Friday, March 18, 2016

Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District (GCCPRD) will host a series of public meetings in March 2016 Storm Surge Suppression Study

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:33 PM
Subject: re-Reminder: Join us for the GCCPRD Phase 2 Public Meetings
 

re-Reminder: Join us for the GCCPRD Phase 2 Public Meetings
 

The Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District (GCCPRD) will host a series of public meetings in March 2016 to encourage public participation and feedback in the Storm Surge Suppression Study.
 
Following three major hurricanes, the last of which (Hurricane Ike) was the most expensive in Texas' history, Governor Perry issued an Executive Order creating the Governor's Commission for Disaster Recovery and Renewal. One of the Commission's recommendations was to conduct a study to determine how coastal communities can reduce the damage impact of future storms. In conjunction with that recommendation, Brazoria, Chambers, Galveston, Harris, Jefferson, and Orange Counties formed the GCCPRD as a local government corporation. The GCCPRD is now leading the Storm Surge Suppression Study, a technical, scientific-based effort to investigate opportunities to alleviate the vulnerability of the upper Texas coast to storm surge and flooding. The study is funded by the Texas General Land Office through a $3.9 million federal Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant that was awarded in September 2013. This effort is an opportunity for the GCCPRD to work collaboratively with federal, state, local, and public and private institutions to develop a plan that meets the needs of the region and the nation.
 
On February 27, 2015, the GCCPRD concluded the initial phase of the Storm Surge Suppression Study. Phase 1 included a series of public meetings in December 2014, allowing the public the opportunity to provide input. Now, as the study team concludes the major technical study that defines Phase 2, the public's continued participation and input is encouraged. Phase 2 includes storm surge modeling, alternatives development analysis, and a thorough assessment of mitigation options for the entire region. During Phase 3 of the study, the GCCPRD will use these findings to recommend a cost-effective and efficient system of flood damage reduction and surge suppression measures to help protect the six-county region.
 
Public feedback and participation has been and will be encouraged throughout the duration of the study. A series of public meetings will be held on the following dates:
The findings of Phase 2 of the study were presented at the February 23, 2016 GCCPRD board meeting, and the Phase 2 Report is available online. A large-scale public meeting is being held in each region of the study area. During each meeting, alternatives will be presented and the public is invited to participate and provide feedback to further screen and select preferred alternatives. The team is not making a recommendation for a preferred alternative at this time. Based on feedback received during Phase 2, the team will recommend a single conceptual alternative for each study region in the final phase of the study in June 2016.

The materials and format will be the same at all four meetings. Informational displays will be available for viewing, and GCCPRD representatives will provide information and answer questions. No formal presentation will be made. Materials will be available in English and Spanish.

If hearing impaired or language translation services are needed, please contact the GCCPRD consulting team at 713-868-1043 or at info@gccprd.com by March 15, 2016. GCCPRD representatives will make every reasonable effort to accommodate these needs.


Comments will be accepted at the public meetings and throughout the duration of the study. All comments regarding Phase 2 study findings should be submitted or postmarked by April 15, 2016 to be considered in Phase 3 of the study. Written comments may be mailed to the Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District in care of Col. Christopher Sallese at 3100 West Alabama St., Houston, Texas 77098 or emailed to info@gccprd.com. 

 
 
 
YES TO THE IKE DIKE!
 
NO TO ANYTHING ELSE!
 
protect us all, or nothing...
 
 
FROM MAYOR GLENN ROYAL
 
Dear Neighbors,
 
Only a few are alarmed and many think a levee dividing Seabrook will never be seriously considered, yet it has been included in a state government funded study as an alternative design to the coastal spine concept recommended by Dr. Bill Merrell with Texas A&M at Galveston. It is presented as the low cost storm surge protection option that would build a sea levee alongside SH 146 from Texas City, through Seabrook, and on toward La Porte. This would divide many of our coastal communities in half.
 
This design alternative was presented in the Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District’s (GCCPRD) Storm Surge Suppression Study Phase 2 Report. The report and additional information is located at www.gccprd.com. The GCCPRD is a local government corporation that is governed by a board of directors comprised of the county judges of Brazoria, Chambers, Galveston, Harris, Jefferson, and Orange counties plus three additional appointed members. The purpose of this storm suppression study is to analyze the feasibility of protecting our communities from storm surge and flood damages.
 
Proposed Central Region Alternative Design #1 (CR#1) is the coastal spine that would extend from High Island to San Luis Pass. This design offers the greatest protection for the entire region, including those communities along SH 146 and is the preferred alternative design in the report. The second alternative (CR#2) would be the lowest cost option offering protection to the City of Galveston and portions of the west side of Galveston Bay but none to the upper portions of the bay and ship channel. CR#2 was selected as an alternative if the Bolivar Roads gate in the CR#1 coastal spine design is not able to be constructed for technical reasons.
 
Based on cost-benefits analysis, both alternatives offer value. The study shows a benefit-to-cost ratio of 3.22 for CR#1, the coastal spine, versus 6.36 for CR#2, the SH 146 levee. However, what the 6.36 cost ratio figure doesn’t have in its’ calculation, are the financial impacts upon the communities; the potential for higher insurance (if even available) costs and declining property and home values for those on the “wrong” side of the levee. Not only would CR#2 effect home and business owners, it would include city halls, schools, police and fire stations, city drinking water facilities, and waste treatment plants. These higher operating costs will be passed on to all residents in the form of higher taxes and fees no matter what side of the levee you live on.
 
Alternative design CR#2 does not protect the Bayport maritime, petrochemical, and storage tank industrial complex. During Hurricane Ike, cargo containers onshore became battering rams as they floated with the surge. Without any protection for Bayport and the large number of containers on the docks, any possibility of adrift containers should cause great concern for the potential environmental damage to one or more ruptured petro-chemical tanks. There is even the possibility that a floating container could damage the levee breaking its integrity and cause its failure.
 
I take this GCCPRD report and its options very seriously and believe that you should to. The coastal spine approach of CR#1 should be supported for its benefits to all of us over the community destroying levee design of CR#2. There will be a high societal cost if CR#2 is selected only for its perceived better benefit-to-cost ratio that does not include community impact costs. CR#2 is an option that would sacrifice Seabrook and our coastal neighbors. If alternative design CR#2 is selected, in effect what we will have is the bay extending to the SH 146 levee inundating all properties east of SH 146.
 
What I ask of you is to join me in making your voice heard on this very important matter. I believe it is the most important issue that Seabrook has ever faced. GCCPRD is now gathering public input for the Phase 2 study. A public meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. where you can learn more and voice your opinion. The meeting will be held at the League City Civic Center, 400 West Walker Street, League City, Texas 77573. If you are unable to attend, you can email your comments to info@gccprd.com or via mail to Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District, c/o Col. Christopher Sallese, 3100 West Alabama St., Houston, Texas 77098.
 
Sincerely, Mayor Glenn Royal City of Seabrook
 
GCCPRD is now gathering public input for the Phase 2 study. A public meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. where you can learn more and voice your opinion. The meeting will be held at the League City Civic Center, 400 West Walker Street, League City, Texas 77573. If you are unable to attend, you can email your comments to info@gccprd.com or via mail to Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District, c/o Col. Christopher Sallese, 3100 West Alabama St., Houston, Texas 77098.
 
 
 
 
Greetings Mayor Royal and all our fine Neighbors down the shoreline in Seabrook, Kemah, Shore Acres, La Porte, Bayview, Sunny San Leon, Bacliff, Hillmansville, and to anyone else I might have missed that may be concerned with our federal government hanging all of us out to dry or to drown just to save Houston and it’s precious petro chemical complex and it’s precious ship channel.
 
I kindly would like to comment on this please.
 
So soon some forget. New Orleans survived Hurricane Katrina, what New Orleans did not survive was the Army Corp of Engineer and the Levee failures there from, and it does not take a rocket scientist to know, if you build a town in the bottom of a bowl, your going to have problems. we all have known since Hurricanes Katrina and Ike and before, that this community needs a storm wall at the coast to protect us all, thus, the TAMU Ike Dike was proposed to protect all of Galveston Bay, and everyone inside of it. Since then, corporate politics have taken the forefront, and science was sent to the rear of the bus. now it seems that all anyone is interested in is protecting Houston and the Petro Chemical Ship Channel, and all some of us have become is collateral damage, as those of us living east of state highway 146 from Texas City to La Porte, and everyone in-between. it’s been a decade since Katrina and about 7 years or so since Ike, and here we still sit, waiting for another study, and you can see the writing on the wall, the only thing they are waiting on is a study that only protects the Houston Ship Channel and Houston, yet hangs everyone out to dry east of State Hwy 146, to make way for a tourist recreational land on our old homesteads. those plans my fine neighbors and friends are already in the drawings, and that’s no joke. why should any of us pay to protect only the petro and chemical plants, with something that could completely wash us away? Personally, if there cannot be a IKE Dike that protects all of us, then I would rather have no Dike at al, if the only other alternative was the SSPEED Rice Dike Centennial Gate at Fred Hartman Bridge, and or the Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area (LSCNRA, which is the RICE DIKE in disguise, don’t take the bait). WE already know what Houston officials are capable of doing to us during an emergency i.e. protect their own, and they have done it to us in the past, all one has to do is remember Hurricane Rita and that nightmare on Interstate 45, when Houston officials got scared and evacuated everybody from Houston first, when Galveston and the 2nd tier water front was suppose to be evacuated first. Houston could care less about our Galveston Bay communities. Furthermore, Professor Merrell of TAMU and who from day one, fully supported only the IKE Dike as it was originally put forth, and agrees with the conception of what would happened to all of us if you dam up the North end of Galveston Bay. I have personally spoken with Professor Merrel at meetings and via emails, and unless he has changed his mind since, he is still dead set against anything but the original Ike Dike Proposals. If we let them our government officials, the Houston Ship Channel, and their corporate cronies dictate to us what we need, we will never get it, it’s all politics now. Building anything but the original Ike Dike first, like the coastal spines, building up SH146 25 feet and closing off bayous, or the closing of the North end of Galveston Bay under Fred Hartman Bridge, if any of these are to start first, we will never see the light of day for any Ike Dike, nor will our children and their children. We all may as well write our social security numbers on our arms now, because damming up the North End of Galveston bay, and surrounding Bayous and inlets, with the SSPEED Rice Dike proposal will only cause tsunami’s for surrounding coastal communities. we saw that during Hurricane Ike, without the North End of Galveston bay being dammed up. so, my final question, if the SSPEED Rice Dike is put forth, that only protects the Houston Ship Channel Petro Chemical complex’s, and by it’s own construction assuredly puts all of our lives at a much higher risk that live around the adjacent shoreline communities, and the Ike Dike which would protect us all is tabled, will it then be Rice University, the big petro chemical oil machine, the Port of Houston, the GLO and the Army Corp of Engineers be responsible for killing all those that were left as collateral damage living on and around the adjacent shore lines of Galveston Bay when the next big one hits? You cannot blame stupid on a Hurricane.
 
imo, if the IKE dike is not possible, then take the money and go up to the San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site and keep that crap from leaking more into Galveston Bay from the North, something that is happening as we speak.
 
plus, seems officials have already wrote us off the map to bring in hotels, motels, and waterfront recreation. what is this, eminent domain by proxy, forced intentional flooding for everyone east of SH 146 so they can build commercial waterfront real-estate?
 
*** Furthermore, this proposal leaves waterfront properties and communities east of SH- 146 vulnerable; however, it maintains the possibility of waterfront recreation and other environmental and natural coastal features.
 
page 11, the building and writing off of all surrounding coastal communities for a new recreational tourist attraction $$$
 
 
Hurricane Ike here is a view from our pier back to the garage apartment, the garage, and the main house, the day before Hurricane Ike. video scans down shoreline in front of your house James and Tammy, and then, about halfway through the video, after a big wave came crashing over the top of the hill, I went in, still well before landfall of Ike, the pier went 12 hours before Ike made landfall, or there abouts. then the video picks of the day after. HURRICANE IKE bonnie and terry day before and the day after IKE Bacliff 77518
 
 
HURRICANE IKE Bacliff, two days later, see a video from our neighbors yard, looking back to our gutted out apartment ‘mother-in-laws-house’ and garage, (see how high tide still is along Bacliff shoreline), and the big rocks in neighbors backyard and pool.
 
 
Sunday, April 5, 2015
 
Proposed Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area or Rice Dike Post Hurricane Land Grab in Disguise or Has There Been a Ike Dike Game Change Plan ?
 
 
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
 
IKE DIKE 3rd PROPOSAL CALLS FOR 'MID-BAY' GATE NEAR SAN LEON ACROSS TO SMITH POINT AREA
 
 
 
say no to the RICE DIKE and or any Centennial Gate across the end of Galveston Bay at Fred Hartman Bridge, including the Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area (LSCNRA, which is the RICE DIKE in disguise, don’t take the bait). ...
 
 
Thursday, November 27, 2014
 
IKE DIKE VS RICE DIKE PUBLIC INPUT SOUGHT PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF TAMU IKE DIKE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 
 
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
 
*** Ike Dike Scientist Professor William Merrell sees NO chance of compromise !
 
 
Monday, April 15, 2013
 
Hurricane Ike: 5 Years Later Conference Rice Dike Proposal September 24-25, 2013
 
 
Sunday, June 9, 2013
 
RICE DIKE AND IKE DIKE ARE RIVALS NO MORE, AND HAS BACKED OFF THE PROPOSAL OF A 20-MILE 25 FOOT LEVEE ALONG SH 146
 
 
Monday, November 18, 2013
 
Is your community just collateral damage? RICE DIKE VS IKE DIKE
 
 
Friday, December 6, 2013
 
IKE DIKE TAMU VS Rice SSPEED Dike Centennial gate from Hell
 
 
October 10, 2012
 
IKE DIKE PROPOSED BY RICE UNIVERSITY hangs our Bayshore communities out to dry, IN 25 FEET OF WATER, to make way for WATERFRONT RECREATION $$$
 
 
Sunday, December 9, 2012
 
*** RICE DIKE PROPOSAL COULD DESTROY GALVESTON BAY BAYSHORE COMMUNITIES
 
 
Hurricane Ike here is a view from our pier back to the garage apartment, the garage, and the main house, the day before Hurricane Ike. video scans down shoreline in front of your house James and Tammy, and then, about halfway through the video, after a big wave came crashing over the top of the hill, I went in, still well before landfall of Ike, the pier went 12 hours before Ike made landfall, or there abouts. then the video picks of the day after. HURRICANE IKE bonnie and terry day before and the day after IKE Bacliff 77518
 
 
HURRICANE IKE Bacliff, two days later, see a video from our neighbors yard, looking back to our gutted out apartment ‘mother-in-laws-house’ and garage, (see how high tide still is along Bacliff shoreline), and the big rocks in neighbors backyard and pool.
 
 
Sunday, April 5, 2015
 
Proposed Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area or Rice Dike Post Hurricane Land Grab in Disguise or Has There Been a Ike Dike Game Change Plan ?
 
 
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
 
IKE DIKE 3rd PROPOSAL CALLS FOR 'MID-BAY' GATE NEAR SAN LEON ACROSS TO SMITH POINT AREA
 
 
 
Friday, March 11, 2016
 
New Houston Hurricane Plan Stirs the Pot
 
 
say no to the RICE DIKE and or any Centennial Gate across the end of Galveston Bay at Fred Hartman Bridge, including the Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area (LSCNRA, which is the RICE DIKE in disguise, don’t take the bait). ...
 
 
Terry S. Singeltary Sr., Bacliff, Texas USA 77518 flounder9@verizon.net on the bottom...

Friday, March 11, 2016

New Houston Hurricane Plan Stirs the Pot

New Houston Hurricane Plan Stirs the Pot

 

by Kiah Collier March 10, 2016

 

A new proposal to protect the Houston area from hurricanes is reigniting controversy, and potentially diminishing the odds that a consensus will emerge anytime soon on the best plan to safeguard the nation's fifth-largest metropolitan area.

 

Since Hurricane Ike in 2008, Texas scientists have pushed several different plans to shield the region, home to the nation's largest refining and petrochemical complex, from devastating storm surge.

 

Some accord emerged in recent years around a $6 billion-to-$8 billion Dutch-inspired concept called the “coastal spine,” creating some hope that state and federal lawmakers may have a single proposal to champion before the next big hurricane hits. The concept — an expanded version of another, dubbed the "Ike Dike" — is designed to impede storm surge right at the coast with a 60-mile seawall along Galveston Island and Bolivar Peninsula. A massive floodgate between the two landmasses would be closed ahead of a storm. Several dozen communities have endorsed the coastal spine — conceived at Texas A&M University at Galveston — along with some state lawmakers, the Texas Municipal League and at least one major industry group.

 

But a six-county coalition studying how best to proceed now says a 56-mile, mostly mainland levee system — several components of which have been proposed before by other entities — would provide a nearly equivalent level of protection while costing several billion dollars less. The catch: several Houston-area communities on the west side of Galveston Bay, including Kemah, La Porte, Seabrook, Morgan’s Point and San Leon, would be left outside the dike.

 

And officials from those communities say that is unacceptable.

 

A map in the Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District's latest report shows the "coastal spine" (yellow) and a new proposal for a levee system (purple) Enlargecredit:: The Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District (GCCPRD) A map in the Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District's latest report shows the "coastal spine" (yellow) and a new proposal for a levee system (purple) “Just the fact that it’s mentioned — I take it as a serious threat,” Seabrook Mayor Glenn Royal said.

 

The $3.5 billion proposal by the Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District, unveiled in a report last week, calls for expanding and extending an existing levee around Texas City northward along State Highway 146 and westward to the community of Santa Fe. The recovery district's plan also calls for placing a "ring" levee around the entire city of Galveston to protect it from storm surge. (During hurricanes, the island gets hit by surge once from the front and a second time from the back when surge that reaches the mainland recedes.)

 

The part of the proposed levee closest to Texas City — home to three major refineries — sits right on Galveston Bay, but most of it is set back from the water, meaning the communities between it and the bay are left unprotected.

 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a hurricane research center headquartered at Rice University also have proposed raising or building a levee along SH-146 and installing a bayside levee to protect Galveston, but the concepts have never gained much public support. The SH-146 proposal, in particular, has met staunch opposition from the communities located between the highway and the bay — a sentiment that’s not lost on the recovery district.

 

“It’s not the best — we know that,” said Col. Chris Sallese, coastal programs manager at Dannenbaum Engineering, of the proposed levee system at a Tribune event last week. The recovery district hired the local firm with a $4 million state grant to study how best to protect the greater Houston area from hurricanes, with work beginning in 2014.

 

But Sallese, a former commander of the Army Corps' Galveston District, also said there are legitimate questions about the high cost of the coastal spine and the environmental impact of installing a massive floodgate between Galveston and Bolivar to help keep storm surge from entering Galveston Bay. He said a big concern is that it would greatly hinder the flow of water between the bay, one of the region’s most productive estuaries, and the Gulf of Mexico. That could "change the hydrodynamics, morphology, and water quality of the bay," according to the recovery district's report.

 

That could mean non-compliance with federal environmental regulations such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, Sallese said. Assuming that any storm surge protection project will be federally funded, that would mean the project could not proceed.

 

Sallese said other proposals that have called for placing massive floodgates at other places in the bay to block surge face similar environmental concerns, so the study team wanted to propose something gate-free for the public and recovery district board to consider and compare to the coastal spine. And Sallese said the residents who weighed in on such a plan at a series of public hearings last year soundly rejected the idea of installing the entire levee system along the bay-front, which is lined with high-dollar homes and recreational areas.

 

"We're not trying to take anything away from the coastal spine. We’re just trying to say: If you could not build it, what could you do" instead, said Sallese, noting the study team could not delve any further into environmental impacts because of limited funding.

 

Asked about past opposition to SH-146 and ring levee concepts, Sallese said no one had ever seriously examined their feasibility or cost before.

 

According to the recovery district's report, conducted using Army Corps standards, the levee system would provide more than $1 billion in annual benefits, and — at $3.5 billion — cost much less than the coastal spine, which Sallese's team estimated would cost $5.8 billion and have about the same annual benefit.

 

The levee system therefore has a cost-benefit ratio nearly twice as high as the coastal spine, according to the report.

 

But Recovery District President Robert Eckels, a former Harris County judge, stressed that the study team found that the coastal spine's cost-benefit ratio is high, too — and that the Army Corps' cost-benefit analysis doesn't account for social and other impacts, including economic and flood damage to areas left outside the levee system.

 

The recovery district will carefully consider those other factors, he said, going on to guess that the recovery district's final recommendation will be "a combination of the two" plans.

 

Some state lawmakers have said they will champion whatever the district recommends. And the Army Corps will use it as guidance in its own, recently launched study into how best to protect the Texas coast from hurricanes, which is not expected to be done for at least five years.

 

Army Corps Project Manager Sharon Tirpak said during a recent interview that an environmental analysis will be a big part of the study and is what has been missing from all the research done so far.

 

"None of the other entities have done any of the environmental work," she said.

 

But a hybrid approach is a nonstarter for officials in bay-area communities like Seabrook — and the researchers at Texas A&M University at Galveston developing the coastal spine concept who believe it is end-all, be-all to the region's hurricane problems.

 

"It's DOA, OK?" said Morgan's Point Mayor Michel Bechtel of the proposed levee system, calling it "bullshit."

 

"It's silly to protect some of the people at the cost of the other people," he said. "And we will not be collateral damage, period."

 

Texas A&M oceanographer Bill Merrell, who conceived of the coastal spine concept, has been opposed to placing a storm surge barrier anywhere but directly on the coast because he says putting anything farther inland would protect certain areas at the expense of others.

 

"You can’t come up with anything in the bay that doesn’t hurt somebody," he said. "It's impossible."

 

Along with the bayfront communities, Merrell said the proposed levee system leaves the western end of Galveston — lined by high-dollar beach homes important to the island's tax base — completely unprotected. And he said it would do nothing to block surge from entering the Houston Ship Channel, a 52-mile shipping lane that juts off Galveston Bay. The waterway is lined with refineries, chemical manufacturing plants and various shipping terminals whose business activity makes up a sizable chunk of the state's GDP.

 

The levee system "won’t go because of public opinion," Merrell said. "The mayors around the bay aren’t going to let this dike happen — I can assure you."

 

Sallese's study team will take public comment on both the coastal spine and levee system at a series of public meetings this month before making a recommendation to the recovery district board, which may accept or reject it. A final report with recommendations is expected in June.

 

As the debate heats up, the recovery district may have an ally in the Severe Storm Prediction, Education and Evacuation from Disasters Center at Rice, which has pushed the SH-146 and Galveston ring levee concepts in recent years.

 

Center co-director Jim Blackburn also said a combination approach would be ideal.

 

"We think there is a hybrid out there that is the best of all worlds," he said.

 

Blackburn's only quibble with the recovery district's report was that it envisioned protection systems for the Houston, Beaumont and Freeport areas not being completed until 2035.

 

"That’s a scary number," he said. "I think it would be failure on all of our parts if we can’t find out how to get something underway in three to four years — and I think that’s possible."

 

Disclosure: The Texas Municipal League is a corporate sponsor of The Texas Tribune. Rice University was a sponsor in 2013. A complete list of Tribune donors and sponsors can be viewed here.

 


 

 so soon some forget. New Orleans survived Hurricane Katrina, what New Orleans did not survive was the Army Corp of Eng. and the Levee failures there from, and it does not take a rocket scientist to know, if you build a town in the bottom of a bowl, your going to have problems. we all have known since Hurricanes Katrina and Ike and before, that this community needs a storm wall at the coast to protect us all, thus, the TAMU Ike Dike was proposed to protect all of Galveston Bay, and everyone inside of it. Since then, corporate politics have taken the forefront, and science was sent to the rear of the bus. now it seems that all anyone is interested in is protecting Houston and the Petro Chemical Ship Channel, and all some of us have become is collateral damage, as those of us living east of state highway 146 from Texas City to La Porte, and everyone in-between. it’s been a decade since Katrina and about 7 years or so since Ike, and here we still sit, waiting for another study, and you can see the writing on the wall, the only thing they are waiting on is a study that only protects the Houston Ship channel and Houston, yet hangs everyone out to dry east of State Hwy 146, to make way for a tourist recreational land on our old homesteads. those plans my fine neighbors and friends are already in the drawings, and that’s no joke. why should any of us pay to protect only the petro and chemical plants, with something that could completely wash us away? Personally, if there cannot be a IKE Dike that protects all of us, then I would rather have no Dike at al, if the only other alternative was the SSPEED Rice Dike Centennial Gate at Fred Harman Bridge, and or the Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area (LSCNRA, which is the RICE DIKE in disguise, don’t take the bait). we all may as well write our social security numbers on our arms now, because damming up the North End of Galveston bay, and surrounding Bayous and inlets, with the SSPEED Rice Dike proposal will only cause tsunami’s for surrounding coastal communities. we saw that during Hurricane Ike, without the North End of Galveston bay being dammed up. so, my final question, if the SSPEED Rice Dike is put forth, that only protects the Houston Ship Channel Petro Chemical complex’s, and by it’s own construction assuredly puts all of our lives at a much higher risk that live around the adjacent shoreline communities, and the Ike Dike which would protect us all is tabled, will it then be Rice University, the big petro chemical oil machine, the Port of Houston, the GLO and the Army Corp of Eng. be responsible for killing all those that were left as collateral damage living on and around the adjacent shore lines of Galveston Bay when the next big one hits? You cannot blame stupid on a Hurricane. ...

 

*** Furthermore, this proposal leaves waterfront properties and communities east of SH- 146 vulnerable; however, it maintains the possibility of waterfront recreation and other environmental and natural coastal features.

 

page 11, the building and writing off of all surrounding coastal communities for a new recreational tourist attraction $$$

 


 

Thursday, November 27, 2014

 

IKE DIKE VS RICE DIKE PUBLIC INPUT SOUGHT PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF TAMU IKE DIKE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 


 

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

 

*** Ike Dike Scientist Professor William Merrell sees NO chance of compromise !

 


 

Monday, April 15, 2013

 

Hurricane Ike: 5 Years Later Conference Rice Dike Proposal September 24-25, 2013

 


 

Sunday, June 9, 2013

 

RICE DIKE AND IKE DIKE ARE RIVALS NO MORE, AND HAS BACKED OFF THE PROPOSAL OF A 20-MILE 25 FOOT LEVEE ALONG SH 146

 


 

Monday, November 18, 2013

 

Is your community just collateral damage? RICE DIKE VS IKE DIKE

 


 

Friday, December 6, 2013

 

IKE DIKE TAMU VS Rice SSPEED Dike Centennial gate from Hell

 


 

October 10, 2012

 

IKE DIKE PROPOSED BY RICE UNIVERSITY hangs our Bayshore communities out to dry, IN 25 FEET OF WATER, to make way for WATERFRONT RECREATION $$$

 


 

Sunday, December 9, 2012

 

*** RICE DIKE PROPOSAL COULD DESTROY GALVESTON BAY BAYSHORE COMMUNITIES

 


 

Hurricane Ike here is a view from our pier back to the garage apartment, the garage, and the main house, the day before Hurricane Ike. video scans down shoreline in front of your house James and Tammy, and then, about halfway through the video, after a big wave came crashing over the top of the hill, I went in, still well before landfall of Ike, the pier went 12 hours before Ike made landfall, or there abouts. then the video picks of the day after. HURRICANE IKE bonnie and terry day before and the day after IKE Bacliff 77518

 


 

HURRICANE IKE Bacliff, two days later, see a video from our neighbors yard, looking back to our gutted out apartment ‘mother-in-laws-house’ and garage, (see how high tide still is along Bacliff shoreline), and the big rocks in neighbors backyard and pool.

 


 

Sunday, April 5, 2015

 

Proposed Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area or Rice Dike Post Hurricane Land Grab in Disguise or Has There Been a Ike Dike Game Change Plan ?

 


 

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

 

IKE DIKE 3rd PROPOSAL CALLS FOR 'MID-BAY' GATE NEAR SAN LEON ACROSS TO SMITH POINT AREA

 


 


 

say no to the RICE DIKE and or any Centennial Gate across the end of Galveston Bay at Fred Hartman Bridge, including the Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area (LSCNRA, which is the RICE DIKE in disguise, don’t take the bait). ...

 


 

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Bacliff, Texas USA 77518 flounder9@verizon.net