7/15/25 – Texas State Representative Steve Toth of Conroe announced today that he will run for U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw’s job next year in the Second Congressional District. But Toth, who is campaigning on protecting our security, has repeatedly voted against it.
Toth: Ultra-Right Mr. No
Toth voted against HB-13, designed to improve warnings in natural disasters, such as the July 4 Hill-Country floods this year and Panhandle wildfires last year. As of this writing, 134 are confirmed dead in the floods and close to a hundred are still missing.
Toth also voted against proposals to create a Lake Houston Dredging District three times: 2021, 2023 and 2025. The last time, State Rep. Charles Cunningham even modified the wording of HB 1532 so that it would NOT be tax-funded. But Toth still voted against it.
In the last redistricting effort, Toth helped redraw his home outside to Texas District 2, which he now wants to represent. Voter registration records indicate he lives in Texas District 8.
The ultra-conservative, far-right Toth also has a reputation for campaigning against Republicans. He previously ran against Kevin Brady of the Woodlands and lost.
A Personal Endorsement for Crenshaw
I have known Dan Crenshaw since he first ran for office and have immense respect for him. He has worked hard to protect the people of this district by securing funding for numerous flood-mitigation projects including dredging. But Toth has consistently voted against creating a Lake Houston Dredging District. He even voted against it when it wouldn’t have raised taxes. That tells me he’s out of touch with the needs of people in this congressional district. I plan on voting for Crenshaw.
Flickinger Emphasizes Vital Need For Dredging
Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger who testified in favor of Cunningham’s Dredging District Bill said: “House Bill 1532 is arguably the most important piece of legislation for the Lake Houston area passed in the last several decades.”
“HB 1532 created a dredging district, which allows us to address sediment in Lake Houston and the tributaries flowing into it proactively rather than reactively after our area has flooded.
Slightly different versions of the dredging district bill were introduced in the previous two sessions, but failed thanks in part to Toth.
Said Flickinger, “Last May’s rain event was a perfect example of how dredging improves drainage. The San Jacinto River crested two feet lower than predicted due to the dredging which had been completed over the last several years.”
Flickinger credits Congressman Crenshaw, former Representative Huberty, Senator Creighton and Council Member Martin for that. “They deserve special credit for securing the funding to complete these dredging efforts, some of which are ongoing today.”
Toth is UN-Representative
I just don’t get why someone who wants to represent 13,000 families and 3,300 businesses that flooded in the Lake Houston area would vote against a dredging bill that helps protect them. Those 3,300 businesses represented 44% of all the businesses in the Lake Houston Chamber.
Overall, 20% percent of homes and 40% of businesses in the Lake Houston area have been affected by flooding. That last figure includes 100% of ALL businesses in Kingwood Town Center.
I know families that were destroyed financially by the flooding and people who were killed. But the man who wants to represent this area has repeatedly stood in the way of a bi-partisan, tax-neutral solution designed to protect their homes and businesses.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/15/2025
2877 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/2018/10/Harvey-SanJac_437exposureadj.jpg?fit=2000%2C1054&ssl=110542000adminadmin2025-07-15 18:03:282025-07-15 18:11:04Toth, Who Voted Against Warning System, Dredging-District Bills Running Against Crenshaw
7/14/25 – I incorrectly reported four totals in my 7/12/25 story about the revised 2025 first-quarter, flood-bond update. I would like to set the record straight. I would also like to apologize to people at the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) and my readers. I take great pains to present accurate, reliable information that readers can count on. And I want to correct the historical record for future reference.
What Happened
In the first iteration of the 2025 Q1 report, I found a billion-dollar discrepancy. HCFCD admitted the mistake and corrected it in the revised report.
While double checking the revised report, I thought I discovered some other inconsistencies between the high-level, summary information at the front and the backup documentation at the end. They included:
“Bond Funds”
“Partner Funds”
“Secured Funds”
“Funds Spent”
Unfortunately, the discrepancies resulted from an inaccurate automated export of data from a PDF file to Microsoft Excel. Four lines out of hundreds did not translate properly. Using different, third-party software, HCFCD did the same export/import operation and encountered the same problem.
Highlighted and enlarged translation error from PDF to Excel. Note how expenditures became misaligned.
So, the incredibly dedicated person I talked to manually copied and pasted hundreds of figures to double check the totals in a ten-page spreadsheet.
That led to the discovery of the translation error, which explained the inaccurate totals.
During the translation, the programs shrank the size of the type. So, the figures no longer appeared in their proper columns. They also became virtually invisible because of their small size.
New Totals Agree
After hours of checking, I’m confident that the totals in the documentation now agree with the claims in the introduction. For the record:
2018 Bond Funds = $2.5 billion
Partner Funds = $2,697,565,889 (rounded to $2.7 Billion)
Total Funds = $5,227,103,996 (rounded to $5.2 billion)
Total Spent to Date = $1,569,557,746.
Questions about Other Figures Still Unanswered
In my 7/12/25 post, I also raised other questions that HCFCD has not yet answered.
First, where does the half-billion dollar increase in work in progress during the first quarter come from? I don’t see it in construction activity on the ground, in bids, or in work approved by Commissioners Court.
Second:
Where does the $1.3 billion funding shortfall came from that HCFCD Executive Director Tina Petersen claimed in Commissioner Court?
Why did no mention of the shortfall appear in the 2024 Year-End Bond Update or either of the two first-quarter updates?
A Start on Answers
HCFCD is starting to work on answers to those questions. Regarding the $1.3 billion shortfall, an HCFCD spokeswoman said, “One of the big asks was to produce our (sometimes rough) estimates of unmet need. That fell into two categories:
Current unmet need – Funding needed to take current projects through construction, even if the bond only originally provided funds for a study or engineering work. A good example of this is the projects included in Bond ID F-14. (Planning, Right-Of-Way Acquisition, Design and Construction of General Drainage Improvements Near Kingwood.)
Future unmet need – Funding needed to take the next phase of a project through construction. Examples would include engineering work that showed we need channel conveyance improvements and a stormwater detention basin in an area, but we currently only have funding for the stormwater detention basin. Or if studies showed we could construct a four-compartment basin, but we currently only have funding for two compartments.
“That is not how we have managed the bond program to date, so it represented a shift in thinking. These were meant to be high-level estimates for discussion, not an actual estimate of need associated with the bond program.”
Working to Make Financial Reporting More Transparent
In working with HCFCD to resolve these an other questions, I found them very open and collaborative. At this point, I no longer feel they are trying to hide something.
I also have a greater appreciation for the complexities the 2018 bond program. Finding a way to summarize changes in scope on hundreds of projects and Bond IDs is difficult, especially when tracking money from multiple sources. From a communication point of view, it all comes down to inspiring trust instead of raising skepticism.
HCFCD has not yet agreed to any specific changes. But they did accept the challenge to find clearer ways to communicate.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/14/2025
2876 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/2025/07/Translation-Error.png?fit=2198%2C542&ssl=15422198adminadmin2025-07-14 18:02:312025-07-14 18:04:54Correction to Revised 2025 First-Quarter Flood-Bond Update Story
Corrections on 7/14/25 include revisions to the four items in the bulleted list below. All of those discrepancies have been resolved. See the post that supersedes this one. However, the last two questions about the amount of new projects in Q1 and the $1.3 billion dollar shortfall remain.
7/12/25 – Harris County Flood Control District admits that it made a huge mistake in its 2025 first quarter Flood-Bond Update released two weeks ago. The report showed accounting discrepancies totaling more than a billion dollars. As a result of media attention, the District released a revised Q1 report late yesterday afternoon.
But many discrepancies still remain…both within the revised report itself and when comparing the revised report to the 2024 Year-End Report. Several numbers appear to be far off, including:
“Bond Funds” – $107 million
“Partner Funds” – $289 million
“Secured Funds” – $370 million
“Funds Spent” – $252 million.
HCFCD also claims to have put $504 million “Bond Dollars to Work” in the first three months of this year without explaining where the money went.
The new first-quarter report contains two types of information: High-level summary information in the introduction and backup documentation at the end. The two don’t agree with each other.
But it’s hard to see because HCFCD doesn’t provide totals or subtotals in the 8-page backup spreadsheet. So, I exported the PDF to Microsoft Excel and totaled the columns myself. Here’s what I found.
Bond, Partner, Total Secured Funds
The backup spreadsheet shows:
Calculated from backup documentation in Revised Q1 Report.
Now compare that to the totals shown in the introductory graphic below. They’re in the same report!
Screen capture from page two of revised First Quarter 2025 Bond Update.
The bond DID include $2.5 billion worth of taxpayer funds. But the backup shows $107 million less. And $289 million less in partner funds. Plus, the total secured funds disagree by almost $370 million. Which set of figures should we believe?
$252 Million Discrepancy in Funds Spent
The backup documentation at the end of the report shows that roughly $1.317 billion has been spent to date.
But the graphic upfront claims $1.569 billion was spent. That’s a $252 million discrepancy.
Screen capture from Page 5 of revised 2025 Q1 bond update.
Unexplained Half Billion Dollars of Work Initiated in 3 Months
If you look at the two screen captures below, you would think that Flood Control initiated $504 million dollars worth of work in the first quarter.
Screen captures from 2024 Year End and Revised 2025 Q1 Reports.
Where is it? I don’t see that big of a difference on the ground, in press releases, or projects approved by Commissioners Court in the first three months of the year. And the reports shed no light.
The difference in three months approximately equals one third of all the funds HCFCD claims to have spent in seven years.
We Need Revisions to the Revisions
Some might conclude “deliberate deception.” I have no evidence of that. But I do believe that the work shows a shocking and unprofessional level of attention to detail. Had they simply totaled the columns in their spreadsheet, they would have noticed many of these discrepancies.
I wonder whether the numbers being communicated to Commissioners contain the same misinformation. And whether Commissioners are making policy decisions based on bad information. (HCFCD claims they are not.)
Regardless, we need yet another revision to the first quarter report. Also…
We Need Independent Audit and Explanations
We need an independent audit of HCFCD accounting. We also need explanations for these discrepancies.
HCFCD admits it made a billion-dollar mistake in the watershed spending totals that I pointed out two weeks ago. You would think they would have been hyper-vigilant this time around.
I don’t know why the data quality is so poor. I have observed, however, that:
The Q1 report introduction makes Tina Petersen’s performance look much better than the backup documentation.
The billion dollar discrepancy previously reported in “funds remaining” helped Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis make a case for cutting projects that didn’t fall into the top quartile of his equity index.
Hmmmm. Those are my opinions.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/12/2025
2874 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/2025/07/2025-Q1-Report-Cover.jpg?fit=1100%2C721&ssl=17211100adminadmin2025-07-12 19:12:152025-07-15 07:43:55Revised HCFCD Report Still Contains Discrepancies Totaling Hundreds of Millions
Toth, Who Voted Against Warning System, Dredging-District Bills Running Against Crenshaw
7/15/25 – Texas State Representative Steve Toth of Conroe announced today that he will run for U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw’s job next year in the Second Congressional District. But Toth, who is campaigning on protecting our security, has repeatedly voted against it.
Toth: Ultra-Right Mr. No
Toth voted against HB-13, designed to improve warnings in natural disasters, such as the July 4 Hill-Country floods this year and Panhandle wildfires last year. As of this writing, 134 are confirmed dead in the floods and close to a hundred are still missing.
Toth also voted against proposals to create a Lake Houston Dredging District three times: 2021, 2023 and 2025. The last time, State Rep. Charles Cunningham even modified the wording of HB 1532 so that it would NOT be tax-funded. But Toth still voted against it.
In the last redistricting effort, Toth helped redraw his home outside to Texas District 2, which he now wants to represent. Voter registration records indicate he lives in Texas District 8.
The ultra-conservative, far-right Toth also has a reputation for campaigning against Republicans. He previously ran against Kevin Brady of the Woodlands and lost.
A Personal Endorsement for Crenshaw
I have known Dan Crenshaw since he first ran for office and have immense respect for him. He has worked hard to protect the people of this district by securing funding for numerous flood-mitigation projects including dredging. But Toth has consistently voted against creating a Lake Houston Dredging District. He even voted against it when it wouldn’t have raised taxes. That tells me he’s out of touch with the needs of people in this congressional district. I plan on voting for Crenshaw.
Flickinger Emphasizes Vital Need For Dredging
Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger who testified in favor of Cunningham’s Dredging District Bill said: “House Bill 1532 is arguably the most important piece of legislation for the Lake Houston area passed in the last several decades.”
“HB 1532 created a dredging district, which allows us to address sediment in Lake Houston and the tributaries flowing into it proactively rather than reactively after our area has flooded.
Slightly different versions of the dredging district bill were introduced in the previous two sessions, but failed thanks in part to Toth.
Said Flickinger, “Last May’s rain event was a perfect example of how dredging improves drainage. The San Jacinto River crested two feet lower than predicted due to the dredging which had been completed over the last several years.”
Flickinger credits Congressman Crenshaw, former Representative Huberty, Senator Creighton and Council Member Martin for that. “They deserve special credit for securing the funding to complete these dredging efforts, some of which are ongoing
today.”
Toth is UN-Representative
I just don’t get why someone who wants to represent 13,000 families and 3,300 businesses that flooded in the Lake Houston area would vote against a dredging bill that helps protect them. Those 3,300 businesses represented 44% of all the businesses in the Lake Houston Chamber.
Overall, 20% percent of homes and 40% of businesses in the Lake Houston area have been affected by flooding. That last figure includes 100% of ALL businesses in Kingwood Town Center.
I know families that were destroyed financially by the flooding and people who were killed. But the man who wants to represent this area has repeatedly stood in the way of a bi-partisan, tax-neutral solution designed to protect their homes and businesses.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/15/2025
2877 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.
Correction to Revised 2025 First-Quarter Flood-Bond Update Story
7/14/25 – I incorrectly reported four totals in my 7/12/25 story about the revised 2025 first-quarter, flood-bond update. I would like to set the record straight. I would also like to apologize to people at the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) and my readers. I take great pains to present accurate, reliable information that readers can count on. And I want to correct the historical record for future reference.
What Happened
In the first iteration of the 2025 Q1 report, I found a billion-dollar discrepancy. HCFCD admitted the mistake and corrected it in the revised report.
While double checking the revised report, I thought I discovered some other inconsistencies between the high-level, summary information at the front and the backup documentation at the end. They included:
Unfortunately, the discrepancies resulted from an inaccurate automated export of data from a PDF file to Microsoft Excel. Four lines out of hundreds did not translate properly. Using different, third-party software, HCFCD did the same export/import operation and encountered the same problem.
So, the incredibly dedicated person I talked to manually copied and pasted hundreds of figures to double check the totals in a ten-page spreadsheet.
That led to the discovery of the translation error, which explained the inaccurate totals.
During the translation, the programs shrank the size of the type. So, the figures no longer appeared in their proper columns. They also became virtually invisible because of their small size.
New Totals Agree
After hours of checking, I’m confident that the totals in the documentation now agree with the claims in the introduction. For the record:
Questions about Other Figures Still Unanswered
In my 7/12/25 post, I also raised other questions that HCFCD has not yet answered.
First, where does the half-billion dollar increase in work in progress during the first quarter come from? I don’t see it in construction activity on the ground, in bids, or in work approved by Commissioners Court.
Second:
A Start on Answers
HCFCD is starting to work on answers to those questions. Regarding the $1.3 billion shortfall, an HCFCD spokeswoman said, “One of the big asks was to produce our (sometimes rough) estimates of unmet need. That fell into two categories:
“That is not how we have managed the bond program to date, so it represented a shift in thinking. These were meant to be high-level estimates for discussion, not an actual estimate of need associated with the bond program.”
Working to Make Financial Reporting More Transparent
In working with HCFCD to resolve these an other questions, I found them very open and collaborative. At this point, I no longer feel they are trying to hide something.
I also have a greater appreciation for the complexities the 2018 bond program. Finding a way to summarize changes in scope on hundreds of projects and Bond IDs is difficult, especially when tracking money from multiple sources. From a communication point of view, it all comes down to inspiring trust instead of raising skepticism.
HCFCD has not yet agreed to any specific changes. But they did accept the challenge to find clearer ways to communicate.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/14/2025
2876 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.
Revised HCFCD Report Still Contains Discrepancies Totaling Hundreds of Millions
Corrections on 7/14/25 include revisions to the four items in the bulleted list below. All of those discrepancies have been resolved. See the post that supersedes this one. However, the last two questions about the amount of new projects in Q1 and the $1.3 billion dollar shortfall remain.
7/12/25 – Harris County Flood Control District admits that it made a huge mistake in its 2025 first quarter Flood-Bond Update released two weeks ago. The report showed accounting discrepancies totaling more than a billion dollars. As a result of media attention, the District released a revised Q1 report late yesterday afternoon.
But many discrepancies still remain…both within the revised report itself and when comparing the revised report to the 2024 Year-End Report. Several numbers appear to be far off, including:
HCFCD also claims to have put $504 million “Bond Dollars to Work” in the first three months of this year without explaining where the money went.
Nor does the revised report explain what HCFCD’s director Dr. Tina Petersen claims is a $1.3 billion shortfall in funding needed to complete the bond.
See details below.
Basis for This Post
I compared HCFCD’s 2024 Year-End Report with its Revised 2025 Q1 Report. I also compared information from different parts of the Q1 report itself.
The new first-quarter report contains two types of information: High-level summary information in the introduction and backup documentation at the end. The two don’t agree with each other.
But it’s hard to see because HCFCD doesn’t provide totals or subtotals in the 8-page backup spreadsheet. So, I exported the PDF to Microsoft Excel and totaled the columns myself. Here’s what I found.
Bond, Partner, Total Secured Funds
The backup spreadsheet shows:
Now compare that to the totals shown in the introductory graphic below. They’re in the same report!
The bond DID include $2.5 billion worth of taxpayer funds. But the backup shows $107 million less. And $289 million less in partner funds. Plus, the total secured funds disagree by almost $370 million. Which set of figures should we believe?
$252 Million Discrepancy in Funds Spent
The backup documentation at the end of the report shows that roughly $1.317 billion has been spent to date.
But the graphic upfront claims $1.569 billion was spent. That’s a $252 million discrepancy.
Unexplained Half Billion Dollars of Work Initiated in 3 Months
If you look at the two screen captures below, you would think that Flood Control initiated $504 million dollars worth of work in the first quarter.
Where is it? I don’t see that big of a difference on the ground, in press releases, or projects approved by Commissioners Court in the first three months of the year. And the reports shed no light.
The difference in three months approximately equals one third of all the funds HCFCD claims to have spent in seven years.
We Need Revisions to the Revisions
Some might conclude “deliberate deception.” I have no evidence of that. But I do believe that the work shows a shocking and unprofessional level of attention to detail. Had they simply totaled the columns in their spreadsheet, they would have noticed many of these discrepancies.
I wonder whether the numbers being communicated to Commissioners contain the same misinformation. And whether Commissioners are making policy decisions based on bad information. (HCFCD claims they are not.)
Regardless, we need yet another revision to the first quarter report. Also…
We Need Independent Audit and Explanations
We need an independent audit of HCFCD accounting. We also need explanations for these discrepancies.
HCFCD admits it made a billion-dollar mistake in the watershed spending totals that I pointed out two weeks ago. You would think they would have been hyper-vigilant this time around.
I don’t know why the data quality is so poor. I have observed, however, that:
Hmmmm. Those are my opinions.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/12/2025
2874 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.