7/4/2026 – Yesterday, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) posted Amendment 22 to its Hurricane Harvey $5.6 billion State Action Plan for public comment. That began a 30-day public comment period is required under federal law. The GLO administers disaster aid for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development in Texas.
Cover of Amendment 22 to GLO’s Harvey Action Plan
Allocation and Language Updates
The proposed amendment updates funding allocations and administrative language to better align available resources with current program needs. It also supports the effective and strategic expenditure of federal disaster recovery funds. And it ensures continued implementation of Hurricane Harvey recovery programs.
Table 1 (pages 11-13) summarizes the financial impact of the changes.
State of Texas – Total + $3.1 Million
State of Texas – City of Houston Homeowner Assistance + $1.7 million
State of Texas – Affordable Rental – $2.4 million
State of Texas – Housing Project Delivery + $3.8 million
City of Houston – Total -$3.1 million
City of Houston – Single Family Development – $1.4 million
City of Houston – Economic Revitalization – $1.7 million
City of Houston – Multi-Family Rental +$12.7 thousand
City of Houston – Public Services –$12.7 thousand
Two financial changes to City programs offset each other.
Two more, totaling $3.1 million, will send money back to the State. Using that, plus a decrease of $2.4 million from the State’s own Affordable Rental program, the State will bump up the totals for its Houston Homeowner Assistance Program and Housing Project Delivery.
On pages 7-8, you can find an index to text changes in the 493-page Action Plan. But at the end of the day, most could have been handled in a casual conversation around the water cooler.
Usually they amount to less need than anticipated in one category, so they shift money where the need is greater than anticipated.
The totals all offset and balance each other, like debits and credits. But hats off to GLO for its transparency and thoroughness.
Submit all comments to cdr@recovery.texas.govby 5:00 p.m. on September 2, 2026. Per federal requirements, the GLO must respond to public comments before the amendment can be sent to HUD for final approval.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/4/2027
3262 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Amendment-22-Cover.jpg?fit=1100%2C771&ssl=17711100adminadmin2026-08-04 17:48:102026-08-04 17:48:11Public Comment Period Opens for Amendment 22 to GLO’s Harvey Action Plan
Since Dr. Tina Petersen’s last update on 5/1/2026, the new schedule shows that, of 28 projects in the Disaster Relief (DR) and Mitigation (MIT) groups, expected completion dates have:
Marcus Stuckett, new Executive Director of HCFCD, at Taylor Gully/Woodridge Groundbreaking on 7/20/26
Of an additional seven neighborhood drainage projects, six should finish before the end of this year.
Beating the CDBG Clock
Stuckett replaced Petersen a little more than a month ago. Petersen resigned under pressure when it finally became clear that the county could lose hundreds of millions of dollars due to missed deadlines on CDBG jobs.
As Petersen came under increasing pressure, she developed a plan with the Texas General Land Office (GLO). The plan applied spending from three different types of CDBG jobs against the $322 million designated for the DR group. Those have the tightest deadline – February 28, 2027. Just seven months away!
The other two types of projects being applied against the DR total include Mitigation (MIT) and neighborhood drainage.
By applying spending from the latter two groups against the DR total, HCFCD hopes to meet its obligation to spend $322 million by the end of February, 2027. Worst case, HCFCD will reduce its potential losses.
Only $56.77 million has been spent to date in the DR and MIT groups, with $67.33 million in the neighborhood drainage group. Those total $124.1 million. That means…
…the $322 million finish line is still $197.9 million away.
Calculated from HCFCD spreadsheet submitted to Commissioners Court for 8/6/26 meeting.
How Deep is the Hole?
This transmittal shows that Stuckett still needs to get HCFCD out of a deep hole that Petersen left HCFCD in.
About one third of the $322 million has been spent to date.
That leave two thirds to spend within the next seven months.
Seven months represents about 15 percent of the time between the announcement of the CDBG-DR award and the deadline for spending it.
So, HCFCD must spend the remaining two thirds in 15 percent of the time.
That’s a tall order. It’s sad that Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia defended Stuckett’s predecessor to the bitter end and delayed her exit by a year or more as the CDBG funds fell into a deeper and deeper hole.
Now, it will take extraordinary effort to climb out of that hole.
The spreadsheet submitted by Stuckett for the next commissioners court meeting is extremely detailed: about 40 lines deep by 51 columns across.
Such updates will hopefully let commissioners discuss any concerns they have. And help HCFCD answer their questions.
In the next few months, accurate and timely updates will also show whether the current “running rate” will get us to the $322 million finish line in time.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/1/26
3259 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Stuckett-at-Woodridge-Groundbreaking.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2026-08-01 17:07:542026-08-01 18:44:27HCFCD Still Has Steep Hill to Climb on CDBG Projects
7/31/2026 – For the last few years, I’ve posted about the slowdown in the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD). Based on a tip, I recently explored contract awards taking up to 20 months to get through the Purchasing Department. So, the slowdown appears to extend beyond just HCFCD.
Bonfire, the County’s purchasing portal, shows the status of projects in the Purchasing Department. Among them are engineering/design for the Kingwood Diversion Ditch and numerous feasibility studies.
I’m not alleging incompetence, malfeasance or corruption. I’m just alleging slowness and a lack of urgency. See examples below.
Kingwood Diversion Ditch
The Kingwood Diversion Ditch project grew out of the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis conducted by Neel-Schaffer, Inc. in 2019. The 600-page report, delivered a year later, recommended immediate implementation of two projects: the Diversion Ditch and Taylor Gully.
In 2024, U.S. Congressman Dan Crenshaw secured an earmark for final engineering of the project through the EPA.
After that, entries in Bonfire, the county’s purchasing database show how long it took to secure and mobilize a vendor.
04/18/2025 – Request for Qualifications (RFQ) released on Bonfire
05/19/2025 – Consultant Submittals due
09/11/2025 – Authorization to negotiate with Halff (the contractor) goes to Commissioners Court
I asked ChatGPT what the normal vendor procurement time for such projects should be. It replied, “Texas state procurement guidance for formal service contracts estimates a minimum procurement cycle of roughly 86 days, with complex procurements commonly extending to 198 days or more.”
Drilling down, ChatGPT also indicated the following ranges for large counties, such as Harris.
Excellent performance: 2–3 months
Normal performance: 3–5 months
Acceptable but slow: 5–7 months
ChatGPT concluded, “If a county repeatedly takes 9–12 months simply to hire a consultant, that often indicates process inefficiencies, staffing shortages, indecision, or governance bottlenecks.”
I verified these time ranges and conclusions with former county leaders.
Vendor Selections for Various Feasibility Studies
To see if the Diversion Ditch selection process was an anomaly, I checked several other recent vendor procurements involving HCFCD projects.
12/09/2024 – (Yes… 2024!) RFQ released on Bonfire
02/03/2025 – Consultant submittals due
04/09/2025 – Authorization to negotiate with several vendors went to Commissioners Court. Vendors included: AECOM; Civitas; Frees-Nichols, Inc.; Gauge; Halff; HDR; Huitt-Zollars; LJA; LAN; Michael Baker; Pape-Dawson; Torres.
03/11/2026 – Award to Gauge and Michael Baker – 457 days after RFQ issued (15 months)
06/04/2026 – Award to Michael Baker, Halff and Torres 542 days after RFQ issued (18 months)
07/22/2026 – Award to Pape-Dawson and Aecom – 590 days after RFQ issued (almost 20 months)
07/30/2026 – Award to LAN, and Frees-Nichols, Inc. – 605 days after RFQ (20 months)
Times Represent One Phase of Many
Keep in mind that these times represent single phases of projects. Other phases include: preliminary engineering and construction and maintenance.
Typical HCFCD project lifecycle
And then there’s the time required for the chosen vendor to actually DO THE WORK.
People familiar with HCFCD and Harris County call the situation unacceptable. They point to the previous Executive Director of HCFCD; the Purchasing Department; the Department of Economic Equity and Opportunity; and the County Attorney as the architects of this quagmire. It’s not just Purchasing.
Costs of Delays Not Reported
HCFCD’s new Executive Director, Marcus Stuckett, has his work cut out for him. He must not only turn around HCFCD, he must light a fire under other county departments as well.
Such delays have real costs even though they are rarely reported.
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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/HumbleFlooding.jpg?fit=1500%2C839&ssl=18391500adminadmin2026-07-31 18:08:582026-07-31 18:58:28Harris County Slowdown Extends Beyond HCFCD
Public Comment Period Opens for Amendment 22 to GLO’s Harvey Action Plan
7/4/2026 – Yesterday, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) posted Amendment 22 to its Hurricane Harvey $5.6 billion State Action Plan for public comment. That began a 30-day public comment period is required under federal law. The GLO administers disaster aid for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development in Texas.
Allocation and Language Updates
The proposed amendment updates funding allocations and administrative language to better align available resources with current program needs. It also supports the effective and strategic expenditure of federal disaster recovery funds. And it ensures continued implementation of Hurricane Harvey recovery programs.
Table 1 (pages 11-13) summarizes the financial impact of the changes.
Two financial changes to City programs offset each other.
Two more, totaling $3.1 million, will send money back to the State. Using that, plus a decrease of $2.4 million from the State’s own Affordable Rental program, the State will bump up the totals for its Houston Homeowner Assistance Program and Housing Project Delivery.
On pages 7-8, you can find an index to text changes in the 493-page Action Plan. But at the end of the day, most could have been handled in a casual conversation around the water cooler.
Usually they amount to less need than anticipated in one category, so they shift money where the need is greater than anticipated.
The totals all offset and balance each other, like debits and credits. But hats off to GLO for its transparency and thoroughness.
Review and Comment
Review the amendment at https://www.glo.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/disaster-recovery/public-notice/5b-sap-amend22.pdf
Submit all comments to cdr@recovery.texas.gov by 5:00 p.m. on September 2, 2026. Per federal requirements, the GLO must respond to public comments before the amendment can be sent to HUD for final approval.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/4/2027
3262 Days since Hurricane Harvey
HCFCD Still Has Steep Hill to Climb on CDBG Projects
8/1/26 – A transmittal from Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) to Commissioners Court for their 8/6/26 meeting shows the updated status of all Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects.
Since Dr. Tina Petersen’s last update on 5/1/2026, the new schedule shows that, of 28 projects in the Disaster Relief (DR) and Mitigation (MIT) groups, expected completion dates have:
However, schedule delays exceeded gains by a total of 862 days. I assume that’s due to more accurate reporting under HCFCD’s new Executive Director Marcus Stuckett.
Of an additional seven neighborhood drainage projects, six should finish before the end of this year.
Beating the CDBG Clock
Stuckett replaced Petersen a little more than a month ago. Petersen resigned under pressure when it finally became clear that the county could lose hundreds of millions of dollars due to missed deadlines on CDBG jobs.
As Petersen came under increasing pressure, she developed a plan with the Texas General Land Office (GLO). The plan applied spending from three different types of CDBG jobs against the $322 million designated for the DR group. Those have the tightest deadline – February 28, 2027. Just seven months away!
The other two types of projects being applied against the DR total include Mitigation (MIT) and neighborhood drainage.
By applying spending from the latter two groups against the DR total, HCFCD hopes to meet its obligation to spend $322 million by the end of February, 2027. Worst case, HCFCD will reduce its potential losses.
Only $56.77 million has been spent to date in the DR and MIT groups, with $67.33 million in the neighborhood drainage group. Those total $124.1 million. That means…
How Deep is the Hole?
This transmittal shows that Stuckett still needs to get HCFCD out of a deep hole that Petersen left HCFCD in.
That’s a tall order. It’s sad that Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia defended Stuckett’s predecessor to the bitter end and delayed her exit by a year or more as the CDBG funds fell into a deeper and deeper hole.
Now, it will take extraordinary effort to climb out of that hole.
The spreadsheet submitted by Stuckett for the next commissioners court meeting is extremely detailed: about 40 lines deep by 51 columns across.
Such updates will hopefully let commissioners discuss any concerns they have. And help HCFCD answer their questions.
In the next few months, accurate and timely updates will also show whether the current “running rate” will get us to the $322 million finish line in time.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/1/26
3259 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.
Harris County Slowdown Extends Beyond HCFCD
7/31/2026 – For the last few years, I’ve posted about the slowdown in the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD). Based on a tip, I recently explored contract awards taking up to 20 months to get through the Purchasing Department. So, the slowdown appears to extend beyond just HCFCD.
Bonfire, the County’s purchasing portal, shows the status of projects in the Purchasing Department. Among them are engineering/design for the Kingwood Diversion Ditch and numerous feasibility studies.
I’m not alleging incompetence, malfeasance or corruption. I’m just alleging slowness and a lack of urgency. See examples below.
Kingwood Diversion Ditch
The Kingwood Diversion Ditch project grew out of the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis conducted by Neel-Schaffer, Inc. in 2019. The 600-page report, delivered a year later, recommended immediate implementation of two projects: the Diversion Ditch and Taylor Gully.
In 2024, U.S. Congressman Dan Crenshaw secured an earmark for final engineering of the project through the EPA.
After that, entries in Bonfire, the county’s purchasing database show how long it took to secure and mobilize a vendor.
I asked ChatGPT what the normal vendor procurement time for such projects should be. It replied, “Texas state procurement guidance for formal service contracts estimates a minimum procurement cycle of roughly 86 days, with complex procurements commonly extending to 198 days or more.”
Drilling down, ChatGPT also indicated the following ranges for large counties, such as Harris.
ChatGPT concluded, “If a county repeatedly takes 9–12 months simply to hire a consultant, that often indicates process inefficiencies, staffing shortages, indecision, or governance bottlenecks.”
I verified these time ranges and conclusions with former county leaders.
Vendor Selections for Various Feasibility Studies
To see if the Diversion Ditch selection process was an anomaly, I checked several other recent vendor procurements involving HCFCD projects.
Times Represent One Phase of Many
Keep in mind that these times represent single phases of projects. Other phases include: preliminary engineering and construction and maintenance.
And then there’s the time required for the chosen vendor to actually DO THE WORK.
People familiar with HCFCD and Harris County call the situation unacceptable. They point to the previous Executive Director of HCFCD; the Purchasing Department; the Department of Economic Equity and Opportunity; and the County Attorney as the architects of this quagmire. It’s not just Purchasing.
Costs of Delays Not Reported
HCFCD’s new Executive Director, Marcus Stuckett, has his work cut out for him. He must not only turn around HCFCD, he must light a fire under other county departments as well.
The hidden costs include the potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding; loss of purchasing power due to inflation; higher tax rates to pay for future construction; people living with flood risk longer than necessary; and, lest we forget, potential future flood damage.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/31/2026
3258 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.