As floodwaters worked their way down the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto from last week’s heavy rains, they invaded sand mines on both rivers on Easter Sunday, 2023.
Up to 9 inches of rain fell in the headwaters of both rivers during 3 days from 4/5 to 4/7. Atlas-14 rainfall probability statistics indicate that equals a 5-year rain.
The Lake Conroe Dam intercepted much of the West Fork rain and is now releasing it at about 6400 cubic feet per second. There are no dams on the East Fork and the flooding there appears much worse.
West Fork Near Northpark South Development
Near the Northpark South Development on Sorters Road, the West Fork snakes its way through four square miles of sand mines. In the image below, the Hallett Mine on the right seemed secure. But the abandoned sand mines on the left and top center both opened to the river.
Photo taken 4/9/2023 two days after rain stopped.
East Fork Near FM2090 on 4/9/2023
Normally, the East Fork at 2090 is about 30-40 feet wide – the size of the opening in the woods circled in red below. But today, the river swelled to about 2000 feet wide.
Looking south from over East Fork San Jacinto toward FM2090.Looking East along FM2090 across the East Fork.
As the East Fork rose, it invaded the abandoned Texas Concrete Sand and Gravel Mine in Plum Grove.
Abandoned Texas Concrete Sand and Gravel Plum Grove Mine north of FM2090 between East Fork and FM1010
Water entered the northern end, swept through the mine, and punched through the dikes on the southern end, carrying silt and sand with it. See sequence of pictures below.
Looking N toward northern end of mine.Water entered mine in upper left and cut off house.Water then swept under and around house moving south.Looking S.The water then exited back into the river through several breaches in dikes.Rushing water carrying silt and sand found two more breaches close to 2090. Left unchecked, the force of this water will eventually erode the banks of FM2090.Baptist Church Loop Road south of FM2090 was also underwater.
Mine Fails to Meet Guidelines for Abandonment
This mine does not meet TCEQ guidelines for abandonment. The miners left equipment, including a dredge. They also failed to grade stockpiles, remove buildings, and plant grass. Yet somehow, the TCEQ gave them a pass.
This is the second time in less than two years that this mine has been inundated. The public will bear the cost of dredging all the sand carried downriver.
I guess the miners need the money more than you do.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/9/2023
2049 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/2023/04/20230409-DJI_0542.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2023-04-09 19:10:132023-04-10 17:15:03Swollen San Jacinto East and West Forks Sweep Through Sand Mines
The hand of sand miners weighs heavily on the San Jacinto watershed. Not all miners. But many.
While exploring the river basin by helicopter last week, the contrast between two scenes struck me: 1) The natural blanket of green in Lake Houston Wilderness Park. 2) Sand mines that lined the banks of the East and West Forks for miles.
The trees and natural wetlands inhibit floods. They slow floodwaters down, hold them back during heavy rains, and reduce erosion. The sand mines do not. They may provide some floodwater detention, but the pits are often filled to the brim and their dikes often break.
How you treat the land determines how it treats you. Especially during floods. This aerial photo essay shows how the San Jacinto River Basin used to look and how it looks today.
Lake Houston Wilderness Park
Peach and Caney Creeks border Lake Houston Wilderness Park on the west. The San Jacinto East Fork borders it on the east. The shot below represents the way the whole Lake Houston area used to be.
Looking across the 5000 acres of Lake Houston Wilderness Park – the largest urban nature park in America.
Compare That With These Shots
This first provides a direct comparison.
Sand mine on Caney Creek. Lake Houston Wilderness Park in upper right.
I’ll provide five more shots here, all from the West Fork San Jacinto. They represent more than 500 similar shots I took on 7/22/22.
No Swimming
When I see all this environmental degradation, my mind starts swimming – despite the scary water.
How much sediment gets swept downstream in floods?
Can this land ever return to productive use?
Do other cities allow mining in urban environments upstream from their water sources?
What effect does mining have on the water quality in Lake Houston?
What percentage of our water bills goes to cleaning up this water?
Why doesn’t Texas have performance bonds that ensure sand miners leave the land in habitable shape?
The sand makes concrete. It supports growth. But is all growth good?
Is growth in one area at the expense of public safety in another worthwhile?
Should we limit the concentration of mines in an area?
Why do mines expect the public to pay their cleanup and reclamation costs?
Is it safe to build mines below a dam that releases enough water during floods to break the mines’ dikes?
Are there no alternatives?
Cycle Continues
New Segment H of the Grand Parkway cutting east through forests will attract more subdivisions that require more sand for more concrete.
I encourage rebuttals from any mine owner who wishes to address these questions.
Posted by Bob Rehak on July 27, 2022
1793 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/2022/07/20220722-RJR_0554.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2022-07-27 14:03:372022-08-29 15:08:12The Hand of Sand Miners on the San Jacinto
Hurricane Nicholas likely affected the schedule with the twin needs to secure equipment and lower the lake.
Regardless, when I put up a drone today, I found good news. The dredging is now much closer to the east fork than the west.
Dredging has now reached homes in Royal Shores. Looking south toward FM1960and Lake Houston.
Looking east toward the East Fork. Dredging should break through in about another 1000 feet, the width of another six or seven homes.
Assuming the City can maintain a pace of 200 feet per week, that would put crews in the East Fork by the end of October.
Distance dredged in three weeks since last update on August 28th.
Looking west. At present, there appear to be two crews working. Note one still way out near the west fork, widening or deepening the channelnear where they started in mid-July.
This certainly is one of the most beautiful parts of Houston for those who can afford to live with the flood risk.
Proposals for Long-Range Dredging Plan Due Today
A damage map compiled shortly after Harvey showed that 1290 Harris County homes flooded in the East Fork watershed.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/20210923-DJI_0475-2.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-09-23 16:39:092021-09-23 19:08:06Dredging Now Closer to East Fork Than West
On Thursday last week, Stephen Costello, PE, the City of Houston’s Chief Recovery Officer, gave an update on Lake Houston dredging. Costello said that mechanical dredging was starting to move from the West Fork to the East Fork of the San Jacinto River.
Next Phase of Dredging Starting
This marks the beginning of the next phase in dredging after Harvey. Since 2018, dredgers have focused on the West Fork, which was 90% blocked by sediment in places, according to the Army Corps. The Corps and the City removed 2.9 million cubic yards of sediment from the West Fork. Now the focus will migrate to the East Fork, and then Lake Houston itself.
But to get to the East Fork mouth bar, dredgers must first deepen the channel south of Royal Shores that connects the two forks…or else take the long way around to the placement area.
Yellow dot represents most recent focus of dredging on West Fork. The dotted line branching off to the right through the channel is how dredger’s will get back and forth to the East Fork Mouth Bar (big yellow circle) and the placement area south of River Grove Park on the West Fork.
Channel Filled with Silt, Too
Costello said silt in the channel made it too shallow for pontoons and equipment to navigate back and forth safely.
Photos taken this afternoon show that the first equipment is starting to dredge the channel inside two ancient cutoff meanders of the West Fork.
Looking west toward West Lake Houston Parkway Bridge from over the channel connecting the West and East Forks.Wider shot from farther back shows the dredge area within the cutoff meanders.Looking East toward the East Fork and Luce Bayou (upper right).
As the last photo shows, at this time, no dredging activity has yet reached the East Fork.
Boaters: Exercise Caution Around Dredging Equipment
This cut-through is a popular shortcut for boaters. Boaters may wish to take the long way around for the next few months or, at a minimum, use extra caution. Those excavators have long arms and can turn suddenly. Remember: operators don’t have eyes in the backs of their heads. Make sure they acknowledge your presence before zipping past them.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/11/2021
1412 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/20210711-DJI_0062.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2021-07-11 17:40:332021-07-11 17:40:38Lake Houston Dredging Starts Moving to East Fork
At one of the first large public meetings since Covid began, several hundred people crowded into the Kingwood Community Center last night. They came to see the City unveil floodgate and dredging plans for Lake Houston. Stephen Costello, PE, the City’s Chief Recovery Officer, addressed dredging. And Chris Mueller, PhD, PE, of engineering firm Black & Veatch discussed adding more floodgates to the Lake Houston Dam. Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin coordinated the meeting.
In late 2019, the Army Corps finished hydraulic dredging in the area south of the West Fork mouth bar. Then in early 2020, the City of Houston began mechanical dredging to extend the effort. In terms of the estimated dollars designated for dredging, the effort is about halfway done.
The first four rows on this chart are done or almost done. They total $114 million out of a projected total of $222 million.
Scope of Long-Range Dredging Plan Still in Development
A long-range dredging plan for Lake Houston is critical. We must understand where the sediment comes from, how fast it builds up, where it builds up, and the consequences of not removing it periodically.
The numbered dots in the photo above show channels south of the East and West Forks draining into Lake Houston where sediment can also build up.
Costello says the City is currently working with affected homeowner associations to discuss cost-sharing arrangements.
He also says that the City must identify a long-range site for depositing the spoils that is suitable for hydraulic dredging. He called the mechanical dredging now in progress “not sustainable.” Currently, the City is using Berry Madden’s property on the West Fork south of Kingwood’s River Grove Park to deposit the mechanical dredging spoils. That’s a long haul for barges on the East Fork.
Next Dredging Steps: Channel to East Fork and East Fork Itself
Contractors must next deepen the channel between the West and East Forks of the San Jacinto to move dredging equipment and spoils back and forth (see below).
Current location of dredging is near yellow dot.
From there, dredgers will move slightly north of where Luce Bayou (far right) enters the East Fork and begin dredging the East Fork mouth bar. See large circle above. The map shows that area grew shallower by up to nine feet between 2011 and 2018. Imelda, in September 2019, made it grow even shallower. Note the fresh deposits of sand in the photo below now poking up above the water.
Growth of East Fork Mouth Bar after Imelda in September 2019. Photo taken in November 2019.
Additional Floodgates for Lake Houston Dam
Chris Mueller of Black & Veatch then discussed the reasons for adding additional floodgates to Lake Houston, preliminary engineering findings, and an implementation schedule.
The primary objective: to increase the outflow capacity of the dam to reduce the risk of future flooding. However, he emphasized that reducing the risk for people upstream of the dam cannot have an adverse impact on people below it. See below.
He emphasized that Lake Houston is, first and foremost, a drinking water reservoir. He also emphasized that the dam is almost seventy years old and near the end of its useful life. Significant safety issues exist in working with such old concrete.
Calculating the Benefit/Cost Ratio of Additional Floodgates
Mueller then explained how FEMA calculates the benefit/cost ratio of additional floodgates.
On the benefit side, it considers: the reduction in water surface level; how many buildings and streets that will prevent from flooding; reduced societal impacts; and reduced impacts to business revenues. These are primarily damage costs avoided.
On the cost side of the equation, FEMA factors in construction costs and annual operation and maintenance costs.
To win project approval, the City must show that the benefits of additional floodgates exceed the costs in a 100-year storm, similar to Imelda. Such a storm elevates the lake 10 feet.
The peak inflow to Lake Houston in a 100-year storm: 286,000 cubic feet per second (CFS), enough to fill the Astrodome in 3 minutes! However, during Harvey, SJRA estimated the peak inflow at 400,000 cfs.
Proposed Alternative Produces 11-Inch Benefit Nearest Dam
A hydrologic and hydraulic analysis conducted by Black & Veatch will help prove up the benefit/cost analysis. The San Jacinto Watershed (including Buffalo Bayou) includes flow from eight counties.
In evaluating about ten alternatives for adding floodgates, Black & Veatch considered both cost and non-cost factors listed below.
The company’s first choice was to install additional gates on the earthen portion of the dam on the east side. But environmental considerations there would have delayed the project by a decade or more.
So they decided to recommend a 1,000 feet of crest gates on the west side of the spillway instead. See example of crest gates in operation below.
An air bladder near a bottom hinge raises or lowers the floodgatesto let water in/out
Such gates would increase the discharge capacity to 45,000 cfs, more than four times the current capacity of 10,000 cfs. That’s still only about a third of the discharge capacity of the floodgates on Lake Conroe. But according to Martin, that would still be enough to lower the level of the lake 4 feet in 24 hours.
However, before floodgate construction can begin, engineers must evaluate:
Downstream impacts and how to mitigate them
Impact to the stability of the existing concrete dam
Back in the 1950s when the Lake Houston dam was built, engineers did not use rebar. So this will be a delicate operation. Contractors must cut 6 feet into the existing spillway; cap the remaining concrete with a slab; and install the crest gates on top of the slab.
Black & Veatch must also develop an operations protocol for new floodgates that maximizes upstream benefits and limits downstream impacts. Mueller shared this schedule with attendees.
Best-Case Project Timeline Shows Completion in 2024
Schedule as of 7/8/2021.Detailed engineering could take another year.
A best-case scenario shows construction starting at the end of 2022 and finishing before the start of hurricane season in 2024. So, at least three more hurricane seasons to get through before seeing any benefit from additional gates.
As of Monday morning, the threat to Lake Conroe had passed, but now floodwaters from the rain soaked northwestern portion of the region are converging on Lake Houston. Here’s a roundup of what’s happening where.
Lake Conroe Going Down
The San Jacinto River Authority reduced its discharge rate to from 9275 cubic feet per second (CFS) to 8120 CFS as the level of Lake Conroe continued to recede, but the West Fork came out of its banks at US 59. The West Fork also began flooding Kingwood’s River Grove Park and the abandoned Noxxe Oil Fields between the river and the Forest Cove Little League Fields.
As of 5:09 pm on 5/3/2021
Lake Conroe Re-Opening With Caution
The SJRA issued a press release at 10:15 am. stating that Lake Conroe will reopen to normal lake traffic at noon Monday, May 3. However, boaters are still urged to use extreme caution due to floating debris and submerged objects that may not be fully visible. With submerged bulkheads, lake area residents should also be cautious of electrical outlets and equipment coming into contact with water.
SJRA is currently releasing water from the Lake Conroe dam to gradually lower the water level back to conservation pool of 201’, but SJRA must strike a balance between upstream recovery and downstream danger. For real-time information on Lake Conroe levels, releases, rainfall totals, or stream flows visit www.sjra.net.
SJRA clarified that it intends to return Lake Conroe to 200 until June 1 per its seasonal lake lowering policy as soon as emergency operations restore it to 201. Normally, SJRA would begin recapture on June 1, not May 1. The seasonal release rate is much lower than the current rate.
Floodwaters Converging Toward South and East
Meanwhile, the glut of rainfall that inundated the northwest portions of Houston last week is starting to converging on areas downstream.
As of 10:30 am, the San Jacinto East Fork is also way out of its banks at FM1485 and FM1485 is reportedly closed until Friday. That leaves one way in and out of Colony Ridge – FM2090.
The San Jacinto East Fork at FM2090 peaked overnight and is starting to recede, but is still out of its banks. The East Fork is not influenced by the Lake Conroe Dam, which is on the West Fork.
FM2090 at East Fork near Plum Grove on May 3, 2021 at noon.
FM2090 is still open, but Plum Grove resident Michael Shrader reported a steady line of traffic trying to get out of Colony Ridge up to 11:30 PM Sunday night. This underscores the need to develop alternate evacuation routes for the fast growing subdivision.
Meanwhile, the flood threat is receding at Peach Creek and FM2090.
Caney Creek at FM2090 is getting back within its banks.
And the West Fork, however, is still rising. By 9 a.m. (six hours after the hydrograph below) it was out of its banks at US59.
Flood Warning Remains in Effect for West Fork Until Further Notice
Minor flooding is occurring and minor flooding is forecast.
Forecast…The river is expected to rise to a crest of 49.7 feet late this afternoon. It will then fall below flood stage late Wednesday morning.
Impact…At 49.3 feet, Minor lowland flooding begins in the vicinity of the gage. North side turnaround at US 59 begins to flood. Low points on Thelma Road, Aqua Vista Drive, and Riverview Drive begin to flood.
Flood History…This crest compares to a previous crest of 49.7 feet on 11/13/2008.
Here are photos taken along the West Fork this morning.
A young couple surveys rising floodwaters at the turnaround under the US59 bridge. The river bank is about a hundred yards in front of them at the sign in the background.This is the northwestern extent of Lake Houston.
A log jam forms from flood debris under the pedestrian bridge over the West Fork.
Floodwater had crept past the edge of Harris County’s Edgewater Park.
However traffic was still flowing on US59 in both directions.
About a third of the abandoned Noxxe Oil Field by the Forest Cove Little League fields was under water.
The soccer fields at River Grove were partially submerged. Yesterday they were mostly dry.
The boardwalk at River Grove was underwater except for the entrance.
There was no immediate threat to Kings Harbor though the dock was only inches above water.
As floodwaters work their way downstream, Lake Houston continues to rise. As of 5:30PM on 5/3, the lake is now up more than 1.6 feet and many docks are starting to go under.
No widespread flooding is expected in the Lake Houston Area. But people who live in low-lying areas or near the lake should take precautions.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/3/2021 based on information from NWS, HCFCD, Jeff Lindner, SJRA, Michael Shraderand personal observation
1343 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 592 since Imelda
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/20210503-DJI_0627.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2021-05-03 17:23:282021-05-03 17:23:33Floodwaters Converging Downstream on Lake Houston
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.
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.
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
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/20210303-RJR_5459.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-03-03 20:36:292021-03-03 20:36:32West Fork Still Running Siltier Than Spring Creek
Appendix F of the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Plan discusses the sediment contribution to Lake Houston of various tributaries. It asserts that Cypress Creek, Spring Creek, and West Fork sub-watersheds are the highest contributors of suspended sediment to Lake Houston, contributing an estimated 38.7 percent, 26.8 percent, and 13.0 percent of the total sediment load, respectively.
However, to measure sediment on the West Fork, the study team used a gage at I-45 – UPSTREAM from virtually all West Fork sand mines. This explains a huge disparity between measured data and visual observations. But the report never even acknowledges the visual observations.
I have previously posted about the 3600-page master plan. In many respects, it is a masterpiece that contains good and valuable information that will help mitigate flooding throughout the watershed. The comments in this post relate ONLY to Appendix F on sedimentation, which in my opinion contains a serious flaw.
Misleading Impressions
The problem with using the gage at I-45: it rules out certain contributions to sedimentation that the report barely acknowledges.
Cypress Creek and Spring Creek combine before merging with the West Fork. Thus, you would expect five times more sediment coming from Spring and Cypress Creeks than the West Fork, based on their findings. Yet almost every time I photograph the confluence of the West Fork and Spring Creek, I see more sediment coming from the West Fork, despite the fact that Lake Conroe blocks sediment coming from the upper part of the watershed. See below.
Confluence of Spring Creek and West Fork San Jacinto. Each shot taken in a different month and from a different angle. But the siltier stream in each case is the West Fork where virtually all the sand mines are.
Location of West Fork Gage Never Fully Specified in Report
The West Fork gage number is listed on page 114 of Appendix F. But the description says only, “W Fk San Jacinto Rv nr Conroe Tx, Gage #08068000.” At another point (page 115), it lists the gage near Lake Conroe. To find the exact location of the gage, one must go outside the report to a USGS site. Then to see where the gage sits relative to West Fork sand mines, one must back up to page 61 of Appendix F. Most readers will just assume, given the scientific nature of the report, that the authors used a gage at a representative location, not one that ruled out sediment from sand mines.
Even a careful reader of the report could conclude that the contribution of sand mines to sedimentation is minor in the grand scheme of things. TACA would welcome such a conclusion.
The implications of measuring sediment upstream from sand mines, overlooking visual evidence, and ignoring official reports calls into question some of the report’s recommendations. For instance, #2 suggests using “existing [emphasis added] stream gage data” … to “inform where higher suspended sediment is originating within each sub-watershed.”
Breaches into drainage channels just a few yards upstream from the West Fork
Intentional breaches. Note the backhoe tracks and sharp edges to the breach in this video.
Sedimentation Report Needs More Gages
You can’t document the volume of such breaches and illegal pumping from a helicopter. However, you can’t overlook such practices either.
What we really need is a sediment gage downstream from the sand mines just before the West Fork joins Spring Creek. A gage at that location would go a long way toward calculating the volume of sediment escaping from sand mines.
Report Also Needs Revision Before Legislative Committees Meet on Sand Mining
The authors also need to amend this report quickly. The amendments should highlight the location of the West Fork gage, the implications of that, and limitations on the use of the data – especially by the legislature.
My biggest fear is that sand miners will attempt to use this report to defeat reasonable legislative reforms of the industry. They have used similar reports in the past to do exactly that. I have personally testified in four House and Senate committee hearings about sand mines only to have TACA trot out figures from the 2000 Brown and Root Study. B&R drew similar conclusions because it used the same West Fork gage at I-45.
To protect the scientific integrity of its report and the validity of its recommendations, the authors need to act quickly. The legislature is considering new sand mining regulations at this instant. Such regulations could protect downstream residents from excess man-made sedimentation, huge dredging costs and potential flooding.
The Master Drainage Plan, including Appendix F on sedimentation, is intended to guide flood mitigation efforts for the next 50 years and help inform the expenditure of potentially billions of dollars during that time. The larger report has many good points. But Appendix F is seriously flawed. I hope the partners – City of Houston, SJRA, Montgomery County, HCFCD and their consultants – fix it before lasting damage is done.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/28/2021
1248 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/2021/01/Confluence-Montage.jpg?fit=1200%2C813&ssl=18131200adminadmin2021-01-28 16:17:192021-01-29 08:16:00San Jacinto Master Drainage Plan Uses Gage UPSTREAM from Sand Mines to Estimate West Fork Sedimentation
On December 22, I received an email from a Montgomery County resident named Jody Binnion. He lives near the Hallett sand mine on the San Jacinto West Fork and can see the mine from his home. Binnion said that the level of a 170-acre pond had dropped at least 2-3 feet and maybe more – overnight. He went to investigate and found a giant repair at a corner of the pit near the West Fork. Hallett had already patched the breach, he said.
Photo Courtesy of Jody Binnion, 12/22/2020 at 9:56 am.Looking toward 170 acre Hallettpond that dropped several feet.
Here’s what the patched area looked like from the air ten days later on January 1, 2021.
Looking SE toward the West Fork and US59.The West Fork arcs through the frame on the right.
By the time I shot the scene above from the air, the pond had virtually refilled – either with process water, rainwater, or both.
It’s hard to say with certainty whether this breach was intentional. Binnion arrived after the hole had already been plugged. The TCEQ says it has opened an investigation.
History of Breach
The area had leaked several times before, starting in 2015 according to Google Earth imagery. But the leaks were all relatively minor. The forest between the pond and the river even survived Harvey.
But then, in early February of 2019, Binnion noticed a radical drop in the level of the pond for the first time. Binnion photographed the breach and reported it to TCEQ, but never heard back from the Commission. A Google Earth image taken a little more than 2 weeks later confirms that rapidly rushing water mowed down a 250-foot-wide swath of trees more than 600 feet long. Google Earth also shows fresh repairs in the area. See below.
The trees between the upper pond and the river survived Harvey, but were destroyed sometime the week of February 4, 2019. Note repairs to breach when this photo was taken on 2/23/2019.
The Harris County Flood Warning System shows that the HCFCD gage at US59 and the West Fork recorded only about a quarter inch of rain during that week (February 4, 2019).
A quarter inch of rain in a week makes a storm-induced breach unlikely.
Between 2/2/2019 and 2/8/2019, the gage at 59 and the West Fork registered only about a quarter inch of rain. Only an eighth of an inch fell before the breach.
Ironically, that week I was meeting with TACA, Hallett, other sand miners, the TCEQ, State Rep. Dan Huberty, and Lake Houston Area leaders in Austin that week. It was about greater setbacks from the river for sand mines! But I question whether setback was the issue in this case.
Area Started to Regrow
When I photographed the area on September 2020, vegetation was growing back in.
Photo taken 9/11/2020.Looking toward Hallett’s pit (the white one) with West Fork in foreground.
Aerial Photos of Latest Breach
But then on Jan. 1, 2021, I flew over the area again. This time, I saw – from the air – the blowout that Binnion photographed ten days earlier from the ground. See the pictures below.
Latest breach. Looking SE. Pit on left, West Fork on right.Pond in upper middle is an abandoned mine.Reverse angle. Looking NW, back toward Hallett Mine on upper level. River is behind helicopter.
Sedimentation from sand mines, along with natural erosion, has been linked to flooding in the Humble/Kingwood corridor where the West Fork lost much of its conveyance capacity after Harvey. It has cost taxpayers more than $100 million so far to remove the excess sediment. The dredging program continues after more than 3 years.
This sandbar formed on the West Fork of the San Jacinto during Harvey. The Army Corps of Engineers says it blocked the river by 90%. Note how shallow the river was in the areas where water was getting through. This picture was taken two weeks after Harvey. The Corps has since removed the bar as part of a larger effort to restore West Fork conveyance.
If we are ever to reduce the sedimentation problem, we must first get past the fiction that sand mines are not contributing to it. Hallett isn’t the only mine with these issues. The West Fork San Jacinto has 20 square miles of sand mines between I-45 and US59. I have photographed leaks at all but one of them during the last three years, including the New Year’s Day flight.
The photo below shows the confluence of the West Fork and Spring Creek at US59. Guess which way the sand mines are?
West Fork comes from the top of the frame and Spring Creek from the left. Water flows toward the right. Photo 1/1/2021.
This confluence looks this way most months, but not all.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/7/2021
1227 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/2021/01/20210101-RJR_4095.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-01-07 10:42:152021-01-07 12:10:24Giant Leak at Hallett Mine…Again
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.
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 pitsThe 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, 2019West Fork (right), Spring Creek (Left). February 13, 2020West 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/20200911-RJR_0948.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2020-09-18 15:48:392020-09-18 15:48:59West Fork or Spring Creek: Which Contributes More Sediment to Lake Houston?
