4/11/2025 – By Chris Bloch – The proposed Romerica development would have a negative impact on the neighborhoods of Kingwood Lakes, Trailwood, Deerwood Cove and the Barrington. The Romerica development could even contribute to flooding the intersection of Kingwood Drive and Woodland Hills Drive.
The potential negative impacts result from a combination of factors. They include:
The design of surrounding stormwater infrastructure built during the 1970s
Increases in expected rainfall since then
The current outfall location of area storm and sanitary sewers on Romerica property
An increase in impervious cover from the proposed new development
The fact that the new development would be built in an area that collects water naturally
Fixed elevations of surrounding lakes.
During heavy rains, a combination of these factors would back water up through sewers farther and faster into surrounding neighborhoods where structures have already flooded.
Let me explain how each of these issues contributes to the others. Together, they increase flood risk for surrounding homes and would also increase the potential for floodwater blocking Kingwood Drive and Woodland Hills Drive during evacuations.
Design of Surrounding Infrastructure Outdated
Back in the 1970s, engineers did not build infrastructure to current Atlas-14 rainfall standards. Standards for expected rainfall have increased twice since then – after Allison in 2001 and after Harvey in 2017.
So, the existing storm sewers in Kingwood Lakes and Trailwood are already overtaxed. And that has contributed to flooding of structures during heavy rains. There is simply not enough conveyance capacity in storm sewers to safely handle the volume of rainfall we now know that we will get.
Water Backing Up from Outfalls
Multiple storm sewer networks currently outfall to the Romerica property. As water levels rise at an outfall, the capacity of the sewers to convey stormwater from the neighborhoods is reduced.
During heavy rains, the lost capacity of the storm sewers causes streets and homes in the affected neighborhoods to flood.
Increases in impervious cover that come with high-density development on the Romerica property would back water up even further and faster into those sewers. That would elevate flood risk for surrounding homes.
Increased backwater levels would also result in higher water levels at the Kingwood Drive/Woodland Hills intersection. This is a critical intersection in Kingwood. High water at that location limits access into and out of much of Kingwood.
Property Already Collects Stormwater
The Romerica property is already extremely low compared to surrounding property. So, it naturally collects stormwater. During heavy rains, such as we received last May, photographs show that water reached the canopy of trees on the property.
Looking west toward area of proposed Romerica development. Photo taken during peak of May, 2024 flood.
Elevation profiles on the USGS National Map clearly show both low elevation as well as the nature of the property in question. It’s swampy and forms a sort of natural detention basin. And that’s why Friendswood never developed it.
N to S Elevation Profile from USGS National Map shows Romerica land significantly lower than Kingwood Lakes and Barrington.W to E Elevation Profile from USGS National Map also shows Romerica land significantly lower than surrounding areas.
Moreover, the impervious cover that comes from additional development would contribute to even higher water levels on Romerica’s property. And those higher levels would back water up – father and faster – into the storm and sanitary sewers that serve surrounding villages.
Construction of access drives and buildings on the property would reduce the volume of stormwater that can be absorbed on the property. This will result in even higher water levels on the property and Lake Kingwood.
Surrounding Lakes Not Far Below Romerica’s Elevation
Romerica property is already extremely low compared to surrounding areas. It forms a sort of natural detention basin just two or three feet above the level of surrounding lakes. So, during heavy rains, the Romerica property floods badly.
The water-surface elevation of Lake Kingwood is 47 feet. It discharges into a second lake at 46 feet. And that discharges into a third at 45 feet. Weirs control the elevation of all three lakes.
During heavy rain events, it is common for the lake levels to rise 3 to 4 feet. And during extreme events, such as Hurricane Harvey, they rise even farther. The water surface level of Lake Kingwood during Harvey rose by approximately 12 feet!
So homes facing Lake Kingwood all flooded 6 to 8 feet. And Kingwood Lakes is much higher than Romerica!
The property of the proposed Romerica development has an average elevation less than 52 feet. During any significant rain event, the vast majority of the property will be submerged by flood waters from the stormwater discharge outlets and water spilling over from Lake Kingwood.
Romerica swamp with 5- to 12-inches of water after only two inches of rainfall in the last month.If that swamp gets much higher, it could reduce the conveyance of this storm sewer outfall from NE Trailwood Village.
And that would back up water in those storm sewers.
What It Would Take to Develop Romerica’s Property Safely
The design of surrounding stormwater and sanitary sewers that lead to Romerica’s property did not anticipate high-density development on that property.
Additional runoff from added impervious surface would require considerable modifications to existing utility services at the expense of the City…which doesn’t have the money.
Safe development of the Romerica property would also require:
A new bypass drainage channel from the west end of Lake Kingwood south to the Diversion Ditch
A new storm sewer main to divert stormwater from South Woodland Hills and Trailwood into the bypass drainage ditch
Limiting discharges into Lake Kingwood
A longer weir on the west end of Lake Kingwood to help control water levels in the lake.
In my opinion, this development should not receive a permit. Instead, the property should be developed as an additional stormwater detention facility site and drainage channel.
Chris Bloch presenting his research to the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority board and City Council Member Fred Flickinger on 4/10/25.
Guest editorial by Chris Bloch, a flood activist who has studied Kingwood drainage issues for decades.Bloch holds 12 patents which fundamentally changed the way power plants, and petrochemical plants are commissioned
2782 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/2025/04/20250411-Swamp-area-with-6-to-12-inch-deep-water-a-week-after-a-rain.jpg?fit=1100%2C716&ssl=17161100adminadmin2025-04-11 17:20:442025-04-12 06:22:13Proposed Romerica Development Raises Red Flags
4/10/2025 – Law firm McGehee ☆ Chang, Landgraf, Feiler issued a press release today on the final arguments in the Addicks Barker Reservoirs litigation in the Court of Federal Claims. Arguments took place on April 8, 2025 and conclude the liability portion of the case. The judge advised that he intends to issue a ruling “soon.”
The plaintiffs claim the Army Corps of Engineers opened the gates of the reservoirs unnecessarily during Harvey and flooded plaintiffs homes. They also allege that the Corps’ action constituted a “taking” by the government without just compensation.
The Addicks and Barker reservoirs (big green areas on left) lie on either side of I-10 on Houston’s west side.
The Corps and Harris County Flood Control developed the reservoirs in response to devastating floods in 1929 and 1935.
When constructed development had not yet reached them. Since then, it has surrounded them.
Issues in Case
The issues defined by presiding Judge Loren Smith were:
(1): Did an emergency necessitate the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) to open the Addicks and Barker reservoir gates? Or did the Corps open them as a matter of ordinary operating procedure?
(2): What would have happened if the gates had remained closed?
While the questions sound simple, the case involved hundreds of hours of lengthy depositions, trial testimony, and more than 500,000 pages of documents.
Plaintiff’s Attorneys Optimistic
According to lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Jack McGehee, his team utilized hours and hours of trial testimony, deposition testimony, the Corps’ own internal documents, and expert testimony which he says were “largely uncontested by the defense expert.”
The law firm contended, of course, that there was no “emergency” that necessitated the opening of the flood gates. In support of that conclusion, the attorney says the Corps’:
Various personnel admitted as much before “emergency” became an issue in the case.
Own reports and documentation lack reference to any “emergency”
Further, McGehee reported that both the Plaintiffs’ expert and the Corps’ expert agreed – that if the gates were not opened, then, the vast majority of the test properties would not have flooded. Further, he says, the others would have received less flooding.
He added that that conclusion “was made abundantly clear through the 500,000 pages of documents and hundreds of hours of lengthy deposition/trial testimony.”
McGehee added that the government’s strategy focused on the “emergency” declarations by the Corps and the federal and state government. However, the government reportedly failed to point out that these “emergency” declarations were made days prior to Harvey, and had nothing to do with the opening of the flood gates.
These emergency declarations, he claims, concerned Harvey in general, but not the Addicks/Barker reservoirs that are the subject of this case.
Additionally, the government emphasized how much the Addicks and Barker dams have benefited the Houston area in the past and how it was reasonable for the Corps to open the gates.
McGehee concluded, “The government, however, did not address that these claims are not relevant in the legal analysis of a government ‘taking’ of private property. “
Legal History of Case
This case is one of two that involve alleged “takings” by the Federal government during Harvey related to the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs. Several years ago, they were split into upstream and downstream cases because the issues and facts differed somewhat.
These posts include background information on both:
For more updates dating back to 2017, see this page on the law firm’s site.
Almost eight years after Harvey, we still don’t have a decision in this case. That underscores the need to purchase flood insurance if you live in Harris County.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/10/25
2781 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/2025/04/20250410-AddicksBarker-Location.jpg?fit=1100%2C526&ssl=15261100adminadmin2025-04-10 16:26:112025-04-10 16:55:53Court of Federal Claims Hears Final Arguments in Addicks Barker Downstream Case
Update: 4/10/25 – After reading this post, the media liaison for HCFCD emailed me to say, “One correction to your post today – Dr. Petersen testified as a resource on the bill, not against it.” Listen to her testimony at the link provided and you be the judge.
4/9/2025 – The Texas House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee heard testimony today on HB2068. HB2068 attempts to reconstitute the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) into one with wider authority to address flooding that originates outside Harris County.
It would also give the governor authority to appoint a board for the reconstituted district that would replace Harris County Commissioners Court, which has severely politicized flood mitigation much to the detriment of those who live on the periphery of the county.
The committee heard live testimony from three people. All spoke against the bill. They included Stephen Costello, the City’s former Chief Recovery Officer under the late Mayor Sylvester Turner. They also included Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD and Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia.
Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia testifying against HB2068 in today’s House Natural Resources Committee hearing.
The essence of Costello’s testimony was “HCFCD is working. Don’t mess with it.” He called the District a good partner for the City of Houston. And that may be true in certain areas.
Petersen and Garcia both bragged about HCFCD’s track record under their leadership, including their ability to take politics out of decision making.
Their testimony stood in stark contrast to brutal confrontations in Harris County Commissioners Court during the last two months. Commissioners, including Garcia, have raked Petersen over the coals. They complained bitterly and repeatedly about budget shortfalls totaling hundreds of millions of dollars that have jeopardized their pet projects.
No one seems to know where the current budget or projects stand. And that has made it impossible for commissioners to prioritize projects for any budget remaining.
Regardless, Petersen touted the county’s failed IT systems as a positive. She estimated it would cost the District $75 million to replace them if Flood Çontrol were a stand-alone entity.
Petersen also failed to mention the four-year slowdown in HCFCD activity.
Rep. Dennis Paul, the bill’s author, teed up his bill by explaining how much flooding originated outside the county. However, neither Costello, Petersen, nor Garcia addressed that point.
The failure to address such an obvious point may have been a fatal flaw in their arguments. Any casual observer could see the disconnect.
In fact, 10 of the 22 watersheds in Harris County originate outside the county, including most of the largest ones. Excluding cooperative efforts with people in those areas dooms large parts of Harris County to repetitive flooding. Especially those on the periphery of the county.
Harris County Watershed map
Electronically Filed Comments Overwhelmingly Support Bill
Many county residents have received virtually no support from HCFCD during Petersen’s tenure because of deliberate diversions of funds to low-income areas. Residents who remain living with high flood risk did not share Petersen’s and Garcia’s appraisals of their own performance, judging by their written comments.
However, a number of people from Porter, Conroe, and even as far north as Cleveland also favored the bill. All had been flooded. And all sought the kind of support that an expanded District could provide.
Only one other bill discussed in Natural Resources today received more comments than HB2068. It was a quarrying bill relating to the Lower Colorado River Authority. The rest received only a handful of comments. Most received 0 to 3.
That in itself seems like it would argue for closer scrutiny and debate.
Bill Not Debated in Committee, Fate Up in Air
However, at the end of the testimony, the chairman left the bill “pending in committee.” That could mean they will just let it die. Or it could mean they will debate it and pass it out of committee to the full house for a vote at a future date.
Rep. Paul’s bill does not yet have a companion bill in the Senate.
More news to follow when it becomes available.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/9/2025
2780 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250409-Garcia-Testifying-in-Natural-Resources.jpg?fit=1100%2C621&ssl=16211100adminadmin2025-04-09 22:02:242025-04-10 13:43:46Natural Resources Committee Hears Testimony on HB2068
Proposed Romerica Development Raises Red Flags
4/11/2025 – By Chris Bloch – The proposed Romerica development would have a negative impact on the neighborhoods of Kingwood Lakes, Trailwood, Deerwood Cove and the Barrington. The Romerica development could even contribute to flooding the intersection of Kingwood Drive and Woodland Hills Drive.
The potential negative impacts result from a combination of factors. They include:
During heavy rains, a combination of these factors would back water up through sewers farther and faster into surrounding neighborhoods where structures have already flooded.
Let me explain how each of these issues contributes to the others. Together, they increase flood risk for surrounding homes and would also increase the potential for floodwater blocking Kingwood Drive and Woodland Hills Drive during evacuations.
Design of Surrounding Infrastructure Outdated
Back in the 1970s, engineers did not build infrastructure to current Atlas-14 rainfall standards. Standards for expected rainfall have increased twice since then – after Allison in 2001 and after Harvey in 2017.
So, the existing storm sewers in Kingwood Lakes and Trailwood are already overtaxed. And that has contributed to flooding of structures during heavy rains. There is simply not enough conveyance capacity in storm sewers to safely handle the volume of rainfall we now know that we will get.
Water Backing Up from Outfalls
Multiple storm sewer networks currently outfall to the Romerica property. As water levels rise at an outfall, the capacity of the sewers to convey stormwater from the neighborhoods is reduced.
During heavy rains, the lost capacity of the storm sewers causes streets and homes in the affected neighborhoods to flood.
Increases in impervious cover that come with high-density development on the Romerica property would back water up even further and faster into those sewers. That would elevate flood risk for surrounding homes.
Increased backwater levels would also result in higher water levels at the Kingwood Drive/Woodland Hills intersection. This is a critical intersection in Kingwood. High water at that location limits access into and out of much of Kingwood.
Property Already Collects Stormwater
The Romerica property is already extremely low compared to surrounding property. So, it naturally collects stormwater. During heavy rains, such as we received last May, photographs show that water reached the canopy of trees on the property.
Elevation profiles on the USGS National Map clearly show both low elevation as well as the nature of the property in question. It’s swampy and forms a sort of natural detention basin. And that’s why Friendswood never developed it.
Moreover, the impervious cover that comes from additional development would contribute to even higher water levels on Romerica’s property. And those higher levels would back water up – father and faster – into the storm and sanitary sewers that serve surrounding villages.
Construction of access drives and buildings on the property would reduce the volume of stormwater that can be absorbed on the property. This will result in even higher water levels on the property and Lake Kingwood.
Surrounding Lakes Not Far Below Romerica’s Elevation
Romerica property is already extremely low compared to surrounding areas. It forms a sort of natural detention basin just two or three feet above the level of surrounding lakes. So, during heavy rains, the Romerica property floods badly.
The water-surface elevation of Lake Kingwood is 47 feet. It discharges into a second lake at 46 feet. And that discharges into a third at 45 feet. Weirs control the elevation of all three lakes.
During heavy rain events, it is common for the lake levels to rise 3 to 4 feet. And during extreme events, such as Hurricane Harvey, they rise even farther. The water surface level of Lake Kingwood during Harvey rose by approximately 12 feet!
So homes facing Lake Kingwood all flooded 6 to 8 feet. And Kingwood Lakes is much higher than Romerica!
The property of the proposed Romerica development has an average elevation less than 52 feet. During any significant rain event, the vast majority of the property will be submerged by flood waters from the stormwater discharge outlets and water spilling over from Lake Kingwood.
And that would back up water in those storm sewers.
What It Would Take to Develop Romerica’s Property Safely
The design of surrounding stormwater and sanitary sewers that lead to Romerica’s property did not anticipate high-density development on that property.
Additional runoff from added impervious surface would require considerable modifications to existing utility services at the expense of the City…which doesn’t have the money.
Safe development of the Romerica property would also require:
In my opinion, this development should not receive a permit. Instead, the property should be developed as an additional stormwater detention facility site and drainage channel.
Guest editorial by Chris Bloch, a flood activist who has studied Kingwood drainage issues for decades. Bloch holds 12 patents which fundamentally changed the way power plants, and petrochemical plants are commissioned
2782 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.
Court of Federal Claims Hears Final Arguments in Addicks Barker Downstream Case
4/10/2025 – Law firm McGehee ☆ Chang, Landgraf, Feiler issued a press release today on the final arguments in the Addicks Barker Reservoirs litigation in the Court of Federal Claims. Arguments took place on April 8, 2025 and conclude the liability portion of the case. The judge advised that he intends to issue a ruling “soon.”
The plaintiffs claim the Army Corps of Engineers opened the gates of the reservoirs unnecessarily during Harvey and flooded plaintiffs homes. They also allege that the Corps’ action constituted a “taking” by the government without just compensation.
The Corps and Harris County Flood Control developed the reservoirs in response to devastating floods in 1929 and 1935.
When constructed development had not yet reached them. Since then, it has surrounded them.
Issues in Case
The issues defined by presiding Judge Loren Smith were:
(1): Did an emergency necessitate the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) to open the Addicks and Barker reservoir gates? Or did the Corps open them as a matter of ordinary operating procedure?
(2): What would have happened if the gates had remained closed?
While the questions sound simple, the case involved hundreds of hours of lengthy depositions, trial testimony, and more than 500,000 pages of documents.
Plaintiff’s Attorneys Optimistic
According to lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Jack McGehee, his team utilized hours and hours of trial testimony, deposition testimony, the Corps’ own internal documents, and expert testimony which he says were “largely uncontested by the defense expert.”
The law firm contended, of course, that there was no “emergency” that necessitated the opening of the flood gates. In support of that conclusion, the attorney says the Corps’:
Further, McGehee reported that both the Plaintiffs’ expert and the Corps’ expert agreed – that if the gates were not opened, then, the vast majority of the test properties would not have flooded. Further, he says, the others would have received less flooding.
He added that that conclusion “was made abundantly clear through the 500,000 pages of documents and hundreds of hours of lengthy deposition/trial testimony.”
McGehee added that the government’s strategy focused on the “emergency” declarations by the Corps and the federal and state government. However, the government reportedly failed to point out that these “emergency” declarations were made days prior to Harvey, and had nothing to do with the opening of the flood gates.
These emergency declarations, he claims, concerned Harvey in general, but not the Addicks/Barker reservoirs that are the subject of this case.
Additionally, the government emphasized how much the Addicks and Barker dams have benefited the Houston area in the past and how it was reasonable for the Corps to open the gates.
McGehee concluded, “The government, however, did not address that these claims are not relevant in the legal analysis of a government ‘taking’ of private property. “
Legal History of Case
This case is one of two that involve alleged “takings” by the Federal government during Harvey related to the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs. Several years ago, they were split into upstream and downstream cases because the issues and facts differed somewhat.
These posts include background information on both:
24/12/9 Addicks Barker Litigation Update – about testimony in an appeal of the cases.
24/11/25 Flood Digest: Brief Summaries of Five Flood-Related News Items contains a summary of then-recent developments in the upstream case.
23/1/19 Downstream Addicks Barker Case Moves Another Step Closer to Trial
22/11/21 Government Again Moves for Summary Judgment In Addicks-Barker Downstream Cases
22/8/9 Addicks-Barker Upstream Trial Case Entering Final Phase
22/6/11 Upstream Addicks-Barker Trial Concludes, But No Ruling Yet on Damages
22/6/3 Appeals Court Revives Addicks-Barker Downstream Takings Cases
20/2/26 New Presentations on Barker-Addicks Upstream Case and State of Regional Flood Mitigation
For more updates dating back to 2017, see this page on the law firm’s site.
Almost eight years after Harvey, we still don’t have a decision in this case. That underscores the need to purchase flood insurance if you live in Harris County.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/10/25
2781 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.
Natural Resources Committee Hears Testimony on HB2068
Update: 4/10/25 – After reading this post, the media liaison for HCFCD emailed me to say, “One correction to your post today – Dr. Petersen testified as a resource on the bill, not against it.” Listen to her testimony at the link provided and you be the judge.
4/9/2025 – The Texas House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee heard testimony today on HB2068. HB2068 attempts to reconstitute the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) into one with wider authority to address flooding that originates outside Harris County.
It would also give the governor authority to appoint a board for the reconstituted district that would replace Harris County Commissioners Court, which has severely politicized flood mitigation much to the detriment of those who live on the periphery of the county.
Three people testified in person AGAINST the bill. But 192 provided written comments FOR the bill. Still, the bill’s fate is unclear tonight.
Three In-Person Testifiers All Against Bill
The committee heard live testimony from three people. All spoke against the bill. They included Stephen Costello, the City’s former Chief Recovery Officer under the late Mayor Sylvester Turner. They also included Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD and Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia.
The essence of Costello’s testimony was “HCFCD is working. Don’t mess with it.” He called the District a good partner for the City of Houston. And that may be true in certain areas.
Petersen and Garcia both bragged about HCFCD’s track record under their leadership, including their ability to take politics out of decision making.
Their testimony stood in stark contrast to brutal confrontations in Harris County Commissioners Court during the last two months. Commissioners, including Garcia, have raked Petersen over the coals. They complained bitterly and repeatedly about budget shortfalls totaling hundreds of millions of dollars that have jeopardized their pet projects.
No one seems to know where the current budget or projects stand. And that has made it impossible for commissioners to prioritize projects for any budget remaining.
Regardless, Petersen touted the county’s failed IT systems as a positive. She estimated it would cost the District $75 million to replace them if Flood Çontrol were a stand-alone entity.
Petersen also failed to mention the four-year slowdown in HCFCD activity.
See the entire testimony here. HB2068 starts about 1:18 into the video.
Strange Failure to Address Author’s Claims
Rep. Dennis Paul, the bill’s author, teed up his bill by explaining how much flooding originated outside the county. However, neither Costello, Petersen, nor Garcia addressed that point.
The failure to address such an obvious point may have been a fatal flaw in their arguments. Any casual observer could see the disconnect.
In fact, 10 of the 22 watersheds in Harris County originate outside the county, including most of the largest ones. Excluding cooperative efforts with people in those areas dooms large parts of Harris County to repetitive flooding. Especially those on the periphery of the county.
Electronically Filed Comments Overwhelmingly Support Bill
Many county residents have received virtually no support from HCFCD during Petersen’s tenure because of deliberate diversions of funds to low-income areas. Residents who remain living with high flood risk did not share Petersen’s and Garcia’s appraisals of their own performance, judging by their written comments.
194 people submitted comments electronically. You can read them here. Of the 194, only two were against HB2068. The other 192 strongly favored it. Virtually all of them came from the Lake Houston Area.
However, a number of people from Porter, Conroe, and even as far north as Cleveland also favored the bill. All had been flooded. And all sought the kind of support that an expanded District could provide.
Only one other bill discussed in Natural Resources today received more comments than HB2068. It was a quarrying bill relating to the Lower Colorado River Authority. The rest received only a handful of comments. Most received 0 to 3.
That in itself seems like it would argue for closer scrutiny and debate.
Bill Not Debated in Committee, Fate Up in Air
However, at the end of the testimony, the chairman left the bill “pending in committee.” That could mean they will just let it die. Or it could mean they will debate it and pass it out of committee to the full house for a vote at a future date.
Rep. Paul’s bill does not yet have a companion bill in the Senate.
More news to follow when it becomes available.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/9/2025
2780 Days since Hurricane Harvey