Tag Archive for: Spring Creek

A Townsen Bridge Across Spring Creek?

Developers are working toward building a bridge over Spring Creek and a road that would connect Townsen Boulevard in Humble with the Grand Parkway in Montgomery County. However, City and County authorities on both sides of the county line say they know nothing tangible about the bridge yet.

I’ve talked to several engineers about this property. One said that if the bridge gets built, it will open thousands of acres to development. A second said that if the property gets developed, it would be like “aiming a firehose at Kingwood and Humble.” A third cautioned that when the developer sees the new floodway and floodplain maps, a bridge will likely become cost prohibitive.

The developers in question have not returned calls, but here’s what we know so far based on publicly available information and several Freedom-of-Information-Act Requests.

Bridge Rumored for More than a Decade

The Army Corps of Engineers first issued a permit for a bridge in 2009. Last year, it issued an extension of the permit that requires completion of the work by 12/31/2026.

Map shown on Page 25 of Corps Permit Extension shows a 100-foot-wide right of way with twin bridges north- and southbound.

However, the Montgomery County Engineer’s Office and Harris County Flood Control say no one has applied for any permits with them yet to actually build a bridge. Regardless…

Company Purchases Land, Sets Up Mitigation Companies

The landowner on the north side of Spring Creek has purchased a small parcel of land on the south side of the creek at the current terminus of the Townsen Blvd. extension. Thus they would control the land needed for a bridge.

Pacific Indio owns thousands of acres north of the creek and one little parcel south of the creek where a bridge would terminate. From HCAD.org.

Pacific Indio controls another company called the Townsen Road Association and has also set up two mitigation companies. The latter are significant because the Army Corps permit contains an extensive discussion of mitigation needs.

MoCo Transportation Plan and Developers Promotional Material Show Bridge, Road

The Montgomery County Transportation Plan shows the extension of Townsen north to the Grand Parkway from where Townsen currently ends at Spring Creek.

Detail from Montgomery County Transportation Plan posted on MoCo Engineer’s website.

Also, a sign on westbound Grand Parkway indicates an exit for Townsen, but the road does not go through yet. Does TxDOT know something we don’t?

Ryko, the developer associated with the Pacific Indio land has announced its intentions to build the connecting road and 7,000 lots.

Subsidiaries Formed

Another company, Skymark, also has considerable floodplain holdings in Montgomery County under a variety of corporate shells, such as Hannover Estates, Headway Estates and the CFW Family Limited Partnership. The Secretary of State SOS Direct database shows that Skymark principal Clinton F. Wong controls 231 companies including Townsen Holdings and Townsen Landing.

From Texas SOS Direct. Note notation in lower right. This is page 7 of 24 containing a total of 231 companies.

The Montgomery County Appraisal District website shows that many of Wong’s holdings border Pacific Indio’s. And Skymark owns most of the land south of Spring Creek where the bridge would be built. See more below.

References in Intercontinental MUD Minutes

June 2022 minutes of the Intercontinental MUD board meeting reference Townsen Mitigation, one of Pacific Indio’s subsidiaries.

The minutes also reference a settlement between the EPA and Skymark.

Purchase Offer Reportedly Turned Down

Harris County Flood Control reportedly offered to buy this land several years ago, but Ryko wanted “an insane amount of money.” This could have been an indication that the owner felt confident in its ability to develop the land and profit from it.

…But Project Would be Very Difficult to Develop

FEMA shows large floodways and floodplains on both sides of the creek that any road would have to go over or through. Keep in mind that the map below does not yet show the new Post-Harvey flood hazards. They will reportedly expand by 50- to 100%.

From FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Note: the image shows Pre-Harvey flood hazards. Post-Harvey maps have not yet been released, but should be soon.

Permit plans also show at least 9 other stream crossings along the way north. Those would expand, too, with the new floodplain maps.

Finally, the project would cross numerous wetlands.

Wetlands on Pacific Indio Property near the confluence of three major waterways: West Fork San Jacinto, Spring Creek, Cypress Creek. From from National Wetlands Inventory,

Legal History

The Bender Estate, which previously owned approximately 800 acres of undeveloped land in the northwest quadrant of Humble, granted a Right-Of-Way easement to Ryko Development to construct a road that would ultimately cross Spring Creek and service the planned development between Spring Creek and 99 on the Pacific-Indio Property.  

Skymark Development later purchased those 800 acres from the Bender Estate and started to develop them.

According to Jason Stuebe, Humble City Manager, after Humble began to re-construct Townsen, Ryko presented the easement to Humble and stated they intended to connect into Townsen Blvd.

This caused consternation as it didn’t fit with the city’s plans for reconstructing Townsend. All parties (including Ryko and Skymark) went to court. They reached a settlement sometime in 2018 that gave Ryko two years to begin constructing the roadway. 

EPA Delays Road

However, a cease-and-desist order from the EPA delayed the work; Skymark inappropriately filled in some wetlands elsewhere on its property. Once the EPA recognized that Ryko’s road was not affiliated with the wetlands issue, EPA allowed Ryko to proceed with constructing the road. 

In 2019, Humble City Council approved the plat dedicating the roadway as a public Right-Of-Way once completed. Then COVID delayed the road again. An exception to the settlement was made. Construction has since resumed, albeit slowly. 

New Townsen Landing development
Extension to Townsen Boulevard under construction where it stops at Spring Creek. Photo taken 9/26/2022.

Stuebe stated, “Because the road actually leads out of our jurisdiction, I have no further information on the status of its permitting with either Harris County or the state with regard to crossing Spring Creek. Once the roadway is completed, inspected and approved by the City Engineer and Public Works, it will become a right of way of Humble.”

I suspect that the bridge is more of a dream than a done deal at this point. Despite obstacles, attempts are being made to put all the pieces of the puzzle into place. But high hurdles remain.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/19/22

1908 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.

 

San Jacinto Flood Planning Group Releases Draft Recommendations

The Texas Water Development Board’s Region 6 San Jacinto Flood Planning Group has released the first draft of its recommendations. You can download the full 295-page Volume One document here (executive summary and all chapters). But the vast majority of the document focuses on methodology and research design. For convenience, I’ve extracted Chapter 5, the 35-pages that discuss recommendations, and summarized them below.

The draft recommendations include:

  • Almost $200 million of additional studies, analysis, models and mapping
  • $27.9 billion in projects.

The projects spread throughout the entire watershed. But here, I’ll focus on those in the northern portion of Harris and the southern portion of Montgomery Counties for brevity.

Halls Bayou

The Flood Planning Group recommends five projects in Halls Bayou totaling $99.65 million, all in collaboration with Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD). They include:

  • Channel conveyance Improvements on several tributaries
  • Stormwater detention improvements near Hardy West
  • Stormwater detention and channel conveyance improvements along the main stem.

These projects had a positive 1.46 Benefit/Cost Ratio PLUS additional community benefits hard to quantify. They would remove the floodplain from more than 3,000 structures and benefit more than 9,300 people. See pages 5-14 through 5-16.

White Oak Bayou

The Flood Planning Group recommends five channel improvement and detention basin projects for $120 million along White Oak Bayou. The flood planning group determined a benefit/cost ratio of .80 for these projects, meaning costs exceeded benefits. Regardless, they feel there are many community benefits that cannot be quantified. They include removing flood risk from seven miles of roads. See pages 5-15 through 5/18.

Greens Bayou

Greens Bayou would receive $120 million of improvements (construction costs only). They include projects in Fountainview Sections 1 & 2, Castlewood Sections 3 & 4, North Forest, Mid-Reach Greens, Parkland Estates, and Humble Road Place.

A bypass channel under the railroad that parallels US 59 could reduce upstream water surface elevations during extreme events. And a mitigation basin downstream would absorb any adverse impacts in Parkland Estates and Humble Road Place from the bypass channel.

The BCR for all Greens Bayou improvements equals 2.13, meaning benefits double costs. More than 20,000 individuals and 2,000 structures would benefit. See pages 5-18 through 5-20.

San Jacinto River

The Flood Planning Group recommends numerous projects associated with the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto River and their tributaries. It based these recommendations on the San Jacinto River Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan and a 2018 LiDAR study. See pages 5-21 through 5-31.

Caney Creek

Recommendations include channelizing part of Caney Creek and offsetting that with two dry-dam detention basins: one at FM1097 and the other at SH105. Together, they would store more than 40,000 acre feet of stormwater. That’s enough to hold a foot of stormwater falling across 62.5 square miles! Channelization would occur near the confluence of Caney Creek with the East Fork. That’s near Lake Houston and East End Parks. The projects would remove 42 miles of roadway and 2,422 structures from the 1% annual chance floodplain.

East Fork

A 48-ft tall concrete dam would create a 1.60-mile-long earthen impoundment that captures runoff from Winters Bayou. The dry dam would have five reinforced 10×10 concrete culverts and twin 300′ backup spillways. It would cover almost 2,500 acres and hold 45,000 acre feet of floodwater. That’s enough to hold a foot of stormwater falling over 28.8 square miles.

Lake Creek

Lake Creek would receive some channelization and two dry-dam detention basins holding 37,250 acre feet of storage, enough to hold a foot of stormwater falling over 58 square miles.

Peach Creek

Recommendations also call for partial channelization and two dry-dam detention basins along Peach Creek.

  • The Walker Detention basin would occupy 1,200 acres, hold 36,000 acre feet of stormwater, and cost $200 million.
  • The SH105 Detention basin would occupy 3,000 acres, hold 36,000 acre feet, and cost $400 million.
  • The total 72,000 acre feet of capacity would hold a foot of stormwater falling over 112.5 square miles.
Spring Creek

This project would channelize 15.7 miles of stream at I-45 and through the Woodlands. It would also create two detention basins on Birch and Walnut Creek tributaries to help reduce flood risk downstream. Together, the projects would create more than 35,000 acre feet of floodwater storage capacity, enough to hold a foot of rain falling over 54.8 square miles. The report did not break out the costs.

West Fork

The Flood Planning Group recommends widening and channelizing 5.7 miles of the West Fork near Highway 242. They would create 12,400 acre feet of mitigation storage by widening the river to 750 feet and creating a 2-foot bench above the stream bed. That would involve shaving down the floodplain to 2 feet above the waterline.

Farther downstream, in the Kingwood Area, they would also increase conveyance by widening a 5-mile-long stretch of the West Fork with 3,500-foot wide of benching. This project would require 923 acre-feet of mitigation storage

That would increase total floodwater storage in both locations by 13,423 feet – enough to hold a foot of rain falling across 20.9 square miles.

Is It Enough?

If all these detention basins get built, they could hold a foot of stormwater falling over 337.5 square miles upstream from Kingwood. That’s a lot. In conjunction with other strategies such as dredging and adding more floodgates to the Lake Houston dam, they should help reduce flood risk in the Lake Houston Area … if they aren’t negated elsewhere.

Other portions of the recommendations stress the need for additional strategies. They include but are not limited to:

  • A regional approach to flood mitigation
  • Floodplain preservation
  • Natural solutions
  • Minimum building setbacks
  • More stringent building codes
  • Better drainage regulations
  • Uniform regulations across the watershed
  • Adoption of standards for determining “no adverse impact”

Also note, that these recommendations would take decades to implement and that many would need to be implemented in a specific order. For instance, the State would need to build detention upstream before widening channels downstream. One helps mitigate the other. Without that, you could help people upstream, but hurt people downstream. That flies in the face of HCFCD principles.

To see the locations of all these streams and how much water they conveyed during Harvey, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/8/22

1805 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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

West Fork Still Running Siltier Than Spring Creek

After 3.5 years since Harvey and dozens of helicopter flights up and down the West Fork of the San Jacinto, it never ceases to amaze me. Despite sediment gage readings that say more silt is coming from Spring and Cypress Creeks than the West Fork, the West Fork appears siltier the vast majority of the time.

Misleading Data Used to Kill Meaningful Legislation

Here’s what the West Fork looked like today. Definitely siltier.

West Fork comes down from top of frame, Spring and Cypress Creeks from right. Photo taken 3/3/2021 from near US59 bridge, looking north.

Approximately 20 squares miles of sand mines line the West Fork. Problem is, the one sediment gage on the West Fork is upstream from virtually all of the mines. But most people don’t understand that. And that lack of understanding has allowed the mines to claim for decades that they are not the dominant source of sediment.

I’ve even heard miners testify on multiple occasions in the state legislature to that effect. That’s how they managed to kill best-practices legislation and minimum setbacks in the legislature in 2019.

When Brown & Root, the SJRA, City of Houston, Montgomery County, and Harris County Flood Control all cite the same misleading statistics, what’s an ordinary citizen to do?

Only a Sediment Gage Below Sand Mines Will Tell Whether This is Serious

To be fair, the engineers and hydrologists point out that the silt you see above and below may float out into Galveston Bay.

But I would also point out that:

  • The giant sand bar above didn’t exist before Harvey.
  • Neither did the multiple sand bars blocking the West Fork up to 90% (according to the Army Corps) after Harvey.
  • A misrepresentative gage placement, no matter how many times you repeat the sample in different studies, will always yield the same sampling error.
  • Most sediment moves during floods and far more sand is exposed to floodwater on the West Fork.

Finally, I would point out that the dikes of sand mines routinely breach and many mines routinely pump sediment laden water into the West Fork.

The point is: we will never really know what’s going on here until we get a gage downstream from the sand mines.

Photos of same location taken from different angles in previous months. In each case, the West Fork is siltier.

Time Of Essence

When I pointed out the data error caused by a misrepresentative gage location, the partners in the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Study promised to re-evaluate claims they made based on the gage. The originally found, as did Brown & Root, that the vast majority of the sediment is coming from Spring and Cypress Creeks – based on the gage upstream of the sand mines. They also promised to consider installing a new gage downstream from the mines. But nothing has happened yet. And we’re already well into this legislative session.

Until changes are actually made to the study and a new gage is added, I fear the same miners may again repeat the same self-serving and misleading statistics in the legislature. That’s how they have killed bills that could help clean up our water more than once.

We’re now into the third month of the legislative session. And until the San Jacinto Master Drainage Plan consultants modify their findings, we’re all at risk. People will likely reference that study for another two decades, just as they have referenced Brown & Root’s. So this is important. Tick tock.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/3/2021

1282 Days since Hurricane Harvey

West Fork or Spring Creek: Which Contributes More Sediment to Lake Houston?

As the Lake Houston Area grapples with dredging, sedimentation surveys, sand trap studies and more, it’s important to understand where sediment comes from.

Month after month, I fly up and down the West Fork of the San Jacinto. More often than not, the confluence of Spring Creek and the West Fork (just west of I-69) looks like this.

West Fork (top) shows much more silt despite more flow coming from Spring Creek (left).

What Spring Creek Looked Like on Same Day

On this day (Friday, September 11), we took off from Intercontinental Airport and flew north over Spring Creek. Spring Creek looked like this.

Spring Creek north of Intercontinental Airport. Note how you can see the sandy bottom.

The difference in the water clarity is readily apparent. Yet in the 2000 Brown & Root study the authors said that Cypress and Spring Creeks contributed far more sediment. See Page 14. Sand miners, still quote and re-quote that study every chance they get.

What Accounts for Difference

So what accounts for the difference between the study and current visual observations? Mainly:

  • Upstream development
  • Sand mining
  • Storms that fall over one watershed, but not the other, on any given day

Twenty years after the Brown & Root study:

  • The heaviest development has shifted north into the West Fork watershed
  • Sand mining has expanded exponentially on the West Fork
  • Storms continue to fall over one or both watersheds.

Brown & Root’s findings on this one narrow issue (source of sediment) no longer reflect current conditions and visual observations.

Twenty square miles of sand mines between I-45 and I-69 have widened the West Fork tremendously since then, exposing far more sediment to floodwater. Worse, the mines’ dikes often breach, allowing millions of gallons of sediment to flow downstream. Even worse yet, the mines often pump water over the side of their dikes into the river or surrounding streams and forests.

The result is what you see above. Upstream from the sand mines, water flowed clearly on the West Fork, as it did on Spring Creek. Downstream, the West Fork looked like a sewer. The pictures below show some of the reasons.

Unless, otherwise noted, all the photos below were taken on 9/11/2020.

LMI River Bend mine. Not recent repair of breach and drainage ditch filled with silty water.
Same ditch goes under mine entrance. From there, the silty water goes into woods and then the West Fork.
At the LMI Moorehead mine, I spotted this pump.
At the same mine, this pipe and what looks like a fire hose send silty water into surrounding wetlands when the level in the pond at the right gets high enough.
One of the places where silty water enters the river.
Zooming out, you can see the source in the background.
Another mine where silty water leaks out of pits
The water collects in the woods and eventually flows into the West Fork.

The Result

This is the end result. The West Fork (top) is far more silty than flow from Spring and Cypress Creeks (left).

A Sampling of Previous Flyovers

West Fork (right), Spring Creek (left). Photo taken on 10/2/19.
West Fork (right), Spring Creek (left). November 4, 2019
West Fork (right), Spring Creek (Left). February 13, 2020
West Fork (top), Spring Creek (left). March 6, 2020.

I’m sure that when Brown & Root did its survey twenty years ago that Spring and Cypress Creeks contributed more sediment to Lake Houston. Today, however, I believe the West Fork contributes more.

It’s important to get this right if the community is to develop strategies that reduce the long term rate of sedimentation and save dredging dollars.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/18/2020

1116 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.

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

City Applies for TWDB Grants to Turn Woodridge Village Into Detention Basin and More

Correction on 7/4/2020: The article below was based on a City of Houston District E newsletter. It inferred that the City “applied for” five grants (in bullet points below). Other entities, such as the SJRA, applied for those. Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin personally supports them.

The City of Houston has submitted several applications to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for Flood Infrastructure Fund dollars. Among the projects was one for Taylor Gully Flood Damage Reduction. It consists of evaluating flood reduction alternatives plus design, permitting, and construction of a detention basin located on a 278 acre site to the north of the Elm Grove subdivision.

Looking SW at Woodridge Village as of 6/16/2020

Woodridge Project One of Six Apps

Other applications include:

  • San Jacinto River Sand Trap Development
  • Spring Creek Watershed Flood Control Dams Conceptual Engineering
  • Upper San Jacinto River Basin Regional Sedimentation Study
  • Lake Conroe-Lake Houston Joint Reservoir Operations Study
  • Harris County MUD #153 Siltation Reduction

“All of these projects submitted for funding promote regional resiliency and future sustainability in an effort to protect life and property from future flooding,” said Mayor Pro Tem and District E City Council Member Dave Martin. “The ability to submit these projects to the TWDB for funding would not be possible without State Senator Brandon Creighton’s writing of Senate Bill 7. We continue to applaud the Senator for his forward thinking and hope to receive funding for these projects. State Representative Dan Huberty has also been a vocal proponent for resiliency within our area and just beyond the City boundary. We are thankful to have him as a local engaged leader.”

Looking NW from US59 (foreground) over San Jacinto West Fork at the confluence of Spring Creek (left) and the West Fork (right). Spring Creek splits off to left. Its watershed contains several natural areas that might make candidates for flood control dams.

Neither Martin, nor his office, provided additional details on any of the grant applications.

However, from the wording of the release, it sounds as though state leaders are fully aligned and engaged to support the projects.

Woodridge Village Project Has Long History

The grants, if approved, could help reduce flooding throughout the Lake Houston Area.

The Taylor Gully/Woodridge Village project is the most urgent. Homes around the troubled development flooded twice last year. At a Kingwood Townhall meeting in February, Martin said the County should pay for 100% of that project. But then the County demanded that the City should pay for half of the purchase price of the land. And at the next Commissioners’ Court meeting, Commissioner Ellis changed the deal again. He demanded that the City pay for half of the construction costs also.

Both the City and County have been silent on any deal since then. The County refused a Freedom of Information Act request to release the text of the motion, which was approved in a public meeting. They even protested release of the information to the State Attorney General.

Putting Application in Historical Context

The following is speculation, but speculation based on the historical context. It appears that when County Commissioners voted to demand that the City come up with half the the purchase AND construction costs, the City found it hard. The grant application, if successful, is a way for the City to help the people of Elm Grove, who flooded twice last year after Perry Homes cleared 268 acres of adjacent land.

At the time of the floods, less than 25% of the planned detention pond capacity was in place. Perry has since developed additional detention ponds that provide the other 75%.

However, even that probably won’t be enough to absorb a 100-year rain. That’s because Perry Homes rushed to have the project approved before NOAA’s new Atlas-14 precipitation frequency tables went into effect. The new Atlas-14 standard would require about 40% more detention capacity. And that’s what the purchase is all about.

Rumor has it that political forces are aligned to accelerate this particular request.

Observations on Other Grant Applications

Of the other applications, two surprise me.

A joint reservoir operations study seems necessary. Currently, FEMA is funding a preliminary engineering study to add additional gates to the Lake Houston Spillway. If FEMA also approved the money for construction of the gates, they will be a game changer.

The Spring Creek Watershed flood control dams would provide additional upstream detention. Community leaders identified that as a high priority after Harvey. They would reduce the amount of water coming downstream during a flood.

Harris County MUD #153 contains Lake Houston shoreline where silt from Rogers Gully has accumulated. Earlier this year, Harris County Flood Control cleared a large part of the Gully, but the part owned by the City remains clogged with a mouth bar.

Sand bar blocking mouth of Rogers Gully has backed up water and contributed to flooding. Photo taken 6/16/2020.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/3/2020

1039 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Weekly Watch List: Perry, Romerica, Holley, Ryko

Those concerned about flooding in the Lake Houston Area should keep four potential developments on their watch lists. Here’s a brief update on each.

Perry Homes Woodridge Village

It’s back on the Harris County Commissioner’s Court Agenda again this week. Commissioners will discuss possible purchase of the 268 acres for a regional flood detention facility during an executive (closed) session on Tuesday.

Construction activity Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village north of Elm Grove Village.

At the last meeting, Commissioners deferred action while staff investigated: A) whether the City of Houston would donate land to the Harris County Flood Control District to help defray the cost of several flood mitigation projects, and B) whether Montgomery County would adopt Atlas-14 rainfall statistics and close a loophole in its drainage regulations that allowed developers to avoid building detention ponds. Commissioners also discussed harmonizing City of Houston and Harris County flood plain regulations.

Perry’s original deadline for a County purchase was April 1, 2020. The company subsequently extended the deadline to May 15 to give the County time to explore the requests. Meanwhile Perry resumed and accelerated construction activity on the site. I counted 32 pieces of earthmoving equipment on my April 21st flyover. Since then, spotters have reported the arrival of additional equipment.

Woodridge Village contributed to Elm Grove flooding twice last year. According to Perry, a regional flood detention facility would reduce flood risk for approximately 800 homes.

The offer to sell while construction activity accelerates has many observers scratching their heads.

Precinct Four Commissioner Jack Cagle says he is “cautiously optimistic” that the sale will go through.

Romerica is Baaaa-aaaack

Last year, after the Army Corps withdrew Romerica’s application to develop 5,000 condos and 50-story high-rises in the floodplain of the San Jacinto, the company swore it would retool its application. Shortly after that, they fell off the radar. Romerica took down its many websites and its spokespeople did not return phone calls, but the company never sold the land.

Looking northwest across Romerica land. River Grove soccer fields are in upper left and Barrington is in upper right. San Jacinto West Fork in foreground. Harvey deposited the sand in the foreground which killed many trees.

Now, under the cover of Corona Virus, “they’re baaaa-aaaack.” But with a different name. Instead of The Heron’s Kingwood, they now call the development Orchard Seeded Ranches. I was reviewing the City of Houston’s PlatTracker website and noticed this item pop up on 4/20/2020.

Orchard Seeded Ranches2020-067604/20/2020General plan A-ConsentHarrisCityE;H4336H25100077339Humble ISD   KINGWOOD AREA3WOODLAND HILLS; HAMBLEN; KINGWOODGeneral Plan361.679600410470000014,0410470000028,0410470000143,0410470000144,0410470000145,0410470000161,0410470004001,0410470004007,0410470004012,0410470004016,0410470004017,0451270000001,0451270000005,0451270000006,0451270000012,0451270000018,0451270000026,0451270000029,045EIC SurveyingE.I.C. Surveying CompanyEmil Haddad281-955-2772Orchard Seeded Ranches

The location, Council district, acreage, street intersections, and applicant name all fit the previous application. Instead of Gregory Haddad, however, this time, it’s Emil Haddad.

The development name is a bit odd. But then, development names rarely have anything to do with reality. Look at Houston’s Heights. And what, after all, did the Heron’s have to do with 50-story high rises?

“Orchard Seeded Ranches” is in the very preliminary phases. Until we see a plat and construction drawings, we can’t know exactly what they plan. It could be 1200-square-foot gerbil ranches. Or it could be Times Square in the Floodway again.

The company does not yet have a web site up. Nor has the Army Corps/Galveston issued a Public Notice associated with a permit application. Kingwood residents should follow this one closely.

Anyone civic-minded groups want to make them an offer on the land? It really should remain wetlands and be dedicated to park land or forest that protects Kingwood from future flooding.

Forest Cove Golf Course and Ron Holley

Earlier this month, Lake Houston Area developer Ron Holley appeared on KPRC to discuss the re-development of the Kingwood Cove Golf Course in Forest Cove. Holley was in the process of revising his engineering plans to address neighbors concerns about flooding when I interviewed him. A Freedom of Information Act request to the City of Houston revealed that he had not yet filed any plans for the subdivision. PlatTracker confirms that. Holley’s name does not appear anywhere in the current six pages of new developments at various stages.

Regardless, Holley has a formidable record as a developer. You may remember that he successfully challenged the City over building in the floodway of the West Fork, before he sold his land east of River Grove Park to Romerica.

Ryko Between Spring Creek and West Fork

One of the largest undeveloped tracts of land remaining in the Lake Houston area lies northwest of the confluence of Spring Creek and the West Fork near US59. Wetlands cover much of the area. But it’s in Montgomery County. And you know what that means. No detention ponds may be required.

Looking southeast across Ryko land toward the US59 Bridge in background (center).

Pacific Indio Properties, Inc., a sister company of Ryko Development, owns more than 7,400 acres in the triangle below. To put that in perspective, that’s exactly half the size of Kingwood.

National Wetlands Inventory shows the site to be pockmarked with wetlands.

A Community Impact article from 2016 (before Harvey) says Ryko planned to build 7,000 homes in this area. Community Impact said at the time that the project had no timeline. Things may have changed since then, especially after Hurricane Harvey inundated the area.

A drainage analysis, soil survey, and environmental study usually come before plan submittal. And the Montgomery County Engineers office says no plans, studies, or surveys have yet been submitted for the property, though one source in Montgomery County believes the developer has had preliminary discussions with the county.

FEMA’s Flood Hazard Layer Viewer shows that virtually all of the land is in floodway or floodplain.

Ryko property lies in the floodways of both the West Fork and Spring Creek. Cross-hatched equals floodway, Aqua = 100 year floodplain, and Brown = 500 year floodplain.

Note that the floodplain map above is pre-Harvey. New floodplain maps using Atlas-14 data are likely to show an even grimmer picture when they become available in a year or two.

If the developer puts high-density homes on this property with no detention, people downstream can break out their scuba gear. All the more reason for The City of Houston, Harris County and Montgomery County to synchronize their flood plain regs.

That’s the roundup for my first weekly watch list. I hope this becomes a regular weekly feature. More news to follow the commissioner’s court meeting on Tuesday.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/25/2020

970 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 Peak Flow Map from Imelda Shows 1500X Difference Between East/West Sides of Watershed

Here’s a science lesson for the entire family. The SJRA’s peak streamflow and rainfall map for Imelda demonstrated how rain can fall heavily over one part of a watershed and barely touch another. There are huge implications for flooding.

For a high resolution PDF suitable for printing, click here.

Peak Streamflows West to East Vary by 1500X

Note how the gage at Spring Creek in Tomball recorded a peak flow of 22.7 cubic feet per second. The East Fork gage in New Caney registered 34,600 cubic feet per second. That’s a difference of more than 1500X in the peak flow rates!

Rainfall Totals Range from 0 to 30 Inches in 24 miles

The blue figures represent precipitation. That same gage in Tomball recorded none. But a little further east, they picked up more than 5 inches; almost 10 at I-45; more than 15 at I-69, and almost 30 in New Caney.

This is why you need to look at gages upstream on YOUR tributary when flooding is possible! Someday, textbooks will use this map to dramatize that lesson.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/5/2019

798 days since Hurricane Harvey and 47 since Imelda