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.

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