GALVESTON

Researchers at Rice University incorrectly described data used to model a proposed coastal barrier system in a widely distributed news article published earlier this week, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said.

Data used to analyze its proposed $23 billion coastal barrier system included the “most advance modeling and catastrophic storm surge events,” a corps statement issued Wednesday asserts.

On Monday, the Houston Chronicle quoted researchers from Rice University’s Severe Storm Prediction, Education & Evacuation from Disasters Center, known as the SSPEED Center, who said the corps used “incomplete” models that did not account for very powerful, worst-case-scenario storms. By not doing so, the corps had recommended a plan that left Houston and Harris County unprotected, the Rice researchers argued.

The article was picked up by the Associated Press and distributed to news agencies nationally.

The objections to, and dire warnings about, the plan from researchers at a prestigious university hit the news just as the corps was beginning to gather public comment that will help determine whether the project moves head.

The Rice researcher’s statements were incorrect, corps officials said Thursday.

‘COMPLETELY INACCURATE’

“That was completely inaccurate,” said Kelly Burks-Copes, the project manager for the corps study. “We actually had a budget and did entire storm modeling for the region.”

The corps modeled 660 storms, including storms stronger than ever recorded but still theoretically possible, Burks-Copes said. It used 102 of those storms — the most likely ones — to reach its conclusions in its report, Burks-Copes said.

The corps’ modeling methodology was included in the hundreds of pages of appendices published Oct. 26 with the recommendation.

“I think they jumped to conclusions based on some earlier presentations,” Burks-Copes said.

Jim Blackburn, SSPEED Center co-director, declined Thursday to comment about whether he stood by his comments on the corps’ modeling. Regardless, he said he did not believe the corps’ plan adequately protects Harris County and Houston.

The Houston Chronicle did not contact the corps before publishing the article about Rice University’s assertions, Burks-Copes said.

COLLECTING COMMENT

The corps is in the midst of a 75-day public comment period after the release of its tentatively selected plan for a coastal barrier system. Released after three years of work, the plan recommends more than 70 miles of barriers around the Houston-Galveston region, including along the lengths of Galveston Island and Bolivar Peninsula.

The plan calls for a gigantic sea gate across Bolivar Roads, a ring levee around much of Galveston Island, and smaller gates at the mouths of other waterways, such as Clear Creek.

The project would cost between $23 billion and $30 billion to construct, the corps estimated.

The plan immediately drew criticism from environmental groups, who fear how a gigantic construction project would affect ecosystems and wildlife around Galveston Bay. The corps proposal also has drawn questions from Galveston County property owners about whether their homes would be protected, displaced or left outside a barrier system.

A final report about the coastal barrier is not scheduled to be completed until 2021, after which the plan could be presented to Congress for funding. Texas leaders have urged Congress to waive the corps’ normal processes so the project could move along faster, however.

LONG OBJECTION

Rice University’s criticism of the coastal barrier system isn’t new.

The SSPEED Center has for years advocated for alternatives other than a storm surge barrier built directly on the coast.

Instead, the center has said barriers within the bay and measures such as building dredge spoil islands to disrupt storm surge waves would be more cost-effective than a massive barrier system.

The center also has produced models that show that a large enough storm could flood bay-area communities with bay water trapped by a storm-surge barrier.

In 2014, state leaders urged Rice University and Texas A&M University at Galveston, which has advocated for barriers along the coast, to sign a kind of peace accord, so the state could present a single plan to federal leaders for funding. Since that agreement, presentations made by Rice University included concepts for a barrier along the coast.

REJECTED ALTERNATIVE

The corps did study barrier concepts different from the one it finally recommended, including erecting barriers in the middle of Galveston Bay and on the western side of the bay along state Highway 146 from Texas City to Baytown.

The corps discarded its mid-bay barrier proposal because of concerns about how it would affect maritime traffic in Galveston Bay, about how costly it would be to maintain water circulation in the bay and about building on top of oyster reefs in the bay.

For the state Highway 146 model, the corps’ reasoning for rejecting it was simpler: a barrier along the highway would cause $175 million in economic damage annually for homes and business on the east side of the highway left outside the wall.

CALLS FOR MOVING ON

The public reaction to Rice University’s criticism of the barrier, and claims that it would not protect Houston, haven’t spurred much criticism or agreement from elected officials.

State Sen. Larry Taylor, a Friendswood Republican who chairs the Joint Interim Committee to Study a Coastal Barrier System, said healthy debates and disagreements are critical when discussing projects as large as the barrier.

“We are fortunate to have accomplished engineers and scientists modeling various storm settings,” Taylor said. “Every storm is different, so it’s impossible to study every scenario, but the overall goal is broad risk reduction and I think the USACE’s tentatively selected plan accomplishes that. However, we should be open to suggestions that could complement USACE’s plan and find solutions that mitigate risk with a lower cost and footprint.”

Harris County Judge Ed Emmett’s office declined to comment specifically on whether the corps’ plan was best for Houston. Through a spokesman, he called on higher authorities to propose a real plan that would create and fund a barrier.

“The time for talk has passed and it’s time for someone in the congressional delegation to draft the legislation needed to get the federal money to make it happen,” Emmett said.

John Wayne Ferguson: 409-683-5226; john.ferguson@galvnews.com or on Twitter @johnwferguson.

Locations

Senior Reporter

(7) comments

Robert Braeking

Now we have to determine either who is lying or who is grossly incompetent. Wasn't it a self-proclaimed world leader who is quoted as saying, “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

The truth is that any system that blocks the ebb and flow of the natural tidal currents will adversely effect the fishery. The entire truth is unknowable and no amount of studies and impact statements can compensate for the unknown factors.

George Croix

"Jim Blackburn, SSPEED Center co-director, declined Thursday to comment about whether he stood by his comments on the corps’ modeling. Regardless, he said he did not believe the corps’ plan adequately protects Harris County and Houston."

Regardless???

There it is.....

Moot points by both sides, as the likelihood of construction, especially now with the change in money authorizing power, is somewhere between slim and none, and slim is outta town....

Miceal O'Laochdha

It seems to me this reporter's story is conflating Jim Blackburn (a lawyer by trade) with Rice University researchers (presumably scientists). Looking to Mr. Blackburn as an environmental expert has occurred in Galveston before, putting economic benefit for local interests at risk. Fortunately in that case, City officials relied more on his legal expertise, not scientific knowledge. We should call this particular element of the overall debate what it really is: those whose only concern is the financial well being of Houston and Harris County interests versus those who primary concern is their homes and properties/businesses down on the coast itself. Also, Rice versus TAMUG, and all the academic egos associated with that match up into the bargain as well. Personally, in a choice between believing lawyers or the US Army Corp of Engineers, I think it best to ignore both and look directly to the experience/expertise of the Netherlands for guidance on forming an sound opinion.

Robert Braeking

The main imputes should be on the fishery. The Galveston Bay System is the most prolific in Texas with the shrimp, oyster, and fin fish fishery. Too bad the State could not recover the Redfish Fishery. That was a valuable commercial fishery before the state began controlling it over 20 years ago. Their failure to recover it to the point of resuming commercial fishing of red drum is an indication of their incompetence.

Rusty Schroeder

I would like to know the amount spent on studies and personnel salaries of the Ike Dike since it was dreamt up. Wonder how much sand that would buy?

George Croix

The primary importance of any nationally funded project to mitigate storm damage along the Gulf Coast is, and should be, the nationally strategic petroleum refining and chemicals industries and their associated distribution pipelines system and infrastructure and storage facilities. NOTHING moves without those - no/less fuels, no/less storm recovery supplies and groceries deliveries, as but one issue.
These almost always have to be built in areas where there is readily available access to shipping, unlike a choice one makes to build a house with an ocean view.....
That's a tough thing to face, but the example of the TC Levee protecting homes in that area is incidental to the fact that it would never have been built if not to protect the refineries and Chem. Plants there.....reality rears it's ugly head.....
It simply doesn't matter what the cost of a ginormous storm is if the cost to prevent the damage exceeds that, in actual construction and endless lawsuits..........
AND the politics of the matter just made a 180 in Congress when it comes to funding....
The United States will not be covered in sea water if this project never goes forward, unlike Holland...........
We also have the added issue of 'environmental activism' and NIMBIES in this country where the voice of one can stop millions........

Carol Dean

I don't guess there is any way this problem will be resolved without huge amounts of Political influence? Larry Taylor and his insurance company happen to reap benefits from his TWIA involvement. I wouldn't believe anything he said unless he put it in writing and personally signed and dated such document. Even then, he would probably come back with his standard retort..."Oh, I must have misunderstood what you meant".

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.