The Lake Houston Gates Project is moving closer to reality with breakthroughs on the benefit/cost ratio, funding and endorsements.
City of Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin and Chief Recovery Officer Stephen Costello provided updates on 2/27/23 at City Hall on the Lake Houston Gates Project. The wide-ranging, hour-long discussion covered several related topics. They included:
A critical path for construction
Dredging of the lake
Funding for gates and dredging
Several related engineering studies
A favorable ruling from FEMA on the Benefit-Cost Ratio
An endorsement to the area’s legislators by the Greater Houston Partnership.
Need For Gates
For those new to the area, the City of Houston has been pushing to add gates to the Lake Houston Dam ever since Harvey in 2017. Upstream, Lake Conroe’s gates can release 150,000 cubic feet per second (CFS). But Lake Houston’s can only release 10,000 CFS.
The disparity in discharge capacity complicates joint-reservoir-management and pre-release strategies designed to avoid flooding by reducing the water level in Lake Houston.
Lake Houston releases cannot keep up with Lake Conroe’s. And pre-releasing water from Lake Houston takes so long that storms can veer away during the lowering process, often resulting in wasted water. That’s an important consideration for a water-supply lake.
According to Martin and Costello, the gate project will:
• Serve as the first phase of a long-term effort to extend the life of the Dam • Enable the rapid lowering of lake levels in advance of a flood • Eliminate the need for a seasonal lowering of both Lake Houston and Lake Conroe • Provide potential water-rights savings • Protect an estimated 5,000 residential properties in the surrounding area • Yield an estimated half billion dollars in economic benefits during the life of the project
However, the City discarded that idea as “too risky” after further study. The engineering company cautioned the City that it would have a difficult time finding contractors willing to risk modifying a 70-year old concrete dam. The potential liability was just too great. So the City then revisited adding various numbers of tainter gates to the eastern, earthen portion of the dam.
Because tainter gates exceeded FEMA’s funding, the City had initially focused on crest gates. But after investigating the safety issues, the City decided to seek more funding for tainter gates instead.
Recommended location for new tainter gates is next to old ones, not farther east as I conjectured earlier.
The picture below is slightly wider and shows more of how both halves of the dam come together.
If funding comes through, new gates would go in the upper right along the earthen portion of the dam, next to the old gates.
Funding Needs
FEMA initially set aside $50 million for the gates. Plus Harris County committed $20 million in the 2018 Flood Bond to attract FEMA’s match. But the latest construction estimates show eleven tainter gates could cost between $200 and $250 million.
After engineering and environmental studies, only $68.3 million in funding remains. That includes an earmark secured by Congressman Dan Crenshaw. So the City is seeking another $150 million from the State of Texas. Martin and Costello have made weekly trips to Austin so far during this session to line up support from legislators, committee chairs, and the Texas Division of Emergency Management.
Social Benefits Improve Benefit/Cost Ratio
All this is suddenly possible because of a favorable ruling from FEMA on the benefit-cost ratio (BCR).
For years, Houston had struggled to get the BCR for the gate project above 1.0 (the point at which benefits exceed costs). Usually, FEMA strictly interprets benefits as “avoided damages to structures.”
But Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Costello met with FEMA to argue that the problem was much bigger than damaged structures.
As a result, FEMA allowed the City to add the value of “social benefits” to the BCR. Social benefits can include such things as avoiding lost wages when businesses are destroyed; transportation disruptions that reduce the region’s productivity; reducing negative impacts on student achievement when schools are disrupted; and more.
The social-benefit ruling covers a number of City projects, not just the gates. It should also benefit other areas, especially rural ones.
Said Costello, “The minute the social benefits came in, everything was great.” Instead of struggling to reach 1.0, the City is now far above it.
Greater Houston Partnership Endorsement
With that out of the way, the Greater Houston Partnership wrote a powerful letter to state legislators seeking their support for the gate project. See below.
The Partnership includes business leaders from 900 member companies in the 12-county Houston Region.
Dredging Update
While pressing ahead with the gates project, the City is also working on a long-term dredging plan for the lake and working with the SJRA on sedimentation and sand-trap pilot projects.
The lake has already lost more than 20,000 acre feet of capacity due to sedimentation. That worsens flooding. While the Federal Government supports efforts to improve Lake Houston now, the chances of getting more money in the future will be reduced – unless we can show that we’re at least keeping pace with annual sediment deposits.
Since Harvey, FEMA, the Army Corps, TWDB, and City of Houston have removed almost 4 million cubic yards of material from the lake at a cost of $226 million.
We have to prevent more sediment from coming downstream or dredge it after it gets here.
Stephen Costello, City of Houston Chief Recovery Officer
The City is currently lobbying for another $50 million for maintenance dredging to add to the money secured in the last legislative session by now-retired State Representative Dan Huberty. New Representative Charles Cunningham will reportedly now carry that banner forward along with State Senator Brandon Creighton.
Legislative News to Follow
March 10th is the last day to file bills in the Texas Legislature this year. Please visit the legislation page on ReduceFlooding.com for updates once bills are filed and start moving forward in Austin.
Thanks to all of our elected and appointed representatives who have pushed so hard on so many fronts for the last 2008 days to tie all the pieces of this complicated flood-mitigation puzzle together.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/27/2023
2008 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/20230227-Screenshot-2023-02-27-at-9.28.29-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C679&ssl=16791200adminadmin2023-02-27 21:45:512023-02-28 11:45:24Lake Houston Gates Project Moves Closer to Reality
The controversial new Royal Pines subdivision that flooded a neighbor four times in two months has finally built a stormwater detention basin.
The good news: The basin should capture water flowing from one direction toward the neighbor.
The bad news: The height of the berm around the pond could back up water from the opposite direction onto the neighbor’s property. The concentrated flow could also erode the earth over a natural gas pipeline.
Drainage Now Concentrated Over Pipeline
The pipeline is buried only 36″ deep along the silt fence in the photo below. So any floodwater coming from the west (right) will now be concentrated directly over the pipeline.
Water used to converge from both east and west toward a natural depression in the middle of the new development. But contractors changed the natural grade, confusing the situation.
Looking south from over White Oak Creek toward the new 6.3-acre detention pond in the NW corner of Royal Pines. Water drains toward camera.
The drainage impact analysis for Royal Pines below shows that 11.6 acres outlined in purple (labeled as OFF1, for offsite area #1) drains through the larger 49.5 acre area that contains detention Pond 1 shown in the upper left. The plans show a channel running about a quarter of the way down the left border where the silt fence now is, then mysteriously stopping.
When I first saw the plans, I assumed the water in that channel would empty into the pond. But no inlets are installed at that location. At least not yet even though others are installed elsewhere.) See below and above.
Looking west toward neighborhood that flooded from development. No inletscome from that direction.
Instead, water coming from the west will meet a wall approximately 8 feet high.
The wall of the detention pond. This area used to slope down toward the trees in the background.Now you can barely see them.
The berm forms a dam against any water coming from the west (behind the camera position). That includes floodwaters from White Oak Creek.
So where will the stormwater go? Instead of spreading out, it will be squeezed between the berm and homeowners. That has the potential to cause more flooding.
The analysis claims the development will have no adverse impact either up- or downstream. However, during a five-year rain in January, the level of White Oak Creek came up much higher than a five-year flood.
What’s on the ground counts for more than what’s on paper.
Another Danger Lurks 36″ Down
But there’s potentially an even bigger danger. A natural gas pipeline is buried next to that silt fence that borders homes along the western edge of the detention pond. Erosion from all that concentrated water rushing over the pipeline could expose it, just as it exposed another pipeline 1.5 miles away.
The man behind the mine, Prabhakar Guniganti, also owns or owned Royal Pines. His name shows up on the general plan, although the Montgomery County tax rolls show a company called TC LB Royal Pines LP now owns the property. It’s not clear if there’s a connection between Guniganti and the Royal Pines Limited Partnership.
Guniganti has a history of corporate shell games. After the Attorney General sued him, ownership of his mine changed hands so many times that the AG had to add five shell companies to the lawsuit. The AG also added Guniganti as an individual and as a director of the companies/partnerships to the lawsuit. Because of all the delays, the case still has not gone to trial.
This does not inspire confidence. Especially among homeowners who may be flooded, but don’t have the State’s deep pockets.
When I and homeowners talked to Montgomery County Engineering last week, the developer did not yet have a construction permit for the pond. The county said only that if any changes become necessary, they will be at the developer’s expense.
Just a reminder. Section 11.086 of the Texas Water Code states, “No person may divert … the natural flow of surface waters in this state, or permit a diversion to continue, in a manner that damages the property of another…”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/25/2023
2006 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’s best hope to fully fund the 2018 Flood Bond just vanished into a political black hole. Watching the video of Commissioners Court on Tuesday made one dizzy. My head was spinning so quickly with all of the contradictions, that it reminded me of a Chucky horror movie.
Almost 2 Years After Leaving the Starting Gate…
After almost 2 years, the County’s Community Services Department (CSD) still has not even started working on a process that would define where $750 million in Hurricane Harvey Flood Mitigation money would go.
But its new director, Thao Costis, did recommend taking 58% of the money away from Harris County Flood Control District. County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis, Precinct Two Commissioner Adrian Garcia, and Precinct 4 Commissioner Lesley Briones all voted FOR CSD’s vague proposal that gave $326.5 million to “Harris County” and almost $100 million to “planning and administration” with no further definition.
Ramsey Reminds Court of Purpose of HUD Money
Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE reminded his fellow Court members that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) grant was originally intended to fill a funding gap in the flood bond.
For those who may not remember, roughly a third of the $2.5 billion 2018 flood bond was designed to attract matching funds from state and federal entities such as HUD. Harris County Flood Control District hoped to double taxpayers’ money that way. The bond actually had projects in it totaling roughly $5 billion.
At the time, HCFCD saw HUD dollars as the best way to support the hard-hit Halls Bayou watershed where 71% of the residents have low-to-moderate incomes (LMI).
Not Even Enough Left for HCFCD to Complete Halls Projects
But the money remaining with HCFCD after commissioners voted to divert more than half of the $750 million won’t even be enough to complete Halls projects.
The Flood Bond included Halls projects estimated at almost $383 million. Halls has already received projects worth $48 million, leaving a $335 million need. But giving only $326.5 million to HCFCD would leave Halls more than $8 million short.
That would leave no money for flood control projects in other watersheds. They would vanish into a political black hole.
The good people of Halls Bayou have had their projects lined up for years. Yet at 6:28:40 into the meeting video, Director Costis admits, “Our focus is to get projects lined up.”
For Halls Bayou residents who follow Commissioners Court, the video of Tuesday’s meeting will have their heads spinning faster than Chucky’s.
Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have complained bitterly about projects in LMI neighborhoods having to wait for federal funding that might never arrive. Then they voted to take $425 million away from HCFCD when it did.
Partnership Funding Merry-Go-Round
Commissioner Garcia, who couldn’t wait on partnership funding to get started on projects, demanded a partnership policy. Ditto for Commissioner Ellis.
But Ellis didn’t want to back away from the county’s “equity principles, because some cities might not have a match.” This could further reduce funding.
At 6:34:20, Ellis, who often brags about transparency, introduced a motion to prioritize projects using unspecified criteria before CSD comes back to Commissioners Court on March 3 with final recommendations.
Admission of Funding Gap
Then Ellis complained, “Even with this money, we don’t have enough money to do everything in the 2018 Flood Bond.” Where’s the other $425 million going, Mr. Ellis, that you’re diverting from HCFCD? Into that political black hole?
More Delays Could Jeopardize Funding
At 6:41, Dr. Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD, complains, “We’ll need to get an extension.” That’s something the Texas General Land Office (GLO), which manages HUD grants in Texas, has feared. The GLO worries that additional delays could cause HUD to take its money back. Harris County has been dragging this process out for almost two years.
Garcia again asks, “Is a partnership process in place?” (6:41)
Costis admits, “No. We’re starting that process now.”
Hidalgo abruptly cuts off the embarrassing discussion, takes a vote, and moves on to the next agenda item at 6:43:48.
Saying One Thing, Doing Another
Actions speak louder than words, especially in politics. It’s one thing to say flood mitigation is a top priority and that you want to help the county’s less fortunate first. But the figures below clearly show that…
…Ellis, Garcia and Hidalgo help our least fortunate residents the least.
To get a clear picture of political priorities, let’s visualize flood-mitigation spending as a percentage of the total value of projects in the flood bond for each watershed. This shows important differences in the progress toward completion of promised projects. See the table and map below.
In case you’re unfamiliar with the location of these watersheds, see below.
Greens has received 74.9% of its funding and Brays 79.4% of its. But both have lower LMI percentages than Halls, Hunting, Sims and Vince.
For instance, Sims has the third highest percentage of LMI residents in the county (65%), but has only received 4.4% of its anticipated funding.
Eight watersheds in Harris County have majority-LMI populations. But the LMI percentages have little to do with the percentage of money actually spent out of their anticipated budgets.
Contrary to promises, some of the least affluent watersheds are being prioritized last.
Brays and Greens have received more funding to date than the other six LMI-majority watersheds put together.
This is, in large part, because Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have constantly tweaked their equity-allocation formula to ensure money goes where they want it to go.
High Price of Turnover
The Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) learned of its $488 million allocation from the GLO the same day in May 2021 that Harris County learned of its $750 million. But H-GAC developed its distribution plan and received final approval from the GLO by September of 2022. And H-GAC had to coordinate more than 100 entities!
This comparison shows the high price of turnover in the executive ranks. Costis is the sixth executive director at CSD under Hidalgo. Ms. Costis previously ran a charity for homeless people. While admirable, that’s no qualification for managing hundreds of millions of dollars. And certain commissioners have not helped the process by making it more complicated than it already is with constantly changing demands.
If Harris County wants this money, it needs to hire leaders with business acumen, wall them off from political interference, and prohibit political patronage hires. Now that would really make people’s heads spin! It would also eliminate a political/financial black hole.
Posted by Bob Rehak on February 23, 2023
2004 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/2023/02/Waterrshed-Spend-2022-copy.png?fit=1200%2C927&ssl=19271200adminadmin2023-02-23 21:44:492023-02-25 16:32:07Best Hope to Fully Fund Flood-Bond Projects Just Vanished into a Political Black Hole
Lake Houston Gates Project Moves Closer to Reality
The Lake Houston Gates Project is moving closer to reality with breakthroughs on the benefit/cost ratio, funding and endorsements.
City of Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin and Chief Recovery Officer Stephen Costello provided updates on 2/27/23 at City Hall on the Lake Houston Gates Project. The wide-ranging, hour-long discussion covered several related topics. They included:
Need For Gates
For those new to the area, the City of Houston has been pushing to add gates to the Lake Houston Dam ever since Harvey in 2017. Upstream, Lake Conroe’s gates can release 150,000 cubic feet per second (CFS). But Lake Houston’s can only release 10,000 CFS.
The disparity in discharge capacity complicates joint-reservoir-management and pre-release strategies designed to avoid flooding by reducing the water level in Lake Houston.
Lake Houston releases cannot keep up with Lake Conroe’s. And pre-releasing water from Lake Houston takes so long that storms can veer away during the lowering process, often resulting in wasted water. That’s an important consideration for a water-supply lake.
According to Martin and Costello, the gate project will:
• Serve as the first phase of a long-term effort to extend the life of the Dam
• Enable the rapid lowering of lake levels in advance of a flood
• Eliminate the need for a seasonal lowering of both Lake Houston and Lake Conroe
• Provide potential water-rights savings
• Protect an estimated 5,000 residential properties in the surrounding area
• Yield an estimated half billion dollars in economic benefits during the life of the project
Gates, Funding, BCR, Studies
Preliminary engineering studies evaluated about a dozen different alternatives for adding discharge capacity to Lake Houston. The City initially favored adding crest gates to the spillway portion of the dam.
However, the City discarded that idea as “too risky” after further study. The engineering company cautioned the City that it would have a difficult time finding contractors willing to risk modifying a 70-year old concrete dam. The potential liability was just too great. So the City then revisited adding various numbers of tainter gates to the eastern, earthen portion of the dam.
Because tainter gates exceeded FEMA’s funding, the City had initially focused on crest gates. But after investigating the safety issues, the City decided to seek more funding for tainter gates instead.
The City now recommends adding 11 tainter gates.
The picture below is slightly wider and shows more of how both halves of the dam come together.
Funding Needs
FEMA initially set aside $50 million for the gates. Plus Harris County committed $20 million in the 2018 Flood Bond to attract FEMA’s match. But the latest construction estimates show eleven tainter gates could cost between $200 and $250 million.
After engineering and environmental studies, only $68.3 million in funding remains. That includes an earmark secured by Congressman Dan Crenshaw. So the City is seeking another $150 million from the State of Texas. Martin and Costello have made weekly trips to Austin so far during this session to line up support from legislators, committee chairs, and the Texas Division of Emergency Management.
Social Benefits Improve Benefit/Cost Ratio
All this is suddenly possible because of a favorable ruling from FEMA on the benefit-cost ratio (BCR).
For years, Houston had struggled to get the BCR for the gate project above 1.0 (the point at which benefits exceed costs). Usually, FEMA strictly interprets benefits as “avoided damages to structures.”
But Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Costello met with FEMA to argue that the problem was much bigger than damaged structures.
As a result, FEMA allowed the City to add the value of “social benefits” to the BCR. Social benefits can include such things as avoiding lost wages when businesses are destroyed; transportation disruptions that reduce the region’s productivity; reducing negative impacts on student achievement when schools are disrupted; and more.
The social-benefit ruling covers a number of City projects, not just the gates. It should also benefit other areas, especially rural ones.
Said Costello, “The minute the social benefits came in, everything was great.” Instead of struggling to reach 1.0, the City is now far above it.
Greater Houston Partnership Endorsement
With that out of the way, the Greater Houston Partnership wrote a powerful letter to state legislators seeking their support for the gate project. See below.
The Partnership includes business leaders from 900 member companies in the 12-county Houston Region.
Dredging Update
While pressing ahead with the gates project, the City is also working on a long-term dredging plan for the lake and working with the SJRA on sedimentation and sand-trap pilot projects.
The Texas Water Department Board (TWDB) has estimated sediment inflow to Lake Houston at about 380 acre-feet of material annually.
The lake has already lost more than 20,000 acre feet of capacity due to sedimentation. That worsens flooding. While the Federal Government supports efforts to improve Lake Houston now, the chances of getting more money in the future will be reduced – unless we can show that we’re at least keeping pace with annual sediment deposits.
Since Harvey, FEMA, the Army Corps, TWDB, and City of Houston have removed almost 4 million cubic yards of material from the lake at a cost of $226 million.
The City is currently lobbying for another $50 million for maintenance dredging to add to the money secured in the last legislative session by now-retired State Representative Dan Huberty. New Representative Charles Cunningham will reportedly now carry that banner forward along with State Senator Brandon Creighton.
Legislative News to Follow
March 10th is the last day to file bills in the Texas Legislature this year. Please visit the legislation page on ReduceFlooding.com for updates once bills are filed and start moving forward in Austin.
Thanks to all of our elected and appointed representatives who have pushed so hard on so many fronts for the last 2008 days to tie all the pieces of this complicated flood-mitigation puzzle together.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/27/2023
2008 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Royal Pines Builds Stormwater Detention Basin, But…
The controversial new Royal Pines subdivision that flooded a neighbor four times in two months has finally built a stormwater detention basin.
The good news: The basin should capture water flowing from one direction toward the neighbor.
The bad news: The height of the berm around the pond could back up water from the opposite direction onto the neighbor’s property. The concentrated flow could also erode the earth over a natural gas pipeline.
Drainage Now Concentrated Over Pipeline
The pipeline is buried only 36″ deep along the silt fence in the photo below. So any floodwater coming from the west (right) will now be concentrated directly over the pipeline.
Water used to converge from both east and west toward a natural depression in the middle of the new development. But contractors changed the natural grade, confusing the situation.
The drainage impact analysis for Royal Pines below shows that 11.6 acres outlined in purple (labeled as OFF1, for offsite area #1) drains through the larger 49.5 acre area that contains detention Pond 1 shown in the upper left. The plans show a channel running about a quarter of the way down the left border where the silt fence now is, then mysteriously stopping.
When I first saw the plans, I assumed the water in that channel would empty into the pond. But no inlets are installed at that location. At least not yet even though others are installed elsewhere.) See below and above.
Instead, water coming from the west will meet a wall approximately 8 feet high.
The berm forms a dam against any water coming from the west (behind the camera position). That includes floodwaters from White Oak Creek.
So where will the stormwater go? Instead of spreading out, it will be squeezed between the berm and homeowners. That has the potential to cause more flooding.
That giant wall also has the potential to obstruct the floodplain and back water up during a storm, just as the berms around sand mines can.
The analysis claims the development will have no adverse impact either up- or downstream. However, during a five-year rain in January, the level of White Oak Creek came up much higher than a five-year flood.
Another Danger Lurks 36″ Down
But there’s potentially an even bigger danger. A natural gas pipeline is buried next to that silt fence that borders homes along the western edge of the detention pond. Erosion from all that concentrated water rushing over the pipeline could expose it, just as it exposed another pipeline 1.5 miles away.
Erosion exposed a Kinder-Morgan pipeline at the Triple PG Sand Mine. See below.
The Texas Attorney General is still suing the owner of the mine over dangerous business practices.
Same Cast of Characters
The man behind the mine, Prabhakar Guniganti, also owns or owned Royal Pines. His name shows up on the general plan, although the Montgomery County tax rolls show a company called TC LB Royal Pines LP now owns the property. It’s not clear if there’s a connection between Guniganti and the Royal Pines Limited Partnership.
The detail below taken from General Plans dated March 18, 2022 shows the Guniganti Family is part owner of the property. But Royal Pines allegedly bought the land from the 1992 Guniganti Credit Shelter Trusts on 12/9/21 – more than three months earlier.
So, will the real owner please stand up?
Master of the Corporate Shell Game
Guniganti has a history of corporate shell games. After the Attorney General sued him, ownership of his mine changed hands so many times that the AG had to add five shell companies to the lawsuit. The AG also added Guniganti as an individual and as a director of the companies/partnerships to the lawsuit. Because of all the delays, the case still has not gone to trial.
This does not inspire confidence. Especially among homeowners who may be flooded, but don’t have the State’s deep pockets.
When I and homeowners talked to Montgomery County Engineering last week, the developer did not yet have a construction permit for the pond. The county said only that if any changes become necessary, they will be at the developer’s expense.
Just a reminder. Section 11.086 of the Texas Water Code states, “No person may divert … the natural flow of surface waters in this state, or permit a diversion to continue, in a manner that damages the property of another…”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/25/2023
2006 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.
Best Hope to Fully Fund Flood-Bond Projects Just Vanished into a Political Black Hole
Harris County’s best hope to fully fund the 2018 Flood Bond just vanished into a political black hole. Watching the video of Commissioners Court on Tuesday made one dizzy. My head was spinning so quickly with all of the contradictions, that it reminded me of a Chucky horror movie.
Almost 2 Years After Leaving the Starting Gate…
After almost 2 years, the County’s Community Services Department (CSD) still has not even started working on a process that would define where $750 million in Hurricane Harvey Flood Mitigation money would go.
But its new director, Thao Costis, did recommend taking 58% of the money away from Harris County Flood Control District. County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis, Precinct Two Commissioner Adrian Garcia, and Precinct 4 Commissioner Lesley Briones all voted FOR CSD’s vague proposal that gave $326.5 million to “Harris County” and almost $100 million to “planning and administration” with no further definition.
Ramsey Reminds Court of Purpose of HUD Money
Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE reminded his fellow Court members that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) grant was originally intended to fill a funding gap in the flood bond.
For those who may not remember, roughly a third of the $2.5 billion 2018 flood bond was designed to attract matching funds from state and federal entities such as HUD. Harris County Flood Control District hoped to double taxpayers’ money that way. The bond actually had projects in it totaling roughly $5 billion.
At the time, HCFCD saw HUD dollars as the best way to support the hard-hit Halls Bayou watershed where 71% of the residents have low-to-moderate incomes (LMI).
Not Even Enough Left for HCFCD to Complete Halls Projects
But the money remaining with HCFCD after commissioners voted to divert more than half of the $750 million won’t even be enough to complete Halls projects.
The Flood Bond included Halls projects estimated at almost $383 million. Halls has already received projects worth $48 million, leaving a $335 million need. But giving only $326.5 million to HCFCD would leave Halls more than $8 million short.
That would leave no money for flood control projects in other watersheds. They would vanish into a political black hole.
The good people of Halls Bayou have had their projects lined up for years. Yet at 6:28:40 into the meeting video, Director Costis admits, “Our focus is to get projects lined up.”
For Halls Bayou residents who follow Commissioners Court, the video of Tuesday’s meeting will have their heads spinning faster than Chucky’s.
Partnership Funding Merry-Go-Round
Commissioner Garcia, who couldn’t wait on partnership funding to get started on projects, demanded a partnership policy. Ditto for Commissioner Ellis.
But Ellis didn’t want to back away from the county’s “equity principles, because some cities might not have a match.” This could further reduce funding.
At 6:34:20, Ellis, who often brags about transparency, introduced a motion to prioritize projects using unspecified criteria before CSD comes back to Commissioners Court on March 3 with final recommendations.
Admission of Funding Gap
Then Ellis complained, “Even with this money, we don’t have enough money to do everything in the 2018 Flood Bond.” Where’s the other $425 million going, Mr. Ellis, that you’re diverting from HCFCD? Into that political black hole?
More Delays Could Jeopardize Funding
At 6:41, Dr. Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD, complains, “We’ll need to get an extension.” That’s something the Texas General Land Office (GLO), which manages HUD grants in Texas, has feared. The GLO worries that additional delays could cause HUD to take its money back. Harris County has been dragging this process out for almost two years.
Garcia again asks, “Is a partnership process in place?” (6:41)
Costis admits, “No. We’re starting that process now.”
Hidalgo abruptly cuts off the embarrassing discussion, takes a vote, and moves on to the next agenda item at 6:43:48.
Saying One Thing, Doing Another
Actions speak louder than words, especially in politics. It’s one thing to say flood mitigation is a top priority and that you want to help the county’s less fortunate first. But the figures below clearly show that…
To get a clear picture of political priorities, let’s visualize flood-mitigation spending as a percentage of the total value of projects in the flood bond for each watershed. This shows important differences in the progress toward completion of promised projects. See the table and map below.
In case you’re unfamiliar with the location of these watersheds, see below.
Greens has received 74.9% of its funding and Brays 79.4% of its. But both have lower LMI percentages than Halls, Hunting, Sims and Vince.
For instance, Sims has the third highest percentage of LMI residents in the county (65%), but has only received 4.4% of its anticipated funding.
Eight watersheds in Harris County have majority-LMI populations. But the LMI percentages have little to do with the percentage of money actually spent out of their anticipated budgets.
Contrary to promises, some of the least affluent watersheds are being prioritized last.
This is, in large part, because Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have constantly tweaked their equity-allocation formula to ensure money goes where they want it to go.
High Price of Turnover
The Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) learned of its $488 million allocation from the GLO the same day in May 2021 that Harris County learned of its $750 million. But H-GAC developed its distribution plan and received final approval from the GLO by September of 2022. And H-GAC had to coordinate more than 100 entities!
This comparison shows the high price of turnover in the executive ranks. Costis is the sixth executive director at CSD under Hidalgo. Ms. Costis previously ran a charity for homeless people. While admirable, that’s no qualification for managing hundreds of millions of dollars. And certain commissioners have not helped the process by making it more complicated than it already is with constantly changing demands.
If Harris County wants this money, it needs to hire leaders with business acumen, wall them off from political interference, and prohibit political patronage hires. Now that would really make people’s heads spin! It would also eliminate a political/financial black hole.
Posted by Bob Rehak on February 23, 2023
2004 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.