HOUSTON – The State of Texas, still reeling from damage from Hurricane Harvey and other recent storms, has taken a major step toward improving its flood preparedness.
Two years ago, the Category Four storm left 89 people dead and caused some $125 billion in damage along the Texas coast. In its first opportunity to deal with the unprecedented disaster, the Texas Legislature approved, and Gov. Greg Abbott signed, a package of bills this year to improve the state's readiness for disaster events.
State Rep. Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, who sponsored several bills to update and modernize the state's planning process, says an overhaul was overdue.
"I was seeing some of my local governments doing it the way we've always done it – each drainage district doing their own thing, each city was doing their own thing – and that just wasn't going to work,” says Phelan. “We need to approach flooding from a regional standpoint, a holistic standpoint. Water does not respect political boundaries."
Lawmakers approved one bill (Senate Bill 7) to tap the state's Rainy-Day Fund – essentially its savings account – for $800 million to finance flood mitigation projects. Another measure (SB 8) requires the state's first flood plan developed using regional watersheds. A third bill (SB 339) strengthens disclosure requirements to better inform potential buyers of a property's flood history.
The new plan will require pre-disaster mitigation projects, such as elevating homes that have flooded repeatedly and removing vulnerable structures from flood plains. It will also ensure that funding is available to restore natural areas that absorb floodwaters, like wetlands, salt marshes and streams.
Laura Lightbody, director of the Flood-Prepared Communities project at The Pew Charitable Trusts, says these types of programs should pay major dividends for the state over time.
"These required watershed-level plans are really important,” says Lightbody. “How do we take a big picture look at our community, and our development and our footprint, to understand how to avoid these future losses next time we see a big flood event?"
Lightbody says research shows that governments generally save $6 in future losses for every dollar spent on pre-disaster mitigation.
Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
get more stories like this via email
A new, high-tech wastewater treatment incinerator, used in only a few states, is on the wish list for one Michigan city.
Former state Representative - now Mayor of Warren - Lori Stone is asking her former colleagues in the Environment, Great Lakes and Energy Subcommittee for up to $100 million to upgrade her city's wastewater treatment system.
Warren's current plant was built in 1957 and serves over 137,000 residents. The new incinerator would oxidize organic matter contained in the sludge.
Warren Wastewater Treatment Plant Director Donna Dordeski said the old system is failing.
"One of the hearths of the furnace collapsed and failed, and we couldn't use it any longer until repairs had been completed," said Dordeski. "So, from the beginning - and all the waiting, getting the contractors and repairs completed - it took four months."
Dordeski said they're approaching the final steps of getting permits for the project. And they're still seeking funds, at the state and federal levels - including infrastructure grants that may be available.
The city has around 500 miles of sanitary sewer pipes to ensure its wastewater is treated and disposed of properly. Dordeski said when the current system breaks down, it affects local residents. Trucks have to pick up and carry sludge back and forth through their neighborhoods to nearby landfills.
"That's a 24-hour operation," said Dordeski. "We usually have several trucks. Its a continuous process, five days a week, where we process the sludge and those trucks have to be nearby, available, be loaded, exchanged for a new one. So, that's what has to happen when our incinerator is not operational."
Michigan has 95 wastewater treatment plants.
Warren's mayor believes if the new incinerator is approved, the city will have the opportunity to be the proving ground as a pilot program for this technology.
get more stories like this via email
As Wyoming and other states grapple with shrinking Colorado River water levels - new research pinpoints how much water is being diverted to feed cattle, to sprawling desert cities, and the river's 40 million other stakeholders.
The stakes are high in a time of persistent and widespread drought.
Brian Richter - president of Sustainable Waters - said if Upper Basin states can't deliver the volume of water required under a century-old agreement, Lower Basin states could force the issue with what's known as a compact call.
"The likely result would be that the Upper Basin states, including Wyoming, would be forced to use less water," said Richter, "so that more water could be flowing into Lake Powell and downstream into the Lower Basin."
Researchers found that in Upper Basin states, cattle-feed crops soak up 90% of all irrigation water - which is three times the amount that goes to all cities, towns, commercial and industrial uses combined.
Just 19% of the Colorado River feeds the wetlands and riparian areas wildlife depend on.
Richter noted that cities in Utah and along Colorado's Front Range are at risk because they have very low priority for accessing water under the 1922 Colorado River Compact.
Despite calls for closing off spigots used exclusively for cattle feed, Richter said blaming any single user is counter-productive.
"Farmers and ranchers are growing the things that people want, and are willing to pay a necessary price for," said Richter. "So they are just responding to consumer demands."
He said he believes the new data could be an important tool for Colorado River stakeholders as they work to build a long term plan to bring the total use of water back in balance with what nature provides.
Richter said right now, water use is at least 10% to 15% over that limit.
"We need a long range plan that says how much water do we want to use in the cities? How much water do we want to use on the irrigated farms? How much are the industries going to need?" said Richter. "And until we do that long range plan, we are just going to be reacting to these water shortages on a year-by-year basis."
get more stories like this via email
Colorado lawmakers are considering legislation to restore protections to key waters and wetlands struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court last year in a decision leaving more than half of the nation's water supply at risk of industrial pollution.
Margaret Kran-Annexstein, director of the Colorado chapter of the Sierra Club, said House Bill 1379 is in sync with Colorado voters, pointing to a recent survey which found nearly nine in 10 voters want to limit damage and pollution from development, industry and mining on wetlands and streams.
"Recent polling has found that massive majorities of Coloradans, whether they are Democrat, Republican or Independent, really support common sense water protections that would happen under this bill," Kran-Annexstein reported. "I think we can all agree that clean water is a necessity."
A coalition of conservation groups support the measure to create a permitting program for responsible development through the Colorado Department of Health and Environment.
Last month, Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer, R-Brighton, introduced an alternative proposal supported by the homebuilding industry, which would require a new division and staffing in the Department of Natural Resources.
Kran-Annexstein stressed clean, reliable water resources drive the economy and are vital for the health of communities. She believes the high court's ruling, claiming some waterways do not have significant connections to watersheds, was a win for corporate polluters who want to avoid permitting.
"In Colorado we know that there are a lot of streams and rivers and wetlands that run dry for certain parts of the year," Kran-Annexstein pointed out. "This ruling said that those waterways don't deserve protections and they don't count, just because they are seasonal."
Mountain states like Colorado are the source of drinking water for some 40 million Americans living in downslope states and Kran-Annexstein said the House bill is an opportunity to pass important and necessary protections after last year's Supreme Court decision.
"This decision left half of the waters across the United States unprotected by the Clean Water Act," Kran-Annexstein emphasized. "And really left it to states to make their own laws to protect state waters. And now it is the responsibility of states to step up and close that gap."
Disclosure: The Sierra Club contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, and Environmental Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
Contact
