Fox26 Interviews New HCFCD Director Stuckett about Priorities

8/18/26 – This afternoon, Fox26 reporter Greg Groogan interviewed new Harris County Flood Control District Executive Director Marcus Stuckett about his priorities. Stuckett inherited the job just six weeks ago after the previous director resigned under pressure, when it became apparent that Harris County could lose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding.

Groogan interviewing Stuckett on 8/18/26

The most immediate issue: a looming U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) use-it-or-lose-it deadline for $322 million in Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Relief (CDBG-DR).

Interview Begins with Frank Assessment

Groogan began the interview by asking Stuckett for his assessment of situation. Stuckett replied frankly and openly. He said, “We have some challenges, but we are working through those. We have some aggressive deadlines that we’re working on with the CDBG-DR projects. They’re due February 2027, followed by CDBG Mitigation projects in March 2028.”

How Stuckett Hopes to Accelerate Projects

Then he added, “We’ve been speaking with contractors, trying to find ways to accelerate the projects and we’ve had some great conversations with them.”

Groogan likened the task to a Manhattan Project or going into the fourth quarter, down three touchdowns and expecting to win. “Can it be done?” he asked.

Importance of Decisiveness and Trust

Stuckett replied, “We can do it as long as we remain focused on the plan and we remain decisive going forward.”

Groogan then asked Stuckett who has a reputation as a leader who fixes problems, “What will you do differently than the leadership you just replaced?”

Surprisingly, Stuckett referred to restoring the public’s trust. “We understand that we are beholden to the residents of Harris County, and I want to be able to restore that trust by communicating honestly, communicating with transparency about our successes, as well as some of the challenges that we face while we work on these projects.”

Focusing More Resources on Construction and Planning

When Groogan tried to pin Stuckett down to more specifics, Stuckett focused on construction. “We’ve been meeting with contractors and trying to provide more resources.”

Stuckett also focused on planning. “In terms of our planning efforts, we just have to focus on developing solutions without having a lot of back and forth amongst ourselves and consultants when making decisions.”

Groogan then asked “That’s an important part of your role – walking into a room and saying, ‘This is the best information we have and we need to get this done.'”

Unleashing an Eager Team

As a followup question, Groogan asked, “How receptive has the team you’ve inherited been to that type of leadership?”

“The team has been great,” replied Stuckett. “Everybody’s behind it. We’re all hands on deck. I’ve gotten a lot of help from some of the senior leadership that remains here. Everybody just wants to get projects done. That something that flood control employees have that the public may not have understood. Our employees want to get the work done. We want to be responsive. And we want to provide the service that we promised.”

For what it is worth, in the six weeks since Stuckett assumed his new role, I have sensed a renewed excitement on the part of HCFCD employees and managers that I talk too. In my opinion, they show an energy that felt missing under his predecessor. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

To See More of Interview

Groogan’s interview with Stuckett continued for 15 minutes. During that time, they also talked about:

  • The Texas General Land Office Relationship
  • Physical challenges facing the region such as climate and flat terrain
  • Planning far into the future
  • Kingwood issues and projects
  • Project Brays
  • Working with Commissioners Court
  • Readiness
  • Completing the bond
  • Construction capacity

To see the entire interview from start to finish, visit Fox26. I highly recommend it.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/18/26

3276 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Harris County Considers $327 Million 2027 Budget Increase

8/17/2026 – Daniel Ramos, Executive Director of Harris County’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), presented a detailed general fund budget for Fiscal Year 2027 this morning to a special meeting of Harris County Commissioners Court. The budget contained an estimated $327 million/12% increase over the 2026 budget. That increase could raise the average homeowner’s Harris County property tax bill next year to approximately $1,350. But if your house is worth more, that number could go far higher.

Here is Ramos’ “overview” presentation. And here is a 112-page explanation posted to the (OMB) website.

The county has two ways to raise property taxes: through your home’s valuation and the tax rate applied to it. But in 2026, total valuations throughout the county rose by only 0.8%. That means in order to pay for 12% increased costs, the tax rates themselves must increase.

Programs Vs. Priorities

Finalizing a budget requires debating priorities. And the presentation Ramos made today mapped proposed expenses to the priorities adopted earlier by the county. The 112-page explanation contains illuminating information about the county’s growth and demographics that drive the proposed increase.

Current Level of Service and Spending

One of the key terms used in the budget is “CLS/S.” It stands for Current Level of Service and Spending. Growth in law enforcement pay parity (with City of Houston), employee health care and benefits, CLS/S requests by departments, pay equity and other changes account for most of the projected $327 increase.

The first three categories alone account for more than two-thirds of the total increase. CLS/S includes the costs of maintaining the same level of service year over year. For instance, it includes $61 million of such things as facility maintenance, fleet operations, utilities, cost-of-living adjustments, changes in state law, and unplanned budget adjustments.

The $61 million also includes $14 million for ARPA programs which would otherwise go away at the end of this year when ARPA funding expires. So those aren’t purely inflationary costs.

The 12% increase is not principally a story about Harris County launching a huge collection of new programs. Approximately half is employee compensation and healthcare.

From Ramos presentation to Commissioners Court on 8/17/2026

And using OMB’s own accounting framework, approximately $287 million of the $327 million year-over-year increase was already embedded in the cost of maintaining existing services and spending commitments. That’s 88% not classified as expansion of services.

Existing recurring commitments are growing faster than sustainable recurring revenue.

And that points to a recurring, structural problem.

It’s important to distinguish between “unavoidable” versus “already committed.”  CLS/S does not mean unavoidable. It means current level of service and spending. Some items — healthcare inflation or statutory mandates — may be difficult to avoid.

Other items — pay-parity commitments, continuing ARPA programs, staffing levels, compensation policies — are the consequences of earlier policy decisions that Commissioners Court could theoretically change.

It’s also important to realize that the General Fund numbers cited above do NOT cover Flood Control, Port of Houston, or Public Health which have their own budgets (to be discussed at a later date).

Impact on Typical Homeowner’s Property Tax Bill

At the proposed maximum rate increase allowable without an election – and taking into account homestead exemptions and new construction growth – the average residential homestead would pay $1,350 in County property taxes vs. $1,202 last year, a 12.3% increase. See Page 40 of budget discussion.

The discussion of strategic objectives and their budget impact begins on Page 67 of the PDF. The budget is VERY complex and difficult to follow. However, several appendices may help.

  • Proposed department budgets on page 99
  • Glossary of terms on page 103
  • Which funds pay which departments on page 109
  • Salary increases of elected officials on page 111
  • Proposed benefit rates, also on 111

All pages refer to the PDF numbering system, not the numbers listed at the bottom of pages. That makes it easier to fast-forward within the document.

Make Your Feelings Known

Commissioners will vote on the final 2027 budget on September 8, 2026. Unfortunately, that’s before the November elections. So, if you’d like to limit that 12% increase in your property taxes, the time to start mailing, phoning and protesting is now.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/17/2026

3275 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Special Meeting Monday to Discuss Harris County Budget, Tax Increase

8/16/26 – On Monday 8/17/26, Harris County will hold a Special Meeting of Commissioners Court to discuss the 2027 budget and a tax increase to cover a projected $129 million deficit in the general fund.

The agenda shows that the meeting will start at 9 am. Ironically, Item #1 has to do with “salary grievances.” Item #2 is the budget itself.

Harris County’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provided an overview of the issues in April 2026. The 12-page presentation shows:

  • Historical rates dating back to 2018
  • A breakdown of last year’s budget
  • Where the money comes from; 81.5% of the general fund comes from property taxes
  • Where the money goes; 60% to Justice and Public Safety
  • A breakdown of increases
  • Revenues vs. expenditures; $129 million deficit using the Voter Approval Rate and $257 million using the No New Revenue Rate.

Need for Greater Transparency

The presentation above contains a link for more details, but the link does not work. OMBs Open Budget Dashboard website contains no content as of 7 pm on 8/16/26. And no explanatory information is linked to the agenda. Perhaps OMB will share budget details after the meeting.

The 12-page presentation from April at least contains a list of budget objectives. See below.

Unfortunately, with no details that connect goals with expenditures, it’s hard to tell how the county hopes to achieve these objectives.

I broke out laughing when I saw “housing stability.” One of the single largest expenses for most people is housing. And Harris County could increase property taxes 9-14% according to initial indications. Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE said it may be the single largest tax increase in Harris County history. It’s hard to see how increasing property taxes improve housing stability.

I also broke out laughing when I saw the typo in the last line which has escaped the notice of OMB for 5 months. That certainly does not inspire confidence in the accuracy of the numbers commissioners will soon be voting on.

For More Information and Next Steps

A third party, Rice University’s Baker Institute, provides an excellent discussion of the issues surrounding this budget. The Baker Institute also provides several recommendations to make the budget process more transparent.

Don’t expect formal budget approval tomorrow. That will come in later:

  • September 8: Commissioners Court proposes tax rates and considers budget amendments.
  • September 17: Public hearing and adoption of the 2026 tax rates and FY2027 budget.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/16/2026

3274 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Addicks-Barker Upstream Lawsuit Delayed Again

8/15/2026 – The lawsuit between the Army Corps of Engineers and residents upstream of the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs has been delayed again. The government is still deciding whether to file another appeal to the United States Supreme Court. It was supposed to have made a decision by August 7, 2026.

However, the government advised at that hearing that it could not make a decision re: the appeal and asked for yet another extension. The appeals court granted a further extension to September 4, 2026, postponing a decision once again.

The law firm McGehee ☆ Chang, Feiler, which represents the upstream flood victims, said “We are disappointed by the continued delay. That said, this is a significant case requiring extensive deliberation within the government.”

History of Case

For a complete history of the case, see the Addicks-Barker page on the law firm’s site. This 10-page brief provides a chilling recreation of events during Harvey. Judges in the case expressed their displeasure re: the government’s request for extensions as early as December 20, 2017.

One case eventually split into two because of different issues involving up- and downstream residents. I have covered the both cases since 2020.

The initial trial phase of the upstream case drew to a close in the second half of 2022. The judge ruled the government was liable for damages. But the government appealed on December 29, 2022. Three years later, on December 29, 2025, the Court of Appeals, after 13 months of deliberations, affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the issue of liability. It agreed that the government is liable for taking of the Upstream homeowners’ property.

The homeowners contended that when the reservoirs were built, the Corps didn’t buy enough property within them. Private developers then built homes within the reservoirs. The government warned as early as 1973 that it knew of the problem and that homes could be flooded.

Addicks
Flooded Homes in Addicks Reservoir during Harvey

And then it happened.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/15/2026

3273 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Why Flood Mitigation Takes So Long

8/14/26 – Yesterday, someone asked me why flood mitigation takes so long. It’s a simple question that ultimately demands another question. How can we speed it up? Let me outline what I’ve learned about the “why so long” issue before wading into whether we can speed it up.

The process isn’t always linear. Surprises in one step may require adjustments in another. And there are many steps.

Flood-mitigation-process diagram produced by ChatGPT.

Overview of Key Steps in Mitigation Process

Cities and counties generally have the responsibility for flood prevention and mitigation. But they rarely have the money. Unless you live in a place like Harris County, flooding happens infrequently enough that officials generally don’t budget for disasters. They have other urgent needs and limited cash. Even in Harris, needs outstrip available funding.

So when disasters do happen, local governments look for financial assistance. That assistance could come from state or federal sources. But states and the federal government don’t just hand over piles of cash and say, “Go to it.”

Note: the steps below are not necessarily in chronological order depending on findings in other stages.

Feasibility Studies

First, local authorities must prove that they have a valid, constructible solution to a recurring problem. They start with a feasibility study. This usually involves establishing the magnitude of the problem and looking at alternative solutions to see if any are a) effective and b) affordable before investing more time and money.

Proving “No Adverse Impact”

Next, comes engineering and design. Local authorities must move a project far enough along to prove that the proposed solution does not create an adverse impact downstream. Simply getting rid of the water faster upstream, for instance, may create higher flood peaks downstream.

Finding the Local-Match Money

State and federal authorities almost always demand that cities and counties have “skin in the game.” So, the local authorities must put up a “local match,” usually 30% of estimated grant costs. Raising that 30% may require selling bonds. Which may require a bond referendum/election like Harris County had in 2018.

Benefit/Cost Analysis

Assuming local authorities can scrape up enough money for the local match, they must then actually apply for the grants. This will likely require a deeper level of engineering than the high-level feasibility study had. It will also require a BCA (benefit/cost analysis) to ensure the benefits exceed the costs. And that may require actual design.

Grant Applications

Applying for grants can be quite costly and time-consuming. The local authorities must first determine where a request is most likely to succeed (FEMA, HUD, EPA, etc.). To complicate matters, such agencies usually have multiple programs geared to different needs.

Environmental Studies

But that’s not all. Local authorities must also conduct environmental studies. An environmental study evaluates how a proposed flood-mitigation project could affect natural and human resources such as: wetlands, waterways, wildlife, water quality, cultural resources, and nearby communities. It also identifies regulatory requirements and measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts.

Regulatory Approval/Permitting

Then come the regulatory approvals. If the solution impacts “waters of the U.S.”, for instance, it will need to be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Congressional Appropriations and Rules

After a disaster, Congress must appropriate money for disaster relief and flood mitigation. But the money doesn’t go directly to cities and counties. It goes to states…after FEMA and HUD write rules for how the money can be used.

State-Level Administration

State authorities, such as the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) and Texas General Land Office (GLO), then review grant applications and determine whether projects comply with all relevant rules attached to funding.

If they do, the state agency then contracts with cities or counties which are considered sub-recipients. The state may have more applications than funding. So, it must prioritize projects, just like cities and counties do. This process requires:

  • An application period long enough for all interested parties to develop and submit requests
  • A review period to establish compliance with federal rules for the money
  • Time for public comments
  • Ranking of applications received
  • Coordination with federal authorities.
Bidding and Construction

Once state and federal authorities approve a project, local authorities must actually build it. This can take several years. Groups, such as Houston Public Works or the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD):

  • Determine specs for the project
  • Get approval to proceed from their oversight bodies such as Houston City Council or Harris County Commissioners Court
  • Seek qualified bidders
  • Give them time to compile and submit bids
  • Evaluate the bids and determine the winning bidder
  • Negotiate the contract
  • Get the contract approved by the relevant oversight body
  • Receive “authorization to use government funds” (AUGF) by TDEM or GLO
  • Build the project.
Aligning Dominos

Getting all the dominos aligned with all the supporting studies and documentation can take years. The money involved can be hundreds of millions…or even billions. So, the rules are both rigorous and onerous. And there are multiple audits along the way designed to prevent fraud.

But nobody has deeper pockets than the federal government. Typically, FEMA pays for 70% of each project. HUD ranges up to 90-100%. So, that makes the wait worthwhile.

Can We Speed Things Up?

As a former business owner, if I were looking for ways to speed up this convoluted process and reduce overall administration costs, I would examine two areas:

  • Reducing the number of layers or steps where possible
  • Improving efficiency within each step.

It would be difficult to reduce the number of layers and steps.

  • If you tried to cut out state agencies, you would lose local expertise and reduce local control. That might not be politically palatable. You would also likely just wind up transferring state costs to the federal level.
  • Reducing steps, such as “bidding” would likely be an invitation to fraud – also not politically palatable.
The Need to Spread Risk

The multi-level system we have spreads risk, much like an insurance company would. So, cutting out the federal government and funding everything locally or at the state level would also be difficult.

The National Hazard Mitigation Association points out that inland riverine flooding has affected 99% of U.S. counties in the past 20 years. Such flooding has also caused more than $45 billion of damage since 1980. 

Flooding happens sporadically. Years can roll by without a disaster. Then suddenly you get a Hurricane Harvey. That’s when you need help from neighbors. And almost every community will need help sooner or later.

Prevention Easier, Less Expensive Than Correction

There may be room to improve efficiency within each step. However, that could only be determined on a case-by-case, location-by-location basis, as we saw recently with HCFCD.

Only one thing is certain. Prevention is far less expensive and less time-consuming than correction. Preventing floods through measures such as better building codes and floodplain preservation is always a more cost-effective solution than correcting flooding after the fact.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/14/2026

3272 Days since Hurricane Harvey

American Flood Coalition Helps Advance Mitigation Programs

8/13/26 – The American Flood Coalition (AFC) is a nationwide advocate for flood-risk reduction at the local, state and federal levels. August 2026 is a landmark month for federal disaster recovery, according to the group.

CDBG-DR Simplification

On July 10, Congress passed a bipartisan proposal to authorize the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program for three years.

AFC’s advocacy arm, American Flood Coalition Action (AFCA), has long called on Congress to authorize CDBG-DR. It provides flexible funding for states and communities to rebuild housing, repair critical infrastructure, and address other long-term needs as they recover from floods, wildfires, and other disasters. 

But until now, HUD had to write new regulations each time Congress funded the program. That added delays and complexity for communities on the long road to recovery. 

However, for the first-ever, this authorization will:

  • Ensure consistent rules for the next three years.
  • Establish an Office of Disaster Management and Resiliency within HUD.
  • Require coordination and data sharing between HUD and other federal agencies like FEMA and the Small Business Administration.
  • Create a long-term disaster recovery fund at the U.S. Treasury. 

AFC says it will continue to share updates as this major win for disaster-impacted states and communities is implemented. You can sign up for their newsletter here.

CDBG-DR programs finance many flood-mitigation projects in Harris County. So, we may directly benefit from these changes.

Flooding during Harvey at Kingwood Village Estates where 12 people died near Bens Branch. It is part of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch project which is now in final engineering and still seeking funding.

Farm Bill Advancing in Senate and House with AFC Priorities

In June, the Senate Agriculture Committee released its draft Farm Bill. The draft includes three AFCA policy priorities:

  • Strengthening the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program to fund both post-flood recovery and proactive watershed upgrades that reduce future disaster risk.
  • Expanding the Regional Conservation Partnership Program’s purpose to include flood prevention.
  • Tripling mandatory funding for the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program, which helps state and local governments protect and restore watersheds.

The House passed its version of the legislation in April, which incorporates three additional AFCA priorities:

  • Allowing EWP project sponsors to begin pre-approved emergency watershed protection measures after a disaster and count costs as part of their cost share without having to wait for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approval, speeding up recoveries.
  • Directing USDA to conduct a national agricultural flood vulnerability assessment.
  • Increasing the federal cost share for the Watershed Rehabilitation program.

While the House and Senate still need to reconcile their respective Farm Bills, these steps would help farmers and farmland communities advance flood-smart agriculture and bolster their resilience to floods and extreme weather. 

Embracing flood-smart agriculture helps reduce flood risk throughout a watershed. When farmers adopt practices that slow runoff, increase soil infiltration, and store water, they protect their own fields while serving as critical flood infrastructure for entire watersheds.

For instance, AFC research in Iowa  found that wider use of multi-cropping upstream in the Cedar River Watershed could reduce flooding by up to 30%. Such nature-based solutions benefit all residents of a watershed.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/13/2026

3271 Days since Hurricane Harvey

LSGCD Recommendations Would Increase Groundwater Pumping, Ignore Subsidence

8/12/2026 – On 8/11/26 in a two-part meeting, the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) voted to increase groundwater pumping and ignore subsidence…at least for now. The first part of the meeting included a discussion of how they arrived at their recommendations and public comments on “Desired Future Conditions” (DFCs). The second part included formal ratification of the DFCs by the LSGCD Board.

To those unfamiliar with LSGCD politics, it was an afternoon/evening filled with bizarre, unexplained contradictions.

Bizarre, Unexplained Contradictions

For instance, the LSGCD:

  1. Reviewed a presentation which stated their legislatively defined mission is striking a balance between “the highest practicable level of groundwater production” and other factors, such as recharging of aquifers and “control of subsidence.” They then decided to:
  2. Left their DFC unchanged because new modeling showed they could double groundwater production without endangering future supplies. But then they failed to explain how they tweaked a USGS model to obtain those results.
  3. Claimed to welcome public comment. But then they attacked the qualifications of the commenters including people with PhDs and MUD directors.
  4. Received a grand total of six public comments in 90 days, but acted as though they were sick and tired of hearing the same old stuff.
  5. Claimed the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District chose not to work with them, when they limited subsidence districts to making three minutes of public comments.
  6. Read a high level summary of public comments submitted earlier without addressing any of the concerns those comments expressed.
  7. Said no other groundwater conservation districts adopted a subsidence metric…without addressing the reasons why.
  8. Claimed they were no longer “averaging” well declines. But then they adopted a DFC based on a closely related word “median.”
Slide 6 from Lone Star Presentation addressed balance requirements.

Adopted DFC Contains Huge Loophole

In the end, the LSGCD board adopted a DFC that says, “In Montgomery County, no less than 70 percent median available drawdown remaining in 2080 in the Gulf Coast Aquifer between 2018 and 2080.” See below.

Page 11 from LSGCD presentation.

What does that mean? LSGCD wants to manage groundwater pumping so that, in the median well used in their calculations, at least 70% of the aquifers’ usable vertical water column remains available compared to the baseline determined in 2018.

It implies that they plan to pump no more than 30% of the water out of the aquifer(s). But the word “median” means that not every well must adhere to the 70% limit. Half of the 12,000+ wells that LSGCD tracks will draw more…sometimes far more. And half will draw less. That’s what “median” means.

And that’s important in a county where the southern half is growing quickly and the northern half remains largely rural. The DFC by itself doesn’t tell you how many feet groundwater levels could fall in The Woodlands, Conroe, Magnolia, Porter, etc.

Nor does it tell you how over-pumping in those areas could affect subsidence. That is a major change in policy emphasis. Lone Star says it has spent millions on drilling, coring and laboratory work since 2023. But it does not support adopting a subsidence metric at this time. Instead, it simply intends to continue monitoring subsidence. But once subsidence happens, it’s impossible to reverse.

Meanwhile, a 2022 report (which LSGCD participated in) anticipated 3-4 feet of subsidence by 2080 in southern MoCo…and that’s at the old pumping limit which LSGCD hopes to increase dramatically.

From Page 73 of TWDB “Desired Future Conditions: Explanatory Report,” 2022.

Impacts on San Jacinto Watershed

For the San Jacinto watershed, even relatively small amounts of differential subsidence matter more than they would in a steeply sloped watershed.

Kingwood, Spring Creek, the West Fork, Lake Houston and much of northern Harris County have an extremely flat slope. Subsidence doesn’t necessarily cause flooding by itself, but differential subsidence can alter:

A few tenths of a foot may be immaterial in some settings. But…

A foot or more of differential elevation change across a low-gradient drainage system can become hydrologically meaningful.

And this creates a governance problem. LSGCD can authorize groundwater pumping in Montgomery County whose hydraulic and subsidence effects do not necessarily stop at Spring Creek, while Harris County bears some of the downstream flood-risk consequences.

The regional aquifer system is interconnected. A county-by-county median statistic can conceal substantial regional drawdown. A DFC based on countywide median remaining well drawdown contains no explicit constraint on resulting land subsidence.

Before concluding that the recommended 200,000 acre-feet-per year is benign, LSGCD should produce maps of modeled 2018–2080 drawdown and modeled subsidence in feet for southern Montgomery County and northern Harris County, ideally centered on Spring Creek/Kingwood. That would turn this somewhat abstract “% remaining” statistic into something much more meaningful. But Lone Star didn’t show that yesterday.

However, a new interactive map produced by Harris-Galveston Subsidence District this year is based on new satellite data. It averages subsidence in the last four years and computes a centimeter/year rate. It’s amazingly detailed and corroborates the 2022 blueish map above. See below.

New interactive 2026 subsidence map from Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.

The colored map shows that large parts of southern Montgomery County and northern Harris County bordering Spring Creek are subsiding at a rate greater than 2 centimeters/year. By the end of the planning period in 2080, that translates into approximately 3.5 feet.

Much of Kingwood and Humble are also subsiding at rates that could negate the safety margin (feet above floodplain) for many homes built close to floodplains. That’s because the Lake Houston Dam is sinking at a tiny fraction of rates upstream. Therefore, subsidence is essentially tilting the lake upstream toward homes that were once above the floodplain.

Note that these subsidence rates were determined under LSGCD’s old pumping rates. The proposed new rates would accelerate subsidence even more.

Impacts on Future Growth/New Development

Notice the big white area (not subsiding) north of the county line near the middle of the colored map above. That’s the 5,300 acres where Scarborough hopes to build 7,000 homes. They would all be on well water. And that would dramatically increase subsidence in the areas around them.

So, if you haven’t already signed the petition against this development, please do so now.

For More Information

To view videos of yesterday’s meetings, visit the LSGCD Meetings Page. Also see public comments submitted by:

Note: this is a step in a process. LSGCD recommendations must still be approved by the TWDB. And thankfully, LSGCD has elections coming up soon.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/12/2026

3270 Days since Hurricane Harvey

MoCo Groundwater Issues Coming to Head

8/10/26 – The watchdog group “Montgomery County Concerned Citizens” led by former MUD Director Paul Cote has raised several red flags about issues that affect the future of the county’s groundwater supplies. They include:

  • Dropping water levels in Montgomery County wells, which is leading to subsidence
  • A proposed increase in the allowable groundwater pumping THREE TIMES HIGHER than the recharge rate of MoCo aquifers
  • A MoCo policymaker who may not meet eligibility requirements to serve on a groundwater board.
Water-levels in the Jasper aquifer in Montgomery County dropped as much as 256 feet near The Woodlands. Source Harris Galveston Subsidence District 2025 Annual Groundwater Report.

Groundwater as a Safety Net

These controversies come amid a cautionary tale out West. Lake Mead, the nation’s largest reservoir which sits behind the Hoover Dam, has fallen to all-time record lows. The New York Times reported yesterday that a continued drop could imperil water supplies.

Groundwater forms a critical backup to surface-water supplies. And if groundwater becomes exhausted, it could eventually expose residents to draconian water-usage restrictions.

In Montgomery County, the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) supposedly regulates groundwater withdrawals to prevent such problems.

Leadership of LSGCD Board

However, Cote says the LSGCD board is heavily influenced by members who profit from groundwater, either directly or indirectly. And they are advocating for tripling groundwater withdrawals.

According to Cote who was a MoCo MUD president for ten years, the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) Board has ignored urgent concerns regarding falling water tables and subsidence for years. Subsidence reduces the ability of aquifers to recharge because clays become irreversibly compressed.

Filing Deadline for LSGCD Board Ballot is 8/17/202

“This continued disregard for public interest is unacceptable,” said Cote. “To restore integrity to Montgomery County’s water management, we need new voices to step forward immediately.“

The deadline to file for the LSGCD Board ballot is August 17, 2026, at 5:00 PM. Here’s how and where.

Four seats are up for election: Places 2, 3, 4, and 7 (representing Precincts 2, 3, 4, and The Woodlands Township).

Please consider running or sharing this with qualified individuals. “Our county’s water governance depends on leaders who respect the community they serve,” said Cote. Email MCCC2025@gmail.com if you have any questions. 

LSGCD’s “Desired Future Conditions”

One obligation for the board is to formulate and approve “Desired Future Conditions” or DFCs. Toward that end, the DFC public comment period that opened earlier this year ends Tuesday, August 11, 2026.

Comments on proposed DFCs may be submitted by email to info@lonestargcd.org, with the following email subject: “Public Comments on Proposed DFCs – [Submitter Name/Company Name]”.

A public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, at 4:00 P.M. starting with a Show Cause Hearing followed by a Hearing on Contested Matters and then the Public Hearing on Proposed DFCs. The meeting will be at the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District office at 655 Conroe Park North Drive, Conroe, Texas 77303.

A Permit Hearing and Regular Board of Directors Meeting will be held afterwards at 6:00 pm.

Related Issue: SJRA Groundwater Committee

Cote has also submitted a formal letter to the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) requesting the suspension of Mr. Michael Stoecker from the Groundwater Reduction Plan (GRP) Review Committee until his eligibility is publicly proven. Stoecker represents the LSGCD committee. But the GRP Contract requires the appointee to represent an active “Private Well Owner.”

However, Mr. Stoecker sold his water utility business in May 2024, months before his appointment. This transaction stripped the business of its active status under the agreement. Furthermore, when pressed via public information requests, LSGCD failed to provide official documentation proving Stoecker’s continued eligibility for the committee. 

About Montgomery County Concerned Citizens

Montgomery County Concerned Citizens, led by Mr. Cote, is a grassroots network of residents, municipal utility leaders, and public officials dedicated to promoting transparency, accountability, and informed public engagement on water issues that affect Montgomery County’s future. The group serves as a forum for water-related education, discussion, and collaboration among citizens and local leaders.

Their mission: to empower residents through education, encourage active participation in local government, and advocate for responsible water policies that protect the county’s natural resources, infrastructure, and quality of life. The organization works to ensure that public decisions are made openly, responsibly, and in the best interests of current and future generations of Montgomery County residents.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/10/2026

2368 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Northpark-494 Intersection Still Closed, But Drainage Now Complete

8/8/26 – The major action these days on the Northpark Drive Expansion project centers around the Loop 494 intersection. While Northpark is open and flowing in both directions, Loop 494 is totally blocked off and will remain so for the next month as contractors work on the bridge.

However, there’s good news to share. There entire Northpark drainage system from I-69 past Russell Palmer Road is now complete.

Intersection Closure

Concrete barriers prevent drivers on Loop 494 from crossing Northpark in both directions. To continue north or south on Loop 494, drivers must go east or west on Northpark to the nearest crossover, and double back. See below.

Looking SE at the Northpark/Loop 494 Intersection

The Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority/TIRZ 10 originally hoped to open the intersection before New Caney ISD schools started last week, but the new target date is now September 12.

Reasons for Delay

Drainage

Connecting the drainage on both sides of Northpark was more difficult than expected. However, that is now complete – and not just from the Shell Station on the north side to the dry cleaners on the south.

“The entire Northpark drainage system for Phase I is now complete.”

Ralph De Leon, Project Manager
Last drainage link in entire Northpark Phase I system, south of Shell Station.

De Leon described completion of the drainage system as a “huge milestone.”

Bridge Construction

The contractor has to build three huge bridge columns immediately east side of the intersection.  These particular columns are the largest and deepest because of their location near the middle of the bridge. The contractor will use the intersection as the construction zone during installation.   

They really have no other choice. Because of other work on the abutments, they are hemmed in on both sides. And specialized trucks that will haul off the mud from the hydro-excavation are huge. They will be staged at the intersection. 

Height of the cranes used in the excavation also presents a logistical problem.

Crane used for hydro-excavation. Beginning of west bridge abutment to its right.

In a worst-case scenario, if tipped, they could fall within the safety zone of the UPRR Tracks or even on the tracks themselves. That adds another level of complexity to the operation. 

Bridge Caps on Columns

Additionally, contractors must build bridge caps on top of the columns to support the bridge beams. By this time, Loop 494 should be reopened, but contractors will have to narrow it to two lanes.

Cap currently under construction close to east abutment. Others near intersection will be much larger.
Danger to School Buses

Even though De Leon hoped to have the intersection totally open before students returned to school, he said, “We couldn’t have school buses running through the construction zone. It’s too dangerous.” 

De Leon has communicated with both New Caney ISD and Humble ISD since the beginning of the project.

For More Information

Visit the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority project pages or attend their board meeting Thursday, August 13. You can also search on the tag “Northpark Expansion” on this site.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/8/2026

3266 Days since Harvey

Largest Tax Hike in Harris County History Raises Efficiency Question

8/7/26 – Yesterday, Harris County Commissioners discussed the largest tax hike in Harris County history. Before raising taxes a penny, they should examine the efficiency of the departments they oversee.

CC Meeting 08 06 2026
Harris County Commissioners discuss budget proposals on 8.06.26

To see why, review the recent history of the Harris County Housing & Community Development (HCD) Department and Flood Control District (HCFCD). Together, they manage more than a billion dollars of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) via the Texas General Land Office (GLO).

Since 2022, I have posted about slowdowns in Harris County flood-mitigation projects as one deadline after another slipped. It started with wholesale management changes made by the Democratic majority on Commissioners Court.

The slowdowns became so serious in the case of HCFCD that the department head recently resigned under pressure. As statistics below show, she left her successor, Marcus Stuckett, with huge challenges.

The problems at HCD have not yet received the attention that HCFCD received. But they are also serious.

Both groups must use grant money by strict deadlines or lose it. And both are far behind schedule.

They raise the questions, “Will tax increases continue to fund inefficiency? And if so, are increases really necessary?”

CDBG Projects Bring Efficiency Issues into Sharp Focus

At HCFCD, the potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds brought the former Executive Director’s efficiency into sharp focus. She failed to advance projects in a timely manner. And that is jeopardizing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding. Harris County taxpayers backstop those funds.

Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, PE fought to expose HCFCD’s problems, even as Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia fought to keep in place the very people covering the problems up.

So, where exactly do things stand? How bad is the problem?

To answer those questions, I relied on data supplied by the GLO in Austin.

Housing and Community Development Projects

GLO awarded HCD $204 million dollars on 8/31/2022. To date, HCD has expended $69 million (34%). They must expend the remaining two thirds by August 31, 2027. So…

HCD has expended only 34% of the funds in 80% of available time.

Their $204 million includes 10 neighborhood drainage infrastructure projects valued at $168 million. Of the 10:

  • Construction is complete on one
  • Six are in various stages of construction (46-89% complete)
  • One is being advertised for bids
  • Two are still in design.

GLO also awarded HCD $37.5 million for 30 planning studies. Of those:

  • One was withdrawn
  • One is complete
  • The remainder are just starting or in various stages of completion ranging from 1% to 50%.

These also have deadlines of August 31, 2027.

HCFCD CDBG Mitigation Grants

HCFCD received an allocation of $546 million in CDBG Mitigation (MIT) funds in 2023. To date, it has expended only $25 million. HCFCD must complete construction and GLO must receive final billing by 3/31/28 – only 20 months away. Thus, under Dr. Tina Petersen…

HCFCD managed to spend 5% of its MIT money in 64% of available time.

HCFCD CDBG – DR Grants

GLO also approved an HCFCD allocation for $322 million in CDBG-Disaster Relief (DR) funds on 11/27/23. Almost 34 months later, HCFCD has expended only $15.6 million. So…

HCFCD has spent less than 5% of DR funds in 84% of available time.

Summary Table

This table summarizes the status of CDBG projects.

Compiled from GLO 7/23/2026 Report. Amount = $ committed, not spent.

According to the GLO, only seven of 29 HCFCD DR and MIT projects are actually in construction.

HCFCD’s report submitted to Commissioners Court this week shows 12 “in construction.” However, only seven of the 12 have any work billed against them. Delays in contractor mobilization may account for the difference.

So, where do we go from here?

The Bundle Jumble

Before Dr. Tina Petersen resigned, she tried to cobble together a plan that would get HCFCD past the $322 million DR hurdle.

She reached agreement in principle* with both the GLO and Harris County Commissioners Court to apply work billed to date in all four categories above against the $322 million DR obligation. That would give the county a little more breathing room.

In a best-case scenario, the county might bill enough to meet the entire $322 million obligation and lose nothing. In a less-than-best-case scenario, the county would narrow its losses.

Will It Work?

To date, the county has spent only $109 million in all four programs together. That covers only about a third of the $322 million.

What happens if HCFCD’s new management and HCD can’t spend another $213 million in the next six months? Potentially, HUD could start clawing back money from the GLO and the GLO could start clawing it back from the County.

But Harris County has already encumbered money for its suppliers. So, the buck stops with Harris County taxpayers.

Remember as you follow the county’s budget debate in coming weeks to ask whether you’re paying for additional services you want or simply funding inefficiency.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/7/2026

3265 Days since Hurricane Harvey

*When I asked the GLO for the wording of the agreement, a spokesperson said, “It has not been finalized yet. We are still getting details we need to write the amendment.”