Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) is accelerating its spending on flood mitigation projects. I compiled the chart below with data from a FOIA Request. This request parallels an earlier request at the end of the first quarter and includes spending through the end of the third quarter. In the 3.5 years since the flood bond, HCFCD has completed many preliminary studies and engineering designs. Now many projects are moving into the capital-intensive phases: Right-of-Way Acquisition and Construction.
Current Spending Rate is 8X over pre-Harvey Rate
Comparing the periods before and after Harvey, spending per month tripled. And comparing the last six months to the post-Harvey period, you can see that the pace accelerated another 2.75X. The average for the last six months is up a whopping 8X compared to the pre-Harvey period.
HCFCD Flood Mitigation spending is rapidly accelerating.
That’s good news.
Where/When Spending Occurred
The chart below shows where HCFCD has spent that money. It ranks watersheds by total spending. But within that, you can see tremendous variability between the pre- and post-Harvey eras. In some watersheds, such as Sims, HCFCD largely completed projects with its partners, before Harvey. In other watersheds, such as Little Cypress, you see the opposite. HCFCD accelerated spending on land acquisition as part of its Frontier Program to help prevent, rather than remediate flooding.
Looking at spending before and after Harvey shows the most watersheds ramping up spending as a few taper off.
Four Watersheds Have Received 53% of All Spending since 2000
The flood bond prioritization framework helps shape the curve above. It gives priority to low-income, socially vulnerable neighborhoods. Those projects started first while others wait.
Thus, most of projects in low-income watersheds cluster toward the left. Likewise, with a few exceptions, more affluent watersheds tend to cluster toward the right.
In the years ahead, as HCFCD completes more projects on the left and begins more projects on the right, the slope of the curve may change.
Spending continues to be concentrated in a handful of watersheds. Four have received more than half of all dollars since 2000.
In the meantime, however, looking at subsets of this data, reveals much about priorities. Only five watersheds out of 23 have been allocated significant dollars above the average.
If you took Cypress Creek out of that mix, four other watersheds would be at the average. And fourteen would be below it.
But the top four watersheds alone comprise 53% of all spending since 2000.
Additional Analysis to Follow
In the next few days, I will examine other aspects of spending and what drives it. Those other aspects will include, but are not limited to:
Where the most damage has occurred
Population density
Watershed size
Percent of low-to-moderate income residents
Partnership funding
More news to follow.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/9/2021
1563 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/2021/12/Spending-Acceleration-Bar-Chart.jpeg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2021-12-09 15:31:072021-12-09 16:04:49HCFCD Accelerating Spending on Mitigation Projects
The City of Houston defended its permitting of the Kingwood Area’s first RV Park despite deficiencies in the process. The City claims the Laurel Springs RV resort meets old “grandfathered” standards. But concerned Lakewood Cove residents worry that the development does not meet current needs. They expressed concerns that:
Did not document the impact of overflow from that undersized pond in a two paragraph drainage impact analysis
Said that overflow from the undersized pond would be funneled toward Lakewood Cove despite a regulation requiring that excess stormwater not cross adjoining private property lines.
The amount of impervious cover in the plans did not change despite the addition of 25 percent more spaces.
The volume of the detention pond decreased during the review process.
The plans were not reviewed by a professional engineer (PE).
Below, read a summary of the City’s responses to each of these alleged deficiencies. To verify my summary, I’ve also included a PDF of the City’s entire response.
Filed False Info
The City did not really address this concern except to say that false information was filed by an agent who had no hand in the engineering. Apparently, filing false information under penalty of perjury is not an issue if you hire an agent.
Half the Detention Volume of Current Requirements
Despite getting the plans approved in October 2021, after detention requirements increased, the developer only had to meet 2020 requirements under a grandfathering clause based on the submission date (not the approval date) of the plans. So plans comply with the old requirements but not the current ones. Despite building a half-sized detention pond, the City still insists overflow won’t be a problem – except in a 100-year storm. The City ignores the fact that the pond is designed to hold a 100-year rain under older, lower standards.
Several of the 380 Elm Grove homes that flooded on May 7, 2019, and a City High Water Rescue Vehicle.
This is the same problem that happened in Woodridge Village, Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest in 2019.
I’ve requested the full drainage impact analysis on three occasions. The City alludes to one, but still has not produced it. Instead, the City points to a two paragraph summary and seems satisfied with it. The City focuses primarily on the volume of water pumped into Lakewood Cove’s storm sewer system. It claims that if water overflows into people’s homes that will be due to a deficiency in how the Lakewood Cove lots were graded.
Where Will Overflow Go
The developer says that overflow from the undersized detention pond will go east toward Lakewood Cove (left in picture below) and then down a hill into Lakewood Cove’s detention pond near Hamblen Road. But the City says the opposite. It claims overflow will go west toward the Union Pacific railroad tracks (right in picture below). From there, sheet flow would go down into the County’s new Edgewater Park. The City did not express any concern about erosion of the track bed. But one wonders whether erosion could destabilize the railroad tracks which carry toxic chemicals.
Laurel Springs RV Resort next to UP Railroad tracks and Utility Easement. City says overflow from pond at far end of clearing will be funneled toward tracks, even though developer says the opposite.
Woodridge Village erosion caused by half of the estimated amount of a current 100-year rain.
Increase in RV Spaces
The developer changed the plans from 182 to 226 RV pads. The City approved with no further explanation. Nor did the City address the issue of a potential conflict with the permit.
No Increase in Impervious Cover
The City claims that when the number of spaces increased 25%, impervious cover did not and that calculations are still accurate. Public Works did not explain the apparent contradiction.
Decrease in Volume of Detention Pond
According to the City, the original detention-pond volume approved by the City must have been an “approximation” by the developer’s engineer. Even though the number decreased in final versions of the plans as the number of RV pads increased 25%, the City claims the developers still exceed the minimum detention requirements under the grandfathered 2020 regulations. They never address what will happen if rainfall exceeds 2020 assumptions, as it certainly will.
No Review by Professional Engineer
The City says reviewers work under the supervision of a professional engineer (PE), but PE’s do not actually review plans.
Summary
In summary, the City claims it didn’t make any mistakes. If homes flood, homeowners will be at fault because their sites must not be graded properly.
I wrote the City weeks ago about the potential erosion of the Union Pacific railroad tracks and still have not received a reply.
This seems to be a case of bureaucrats reviewing plans for literal compliance and ignoring the dangers of real-world deficiencies. If the higher requirements in 2021 regulations are not important, why did the City adopt them?
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/2021/12/20211205-DJI_0009-2.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2021-12-08 13:13:182021-12-08 14:19:55City Defends RV Park Permit Despite Deficiencies
Since 2000, flood-mitigation spending in Harris County has topped $3 billion dollars. That’s through the end of the third quarter this year. Right of way (ROW) acquisition and construction represent the two largest components of that cost. ROW by itself consumed more than $1 billion and cost almost as much as construction. With saner building codes and floodplain regulations, we could have saved much of that for additional projects.
At the end of Q1, I made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) for more than 20 years of financial records. I wanted to see how much we spent, where we spent it and what we spent it on. You can find the results on the funding page of this web site. I recently requested updated numbers through the end of the third quarter. While I haven’t finished analyzing the latest numbers yet, one thing leaped out at me immediately.
ROW Costs Virtually as Much as Construction
I knew the acquisition of property for large detention basins or channel expansions was expensive. However…
I had no idea that right-of-way acquisition cost HCFCD almost as much as construction of mitigation projects.
As you can see from the chart below, 36 percent of all HCFCD spending on mitigation projects goes toward the acquisition of Rights of Way (ROW). Forty percent goes toward construction. And 24 percent goes toward “all other.”
Based on data provided by HCFCD in response to a FOIA Request. Covers all capital improvement spending from 1/1/2000 through end of third quarter 2021.
What are Right-of-Way Costs?
Right-of-way costs represent the purchase of land on which HCFCD builds its projects. HCFCD can’t just build projects on someone else’s land. They need to acquire the land first. ROW acquisition can take years. Often people don’t want to leave homes and neighborhoods they may have grown up in…despite the flood risk.
Even with willing sellers, HCFCD must appraise the property, locate the owner, negotiate a price, close the sale, and demolish the property before doing anything.
Four and a half years after Harvey, about half of the Forest Cove Townhomes on Marina Drive remain standing but uninhabitable. They must all be torn down before HCFCD can revert the property to green space.
Buyouts of some properties elsewhere have taken a decade or longer.
Factors Affecting Percentages
Several factors affect the ROW percentage above.
When Projects Started
Projects that started recently may show a higher percentage of ROW costs, simply because construction may not have even started yet. Conversely, some projects that started in the 1990’s did not even have any ROW costs included in these numbers because they fell outside the period (2000 to 2021) of investigation.
Population Density
Population density also affects ROW acquisition costs. It’s more expensive to purchase land after development than before. For example, inner city land with apartments and high rises costs more than rural land. See below.
Brays Bayou at South Main near Texas Medical Center shows difficulty of expanding channels in developed areas.Photo May, 2021.
Type and Location of Density
Areas where people have built right next to the edge of bayous increase the cost of mitigation. They also increase the time it takes to complete projects. HCFCD had to buy out whole subdivisions along Halls Bayou in order to build the two giant detention ponds at US59 and Parker. The buyouts took three to five times longer than construction.
Note heaviest concentration of damage inside Beltway 8
Frontier Program
Counterbalancing that, HCFCD sometimes purchases large tracts of undeveloped land in rural areas as part of its Frontier Program. That enables HCFCD to build large regional flood mitigation projects in optimal locations at a lower cost per acre without the cost or delays of buyouts. HCFCD later resells detention pond capacity to developers to make its money back. The emphasis in the Frontier Program is on preventing flooding, rather than fixing it. That requires upfront investment. But it’s also a more humane approach because people aren’t flooding multiple times before HCFCD can acquire matching grants and take action.
Opportunity for Savings
If we could get developers to leave larger easements next to creeks and bayous, it could reduce ROW-acquisition costs in the long run. It could also enhance safety for residents and the reputation of developers. Wider ROW could be marketed as greenbelts and jogging trails – salable amenities. And people are usually willing to pay a premium for flood-safe homes. So this isn’t asking developers to be totally altruistic.
Would we save a billion dollars? No.
If you look at flood damage maps of Harris County, most flooding in the last 20 years has happened inside Beltway 8. We still need to fix much of that.
But going forward, the opportunity exists to reduce that 36% gradually to something more reasonable.
How much depends on whether you can make people in surrounding counties see the floods in their future if they don’t take action now. Flooding is already a significant issue in large parts of Montgomery and Liberty Counties. Perhaps that will motivate upstream interests to cooperate with downstream interests.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/7/2021 with grateful thanks to all the men and woman who fought at Pearl Harbor
1561 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/20210520-RJR_5210.jpg?fit=1200%2C753&ssl=17531200adminadmin2021-12-07 20:24:132021-12-07 20:41:12How to Save on Flood Mitigation
HCFCD Accelerating Spending on Mitigation Projects
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) is accelerating its spending on flood mitigation projects. I compiled the chart below with data from a FOIA Request. This request parallels an earlier request at the end of the first quarter and includes spending through the end of the third quarter. In the 3.5 years since the flood bond, HCFCD has completed many preliminary studies and engineering designs. Now many projects are moving into the capital-intensive phases: Right-of-Way Acquisition and Construction.
Current Spending Rate is 8X over pre-Harvey Rate
Comparing the periods before and after Harvey, spending per month tripled. And comparing the last six months to the post-Harvey period, you can see that the pace accelerated another 2.75X. The average for the last six months is up a whopping 8X compared to the pre-Harvey period.
That’s good news.
Where/When Spending Occurred
The chart below shows where HCFCD has spent that money. It ranks watersheds by total spending. But within that, you can see tremendous variability between the pre- and post-Harvey eras. In some watersheds, such as Sims, HCFCD largely completed projects with its partners, before Harvey. In other watersheds, such as Little Cypress, you see the opposite. HCFCD accelerated spending on land acquisition as part of its Frontier Program to help prevent, rather than remediate flooding.
Four Watersheds Have Received 53% of All Spending since 2000
The flood bond prioritization framework helps shape the curve above. It gives priority to low-income, socially vulnerable neighborhoods. Those projects started first while others wait.
Thus, most of projects in low-income watersheds cluster toward the left. Likewise, with a few exceptions, more affluent watersheds tend to cluster toward the right.
In the years ahead, as HCFCD completes more projects on the left and begins more projects on the right, the slope of the curve may change.
In the meantime, however, looking at subsets of this data, reveals much about priorities. Only five watersheds out of 23 have been allocated significant dollars above the average.
If you took Cypress Creek out of that mix, four other watersheds would be at the average. And fourteen would be below it.
Additional Analysis to Follow
In the next few days, I will examine other aspects of spending and what drives it. Those other aspects will include, but are not limited to:
More news to follow.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/9/2021
1563 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.
City Defends RV Park Permit Despite Deficiencies
The City of Houston defended its permitting of the Kingwood Area’s first RV Park despite deficiencies in the process. The City claims the Laurel Springs RV resort meets old “grandfathered” standards. But concerned Lakewood Cove residents worry that the development does not meet current needs. They expressed concerns that:
Below, read a summary of the City’s responses to each of these alleged deficiencies. To verify my summary, I’ve also included a PDF of the City’s entire response.
Filed False Info
The City did not really address this concern except to say that false information was filed by an agent who had no hand in the engineering. Apparently, filing false information under penalty of perjury is not an issue if you hire an agent.
Half the Detention Volume of Current Requirements
Despite getting the plans approved in October 2021, after detention requirements increased, the developer only had to meet 2020 requirements under a grandfathering clause based on the submission date (not the approval date) of the plans. So plans comply with the old requirements but not the current ones. Despite building a half-sized detention pond, the City still insists overflow won’t be a problem – except in a 100-year storm. The City ignores the fact that the pond is designed to hold a 100-year rain under older, lower standards.
This is the same problem that happened in Woodridge Village, Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest in 2019.
On May 7, 2019, Woodridge received 7.9 inches of rainfall – less than half of Atlas 14 expectations. Still 380 structures in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest flooded according to HCFCD.
In that case, the plans also met old requirements that had not increased to meet current rainfall expectations. The same Public Works Department that approved the drainage plans for Woodridge Village approved the Laurel Springs RV Resort plans.
Sketchy Drainage Impact Analysis
I’ve requested the full drainage impact analysis on three occasions. The City alludes to one, but still has not produced it. Instead, the City points to a two paragraph summary and seems satisfied with it. The City focuses primarily on the volume of water pumped into Lakewood Cove’s storm sewer system. It claims that if water overflows into people’s homes that will be due to a deficiency in how the Lakewood Cove lots were graded.
Where Will Overflow Go
The developer says that overflow from the undersized detention pond will go east toward Lakewood Cove (left in picture below) and then down a hill into Lakewood Cove’s detention pond near Hamblen Road. But the City says the opposite. It claims overflow will go west toward the Union Pacific railroad tracks (right in picture below). From there, sheet flow would go down into the County’s new Edgewater Park. The City did not express any concern about erosion of the track bed. But one wonders whether erosion could destabilize the railroad tracks which carry toxic chemicals.
Increase in RV Spaces
The developer changed the plans from 182 to 226 RV pads. The City approved with no further explanation. Nor did the City address the issue of a potential conflict with the permit.
No Increase in Impervious Cover
The City claims that when the number of spaces increased 25%, impervious cover did not and that calculations are still accurate. Public Works did not explain the apparent contradiction.
Decrease in Volume of Detention Pond
According to the City, the original detention-pond volume approved by the City must have been an “approximation” by the developer’s engineer. Even though the number decreased in final versions of the plans as the number of RV pads increased 25%, the City claims the developers still exceed the minimum detention requirements under the grandfathered 2020 regulations. They never address what will happen if rainfall exceeds 2020 assumptions, as it certainly will.
No Review by Professional Engineer
The City says reviewers work under the supervision of a professional engineer (PE), but PE’s do not actually review plans.
Summary
In summary, the City claims it didn’t make any mistakes. If homes flood, homeowners will be at fault because their sites must not be graded properly.
I wrote the City weeks ago about the potential erosion of the Union Pacific railroad tracks and still have not received a reply.
This seems to be a case of bureaucrats reviewing plans for literal compliance and ignoring the dangers of real-world deficiencies. If the higher requirements in 2021 regulations are not important, why did the City adopt them?
Here is the entire text of the letter sent by Lakewood Cove residents and the City’s responses, embedded in colored type.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/8/2021
1562 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.
How to Save on Flood Mitigation
Since 2000, flood-mitigation spending in Harris County has topped $3 billion dollars. That’s through the end of the third quarter this year. Right of way (ROW) acquisition and construction represent the two largest components of that cost. ROW by itself consumed more than $1 billion and cost almost as much as construction. With saner building codes and floodplain regulations, we could have saved much of that for additional projects.
At the end of Q1, I made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) for more than 20 years of financial records. I wanted to see how much we spent, where we spent it and what we spent it on. You can find the results on the funding page of this web site. I recently requested updated numbers through the end of the third quarter. While I haven’t finished analyzing the latest numbers yet, one thing leaped out at me immediately.
ROW Costs Virtually as Much as Construction
I knew the acquisition of property for large detention basins or channel expansions was expensive. However…
As you can see from the chart below, 36 percent of all HCFCD spending on mitigation projects goes toward the acquisition of Rights of Way (ROW). Forty percent goes toward construction. And 24 percent goes toward “all other.”
What are Right-of-Way Costs?
Right-of-way costs represent the purchase of land on which HCFCD builds its projects. HCFCD can’t just build projects on someone else’s land. They need to acquire the land first. ROW acquisition can take years. Often people don’t want to leave homes and neighborhoods they may have grown up in…despite the flood risk.
Even with willing sellers, HCFCD must appraise the property, locate the owner, negotiate a price, close the sale, and demolish the property before doing anything.
Four and a half years after Harvey, about half of the Forest Cove Townhomes on Marina Drive remain standing but uninhabitable. They must all be torn down before HCFCD can revert the property to green space.
Buyouts of some properties elsewhere have taken a decade or longer.
Factors Affecting Percentages
Several factors affect the ROW percentage above.
When Projects Started
Projects that started recently may show a higher percentage of ROW costs, simply because construction may not have even started yet. Conversely, some projects that started in the 1990’s did not even have any ROW costs included in these numbers because they fell outside the period (2000 to 2021) of investigation.
Population Density
Population density also affects ROW acquisition costs. It’s more expensive to purchase land after development than before. For example, inner city land with apartments and high rises costs more than rural land. See below.
Type and Location of Density
Areas where people have built right next to the edge of bayous increase the cost of mitigation. They also increase the time it takes to complete projects. HCFCD had to buy out whole subdivisions along Halls Bayou in order to build the two giant detention ponds at US59 and Parker. The buyouts took three to five times longer than construction.
Frontier Program
Counterbalancing that, HCFCD sometimes purchases large tracts of undeveloped land in rural areas as part of its Frontier Program. That enables HCFCD to build large regional flood mitigation projects in optimal locations at a lower cost per acre without the cost or delays of buyouts. HCFCD later resells detention pond capacity to developers to make its money back. The emphasis in the Frontier Program is on preventing flooding, rather than fixing it. That requires upfront investment. But it’s also a more humane approach because people aren’t flooding multiple times before HCFCD can acquire matching grants and take action.
Opportunity for Savings
If we could get developers to leave larger easements next to creeks and bayous, it could reduce ROW-acquisition costs in the long run. It could also enhance safety for residents and the reputation of developers. Wider ROW could be marketed as greenbelts and jogging trails – salable amenities. And people are usually willing to pay a premium for flood-safe homes. So this isn’t asking developers to be totally altruistic.
Would we save a billion dollars? No.
If you look at flood damage maps of Harris County, most flooding in the last 20 years has happened inside Beltway 8. We still need to fix much of that.
But going forward, the opportunity exists to reduce that 36% gradually to something more reasonable.
How much depends on whether you can make people in surrounding counties see the floods in their future if they don’t take action now. Flooding is already a significant issue in large parts of Montgomery and Liberty Counties. Perhaps that will motivate upstream interests to cooperate with downstream interests.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/7/2021 with grateful thanks to all the men and woman who fought at Pearl Harbor
1561 Days since Hurricane Harvey