Making conclusions based on hearsay or a glance at a chart could be self-defeating. There is more to the story.
Partner Funds Make It All Possible
We anticipated 43% of the dollars in the flood bond would come from partners such as FEMA, HUD and the TWDB. We also anticipated it would take another 16% in local matching funds to attract the 43%. So 59% of the flood bond revolved around partner funds. Only 41% was local cash to pay for projects totally out of pocket.
From the project spreadsheet approved by voters in 2018.
Excluding Partner Funds Could Accelerate Construction in LMI Neighborhoods, Deny Others
David Berry, the County Administrator, proposed the partnership exclusion to accelerate construction of projects in Low-to-Moderate Income (LMI) watersheds, such as Halls. Halls, in particular, has waited on grant awards from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) longer than most.
A HUD decision is expected sometime in January, according to the Texas General Land Office, which distributes HUD grants in Texas. So it’s not clear how much residents gain by Berry’s proposal. And they could lose big.
Most of the HUD grant applications for Halls are on a 90:10 basis, meaning the local share is only 10%. So excluding these grants means increasing the local contribution for that portion of the budget by 9X. That could cost local taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. For instance, HCFCD budgeted $500 million for Halls drainage alone. 90% of that is $450 million…to cover 2.4% of the county!
The effect would be to take money from affluent watersheds – which don’t qualify for HUD 90:10 grants – and shift it to LMI watersheds. No one then would get the grants and something would have to give somewhere down the road.
One Third of Way Through Flood Bond: Good Time to Take Stock
At the end of this month, exactly one third (3 years, 4 months) of the 10-year flood bond will have expired. So this is a good time to review spending versus projections.
Thirty-three percent of the way in, we’ve expended a little more than 16% of the flood-bond funds. While that may sound like a slow start, one must consider project lifecycles. Projects start with studies (feasibility, preliminary engineering, final engineering, design). These determine and validate cost projections. They also form the basis for grant applications, a plan and bids. But they are the least expensive part of a project. Together, they comprise only one eighth of project costs.
The expensive parts follow. They include right of way acquisition and construction. Those comprise more than three-quarters of all project costs. See the pie chart below which shows averages for the last two decades.
Average percent of costs in various project stages since 2000. ROW (Right of Way) Acquisition includes purchase of land upon which projects will be built.
For most flood-bond projects, we’re just now getting to the expensive phases. So I wouldn’t worry too much about that 16% overall average right now.
Spent/Unspent Funds by Watershed Gives Greater Insight
You can gain more insight by looking at spent and unspent dollars in each watershed.
Height of bars shows total amount budgeted per watershed in flood bond. Blue areas show dollars spent to date. Does not include any funds spent prior to flood bond.
From the charts above and below, you can see that spending rates vary widely among watersheds. Brays has consumed 57% of its budget already. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Sims has consumed just 1.6% of its. Why the wide variation?
To understand, we need to look at unique circumstances in each watershed. The chart below makes it easier to see actual spending as a percent of the budget that voters approved for each watershed in the flood bond.
Percentages represent the portion of budget spent to date. See discussion below for explanations of ranks.
The height of some of the bars above could be “predicted” by referring to the flood bond equity prioritization framework. Brays and Greens Bayous, for instance, are two watersheds with high percentages of LMI residents (58% and 57% respectively).
But others cannot. More than half the residents in Goose Creek/Spring Gully, Hunting, White Oak, Halls, Vince and Sims Watersheds also qualify as LMI. But dollars spent to date in those watersheds are far lower as a percent of the total budget. To see why, you need to put the numbers in a bigger context that includes:
Investment Prior to Flood Bond
Size of Total Budget for Each Watershed
Percentage of Partner Funds
Grant Application Status
Stage of Project Lifecycle
Bigger Context Shows Reasons for Variance
Brays and Greens had a large number of shovel-ready projects that had already been studied and approved when the flood bond passed. They were just waiting for dollars to become available. So they had head starts.
Other factors explain LMI watersheds further down the curve:
Sims received $380 million in federal funding for 23 Army Corps projects that finished construction by 2015. As a result, Sims was the only bayou in Harris County that stayed within its banks during Harvey. None of that spending shows up in the Bond Program charts. Because it’s already done!
White Oak received full funding in the Bi-Partisan Budget Act of 2018. The Army Corps also started addressing many projects there before the flood bond.
Vince lies wholly within the City of Pasadena and is primarily the City’s responsibility.
Halls is the poorest watershed (71% LMI) and has only spent 6% of its projected budget to date. Lest you attribute this to racism, understand that the bond allocated more than HALF A BILLION DOLLARS to Halls. In percentage terms, the $29 million dollars spent to date looks small. But in absolute dollars, it outranks 15 other watersheds.
Far more affluent watersheds – such as Buffalo Bayou, Cedar Bayou, the San Jacinto River, Barker, Willow Creek, Armand Bayou, Galveston, Luce Bayou and Jackson Bayou – have each received fewer dollars from the flood bond than Halls.
HCFCD had just finished a watershed plan for Halls Bayou in 2018 when the flood bond passed. That explains the size of the watershed budget as well as the late start compared to Brays, White Oak, Greens, and Sims.
Other factors also explain affluent watersheds further up the spending curve, such as Little Cypress. HCFCD started working on that watershed long before the flood bond, too. Dollars spent to date on Little Cypress primarily reflect right-of-way acquisition costs, not construction. It’s also important to understand that the total budget for Little Cypress is only 37% of the total budget for Halls.
Creating a Win-Win For Everyone
In another three years and four months, these charts will look totally different than the ones you see today. Construction costs will surge for some and be long gone in the rear view mirror for others.
In my opinion, we need to stop creating chaos with endless tinkering in the bond program. The people have spoken. Leaders should listen. Let’s stop changing the allocation formula, focus on construction, and work like hell to win those grants. Then everybody wins.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/28/2021
1582 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Flood-Bond-Allocation.jpg?fit=1200%2C804&ssl=18041200adminadmin2021-12-27 20:18:272021-12-28 13:28:32“Excluding” Partner Funds Could Lead to Shortfalls in Flood-Mitigation Funding
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has a large active construction project underway in Tomball. Phase I of the project stretches about two-thirds of a mile from SH249 to FM2920 on a tributary of Willow Creek as it arcs around a major shopping center near downtown Tomball and Lone Star College/Tomball. The project includes channel widening and deepening; dry and wet stormwater detention basins; and opportunities for recreational trails.
Limits of Phase 1 are within red oval. Additional improvements (M124-00-00-E002) will extend further south to Willow Creek itselfas additional money becomes available.
Willow Creek: A Study in Contrasts
The Willow Creek watershed is located in northwest Harris County. It drains about half of the City of Tomball. The tributary highlighted above flows through densely developed shopping and medical center areas on the northern end to agricultural and oil and gas interests on the lower end.
Looking SW at southern limit of construction toward agricultural and rural areas beyond.FM2920 leads into distance.
Looking NE in opposite direction toward area of channel widening and detention basins. SH249 cuts left to right across top of frame. FM2920 cuts through upper right corner.Tomball in upper right.
HCFCD contractors were hard at work on Christmas Eve afternoon when I took these shots.
Closer shot of detention ponds north of shopping center out of frame on the right.
Willow Creek: Present and Future
Willow Creek flows into Spring Creek just upstream of where Spring Creek crosses under I-45. The Willow Creek watershed covers about 54 square miles. The downstream end of the watershed is within the floodplain of Spring Creek.
Willow Creek Watershed and current HCFCD projects in various stages of completion. This post is about the one near the top center of the frame ending in E001.
Willow Creek watershed is mostly undeveloped. Significant development is limited to the City of Tomball and a few residential subdivisions in the lower end. The development rate has not been very rapid. However, officials expect it to increase as the City of Tomball continues to expand and urbanization from Houston stretches northwest.
This project will directly benefit mostly areas on the northwest side of the county. However, it may provide some downstream benefit by holding back water in major floods.
Goal: Contain Runoff from 100-Year Event
Phase 1 of this project began construction activities in January 2021. As funding becomes available, future phases of the M124-00-00 project will continue channel conveyance improvements and construct several more stormwater detention basins from F.M. 2920 to the confluence with Willow Creek. Phase II will also deepen the channel improvements from Phase 1 that you see above.
The overall goal of the M124-00-00 project is to enable the channel to contain the 1-percent (100-year) storm event within the channel banks based on existing watershed conditions.
HCFCD
The total project focuses on conveyance improvements of stormwater in the area, as well as reducing flood risk through construction of stormwater detention basins. Stormwater detention basins reduce flooding risks by taking in and temporarily storing stormwater during heavy rain events and releasing the water back into the waterways when the threat of flooding has passed.
Multiple new detention basins along the M124-00-00 channel will add approximately 390 million gallons of storage capacity (an approximate 2,164 percent increase in current storage capacity) to benefit the Willow Creek watershed. That’s enough to contain a foot of water falling on 1200 acres.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/26/2021based on info from HCFCD.org
1579 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/20211224-DJI_0258.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2021-12-26 12:35:472021-12-27 11:40:39Willow Creek Widening and Stormwater Detention Basins Improving Tomball Drainage
On 12/23/21, a group of petitioners trying to stop implementation of the Ellis-3 redistricting plan for Harris County took their case to the Texas Supreme Court.
District Court Judge Brittanye Morris denied the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order on November 29. Judge Dedra Davis dismissed the entire case on Wednesday, December 22. Neither explained why.
Goal of Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Then on Thursday, December 23, 2021, Cagle, Ramsey and their supporters filed an emergency petition for a “writ of mandamus” with the Texas Supreme Court.
The petition, if granted, would compel Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia “to cease implementation of the illegal and unconstitutional Ellis 3 Plan for the upcoming election cycle” and pay all costs of the suit.
A writ of mandamus is literally a judicial command. It orders an official to perform a statutory duty.
The legal combatants: Cagle and Ramsey on the left, Hidalgo, Garcia and Ellis on the right, listen to people testifying at the 12/14/2021 Commissioners Court meetingabout changing flood-bond priorities for third time in 2.5 years.
The 2020 census revealed population changes among districts that required redistricting.
It was possible to comply with the “one man, one vote” rule by transferring 4% of the county’s population.
But Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia chose a plan that moved 48% and overstepped their authority.
That plan will deprive 1.1 million people of their right to vote for commissioner in the next election and likely tip the result from Republican to Democrat in one precinct, creating a 4-1 supermajority for Democrats.
The petition then recites more facts in the case, elements of the redistricting plan, legal precedents, issues and arguments.
The petition basically restates elements of the original District Court petition. However, for the Texas Supreme Court, it also lists precedents for writs of mandamus. Those were not an element of the original case.
Writs of mandamus compel lower court judges or government officials to perform the duties of their job. In this case, the petition was targeted at three local officials – Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia.
The urgency explains why Cagle, Ramsey and their supporters skipped the normal intermediate step of filing an appeal. Because of the need to print ballots early in the year, time was simply not available. A writ of mandamus represents the only legal remedy they have available at this point.
Tik tok. Tik tok.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/24/2021
1578 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Commissioners-Court-Dec-Mtg.jpg?fit=1200%2C685&ssl=16851200adminadmin2021-12-24 06:58:392021-12-24 07:07:10Emergency Petition Filed with Texas Supreme Court to Stop Ellis-3 Redistricting Plan
“Excluding” Partner Funds Could Lead to Shortfalls in Flood-Mitigation Funding
The new Harris County Administrator has proposed “excluding” potential partner funds from consideration in the allocation of flood-bond and flood-resilience trust dollars. There’s only one problem with that. Without partner funds, there won’t nearly be enough money to cover all the proposed flood-mitigation projects in the bond, the trust, or future bonds.
The conclusions above come from comparing projected project totals in the 2018 flood bond with the December 2021 flood-bond update that Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) provided to County Commissioners. The exercise also illustrates why people who are TRULY interested in making informed decisions about HCFCD’s Bond Program need to dig deep into the data.
Partner Funds Make It All Possible
We anticipated 43% of the dollars in the flood bond would come from partners such as FEMA, HUD and the TWDB. We also anticipated it would take another 16% in local matching funds to attract the 43%. So 59% of the flood bond revolved around partner funds. Only 41% was local cash to pay for projects totally out of pocket.
Excluding Partner Funds Could Accelerate Construction in LMI Neighborhoods, Deny Others
David Berry, the County Administrator, proposed the partnership exclusion to accelerate construction of projects in Low-to-Moderate Income (LMI) watersheds, such as Halls. Halls, in particular, has waited on grant awards from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) longer than most.
A HUD decision is expected sometime in January, according to the Texas General Land Office, which distributes HUD grants in Texas. So it’s not clear how much residents gain by Berry’s proposal. And they could lose big.
Most of the HUD grant applications for Halls are on a 90:10 basis, meaning the local share is only 10%. So excluding these grants means increasing the local contribution for that portion of the budget by 9X. That could cost local taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. For instance, HCFCD budgeted $500 million for Halls drainage alone. 90% of that is $450 million…to cover 2.4% of the county!
The effect would be to take money from affluent watersheds – which don’t qualify for HUD 90:10 grants – and shift it to LMI watersheds. No one then would get the grants and something would have to give somewhere down the road.
One Third of Way Through Flood Bond: Good Time to Take Stock
At the end of this month, exactly one third (3 years, 4 months) of the 10-year flood bond will have expired. So this is a good time to review spending versus projections.
Thirty-three percent of the way in, we’ve expended a little more than 16% of the flood-bond funds. While that may sound like a slow start, one must consider project lifecycles. Projects start with studies (feasibility, preliminary engineering, final engineering, design). These determine and validate cost projections. They also form the basis for grant applications, a plan and bids. But they are the least expensive part of a project. Together, they comprise only one eighth of project costs.
The expensive parts follow. They include right of way acquisition and construction. Those comprise more than three-quarters of all project costs. See the pie chart below which shows averages for the last two decades.
For most flood-bond projects, we’re just now getting to the expensive phases. So I wouldn’t worry too much about that 16% overall average right now.
Spent/Unspent Funds by Watershed Gives Greater Insight
You can gain more insight by looking at spent and unspent dollars in each watershed.
From the charts above and below, you can see that spending rates vary widely among watersheds. Brays has consumed 57% of its budget already. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Sims has consumed just 1.6% of its. Why the wide variation?
To understand, we need to look at unique circumstances in each watershed. The chart below makes it easier to see actual spending as a percent of the budget that voters approved for each watershed in the flood bond.
The height of some of the bars above could be “predicted” by referring to the flood bond equity prioritization framework. Brays and Greens Bayous, for instance, are two watersheds with high percentages of LMI residents (58% and 57% respectively).
But others cannot. More than half the residents in Goose Creek/Spring Gully, Hunting, White Oak, Halls, Vince and Sims Watersheds also qualify as LMI. But dollars spent to date in those watersheds are far lower as a percent of the total budget. To see why, you need to put the numbers in a bigger context that includes:
Bigger Context Shows Reasons for Variance
Brays and Greens had a large number of shovel-ready projects that had already been studied and approved when the flood bond passed. They were just waiting for dollars to become available. So they had head starts.
Other factors explain LMI watersheds further down the curve:
HCFCD had just finished a watershed plan for Halls Bayou in 2018 when the flood bond passed. That explains the size of the watershed budget as well as the late start compared to Brays, White Oak, Greens, and Sims.
Other factors also explain affluent watersheds further up the spending curve, such as Little Cypress. HCFCD started working on that watershed long before the flood bond, too. Dollars spent to date on Little Cypress primarily reflect right-of-way acquisition costs, not construction. It’s also important to understand that the total budget for Little Cypress is only 37% of the total budget for Halls.
Creating a Win-Win For Everyone
In another three years and four months, these charts will look totally different than the ones you see today. Construction costs will surge for some and be long gone in the rear view mirror for others.
In my opinion, we need to stop creating chaos with endless tinkering in the bond program. The people have spoken. Leaders should listen. Let’s stop changing the allocation formula, focus on construction, and work like hell to win those grants. Then everybody wins.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/28/2021
1582 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Willow Creek Widening and Stormwater Detention Basins Improving Tomball Drainage
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has a large active construction project underway in Tomball. Phase I of the project stretches about two-thirds of a mile from SH249 to FM2920 on a tributary of Willow Creek as it arcs around a major shopping center near downtown Tomball and Lone Star College/Tomball. The project includes channel widening and deepening; dry and wet stormwater detention basins; and opportunities for recreational trails.
Willow Creek: A Study in Contrasts
The Willow Creek watershed is located in northwest Harris County. It drains about half of the City of Tomball. The tributary highlighted above flows through densely developed shopping and medical center areas on the northern end to agricultural and oil and gas interests on the lower end.
Willow Creek: Present and Future
Willow Creek flows into Spring Creek just upstream of where Spring Creek crosses under I-45. The Willow Creek watershed covers about 54 square miles. The downstream end of the watershed is within the floodplain of Spring Creek.
Willow Creek watershed is mostly undeveloped. Significant development is limited to the City of Tomball and a few residential subdivisions in the lower end. The development rate has not been very rapid. However, officials expect it to increase as the City of Tomball continues to expand and urbanization from Houston stretches northwest.
This project will directly benefit mostly areas on the northwest side of the county. However, it may provide some downstream benefit by holding back water in major floods.
Goal: Contain Runoff from 100-Year Event
Phase 1 of this project began construction activities in January 2021. As funding becomes available, future phases of the M124-00-00 project will continue channel conveyance improvements and construct several more stormwater detention basins from F.M. 2920 to the confluence with Willow Creek. Phase II will also deepen the channel improvements from Phase 1 that you see above.
The total project focuses on conveyance improvements of stormwater in the area, as well as reducing flood risk through construction of stormwater detention basins. Stormwater detention basins reduce flooding risks by taking in and temporarily storing stormwater during heavy rain events and releasing the water back into the waterways when the threat of flooding has passed.
Multiple new detention basins along the M124-00-00 channel will add approximately 390 million gallons of storage capacity (an approximate 2,164 percent increase in current storage capacity) to benefit the Willow Creek watershed. That’s enough to contain a foot of water falling on 1200 acres.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/26/2021 based on info from HCFCD.org
1579 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Emergency Petition Filed with Texas Supreme Court to Stop Ellis-3 Redistricting Plan
On 12/23/21, a group of petitioners trying to stop implementation of the Ellis-3 redistricting plan for Harris County took their case to the Texas Supreme Court.
Precinct 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle, Precinct 3 commissioner Tom Ramsey and their supporters filed their original lawsuit in District Court last November. They claimed the Ellis-3 redistricting plan was unconstitutional. They say it disenfranchised 1.1 million people of their right to vote for the commissioner of their choice in next year’s county election.
District Court Judge Brittanye Morris denied the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order on November 29. Judge Dedra Davis dismissed the entire case on Wednesday, December 22. Neither explained why.
Goal of Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Then on Thursday, December 23, 2021, Cagle, Ramsey and their supporters filed an emergency petition for a “writ of mandamus” with the Texas Supreme Court.
The petition, if granted, would compel Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia “to cease implementation of the illegal and unconstitutional Ellis 3 Plan for the upcoming election cycle” and pay all costs of the suit.
A writ of mandamus is literally a judicial command. It orders an official to perform a statutory duty.
Elements of Petition
The 47-page petition petition for a writ of mandamus to the Texas Supreme Court begins by recapping the basis for the original lawsuit.
The petition then recites more facts in the case, elements of the redistricting plan, legal precedents, issues and arguments.
The petition basically restates elements of the original District Court petition. However, for the Texas Supreme Court, it also lists precedents for writs of mandamus. Those were not an element of the original case.
Writs of mandamus compel lower court judges or government officials to perform the duties of their job. In this case, the petition was targeted at three local officials – Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia.
Request to Expedite Petition
The petitioners also filed a 4-page request to expedite the case, citing the nearness of the next election.
The urgency explains why Cagle, Ramsey and their supporters skipped the normal intermediate step of filing an appeal. Because of the need to print ballots early in the year, time was simply not available. A writ of mandamus represents the only legal remedy they have available at this point.
Tik tok. Tik tok.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/24/2021
1578 Days since Hurricane Harvey