Why Flood Mitigation Needs Steady Funding Source

4/15/25 – At a flood resilience workshop yesterday in Houston, the importance of a steady funding source for flood-mitigation projects became abundantly clear.

The Biannual Resiliency Workshop of the Society of American Military Engineers (S.A.M.E.) drew a star-studded lineup of speakers for the hundreds of engineers, lawyers and business people in attendance.

Alia Vinson, a partner at the law firm of Allen Boone Humphries Robinson LLP, made steady funding for flood mitigation the focus of her entire talk. She even wore green to underscore her theme. (“The color of money,” she said.)

*Alia Vinson, partner at Allen Boone Humphries Robinson LLP*, *speaking at S.A.M.E. workshop.*

After Vinson, the keynote speaker, Congressman Wesley Hunt, talked about “unsustainable federal spending.” The Federal government provides most of the flood-mitigation financial assistance in the country through FEMA and HUD. But both agencies have come under fire by President Trump and Elon Musk lately. That creates uncertainty for Texas where more people live in floodplains than the entire populations of 30 other states.

Competition for Flood Mitigation Funding Getting Stronger

Vinson’s talk focused primarily on the vigorous competition for funds in this Texas Legislature and the previous session. She began with the creation of the Texas Water Fund (Proposition 6) in 2023, which triggered a $1 billion investment in new water infrastructure needed to support a growing population.

The Texas Water Development Board administers the Texas Water Fund. It has the authority to shift money as needed between at least eight different programs. They award loans and grants to political subdivisions for local water and wastewater infrastructure projects. They include:

New Water Supply Fund
SWIFT
State Revolving Funds
Rural Water Assistance Fund
DFund
State Participation Fund
Water Awareness Fund
Water Assistance Fund

At least 25% of the $1 billion must go to the New Water Supply Fund, which supports projects such as:

Desalination
Aquifer storage and retrieval
Use of produced water
Transport of water

The point:

None of these has to do with flooding or flood mitigation.

This year, “new water” again is high on the Legislature’s agenda. Although nothing is final yet, base budgets have set aside $2.5 billion for the Texas Water Fund.

Pending Legislation Could Help Address Mitigation Needs

Vinson then shifted focus to this year’s SB7 by Senator Charles Perry and HB16 by Rep. Cody Harris.

The Senate has already approved SB7 and sent it to the House Natural Resources Committee. A key provision makes the Flood Infrastructure Fund eligible for money from the Texas Water Fund.

HB16 does the same thing, but hasn’t made it out of the Natural Resources Committee yet for a vote by the House.

Two other bills pending this year would create a dedicated revenue stream of $1 billion per year for the Texas Water Fund. They are SJR 66 and HJR 7. The big difference between them: the Senate Bill requires at least 80% to be used ONLY for New Water Supply. That would limit flood mitigation funding to only 20% of $1 billion.

Still No Dedicated Funding Stream

I took away two main things from Vinson’s speech:

Texas doesn’t yet have a dedicated funding source for water OR flood mitigation projects.
The money available for flood mitigation is being fragmented among competing needs.

That dedicated funding source could quickly become increasingly important. Uncertainty continues to swirl around financial support from the federal government, which has the deepest pockets when it comes to flood mitigation and disaster relief.

This morning, Politico ran a story with the headline, “FEMA denies Washington state disaster relief from bomb cyclone, governor says.” FEMA denied the State’s request for $34 million for disaster relief even though it reportedly met all the criteria for assistance. According to the State’s governor, FEMA provided no explanation for the denial, but said “assistance was not warranted.”

Federal Support Uncertain

Another speaker yesterday at the S.A.M.E. workshop, U.S. Congressman Wesley Hunt, said he had talked directly with President Trump and Elon Musk at length about the Federal budget.

*Congressman Hunt addresses S.A.M.E. workshop about ballooning federal deficit* *and need to cut spending.*

Hunt said the U.S. has a $2 trillion annual deficit and that we are $36 trillion in debt. He characterized both as “unsustainable.”

However, a group called “Truth in Accounting” that monitors government finances reported this morning that the situation is even more dire. The group applies generally accepted accounting principles from the private sector to government spending reports.

According to Truth in Accounting, the government’s financial position worsened by $4.7 trillion last year, not $2 trillion.

Truth in Accounting also says the government needs $158.6 trillion to pay its bills, not $36 trillion. And that each taxpayer’s share of the burden is $974,000.

The ominous warnings from Hunt and Truth in Accounting come as President Trump has questioned whether to disband FEMA entirely and give money directly to states to handle disasters. According to Politico, Trump has created “a council to study what to do with FEMA and whether to get rid of it.”

The uncertainty surrounding future availability of Federal aid makes it all the more important for Texas to provide a dedicated, steady funding stream for flood mitigation.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/15/2025

2786 Days since Hurricane Harvey