https://wavetrain.net/2013/07/15/salvage-law-when-do-get-to-keep-an-abandoned-boat/

Can't we all just work together and agree that we should just screw Sheldon over and open up the Lake Houston dam?

It would be a lot cheaper to just put pontoons on the trailers in Sheldon.

chimpanzee said:

---

Can't we all just work together and agree that we should just screw Sheldon over and open up the Lake Houston dam?

---

Nothing of substance to open at the Lake Houston dam. There is a small spillway gate, but it won't even come close to even matching the flow that is coming in, much less getting ahead of it.

ETA: Looks like it is 4 small gates and they can release about 10,000 CFS, which is nothing compared to what the mayor of Conroe's sprinklers put out when he gets drunk and decides to flood Kingwood on a Friday afternoon.

Free boats?

txags92 said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

Can't we all just work together and agree that we should just screw Sheldon over and open up the Lake Houston dam?

---

Nothing of substance to open at the Lake Houston dam. There is a small spillway gate, but it won't even come close to even matching the flow that is coming in, much less getting ahead of it.

ETA: Looks like it is 4 small gates and they can release about 10,000 CFS, which is nothing compared to what the mayor of Conroe's sprinklers put out when he gets drunk and decides to flood Kingwood on a Friday afternoon.

---

Nothing a poorly sited carbide plant run by that guy from Crosby couldn't take care of.

BBRex said:

---

https://wavetrain.net/2013/07/15/salvage-law-when-do-get-to-keep-an-abandoned-boat/

---

need to call my lawyer

it's going to be Caney Creek slipping the water into Kingwood this time

I thought it was the sand miners fault?

txags92 said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

Can't we all just work together and agree that we should just screw Sheldon over and open up the Lake Houston dam?

---

Nothing of substance to open at the Lake Houston dam. There is a small spillway gate, but it won't even come close to even matching the flow that is coming in, much less getting ahead of it.

ETA: Looks like it is 4 small gates and they can release about 10,000 CFS, which is nothing compared to what the mayor of Conroe's sprinklers put out when he gets drunk and decides to flood Kingwood on a Friday afternoon.

---

If this is the case then how does the river flood without flooding the lake? Does the water just get to a point where everything higher flows into the river?

drumboy said:

---

txags92 said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

Can't we all just work together and agree that we should just screw Sheldon over and open up the Lake Houston dam?

---

Nothing of substance to open at the Lake Houston dam. There is a small spillway gate, but it won't even come close to even matching the flow that is coming in, much less getting ahead of it.

ETA: Looks like it is 4 small gates and they can release about 10,000 CFS, which is nothing compared to what the mayor of Conroe's sprinklers put out when he gets drunk and decides to flood Kingwood on a Friday afternoon.

---

If this is the case then how does the river flood without flooding the lake? Does the water just get to a point where everything higher flows into the river?

---

No, it is operated as a constant level dam most of the time. When the water gets to a certain level, it flows over the spillway. The higher it gets, the faster it flows over the spillway. If they want to "lower the lake", they can open the 4 gates they have and release about 10,000 CFS even if the level is below the spillway top to bring the level down. But if Conroe is releasing 150,000 CFS, releasing an extra 10,000 CFS isn't going to make much difference and Lake Houston is going to rise until it can flow over the spillway fast enough to keep up.

txags92 said:

---

But if Conroe is releasing 150,000 CFS, releasing an extra 10,000 CFS isn't going to make much difference and Lake Houston is going to rise until it can flow over the spillway fast enough to keep up.

---

The issue with Lake Houston backing up and flooding Kingwood and the surrounding neighborhoods isn't even really due to the dam or spillway. Very little below the 1960 bridge flooded in Harvey and nothing since. The issue is that the upper portion of the lake above the 1960 bridge is badly silted in and cannot handle the flow of water plus the bridge itself acts as a dam as the majority of it is not on pilings allowing the water to flow freely. This causes the water to back up north of the bridge.

I don't know what the engineering term would be but there are large foundations extending well into the lake on both the east & west ends and the middle rests on what's practically a dam itself. Probably 75% of the length is not open for water flow but solid earth.

That is true, plus water does have to flow downhill. So it will keep piling up until it is high enough to force the water to flow fast enough to keep up with how fast it is coming in. So the further up the lake from the spillway you go, and the further up the river channel you go, the higher the water level has to get to keep the water flowing fast enough through the constricted channel and the obstructions to flow noted above.

I'm gonna go out a limb and say a big reason for it is increased development and concrete in areas that were wetlands and acted as natural drainage features.

Ag_07 said:

---

I'm gonna go out a limb and say a big reason for it is increased development and concrete in areas that were wetlands and acted as natural drainage features.

---

Sure. That is a big part of why the water comes up so fast. More impervious cover sending sheet flow directly into the drainage channels.

TarponChaser said:

---

txags92 said:

---

But if Conroe is releasing 150,000 CFS, releasing an extra 10,000 CFS isn't going to make much difference and Lake Houston is going to rise until it can flow over the spillway fast enough to keep up.

---

The issue with Lake Houston backing up and flooding Kingwood and the surrounding neighborhoods isn't even really due to the dam or spillway. Very little below the 1960 bridge flooded in Harvey and nothing since. The issue is that the upper portion of the lake above the 1960 bridge is badly silted in and cannot handle the flow of water plus the bridge itself acts as a dam as the majority of it is not on pilings allowing the water to flow freely. This causes the water to back up north of the bridge.

I don't know what the engineering term would be but there are large foundations extending well into the lake on both the east & west ends and the middle rests on what's practically a dam itself. Probably 75% of the length is not open for water flow but solid earth.

---

IB4 94chem

Every good Kingwood realtor will say that Harvey was a 500 year flood for the living forest. But Lake Houston was built in 1953 so they don't really have 500 years of history. There was a low water crossing across the San Jacinto River close to the current rail road tracks prior to Lake Houston being built. When the river was too high, vehicles had to go to Hwy 90 to cross the river where the bridge was located.

Mas89 said:

---

Every good Kingwood realtor will say that Harvey was a 500 year flood for the living forest. But Lake Houston was built in 1953 so they don't really have 500 years of history. There was a low water crossing across the San Jacinto River close to the current rail road tracks prior to Lake Houston being built. When the river was too high, vehicles had to go to Hwy 90 to cross the river where the bridge was located.

---

Means there is a .5% chance for a flood like that any given year. Has nothing to do with 500 years. Nice try.

99% of Kingwood didn't flood during Harvey and most will likely never flood again.

AgLiving06 said:

---

99% of Kingwood didn't flood during Harvey and most will likely never flood again.

---

A lot more than 1% of Kingwood flooded during Harvey.

Mas89 said:

---

Every good Kingwood realtor will say that Harvey was a 500 year flood for the living forest. But Lake Houston was built in 1953 so they don't really have 500 years of history. There was a low water crossing across the San Jacinto River close to the current rail road tracks prior to Lake Houston being built. When the river was too high, vehicles had to go to Hwy 90 to cross the river where the bridge was located.

---

I'd love to see old pics of that if you have any or know where to find them.

That is if you buy into the 500 year story. Nice try.
Some ares east of h town had 50 inches in Harvey and 40 with Imelda two years later.

TL,DR- Kingwood is screwed.

I was involved in the Harvey sand mining litigation but got my client out early by making myself a (polite) PITA to plaintiffs' counsel. I spent a lot of hours investigating causes of flooding in the area. There are so many factors at play for Kingwood, but in order importance, I would say:

(1) The pre-Lake Houston survey maps for Humble Oil have large sections of the now-developed area marked as wetlands/swamp. That's your starting point.

(2) Impervious ground cover/infrastructure. Development has obviously exploded, not just locally, but in the entire drainage basin. Water that was previously absorbed, detained or evaporated, makes its way to the lake. We've channelized the drainage, so water that used to take weeks/days to reach the lake, can now just take hours/minutes.

(3) Lack of freeboard capacity. The lake is always near full for drinking supply, the dam isn't tall so it can't mitigate much flooding and there's currently no way to empty it quickly. When originally launched, the SJRA mission included not only providing drinking water, but erosion and flood control. The latter got forgotten along the way.

(4) Inadequate design. The original design for the drainage basin included numerous additional dams/basins upstream of Lake Houston that never happened. Maybe the original engineers knew what they were doing?


(5) Natural sedimentation. Fast-moving water picks up/carries sediment the deposits it where it slows down (like when entering a lake). The tributaries, especially Cypress Creek, shed a ton of sand during significant rain events. I grew up by Cypress Creek towards Hockley, and the entire flood plain turned to sand dunes after a 10-year rain event (never mind 25,000 year event). Made for great 4-wheeling. There are news reports that pre-date the dam and mining where boat traffic was blocked from navigating entrance to the river following storms until the massive sand bars could be dredged.

(6) Decades of subsidence from ground water pumping has lowered an already swampy area by feet. This has also reduced lake capacity. Give it another 150 years and it will be part of Galveston Bay.

(7) More at Risk. At the time the dam was constructed, there wasn't anything of value out there to flood but timber. Every new McMansion, shopping center, office park, and Taj Mahal elementary school built means greater assets at risk and greater the likelihood of a catastrophic loss during a significant rain event.

(8) Act of God. This could really go anywhere, but certainly at (1) for a storm like Harvey. When Mother Nature throws down her trump card of 3ft of rain in as many days across a several thousand square mile drainage basin and you're in the 100-500 year flood plain, there's nothing that's going to save you but higher ground and no one to blame. Least of which is the sand miner 30 miles away removing sand deposited when the previous river channel naturally silted in.

Mr. AGSPRT04 said:

---

TL,DR- Kingwood is screwed.

I was involved in the Harvey sand mining litigation but got my client out early by making myself a (polite) PITA to plaintiffs' counsel. I spent a lot of hours investigating causes of flooding in the area. There are so many factors at play for Kingwood, but in order importance, I would say:

(1) The pre-Lake Houston survey maps for Humble Oil have large sections of the now-developed area marked as wetlands/swamp. That's your starting point.

(2) Impervious ground cover/infrastructure. Development has obviously exploded, not just locally, but in the entire drainage basin. Water that was previously absorbed, detained or evaporated, makes its way to the lake. We've channelized the drainage, so water that used to take weeks/days to reach the lake, can now just take hours/minutes.

(3) Lack of freeboard capacity. The lake is always near full for drinking supply, the dam isn't tall so it can't mitigate much flooding and there's currently no way to empty it quickly. When originally launched, the SJRA mission included not only providing drinking water, but erosion and flood control. The latter got forgotten along the way.

(4) Inadequate design. The original design for the drainage basin included numerous additional dams/basins upstream of Lake Houston that never happened. Maybe the original engineers knew what they were doing?


(5) Natural sedimentation. Fast-moving water picks up/carries sediment the deposits it where it slows down (like when entering a lake). The tributaries, especially Cypress Creek, shed a ton of sand during significant rain events. I grew up by Cypress Creek towards Hockley, and the entire flood plain turned to sand dunes after a 10-year rain event (never mind 25,000 year event). Made for great 4-wheeling. There are news reports that pre-date the dam and mining where boat traffic was blocked from navigating entrance to the river following storms until the massive sand bars could be dredged.

(6) Decades of subsidence from ground water pumping has lowered an already swampy area by feet. This has also reduced lake capacity. Give it another 150 years and it will be part of Galveston Bay.

(7) More at Risk. At the time the dam was constructed, there wasn't anything of value out there to flood but timber. Every new McMansion, shopping center, office park, and Taj Mahal elementary school built means greater assets at risk and greater the likelihood of a catastrophic loss during a significant rain event.

(8) Act of God. This could really go anywhere, but certainly at (1) for a storm like Harvey. When Mother Nature throws down her trump card of 3ft of rain in as many days across a several thousand square mile drainage basin and you're in the 100-500 year flood plain, there's nothing that's going to save you but higher ground and no one to blame. Least of which is the sand miner 30 miles away removing sand deposited when the previous river channel naturally silted in.

---

You obviously spent a lot of time looking at this, and it was clear from early on that the lawyers would make a killing. All you have to do is generate a list of root causes and deflect to any other cause but that of your defendant. Easy money, and billable hours to the moon. Being polite probably helped keep the plaintiffs coming back for more.

Clearly, part of your defense was that siltation was occurring before Harvey, part Act of God, and other avenues, I reckon. But I have a question - at any point during your research, did you come across the openly published hydrographs for Lake Conroe, which show the level dropping 3 feet in about 30 hours, resulting in a lake level that was 4 feet below the compulsory action level? I can understand why SJRA never points this out, but it would seem like an easy place to deflect for any of the other defendants.

I bet the humble museum has some.

I've been meaning to check out the new museum.

you know...we'll never know...

but if the Stewart Creek dam and the Caney Creek dam had both been built --- just north of 105 it appears --- that might have drastically changed the Conroe and East Montgomery County areas. Possibly made them the "rich side" of I-45 so to speak

I just want to know what we have to do to flood out that Plum Grove colonia, permanently.

TarponChaser said:

---

I just want to know what we have to do to flood out that Plum Grove colonia, permanently.

---

Sorry but it is mostly on top of high ground on these first developed stages. They have three exits up there off the new grand parkway. The South one is close to Luce Bayou so that will be a development cluster f one day. The coming growth once the new road opens will be unbelievable. It is already eye popping.
And guess where their sewer runoff- treated and untreated will flow to...

And speaking of Luce bayou the county just cancelled a diversion channel in Huffman, because a handful of landowners fought it. This project showed foresight for once with the amount of future development to the north.

redag06 said:

---

And speaking of Luce bayou the county just cancelled a diversion channel in Huffman, because a handful of landowners fought it. This project showed foresight for once with the amount of future development to the north.

---

You're not talking about the Luce's Bayou Inter-Basin project are you? The channel connecting the Trinity near Kenefick to Luce's somewhere upstream of Huffman. I thought that was already going full bore.

Mas89 said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

I just want to know what we have to do to flood out that Plum Grove colonia, permanently.

---

Sorry but it is mostly on top of high ground on these first developed stages. They have three exits up there off the new grand parkway. The South one is close to Luce Bayou so that will be a development cluster f one day. The coming growth once the new road opens will be unbelievable. It is already eye popping.
And guess where their sewer runoff- treated and untreated will flow to...

---

Then maybe burn that **** to the ground.