The 2023 legislature scorecard, just five years after Hurricane Harvey, shows that flooding is fast becoming forgotten in Texas. Of the seven issues I tracked, the Lake Houston Area had two wins, four losses, and one that could be ruled a coin toss depending on your point of view.
Due to last minute heroics, HB 1 contained enough money earmarked for more gates to keep the project alive. A last minute phone-call campaign by hundreds of citizens making thousands of phone calls to key state legislators in the House and Senate succeeded in getting riders attached to the budget bill.
Few projects have inspired more hope among residents in the northeastern part of Harris County than the one to add more floodgates to the Lake Houston Dam. The Lake Houston Area Flood Task Force identified the project as one of the top priorities for the area.
The idea: to release water both earlier and faster in advance of major storms to create more storage in Lake Houston. Right now, Lake Conroe can release water 15 times faster than Lake Houston. And the release from Lake Conroe during Harvey was widely seen as one of the contributing factors to the flooding of so many homes and businesses in the Lake Houston Area.
The governor signed HB 1 on 6/18/23. It becomes effective on 9/1/23. With funding secured, Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin says final design on the gates is proceeding.
The TCEQ was under sunset review this year. No one proposed eliminating the TCEQ. But many people had ideas to improve it. They focused on two main areas: increasing transparency and improving enforcement.
The Sunset Commission recommended measures to improve public outreach, public notices, community input, and dissemination of public information, including the publication of best practices for sand mining.
The Commission also recommended updating the TCEQ’s enforcement practices to better focus on the riskiest actors and ensure staff treat potential violations consistently and based on severity.
These companion bills would have transformed the Harris County Flood Control District into the Gulf Coast Resiliency District. The new District would have been governed by a board appointed by the Governor instead of management hired by Harris County Commissioners.
The idea: to create regional solutions that benefitted all residents of Harris County, not just those that scored high on an equity formula.
The County fought the bill(s) tooth and nail. Each failed to get out of committee.
The bill died in the House Natural Resources committee. It never even got a public hearing.
This bill would have required sand mining companies to post financial surety that would guarantee cleanup of mines before they were abandoned. Abandoned mines on both the San Jacinto East and West Forks are littered with the remains of once thriving operations. But when the sand played out, the miners walked away, leaving a legacy of blight for the public to clean up.
Abandoned dredge in mine on North Houston Ave. in Humble.Property is unfenced so kids can play on equipment.
HB5341: Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District
This bill also died in the House Natural Resources committee. House Bill 5341 would have created a Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District. Its purpose would be to remove sediment, debris, sand, and gravel from Lake Houston and its tributaries to restore, maintain, and expand the Lake to mitigate storm flows.
This bill died in the Senate Finance committee. Senate Bill 1366 would have redirected surplus revenue from the economic stabilization fund to the Flood Infrastructure Fund. The State’s Flood Infrastructure Fund (FIF) has turned into one of the main sources of funding for Texas Water Development Board grants and one of the main ways that smaller counties and cities can fund flood projects.
HB 1540 passed. The bill implements reforms recommended by the Sunset Review Committee for the the San Jacinto River Authority. Many of those are good and needed reforms. They include provisions governing:
Gubernatorial designation of the presiding officer of SJRA’s board of directors;
Specific grounds for removal of a board member;
Board member training;
Separation of the board’s policy-making responsibilities and the staff’s managementresponsibilities;
Maintenance of complaint information; and
Public testimony at board meetings.
Approval should have been a rubber stamp. But at the last minute, Rep. Will Metcalf from Conroe offered an amendment that effectively fired Jace Houston, SJRA’s general manager and leader of the SJRA’s fight to reduce subsidence. The amended bill passed the Senate. Houston resigned effective 6/30/23. And now the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District has no one to challenge unlimited groundwater pumping in Montgomery County.
Some in the Lake Houston Area who flooded during Harvey may rejoice at Houston’s departure. But differential subsidence is tilting Lake Houston upstream. It could make the Lake Houston Dam two feet higher relative to areas upstream near the county line. That could eliminate the safety margin above the floodplain for many homes in the next big flood.
Modeling shows 3 feet of subsidence near Harris/Montgomery county line, but only one foot at Lake Houston Dam.
As someone who had floodwater lapping at his foundation, I personally would put this one in the loss column.
The governor signed the bill on 6/18/23. It goes into effect on 9/1/2023.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/2/23
2133 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.
Tomorrow is the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Harvey. Many in the Lake Houston Area have asked, “Are we safer now?” The answer is yes, but we have a long way to go to achieve all our goals. Here’s a five-year flood-mitigation report card. It describes what we have and haven’t accomplished in 29 areas. So get ready for a roller coaster ride. I’ll leave the letter grades to you.
Lake Houston Area Mitigation
1) Dredging
The most visible accomplishment in the Lake Houston Area since Harvey is dredging. The City and Army Corps removed approximately 4 million cubic yards of sediment blocking the West and East Forks. Before dredging, River Grove Park flooded six times in two months. Since dredging, it hasn’t flooded once to my knowledge.
West Fork mouth bar after Harvey and before dredging. Now gone, but not forgotten.
Potential location for new tainter gates east of the spillway portion of the dam (out of frame to the right.
3) Upstream Detention
To reduce the amount of water coming inbound during storms, the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Study identified 16 potential areas for building large stormwater detention basins. Unfortunately, they had a combined cost of $3.3 billion and would only reduce damages by about a quarter of that.
So, the SJRA recommended additional study on the two with the highest Benefit/Cost Ratio. Their hope: to reduce costs further. The two are on Birch and Walnut Creeks, two tributaries of Spring Creek near Waller County. Expect a draft report in February next year.
Funding these would likely require State assistance. But the Texas Water Development Board’s San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group has just recently submitted its first draft report. The draft also recommended looking at detention basin projects on West Fork/Lake Creek, East Fork/Winters Bayou, and East Fork/Peach Creek.
Building them all could hold back a foot of stormwater falling across 337 square miles. But funds would still need to be approved over several years. We’re still a long way off. Results – on the ground – could take years if not decades.
4) “Benching”
The Regional Flood Planning Group also recommended something called “benching” in two places along 5 miles of the West Fork. In flood mitigation, benching entails shaving down a floodplain to create extra floodwater storage capacity. Like the detention basins, benching is still a long way off…if it happens at all.
5) West Fork Channel Widening
Finally, the Regional Flood Planning Group recommended widening 5.7 miles of the West Fork to create more conveyance. But again, at this point it’s just a recommendation in a draft plan.
San Jacinto River Authority
6) SJRA Board Composition
After Harvey, many downstream residents accused SJRA of flooding downstream areas to save homes around Lake Conroe. At the time, SJRA’s board had no residents from the Humble/Kingwood Area. So Governor Abbott appointed two: Kaaren Cambio and Mark Micheletti. Cambio later resigned due to a potential conflict of interest when she took a job with Congressman Dan Crenshaw. That leaves Micheletti as the lone Humble/Kingwood Area resident on a seven-person board. However, the SJRA points out that the Board’s current president, Ronnie Anderson, represents Chambers County, which is also downstream.
State Representative Will Metcalf, who represents the Lake Conroe area, introduced a bill to limit SJRA board membership to upstream residents. Luckily for downstream residents, it failed.
7) Lake Conroe Lowering
SJRA identified temporary, seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe as a strategy to reduce downstream flood risk until completion of dredging and gates projects in the Lake Houston Area. The lowering creates extra storage in the lake during peak rainy seasons. After SJRA implemented the plan, Lake Conroe residents objected to the inconvenience. They sued SJRA and the City, but lost. After discussion with all stakeholders, the SJRA quietly modified its plan. It still lowers the lake, but not as much.
8) Lowering Lake Houston
Houston also started lowering Lake Houston, not seasonally, but in advance of major storms. The City has lowered the lake more than 20 times since beginning the program. That has helped to avoid much potential flooding to date.
9) Lake Conroe Dam Management
SJRA applied for and received several TWDB grants to enhance flood mitigation and communications in the San Jacinto River Basin. One involves developing a Lake Conroe Reservoir Forecasting Tool. SJRA has also worked with San Jacinto County to develop a Flood Early Warning System.
Finally, SJRA’s Lake Conroe/Lake Houston Joint Reservoir Operations Plan is on hold pending completion of the City’s plan to add more gates to the Lake Houston dam. Such projects may help reduce the risk of releasing unnecessarily large volumes of water in the future.
However, the location is controversial. Geologists say it wouldn’t reduce sediment in the area of greatest damage. Environmentalists worry that it could increase sedimentation through a “hungry-water” effect and open the door to river mining. And I worry that, even if successful, the pilot study would not be extendable. That’s because it relies on partnerships with sand miners. And other tributaries to Lake Houston do not have sand mines or as many sand mines.
Sand bar blocking West Fork after Harvey. The Corps has since removed it.
Federal Funding
It’s hard to get good grades on your flood mitigation report card without funding.
$1.6 million for HCFCD for Taylor Gully stormwater channel improvement.
$1.6 million for HCFCD for Kingwood Diversion Channel improvement.
$1.67 million for Harris County for the Forest Manor drainage improvement project in Huffman.
$8.2 million from FEMA the Westador Basin stormwater detention project on Cypress Creek.
$9.9 million from FEMA for the TC Jester storm water detention basin on Cypress Creek.
Crenshaw also has backed community requests for more funding in Fiscal 23. They include:
$8 million for the Lake Houston Dam Spillway (Gates).
$10 million for the Woodridge Stormwater Detention Basin (see below).
$10 million for a Cedar Bayou Stormwater Detention Basin.
Harris County Flood Control
19) Channel Maintenance and Repair
Harris County Flood Control has already completed several maintenance projects in the Lake Houston Area. In Kingwood, those projects include Taylor Gully, Ben’s Branch, parts of the Diversion Ditch and other unnamed ditches. In Atascocita, HCFCD also completed a project on Rogers Gully. Upstream, HCFCD is working on the third round of repairs to Cypress Creek. Batch 3 includes work at 12 sites on 11 channel sections. I’m sure the District has maintenance projects in other areas, too. I just can’t name them all.
Bens Branch near Kingwood High School after sediment removal.
In 2019, uncontrolled stormwater from the Woodridge Village development twice flooded approximately 600 homes in Elm Grove Village and North Kingwood Forest. HCFCD and the City purchased Woodridge from Perry Homes last year. HCFCD soon thereafter started removing sediment from the site to create a sixth stormwater detention basin that would more than double capacity on the site. At the end of last month, contractors had removed approximately 50,000 cubic yards out of 500,000 in the contract. This gives HCFCD a head start on excavation while engineers complete the basin’s final design.
21) Local Drainage Study Implementation
HCFCD authorized four studies of the drainage needs in the Lake Houston Area. They completed the Huffman and Kingwood studies. Atascocita and East Lake Houston/Crosby started earlier this year and are still underway.
The Kingwood study measured levels of service in all channels and outlined strategies to improve them to the 100-year level. The first two projects recommended: Taylor Gully and the Kingwood Diversion Ditch. Neither has started construction yet. But see the notes under funding above.
The Huffman Study recommended improvements to FM2100, which TxDOT will handle. It also recommended dredging in the East Fork near Luce Bayou which the City has completed. Finally, it recommended a bypass channel for Luce. However, pushback from residents forced cancellation of that project.
22) Buyouts
HCFCD completed buyouts of 80+ townhomes on Timberline and Marina Drives in Forest Cove last month. Contractors demolished the final run-down complex in August. That should improve property values in Forest Cove.
Completion of demolition of one of the last Forest Cove Townhome Complexes in July 2022.
23) Regulation Harmonization
Harris County Flood Control and Engineering have been working to get municipalities and other counties throughout the region to adopt certain minimum drainage regulations. I discussed the importance of uniformly high standards in last night’s post. So far, about a third of the governments have upgraded their regs. A third are still deciding whether to act. And the remainder have taken no action. There has been little movement in the last six months.
City of Houston
As mentioned above, the City has taken a lead role in dredging, adding gates to Lake Houston, and proactive lake lowering. In addition, the City has helped with:
24) Bridge Underpass Clean-Out
The City of Houston successfully cleaned out ditches under Kingwood Drive and North Park Drive in at least six places. Bridges represent a major choke point during floods. So eliminating sediment buildups helps reduce flood risk in areas that previously flooded.
Excavation of Bens Branch under Kingwood Drive by City crews.
The lowest score on the flood-mitigation report card probably goes to LSGCD.
26) Subsidence
The Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District has started pumping groundwater again at an alarming rate. Projected subsidence near the Montgomery County Border equals 3.25 feet, but only 1 foot at the Lake Houston dam. That could eventually tilt the lake back toward the Humble/Kingwood/Huffman area and reduce the margin of safety in flooding. That’s bad news.
Sand Mining Regulations
Twenty square miles of West Fork sand mines immediately upstream from I-69 have exposed a swath of floodplain once covered by trees to heavy erosion during floods. Mathematically, the potential for erosion increased 33X compared to the normal width of the river. Sand mines were also frequently observed releasing sediment into the river. And the dikes around the mines often wash out.
So in 2019, the Lake Houston Area Grassroots Flood Prevention Initiative (LHAGFPI) began meeting with legislators, regulators and the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association (TACA). The goal: to establish comprehensive Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the sand mining industry in the San Jacinto River Basin.
27) Mine Plan/Stabilization Reports Now Required
TCEQ adopted new regulations, effective January 6, 2022. They required miners to file a ‘Mine Plan’ by July 6, 2022 and also a ‘Final Stabilization Report’ when a mine is played out.
28) Vegetated Buffer Zones (Setbacks)
The new regs also stipulate undisturbed vegetative buffer zones around new mines. Buffer zones aid in sediment filtration and removal by slowing surface water. They also strengthen dikes.
The new regs require a minimum 100-foot vegetated buffer zone adjacent to perennial streams greater than 20 feet in width. However, for streams less than 20 feet wide, the buffer zone is only 50 feet for perennial streams, and 35 feet for intermittent streams.
29) Reclamation Bonds
Unfortunately, the Flood Prevention Initiative could not convince TCEQ to require ‘reclamation bonds.’ Other states use such bonds to prevent miners from abandoning mines without taking steps to reduce future erosion, such as planting vegetation.
My apologies to any projects or parties I omitted. Now it’s your turn. Give grades to those you think have done the best job on YOUR Harvey flood-mitigation report card.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/26/22
1823 Days since Hurricane Harvey and one day from Harvey’s Fifth Anniversary
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/20210416-DJI_0406.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2022-08-26 22:09:382022-08-27 12:10:28Harvey: A 5-Year Flood-Mitigation Report Card
A TCEQ investigation found nothing wrong with construction practices at the Preserve at Woodridge despite photographic evidence.
On April 23, 2022, I received multiple complaints about silty stormwater in Bens Branch. I confirmed discoloration in the water and followed it upstream. The source appeared to be the Preserve at Woodridge on Woodridge Parkway opposite the new St. Martha church. Photos confirmed that contractors were:
Pumping the contents of their silty detention pond into a tributary of Bens Branch.
Piling dirt on neighboring property.
Not using silt fence along their southern boundary.
Not posting permits.
I then filed a complaint with the TCEQ. They investigated on June 21, 2022, almost two months later. And found nothing wrong.
Today, August 3, 2022, I received this letter confirming they found nothing wrong.
My complaint was based on these photos (among others).
Stormwater discharge into Bens Branch from Preserve at Woodridge Forest.Note pile of sediment in front of hose (bottom center).Silty stormwater had migrated more than two miles down Bens Branch past Tree Lane.
I guess there was nothing wrong. Message received, TCEQ.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/3/2022
1800 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/20220420-DJI_0262.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2022-08-03 10:34:262022-08-03 10:45:27TCEQ Finds Nothing Wrong With Preserve At Woodridge Construction
Despite multiple reprimands from the TCEQ and a lawsuit by the Texas Attorney General, the Triple PG mine apparently continues to discharge process wastewater onto neighboring properties. Photos taken on 5/4/22 show those neighboring properties under water despite unusually dry weather and record heat recently. Those same properties were not flooded just days after Tropical Storm Imelda, which dumped more than 25 inches of rain on the area.
Let’s first look at the location of the neighboring properties. Triple PG owns most of the property west of the mine with one notable exception – a strip of 20 properties isolated near the mine’s stockpile. See the map from the Montgomery County Appraisal District below.
Properties in question are inside the red oval.MCAD shows that Guniganti sold the Royal Pines land to TC LB ROYAL PINES LP on 12/9/21.
Dr. Prabhakar R. Guniganti, who owns the mine, didn’t seem to get the message. And pictures taken two days ago suggest he still doesn’t – despite the threat of a million dollar fine.
Compare Before/After Aerial Images
The image below, taken before discharges into this area started, shows the neighboring properties in question. They are the strip of trees between the foreground and background. Note how the land is not flooded, despite the fact that I took this picture just days after Tropical Storm Imelda, which dumped more than 25 inches of rain on this area. Also note the dense forest canopy.
Looking south toward stockpile in background. Properties in the forested strip do not belong to Guniganti. I took this picture on 9/27/2019, ten days after Imelda. Reverse shot looking N from over stockpile. Taken in March 2020. Other shots taken in this series show water on neighbors’ property higher than inside the mine.
Now, fast forward two years. Aerial pictures below taken on 5/4/22 show the same property – under water – despite only 4 inches of rain in the last month!
The new images also show most of the once-lush vegetation has died. All trees on the neighboring property adjacent to the mine are dead with the exception of one small copse on higher ground. And the water is blackish.
Dead trees on property adjoining Triple PG mineimmediately north of the mine’s stockpilein foreground. 5/4/22.Looking NE.The dead trees on neighbor’s property adjoin the mine’s wastewater pit. 5/4/22.
Hmmmm. Let’s see. Not flooded days after 25 inches of rain during Imelda. Flooded after 4 inches in the last month. Once healthy trees now dead. How curious! I wonder how that works. Judging from the healthy trees in the background, I’m guessing the mine’s wastewater may have had something to do with their demise.
Prabhakar R. Guniganti, as Director of Triple P.G. Sand Development, L.L.C.
Prabhakar R. Guniganti, as sole manager of Guniganti Family Property Holdings, L.L.C.
Guniganti Children’s 1999 Trust.
The AG contends that regardless of which legal entity owns the mine, they all lead back to the same man and they all had an obligation to ensure that process wastewater was not discharged into waters of the State.
During the next big rain, at least some of this will flush down White Oak Creek, which joins Caney Creek and the East Fork San Jacinto. Then, it will enter Lake Houston a little more than 2 miles downstream.
Close up cropped from image above.This used to be high, dry and covered with green. Compare with first image at top of post.
Lake Houston supplies drinking water for two million people. I’m not sure what’s in this water. But if it kills trees, it can’t be healthy for humans. It also can’t be healthy for neighboring property values.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/7/2021
1743 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/DJI_0641.jpg?fit=2048%2C1364&ssl=113642048adminadmin2022-06-06 15:59:002022-06-06 16:03:29Triple PG Wastewater Apparently Killing Trees on Neighboring Property
The detention basin at the Laurel Springs RV Resort was supposed to have been a dry-bottom pond. Despite one of the driest springs on record, it’s still holding water. And it’s still leaking into Harris County Precinct 3’s Edgewater Park. Despite:
The leak in question is in the exact place where contractors dug a trench through the south wall of the detention pond. They discharged silt that spread out for hundreds of feet into the wetlands of the park. Then they laid pipes in the trench and covered them up.
But somehow silty, oily stormwater still seems to be escaping into the wetlands from where the pipes were.
5/15/22
Photo taken 5/15/22. Leak in same area where trench and pipes were.Close up cropped from shot above. Note ripples on rushing water.
5/22/22
Same area photographed again on 5/22/22.Close up cropped from 5/22/22shot. Again note running water and oily film on it.
One wonders why the pumps in the approved drains are still not working. See bottom center in photo below.
Wide shot taken from over Laurel Springs Lane on 5/22/22 showing location of approved drain (bottom center) and extent of construction.Forms being laid for next concrete pour. Will there be enough space between RV slots to open doors? Picture taken from over railroad tracks.
Obviously, from all the standing water, they still have a little work left to do on drainage.
Still No Replacement Trees Planted
Photo taken on 5/18/2022 showing swath of trees that contractors cut in county park (left).
The developer also has a lot of work to do replanting trees. Note the wide swath outside the fence in the photo above that stretches for approximately 750 feet. That’s where the contractor destroyed trees in the county park.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/22/2022
1727 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/20220522-DJI_0526-2.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2022-05-22 17:43:332022-05-22 20:13:03RV Resort Still Leaking Stormwater into County Park
Black spots in the detention pond at the Laurel Springs RV resort at 1355 LAUREL SPRINGS LANE near Kingwood contained measurable oil and grease concentrations.
TCEQ’s Second Investigation of Site
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) received multiple complaints about construction practices at the RV Resort going back to January. The first investigation found sediment discharges stretching approximately 450 feet onto neighboring property.
On March 7, 2022, the TCEQ investigated the site again in response to complaints about shiny black pools on the floor of the same detention pond that discharged the silt into the County’s Edgewater Park.
Mysterious black spots in Laurel Springs RV Resort Detention Pond. Photo taken on 3/05/22.
The investigator noticed several pools of water with dark colors. Some pools had a sheen on top and had bubbles. He used a stick to estimate the depth of the pools and determined that they were about a foot deep.
One pool appeared to leaking into the pond’s standing water, however, the site was not discharging water into the San Jacinto at the time of the investigation so no permit violations could be charged.
Another photo on 3/5/22 showed contractors covering up the black spots.The TCEQ investigation took place 3 days later.
TCEQ confirmed the allegation that the black substance was seeping from the ground. However, samples did not have sufficient concentrations to determine their exact origin. The conclusion stated, “Observations on-site did not indicate that the dark substance was petroleum based even though there was a measurable oil and grease concentration.”
A construction worker claimed earlier that the black goo was “decaying mulch.” However, the word mulch appears nowhere in the final TCEQ report.
Timing is Everything
It’s a shame that bulldozers covered the most concentrated pools before TCEQ investigators arrived. The week after the TCEQ investigation, the black substance re-emerged with a vengeance. See below.
Photo taken on 3/14, one week after TCEQ investigation. “They’re baaaa-aaaack.”
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/20220314-DJI_0839.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2022-04-29 19:59:152022-04-29 20:03:32Mysterious Black Spots in RV Resort Detention Pond Contained Oil, Grease
Contractors at the controversial mini rent home development called the Preserve at Woodridge Forest flushed a silt-laden detention pond into a stormwater channel leading to Bens Branch this week. The silty water migrated at least two miles downstream. The pictures below show the trail of silt.
On 4/17/22, Easter Sunday, I photographed a full pond and noticed a pump in the upper right (southeast) corner of the pond.
Looking east over Preserve at Woodridge Forest detention pond on Easter Sunday. Note pump in upper rightand pond level.
Three days later, the pump was still going and the pond was nearly empty.
Pump still working on Wednesday.
The ditch between the Preserve and Kingwood Park High School was filled with identically colored water.
Color of water in ditch matches color of water in pond. Note pile of silt in ditch below pump hose in lower left.Looking north past pump and the near-empty detention pond.Equipment apparently cleared paths for northern end of pond to drain toward pump.
Where did all the silty water go?
Bens Branch south of Northpark Drive.One block downstream,Bens Branch at Woodland Hills Drive.Bens Branch at Tree Laneapproximately 2 miles south of construction site.Resident Chris Bloch followed the pollution even farther downstream.
Fish Story
As I photographed the silty water above going down Bens Branch, two young boys with fishing poles came up to me. They looked at the water in disbelief and then looked at me quizzically. “Do you think it’s safe?” they asked.
“Hard to tell,” I said. “It’s runoff from a construction site upstream.”
They left without even dropping a hook into the water or saying a word. Smart kids.
Dangers of Sediment Pollution
The EPA published this brochure that explains some of the dangers of sediment pollution. Among them, it says, “Sediment in stream beds disrupts the natural food chain by destroying the habitat where the smallest stream organisms live and causing massive declines in fish populations. Sediment increases the cost of treating drinking water and can result in odor and taste problems.” Bens Branch empties straight into Lake Houston, the source of drinking water for 2 million people.
Sediment can also clog streams, reducing their carrying capacity. Harris County Flood Control recently cleaned out Bens Branch in a 4-phase project. According to the Kingwood Area Drainage analysis, it had been reduced to a 2-year level of service in places. That means it would flood on a 2-year rain.
No Permit Posted
For these reasons, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality closely monitors construction sites. But the Preserve at Woodridge did not have a TCEQ Construction General Permit posted at the street. This web page seems to indicate they should have one. See Step 5. It says, “Before starting construction, post a copy of the Site Notice at the construction site. Leave the notice posted until construction is completed.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/23/22, with thanks to Chris Bloch for alerting me to the story
1698 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/20220420-DJI_0262.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2022-04-23 15:11:562022-04-23 18:57:29Silty Detention Pond Flushed into Bens Branch
After an unannounced investigation of the Laurel Springs RV Resort construction site on February 2, 2022, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) issued a Notice of Enforcement (NOE) Letter to the contractor, Higbie Ventures of Texas, Inc. The TCEQ investigation found Higbie:
Failed to maintain Best Management Practices in effective operation condition
Had not maintained the construction site entrance
Did not protect stormwater inlets
Damaged erosion controls
Improperly installed erosion controls
Did not install erosion controls as prescribed in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan along the southern and western perimeters
Let sediment accumulations travel offsite unimpeded onto neighboring property for approximately 158 yards
Trenched the southern berm of its detention pond, letting stormwater escape onto neighboring property, a non-compliant discharge
Violated requirements of their Construction General Permit
Failed to remove sediment accumulations often enough to minimize further negative effect
The investigator felt the non-compliant discharge in late January warranted enforcement action. The TCEQ then issued a Notice of Enforcement Letter (NOE) to “facilitate” compliance.
64-Page Report Brims With Photos Showing Violations
The TCEQ investigator, Kyle Linville, required documentation showing the contractor had remedied all violations by February 7. But on February 14, Linville noted that several violations remained outstanding, including failure to:
Maintain Best Management Practices in effective operating condition
Install sediment controls on the southern boundary of the site
Remove sediment accumulations often enough to minimize further negative effects.
Linville’s observations largely match mine and those of nearby residents who have communicated with me re: issues at the controversial construction site. Strangely, a City of Houston investigation found no problem, triggering two more investigations, but the City has not yet released the results of those.
Contractor Apparently Still Not Fully in Compliance
Since the TCEQ issued its notice of enforcement letter, most but not all of the violations have been corrected. However, Higbie still has not installed silt fencing along the western perimeter. And when I went by there today, trucks had once again turned Laurel Springs Lane into a muddy mess.
Photo taken on 2/2/22 from TCEQ report showing erosion of southern wall of detention pond.Sediment eroded into Edgewater Park for approximately 158 yards.Another photo from TCEQ report.More sediment farther into park.Another photo from TCEQ report.Note lack of silt fencing along western perimeter (right), which had been mentioned in TCEQ complaint dated 2/2/22. Photo taken 3/24/22, six weeks after compliance deadline.
Contractor Claims Re: Unauthorized Discharge
The contractor admitted that he discharged stormwater into Edgewater Park without authorization. However, he claimed that it was necessary to begin installing pumps that would discharge stormwater into the Lakewood Cove Storm Sewer System. The contractor claimed that standing water in the detention pond had infiltrated the soil in the pond wall. That made the pond wall so unstable that heavy equipment could not operate safely on the wall, said the contractor, in his response to the TCEQ.
However, photos taken on the day of the trenching, 1/29/22, show heavy equipment already operating on the wall and the pump housing already partially installed.
Photo taken 1/29/22 shows contractor draining pond as heavy equipment operates elsewhere on pond wall.
On page 54 of the report, the contractor claims he dug the trench on 1/30/22, not 1/29.
He also admits that he placed 8″ pipe in the wall, but claims he removed it “the next day” on “1/31/21.” That would have been 10 months before the site was even cleared. But assuming he meant 1/31/22, the claim doesn’t match what I photographed that day. I photographed the contractor covering up pipe, not removing it. See below.
One photo from a sequence taken on 1/31/2022 that shows contractor pulling dirt into trench and spreading it over pipes.
Is he claiming that he filled in the whole trench only to redig it on the same day and remove the pipe? That would have been amazingly inefficient. However, it would help explain some of the contractor’s failures. In the last 20 years, eight of Higbie’s 13 entities in Texas have gone out of business. He lost six of the eight to tax forfeitures.
Trust But Verify
Mr. Linville produced an excellent and thorough report of his investigation. But I hope he explores some of Higbie’s claims further without just taking Higbie’s word that he complied. As auditors say, “Trust but verify.” Did the contractor really remove the pipe? Did he install invisible silt fence on the western perimeter? Why is Higbie still pumping water out of the pond with portable pumps almost two months after installing the housing for permanent pumps.
We should never forget how excess sedimentation contributed to the flooding of thousands of homes along the West Fork during Harvey.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/26/22
1670 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.
00adminadmin2022-03-26 17:52:282022-03-26 18:02:05TCEQ Issues Notice of Enforcement to Laurel Springs RV Resort
How soon we forget. Hurricane Harvey was just 4.5 years ago. Since then I have documented dozens, if not hundreds of questionable practices that erode margins of flood safety.
It Didn’t Have to Be That Bad
Harvey was the largest rainfall event in the history of North America. However, with better regulations and construction practices, it didn’t have to be as destructive as it was.
Lax regulations;
Willful blindness;
Development and construction practices that pushed the safety envelope;
Relentless destruction of forests and wetlands near rivers and streams;
And homebuyers who didn’t realize their true flood risk…
…made Harvey’s destruction worse than it otherwise would have been.
No one factor by itself would explain Harvey’s destruction. But put them all together, and it’s like “death of a thousand cuts.”
The sheer volume of material – more than 1,000,000 words on this site – makes it difficult for people to see the big picture sometimes. To put 1,000,000 words into perspective, the average novel contains only about 100,000. So I’m condensing the website into a book that includes the themes below.
No One Wins Arguments with Mother Nature
During an interview with Milan Saunders and his daughter Lori, Milan said, “No one wins arguments with Mother Nature.” How profound! It doesn’t matter how many surveys, studies and engineer stamps you have on your home’s title. If you don’t:
Large islands built up during Harvey blocked both drainage ditches and rivers. Below, you can see a large sand island (top) built up at the confluence of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch where it reaches the San Jacinto West Fork at River Grove Park. This sand bar reached 10-12 feet in height above the waterline and helped back water up into Trailwood, the Barrington and Kingwood Lakes and Kings Forest. Before the Army Corps dredged this island, River Grove flooded five times in six months. It hasn’t flooded since.
The Kingwood Diversion Ditch and West Fork San Jacinto were almost totally blocked by sediment dams deposited during Harvey.
The second photo above was taken a few hundred yards downstream on the West Fork from the first. It shows “Sand Island” – so nicknamed by the Army Corps. It took the Corps months to dredge this island which they say had blocked the West Fork by 90%.
A certain amount of this sedimentation can be explained by natural erosion. But mankind also contributed to the sheer volume by other practices which I will discuss below.
Influence of sand mines of West Fork San Jacinto water quality.
End the War on Wetlands
Wetlands are nature’s detention ponds. During storms, they hold water back so it won’t flood people downstream. But we seem to want to eradicate wetlands. The images below show the Colony Ridge development in Liberty County. Wetlands (right) are being cleared (left) to make way for the world’s largest trailer park. The acceleration of runoff wiped out FM1010 during Harvey. The road still has not been repaired.
Colony Ridge in Liberty County.
Conservation Costs Much Less than Mitigation
Halls Bayou at I-69 near Fiesta. Image on left shows whole subdivisions that that to be bought out before detention ponds on right could be built.
Respecting Individuals’ Property Rights While Protecting Others’
In Texas, it sometimes feels that an individual’s right to do what he/she wants with property trumps others’ rights NOT to flood. You may think you’re protected by all those public servants reviewing and approving plans. But what happens when developers and contractors decide to ignore the approved plans? Here’s a prime example: the Laurel Springs RV Resort near Lakewood Cove.
About 10% of all the water coming down the West Fork at the peak of Harvey came from Crystal Creek in Montgomery County. But the wetlands near the headwaters of Crystal Creek are currently under development. And the developer is avoiding building detention ponds with a “beat-the-peak” survey. This loophole allowed by Montgomery County says that if you get your stormwater to the river faster than the peak of a flood arrives, then you’re not adding to the peak of a flood and you don’t have to build detention ponds. So developers conduct timing surveys to reduce costs and maximize salable land.
What happens when upstream areas develop without consideration for the impact on downstream property owners.
Of course, speeding up the flow of water in a flood is the opposite of what you want to do. To reduce flooding, you should hold back as much water as possible.
The graph on the right shows what happened on Brays Bayou without suitable detention upstream. Floodwaters peak higher, sooner. Harris County has spent more than $700 million in the last 20 years to remediate flooding problems along Brays.
How much will we need to spend when more areas like Madera get built upstream on the West Fork?
How Quickly We Forget!
FEMA’s Base-Flood-Elevation Viewer shows that in that same area, developers have already built homes that could go under 1-5 feet of water in a 100-year flood. These homes are actually in a ten-year flood zone. And yet more homes are being built nearby. On even more marginal land!
In recent years, the price of land as a percent of a new home’s cost has risen from a historical average of 25% to approximately 40% today. This puts pressure on developers to seek out cheaper land in floodplains, reduce costs by avoiding detention pond requirements, pave over wetlands, and reduce lot sizes resulting in more impervious cover. All contribute to flooding.
Of course, smart homebuyers would not make such risky investments. But few lack the expertise to gauge flood risk. Educating such homebuyers will be one of the major objectives of the book I hope to write.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/23/2022
1639 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/RJR_4245.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2022-02-23 18:55:302022-02-23 19:09:31How Soon We Forget!
The TCEQ says discharges of sediment-laden stormwater are not allowed across public or private property under the terms of its Construction General Permit.
Two weeks ago, I photographed contractors at the Laurel Springs RV Resort construction site discharging silty stormwater from its detention pond into the wetlands and cypress ponds of Harris County’s Precinct 4 Edgewater Park.
Response From Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
So, I emailed the photos to people at the TCEQ responsible for water quality, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans, and Construction General Permits. I asked if their permit allowed them to discharge silty stormwater into Edgewater Park. The short answer: NO.
“…[their] general permit does not give the permittee the right to use private or public property for conveyance of stormwater and certain non-stormwater discharges…”
Earl Lott, Director, TCEQ, Office of Water
CGP Covers Activities During Construction, SWP3 Prior to Construction
Mr. Lott also noted that “Large construction site operators must comply with the conditions of the stormwater Construction General Permit (CGP) TXR150000 under the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Program. The CGP requires construction operators to control pollutants in stormwater during construction activities. Construction site primary operators that disturb greater than one acre of land are required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3) and implement best management practices (BMPs) prior to construction activities beginning.” [Emphasis added.]
“As part of the SWP3,” Lott continued, “a description of BMPs used to prevent and reduce pollution in stormwater must be included and the BMPs must be inspected and evaluated to determine the effectiveness of controlling stormwater leaving the property.”
“The SWP3 must include a description of any sediment control practices used to remove eroded soils from stormwater runoff, such as a sedimentation basin. These controls must minimize sediment discharges from the site,” said Lott. [Emphasis added.]
So what did the Laurel Springs RV Resort’s SWP3 and Permit obligate them to do? For the full text of this 162 page document, click here. (14 Meg Download). The first have of this document includes the SWP3. The second includes the permit to discharge under the Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System. There are many redundancies between the two. I’ll cover the SWP3 today and the Permit another day.
Concerns About SWPPP Plan
I want to make it clear that Mr. Lott’s comments related only to discharges of stormwater into Edgewater Park. However, after reading the RV Resort’s SWP3 and Permit, I have personal concerns listed below. The TCEQ may or may not share them. The TCEQ has up to 60 days from the date of an initial complaint to file a full report.
Based on my observations, contractor performance does not match contractor promises in the SWP3 in many cases. Also, several key elements of the plan were left blank. And some claims were just plain false, misleading or erroneous.
Below is a list of my concerns. You may find others.
The plan is undated and appears never to have been revised even though it should have been.
Clearing started in October. As Lott said, the contractor should have put pollution prevention measures in place before construction, but didn’t.
Page 15 – The discussion of runoff coefficients is misleading. If sand comprised the top 18 inches of soil, water would not still be ponding on the site. We’ve had less than an inch of rain in the last 20 days. It would appear that the contractor overstated the potential for water to infiltration.
Pages 16 and 17 – Construction schedule left blank.
Page 18 – Says locations of support activities are included, but blanks not filled in.
Page 18 – Says no wetlands have been found near site when adjoining property is full of them.
Page 18 – Can’t see where they planned temporary erosion control measures during construction. Until yesterday, they had no silt fencing along the southern property line and still have no along the western property line.
Page 18 – No source listed for fill materials. They have used Sprint Sand & Clay. But Sprint’s contract prohibits them placing fill in the 500-year flood plain. I have photographed the contractor spreading Sprint fill into the 500-year area.
Page 22 – Contractor lists the size of the site as 20 acres and claims 20 acres are sandy loam. But then he says 20 acres out of 20 acres is 74%. Hmmmm. No wonder he has six tax forfeitures in his past.
Page 22 – Contractor relied on USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for soil data. But NRCS says its data is invalid for a site of this size. It falls below the limits of resolution for NRCS sampling.
Page 34 – Before clearing, contractor failed to mark the southern property line. Employees then cut down a corridor of trees approximately 50 feet wide for a distance of about 750 feet. Contractor then piled dirt in corridor which eroded into Edgewater Park.
Page 40 – I can see no measures in use to slow down velocity of sheet flow.
Page 40 – I can see no temporary erosion controls in place on portions of the site where they are no longer working.
Page 41 – Exits have been mud pits so vehicles have tracked dirt out of the site and spread it into streets where it washes into storm sewers.
Page 41 – They have perimeter protection installed only along one side and have even bypassed that.
Page 42 – No protection of storm sewer inlets until yesterday (about 5 months late).
Page 42 – They claim a sediment basin would put public safety as risk, but don’t explain why.
Page 42 – Contractor should have drained the detention pond through a 24 inch reinforced concrete pipe leading to the City’s storm sewer system, but chose to use the wetlands in Edgewater Park instead.
Page 43 – Covers vehicles tracking dirt out of the site. It requires stabilized construction entrances and/or regular street sweeping. This is basic “good housekeeping” stuff that has been in short supply since this construction site found the spotlight.
Page 44 – Says “No discharges of Stormwater…will take places under this SWPPP.” See photos above.
Page 45 – Says “Maintenance and repairs will be conducted within 24 hours of inspection report.” But only in the last two days has the contractor started removing eroded dirt from the county’s park caused by the discharge weeks ago.
Page 45 – Says “Sediment will be removed from sediment fences … before it reaches 50% of the above ground height of the barrier.” Sediment was placed against the new southern silt fence that already exceeds that height.
Section 8 on page 45 requires the contractor to select the most effective erosion control measures for specific site conditions from a page-long list of options. The contractor chose NONE.
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/20220129-DJI_0612.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2022-02-13 16:21:122022-02-13 16:49:10TCEQ Says RV Resort Discharge Not Allowed by Permit
