Below is a brief digest of nine items concerning flood risk in the San Jacinto River Basin. Many of the groups mentioned need public input on their recommendations before they move forward. So make your voice heard.
Flood Gate B/CR
Addition of More Flood Gates to Lake Houston: Engineers expect to have a Benefit/Cost Ratio (B/CR) worked out no later than mid-October 2022. The ratio depends on the alternative selected (i.e., quantity of gates, type of gate [crest vs. tainter], and gate location [spillway vs. earthen portion of dam]. The engineers need to balance upstream and downstream safety with benefits, costs and environmental impact. Finding the optimum balance is not simple. And any solution is likely to cost more than the original FEMA budget. Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin has had discussions with authorities at the state level about additional funding.
Engineers first examined more crest gates on the Lake Houston Spillway (left) and are now examining additional tainter gates in the earthen portion of the dam (right).
Related to San Jacinto River Authority
The SJRA could have its own digest this month.
Subsidence and Water Well Operational Costs: This hour-plus interview with Jace Houston on Hank’s Think Tank puts the Montgomery County Water Wars into perspective. Houston discusses the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA); its mission; contracts with municipalities and MUDs; rates of water usage in Harris and Montgomery Counties; aquifer recharge rates; how aquifer drawdowns escalate operational costs; how the SJRA got into the water treatment business and more. Whether water costs or subsidence concern you, it’s well worth watching.
SJRA Groundwater Reduction Plan Committee Meeting: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 – 11:30 A.M. Go in person if you would like to make a public comment or watch it online. This month, the invited guest speaker is Samantha Reiter, General Manager at the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District.
SJRA Sunset Review: The Texas Sunset Act requires the Sunset Commission to periodically review SJRA and recommend whether to change state law to improve the authority’s efficiency and effectiveness. The Legislature ultimately will decide whether to adopt Sunset Commission’s statutory recommendations. The Sunset Commission also may adopt management directives for SJRA that do not require statutory change. The Sunset process has three stages: review; public meetings and input; legislative actions on Commission recommendations. The Staff report will be published in November 2022. Visit www.sunset.texas.gov to learn more and sign up for email alerts on the report.
Sedimentation: The SJRA is leading an Upper San Jacinto River Basin Regional Sedimentation Study. It needs your input! The SJRA has developed a sediment deposition dashboard that shows locations in watersheds with known issues. Do you know locations that experience sediment deposition? If so, email floodmanagementdivision@sjra.net. The SJRA would like to add them to its dashboard. What kinds of information are they looking for? Where the sediment comes from; where it builds up; what causes build-ups, etc. Both photos and text are welcome.
The San Jacinto West Fork has 20 square miles of sand mines in the 20-mile reach between I-45 and I-69.
Regional Flood Plan Open Houses
San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group Meetings on DRAFT Plan. The San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group submitted its DRAFT Regional Flood Plan to the Texas Water Development Board on Aug. 1, 2022. Here’s my summary. The public is invited to provide feedback on the DRAFT Plan and learn more about flood risk, stormwater management, and flood mitigation projects in two upcoming open houses.
In-Person Public Open House: Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2022, from 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. at the White Oak Conference Center, 7603 Antoine Dr., Houston, TX 77088.
Virtual Public Open House: Thursday, Sept. 29, 2022, from 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. (Register here to receive Zoom access information).
There were three major flood-related anniversaries this month that could also have their own digest.
Anniversary of Great Galveston Hurricane: After all the hoopla surrounding the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Harvey, most people missed the anniversary of the deadliest natural disaster in North American history. It happened on September 8, 1900. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the storm killed more than 6,000 people, destroyed more than 3,600 buildings and pushed 15 feet of water ashore. It was so devastating that it reshaped the region. It caused people and businesses to move further inland to a then-tiny city called Houston.
Hurricane Harvey Mitigation Update: On September 2, I gave a talk at Kingwood College about Hurricane Harvey and the status of flood-mitigation efforts in its wake. It starts with a look back at the damage from Harvey. Then it covers why we flood. And finally, it discusses the status of approximately two dozen mitigation efforts. See it on YouTube at: https://youtu.be/PjXX042NEPE.
Homes on Village Springs in Kingwood were still recovering from a May 7th, 2019 flood when they flooded again during Tropical Storm Imelda in September.
And that’s your September digest.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/16/2022
1844 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/20210101-RJR_4942.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2022-09-16 14:11:312022-09-16 14:15:33Flood Digest: Brief Updates on 9 Flood-Related Items
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has essentially completed Batches 1 and 2 of Cypress Creek major maintenance projects, according to District spokesperson Karen Hastings. On 9/12/22, I photographed the freshly repaired and reseeded channel K131-00-00 (Spring Gully) at Cypresswood Drive, one of the last projects in Batch #1. See the pictures below.
Looking NW at K131-00-00 (Spring Gully) across Cypresswood Drive in foreground. Location is about a block west of TC Jester.
Such projects typically involve desilting. That involves removing accumulated sediment that reduces the conveyance of the channel.
Same tributary from a vantage point a little farther upstream.Looking NW.At the split, you can see that repairs extend farther upstream. Spring Gully goes toward the right; Theiss Gully to the left.
Even though maintenance on Spring Gully may be complete for the time being, additional projects are in the works to provide even more flood relief to the area.
TC Jester Stormwater Detention Basin
Among them is the capital improvement project below. Note the two red ovals in the photo. They loosely represent the locations of what will become two large detention basins on either side of TC Jester.
Looking SE across Cypresswood Drive. TC Jester cuts across Cypresswood in the upper left and continues S between the circles. Looking SE toward TC Jester in upper left. HCFCD has a head start on a detention basin thanks to an E&R Contract.
E&R Contract
E&R stands for Excavation and Removal. HCFCD has owned this property and the property across TC Jester for years. Knowing that someday a detention pond would be built here, HCFCD entered into an E&R contract with a dirt company. Such contracts give dirt companies the right to excavate the dirt and haul it away for pennies a truckload. The company then makes its money by selling the dirt at market rates.
Such contracts also create a quadruple-win situation.
Taxpayers get dirt removed virtually for free.
HCFCD gets a head start on excavation.
The hauling company reduces its costs.
Home- and road-builders reduce their costs.
The main restriction: excavated dirt must be taken outside of the floodplain.
The main drawback: If the market slows, so does excavation.
This contract is very similar, if not identical to the one with Sprint Sand & Clay on the Woodridge Village property in Montgomery County. There, HCFCD hopes to more than double the stormwater detention capacity on the site.
Area shown in photo above with E&R contract is approximately 40 acres.HCAD has owned this since 2003.Area east of TC Jester is almost 100 acres.HCAD has owned this since 2015.First phase of expansion will include light blue area.
Together, the projects will mitigate the risk of future riverine flooding by providing a safe place to temporarily store stormwater runoff. That will reduce both the size of the floodplain and the water level within it.
Every cubic yard of dirt removed creates room for a cubic yard of stormwater runoff.
Crenshaw and HCFCD say that approximately 2689 structures are located nearby in the existing 100-year floodplain. The proposed detention basin east of TC Jester could reduce stormwater elevations in a 100-year storm by half a foot. The first phase will remove 87 structures from the 100-year floodplain. When complete, the full detention basinwill remove 271 structures from the existing floodplain.
Spending this money now should save money in the long run – money that would otherwise go to more costly post-disaster recovery programs.
Looking east over TC Jester toward area where HCFCD will build first phase of first detention basin. Photo taken 7/24/21.
Separately, Crenshaw has also requested another $8.25 million to begin building the planned Westador Stormwater Detention Basin farther east along Cypress Creek at Ella Blvd.
None of these projects will provide an instant fix for the entire Cypress Creek watershed. But together they will reduce risk in areas along it.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/15/22
1843 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/20220913-DJI_0556.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2022-09-15 06:38:132022-09-15 06:55:57Batches 1 and 2 of Cypress Creek Major-Maintenance Projects Completed, More to Come
Late in the afternoon on 9/13/22, my phone started blowing up. Frantic callers asked, “Are you watching Commissioners Court?” I wasn’t unfortunately. I was working on a post about the completion of a flood-mitigation project. But my priorities quickly changed when I learned that the three Democrats (Garcia, Ellis and Hidalgo) voted – as a block – to take take “no action” on 32 separate projects. Each will deprive residents of Precincts 3 and 4 of services.
Adrian Garcia, Rodney Ellis and Lina Hidalgo removed 32 items from the 8/13/22 Harris County Commissioners Court Agenda that would have helped residents of Precincts 3 and 4.
The brazen no-action votes, led by Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia, were in retaliation for Republican commissioners walking out of a vote that would have allowed Democrats to increase taxes at a time when rising inflation makes larger tax bills doubly difficult.
A quarter of the no-action votes directly targeted residents. The other three-quarters target companies that provide services that benefit residents, such as engineering companies that improve drainage.
Targeted items included residents’ community center wellness classes, maintenance, flood-rescue equipment, roadway improvements and drainage projects.
Violating Historical Norms
By agreement and tradition, historically, Harris County Commissioners do not interfere with each others’ business. So this sets a dangerous precedent in which one party weaponizes its majority to punish the opposition’s constituents. Here’s what happened.
Ramsey and Precinct 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle boycotted the meeting so that the Court would not have sufficient votes to raise taxes. In retaliation, Commissioner Adrian Garcia, aided by Commissioner Rodney Ellis and County Judge Lina Hidalgo, pulled dozens of Precinct 3 and 4 items from the agenda.
Commissioner Ramsey said in a press release that, “This is retaliation against Harris County residents at its lowest level. It punishes residents because they disagree about having a responsible fiscal budget. It’s childish and embarrassing for the Court and Harris County.”
Ramsey and Cagle have tried for several months to engage their Democratic counterparts in substantive budget discussions with little luck. The Democrats even rammed through a $1.2 billion bond proposal with no details except for a lopsided allocation plan that gave about 40% more to Democratic precincts.
Previously, Commissioners have agreed to respect the boundaries of one another’s precincts. “Today’s action is the latest example of Precinct 3 residents being stripped of services by the current Court,” said Ramsey.
Ramsey’s allusion to “latest” referred to a redistricting plan that left Ramsey with 47% of the county’s unincorporated area to maintain with only 25% of the budget.
Said Ramsey, “Judge Hidalgo and others would have you believe that since there was not a quorum at today’s Commissioners Court, the budget will fail. In reality, the lack of a quorum simply means that the maximum tax rate allowed by law – without voter consent – cannot be implemented. Instead, a smaller budget will be adopted.”
The difference between the two budgets is $100 million. Out of a $2.2 billion budget, that’s 4.5%.
Hidalgo counters that the extra money is needed for more “officers.” According to Ramsey, she referenced investigators and detention officers, “yet didn’t mention adding one patrol officer” who could combat street crime.
Hidalgo also threatened that if the maximum budget and tax rate aren’t passed, 180 flood projects that “…affect the lives of every single resident in Harris County” will be jeopardized. But the bond pays for those projects, and the difference between the two budgets for flood control is only $14 million. That’s .6% of the HCFCD’s budget. And Commissioners Ramsey and Cagle volunteered $7 million each from their precinct budgets to make up the difference.
Finally, Judge Hidalgo asserted that not passing the Voter-Approved-Rate budget instead of the No-New-Revenue budget would dramatically affect the Harris Health System. The difference between the two budgets is less than 2%. And Ramsey points out that many of the Health System’s requests are for capital investments which are not even a part of these budgets at all.
On-Call Engineering Contracts Delayed by Dems
So which projects did Dems pull from the agenda? Let’s start with retainer fees for on-call engineering in Precincts 3 and 4. The numbers below refer to agenda items. See full descriptions here.
#43 Pape-Dawson Consulting Engineers, Inc. for Precinct 3
#44 Volkert, Inc. for Precinct 3
#45 Cascade Civil Services, LLC for Precinct 3
#49 HVJ Associates, Inc. for Precinct 4
#52 Eneval, LLC for Precinct 4
#53 Volkert, Inc. for Precinct 4
Engineering Contracts for Specific Projects Also Delayed
In addition, the Dems agreed to delay approval of engineering contracts or contract amendments for specific projects in Precincts 3 and 4..
#51 Request to amend a contract Isani Consultants, L.P. for Professional Engineering Services relating to Stuebner Airline Road Segment C in Precinct 3.
#55 Approval of a contract with Edminster, Hinshaw, Russ and Associates, Inc. d/b/a EHRA to develop a Master Plan for improvements to Burnett Bayland Park in Precinct 4.
#67 Approval of an amendment to a contract with Huitt-Zollars, Inc. for improvements to Atascocita Area Trails Phase 2 in Precinct 3.
#76 Approval of Interlocal Agreement with City of Tomball to construct improvements to Nabors Parkway between Highway 249 and Holderrieth Road in Precinct 4.
#114 Approval of a contract with HNTB Corporation for engineering and landscape architecture services for a Road and Drainage Master Plan, Precinct 4.
Bizarre Delay
For unknown reasons, the Dems also voted to pull the following from the agenda:
#119 Request for approval to change the names of several projects in Precinct 3.
Delaying Release or Retention of Financial Surety
The following motions relating to approval of the release or retention of financial surety from developers were also taken off the agenda.
#123 Grand Oaks Section 9 in Precinct 4.
#124 Breckenridge West Section 7 in Precinct 3.
#125 Breckenridge West Section 10 in Precinct 3.
#126 Bridge Creek Section 2 in Precinct 3.
#127 Bridgeland Creek Parkway in Precinct 4.
#128 Bridgeland Sec 44 in Precinct 3.
#129 Bridgeland streets in Precinct 4.
#131 Groves Section 35 in Precinct 3.
#132 Groves Section 36 in Precinct 3.
#133 Newport Section 7 Partial Replat #3 in Precinct 3.
#134 Newport Section 7 Partial Replat #4 in Precinct 3.
#135 Windrow Section 3 in Precinct 4.
Delaying/Denying Services Directly Affecting Public
The items that most directly and immediately affect residents include the following. Garcia, Hidalgo and Ellis took each off the agenda.
#155 Approval to negotiate an agreement for surveying as needed in Precinct 3.
#160 Approval to convert Sam Houston Tollway Segment #3 in Precincts 3 and 4 to an all-electronic roadway.
#278 Approval to construct pedestrian trails along a drainage ditch of Brays Bayou under Addicks Clodine Road Bridge in Precinct 3.
#291 Renewal of 1-year contract for exercise classes in Precinct 3.
#342 Approval to bid reinforced concrete pipe, saddle inlets and related items for Precinct 4.
#343 Approval to bid asphalt roadway rehabilitation for the Western Trails Subdivision in Precinct 3.
#351 Approval to bid airboat and trailer purchases for Precinct 3.
#352 Approval to bid passenger buses for Precinct 3.
Most Troubling Item Cancelled, Not Just Delayed
#351 is especially concerning because the airboats would presumably be used for rescue operations during flooding…something the Lake Houston Area remembers all too well. The Dems outright cancelled that; they didn’t just delay it.
Watch the meeting and form your own opinions. Apocalyptic predictions take up the first three hours and fifty minutes. Garcia then starts listing the agenda items he wants to kill or take off the agenda.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/14/22
1842 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/20220913-Screen-Shot-2022-09-13-at-11.48.04-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C629&ssl=16291200adminadmin2022-09-14 01:10:112022-09-14 19:26:54Dems Deprive Republican Precincts of Services
Flood Digest: Brief Updates on 9 Flood-Related Items
Below is a brief digest of nine items concerning flood risk in the San Jacinto River Basin. Many of the groups mentioned need public input on their recommendations before they move forward. So make your voice heard.
Flood Gate B/CR
Addition of More Flood Gates to Lake Houston: Engineers expect to have a Benefit/Cost Ratio (B/CR) worked out no later than mid-October 2022. The ratio depends on the alternative selected (i.e., quantity of gates, type of gate [crest vs. tainter], and gate location [spillway vs. earthen portion of dam]. The engineers need to balance upstream and downstream safety with benefits, costs and environmental impact. Finding the optimum balance is not simple. And any solution is likely to cost more than the original FEMA budget. Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin has had discussions with authorities at the state level about additional funding.
Related to San Jacinto River Authority
The SJRA could have its own digest this month.
Regional Flood Plan Open Houses
San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group Meetings on DRAFT Plan. The San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group submitted its DRAFT Regional Flood Plan to the Texas Water Development Board on Aug. 1, 2022. Here’s my summary. The public is invited to provide feedback on the DRAFT Plan and learn more about flood risk, stormwater management, and flood mitigation projects in two upcoming open houses.
For more information about the San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group or to provide comments on the DRAFT Regional Flood Plan, visit sanjacintofloodplanning.org. Here’s the group’s brief 2-page summary of the $30 billion plan.
Anniversary Updates
There were three major flood-related anniversaries this month that could also have their own digest.
Tropical Storm Imelda: September 17-21, 2019. Imelda dumped up to 43 inches of rain in some areas. Areas east of I-45 got hit much harder than areas west. The storm caused an estimated $5 billion in damage and flooded approximately 600 homes in Kingwood.
And that’s your September digest.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/16/2022
1844 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Batches 1 and 2 of Cypress Creek Major-Maintenance Projects Completed, More to Come
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has essentially completed Batches 1 and 2 of Cypress Creek major maintenance projects, according to District spokesperson Karen Hastings. On 9/12/22, I photographed the freshly repaired and reseeded channel K131-00-00 (Spring Gully) at Cypresswood Drive, one of the last projects in Batch #1. See the pictures below.
Such projects typically involve desilting. That involves removing accumulated sediment that reduces the conveyance of the channel.
Even though maintenance on Spring Gully may be complete for the time being, additional projects are in the works to provide even more flood relief to the area.
TC Jester Stormwater Detention Basin
Among them is the capital improvement project below. Note the two red ovals in the photo. They loosely represent the locations of what will become two large detention basins on either side of TC Jester.
Looking SE toward TC Jester in upper left. HCFCD has a head start on a detention basin thanks to an E&R Contract.
E&R Contract
E&R stands for Excavation and Removal. HCFCD has owned this property and the property across TC Jester for years. Knowing that someday a detention pond would be built here, HCFCD entered into an E&R contract with a dirt company. Such contracts give dirt companies the right to excavate the dirt and haul it away for pennies a truckload. The company then makes its money by selling the dirt at market rates.
Such contracts also create a quadruple-win situation.
The main restriction: excavated dirt must be taken outside of the floodplain.
The main drawback: If the market slows, so does excavation.
This contract is very similar, if not identical to the one with Sprint Sand & Clay on the Woodridge Village property in Montgomery County. There, HCFCD hopes to more than double the stormwater detention capacity on the site.
Crenshaw Earmark Will Accelerate Construction
U.S. Congressman Dan Crenshaw obtained a $9.9 million earmark earlier this year to help build a stormwater detention basin near TC Jester.
Crenshaw is also seeking another $15 million next year to expand stormwater detention basin capacity in the area.
Together, the projects will mitigate the risk of future riverine flooding by providing a safe place to temporarily store stormwater runoff. That will reduce both the size of the floodplain and the water level within it.
Crenshaw and HCFCD say that approximately 2689 structures are located nearby in the existing 100-year floodplain. The proposed detention basin east of TC Jester could reduce stormwater elevations in a 100-year storm by half a foot. The first phase will remove 87 structures from the 100-year floodplain. When complete, the full detention basin will remove 271 structures from the existing floodplain.
Spending this money now should save money in the long run – money that would otherwise go to more costly post-disaster recovery programs.
More Major Maintenance and Capital Items
In addition to that, HCFCD just started its third batch of major maintenance projects in the Cypress Creek Watershed. HCFCD also expects a fourth and fifth batch. Altogether, HCFCD built $60 million into the 2018 flood bond for Cypress Creek maintenance projects. (See Project CI-012).
Separately, Crenshaw has also requested another $8.25 million to begin building the planned Westador Stormwater Detention Basin farther east along Cypress Creek at Ella Blvd.
None of these projects will provide an instant fix for the entire Cypress Creek watershed. But together they will reduce risk in areas along it.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/15/22
1843 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Dems Deprive Republican Precincts of Services
Late in the afternoon on 9/13/22, my phone started blowing up. Frantic callers asked, “Are you watching Commissioners Court?” I wasn’t unfortunately. I was working on a post about the completion of a flood-mitigation project. But my priorities quickly changed when I learned that the three Democrats (Garcia, Ellis and Hidalgo) voted – as a block – to take take “no action” on 32 separate projects. Each will deprive residents of Precincts 3 and 4 of services.
The brazen no-action votes, led by Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia, were in retaliation for Republican commissioners walking out of a vote that would have allowed Democrats to increase taxes at a time when rising inflation makes larger tax bills doubly difficult.
A quarter of the no-action votes directly targeted residents. The other three-quarters target companies that provide services that benefit residents, such as engineering companies that improve drainage.
Targeted items included residents’ community center wellness classes, maintenance, flood-rescue equipment, roadway improvements and drainage projects.
Violating Historical Norms
By agreement and tradition, historically, Harris County Commissioners do not interfere with each others’ business. So this sets a dangerous precedent in which one party weaponizes its majority to punish the opposition’s constituents. Here’s what happened.
Ramsey and Precinct 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle boycotted the meeting so that the Court would not have sufficient votes to raise taxes. In retaliation, Commissioner Adrian Garcia, aided by Commissioner Rodney Ellis and County Judge Lina Hidalgo, pulled dozens of Precinct 3 and 4 items from the agenda.
Commissioner Ramsey said in a press release that, “This is retaliation against Harris County residents at its lowest level. It punishes residents because they disagree about having a responsible fiscal budget. It’s childish and embarrassing for the Court and Harris County.”
Ramsey and Cagle have tried for several months to engage their Democratic counterparts in substantive budget discussions with little luck. The Democrats even rammed through a $1.2 billion bond proposal with no details except for a lopsided allocation plan that gave about 40% more to Democratic precincts.
Previously, Commissioners have agreed to respect the boundaries of one another’s precincts. “Today’s action is the latest example of Precinct 3 residents being stripped of services by the current Court,” said Ramsey.
Ramsey’s allusion to “latest” referred to a redistricting plan that left Ramsey with 47% of the county’s unincorporated area to maintain with only 25% of the budget.
During redistricting, Garcia also tried to shift $191 million from Precinct 3’s Cedar Bayou flood-bond budget to areas within his newly redrawn precinct.
Ramsey’s Rebuttal to Dire Dem Predictions
At one point Lina Hidalgo threatened a government shutdown. “If we don’t adopt a budget today, there would be government shutdown in essence,” she said at 35:40 into the 5-hour video.
Said Ramsey, “Judge Hidalgo and others would have you believe that since there was not a quorum at today’s Commissioners Court, the budget will fail. In reality, the lack of a quorum simply means that the maximum tax rate allowed by law – without voter consent – cannot be implemented. Instead, a smaller budget will be adopted.”
The difference between the two budgets is $100 million. Out of a $2.2 billion budget, that’s 4.5%.
Hidalgo counters that the extra money is needed for more “officers.” According to Ramsey, she referenced investigators and detention officers, “yet didn’t mention adding one patrol officer” who could combat street crime.
Hidalgo also threatened that if the maximum budget and tax rate aren’t passed, 180 flood projects that “…affect the lives of every single resident in Harris County” will be jeopardized. But the bond pays for those projects, and the difference between the two budgets for flood control is only $14 million. That’s .6% of the HCFCD’s budget. And Commissioners Ramsey and Cagle volunteered $7 million each from their precinct budgets to make up the difference.
Finally, Judge Hidalgo asserted that not passing the Voter-Approved-Rate budget instead of the No-New-Revenue budget would dramatically affect the Harris Health System. The difference between the two budgets is less than 2%. And Ramsey points out that many of the Health System’s requests are for capital investments which are not even a part of these budgets at all.
On-Call Engineering Contracts Delayed by Dems
So which projects did Dems pull from the agenda? Let’s start with retainer fees for on-call engineering in Precincts 3 and 4. The numbers below refer to agenda items. See full descriptions here.
Engineering Contracts for Specific Projects Also Delayed
In addition, the Dems agreed to delay approval of engineering contracts or contract amendments for specific projects in Precincts 3 and 4..
Bizarre Delay
For unknown reasons, the Dems also voted to pull the following from the agenda:
Delaying Release or Retention of Financial Surety
The following motions relating to approval of the release or retention of financial surety from developers were also taken off the agenda.
Delaying/Denying Services Directly Affecting Public
The items that most directly and immediately affect residents include the following. Garcia, Hidalgo and Ellis took each off the agenda.
Most Troubling Item Cancelled, Not Just Delayed
#351 is especially concerning because the airboats would presumably be used for rescue operations during flooding…something the Lake Houston Area remembers all too well. The Dems outright cancelled that; they didn’t just delay it.
Watch the meeting and form your own opinions. Apocalyptic predictions take up the first three hours and fifty minutes. Garcia then starts listing the agenda items he wants to kill or take off the agenda.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/14/22
1842 Days since Hurricane Harvey