The new county administrator, David Berry, put an item on the Commissioners Court Agenda for next Tuesday that would modify the formula for allocating flood-bond spending among watersheds – again. Item #21-6881 (17th on the agenda) reads: “Request for discussion and possible action to modify the previously adopted “Prioritization Framework for the Implementation of the Harris County Flood Control District 2018 Bond Program” (Prioritization Framework).”
At the time, Judge Lina Hidalgo and Commissioner Adrian Garcia swore that the guidelines would only affect the ORDER in which Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) initiated bond projects and that they would cancel no bond projects.
Changes included eliminating flood-risk reduction from consideration (formerly 25% in original formula). They also eliminated “existing conditions” as a weighting factor (formerly 20%). So for instance, if a creek near you flooded every other year and someone else lived near a creek that only flooded every 25 years, that risk would be eliminated from comparison for funding purposes.
Third Change in Priorities Attempted
Later, in October, as part of the redistricting process, Adrian Garcia attempted to shift money from part of his old district to a new area that he would inherit. The switch would have deprived Cedar Bayou of $191 million in previously allocated flood-bond funds. Luckily Commissioner Cagle reminded Judge Hidalgo of her promise and she voted with Republicans on that issue to defeat it.
Although Garcia lost that particular motion, before the debate ended, he made a demand – that HCFCD address flooding in the 500-year flood plain, not just the 100-year. This is a complex issue. Usually, homes flooding OUTSIDE the 100-year floodplain – on less than 100-year rains – indicates local (street) drainage systems are deficient.
Such flooding is a common complaint in large parts of Northeast Houston. See the reason why below.
I photographed hundreds of ditches like these while driving around NE Houston for an entire day in June this year.
HCFCD doesn’t build or maintain street drainage systems. That is the job of cities and precinct commissioners. Flood-bond spending was never intended to cover such repairs. So now, if flood bond money is forced to stretch to cover them, something else must give.
Garcia’s demand was really a veiled attempt to have flood-bond spending cover part of his budget. And in fact, that demand showed up in the…
Fourth Potential Change in Priorities
In my opinion, this latest proposal has the potential to cancel projects and shift money between watersheds. However, Berry’s office does not address either of those possibilities in backup materials provided to Commissioners and the public.
Berry says of the changes to the equity framework, “We are proposing a number of modifications to improve the Framework to more effectively and more equitably allocate money from the Flood Resilience Trust, as well as to help prioritize new projects not included in the 2018 Bond Program.”
Key changes include:
Placing greater emphasis on the number of people that a project benefits.
Excluding partnership funding
Addressing flooding both inside and outside of the mapped 100-year floodplain
Here’s my take on these.
Number of People
While it’s always good to help the greatest number of people possible, in Harris County, most people live inside Beltway 8. That places areas outside Beltway 8 at a disadvantage – especially those in rapidly growing areas, for instance near the Grand Parkway.
It also places emphasis on flood mitigation at the expense of flood prevention. In that sense, it emphasizes short-term as opposed to long-term gains.
As the Grand Parkway builds around to the east, we have only to look at flooding on the west side to see the future on the east. This measure, if adopted, would be like a doctor who only treats disease and ignores disease prevention. Both are important.
Harris County’s Frontier program is currently buying up land on the periphery of the county in the Little Cypress Creek watershed in an attempt to prevent rapidly developing areas from inundating current residents downstream. We could use more of that! It’s much less expensive and more humane in the long run than waiting until after people flood to do something.
Excluding Partnership Funding
Approximately half of total flood-bond spending relied on Partnership Funding from sources such as FEMA, HUD and the Texas Water Development Board.
Voters actually only approved $2.5 billion in flood bonds. Officials at the time counted on another $2,389,261,250 in partner funds (grants) to complete the list of flood-bond projects. However, if this motion passes, we will no longer consider potential HUD funding. We’ll just pay cash out of the flood bond or flood resilience trust for projects in low-income neighborhoods, some of which have a 90% match for a 10% local share. Then, when the $2.5 billion runs out, the people with uncompleted projects (those that started last) won’t even be eligible for HUD funding, because they don’t live in low-to-moderate income neighborhoods with a high social-vulnerability index.
Basically, Berry’s proposal could increase out-of-pocket costs up to 9X for a large portion of the flood bond.
Inside AND Outside 100-year Floodplain
As previously mentioned, there’s not enough money in the flood bond to shift responsibility for street flooding to HCFCD, Even with the flood-resilience trust. Something has to give.
That something will likely be projects that are still in the study phase where right-of-way acquisition and construction have not yet started. Hmmm. Guess who that is!
A spokeswoman for the GLO said she expects HUD to rule on $750 million in grants to Harris County in January. That could make all of this juggling a tempest in a teapot. So why the rush?
Belly Laugh of Day
Mr Berry also proposed a new “Open Data Policy” for the County under the guise of providing more transparency (Agenda Item #20).
He provides three pieces of backup to explain it:
Legislation Text – which doesn’t contain the text of the proposed motion.
Text of new County Administrator’s proposed legislation on “open data,” AKA transparency.
As if to underscore Mr. Berry’s commitment to transparency, he has placed yet another item on the Agenda – #119. It would take $20 million out of the flood resilience trust for engineering studies for projects that he considers high priorities. But he never describes what the projects are. Nor does he disclose who would get the $20 million.
So much for transparency!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/10/2021 based on the agenda for the next Harris County Commissioners Court meeting.
1164 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/2021/06/MultiBlockages.jpg?fit=1440%2C960&ssl=19601440adminadmin2021-12-10 19:54:252022-01-28 15:43:20New County Administrator Moves to Modify Formula for Allocating Flood–Bond Spending – Again
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
New County Administrator Moves to Modify Formula for Allocating Flood–Bond Spending – Again
The new county administrator, David Berry, put an item on the Commissioners Court Agenda for next Tuesday that would modify the formula for allocating flood-bond spending among watersheds – again. Item #21-6881 (17th on the agenda) reads: “Request for discussion and possible action to modify the previously adopted “Prioritization Framework for the Implementation of the Harris County Flood Control District 2018 Bond Program” (Prioritization Framework).”
First Change in Flood-Bond Spending Priorities
Commissioners adopted the “Equity Prioritization Framework” in 2019, a year after the flood bond passed. That was the first change.
At the time, Judge Lina Hidalgo and Commissioner Adrian Garcia swore that the guidelines would only affect the ORDER in which Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) initiated bond projects and that they would cancel no bond projects.
Second Change in Priorities
Then in June this year, Commissioner’s Court changed the “weight” given to elements in the flood-bond spending formula when they created the Flood Resilience Trust. They created the Trust with money from other departments, such as engineering and toll roads, so that low-income watersheds wouldn’t have to wait on HUD funding (which isn’t guaranteed).
Changes included eliminating flood-risk reduction from consideration (formerly 25% in original formula). They also eliminated “existing conditions” as a weighting factor (formerly 20%). So for instance, if a creek near you flooded every other year and someone else lived near a creek that only flooded every 25 years, that risk would be eliminated from comparison for funding purposes.
Third Change in Priorities Attempted
Later, in October, as part of the redistricting process, Adrian Garcia attempted to shift money from part of his old district to a new area that he would inherit. The switch would have deprived Cedar Bayou of $191 million in previously allocated flood-bond funds. Luckily Commissioner Cagle reminded Judge Hidalgo of her promise and she voted with Republicans on that issue to defeat it.
Although Garcia lost that particular motion, before the debate ended, he made a demand – that HCFCD address flooding in the 500-year flood plain, not just the 100-year. This is a complex issue. Usually, homes flooding OUTSIDE the 100-year floodplain – on less than 100-year rains – indicates local (street) drainage systems are deficient.
Such flooding is a common complaint in large parts of Northeast Houston. See the reason why below.
HCFCD doesn’t build or maintain street drainage systems. That is the job of cities and precinct commissioners. Flood-bond spending was never intended to cover such repairs. So now, if flood bond money is forced to stretch to cover them, something else must give.
Garcia’s demand was really a veiled attempt to have flood-bond spending cover part of his budget. And in fact, that demand showed up in the…
Fourth Potential Change in Priorities
In my opinion, this latest proposal has the potential to cancel projects and shift money between watersheds. However, Berry’s office does not address either of those possibilities in backup materials provided to Commissioners and the public.
Here is the entire text of the proposal sent to commissioners by Berry. And here is some backup documentation.
Berry says of the changes to the equity framework, “We are proposing a number of modifications to improve the Framework to more effectively and more equitably allocate money from the Flood Resilience Trust, as well as to help prioritize new projects not included in the 2018 Bond Program.”
Key changes include:
Here’s my take on these.
Number of People
While it’s always good to help the greatest number of people possible, in Harris County, most people live inside Beltway 8. That places areas outside Beltway 8 at a disadvantage – especially those in rapidly growing areas, for instance near the Grand Parkway.
It also places emphasis on flood mitigation at the expense of flood prevention. In that sense, it emphasizes short-term as opposed to long-term gains.
As the Grand Parkway builds around to the east, we have only to look at flooding on the west side to see the future on the east. This measure, if adopted, would be like a doctor who only treats disease and ignores disease prevention. Both are important.
Harris County’s Frontier program is currently buying up land on the periphery of the county in the Little Cypress Creek watershed in an attempt to prevent rapidly developing areas from inundating current residents downstream. We could use more of that! It’s much less expensive and more humane in the long run than waiting until after people flood to do something.
Excluding Partnership Funding
Approximately half of total flood-bond spending relied on Partnership Funding from sources such as FEMA, HUD and the Texas Water Development Board.
Voters actually only approved $2.5 billion in flood bonds. Officials at the time counted on another $2,389,261,250 in partner funds (grants) to complete the list of flood-bond projects. However, if this motion passes, we will no longer consider potential HUD funding. We’ll just pay cash out of the flood bond or flood resilience trust for projects in low-income neighborhoods, some of which have a 90% match for a 10% local share. Then, when the $2.5 billion runs out, the people with uncompleted projects (those that started last) won’t even be eligible for HUD funding, because they don’t live in low-to-moderate income neighborhoods with a high social-vulnerability index.
Inside AND Outside 100-year Floodplain
As previously mentioned, there’s not enough money in the flood bond to shift responsibility for street flooding to HCFCD, Even with the flood-resilience trust. Something has to give.
That something will likely be projects that are still in the study phase where right-of-way acquisition and construction have not yet started. Hmmm. Guess who that is!
Where Will Extra Money Come From?
Berry maintains at the end of his proposal that all of the projects in the bond have already started. True dat! But he also says that the new guidelines will determine how the flood resilience trust is used, without mentioning the potential shortfall in that.
A spokeswoman for the GLO said she expects HUD to rule on $750 million in grants to Harris County in January. That could make all of this juggling a tempest in a teapot. So why the rush?
Belly Laugh of Day
Mr Berry also proposed a new “Open Data Policy” for the County under the guise of providing more transparency (Agenda Item #20).
He provides three pieces of backup to explain it:
Legislation Text – which doesn’t contain the text of the proposed motion.
Legislation Details WITH Text – a duplicate of the file above.
Legislation Details – a blank page. See below.
As if to underscore Mr. Berry’s commitment to transparency, he has placed yet another item on the Agenda – #119. It would take $20 million out of the flood resilience trust for engineering studies for projects that he considers high priorities. But he never describes what the projects are. Nor does he disclose who would get the $20 million.
So much for transparency!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/10/2021 based on the agenda for the next Harris County Commissioners Court meeting.
1164 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.
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.