On 7/22/22, I photographed two new developments at different stages of completion east of Huffman-Cleveland Road and south of the Grand Parkway. Both are being carved out of a 3,738-ac tract owned by LH Ranch LTD.
A third part of that tract, west of Huffman-Cleveland Road, is in the planning stages and submitting plats for approval.
General Location
The first two developments are immediately east of Huffman-Cleveland Road and south of Meyer Road. See red area below.
Red outlined area contains the two new developments.The third area is to the west (left) of the red box.
One of the new developments will become a “lagoon community” called Saint Tropez. Another will become a residential community called Los Pinos. The third will also become a residential community.
Saint Tropez
Megatel Homes has begun clearing land for what it says will become a $2 billion lagoon community spanning 1,000 acres.
Looking SW from over Meyer Road at the first part of what will become Saint Tropez.
According to Megatel, the development will eventually feature 4,500 homes, an enormous manmade lagoon with white sand beaches, paddle-boarding, kayaking, a swim-up bar, surf simulator, a water slide tower, a playground, cabanas, soundstage, splash park, and more.
An entertainment district will offer a restaurant, bar, teen arcade, bowling alley, and a children’s immersive indoor play area. That will certainly change the character of the rural Huffman area.
The development will feature both single and multi-family housing. Single-family homes will range in size from 1,500 square feet to 4,000 square feet and sell for between $350,000 to $700,000 each.
Full construction plans and a drainage analysis are not yet available. At this time, the Harris County Engineering Department has only issued a permit for clearing the land, but it shows a general layout.
Plan submitted to Harris County Engineering to obtain clearing permit. Intersection of Meyer Rd. and FM2100 in upper left.
Los Pinos
South of Saint Tropez, the second development is much further along. For it, I have obtained both construction plans and a drainage analysis via a FOIA Request.
Looking SE from over FM 2100. Note the large, linear detention basin in the foreground running diagonally through the frame.
Drainage Features
Phase One of the 130-acre Los Pinos Project will have approximately 250 single-family residential lots. The 1/3rd-acre lots will have about 30% impervious cover.
Plans claim that the total detention storage will exceed Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) minimum storage requirements. They require 270.4 acre feet, but the developer will provide 366.3 – 26% more.
Phase One sits in the FEMA’s unshaded X zone (higher than the 500-year flood plain). So there is no requirement for floodplain mitigation.
Preston Hydrologic, Inc., which conducted the drainage analysis, says, “The proposed detention basin will reduce the maximum sheet flow depths downstream of the development, for storm events up to and including the 1% AEP storm.” AEP means annual exceedance probability. And 1% refers to a 100-year storm.
The tract drains to Key Gully and two unnamed tributaries within the Luce Bayou watershed. This development falls outside Houston’s city limits in unincorporated Harris County.
Looking east from over FM 2100. Note a second large linear detention pond on the right bracketing the development.
Water in this area naturally flows toward the southeast where it enters Luce Bayou. The detention ponds that bracket the development are designed to contain rain falling on the development and water trying to flow across it.
Map from Preston Hydrologic’s drainage analysisshows layout of detention basins.
Six interconnected, dry-bottom detention basins will mitigate the impacts of development, according to hydrologists. The lots in proposed Phase 1 will drain into Ponds 2 and 6. Ponds 1, 3, 4, and 5 will intercept runoff from undeveloped land.
Peak flow estimate indicates ponds should hold a 100-year rainfalland cut peak outflow roughly in half(red vs. blue curve)
Claims No Adverse Impact
Hydrologists claim the development will cause “no adverse impacts” compared to the pre-project drainage conditions of the receiving streams in the Luce Bayou watershed. That includes downstream properties within the City of Houston.
They also estimate that overlandsheet flow will not cause any adverse impacts downstream of the project site. In fact, the hydrologists claim that the proposed project will reduce peak flow rates and runoff volumes to areas downstream. That, they say, will result in reduced ponding depths in the Huffman Hills subdivision and adjacent properties.
Small Part of Future Development
The 130-acre Los Pinos Phase One tract represents only 0.34% of the larger LH Ranch Tract from which it is carved. The hydrologists caution that future phases will require future studies of their own. They indicate that future uses of the LH Ranch tract may include additional single-family residential development, commercial development, and a wetlands mitigation bank.
The mitigation bank proposal showed that 25% of the LH Ranch tract would be set aside for mitigation.
The LH Ranch tract bridges two watersheds. The western portion drains to the East Fork. The eastern portion drains to Luce Bayou. Both eventually drain into Lake Houston. Much of the land was originally wetlands.
Image from same general area taken on January 2021 when tree canopy did not obscure ground.Note standing water.
Preston Hydrologic believes that the increased runoff from Los Pinos Phase One will not increase erosion in Key Gully. They base that opinion on three factors: a USGS estimate of soil-erosion potential in the area, reduced peak flow, and slower water velocity at the peak.
Potential Problems
Section 5.3 of the drainage analysis cites an inventory of potential problems. Among them: Colony Ridge. Preston’s report says, “Currently, a large developing area adjacent to the Harris-Liberty County line may create problems for water quantity and quality. This development is large-lot rural and uses underground septic systems located in the effective floodplain area of Luce Bayou. Additionally, it is possible that inadequate drainage infrastructure is being provided in the area, which could lead to a possible increase of floodwater peak flow rates downstream in Harris County.”
West of FM 2100, LH Ranch LTD and Friendswood Development applied to the Houston Planning Commission for plat approval of a 927-acre parcel on 8/4/22. This parcel is immediately west of the two projects discussed above. It drains into the East Fork on the left edge of the map below.
No further details are available at this time. I will watch it closely in the future months. One thing is clear: Huffman will never be the same.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/9/22
1806 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/2022/08/20220722-RJR_0726.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2022-08-09 14:25:202022-09-19 11:50:273738-Acre Property Developing Near Huffman
Almost $200 million of additional studies, analysis, models and mapping
$27.9 billion in projects.
The projects spread throughout the entire watershed. But here, I’ll focus on those in the northern portion of Harris and the southern portion of Montgomery Counties for brevity.
Halls Bayou
The Flood Planning Group recommends five projects in Halls Bayou totaling $99.65 million, all in collaboration with Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD). They include:
Channel conveyance Improvements on several tributaries
Stormwater detention improvements near Hardy West
Stormwater detention and channel conveyance improvements along the main stem.
These projects had a positive 1.46 Benefit/Cost Ratio PLUS additional community benefits hard to quantify. They would remove the floodplain from more than 3,000 structures and benefit more than 9,300 people. See pages 5-14 through 5-16.
White Oak Bayou
The Flood Planning Group recommends five channel improvement and detention basin projects for $120 million along White Oak Bayou. The flood planning group determined a benefit/cost ratio of .80 for these projects, meaning costs exceeded benefits. Regardless, they feel there are many community benefits that cannot be quantified. They include removing flood risk from seven miles of roads. See pages 5-15 through 5/18.
Greens Bayou
Greens Bayou would receive $120 million of improvements (construction costs only). They include projects in Fountainview Sections 1 & 2, Castlewood Sections 3 & 4, North Forest, Mid-Reach Greens, Parkland Estates, and Humble Road Place.
A bypass channel under the railroad that parallels US 59 could reduce upstream water surface elevations during extreme events. And a mitigation basin downstream would absorb any adverse impacts in Parkland Estates and Humble Road Place from the bypass channel.
The BCR for all Greens Bayou improvements equals 2.13, meaning benefits double costs. More than 20,000 individuals and 2,000 structures would benefit. See pages 5-18 through 5-20.
San Jacinto River
The Flood Planning Group recommends numerous projects associated with the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto River and their tributaries. It based these recommendations on the San Jacinto River Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan and a 2018 LiDAR study. See pages 5-21 through 5-31.
Caney Creek
Recommendations include channelizing part of Caney Creek and offsetting that with two dry-dam detention basins: one at FM1097 and the other at SH105. Together, they would store more than 40,000 acre feet of stormwater. That’s enough to hold a foot of stormwater falling across 62.5 square miles! Channelization would occur near the confluence of Caney Creek with the East Fork. That’s near Lake Houston and East End Parks. The projects would remove 42 miles of roadway and 2,422 structures from the 1% annual chance floodplain.
East Fork
A 48-ft tall concrete dam would create a 1.60-mile-long earthen impoundment that captures runoff from Winters Bayou. The dry dam would have five reinforced 10×10 concrete culverts and twin 300′ backup spillways. It would cover almost 2,500 acres and hold 45,000 acre feet of floodwater. That’s enough to hold a foot of stormwater falling over 28.8 square miles.
Lake Creek
Lake Creek would receive some channelization and two dry-dam detention basins holding 37,250 acre feet of storage, enough to hold a foot of stormwater falling over 58 square miles.
Peach Creek
Recommendations also call for partial channelization and two dry-dam detention basins along Peach Creek.
The Walker Detention basin would occupy 1,200 acres, hold 36,000 acre feet of stormwater, and cost $200 million.
The SH105 Detention basin would occupy 3,000 acres, hold 36,000 acre feet, and cost $400 million.
The total 72,000 acre feet of capacity would hold a foot of stormwater falling over 112.5 square miles.
Spring Creek
This project would channelize 15.7 miles of stream at I-45 and through the Woodlands. It would also create two detention basins on Birch and Walnut Creek tributaries to help reduce flood risk downstream. Together, the projects would create more than 35,000 acre feet of floodwater storage capacity, enough to hold a foot of rain falling over 54.8 square miles. The report did not break out the costs.
West Fork
The Flood Planning Group recommends widening and channelizing 5.7 miles of the West Fork near Highway 242. They would create 12,400 acre feet of mitigation storage by widening the river to 750 feet and creating a 2-foot bench above the stream bed. That would involve shaving down the floodplain to 2 feet above the waterline.
Farther downstream, in the Kingwood Area, they would also increase conveyance by widening a 5-mile-long stretch of the West Fork with 3,500-foot wide of benching. This project would require 923 acre-feet of mitigation storage
That would increase total floodwater storage in both locations by 13,423 feet – enough to hold a foot of rain falling across 20.9 square miles.
Other portions of the recommendations stress the need for additional strategies. They include but are not limited to:
A regional approach to flood mitigation
Floodplain preservation
Natural solutions
Minimum building setbacks
More stringent building codes
Better drainage regulations
Uniform regulations across the watershed
Adoption of standards for determining “no adverse impact”
Also note, that these recommendations would take decades to implement and that many would need to be implemented in a specific order. For instance, the State would need to build detention upstream before widening channels downstream. One helps mitigate the other. Without that, you could help people upstream, but hurt people downstream. That flies in the face of HCFCD principles.
Those who watched Harris County Commissioners Court on Tuesday, 8/2/22, soon realized they were in for some gripping political theater. The meeting started with a parade of 60 people making public comments. They took up more than three hours. It felt like the vast majority spoke in favor of Adrian Garcia’s proposed new $1.2 billion bond. And of those, the vast majority were Sheriff’s Deputies from a department Garcia once headed. Not one constable appeared.
File photo of Adrian Garcia, Precinct 2 Commissioner.
The speakers may have been describing real needs. But if the needs were really that critical, why did the deputies never complain before? I find so many sudden and simultaneous complaints highly suspicious, as if someone orchestrated them.
But it wasn’t just the orchestration that raised questions about Garcia’s $1.2 billion bond proposal.
Conflicting Cues
Conflicting cues throughout the day left me doubting and distrustful. The pieces just didn’t add up. The performers in this melodrama stumbled all over each other – for more than five hours in total if you include the debate time on Garcia’s bond motion.
Neither Hidalgo, Ellis, Garcia, the County Administrator, nor Budget Director could actually name one project where the money would go, despite previous promises to at least compile a list of flagship projects.
If needs are so glaring, compiling a list should be quick and easy.
During the debate, it came out that much of the money from the 2015 bond program still has not been spent. That raised the question, “Why do we need another bond?”
The County Administrator and Budget Director claimed the bond would not increase property tax rates. But they did not calculate the impact of skyrocketing valuations and their impact on the total cost of tax payments – at a time when personal income can’t keep pace with inflation and food banks can’t keep pace with demand.
As if on cue, Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia repeatedly said the money would go to the “worst areas first.” But they refused to define “worst.”
Neither Ellis nor Garcia mentioned the $1.25 billion collected by the City of Houston in drainage fees during the last decade or how their Precincts largely overlap with the City and other municipalities. The cities are supposed to foot the bill for drainage and street repairs within their boundaries. The County focuses on unincorporated areas.
Red “Equity” Flags
Ellis also spoke of the need to apply “equity” guidelines to Garcia’s new $1.2 billion bond proposal.
Ellis openly bragged that he had a behind-the-scenes agreement to define “equity” in the 2018 flood bond in a way that the flood-bond language did not disclose. That made one wonder whether the three Democrats would play similar word tricks with voters in this bond.
In the middle of all this, a consultant presented a compensation survey of county employees. Ellis and others suggested that “equity” guidelines should apply to low salaries and that the county should cap high salaries. No one ever addressed “pay for performance.”
The Court voted 3-2 to allocate $220 million from the bond to the two Republican-leaning precincts, leaving $380 million each for Garcia and Ellis.
Connecting a lot of dots in this rambling meeting, I started to feel that the $1.2 billion was Garcia’s attempt to secure a slush fund for political patronage workers, vendors, and pet projects that would shore up his re-election chances. Could that be why he pushed so hard to put this on the ballot this year rather than next?
Many Unanswered Questions
In a previous meeting, Garcia threatened to withhold money from Republican-leaning precincts if their commissioners did not support his bond.
Why use such threats if you plan to distribute money fairly?
And if you plan to distribute the money fairly, why not disclose the methodology?
Why spring this on people two months before the election?
What’s the resistance to identifying projects?
How could you even determine the “worst” without a list of competing projects?
It would only take a few more months to put together a plan based on a list of needed projects. Then we could see what the actual costs were and vote on an appropriate amount of money.
Show Me the Costs and Benefits
In marketing, you always try to create a perception of value against which you sell. It appears Garcia, Ellis and Hidalgo have decided to bypass that step when selling this bond proposal.
I personally don’t plan to vote FOR another bond until I start seeing some benefit from the last two. Especially when there’s no guarantee how, where, or on what the money will be spent.
The cost of this political drama could average $1000 just in principle – PLUS interest – for every homeowner in Harris County.
That’s the high price of admission to political theater.
Before I shell out that kind of money, I at least want to know what the play is about. Let’s slow this down and figure that out.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/7/22
1804 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Garcia.jpg?fit=764%2C586&ssl=1586764adminadmin2022-08-07 18:56:322022-08-11 15:33:47The High Price of Admission for Political Theater
3738-Acre Property Developing Near Huffman
On 7/22/22, I photographed two new developments at different stages of completion east of Huffman-Cleveland Road and south of the Grand Parkway. Both are being carved out of a 3,738-ac tract owned by LH Ranch LTD.
A third part of that tract, west of Huffman-Cleveland Road, is in the planning stages and submitting plats for approval.
General Location
The first two developments are immediately east of Huffman-Cleveland Road and south of Meyer Road. See red area below.
One of the new developments will become a “lagoon community” called Saint Tropez. Another will become a residential community called Los Pinos. The third will also become a residential community.
Saint Tropez
Megatel Homes has begun clearing land for what it says will become a $2 billion lagoon community spanning 1,000 acres.
According to Megatel, the development will eventually feature 4,500 homes, an enormous manmade lagoon with white sand beaches, paddle-boarding, kayaking, a swim-up bar, surf simulator, a water slide tower, a playground, cabanas, soundstage, splash park, and more.
An entertainment district will offer a restaurant, bar, teen arcade, bowling alley, and a children’s immersive indoor play area. That will certainly change the character of the rural Huffman area.
The development will feature both single and multi-family housing. Single-family homes will range in size from 1,500 square feet to 4,000 square feet and sell for between $350,000 to $700,000 each.
Full construction plans and a drainage analysis are not yet available. At this time, the Harris County Engineering Department has only issued a permit for clearing the land, but it shows a general layout.
Los Pinos
South of Saint Tropez, the second development is much further along. For it, I have obtained both construction plans and a drainage analysis via a FOIA Request.
Drainage Features
Phase One of the 130-acre Los Pinos Project will have approximately 250 single-family residential lots. The 1/3rd-acre lots will have about 30% impervious cover.
Plans claim that the total detention storage will exceed Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) minimum storage requirements. They require 270.4 acre feet, but the developer will provide 366.3 – 26% more.
Phase One sits in the FEMA’s unshaded X zone (higher than the 500-year flood plain). So there is no requirement for floodplain mitigation.
Preston Hydrologic, Inc., which conducted the drainage analysis, says, “The proposed detention basin will reduce the maximum sheet flow depths downstream of the development, for storm events up to and including the 1% AEP storm.” AEP means annual exceedance probability. And 1% refers to a 100-year storm.
The tract drains to Key Gully and two unnamed tributaries within the Luce Bayou watershed. This development falls outside Houston’s city limits in unincorporated Harris County.
Water in this area naturally flows toward the southeast where it enters Luce Bayou. The detention ponds that bracket the development are designed to contain rain falling on the development and water trying to flow across it.
Six interconnected, dry-bottom detention basins will mitigate the impacts of development, according to hydrologists. The lots in proposed Phase 1 will drain into Ponds 2 and 6. Ponds 1, 3, 4, and 5 will intercept runoff from undeveloped land.
Claims No Adverse Impact
Hydrologists claim the development will cause “no adverse impacts” compared to the pre-project drainage conditions of the receiving streams in the Luce Bayou watershed. That includes downstream properties within the City of Houston.
They also estimate that overland sheet flow will not cause any adverse impacts downstream of the project site. In fact, the hydrologists claim that the proposed project will reduce peak flow rates and runoff volumes to areas downstream. That, they say, will result in reduced ponding depths in the Huffman Hills subdivision and adjacent properties.
Small Part of Future Development
The 130-acre Los Pinos Phase One tract represents only 0.34% of the larger LH Ranch Tract from which it is carved. The hydrologists caution that future phases will require future studies of their own. They indicate that future uses of the LH Ranch tract may include additional single-family residential development, commercial development, and a wetlands mitigation bank.
Wetlands Mitigation
Plans considered by the Army Corps in January of 2021 show wetland mitigation areas on both the west and east.
The LH Ranch tract bridges two watersheds. The western portion drains to the East Fork. The eastern portion drains to Luce Bayou. Both eventually drain into Lake Houston. Much of the land was originally wetlands.
Will Increased Runoff Increase Erosion?
The side slopes of the ponds will be grass lined and have backslope interceptor swales to reduce erosion.
Preston Hydrologic believes that the increased runoff from Los Pinos Phase One will not increase erosion in Key Gully. They base that opinion on three factors: a USGS estimate of soil-erosion potential in the area, reduced peak flow, and slower water velocity at the peak.
Potential Problems
Section 5.3 of the drainage analysis cites an inventory of potential problems. Among them: Colony Ridge. Preston’s report says, “Currently, a large developing area adjacent to the Harris-Liberty County line may create problems for water quantity and quality. This development is large-lot rural and uses underground septic systems located in the effective floodplain area of Luce Bayou. Additionally, it is possible that inadequate drainage infrastructure is being provided in the area, which could lead to a possible increase of floodwater peak flow rates downstream in Harris County.”
For the complete drainage analysis, click here.
Other LH Ranch Property West of FM 2100
West of FM 2100, LH Ranch LTD and Friendswood Development applied to the Houston Planning Commission for plat approval of a 927-acre parcel on 8/4/22. This parcel is immediately west of the two projects discussed above. It drains into the East Fork on the left edge of the map below.
No further details are available at this time. I will watch it closely in the future months. One thing is clear: Huffman will never be the same.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/9/22
1806 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.
San Jacinto Flood Planning Group Releases Draft Recommendations
The Texas Water Development Board’s Region 6 San Jacinto Flood Planning Group has released the first draft of its recommendations. You can download the full 295-page Volume One document here (executive summary and all chapters). But the vast majority of the document focuses on methodology and research design. For convenience, I’ve extracted Chapter 5, the 35-pages that discuss recommendations, and summarized them below.
The draft recommendations include:
The projects spread throughout the entire watershed. But here, I’ll focus on those in the northern portion of Harris and the southern portion of Montgomery Counties for brevity.
Halls Bayou
The Flood Planning Group recommends five projects in Halls Bayou totaling $99.65 million, all in collaboration with Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD). They include:
These projects had a positive 1.46 Benefit/Cost Ratio PLUS additional community benefits hard to quantify. They would remove the floodplain from more than 3,000 structures and benefit more than 9,300 people. See pages 5-14 through 5-16.
White Oak Bayou
The Flood Planning Group recommends five channel improvement and detention basin projects for $120 million along White Oak Bayou. The flood planning group determined a benefit/cost ratio of .80 for these projects, meaning costs exceeded benefits. Regardless, they feel there are many community benefits that cannot be quantified. They include removing flood risk from seven miles of roads. See pages 5-15 through 5/18.
Greens Bayou
Greens Bayou would receive $120 million of improvements (construction costs only). They include projects in Fountainview Sections 1 & 2, Castlewood Sections 3 & 4, North Forest, Mid-Reach Greens, Parkland Estates, and Humble Road Place.
A bypass channel under the railroad that parallels US 59 could reduce upstream water surface elevations during extreme events. And a mitigation basin downstream would absorb any adverse impacts in Parkland Estates and Humble Road Place from the bypass channel.
The BCR for all Greens Bayou improvements equals 2.13, meaning benefits double costs. More than 20,000 individuals and 2,000 structures would benefit. See pages 5-18 through 5-20.
San Jacinto River
The Flood Planning Group recommends numerous projects associated with the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto River and their tributaries. It based these recommendations on the San Jacinto River Regional Watershed Master Drainage Plan and a 2018 LiDAR study. See pages 5-21 through 5-31.
Caney Creek
Recommendations include channelizing part of Caney Creek and offsetting that with two dry-dam detention basins: one at FM1097 and the other at SH105. Together, they would store more than 40,000 acre feet of stormwater. That’s enough to hold a foot of stormwater falling across 62.5 square miles! Channelization would occur near the confluence of Caney Creek with the East Fork. That’s near Lake Houston and East End Parks. The projects would remove 42 miles of roadway and 2,422 structures from the 1% annual chance floodplain.
East Fork
A 48-ft tall concrete dam would create a 1.60-mile-long earthen impoundment that captures runoff from Winters Bayou. The dry dam would have five reinforced 10×10 concrete culverts and twin 300′ backup spillways. It would cover almost 2,500 acres and hold 45,000 acre feet of floodwater. That’s enough to hold a foot of stormwater falling over 28.8 square miles.
Lake Creek
Lake Creek would receive some channelization and two dry-dam detention basins holding 37,250 acre feet of storage, enough to hold a foot of stormwater falling over 58 square miles.
Peach Creek
Recommendations also call for partial channelization and two dry-dam detention basins along Peach Creek.
Spring Creek
This project would channelize 15.7 miles of stream at I-45 and through the Woodlands. It would also create two detention basins on Birch and Walnut Creek tributaries to help reduce flood risk downstream. Together, the projects would create more than 35,000 acre feet of floodwater storage capacity, enough to hold a foot of rain falling over 54.8 square miles. The report did not break out the costs.
West Fork
The Flood Planning Group recommends widening and channelizing 5.7 miles of the West Fork near Highway 242. They would create 12,400 acre feet of mitigation storage by widening the river to 750 feet and creating a 2-foot bench above the stream bed. That would involve shaving down the floodplain to 2 feet above the waterline.
Farther downstream, in the Kingwood Area, they would also increase conveyance by widening a 5-mile-long stretch of the West Fork with 3,500-foot wide of benching. This project would require 923 acre-feet of mitigation storage
That would increase total floodwater storage in both locations by 13,423 feet – enough to hold a foot of rain falling across 20.9 square miles.
Is It Enough?
If all these detention basins get built, they could hold a foot of stormwater falling over 337.5 square miles upstream from Kingwood. That’s a lot. In conjunction with other strategies such as dredging and adding more floodgates to the Lake Houston dam, they should help reduce flood risk in the Lake Houston Area … if they aren’t negated elsewhere.
Other portions of the recommendations stress the need for additional strategies. They include but are not limited to:
Also note, that these recommendations would take decades to implement and that many would need to be implemented in a specific order. For instance, the State would need to build detention upstream before widening channels downstream. One helps mitigate the other. Without that, you could help people upstream, but hurt people downstream. That flies in the face of HCFCD principles.
To see the locations of all these streams and how much water they conveyed during Harvey, click here.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/8/22
1805 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The High Price of Admission for Political Theater
Those who watched Harris County Commissioners Court on Tuesday, 8/2/22, soon realized they were in for some gripping political theater. The meeting started with a parade of 60 people making public comments. They took up more than three hours. It felt like the vast majority spoke in favor of Adrian Garcia’s proposed new $1.2 billion bond. And of those, the vast majority were Sheriff’s Deputies from a department Garcia once headed. Not one constable appeared.
The speakers may have been describing real needs. But if the needs were really that critical, why did the deputies never complain before? I find so many sudden and simultaneous complaints highly suspicious, as if someone orchestrated them.
But it wasn’t just the orchestration that raised questions about Garcia’s $1.2 billion bond proposal.
Conflicting Cues
Conflicting cues throughout the day left me doubting and distrustful. The pieces just didn’t add up. The performers in this melodrama stumbled all over each other – for more than five hours in total if you include the debate time on Garcia’s bond motion.
Red “Equity” Flags
Ellis also spoke of the need to apply “equity” guidelines to Garcia’s new $1.2 billion bond proposal.
Ellis openly bragged that he had a behind-the-scenes agreement to define “equity” in the 2018 flood bond in a way that the flood-bond language did not disclose. That made one wonder whether the three Democrats would play similar word tricks with voters in this bond.
In the middle of all this, a consultant presented a compensation survey of county employees. Ellis and others suggested that “equity” guidelines should apply to low salaries and that the county should cap high salaries. No one ever addressed “pay for performance.”
The Court voted 3-2 to allocate $220 million from the bond to the two Republican-leaning precincts, leaving $380 million each for Garcia and Ellis.
Connecting a lot of dots in this rambling meeting, I started to feel that the $1.2 billion was Garcia’s attempt to secure a slush fund for political patronage workers, vendors, and pet projects that would shore up his re-election chances. Could that be why he pushed so hard to put this on the ballot this year rather than next?
Many Unanswered Questions
In a previous meeting, Garcia threatened to withhold money from Republican-leaning precincts if their commissioners did not support his bond.
It would only take a few more months to put together a plan based on a list of needed projects. Then we could see what the actual costs were and vote on an appropriate amount of money.
Show Me the Costs and Benefits
In marketing, you always try to create a perception of value against which you sell. It appears Garcia, Ellis and Hidalgo have decided to bypass that step when selling this bond proposal.
I personally don’t plan to vote FOR another bond until I start seeing some benefit from the last two. Especially when there’s no guarantee how, where, or on what the money will be spent.
That’s the high price of admission to political theater.
Before I shell out that kind of money, I at least want to know what the play is about. Let’s slow this down and figure that out.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/7/22
1804 Days since Hurricane Harvey