CLEAR LAKE CITY — The Clear Lake Water Authority is looking to turn what was once a nearly 200-acre golf course into a natural park that will help with floodwater detention and will run down the middle of suburban neighborhood.
The plan to transform the former Clear Lake Golf Club, 1202 Reseda Drive in Houston, is moving forward, and the water authority is working to get the needed permits from the state, said John Branch, vice president of the water authority.
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm%96 :562 :D E@ EFC? E96 >:55=6 @7 E96 7@C>6C 8@=7 4@FCD6 :?E@ 2 D6C:6D @7 7:G6 :?E6C4@??64E65 =2<6D E92E H@F=5 36 23@FE D:I 766E 566A 2?5 E2<6 23@FE bg 24C6D] p3@FE bh 24C6D @7 H6E=2?5D H@F=5 =:?6 E96 =2<6D]k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm%96 A=2? 2=D@ :?4=F56D `a >:=6D @7 EC2:=D 2=@?8 E96 H@@565 D=@A6D 23@G6 E96 =2<6D] %96 AC@A@D2= 2=D@ 42==D 7@C 2E9=6E:4 DA@CED 7:6=5D 2?5 A:4?:4 2?5 @A6? 82>6 2C62D] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`QmqC2?49 D2:5 E96 A=2? H@F=5 96=A 562= H:E9 7=@@5:?8] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm“~G6C E96 =2DE b_ J62CD[ 7=@@5:?8 92D 8C@H? E@ E96 ?F>36C @?6 :DDF6 7@C E96 r=62C {2<6 r:EJ 2C62[” 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 H2E6C 2FE9@C:EJ’D >2DE6C A=2?]k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm(9:=6 E96 =2<6D H:== 36 7:==65 2?5 >2:?E2:?65 H:E9 EC62E65 H2E6C 7C@> E96 H2E6C 2FE9@C:EJ[ :? E96 42D6 @7 962GJ C2:? 2?5 7=@@5:?8[ E96 A2C< H@F=5 5C2:? E@ ?62C3J w@CD6A6? q2J@F[ qC2?49 D2:5] %96 H6E=2?5D 2=@?8 E96 =2<6D H@F=5 96=A E@ 4=62? E96 A@==FE65 CF?@77 H2E6C E92E 5C2:?D 7C@> E96 2C62D’ DEC66ED[ qC2?49 D2:5] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`QmqC2?49 D2:5 :E >256 D6?D6 E@ FD6 E96 7@C>6C 8@=7 4@FCD6 2D 2 C6E6?E:@? 2C62 3642FD6 :E H2D E96 @?=J =2C86 A2C46= @7 =2?5 =67E :? E96 4@>>F?:EJ] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm%96 4@FCD6 H2D 3F:=E :? `heb 2D A2CE @7 E96 A=2??65 4@>>F?:EJ @7 r=62C {2<6 r:EJ] qFE E96 8@=7 4@FCD6 H2D 4=@D65 :? a__d[ 2?5 56G6=@A6CD 2E E96 E:>6 H2?E65 E@ EFC? E96 2C62 :?E@ 2A2CE>6?ED 2?5 9@FD:?8[ qC2?49 D2:5] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qmu@C 2 G2C:6EJ @7 C62D@?D[ :?4=F5:?8 E96 ?665 7@C 2 56E6?E:@? 2C62[ E96 H2E6C 2FE9@C:EJ 2?5 D@>6 4@>>F?:EJ C6D:56?ED @AA@D65 E92E A=2?] x? a_``[ E96 H2E6C 2FE9@C:EJ 3@F89E E96 =2?5 7@C 23@FE Se]ad >:==:@?[ qC2?49 D2:5] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm%96 AC@A@D2= 7@C E96 @=5 8@=7 4@FCD6 4@F=5 4@DE Sad >:==:@? E@ Sbd >:==:@? :7 E96 H2E6C 2FE9@C:EJ 925 E@ A2J 7@C 2== E96 H@C< E92E ?665D E@ 36 5@?6[ 3FE E96 2FE9@C:EJ 2?5 uC2?< (62CJ[ AC6D:56?E @7 E96 tIA=@C2E:@? vC66? r@?D6CG2?4J[ 2C6 9@A:?8 E96 4@DE H:== 36 92=7 E92E] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm%96 4@?D6CG2?4J :D :? E96 AC@46DD @7 86EE:?8 :ED ?@?AC@7:E DE2EFD :? 2? 677@CE E@ 86E E96 ?66565 7F?5D E9C@F89 5@?2E:@?D 2?5 8C2?ED[ (62CJ D2:5] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm!C@8C6DD 92D 366? >256 E9C@F89 A2CE?6CD9:AD H:E9 E96 %6I2D r@2DE2= (2E6CD965 !C@8C2>[ H9:49 H:== 36 AC@G:5:?8 E96 H6E=2?5 A=2?ED[ 96 D2:5] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm%96 4@?D6CG2?4J :D 2=D@ H@C<:?8 H:E9 %C66D 7@C w@FDE@?[ H9:49 92D 28C665 E@ 5@?2E6 2D >2?J 2D `[___ EC66D A6C D64E:@? 2?5 92D 8C@H? D@>6 @7 E96> @? 2? @?\D:E6 ?FCD6CJ] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm(9:=6 E96 AC@A@D2= H:== C6BF:C6 4FEE:?8 5@H? EC66D :? E96 >:55=6 @7 E96 7@C>6C 8@=7 4@FCD6[ E96 AC@A@D2= H@F=5 36 E@ D2G6 EC66D @? E96 @FE6C 6586D 2?5 C6A=2?E H92E H@F=5 2>@F?E E@ 23@FE g[___ EC66D[ (62CJ D2:5] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qmp C@F89 6DE:>2E6 7@C E96 AC@;64E :D S`d >:==:@?[ H:E9 E96 H2E6C 2FE9@C:EJ 4@G6C:?8 c_ A6C46?E 2?5 E96 32=2?46 4@G6C65 3J 4@?D6CG2?4J 4@?EC:3FE:@?D[ 96 D2:5] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`QmqC2?49 2?5 (62CJ D2:5 E96 H2E6C 2FE9@C:EJ 92D H@C<65 H:E9 E96 4@>>F?:EJ 7@C EH@ J62CD E@ 56G6=@A E96 A=2?] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm“x?DE625 @7 ;FDE 5:88:?8 9@=6D[ =6E’D >2<6 E9:D 2 ?:46 2>6?:EJ E@ E96 4@>>F?:EJ 3642FD6 E92E’D H92E :E H2D 56D:8?65 E@ 36[” qC2?49 D2:5] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm(9:=6 E96 A=2? 92D DFAA@CE :? E96 2C62[ ?@E 6G6CJ@?6 :D 92AAJ] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm“%9:D H9@=6 AC@;64E :D ;FDE 6IEC6>6[” D2:5 r2C@=6 w6??:?8[ 7@F?5:?8 492:C>2? @7 uC:6?5D @7 E96 ~=5 v@=7 r@FCD6[ 2 8C@FA E92E :D @AA@D:?8 E96 H2E6C 2FE9@C:EJ’D AC@A@D2=] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qmw6??:?8 D2:5 D96 925 4@?46C?D @G6C E9:?8D DF49 2D E96 C6>@G2= @7 EC66D 2?5 E96 :?4=FD:@? @7 H6E=2?5D E92E H@F=5 2EEC24E >@DBF:E@6D 2?5 2==:82E@CD] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm(9:=6 E96 H2E6C 2FE9@C:EJ 92D D2:5 :E A=2?D E@ FD6 ?2EFC2= 56E6CC6?ED 7@C F?H2?E65 H:=5=:76 DF49 2D >@DBF:E@6D 2?5 2==:82E@CD[ w6??:?8 D2:5 D96 H2D ?@E 4@?G:?465]k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qmw6??:?8 2=D@ BF6DE:@?65 E96 FD6 @7 EC62E65 H2E6C 7@C E96 AC@A@D65 =2<6D] %96 H2E6C 2FE9@C:EJ D2:5 C6FD6 H2E6C H2D 2=C625J 36:?8 FD65 2E E96 8@=7 4@FCD6 E@ :CC:82E6 E96 8C2DD 2?5 E@ 7:== E96 A@?5D 2?5 @E96C H2E6C 92K2C5D @? E96 4@FCD6] qFE w6??:?8 D2:5 D96 H2D F?D6EE=65 H:E9 E96 D42=6 2?5 2>@F?E @7 EC62E65 H2E6C AC@A@D65 7@C E96 AC@;64E] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm$96 D2:5 D96 A=2??65 E@ <66A 7:89E:?8 E96 H2E6C 2FE9@C:EJ’D AC@A@D2= H9:=6 492>A:@?:?8 96C 8C@FA’D 2=E6C?2E:G6] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm#2E96C E92? E96 D6C:6D @7 =2<6D 2?5 H6E=2?5D[ w6??:?8 D2:5 E96 @=5 8@=7 4@FCD6 D9@F=5 36 EFC?65 :?E@ 2 C68:@?2= A2C< H:E9 7:E?6DD EC2:=D[ H2=< A2E9D 2?5 3:4J4=6 EC2:=D 7@C D>2== 49:=5C6? 2?5 25F=ED[ 2>@?8 @E96C 762EFC6D[ D96 D2:5] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm%96 H2E6C 2FE9@C:EJ’D A=2? H@F=5 36 7:?6 D@>6H96C6 @FED:56 @7 2? FC32? 2C62 DF49 2D r=62C {2<6 r:EJ[ w6??:?8 D2:5] k^DA2?mk^Am
kA 4=2DDlQAcQmkDA2? 4=2DDlQD`Qm“qFE :E D9@F=5 ?@E 36 :? E96 >:55=6 @7 2 4@>>F?:EJ[” D96 D2:5] k^DA2?mk^Am
(9) comments
Sure doesn't seem like the highest and best use of financial or natural resources.
When a non-profit throws out a range of between $25M & $35M dollars for a project (a whopping 40% difference!) it means they don't know what they're doing and they don't care about the public's money.
Sounds like a good plan to benefit all.
If this plan proceeds as laid out in this article the property owners who back up to this area should be concerned about how it will affect their flood map designation.
Etheridge, I don't know how putting detention ponds in will increase the flooding potential. As green space, the former golf course will have much less of a negative impact on flooding as planing acres of concrete.
As for the concern about alligators and mosquitoes, there are already a few bayous and creeks--wild wetlands--that are in the Clear Lake City area. As for mosquitoes, the lawns in the neighborhood are already great breeding and feeding areas for them. As for the alligators, do what people in El Lago, Taylor Lake, Seabrook, Nassau Bay, Clear Lake Shores, etc. do.
I like the idea of using either natural water, or untreated water--perhaps reclaimed water--and stocking the "lakes" with fish. Of course, treated water will cut down on the alligators. They don't care much for chlorine and flouride, especially since their food doesn't usually live in that kind of water.
This non-profit wants to establish "wetlands". Once a property becomes a designated wetland it and the surrounding properties will be at the mercy of FEMA.
Oh, I'm sure there are a number of ways to handle it. I doubt the feds control all "wetlands" in this country, and I'm sure that if clear thinkers stay involved in this, this could be made into something that works for everyone involved, with the feds, state, or even local governments involved to the least extent possible. Be wise with the conditions of grants, and you can steer clear of lots of regulations you don't want to deal with.
However, I'm sure that whatever is done there--park or apartments--FEMA's going to consider the impacts on flooding. And, if the park does drain into any creeks, bayous, bays, etc., there will be lots of agencies that will need to sign off that the project doesn't adversely affect those ecosystems. Just like with the existing green space or any other development that might happen there.
To kevjlang - Actually, the feds do control all wetlands - the EPA to be exact. Everything surrounding homeowners may want to do to their private property will come under scrutiny because it will impact a wetland.
Referencing a government agency and inserting the words "clear thinkers" in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
kevjlang: They are not proposing detention ponds. "...a series of five interconnected lakes that would be about six feet deep and take about 38 acres." Detention ponds dry out; lakes do not.
I think control may be too strong of a word for it. If the wetlands have connections to real water sources, the EPA has, and should have, regulatory authority over where that water goes. Neither of us would want someone just going through and spraying insecticides and herbicides into a marshland that either feeds drinking water, irrigation water, or our favorite fishing hole.
If your concern is that if they create wetlands that they'll be under jurisdiction of the EPA and other state, federal, and local regulatory agencies, you're right. However, that was true when it was a golf course, and in its current state, as is the entire Clear Lake City development.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Real Names required. No pseudonyms or partial names allowed. Stand behind what you post.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
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.