:

  • Developing short-term and long-term regional flood management strategies within the Authority’s portion of the San Jacinto River Basin
  • Building partnerships with federal, state, and local government entities
  • Identifying funding sources and opportunities
  • Coordinating, collaborating, and potentially partnering with other entities throughout the entire San Jacinto River basin.

“The Flood Management Division oversees the partnership and implementation of planned and funded projects, including the transfer of operations and maintenance of completed projects to partnering entities,” the report says.

Evidence of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Flood Management

The SJRA says that evidence of its Flood Management success can be seen in applying for a flood protection grant in 2018, receiving it, and beginning the associated project in 2019.

Another example: Participation as a funding and technical partner in the Upper San Jacinto Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan study being managed by the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD).

Additionally, SJRA cites a “Know Your Watershed” campaign that will help provide the public with a better understanding of the watersheds they live in, as well as the sources of stormwater (i.e. rivers/streams, upstream watersheds, etc.) for those watersheds. The campaign consists of two tools: an online watershed viewer and an interactive story map that will give viewers an educational digital “tour” of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River.

SJRA also provided Senator Brandon Creighton with draft language for a bill that would allow the Authority to take a more active role in sedimentation management in the San Jacinto River basin. That language is included in House Bill 1824 of the 2019 Texas Legislative Session.

Finally, SJRA has been involved in a variety of other flood management related activities, including participation in various stakeholder groups, task forces, etc.

SJRA currently does not participate in any floodplain administration activities, nor does it have the authority to enact or enforce drainage infrastructure criteria or adopt development standards.

Major Issues for Flood Management

Funding. “Since Hurricane Harvey, SJRA has sought partners to fund feasibility studies in the hopes that federal and state funding could be matched with local and regional partners to develop flood management projects to help upstream and downstream land owners.”

Possible Solutions

“The recent passage of Senate Bills 7 and 8 and House Bill 26, along with a few other bills that were passed during the 86th Legislature, could lead to increased opportunities to create the necessary coordination to achieve meaningful, regional flood management strategies.”

They do not yet know what studies and/or projects will be funded. “It is also not yet known if and how local and regional partnerships will develop for flood management projects. However, it can be assumed that without more collaboration of regional flood management strategies and coordination of solutions, the region will continue to face flooding risks.”

Another potential solution: creation of tax-funded, regional entities that cover entire, or large portions, of major river basins. For example, the Harris County Flood Control District has the necessary legal authority and funding mechanism to implement flood mitigation projects, however, it covers less than half of the San Jacinto River basin. This solution would require legislation to implement.

Montgomery County leadership reportedly has little interest in flood control. Most see it as an expense to their taxpayers that benefits residents of other counties.

Pending Lawsuits

SJRA acknowledges that it faces multiple lawsuits associated with flooding that occurred during Hurricane Harvey in 2017.

Regarding those, it says, “The City of Houston is a two-thirds partner in the construction and operation of Lake Conroe and is therefore responsible for two thirds of the costs associated with the lawsuits. While current case law related to the liability of reservoir operators for downstream flooding is favorable, the ongoing costs of litigation is a significant burden related to the operations of the Lake Conroe Division.”

How to Comment by When

To review the entire self-evaluation report, click here.

To provide comments and suggestions to Sunset staff:

  • Send an email to sunset@sunset.texas.gov
  • Submit comments online at www.sunset.texas.gov
  • Send a letter to Sunset Advisory Commission, Attn: SJRA, P.O. Box 13066, Austin, Texas 78711
  • Call (512) 463-1300 and ask to speak to Alan Leonard, project manager of the SJRA review

Please provide your comments by July 31, 2020 to ensure Sunset staff can fully consider your input while conducting their review.  Comments submitted before the staff report is published in November 2020 will remain confidential.

Stay informed!  Visit www.sunset.texas.gov to sign up for email alerts on the Sunset staff report and the Sunset Commission’s public meetings on SJRA.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/11/2020

1019 Days after Hurricane Harvey