Instead, regular smaller rains kept the lake close to its monthly averages. Neither drought nor excessive heat caused lake levels, property values, business or tax revenues to plummet. Everything functioned much as it normally has since Lake Conroe was built in 1973.
Lake Stayed Near Monthly Averages
In the two months between April 1 and May 31, the lake only dropped below 200 feet by an inch or two for three or four days and then promptly refilled. In fact, at the end of May, 2.5 inches of rain caused the lake to rise above its seasonal norm, prompting a second release.
Two releases and smaller, spread-out rains kept the Lake Houston Area safe and Lake Conroe close to its monthly averages(200.32 for April and 200.44 for May; see below).Source: SJRA Board Presentation 7/23/20. Lake Conroe seasonal levels by month for 46 years. In April and May, Lake Conroe averages 200.32 and 200.44 respectively.Source SJRA Board Presentation.
During that time, the Lake Houston Area never flooded. Yet Lake Conroe was above its monthly average for the first three weeks of April. And it was only down about three inches for about three weeks in May.
The assertion that Lake Conroe is “normally” at 201 is a myth. That is the level at which the SJRA normally starts releases. Due to evaporation, which can take an inch a day, the lake is almost always well below that. A more accurate term for 201 would be “full pool.”
River Levels Up Slightly, but No Flooding
West Fork river levels rarely rose more than 2 or 3 feet even when rainfall was added to the release rate from Lake Conroe.
Release rates averaged about 600 cubic feet per second (cfs) and rarely exceeded 1000 cfs.
If the exercise proved anything, it was that releasing at those rates didn’t flood anyone.
River levels vs. rainfall for the last two weeks of the spring lowering.Source: SJRA Board Presentation 7/23/20.
Fall Lowering Starts This Saturday
The Houston Area lucked out with Hanna. Had the storm veered towards us, we would have received the torrential rains that swamped the Valley.
This fall, the lowering will be split into two phases: to 200 feet in August and 199.5 in September. The City of Houston has the right to call for an additional half foot in the event of a named storm.
Restatement of SJRA lake lowering policy for this year.Source: SJRA Board Presentation 7/23/20.
Even though Hanna missed us and Gonzalo fizzled, the next storm may not.
Finally, note that the target level for August (200 feet) is about an inch ABOVE the normal monthly average. So if evaporation does its job, the SJRA will not have to lower the lake.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/27/2020
1063 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Release-Vs.-Lake-Levels.jpg?fit=1500%2C836&ssl=18361500adminadmin2020-07-27 16:12:472020-07-27 16:12:58SJRA Report on Spring Lowering of Lake Conroe
The New York Times ran a story on flood-bond spending, but forgot to look at where the budget to date has gone.
The story by Christopher Flavelle was titled, “A Climate Plan in Texas Focuses on Minorities. Not Everyone Likes It.” It outlined arguments on each side of the equity debate in flood-bond spending. From a balance point of view, it did a great job. However, it came up short in two areas.
Problems with Article
First, the headline misleads.This isn’t about climate. The story is about how to distribute flood-bond dollars equitably.
Second, it makes no mention of where flood-bond dollars to date have actually gone. Nor does it mention historical spending except in a generalized way. It implies poor people got none; rich people got it all. By avoiding research into actual current and historical spending, it perpetuated myths that do little to protect people from flooding.
Had he bothered to check historical or federal spending, he might have found an even more exaggerated pattern.
Trap Laid by Ellis
Mr. Clavelle fell into the trap that Commissioner Ellis laid. In effect, the argument goes like this. “Because homes in poor neighborhoods cost less than those in rich neighborhoods, it brings down the benefit/cost ratio for poor neighborhoods. FEMA considers that ratio in grant requests. That disadvantages grants for poor neighborhoods and perpetuates a downward cycle.”
That’s literally true – if you look only at FEMA grants. But it’s the exact opposite for HUD grants which heavily favor disadvantaged neighborhoods. Mr. Clavelle fails to mention that. As do Mr. Ellis and his surrogates whenever they talk on this subject.
Approximately 70% of those HUD grants MUST go to disadvantaged neighborhoods. The actual percentage varies by storm and type of grant. After Harvey, Harris County received a billion dollars. And the City of Houston received $1.1 billion. Together, that’s almost as much money as in the $2.5-billion flood bond. And there are still billions of additional dollars available from HUD through the General Land Office.
Preserve Your Community
If more of this money continues to go south, the Lake Houston Area is sunk in the next big storm.
The County Judge’s office is inviting the public to share their thoughts and ideas on the proposed draft bylaws of the Community Resilience Task Force. You can register your opinion from now until July 30th, 2020, via one of the following methods:
Email CRTF@cjo.hctx.net and submit comments digitally, beginning July 21
Join a virtual focus group via Zoom. After registering, participants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
Please express your opinions to the county judge. Nothing is more important to the future of the Lake Houston Area than achieving more balance in flood-bond spending.
Some Key Facts to Consider
Some key points I intend to make:
79% of flood bond projects to date have gone to neighborhoods that rate high on the social vulnerability index leaving only 21% to everyone else. We need to tweak the formula to achieve greater balance.
The argument that FEMA’s emphasis on Benefit/Cost Ratios disadvantages minority neighborhoods ignores the fact that billions of dollars in HUD grants advantage minority neighborhoods. Focusing only on one without acknowledging the other is intellectually dishonest.
HCFCD and USACE have historically underfunded flood mitigation projects in the Lake Houston Area. In the history of HCFCD, the District has not developed ONE USACE-funded project in this area.
For More Information
For more information on the “equity bias,” see this series on “Where Flood Mitigation Dollars Have Really Gone.” It was developed a year ago so the focus is on historical spending.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/HumbleFloodFromHCFCD-e1761946748900.jpg?fit=1100%2C821&ssl=18211100adminadmin2020-07-25 20:50:062020-07-25 21:48:15NY Times Covers Harris County Flood-Bond Spending, but Omits Spending Data
Imagine you pull up to a stoplight and two needy people approach you for a handout. You want to help, but have only $1 in your pocket.
Do you give the dollar to the person who has not eaten for the longest time? Or to the person from the zip code with the highest percentage of minorities and lowest average household income?
As you may have guessed, the people at the stoplight are a metaphor for flood victims.
More Needs than Dollars
Harris County doesn’t have enough dollars to build every flood mitigation project that everyone needs. Flood mitigation requires tough choices.
So the County is setting up a supposedly unbiased task force to decide whom to help. But its composition will be biased toward people who believe flood bond money should favor low income, minority neighborhoods, i.e., the constituents of the three politicians pushing the task force (Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia).
Stacking the Jury
Look at the proposed overview and bylaws for the Community Resilience Task Force. You will see that they embed the concepts of equity, social justice, and social vulnerability into every recommendation the task force will make. For flood mitigation. Housing. Health. Construction. Urban planning. And more. For the next 30 years!
Proposed bylaws for the task force explicitly state that the members MUST demonstrate:
An interest in “equitable” flood mitigation.
Interest in socioeconomic and demographic factors that affect resilience.
So they are baking “equitable” into the job descriptions.
Difference Between Equitable and Equal
“Equitable” treatment sounds like “equal” treatment. But it’s not.
Treating people equally means treating them identically. Treating people equitably means treating them differently, but fairly.
For instance, handicapped people get to park closer to the door. That’s fair…based on need.
But what happens when you start making flood mitigation decisions on the basis of race, income, and social vulnerability? Is that fair to more affluent communities destroyed by flooding?
Because poor people have a harder time recovering from floods, they should get more protection from flooding. They can’t afford to flood (…as if anyone can).
Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia all advocate the use of a CDC social-vulnerability index and LMI (low-to-moderate-income) data to prioritize flood projects.
They argue in meeting after meeting that FEMA bases grant decisions on a benefit/cost ratio (BCR) that favors neighborhoods with more expensive homes. That’s true, but…
They never mention that Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grants for mitigation (CDBG-MIT) and disaster recovery (CDBG-DR) already favor poorer (LMI) neighborhoods.
Nor do they mention that the County has already received a BILLION dollars in CDBG-DR funds. Or that the Texas General Land Office is sitting on top of approximately $4.2 billion in CDBG-MIT funds that it’s trying to distribute. The vast majority of those funds must go toward LMI/socially vulnerable neighborhoods. (The exact percentages vary by storm and type of grant. But they often range up to 70%.)
Problems With Basing Flood-Mitigation Decisions on LMI Data
There are two more problems with basing flood-mitigation decisions on racial and LMI data.
First, it ignores need. Shouldn’t projects that help the largest numbers of people or the worst flooding be mitigated first?
Second, LMI data only comes by zip code. Zip codes can mask huge disparities in wealth. So even if you feel poor people deserve more flood protection than the middle class, it’s hard to ensure that result with zip code data. Elm Grove, for instance, is an LMI neighborhood embedded within an affluent zip code.
He did not mention Army Corps of Engineers grants to HCFCD for work on four bayous in his precinct. Nor did he mention that in the entire history of Harris County Flood Control (which dates back to 1937), not one federal dollar has ever been funneled through HCFCD by the Corps for work in the Lake Houston Area.
4 Out of 5 Flood Bond Projects in SVI Neighborhoods
How much have Ellis, Hidalgo and Garcia skewed flood bond spending to date?
During the Commissioners Court meeting on June 30, 2020, Harris County Flood Control was asked to prepare a report to document the status of flood bond risk reduction projects in socially vulnerable neighborhoods. See Item 2E on Tuesday’s Commissioners Court Agenda. It shows a startling fact.
Out of the 145 active bond projects, 79% are located in high or moderately high SVI areas.
Letter from HCFCD to Commissioners Court
The distribution looks like this.
79% of Flood Bond Projects are located in the most socially vulnerable neighborhoods; only 21% in the least socially vulnerable neighborhoods. Source: Memo to Commissioners Court from HCFCD.
If you live in a “socially vulnerable” neighborhood, you’re 4X more likely to have a flood bond project near you.
And those are just the projects based on Flood Bond money. The Flood Control District is also pursuing additional CDBG grants and Army Corps funding to help fund even more projects in socially vulnerable areas. Those projects are not reflected in these percentages.
Rushing Through Public Comment Period
One measure of how much Ellis, Hidalgo and Garcia want to institutionalize their own definitions of equity is that they’re giving only six more days for public comment with little public warning.
You can bet that the commissioners court meeting on the 28th will be packed with surrogate speakers for Ellis, Hidalgo and Garcia who favor the “equity bias.” They’ve shown up in Commissioners Court for months.
Why wouldn’t they? It’s worked. They now have 4 out of every 5 flood bond projects going into their neighborhoods and they could get even more if this task force goes through in its current form.
Meanwhile, the San Jacinto watershed, says the Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium, received 0% of the mitigation budget prior to Harvey, yet had 14% of the region’s damages during Harvey.
How Do We Decide What’s Fair?
So, should projects go to neighborhoods that:
Had the fewest flood mitigation projects?
Flooded the worst?
Help the greatest number of people for the dollars invested?
Are the poorest?
Or should the money be split equally or on some other basis?
Personally, I think decisions like these should be left in the hands of engineers, not partisan politicians.
Register Your Opinion
The County Judge’s office is inviting the public to share their thoughts and ideas on the proposed draft bylaws of the Task Force. You can register your opinion from now until July 30th, 2020, via one of the following methods:
Email CRTF@cjo.hctx.net and submit comments digitally, beginning July 21
Join a virtual focus group via Zoom. After registering, participants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Bond-Spending-by-SVI-Index.jpg?fit=1200%2C691&ssl=16911200adminadmin2020-07-24 17:07:032021-07-29 16:06:18Harris County Changing How It Will Choose Which Flood Projects to Support; Welcome to the “Equity Bias”
SJRA Report on Spring Lowering of Lake Conroe
After three months of histrionic, apocalyptic debate about SJRA’s policy of seasonally lowering Lake Conroe, the lowering turned out to be neither the end of the world, nor the salvation of the Lake Houston Area. Simply put, no megastorms tested the policy. So there was no proof that it succeeded or failed.
Instead, regular smaller rains kept the lake close to its monthly averages. Neither drought nor excessive heat caused lake levels, property values, business or tax revenues to plummet. Everything functioned much as it normally has since Lake Conroe was built in 1973.
Lake Stayed Near Monthly Averages
In the two months between April 1 and May 31, the lake only dropped below 200 feet by an inch or two for three or four days and then promptly refilled. In fact, at the end of May, 2.5 inches of rain caused the lake to rise above its seasonal norm, prompting a second release.
During that time, the Lake Houston Area never flooded. Yet Lake Conroe was above its monthly average for the first three weeks of April. And it was only down about three inches for about three weeks in May.
The assertion that Lake Conroe is “normally” at 201 is a myth. That is the level at which the SJRA normally starts releases. Due to evaporation, which can take an inch a day, the lake is almost always well below that. A more accurate term for 201 would be “full pool.”
River Levels Up Slightly, but No Flooding
West Fork river levels rarely rose more than 2 or 3 feet even when rainfall was added to the release rate from Lake Conroe.
Release rates averaged about 600 cubic feet per second (cfs) and rarely exceeded 1000 cfs.
If the exercise proved anything, it was that releasing at those rates didn’t flood anyone.
Fall Lowering Starts This Saturday
The Houston Area lucked out with Hanna. Had the storm veered towards us, we would have received the torrential rains that swamped the Valley.
This fall, the lowering will be split into two phases: to 200 feet in August and 199.5 in September. The City of Houston has the right to call for an additional half foot in the event of a named storm.
Even though Hanna missed us and Gonzalo fizzled, the next storm may not.
Near-Term Tropical Outlook
The fact that Lake Conroe rebounded so quickly will likely calm debate in the future.
The Lake Conroe level at this instant stands at 200.22 feet. That’s less than half an inch below the July average for the last 46 years. Note that that’s also 3.5 inches above the August average.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/27/2020
1063 Days after Hurricane Harvey
NY Times Covers Harris County Flood-Bond Spending, but Omits Spending Data
The New York Times ran a story on flood-bond spending, but forgot to look at where the budget to date has gone.
The story by Christopher Flavelle was titled, “A Climate Plan in Texas Focuses on Minorities. Not Everyone Likes It.” It outlined arguments on each side of the equity debate in flood-bond spending. From a balance point of view, it did a great job. However, it came up short in two areas.
Problems with Article
First, the headline misleads. This isn’t about climate. The story is about how to distribute flood-bond dollars equitably.
Second, it makes no mention of where flood-bond dollars to date have actually gone. Nor does it mention historical spending except in a generalized way. It implies poor people got none; rich people got it all. By avoiding research into actual current and historical spending, it perpetuated myths that do little to protect people from flooding.
Had he bothered to check historical or federal spending, he might have found an even more exaggerated pattern.
Trap Laid by Ellis
Mr. Clavelle fell into the trap that Commissioner Ellis laid. In effect, the argument goes like this. “Because homes in poor neighborhoods cost less than those in rich neighborhoods, it brings down the benefit/cost ratio for poor neighborhoods. FEMA considers that ratio in grant requests. That disadvantages grants for poor neighborhoods and perpetuates a downward cycle.”
That’s literally true – if you look only at FEMA grants. But it’s the exact opposite for HUD grants which heavily favor disadvantaged neighborhoods. Mr. Clavelle fails to mention that. As do Mr. Ellis and his surrogates whenever they talk on this subject.
Approximately 70% of those HUD grants MUST go to disadvantaged neighborhoods. The actual percentage varies by storm and type of grant. After Harvey, Harris County received a billion dollars. And the City of Houston received $1.1 billion. Together, that’s almost as much money as in the $2.5-billion flood bond. And there are still billions of additional dollars available from HUD through the General Land Office.
Preserve Your Community
If more of this money continues to go south, the Lake Houston Area is sunk in the next big storm.
But the County is considering a Community Resilience Task Force that would institutionalize this spending bias for the next 30 years.
The County Judge’s office is inviting the public to share their thoughts and ideas on the proposed draft bylaws of the Community Resilience Task Force. You can register your opinion from now until July 30th, 2020, via one of the following methods:
Please express your opinions to the county judge. Nothing is more important to the future of the Lake Houston Area than achieving more balance in flood-bond spending.
Some Key Facts to Consider
Some key points I intend to make:
For More Information
For more information on the “equity bias,” see this series on “Where Flood Mitigation Dollars Have Really Gone.” It was developed a year ago so the focus is on historical spending.
Or this series on “Equity”:
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/25/2020
1061 Days after Hurricane Harvey
Harris County Changing How It Will Choose Which Flood Projects to Support; Welcome to the “Equity Bias”
Imagine you pull up to a stoplight and two needy people approach you for a handout. You want to help, but have only $1 in your pocket.
As you may have guessed, the people at the stoplight are a metaphor for flood victims.
More Needs than Dollars
Harris County doesn’t have enough dollars to build every flood mitigation project that everyone needs. Flood mitigation requires tough choices.
So the County is setting up a supposedly unbiased task force to decide whom to help. But its composition will be biased toward people who believe flood bond money should favor low income, minority neighborhoods, i.e., the constituents of the three politicians pushing the task force (Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia).
Stacking the Jury
Look at the proposed overview and bylaws for the Community Resilience Task Force. You will see that they embed the concepts of equity, social justice, and social vulnerability into every recommendation the task force will make. For flood mitigation. Housing. Health. Construction. Urban planning. And more. For the next 30 years!
Proposed bylaws for the task force explicitly state that the members MUST demonstrate:
So they are baking “equitable” into the job descriptions.
Difference Between Equitable and Equal
“Equitable” treatment sounds like “equal” treatment. But it’s not.
For instance, handicapped people get to park closer to the door. That’s fair…based on need.
But what happens when you start making flood mitigation decisions on the basis of race, income, and social vulnerability? Is that fair to more affluent communities destroyed by flooding?
Flood Spending Based on Race and Income?
Ms. Hidalgo, Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Garcia define “equitable” so preference goes to the “socially vulnerable.” Their argument goes like so.
Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia all advocate the use of a CDC social-vulnerability index and LMI (low-to-moderate-income) data to prioritize flood projects.
They argue in meeting after meeting that FEMA bases grant decisions on a benefit/cost ratio (BCR) that favors neighborhoods with more expensive homes. That’s true, but…
Socially Vulnerable Neighborhoods Already Receive Preferential Treatment
They never mention that Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grants for mitigation (CDBG-MIT) and disaster recovery (CDBG-DR) already favor poorer (LMI) neighborhoods.
Nor do they mention that the County has already received a BILLION dollars in CDBG-DR funds. Or that the Texas General Land Office is sitting on top of approximately $4.2 billion in CDBG-MIT funds that it’s trying to distribute. The vast majority of those funds must go toward LMI/socially vulnerable neighborhoods. (The exact percentages vary by storm and type of grant. But they often range up to 70%.)
Problems With Basing Flood-Mitigation Decisions on LMI Data
There are two more problems with basing flood-mitigation decisions on racial and LMI data.
Mr. Ellis argued that his Precinct One constituents, who are 76% African-American and Hispanic, would not get their projects because money they deserved more was being spent in affluent Kingwood.
He did not mention Army Corps of Engineers grants to HCFCD for work on four bayous in his precinct. Nor did he mention that in the entire history of Harris County Flood Control (which dates back to 1937), not one federal dollar has ever been funneled through HCFCD by the Corps for work in the Lake Houston Area.
4 Out of 5 Flood Bond Projects in SVI Neighborhoods
How much have Ellis, Hidalgo and Garcia skewed flood bond spending to date?
During the Commissioners Court meeting on June 30, 2020, Harris County Flood Control was asked to prepare a report to document the status of flood bond risk reduction projects in socially vulnerable neighborhoods. See Item 2E on Tuesday’s Commissioners Court Agenda. It shows a startling fact.
The distribution looks like this.
And those are just the projects based on Flood Bond money. The Flood Control District is also pursuing additional CDBG grants and Army Corps funding to help fund even more projects in socially vulnerable areas. Those projects are not reflected in these percentages.
Rushing Through Public Comment Period
One measure of how much Ellis, Hidalgo and Garcia want to institutionalize their own definitions of equity is that they’re giving only six more days for public comment with little public warning.
You can bet that the commissioners court meeting on the 28th will be packed with surrogate speakers for Ellis, Hidalgo and Garcia who favor the “equity bias.” They’ve shown up in Commissioners Court for months.
Why wouldn’t they? It’s worked. They now have 4 out of every 5 flood bond projects going into their neighborhoods and they could get even more if this task force goes through in its current form.
Meanwhile, the San Jacinto watershed, says the Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium, received 0% of the mitigation budget prior to Harvey, yet had 14% of the region’s damages during Harvey.
How Do We Decide What’s Fair?
So, should projects go to neighborhoods that:
Or should the money be split equally or on some other basis?
Personally, I think decisions like these should be left in the hands of engineers, not partisan politicians.
Register Your Opinion
The County Judge’s office is inviting the public to share their thoughts and ideas on the proposed draft bylaws of the Task Force. You can register your opinion from now until July 30th, 2020, via one of the following methods:
Posted by Bob Rehak on July 24, 2020
1060 Days since Hurricane Harvey
For more information on the “equity bias,” see this series on “Where Flood Mitigation Dollars Have Really Gone”
Or this series on “The Equity Flap”