During Lina Hidalgo’s first term, hundreds of millions of dollars in flood-mitigation projects went to low-income watersheds while the Lake Houston Area went begging. So what does the recent election mean for the area’s flood-mitigation goals and strategies? What can we do to reduce flood risk with the deck stacked even further against us? It’s time to hit the flood-mitigation reset button.
Before the election, Democrats insisted that they still intended to complete all the projects in the 2018 Flood Bond. But now with a super-majority on Commissioner’s Court, they have the power to spend that money wherever they want with impunity.
We need to regroup and develop new strategies to attain our goals. We can no longer afford to rely so much on Harris County.
Understanding the Process
Flood mitigation has political, technical and financial aspects. They all demand coordination. After Harvey, Guy Sconzo, former superintendent of Humble ISD, and the Lake Houston Area Chamber formed a task force with area leaders to identify the causes of flooding and work toward solutions.
After initial successes, sadly, Sconzo died. It happened shortly after the passage of the 2018 Harris County Flood Bond and the State’s Flood Infrastructure Fund. Not long thereafter, the task force disbanded. People assumed that projects would just happen. They didn’t.
Roadblocks since Harvey
No one fully understood how long the process would take, all the steps that were involved, how much projects could ultimately cost, the intense competition for funding, and how projects could languish without a coordinated effort to remove roadblocks as they arose.
We must overcome our addiction to expectations of fair treatment and learn that we must fight for our homes and safety. We must become masters of our own fate and hit the flood-mitigation reset button now. So, what to do?
These are my personal recommendations.
Re-constitute the Lake Houston Area Task Force
Educate people about the risk they still face.
Acknowledge that most of our problems originate outside the county.
Update and prioritize our goals.
Acknowledge we can’t achieve them alone and work to build bridges to those who can help.
Coordinate with them and Harris County Flood Control.
Don’t count on Harris County for much help.
Finish studies already started (i.e., Taylor Gully, Atascocita).
Check on progress of all projects monthly to ensure next steps (i.e., construction bidding) happen promptly.
Identify roadblocks and work to overcome them.
Search for alternative funding and partners if necessary. UPFRONT!
Stop assuming projects will manage themselves. Hire a project manager to report monthly to the reconstituted task force.
Starting Points
Harris County Flood Control District began engineering studies long before Harvey for the projects you now see in construction. Then, when Harvey hit and voters passed the 2018 flood bond, they were ready to go.
Other areas had to start from scratch and are still running the gauntlet of feasibility, preliminary engineering, final engineering, and environmental studies.
In the the Lake Houston Area:
HCFCD started four drainage studies and finished three (Kingwood, Huffman, Cosby). Atascocita is still underway.
San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group finished its preliminary report.
Who is ensuring that engineering studies consider realistic funding alternatives? How much time, effort and money have we wasted by working in silos? Maybe a renewed Lake Houston Area Flood Task Force could help with those issues.
We need earmarks for funding at the state level. But who will fight for them? How will our representatives and senators know what to fight for? And how much the projects cost?
Any area with a completed study should have a project moving forward and be looking for funding. If it doesn’t, then someone is messing up the process.
It will only be Lake Houston’s turn if someone or some group advocates for the area as they did after Harvey.
The good news in all this is that a preliminary meeting of area leaders on the City, County, State and Federal levels was held on November 8th at Congressman Dan Crenshaw’s office. Everyone attending agreed on the need to reconstitute the Task Force and hit the flood-mitigation reset button. The group also examined a number of possible issues to focus on. More news on the new Task Force as it begins to set priorities.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/22/2022with thanks to Dr. Charles Campbell for the post’s photo.
1911 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/2018/12/Campbell-sunrise-12_3_18-small.jpg?fit=1500%2C1114&ssl=111141500adminadmin2022-11-22 18:52:202022-11-22 21:24:31Time for Lake Houston Area to Hit Flood-Mitigation Reset Button
Like damage, population is one of the “weighting factors” considered in the distribution of flood-mitigation dollars. Compared to 2017 estimates of watershed populations in Harris County, 2022 estimates show that five watersheds have lost population. But overall, the county has gained 155,254 people.
The map below shows the location of each of these watersheds.
Harris County Watersheds by Harris County Flood Control District
Reasons for Shifts Unclear
I had wondered whether the five major floods in Harris County between 2000 and 2020 (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey and Imelda) would cause the most heavily flood-damaged areas to lose population. But that seems not to be the case.
The most heavily damaged watershed (Brays) lost the most population (in raw numbers). But the second most heavily damaged watershed (Greens) gained more than 16,000 people, the second largest gain.
I found no meaningful correlation between flood damage and population loss or growth. Nor do data suggest that flood-mitigationspending has much influence either. Contradictory examples abound. And statistical correlations rate as negligible to weak.
Five Watersheds Lost Population
Compared to the previous Census estimates from 2017:
Brays lost 5,822 people (0.8%)
Cedar lost 4,153 people (11.1%)
Hunting lost 1,112 people (1.4%)
Little Cypress lost 727 people (1.6%)
Vince lost 176 people (0.2%).
In percentages, Cedar Bayou lost the most population. Cedar was the sight of the Arkema disaster which blocked evacuation routes along Highway 90 during Harvey. The watershed currently has only about 37,000 people, ranking it 20th among the 23 watersheds in Harris County.
In five major storms between 2000 and today (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey and Imelda), flood damage varied widely within those five watersheds:
Brays flooded 32,240 structures, the most of any watershed.
Cedar flooded 2,274.
Hunting flooded 15,763.
Little Cypress flooded 1,040.
Vince flooded 4,152.
18 Watersheds Gained Population
Eighteen other watersheds gained population and also had widely varying degrees of flood damage. These, too, showed little correlation.
Altogether, the county’s watersheds gained 155,254 people, despite 226,729 damaged structures during the five major storms.
Negligible Correlation of Flooding and Population Gain/Loss
The “population flees flooding” hypothesis didn’t hold much water.
Flood damage and “number of residents lost” correlated at only a 0.16 level – insignificant. Flood damage and “percent of residents lost” correlated at only 0.28, extremely weak.
A perfect correlation is 1.0. It indicates that for every unit of change in one variable, there is a corresponding unit of change in another variable. However, that was far from the case here. Variations seemed random.
The County has a strong draw: jobs. Also, family, friends, neighbors and support networks remain powerful attractions that keep most people anchored.
The new HCFCD data do not suggest why gains and losses occurred.
Top reasons for relocation typically include: greater safety, better schools, better housing, new jobs, and upgrading from apartments to homes.
LMI Population Trends
HCFCD also measures “LMI population.” LMI stands for Low-to-Moderate Income. The Census Bureau defines LMI as “families making less than the average for the region.”
Harris County has 42.6 % LMI residents. So 57.4% of residents make above the average for the region.
This is important because the LMI percentage plays a huge role in partnership grants from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Most, but not all, HUD grants go to areas with LMI populations higher than 70%. A notable exception is the pending $750 million HUD Harvey flood-mitigation grant. It only requires that 50% of the money benefits LMI households.
The latest HCFCD data shows that watersheds at bothends of the income spectrum lost LMI population. We still have the same eight LMI-majority watersheds we had in 2017. However, one deserves special mention.
Brays’ LMI population declined so significantly that it almost flipped from the “majority LMI” category to “majority upper income.” It went from 58% to 51% LMI.
Sixteen other watersheds gained LMI population. Some had huge flood losses; others had few.
The correlation between total flood damage and LMI Population Gain/Loss is .34, slightly higher than for the entire population but still considered “weak.”
Here are Harris County’s watersheds ranked in order of LMI population percentage.
As of 11/21/2022
My next post will discuss how the distribution of flood-mitigation funds relates to population changes and other factors. I will also discuss what the prospects for flood mitigation in the Lake Houston Area are during Lina Hidalgo’s second administration. Don’t miss it.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/21/22, based on data provided by HCFCD in response to a FOIA Request
1910 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/HarrisCountyWatersheds.jpg?fit=1500%2C972&ssl=19721500adminadmin2022-11-21 11:40:152022-11-21 12:46:59Five Watersheds Lose Population While Harris County Gains Slightly
Developers are working toward building a bridge over Spring Creek and a road that would connect Townsen Boulevard in Humble with the Grand Parkway in Montgomery County. However, City and County authorities on both sides of the county line say they know nothing tangible about the bridge yet.
I’ve talked to several engineers about this property. One said that if the bridge gets built, it will open thousands of acres to development. A second said that if the property gets developed, it would be like “aiming a firehose at Kingwood and Humble.” A third cautioned that when the developer sees the new floodway and floodplain maps, a bridge will likely become cost prohibitive.
The developers in question have not returned calls, but here’s what we know so far based on publicly available information and several Freedom-of-Information-Act Requests.
Bridge Rumored for More than a Decade
The Army Corps of Engineers first issued a permit for a bridge in 2009. Last year, it issued an extension of the permit that requires completion of the work by 12/31/2026.
Map shown on Page 25 of Corps Permit Extension shows a 100-foot-wide right of way with twin bridges north- and southbound.
However, the Montgomery County Engineer’s Office and Harris County Flood Control say no one has applied for any permits with them yet to actually build a bridge. Regardless…
Company Purchases Land, Sets Up Mitigation Companies
The landowner on the north side of Spring Creek has purchased a small parcel of land on the south side of the creek at the current terminus of the Townsen Blvd. extension. Thus they would control the land needed for a bridge.
Pacific Indio owns thousands of acres north of the creek and one little parcel south of the creek where a bridge would terminate.From HCAD.org.
Another company, Skymark, also has considerable floodplain holdings in Montgomery County under a variety of corporate shells, such as Hannover Estates, Headway Estates and the CFW Family Limited Partnership. The Secretary of State SOS Direct database shows that Skymark principal Clinton F. Wong controls 231 companies including Townsen Holdings and Townsen Landing.
From Texas SOS Direct. Note notation in lower right. This is page 7 of 24 containing a total of 231 companies.
The Montgomery County Appraisal District website shows that many of Wong’s holdings border Pacific Indio’s. And Skymark owns most of the land south of Spring Creek where the bridge would be built. See more below.
The minutes also reference a settlement between the EPA and Skymark.
Purchase Offer Reportedly Turned Down
Harris County Flood Control reportedly offered to buy this land several years ago, but Ryko wanted “an insane amount of money.” This could have been an indication that the owner felt confident in its ability to develop the land and profit from it.
…But Project Would be Very Difficult to Develop
FEMA shows large floodways and floodplains on both sides of the creek that any road would have to go over or through. Keep in mind that the map below does not yet show the new Post-Harvey flood hazards. They will reportedly expand by 50- to 100%.
Permit plans also show at least 9 other stream crossings along the way north. Those would expand, too, with the new floodplain maps.
Finally, the project would cross numerous wetlands.
Wetlands on Pacific Indio Property near the confluence of three major waterways: West Fork San Jacinto, Spring Creek, Cypress Creek. From from National Wetlands Inventory,
Legal History
The Bender Estate, which previously owned approximately 800 acres of undeveloped land in the northwest quadrant of Humble, granted a Right-Of-Way easement to Ryko Development to construct a road that would ultimately cross Spring Creek and service the planned development between Spring Creek and 99 on the Pacific-Indio Property.
Skymark Development later purchased those 800 acres from the Bender Estate and started to develop them.
According to Jason Stuebe, Humble City Manager, after Humble began to re-construct Townsen, Ryko presented the easement to Humble and stated they intended to connect into Townsen Blvd.
This caused consternation as it didn’t fit with the city’s plans for reconstructing Townsend. All parties (including Ryko and Skymark) went to court. They reached a settlement sometime in 2018 that gave Ryko two years to begin constructing the roadway.
EPA Delays Road
However, a cease-and-desist order from the EPA delayed the work; Skymark inappropriately filled in some wetlands elsewhere on its property. Once the EPA recognized that Ryko’s road was not affiliated with the wetlands issue, EPA allowed Ryko to proceed with constructing the road.
Extension to Townsen Boulevard under construction where it stops at Spring Creek. Photo taken 9/26/2022.
Stuebe stated, “Because the road actually leads out of our jurisdiction, I have no further information on the status of its permitting with either Harris County or the state with regard to crossing Spring Creek. Once the roadway is completed, inspected and approved by the City Engineer and Public Works, it will become a right of way of Humble.”
I suspect that the bridge is more of a dream than a done deal at this point. Despite obstacles, attempts are being made to put all the pieces of the puzzle into place. But high hurdles remain.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/19/22
1908 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/2022/11/20221119-Screenshot-2022-11-19-at-2.20.46-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C911&ssl=19111200adminadmin2022-11-19 18:11:202022-11-23 17:22:27A Townsen Bridge Across Spring Creek?
Time for Lake Houston Area to Hit Flood-Mitigation Reset Button
During Lina Hidalgo’s first term, hundreds of millions of dollars in flood-mitigation projects went to low-income watersheds while the Lake Houston Area went begging. So what does the recent election mean for the area’s flood-mitigation goals and strategies? What can we do to reduce flood risk with the deck stacked even further against us? It’s time to hit the flood-mitigation reset button.
Before the election, Democrats insisted that they still intended to complete all the projects in the 2018 Flood Bond. But now with a super-majority on Commissioner’s Court, they have the power to spend that money wherever they want with impunity.
We need to regroup and develop new strategies to attain our goals. We can no longer afford to rely so much on Harris County.
Understanding the Process
Flood mitigation has political, technical and financial aspects. They all demand coordination. After Harvey, Guy Sconzo, former superintendent of Humble ISD, and the Lake Houston Area Chamber formed a task force with area leaders to identify the causes of flooding and work toward solutions.
After initial successes, sadly, Sconzo died. It happened shortly after the passage of the 2018 Harris County Flood Bond and the State’s Flood Infrastructure Fund. Not long thereafter, the task force disbanded. People assumed that projects would just happen. They didn’t.
Roadblocks since Harvey
No one fully understood how long the process would take, all the steps that were involved, how much projects could ultimately cost, the intense competition for funding, and how projects could languish without a coordinated effort to remove roadblocks as they arose.
For instance:
12-Step Plan for Flood Mitigation
We must overcome our addiction to expectations of fair treatment and learn that we must fight for our homes and safety. We must become masters of our own fate and hit the flood-mitigation reset button now. So, what to do?
These are my personal recommendations.
Starting Points
Harris County Flood Control District began engineering studies long before Harvey for the projects you now see in construction. Then, when Harvey hit and voters passed the 2018 flood bond, they were ready to go.
Other areas had to start from scratch and are still running the gauntlet of feasibility, preliminary engineering, final engineering, and environmental studies.
In the the Lake Houston Area:
Who is ensuring that engineering studies consider realistic funding alternatives? How much time, effort and money have we wasted by working in silos? Maybe a renewed Lake Houston Area Flood Task Force could help with those issues.
We need earmarks for funding at the state level. But who will fight for them? How will our representatives and senators know what to fight for? And how much the projects cost?
Any area with a completed study should have a project moving forward and be looking for funding. If it doesn’t, then someone is messing up the process.
Reliable sources tell me not to expect much from Harris County. Rodney Ellis wants to rub our noses in the Woodridge Village land purchase every chance he gets. So, we have to accept that and work around it.
First Meeting Held on Reconstituting Task Force
The good news in all this is that a preliminary meeting of area leaders on the City, County, State and Federal levels was held on November 8th at Congressman Dan Crenshaw’s office. Everyone attending agreed on the need to reconstitute the Task Force and hit the flood-mitigation reset button. The group also examined a number of possible issues to focus on. More news on the new Task Force as it begins to set priorities.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/22/2022 with thanks to Dr. Charles Campbell for the post’s photo.
1911 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.
Five Watersheds Lose Population While Harris County Gains Slightly
Like damage, population is one of the “weighting factors” considered in the distribution of flood-mitigation dollars. Compared to 2017 estimates of watershed populations in Harris County, 2022 estimates show that five watersheds have lost population. But overall, the county has gained 155,254 people.
The map below shows the location of each of these watersheds.
Reasons for Shifts Unclear
I had wondered whether the five major floods in Harris County between 2000 and 2020 (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey and Imelda) would cause the most heavily flood-damaged areas to lose population. But that seems not to be the case.
The most heavily damaged watershed (Brays) lost the most population (in raw numbers). But the second most heavily damaged watershed (Greens) gained more than 16,000 people, the second largest gain.
I found no meaningful correlation between flood damage and population loss or growth. Nor do data suggest that flood-mitigation spending has much influence either. Contradictory examples abound. And statistical correlations rate as negligible to weak.
Five Watersheds Lost Population
Compared to the previous Census estimates from 2017:
In percentages, Cedar Bayou lost the most population. Cedar was the sight of the Arkema disaster which blocked evacuation routes along Highway 90 during Harvey. The watershed currently has only about 37,000 people, ranking it 20th among the 23 watersheds in Harris County.
In five major storms between 2000 and today (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey and Imelda), flood damage varied widely within those five watersheds:
18 Watersheds Gained Population
Eighteen other watersheds gained population and also had widely varying degrees of flood damage. These, too, showed little correlation.
Altogether, the county’s watersheds gained 155,254 people, despite 226,729 damaged structures during the five major storms.
Negligible Correlation of Flooding and Population Gain/Loss
The “population flees flooding” hypothesis didn’t hold much water.
A perfect correlation is 1.0. It indicates that for every unit of change in one variable, there is a corresponding unit of change in another variable. However, that was far from the case here. Variations seemed random.
If long-time Harris County residents are moving to higher ground, they may be replaced by newcomers unaware of flood risks.
The County has a strong draw: jobs. Also, family, friends, neighbors and support networks remain powerful attractions that keep most people anchored.
The new HCFCD data do not suggest why gains and losses occurred.
Top reasons for relocation typically include: greater safety, better schools, better housing, new jobs, and upgrading from apartments to homes.
LMI Population Trends
HCFCD also measures “LMI population.” LMI stands for Low-to-Moderate Income. The Census Bureau defines LMI as “families making less than the average for the region.”
Harris County has 42.6 % LMI residents. So 57.4% of residents make above the average for the region.
This is important because the LMI percentage plays a huge role in partnership grants from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Most, but not all, HUD grants go to areas with LMI populations higher than 70%. A notable exception is the pending $750 million HUD Harvey flood-mitigation grant. It only requires that 50% of the money benefits LMI households.
The latest HCFCD data shows that watersheds at both ends of the income spectrum lost LMI population. We still have the same eight LMI-majority watersheds we had in 2017. However, one deserves special mention.
Sixteen other watersheds gained LMI population. Some had huge flood losses; others had few.
The correlation between total flood damage and LMI Population Gain/Loss is .34, slightly higher than for the entire population but still considered “weak.”
Here are Harris County’s watersheds ranked in order of LMI population percentage.
My next post will discuss how the distribution of flood-mitigation funds relates to population changes and other factors. I will also discuss what the prospects for flood mitigation in the Lake Houston Area are during Lina Hidalgo’s second administration. Don’t miss it.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/21/22, based on data provided by HCFCD in response to a FOIA Request
1910 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.
A Townsen Bridge Across Spring Creek?
Developers are working toward building a bridge over Spring Creek and a road that would connect Townsen Boulevard in Humble with the Grand Parkway in Montgomery County. However, City and County authorities on both sides of the county line say they know nothing tangible about the bridge yet.
I’ve talked to several engineers about this property. One said that if the bridge gets built, it will open thousands of acres to development. A second said that if the property gets developed, it would be like “aiming a firehose at Kingwood and Humble.” A third cautioned that when the developer sees the new floodway and floodplain maps, a bridge will likely become cost prohibitive.
The developers in question have not returned calls, but here’s what we know so far based on publicly available information and several Freedom-of-Information-Act Requests.
Bridge Rumored for More than a Decade
The Army Corps of Engineers first issued a permit for a bridge in 2009. Last year, it issued an extension of the permit that requires completion of the work by 12/31/2026.
However, the Montgomery County Engineer’s Office and Harris County Flood Control say no one has applied for any permits with them yet to actually build a bridge. Regardless…
Company Purchases Land, Sets Up Mitigation Companies
The landowner on the north side of Spring Creek has purchased a small parcel of land on the south side of the creek at the current terminus of the Townsen Blvd. extension. Thus they would control the land needed for a bridge.
Pacific Indio controls another company called the Townsen Road Association and has also set up two mitigation companies. The latter are significant because the Army Corps permit contains an extensive discussion of mitigation needs.
MoCo Transportation Plan and Developers Promotional Material Show Bridge, Road
The Montgomery County Transportation Plan shows the extension of Townsen north to the Grand Parkway from where Townsen currently ends at Spring Creek.
Also, a sign on westbound Grand Parkway indicates an exit for Townsen, but the road does not go through yet. Does TxDOT know something we don’t?
Subsidiaries Formed
Another company, Skymark, also has considerable floodplain holdings in Montgomery County under a variety of corporate shells, such as Hannover Estates, Headway Estates and the CFW Family Limited Partnership. The Secretary of State SOS Direct database shows that Skymark principal Clinton F. Wong controls 231 companies including Townsen Holdings and Townsen Landing.
The Montgomery County Appraisal District website shows that many of Wong’s holdings border Pacific Indio’s. And Skymark owns most of the land south of Spring Creek where the bridge would be built. See more below.
References in Intercontinental MUD Minutes
June 2022 minutes of the Intercontinental MUD board meeting reference Townsen Mitigation, one of Pacific Indio’s subsidiaries.
The minutes also reference a settlement between the EPA and Skymark.
Purchase Offer Reportedly Turned Down
Harris County Flood Control reportedly offered to buy this land several years ago, but Ryko wanted “an insane amount of money.” This could have been an indication that the owner felt confident in its ability to develop the land and profit from it.
…But Project Would be Very Difficult to Develop
FEMA shows large floodways and floodplains on both sides of the creek that any road would have to go over or through. Keep in mind that the map below does not yet show the new Post-Harvey flood hazards. They will reportedly expand by 50- to 100%.
Permit plans also show at least 9 other stream crossings along the way north. Those would expand, too, with the new floodplain maps.
Finally, the project would cross numerous wetlands.
Legal History
The Bender Estate, which previously owned approximately 800 acres of undeveloped land in the northwest quadrant of Humble, granted a Right-Of-Way easement to Ryko Development to construct a road that would ultimately cross Spring Creek and service the planned development between Spring Creek and 99 on the Pacific-Indio Property.
Skymark Development later purchased those 800 acres from the Bender Estate and started to develop them.
According to Jason Stuebe, Humble City Manager, after Humble began to re-construct Townsen, Ryko presented the easement to Humble and stated they intended to connect into Townsen Blvd.
This caused consternation as it didn’t fit with the city’s plans for reconstructing Townsend. All parties (including Ryko and Skymark) went to court. They reached a settlement sometime in 2018 that gave Ryko two years to begin constructing the roadway.
EPA Delays Road
However, a cease-and-desist order from the EPA delayed the work; Skymark inappropriately filled in some wetlands elsewhere on its property. Once the EPA recognized that Ryko’s road was not affiliated with the wetlands issue, EPA allowed Ryko to proceed with constructing the road.
In 2019, Humble City Council approved the plat dedicating the roadway as a public Right-Of-Way once completed. Then COVID delayed the road again. An exception to the settlement was made. Construction has since resumed, albeit slowly.
Stuebe stated, “Because the road actually leads out of our jurisdiction, I have no further information on the status of its permitting with either Harris County or the state with regard to crossing Spring Creek. Once the roadway is completed, inspected and approved by the City Engineer and Public Works, it will become a right of way of Humble.”
I suspect that the bridge is more of a dream than a done deal at this point. Despite obstacles, attempts are being made to put all the pieces of the puzzle into place. But high hurdles remain.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/19/22
1908 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.