Fourth in a series of eight on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County
Since 2019, Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have harped on the need for more “equity” in flood-mitigation funding. They and some residents in their precincts allege that all the money is going to high-income watersheds while minority, low-income watersheds get “none.” Ellis repeatedly complains that Harris County Flood Control District gives those minority neighborhoods “back-of-the-bus” treatment. Garcia says he feels like he was “hit with a baseball bat.”
Unfounded Allegations of Racism in Construction Funding
In March, I became so alarmed at the allegations of racism, that I submitted a Freedom of Information Act Request to see if they were true. They aren’t. Funding data for new construction projects dating back to 2000 shows that:
Those first three articles in this series should suffice to disprove discrimination against minority, low-income watersheds. But more statistics just keep jumping out of the data.
So, today let’s compare watersheds with percentages of low-to-moderate-income (LMI) residents above and below 50%:
The low-income group has 7 watersheds, comprising 584 square miles.
The high-income group has 14 watersheds, comprising 1123 square miles.
The two groups vary radically in number and geographic size. So, to provide a valid comparison, we must evaluate them first on a per-square-mile basis. This pie chart shows how the smaller, low-income group gets triple the dollars per square mile.
On a per-square-mile basis, low-income watersheds (blue) have received 3X more capital improvement funding than high-income.
Watersheds Above/Below 50% LMI
Here are the percentages of LMI residents in each group.
Shows proportion of low-to-moderate-income residents in each watershed. Those with higher percentages actually have lower average income. So to avoid confusion, I refer to these groups as low- and high-income.
Lower Income Watersheds Get 3X More Construction Funding Per Square Mile
On a per-square mile basis, the low-income group averaged $2.5 million. The high-income group averaged only $0.8 million. See Table 2 below.
Includes dollars for funding of construction projects (not maintenance) since 2000.Remember: ABOVE 50% LMI actually means BELOW AVERGE INCOME.
When looking at funding per square mile, the low-income group averaged 3X more.
Smaller, Low-Income Group Also Receives About a Third More in Total Dollars
Comparing the total dollars (not $/square mile) received between the two groups is also illuminating.
In total dollars, the low-income group of 7 received $400 million dollars more than the high-income group of 14 since 2000. That skewed the averages back toward 3X again. See Table 3.
The small low-income group received a third more funding in total dollars since 2000. And the average per watershed was 2.6X higher than the high-income group.
But More Damage in Low-Income Group
As we have seen elsewhere in this series, dollars flow to damage. Low-income watersheds had twice the total damage despite being half the size and number.
In four major storms since 2000 (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey), the seven low-income neighborhoods had 146,832 structures damaged, compared to 70,719 for the higher income group of 14. However, on a per square mile basis, low-income group had four times as much (251 vs. 63).
Structures damaged in four major storms in the groups of watersheds listed above in Table 1. Note that these averages can conceal wide variations within groups. Cypress Creek, for instance, had 20 times more damage than several other watersheds in its group.
Together with other data in previous posts, this proves HCFCD does not discriminate against minority low-income neighborhoods in flood-mitigation spending.
Dollars flow to damage – not affluent communities.
Low-income watersheds still have ongoing HCFCD construction for flood mitigation projects. But they also have other large problems that contribute to flooding for which HCFCD is not responsible. I’m talking about issues related to street flooding such as:
Aging storm sewers with low capacity built to old development standards
Roadside drainage swales filled with sediment
Homes not elevated enough above street level
Other people and groups are responsible for fixing such problems – including the City of Houston and Harris County Precinct Commissioners themselves.
In conclusion, elected representatives have misled Harris County residents. This raises the question, “Why?” I will discuss my opinion in a future post.
*Vince Bayou omitted from the first group because it lies almost wholly within the City of Pasadena and is the City’s responsibility. Little Cypress Creek also omitted from second group because it is a newly developing area. Very few people live there and that skews statistical comparisons. HCFCD spending in Little Cypress relates to an experimental “frontier program.”
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Screen-Shot-2021-06-24-at-7.44.08-AM.png?fit=1112%2C340&ssl=13401112adminadmin2021-06-24 09:56:492021-06-24 10:05:34Low-Income Watersheds Get Three Times More Flood-Mitigation Funding Per Square Mile
Third of an eight-part series on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County
Some people and their representatives in low-to-moderate-income (LMI) watersheds have complained that they get “no” flood-mitigation funding and that the money is all going to richer watersheds. Allegedly, that’s because home values are higher there and thus favor higher benefit/cost ratios (a sort of systemic racial discrimination). But is that true? Do higher home values in a neighborhood really translate into “projects funded”? No. The allegation ignores many other factors that enter into funding, such as damage and population density. Density is two to three times higher in low-income neighborhoods and that influences damage totals. When you look at funding outcomes as opposed to a sliver of the mitigation process, low-income neighborhoods get far more money. Here’s how it breaks down.
Where Money is Really Going
Recently, I obtained flood-mitigation funding data for every watershed in Harris County via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. It sheds new light on this subject.
In addition to the quartile comparisons I did in earlier posts, I also compared the top quartile (six watersheds) to the rest with one exception in each group noted in previous posts and the footnote below.* The data showed that six watersheds with the highest percentages of LMI residents (meaning low income) have received 56.8% of HCFCD spending out of the 21 remaining watersheds since 2000.
Harris County Flood Control District data obtained via FOIA request.
A second pattern also clearly emerged from the data. Long before “equity” guidelines were put in place, HCFCD spending closely tracked flood damage. It still does. And the most damage occurred in lower-income watersheds.
In this post, I will examine both trends by looking at six watersheds with the highest percentages of LMI residents. They include Brays, Greens, Sims, Halls, Hunting and White Oak Bayous.
As a group, they:
Comprise 30.9% of the square miles in the county
Received 56.8% of total spending – $1.52 billion of the $2.6 billion spent by HCFCD since 2000.
That’s more than 15 higher income watersheds combined.
Dollars Flow to Damage
But if you stopped there, you could conclude that these six watersheds were getting more than 2-3X their fair share of funding. However, also consider that they had 144,754 out of the 222,739 structures damaged in Harris County during Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey floods.
One thing is certain: these six watersheds have not been at the “back of the bus.” They received more than $1.5 billion out of $2.6 billion invested by HCFCD since 2000.
The data DISPROVES discrimination on an income or racial basis. Money is not going disproportionately to rich neighborhoods. Far from it. It’s going disproportionately to poor and minority neighborhoods. However, that is also where the most flood damage occurred. Let’s take a closer look at each of the six low-income watersheds.
Brays Bayou:
Received 19% of total spending since 2000, but represents just 6% of the county’s area.
Received more than half a billion dollars since 2000, the most of any watershed, and about one-fifth of all flood-mitigation spending in 23 watersheds in 21 years.
Received the second most funding since Harvey ($130,685,844.43).
Got 4 times the average and 7 times the median of flood-mitigation funding for all watersheds.
It certainly seems like an outsized injection of flood-mitigation funds. But the improvements also protect some major infrastructure and employment centers including the Texas Medical Center. See this photo essay taken from the air.
Also consider that Brays had the most damage in four major storms (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey) – 32,194 structures flooded.
Brays has the fifth highest percentage of low-to-moderate income residents (58%).
HCFCD construction is on-going in this watershed.
Greens Bayou:
Commissioners Ellis and Garcia often cite Greens Bayou as a “back-of-the-bus” watershed. They also say, that if the County doesn’t fix it, “we’ll have blood on our hands.”
Greens received the 3rd most dollars since 2000 and the 2ndmost since Harvey. That’s 11% and 14% of all HCFCD spending respectively during those two time periods. Only in Harris County politics can you call second place out of 23 “back of the bus.”
But Greens also had the second most damage in four major storms (28,815 structures).
Greens Bayou has the sixth highest percentage of LMI residents in the county (57%).
HCFCD construction is also on-going in this watershed.
Halls Bayou:
Mr. Ellis and Mr. Garcia also consider Halls Bayou funding to be “back of the bus.” It comprises only about 2.4% of the county but received almost 5% of total spending since 2000. It also received:
The fourth most funding per capita ($841.77)
The third most funding per square mile ($3,031,912)
The eighth most funding since 2000 ($128 million).
Halls has the highest percentage of LMI residents (71%) in Harris County.
HCFCD construction is on-going in this watershed.
Sims Bayou:
Sims Bayou runs through the southern part of the county. It:
Ranks as the 8th largest watershed.
Received the 6th most funding since 2000 ($165,013,368)
Has the 7th largest population (310,537)
Has the 5th highest population density (3755 per sq. mi.)
Had the 6th most damage (18,122 structures)
Sounds proportional and it is.
However, these calculations do not include $254 million, which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spent on Sims between 1990 and 2015 (by itself) for a major flood-reduction project. The Corps’ contribution to Sims Bayou alone was almost 10% of all HCFCD spending since 2000 ($2.68 billion).
If you add the Federal contribution to HCFCD’s funding, Sims would have ranked second on the list of flood-mitigation dollars received since 2000. Only Brays received more.
Sims has the third highest percentage of LMI residents (65%).
Hunting Bayou
Hunting Bayou is one of the county’s smaller watersheds. It comprises 31 square miles or 1.7% of the county’s land mass. That ranks it as the 19th largest bayou out of 23. And it has the 14th largest population (78,213). Yet, since 2000, it has:
Had the seventh most damage (15,728 structures)
Received the third most dollars per capita since 2000 ($952.18)
Received the fourth most dollars per square mile ($2,402,908)
Hunting Bayou has the second highest percentage of LMI residents (69%).
HCFCD construction is on-going in this watershed.
White Oak
White Oak Bayou is the sixth largest watershed in Harris County. Yet it received 13% of the flood-mitigation funding since 2000 – $349 million, the second highest total of any watershed. It also ranked second in dollars received per square mile – $3.14 million.
But also consider that it had the third highest number of damaged structures – 24,989 in Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey floods combined.
51% of the residents in White Oak qualify as low-to-moderate income.
HCFCD construction is on-going in this watershed.
Damage-to-Dollar Rankings
“Damaged structures” and funding received had the highest correlation of any relationship I tested. For math majors, the coefficient was .86. That’s high. A perfect correlation would be 1.0. For the less technically inclined, see the table below.
Contrary to the “rich-watersheds-get-all-the-money” narrative, flood-mitigation funding, data shows that HCFCD is putting the most moneyin the hardest hit watersheds.Dollars flow to damage.
Many projects in these lower income watersheds are still under construction or preparing for it. And major storms have not yet tested many recently constructed improvements. Regardless, their residents are safer than they otherwise would be. And they can take some comfort in knowing that the system is working for them, not against them.
Posted by Bob Rehak, based on information compiled from a FOIA request and Federal Briefings
1394 days since Harvey
*Omits Vince Bayou in low-income group because it is entirely within the City of Pasadena, which has responsibility for it. Includes White Oak Bayou instead. Also omits Little Cypress, which has a very small population and is an experiment by HCFCD in preventing future flooding.
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/Six-v.-15.jpg?fit=1200%2C679&ssl=16791200adminadmin2021-06-23 10:00:382021-06-23 10:01:21Six Low-Income Watersheds Receive More Funding than 15 Higher Income Watersheds Combined
Second in a Series of Eight Articles on Flood-Mitigation Funding in Harris County
If the charges of racial and income bias in flood-mitigation funding in Harris County were true, you would expect the poorest neighborhoods to get less funding than the most affluent. But the opposite is true. They get a billion dollars more
Contrary to the “equity” narrative repeated ad nauseum in Harris County political circles, an analysis of flood-mitigation spending shows that JUST SIX low-income watersheds already:
Received a billion dollars more than six high-income watersheds since 2000
Averaged three times more funding per watershed
Data obtained from HCFCD via FOIA Request compares six highest and lowest income watersheds.These numbers include only capital improvement projects, not maintenance.
Data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request debunks the narrative that falsely claims high-income watersheds get more funding because they have higher home values. Higher home values theoretically create higher Benefit/Cost Ratios. And some political leaders claim that causes the Federal government to favor projects in affluent neighborhoods, compared to poor.
So, look through the other end of the telescope. Examine actual funding instead of the funding process. You will see that, in Harris County at least, actual flood-mitigation funding favors low-to-moderate-income (LMI) watersheds by a wide margin. If the process favors high-income watersheds, why do the low-income get a billion dollars more?
I requested from Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) the following data by watershed – broken up into various time periods:
Capital improvement funding (excluding maintenance)
Population totals
Low-to-moderate income (LMI) population
Watershed size in square Miles
Damaged structures in major storms
From that, I computed other factors such as $/square mile, population density, LMI %, LMI Rankings, etc. The data goes back to 2000, but also includes “Since Harvey.”
Comparing the quartiles for lowest- and highest-income watersheds since 2000 showed that HCFCD spent more than $1.5 billion dollars in six low-income watersheds, but only $472 million in six high-income watersheds.
The lowest income quartile received a billion dollars more than the highest. There’s just no truth to the “rich-neighborhoods-get-all-the-funding” story.
Terminology and Methodology
Before going further, let’s clarify some terms. LMI means Low-to-Moderate Income.
High LMI means watersheds with a high percentage of low-to-moderate income residents.
Low LMI means watersheds with a low percentage of low-to-moderate income residents, which actually means High Income.
Instead of bogging readers down in confusing double negatives, I will simply use the terms “High Income” and “Low Income” for this discussion.
The numbers in the lists below represent the percentages of people with incomes below the average for the region. So, with 16% LMI, Little Cypress has 84% of residents making above the average. That’s why it ranks as “higher income” even though it has a lower LMI percentage.
To create each group of six, I started with seven. That’s because each included a statistical anomaly explained below.
Watersheds with the highest income (lowest LMI ranking) include:
Little Cypress (16%)*
Barker (22%)
Cypress Creek (26%)
Armand (26%)
Willow Creek (27%)
Jackson (30%)
Spring Creek (31%)
The seven with the lowest income (highest LMI ranking) include:
Halls (71%)
Hunting (69%)
Sims (65%)
Vince (62%)*
Brays (58%)
Greens (57%)
White Oak (51%)
*Note: For this analysis I substituted Spring Creek for Little Cypress because Little Cypress is a statistical anomaly. Harris County is buying vacant land there along creeks to prevent future flooding as part of their “frontier program.” But the small number of people who currently live in the Little Cypress watershed skews most statistical comparisons. I also excluded Vince in the low-income category because it lies almost wholly within the City of Pasadena, which is responsible for it.
Summary of High-Level Findings
The six low-income watersheds received $1.52 billion since 2000. But the six high-income watersheds received $472 million – more than billion dollars less.
Let’s also compare total spending since 2000 per square mile in each group.
Low-income watersheds got $2.8 million/sq. mi.
High-income watersheds received $0.9 million/sq. mi.
Again, the 3X advantage for the low-income quartile held up.
Finally, let’s compare average dollars per watershed for all groups since 2000 (not adjusted by square mileage). The 3X advantage held up yet again for the low-income group, which also more than DOUBLED the countywide average. See below.
These comparisons make compelling evidence that the political narrative is misleading! However, these numbers don’t tell the whole truth either.
Low-income watersheds had 7X more damaged structures in four major floods (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey) – 144,754 vs. 19,677.
If there’s one truth about flood-mitigation funding in Harris County, it’s that “dollars flow to damage.” The following tables show funding, damage and LMI% rankings for both income groups.
Only one of the watersheds in the high-income group received more funding than Hunting, the lowest in the low-income group. (I will explore this further in article #7 in this series.)
Reasons for Rankings
If you understand Houston neighborhoods, the reason for these rankings becomes apparent when you look at a watershed map. Here are the high-income watersheds…
High-income watersheds are generally newer and built to higher standards on the periphery of the City. They also generally have fewer developments beyond them to create flooding issues. Not one is predominantly inside the Beltway.
Now, let’s look at the low-income watersheds.
Each low-income watersheds IS predominantly inside the Beltway. Homes and drainage in these older areas are not built to current standards.
Role of Density in Flooding and Flood-Mitigation Funding
Another huge disparity exists between these two groups of watersheds: population density.
1,517 per square mile for the high-income group
3,912 for the low-income – 2.6X more.
Higher density brings with it more impermeable surface; more and faster runoff; more crowding of floodplains; plus, less room for detention facilities, channel expansion and wetlands. Often, wetlands are destroyed to accommodate higher density.
Very high density can also escalate flood-mitigation costs and delay flood-mitigation construction projects. Sometimes, homes or even entire subdivisions must be “bought out” to widen ditches or install detention ponds. For an example, see this post about Halls Bayou.
Also understand that when homes must give way to flood-mitigation projects, the projects often generate significant pushback from people being displaced.
Moving Forward, Let’s Ask the Right Questions
The statistics in this post disprove racial bias in funding. However, inner-city, minority residents are more susceptible to flooding than their suburban counterparts. But it’s largely because of where they choose to live for whatever reason: affordability, proximity to work, transportation, etc. Sometimes people just have no options, despite flooding. (I’ll explore this subject more in #7 of this series.)
To help residents in these low-income areas, HCFCD is already spending 3X more than it does in high-income areas. This raises the question, “Are we underfunding some watersheds?”
As development pushes past today’s high-income watersheds, they too will come under pressure from even newer developments beyond the Grand Parkway. It’s already starting to happen to the west, north and northeast. Those along Cypress Creek may first to feel the full brunt on this (see rankings above).
To solve the problems that really plague us, we need to bury the racial rhetoric, realize the true nature of the problems, and work together on solutions.
The current inflammatory “equity” discourse only seems to distract and divide people. The real question we should ask ourselves is, “How can we upgrade the drainage infrastructure (streets and storm sewers) in neighborhoods that are 60 – 70 years old?” I’ll discuss that more in the seventh article in this series.
If leaders truly want to reduce flood risk, then the discussion needs to focus on how best to support the professionals and organizations toiling to protect all residents from the next flood.
If the conversation does not change, then that will prove flood prevention is not really a priority for Harris County leadership.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/22/2021 based on data received from a FOIA request
1393 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/Hi-Low-Quartiles-Since-2K.jpg?fit=1200%2C716&ssl=17161200adminadmin2021-06-22 11:32:182021-06-22 14:52:43Six Low-Income Watersheds Receive One Billion Dollars More than Six High-Income Watersheds
Low-Income Watersheds Get Three Times More Flood-Mitigation Funding Per Square Mile
Fourth in a series of eight on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County
Since 2019, Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have harped on the need for more “equity” in flood-mitigation funding. They and some residents in their precincts allege that all the money is going to high-income watersheds while minority, low-income watersheds get “none.” Ellis repeatedly complains that Harris County Flood Control District gives those minority neighborhoods “back-of-the-bus” treatment. Garcia says he feels like he was “hit with a baseball bat.”
Unfounded Allegations of Racism in Construction Funding
In March, I became so alarmed at the allegations of racism, that I submitted a Freedom of Information Act Request to see if they were true. They aren’t. Funding data for new construction projects dating back to 2000 shows that:
Those first three articles in this series should suffice to disprove discrimination against minority, low-income watersheds. But more statistics just keep jumping out of the data.
So, today let’s compare watersheds with percentages of low-to-moderate-income (LMI) residents above and below 50%:
The two groups vary radically in number and geographic size. So, to provide a valid comparison, we must evaluate them first on a per-square-mile basis. This pie chart shows how the smaller, low-income group gets triple the dollars per square mile.
Watersheds Above/Below 50% LMI
Here are the percentages of LMI residents in each group.
Lower Income Watersheds Get 3X More Construction Funding Per Square Mile
On a per-square mile basis, the low-income group averaged $2.5 million. The high-income group averaged only $0.8 million. See Table 2 below.
Smaller, Low-Income Group Also Receives About a Third More in Total Dollars
Comparing the total dollars (not $/square mile) received between the two groups is also illuminating.
In total dollars, the low-income group of 7 received $400 million dollars more than the high-income group of 14 since 2000. That skewed the averages back toward 3X again. See Table 3.
But More Damage in Low-Income Group
As we have seen elsewhere in this series, dollars flow to damage. Low-income watersheds had twice the total damage despite being half the size and number.
In four major storms since 2000 (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey), the seven low-income neighborhoods had 146,832 structures damaged, compared to 70,719 for the higher income group of 14. However, on a per square mile basis, low-income group had four times as much (251 vs. 63).
So, the hardest hit watersheds already receive the most funding. By a wide margin. And they have since at least 2000.
Together with other data in previous posts, this proves HCFCD does not discriminate against minority low-income neighborhoods in flood-mitigation spending.
Low-income watersheds still have ongoing HCFCD construction for flood mitigation projects. But they also have other large problems that contribute to flooding for which HCFCD is not responsible. I’m talking about issues related to street flooding such as:
Other people and groups are responsible for fixing such problems – including the City of Houston and Harris County Precinct Commissioners themselves.
In conclusion, elected representatives have misled Harris County residents. This raises the question, “Why?” I will discuss my opinion in a future post.
For More Information
For more information, see:
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/24/2021
1395 Days since Hurricane Harvey
*Vince Bayou omitted from the first group because it lies almost wholly within the City of Pasadena and is the City’s responsibility. Little Cypress Creek also omitted from second group because it is a newly developing area. Very few people live there and that skews statistical comparisons. HCFCD spending in Little Cypress relates to an experimental “frontier program.”
Six Low-Income Watersheds Receive More Funding than 15 Higher Income Watersheds Combined
Third of an eight-part series on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County
Some people and their representatives in low-to-moderate-income (LMI) watersheds have complained that they get “no” flood-mitigation funding and that the money is all going to richer watersheds. Allegedly, that’s because home values are higher there and thus favor higher benefit/cost ratios (a sort of systemic racial discrimination). But is that true? Do higher home values in a neighborhood really translate into “projects funded”? No. The allegation ignores many other factors that enter into funding, such as damage and population density. Density is two to three times higher in low-income neighborhoods and that influences damage totals. When you look at funding outcomes as opposed to a sliver of the mitigation process, low-income neighborhoods get far more money. Here’s how it breaks down.
Where Money is Really Going
Recently, I obtained flood-mitigation funding data for every watershed in Harris County via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. It sheds new light on this subject.
In addition to the quartile comparisons I did in earlier posts, I also compared the top quartile (six watersheds) to the rest with one exception in each group noted in previous posts and the footnote below.* The data showed that six watersheds with the highest percentages of LMI residents (meaning low income) have received 56.8% of HCFCD spending out of the 21 remaining watersheds since 2000.
In this post, I will examine both trends by looking at six watersheds with the highest percentages of LMI residents. They include Brays, Greens, Sims, Halls, Hunting and White Oak Bayous.
As a group, they:
That’s more than 15 higher income watersheds combined.
Dollars Flow to Damage
But if you stopped there, you could conclude that these six watersheds were getting more than 2-3X their fair share of funding. However, also consider that they had 144,754 out of the 222,739 structures damaged in Harris County during Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey floods.
One thing is certain: these six watersheds have not been at the “back of the bus.” They received more than $1.5 billion out of $2.6 billion invested by HCFCD since 2000.
The data DISPROVES discrimination on an income or racial basis. Money is not going disproportionately to rich neighborhoods. Far from it. It’s going disproportionately to poor and minority neighborhoods. However, that is also where the most flood damage occurred. Let’s take a closer look at each of the six low-income watersheds.
Brays Bayou:
It certainly seems like an outsized injection of flood-mitigation funds. But the improvements also protect some major infrastructure and employment centers including the Texas Medical Center. See this photo essay taken from the air.
Also consider that Brays had the most damage in four major storms (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey) – 32,194 structures flooded.
Brays has the fifth highest percentage of low-to-moderate income residents (58%).
HCFCD construction is on-going in this watershed.
Greens Bayou:
Commissioners Ellis and Garcia often cite Greens Bayou as a “back-of-the-bus” watershed. They also say, that if the County doesn’t fix it, “we’ll have blood on our hands.”
Greens received the 3rd most dollars since 2000 and the 2nd most since Harvey. That’s 11% and 14% of all HCFCD spending respectively during those two time periods. Only in Harris County politics can you call second place out of 23 “back of the bus.”
But Greens also had the second most damage in four major storms (28,815 structures).
Greens Bayou has the sixth highest percentage of LMI residents in the county (57%).
HCFCD construction is also on-going in this watershed.
Halls Bayou:
Mr. Ellis and Mr. Garcia also consider Halls Bayou funding to be “back of the bus.” It comprises only about 2.4% of the county but received almost 5% of total spending since 2000. It also received:
Residents still believe they received “nothing,” but I photographed eight large detention ponds recently completed or under construction. Four are right next to US 59.
Halls has the highest percentage of LMI residents (71%) in Harris County.
HCFCD construction is on-going in this watershed.
Sims Bayou:
Sims Bayou runs through the southern part of the county. It:
Sounds proportional and it is.
However, these calculations do not include $254 million, which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spent on Sims between 1990 and 2015 (by itself) for a major flood-reduction project. The Corps’ contribution to Sims Bayou alone was almost 10% of all HCFCD spending since 2000 ($2.68 billion).
Sims has the third highest percentage of LMI residents (65%).
Hunting Bayou
Hunting Bayou is one of the county’s smaller watersheds. It comprises 31 square miles or 1.7% of the county’s land mass. That ranks it as the 19th largest bayou out of 23. And it has the 14th largest population (78,213). Yet, since 2000, it has:
Hunting Bayou has the second highest percentage of LMI residents (69%).
HCFCD construction is on-going in this watershed.
White Oak
White Oak Bayou is the sixth largest watershed in Harris County. Yet it received 13% of the flood-mitigation funding since 2000 – $349 million, the second highest total of any watershed. It also ranked second in dollars received per square mile – $3.14 million.
But also consider that it had the third highest number of damaged structures – 24,989 in Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey floods combined.
51% of the residents in White Oak qualify as low-to-moderate income.
HCFCD construction is on-going in this watershed.
Damage-to-Dollar Rankings
“Damaged structures” and funding received had the highest correlation of any relationship I tested. For math majors, the coefficient was .86. That’s high. A perfect correlation would be 1.0. For the less technically inclined, see the table below.
Many projects in these lower income watersheds are still under construction or preparing for it. And major storms have not yet tested many recently constructed improvements. Regardless, their residents are safer than they otherwise would be. And they can take some comfort in knowing that the system is working for them, not against them.
For more information, see:
Posted by Bob Rehak, based on information compiled from a FOIA request and Federal Briefings
1394 days since Harvey
*Omits Vince Bayou in low-income group because it is entirely within the City of Pasadena, which has responsibility for it. Includes White Oak Bayou instead. Also omits Little Cypress, which has a very small population and is an experiment by HCFCD in preventing future flooding.
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.
Six Low-Income Watersheds Receive One Billion Dollars More than Six High-Income Watersheds
Second in a Series of Eight Articles on Flood-Mitigation Funding in Harris County
If the charges of racial and income bias in flood-mitigation funding in Harris County were true, you would expect the poorest neighborhoods to get less funding than the most affluent. But the opposite is true. They get a billion dollars more
Contrary to the “equity” narrative repeated ad nauseum in Harris County political circles, an analysis of flood-mitigation spending shows that JUST SIX low-income watersheds already:
Data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request debunks the narrative that falsely claims high-income watersheds get more funding because they have higher home values. Higher home values theoretically create higher Benefit/Cost Ratios. And some political leaders claim that causes the Federal government to favor projects in affluent neighborhoods, compared to poor.
However, that argument ignores dozens of other factors that enter into grant funding.
So, look through the other end of the telescope. Examine actual funding instead of the funding process. You will see that, in Harris County at least, actual flood-mitigation funding favors low-to-moderate-income (LMI) watersheds by a wide margin. If the process favors high-income watersheds, why do the low-income get a billion dollars more?
Analysis Reveals Funding Favors Low-Income Neighborhoods
I requested from Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) the following data by watershed – broken up into various time periods:
From that, I computed other factors such as $/square mile, population density, LMI %, LMI Rankings, etc. The data goes back to 2000, but also includes “Since Harvey.”
Comparing the quartiles for lowest- and highest-income watersheds since 2000 showed that HCFCD spent more than $1.5 billion dollars in six low-income watersheds, but only $472 million in six high-income watersheds.
Terminology and Methodology
Before going further, let’s clarify some terms. LMI means Low-to-Moderate Income.
Instead of bogging readers down in confusing double negatives, I will simply use the terms “High Income” and “Low Income” for this discussion.
The numbers in the lists below represent the percentages of people with incomes below the average for the region. So, with 16% LMI, Little Cypress has 84% of residents making above the average. That’s why it ranks as “higher income” even though it has a lower LMI percentage.
To create each group of six, I started with seven. That’s because each included a statistical anomaly explained below.
Watersheds with the highest income (lowest LMI ranking) include:
The seven with the lowest income (highest LMI ranking) include:
*Note: For this analysis I substituted Spring Creek for Little Cypress because Little Cypress is a statistical anomaly. Harris County is buying vacant land there along creeks to prevent future flooding as part of their “frontier program.” But the small number of people who currently live in the Little Cypress watershed skews most statistical comparisons. I also excluded Vince in the low-income category because it lies almost wholly within the City of Pasadena, which is responsible for it.
Summary of High-Level Findings
The six low-income watersheds received $1.52 billion since 2000. But the six high-income watersheds received $472 million – more than billion dollars less.
Let’s also compare total spending since 2000 per square mile in each group.
Again, the 3X advantage for the low-income quartile held up.
Finally, let’s compare average dollars per watershed for all groups since 2000 (not adjusted by square mileage). The 3X advantage held up yet again for the low-income group, which also more than DOUBLED the countywide average. See below.
These comparisons make compelling evidence that the political narrative is misleading! However, these numbers don’t tell the whole truth either.
If there’s one truth about flood-mitigation funding in Harris County, it’s that “dollars flow to damage.” The following tables show funding, damage and LMI% rankings for both income groups.
Only one of the watersheds in the high-income group received more funding than Hunting, the lowest in the low-income group. (I will explore this further in article #7 in this series.)
Reasons for Rankings
If you understand Houston neighborhoods, the reason for these rankings becomes apparent when you look at a watershed map. Here are the high-income watersheds…
Now, let’s look at the low-income watersheds.
Homes and drainage in these older areas are not built to current standards.
Role of Density in Flooding and Flood-Mitigation Funding
Another huge disparity exists between these two groups of watersheds: population density.
Higher density brings with it more impermeable surface; more and faster runoff; more crowding of floodplains; plus, less room for detention facilities, channel expansion and wetlands. Often, wetlands are destroyed to accommodate higher density.
Very high density can also escalate flood-mitigation costs and delay flood-mitigation construction projects. Sometimes, homes or even entire subdivisions must be “bought out” to widen ditches or install detention ponds. For an example, see this post about Halls Bayou.
Also understand that when homes must give way to flood-mitigation projects, the projects often generate significant pushback from people being displaced.
Moving Forward, Let’s Ask the Right Questions
The statistics in this post disprove racial bias in funding. However, inner-city, minority residents are more susceptible to flooding than their suburban counterparts. But it’s largely because of where they choose to live for whatever reason: affordability, proximity to work, transportation, etc. Sometimes people just have no options, despite flooding. (I’ll explore this subject more in #7 of this series.)
As development pushes past today’s high-income watersheds, they too will come under pressure from even newer developments beyond the Grand Parkway. It’s already starting to happen to the west, north and northeast. Those along Cypress Creek may first to feel the full brunt on this (see rankings above).
To solve the problems that really plague us, we need to bury the racial rhetoric, realize the true nature of the problems, and work together on solutions.
The current inflammatory “equity” discourse only seems to distract and divide people. The real question we should ask ourselves is, “How can we upgrade the drainage infrastructure (streets and storm sewers) in neighborhoods that are 60 – 70 years old?” I’ll discuss that more in the seventh article in this series.
If leaders truly want to reduce flood risk, then the discussion needs to focus on how best to support the professionals and organizations toiling to protect all residents from the next flood.
If the conversation does not change, then that will prove flood prevention is not really a priority for Harris County leadership.
For More Information on Flood-Mitigation Funding
For more information, see:
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/22/2021 based on data received from a FOIA request
1393 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.