Before you vote this year, review these two graphs and a map. They should tell you everything you need to know about flooding and flood mitigation in the Lake Houston Area. They should also motivate you to vote if you are on the sidelines.
Highest Flooding
The first graph shows “feet above flood stage” during Hurricane Harvey at numerous gages on different watersheds around Harris county. It shows how high floodwater got AFTER it came “out of banks.”
The San Jacinto West Fork at US59 had THE highest flooding in Harris County during Harvey.
Lowest Funding
The second shows the amount of flood-mitigation dollars spent in each Harris County watershed on right-of-way acquisition and construction for flood-mitigation in the first half of this year. Those activities help mitigate flooding as opposed to studies which frequently never get acted upon.
The reversal is stunning.
Data obtained via FOIA Request. San Jacinto, the county’s largest watershed, received only $200,000. Only Cedar Bayou received less at $160,000.
Worst Last
The San Jacinto Watershed moves from the high side of the flooding graph to the low side of the funding graph.
But why the first six months of this year? I’ve talked ad nauseam about spending trends going back decades. This window shows us current priorities. Especially during an election year when you would think the County Judge would try to appeal to as many people as possible.
Regardless of how you feel about the equity prioritization framework, you would think that in a ten-year bond program, areas like Lake Houston would start seeing some real benefit by now. Narrowing down the range of spending helps provide better insight into the priorities of County Judge Lina Hidalgo. She’s the deciding vote on Commissioners Court.
How to Punish The Opposition
People are saying, “OK, I’ve waited patiently. When will I see some benefit from the 2018 flood bond?” That was more than four years ago already.
Unfortunately, the answer is “no time soon.” The map below shows current active Flood-Control capital-improvement construction projects and how the three Democrats on Commissioners Court have used their majority to punish Republican-leaning areas.
Maintenance projects are shown in orange. And capital-improvement projects appear purple.
Flood Control has 20 active construction projects in the capital-improvement category. Of those:
Republican Jack Cagle’s Precinct 4 has one.
Republican Tom Ramsey’s Precinct 3 has one.
Democrats Rodney Ellis and Adrian Garcia split the other 18 among themselves.
The only way for people in Precincts 3 and 4 to right this wrong is to replace Judge Hidalgo who is on the ballot running against Republican Alexandra Mealer.
If Hidalgo and Garcia are re-elected, we have four more years of political punishment to look forward to.
So, please vote on or before November 8.
To review your ballot choices, go to HarrisVotes.com and study who and what will be on the ballot in your area this year. Yesterday’s polls show the two candidates for judge essentially tied within the margin of error. Heavy turnout in the Lake Houston Area could swing this election.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/26/22
1884 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/2022/10/First-Half-22-Construction-ROW.jpg?fit=1200%2C789&ssl=17891200adminadmin2022-10-26 16:53:032022-10-28 12:41:33All You Need to Know About Flooding Before You Vote
But according to a news report released yesterday, the county rushed payment for Elevate’s initial invoice of $1.4 million. With it, Elevate purchased Democratic campaign software for $538,057.
County Attorney Fights Open Records Request on Unusual Transactions
After “winning” the lucrative $11 million contract, Elevate immediately invoiced Harris County for more than $1.4 million. The County then rushed to pay her. That’s very unusual in itself. It took Harris County five months just to cut a purchase order for the Atascocita Drainage study after commissioner’s approved that contract!
Greg Groogan of Fox26, who has been investigating this story, asked the County Attorney how he was doing in recovering the money paid to Elevate. But the County Attorney’s accounting just didn’t add up. So, Groogan filed an Open Records request. The County Attorney suddenly clammed up, said the records were not subject to the Open Records Act, and requested an opinion from the Texas Attorney General.
Meanwhile, Bill King did obtain the records – from the County Auditor’s office. Those records showed that of the $1.425 million paid to Elevate, only $208,000 was returned so far. What happened to the missing COVID money?
King found $538,057 went to buy non-refundable, nontransferable software licenses from companies that promote themselves to Democratic political campaigns for fundraising, field organizing and voter targeting.
Where Money Went
The payments include:
$356,093 to Civis Analytics, Inc., a data firm that grew out of Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign and has ties to President Biden.
NGP Van promotes itself as the “leading technology provider to Democratic and progressive campaigns and organizations.” It also claims “Nearly every Democrat running for office is powered by NGP Van.”
OutreachCircle boasts about its voter file management, targeting expertise and grassroots organizing capabilities.
OutreachCircle was recently acquired by Political Data Inc., “California’s largest provider of voter information to political campaigns.”
The County Auditor also shows that Harris County has paid another $460,000 directly to Civis Analytics since Hidalgo was elected.
Under Hidalgo that brings total payments by taxpayers – Republicans and Independents included – for Democratic political organizing capabilities to about $1 million. The County Auditor says the county never did business with any of these firms before Hidalgo.
King concludes his essay with an excerpt from a text message from one of Hidalgo’s staffers. The Texas Rangers obtained it after the scandal first became public.
“Probably good for campaign purposes in her mind, but anyway, if she has some intricate picture in her head, I say F it and let her define it . . .” (Emphasis added.)
As King says, “Draw your own conclusions.”
I say, “…on your way to the polls.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/25/22
1883 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.
The Texas 14th Court of Appeals has sided with the SJRA and against 85 plaintiffs who sued the SJRA for flooding their homes during Hurricane Harvey. This particular group of plaintiffs claimed that the Lake Conroe release resulted in the government unconstitutionally “taking” their property. However, the appeals court found that:
The case should be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on governmental immunity.
Expert Witness Went Unchallenged
The SJRA hired a hydrologist to produce a computer model showing what would have happened to the homes in question if no water had been released from the Lake Conroe dam. The model showed that the homes would have flooded from Spring and Cypress Creeks. The plaintiffs’ attorney did not challenge the SJRA’s expert witness. That meant the evidence was “undisputed” as a matter of law.
Summary of Findings
The appeals court stated in its conclusion, “We reverse the trial court’s order and render judgment dismissing with prejudice (1) all takings claims asserted by the Gonzalez Parties, (2) the Gonzalez Parties’ purported claims against the Authority for grossly negligent maintenance and operation of the Lake Conroe Dam; and (3) all nuisance claims asserted by the Gonzalez Parties.” (Such group lawsuits are typically named after the first party listed in the suit.)
Justice Randy Wilson signed the opinion for Chief Justice Christopher, Justice Zimmerer and himself.
Although one lawyer I talked to opined that the plaintiffs might appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, “dismissal with prejudice” bars the them from refiling the case in the same court.
What Ruling Means for Similar Cases
This may be a failure of the attorneys for the homeowners, but it is still a “win” for the SJRA. Several other groups of lawsuits in Kingwood and Atascocita are still undecided. The question now is, “How will this decision affect those?”
It may and it may not. Page 8 of the appellate opinion states that, “…the Authority asserts that it is physically impossible that any of the molecules of water released from Lake Conroe during Harvey would have reached any of the Gonzalez Parties’ homes because: (1) the Gonzalez Parties live several miles up two different streams––Cypress Creek and Spring Creek; and (2) to reach the Gonzalez Parties’ homes, water from Lake Conroe would have had to flow 41 miles south to its juncture with these creeks, and then several miles upstream against massive flooding coming the other way.”
However, the parties in Kingwood and Atascocita live directly in the path of water released from Lake Conroe. That’s a substantial difference. The SJRA cannot credibly claim that no water from Lake Conroe reached their homes. The decision in these other cases will more likely hinge on whether the increase in flow flooded homes that would otherwise not have flooded.
Decision in Gonzalez Case Contradicts Experience in Other Cases
One Kingwood homeowner I talked to typifies many others. He said, “Frankly that [appellate] conclusion contradicts what I witnessed. I survived the Harvey rain; my home didn’t flood until the release occurred.”
The SJRA cases are hard to follow because there are so many. But at least three (Medina, Burney and Argento) have been consolidated. Those cases already won an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court on the SJRA’s motion to dismiss based on governmental immunity.
In an interlocutory appeal, a ruling by a trial court is appealed while other aspects of the case are still proceeding.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/24/22with thanks to Steven Selbe, Senior Counsel with Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani for the heads up on Gonzalez decision
1882 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/2022/10/Screen-Shot-2022-10-24-at-1.21.53-PM.png?fit=1528%2C1040&ssl=110401528adminadmin2022-10-24 13:27:552022-10-24 19:25:26One Set of SJRA Harvey Lawsuits Dismissed With Prejudice
All You Need to Know About Flooding Before You Vote
Before you vote this year, review these two graphs and a map. They should tell you everything you need to know about flooding and flood mitigation in the Lake Houston Area. They should also motivate you to vote if you are on the sidelines.
Highest Flooding
The first graph shows “feet above flood stage” during Hurricane Harvey at numerous gages on different watersheds around Harris county. It shows how high floodwater got AFTER it came “out of banks.”
Lowest Funding
The second shows the amount of flood-mitigation dollars spent in each Harris County watershed on right-of-way acquisition and construction for flood-mitigation in the first half of this year. Those activities help mitigate flooding as opposed to studies which frequently never get acted upon.
Worst Last
The San Jacinto Watershed moves from the high side of the flooding graph to the low side of the funding graph.
But why the first six months of this year? I’ve talked ad nauseam about spending trends going back decades. This window shows us current priorities. Especially during an election year when you would think the County Judge would try to appeal to as many people as possible.
Regardless of how you feel about the equity prioritization framework, you would think that in a ten-year bond program, areas like Lake Houston would start seeing some real benefit by now. Narrowing down the range of spending helps provide better insight into the priorities of County Judge Lina Hidalgo. She’s the deciding vote on Commissioners Court.
How to Punish The Opposition
People are saying, “OK, I’ve waited patiently. When will I see some benefit from the 2018 flood bond?” That was more than four years ago already.
Unfortunately, the answer is “no time soon.” The map below shows current active Flood-Control capital-improvement construction projects and how the three Democrats on Commissioners Court have used their majority to punish Republican-leaning areas.
Maintenance projects are shown in orange. And capital-improvement projects appear purple.
Flood Control has 20 active construction projects in the capital-improvement category. Of those:
And Judge Lina Hidalgo allows it.
The only way for people in Precincts 3 and 4 to right this wrong is to replace Judge Hidalgo who is on the ballot running against Republican Alexandra Mealer.
So, please vote on or before November 8.
To review your ballot choices, go to HarrisVotes.com and study who and what will be on the ballot in your area this year. Yesterday’s polls show the two candidates for judge essentially tied within the margin of error. Heavy turnout in the Lake Houston Area could swing this election.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/26/22
1884 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.
County COVID Money Buys Democratic Campaign Software Instead
The Elevate Strategies scandal tied to County Judge Lina Hidalgo just keeps mushrooming. For those who missed it, earlier this year, Hidalgo recommended hiring a 1-person company operating out of an apartment to do “COVID outreach” for $11 million. That person reportedly didn’t do any COVID outreach before public outrage about bid rigging forced the County to cancel the contract and seek a refund.
But according to a news report released yesterday, the county rushed payment for Elevate’s initial invoice of $1.4 million. With it, Elevate purchased Democratic campaign software for $538,057.
Now, according to Bill King, the company refuses to give the money back and the County Attorney, a Democrat, is fighting an Open Records request concerning the matter. For a detailed discussion of these allegations, read King’s post in its entirety. A brief summary follows.
County Attorney Fights Open Records Request on Unusual Transactions
After “winning” the lucrative $11 million contract, Elevate immediately invoiced Harris County for more than $1.4 million. The County then rushed to pay her. That’s very unusual in itself. It took Harris County five months just to cut a purchase order for the Atascocita Drainage study after commissioner’s approved that contract!
Greg Groogan of Fox26, who has been investigating this story, asked the County Attorney how he was doing in recovering the money paid to Elevate. But the County Attorney’s accounting just didn’t add up. So, Groogan filed an Open Records request. The County Attorney suddenly clammed up, said the records were not subject to the Open Records Act, and requested an opinion from the Texas Attorney General.
Meanwhile, Bill King did obtain the records – from the County Auditor’s office. Those records showed that of the $1.425 million paid to Elevate, only $208,000 was returned so far. What happened to the missing COVID money?
Where Money Went
The payments include:
The County Auditor also shows that Harris County has paid another $460,000 directly to Civis Analytics since Hidalgo was elected.
Under Hidalgo that brings total payments by taxpayers – Republicans and Independents included – for Democratic political organizing capabilities to about $1 million. The County Auditor says the county never did business with any of these firms before Hidalgo.
King concludes his essay with an excerpt from a text message from one of Hidalgo’s staffers. The Texas Rangers obtained it after the scandal first became public.
“Probably good for campaign purposes in her mind, but anyway, if she has some intricate picture in her head, I say F it and let her define it . . .” (Emphasis added.)
As King says, “Draw your own conclusions.”
I say, “…on your way to the polls.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/25/22
1883 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.
One Set of SJRA Harvey Lawsuits Dismissed With Prejudice
The Texas 14th Court of Appeals has sided with the SJRA and against 85 plaintiffs who sued the SJRA for flooding their homes during Hurricane Harvey. This particular group of plaintiffs claimed that the Lake Conroe release resulted in the government unconstitutionally “taking” their property. However, the appeals court found that:
Expert Witness Went Unchallenged
The SJRA hired a hydrologist to produce a computer model showing what would have happened to the homes in question if no water had been released from the Lake Conroe dam. The model showed that the homes would have flooded from Spring and Cypress Creeks. The plaintiffs’ attorney did not challenge the SJRA’s expert witness. That meant the evidence was “undisputed” as a matter of law.
Summary of Findings
The appeals court stated in its conclusion, “We reverse the trial court’s order and render judgment dismissing with prejudice (1) all takings claims asserted by the Gonzalez Parties, (2) the Gonzalez Parties’ purported claims against the Authority for grossly negligent maintenance and operation of the Lake Conroe Dam; and (3) all nuisance claims asserted by the Gonzalez Parties.” (Such group lawsuits are typically named after the first party listed in the suit.)
Justice Randy Wilson signed the opinion for Chief Justice Christopher, Justice Zimmerer and himself.
Although one lawyer I talked to opined that the plaintiffs might appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, “dismissal with prejudice” bars the them from refiling the case in the same court.
What Ruling Means for Similar Cases
This may be a failure of the attorneys for the homeowners, but it is still a “win” for the SJRA. Several other groups of lawsuits in Kingwood and Atascocita are still undecided. The question now is, “How will this decision affect those?”
It may and it may not. Page 8 of the appellate opinion states that, “…the Authority asserts that it is physically impossible that any of the molecules of water released from Lake Conroe during Harvey would have reached any of the Gonzalez Parties’ homes because: (1) the Gonzalez Parties live several miles up two different streams––Cypress Creek and Spring Creek; and (2) to reach the Gonzalez Parties’ homes, water from Lake Conroe would have had to flow 41 miles south to its juncture with these creeks, and then several miles upstream against massive flooding coming the other way.”
However, the parties in Kingwood and Atascocita live directly in the path of water released from Lake Conroe. That’s a substantial difference. The SJRA cannot credibly claim that no water from Lake Conroe reached their homes. The decision in these other cases will more likely hinge on whether the increase in flow flooded homes that would otherwise not have flooded.
Decision in Gonzalez Case Contradicts Experience in Other Cases
One Kingwood homeowner I talked to typifies many others. He said, “Frankly that [appellate] conclusion contradicts what I witnessed. I survived the Harvey rain; my home didn’t flood until the release occurred.”
The SJRA cases are hard to follow because there are so many. But at least three (Medina, Burney and Argento) have been consolidated. Those cases already won an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court on the SJRA’s motion to dismiss based on governmental immunity.
In an interlocutory appeal, a ruling by a trial court is appealed while other aspects of the case are still proceeding.
The Supreme Court denied the River Authority’s motion to dismiss those cases. They are still undecided.
For more information, see the:
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/24/22 with thanks to Steven Selbe, Senior Counsel with Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani for the heads up on Gonzalez decision
1882 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.