A Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) year-end spending report shows a continuing bond slowdown. The most recent spending update to Commissioners Court reflects all activity through the end of 2022.
The big news to report is that there’s not much news to report.
The December update showed that the San Jacinto Watershed received only $76.6 thousand during the month, ranking it 15th among all Harris County watersheds. HCFCD has only spent 2.5% of all bond money spent to date in the entire county.
A separate Biannual Update shows that the paltry progress is NOT the result of available funds. The San Jacinto has about $167 million in committed funding, but has received less than $30 million from the bond so far.
But before we dig deeper into the San Jacinto, let’s look at the continuing bond slowdown in HarrisCounty as a whole.
Has spent a total of $1.177 billion to date, up from $1.150 billion at the end of November, a $27 million increase.
Bought out 27 homes countywide.
Secured another $30 million in funding ($1.734 billion up from $1.704).
Saw no change budgeted active capital construction projects ($0.00, likely a reporting mistake).
Saw no change in budgeted active maintenance projects ($0.00, likely another reporting mistake).
Awarded just one construction project worth $7 million.
Saw its schedule performance index dip below 1.0 for 11 months in a row. (1.0 means on-schedule).
Completed another 0.3% of the bond, bringing the percent completed up to 24.1% with 43.3% of the time elapsed.
Still has NO active construction projects in the lone Republican-led precinct. All 18 are split among three precincts with Democratic commissioners.
Reporting Mistakes
Regarding those goose eggs under “active projects,” it appears that someone just picked up the active projects pages from November and changed the dates to December. However, the HCFCD website does show figures updated through January 2, 2023. Using those as the most current figures instead would mean:
The total budgeted for active maintenance projects FELL from $50.6 million to $37.2 million, a decrease of $13.4 million.
Likewise, the total budgeted for active capital improvement construction projects FELL from $239.8 million to $223.5 million, a decrease of $16.3 million.
I’m not sure which is worse. Zeros, decreases, or errors?
Continuing, Prolonged Slowdown
Another major concern is the continuing lag in the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). This is a measure of on-schedule performance. Temporary decreases can often happen between projects. However, HCFCD has fallen behind schedule and stayed behind for 11 months in a row. The last time it reported an SPI of 1.0 was in January of 2022.
At the current rate of spending, it will take HCFCD more than 20 years to finish the bond.
Slow performance means we all live with flood risk longer than necessary and pay higher flood-insurance premiums than necessary.
For all of last year, HCFCD averaged between $20 and $23 million per month in spending.
Compiled from HCFCD monthly updates.
Under previous leadership, HCFCD averaged $35 million per month and the rate was climbing, not falling.
Spending By Watershed During December
The table below shows spending in all 23 Harris County watersheds plus countywide spending for the month of December 2022 (in the “Difference” column). HCFCD reported a decrease in Countywide spending with no explanation. The District also shows NO spending at all in three watersheds.
Compiled from HCFCD Bond Updates from November and December of 2022.
The San Jacinto Watershed is the county’s largest. Floods have damaged more structures in the San Jacinto than in all but seven other watersheds. The damage total includes five major storms since 2000 – Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey, Imelda.
Yet the San Jacinto has received only 2.5% of total flood-bond spending through 2022, ranking it #15 on that scale.
To date the San Jacinto has received only 13% of the $223,256,195 allocated to it in the bond. Compare that to 79% for the Brays Watershed and 75% for the Greens.
Commissioners Court Agenda Also Shows Slowdown
HCFCD has only 11 items on the Commissioners Court agenda for Tuesday, February 21. Contrast that with engineering which has 108.
And few of HCFCD’s requests involved new flood-mitigation work.
Four items transitioned projects to HCFCD’s maintenance program.
Four items involved contract changes.
One involved a permit for a MUD doing environmental enhancement work.
One would let Pasadena build recreational facilities on HCFCD property.
One would reimburse Union Pacific for a preliminary engineering study that UP was doing to relieve repetitive flooding along Halls Bayou adjacent to its railroad tracks.
Bi-Annual Bond Update
For additional information on the progress of the bond, see this Bi-Annual Update issued by HCFCD in January. It contains dozens of spending breakdowns. Especially interesting are the funding-gap calculations on page 11. See table below.
Note that the table above shows different “actual spending to date” figures than the monthly updates farther above.
Regardless, these figures show that lack of funding is NOT responsible for the slow progress in the San Jacinto Watershed. The San Jacinto has $167 million dollars in committed funding. We’re just not spending the money.
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/2023/02/SpendingByWS-thru-22.12.31.png?fit=1114%2C1146&ssl=111461114adminadmin2023-02-19 22:18:222023-02-22 05:33:11HCFCD Updates Show Continuing Bond Slowdown
The intended audience is for state and local officials. But don’t let that scare you. This brochure can also help home- and business owners think about their options, the pros/cons of each, their relative costs, and suitability for a particular location.
The first part of the 198-page document deals with how to use something called FEMA’s National Tool. It collects information from a variety of different sources. Planners use the data to create a “scorecard” that helps rank the alternatives.
Flood-Mitigation Alternatives Discussed
The major types of alternatives discussed in the brochure include:
Drainage Improvements
Barriers
Wet Floodproofing
Dry Floodproofing
Elevation
Relocation
Acquisition (Buyouts)
Helpful Screening Questions
Chapter 3 contains a variety of screening questions designed to help determine the “fit” of each option for a particular location. For instance, to name a few, “What is the…”
Structure type
Condition of the structure
Foundation type
Number of stories
Building footprint
Example of Material in Typical Chapter
The meat of the discussion starts after that. The document contains a chapter on each of the seven major options and sub-options within them.
At a minimum, these chapters explain how flood professionals are trained to evaluate options and make recommendations in your situation.
While FEMA’s text is aimed at professionals, it’s well written, clear, and easy to understand. I won’t elaborate on each chapter, but will give you an example – Chapter 5: Barriers.
Levees and walls, two of many barriers against flooding discussed in Chapter 5.
Other sub-options include berms and temporary barriers (inflatable, floatable, and water filled).
Advantages:
They keep floodwaters out of the house and prevent flood damage
They require no significant changes to structures.
Disadvantages:
Barriers may not bring a substantially damaged structure into compliance with local floodplain management ordinances
Cost may be prohibitive
Large area needed for construction
Need for maintenance
Can affect local drainage, making flooding worse for others.
Whether they’re suitable in your situation will depend on:
The depth of flooding
Height of the barrier needed
Local building codes
Type of foundation (i.e., these don’t work well with basements)
Soil conditions (load-bearing capacity and permeability)
Duration of floods
Costs
Requirements for human intervention
Annual maintenance
Access to structure during normal times
Escape from structure if barrier is overtopped during an extreme event
Interior drainage (what happens if water starts filling in behind the barrier)
The brochure contains lucid and thought provoking discussions on each of these issues. If you start exploring such barriers, this brochure will help you plan discussions with contractors.
Highly Recommended
And so it goes for each of the other major types of mitigation found in other chapters. This is a valuable resource for anyone considering a major investment. It won’t help you make a final decision. But it will help you make a more intelligent decision.
So if you’re trying to find the best option to mitigate floodprone structures, click here.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/18/2023
1999 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Screenshot-2023-02-18-at-12.34.27-PM.png?fit=1148%2C560&ssl=15601148adminadmin2023-02-18 14:04:202023-02-18 14:22:06How to Find the Best Option to Mitigate Floodprone Structures
According to a press release by Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin, the City of Houston Police served an evidentiary search warrant at the Kingwood Central Wastewater Treatment Plant this morning, 2/17/2023. Inframark operates the plant.
Looking east at the Kingwood Central Wastewater Treatment Plant. Bens Branch separates the plant from the apartments near Kingwood Town Center and the Kingwood Library (bright white roof near top of frame).
The City had received numerous complaints about foul odors in the area and found irregularities in both plant operations and corresponding regulatory compliance. Houston Police Department’s Environmental Crimes Unit and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) investigated further.
They kept their work quiet until now, fearing the possible destruction of documents by the parties being subpoenaed.
The investigation centers around allegations of falsified government documents and compliance samples.
City of Houston Press Release
Problems with Plant and Solutions
The foul odors related to an equipment malfunction at the plant during the week of January 23, 2023. The plant now operates normally. But addressing the ongoing odor issues will require improving the “transfer efficiency” of oxygen.
According to the City, the amount of air pushed into the wastewater system directly impacts the amount of odor generated. The City believes fixing the odors will require a dual strategy:
Short Term – Repairs to leaks in the plant’s air-distribution and header systems
Longer Term – Modification of the header system and the addition of another blower.
Close Monitoring
The City intends to monitor the facility closely. It says it has worked and will continue to work with the TCEQ to take all steps necessary to minimize any adverse impact to the residents of Kingwood and the environment.
No Service Disruption Expected
Kingwood residents should not experience any disruption in water or wastewater service, according to Mayor Pro Tem Martin. He emphasized that contaminated wastewater never threatened Bens Branch or Lake Houston because of this problem.
Martin thanked Houston Public Works, HPD, and the TCEQ for their swift responses.
Plant Will Eventually Be Relocated
Ultimately, the City will consolidate this plant with others in the Kingwood area on the Woodridge Village property. Harris County Flood Control and the City purchased that property from Perry Homes in 2021.
The City hopes to reduce flood risk to the sewage treatment plants by moving them to higher ground.
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/2023/02/20230217-DJI_0101.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2023-02-17 14:33:432023-02-17 14:54:56City Serves Search Warrant at Kingwood Central Wastewater Treatment Plant
HCFCD Updates Show Continuing Bond Slowdown
A Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) year-end spending report shows a continuing bond slowdown. The most recent spending update to Commissioners Court reflects all activity through the end of 2022.
The December update showed that the San Jacinto Watershed received only $76.6 thousand during the month, ranking it 15th among all Harris County watersheds. HCFCD has only spent 2.5% of all bond money spent to date in the entire county.
A separate Biannual Update shows that the paltry progress is NOT the result of available funds. The San Jacinto has about $167 million in committed funding, but has received less than $30 million from the bond so far.
But before we dig deeper into the San Jacinto, let’s look at the continuing bond slowdown in Harris County as a whole.
December Overview
Compared to November 2022’s update, the December 2022 update shows that HCFCD:
Reporting Mistakes
Regarding those goose eggs under “active projects,” it appears that someone just picked up the active projects pages from November and changed the dates to December. However, the HCFCD website does show figures updated through January 2, 2023. Using those as the most current figures instead would mean:
I’m not sure which is worse. Zeros, decreases, or errors?
Continuing, Prolonged Slowdown
Another major concern is the continuing lag in the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). This is a measure of on-schedule performance. Temporary decreases can often happen between projects. However, HCFCD has fallen behind schedule and stayed behind for 11 months in a row. The last time it reported an SPI of 1.0 was in January of 2022.
At the current rate of spending, it will take HCFCD more than 20 years to finish the bond.
Slow performance means we all live with flood risk longer than necessary and pay higher flood-insurance premiums than necessary.
For all of last year, HCFCD averaged between $20 and $23 million per month in spending.
Under previous leadership, HCFCD averaged $35 million per month and the rate was climbing, not falling.
Spending By Watershed During December
The table below shows spending in all 23 Harris County watersheds plus countywide spending for the month of December 2022 (in the “Difference” column). HCFCD reported a decrease in Countywide spending with no explanation. The District also shows NO spending at all in three watersheds.
The San Jacinto Watershed is the county’s largest. Floods have damaged more structures in the San Jacinto than in all but seven other watersheds. The damage total includes five major storms since 2000 – Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey, Imelda.
Yet the San Jacinto has received only 2.5% of total flood-bond spending through 2022, ranking it #15 on that scale.
To date the San Jacinto has received only 13% of the $223,256,195 allocated to it in the bond. Compare that to 79% for the Brays Watershed and 75% for the Greens.
Commissioners Court Agenda Also Shows Slowdown
HCFCD has only 11 items on the Commissioners Court agenda for Tuesday, February 21. Contrast that with engineering which has 108.
And few of HCFCD’s requests involved new flood-mitigation work.
Bi-Annual Bond Update
For additional information on the progress of the bond, see this Bi-Annual Update issued by HCFCD in January. It contains dozens of spending breakdowns. Especially interesting are the funding-gap calculations on page 11. See table below.
Note that the table above shows different “actual spending to date” figures than the monthly updates farther above.
Regardless, these figures show that lack of funding is NOT responsible for the slow progress in the San Jacinto Watershed. The San Jacinto has $167 million dollars in committed funding. We’re just not spending the money.
Political priorities, not funding availbility, are the reason for the continuing bond slowdown – at least in the San Jacinto watershed. Spring Creek residents are way behind, too.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/19/23
2000 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.
How to Find the Best Option to Mitigate Floodprone Structures
How do you find the best option to mitigate floodprone structures? What will work best in your particular situation? FEMA discusses many different options in an interesting brochure titled “Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures.”
The intended audience is for state and local officials. But don’t let that scare you. This brochure can also help home- and business owners think about their options, the pros/cons of each, their relative costs, and suitability for a particular location.
The first part of the 198-page document deals with how to use something called FEMA’s National Tool. It collects information from a variety of different sources. Planners use the data to create a “scorecard” that helps rank the alternatives.
Flood-Mitigation Alternatives Discussed
The major types of alternatives discussed in the brochure include:
Helpful Screening Questions
Chapter 3 contains a variety of screening questions designed to help determine the “fit” of each option for a particular location. For instance, to name a few, “What is the…”
Example of Material in Typical Chapter
The meat of the discussion starts after that. The document contains a chapter on each of the seven major options and sub-options within them.
At a minimum, these chapters explain how flood professionals are trained to evaluate options and make recommendations in your situation.
While FEMA’s text is aimed at professionals, it’s well written, clear, and easy to understand. I won’t elaborate on each chapter, but will give you an example – Chapter 5: Barriers.
Other sub-options include berms and temporary barriers (inflatable, floatable, and water filled).
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
Whether they’re suitable in your situation will depend on:
The brochure contains lucid and thought provoking discussions on each of these issues. If you start exploring such barriers, this brochure will help you plan discussions with contractors.
Highly Recommended
And so it goes for each of the other major types of mitigation found in other chapters. This is a valuable resource for anyone considering a major investment. It won’t help you make a final decision. But it will help you make a more intelligent decision.
So if you’re trying to find the best option to mitigate floodprone structures, click here.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/18/2023
1999 Days since Hurricane Harvey
City Serves Search Warrant at Kingwood Central Wastewater Treatment Plant
According to a press release by Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin, the City of Houston Police served an evidentiary search warrant at the Kingwood Central Wastewater Treatment Plant this morning, 2/17/2023. Inframark operates the plant.
The City had received numerous complaints about foul odors in the area and found irregularities in both plant operations and corresponding regulatory compliance. Houston Police Department’s Environmental Crimes Unit and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) investigated further.
They kept their work quiet until now, fearing the possible destruction of documents by the parties being subpoenaed.
Problems with Plant and Solutions
The foul odors related to an equipment malfunction at the plant during the week of January 23, 2023. The plant now operates normally. But addressing the ongoing odor issues will require improving the “transfer efficiency” of oxygen.
According to the City, the amount of air pushed into the wastewater system directly impacts the amount of odor generated. The City believes fixing the odors will require a dual strategy:
Close Monitoring
The City intends to monitor the facility closely. It says it has worked and will continue to work with the TCEQ to take all steps necessary to minimize any adverse impact to the residents of Kingwood and the environment.
No Service Disruption Expected
Kingwood residents should not experience any disruption in water or wastewater service, according to Mayor Pro Tem Martin. He emphasized that contaminated wastewater never threatened Bens Branch or Lake Houston because of this problem.
Martin thanked Houston Public Works, HPD, and the TCEQ for their swift responses.
Plant Will Eventually Be Relocated
Ultimately, the City will consolidate this plant with others in the Kingwood area on the Woodridge Village property. Harris County Flood Control and the City purchased that property from Perry Homes in 2021.
The City hopes to reduce flood risk to the sewage treatment plants by moving them to higher ground.
During Harvey, several of the plants, including this one flooded. They then contaminated nearby structures with sewage, requiring cleanup by workers in hazmat suits. Kingwood High School and Kingwood College, for instance, both required such special cleanup.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/17/2023
1998 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.