“Equity” proponents would have you believe that Harris County flood mitigation money is all going to high-income neighborhoods. However, data obtained from Harris County Flood Control under the Freedom of Information Act shows that construction spending for flood mitigation is highly concentrated in Precinct 1, which contains many low-to-moderate-income neighborhoods.
At the last Harris County Commissioner’s Court meeting, the issue of “equity” in the prioritization of bond funds came up again. Commissioner Rodney Ellis from Precinct 1 invited several groups to testify about how Low-to-Moderate Income (LMI) groups suffered at the expense of more affluent areas like Kingwood.
Alleged Bias Against LMI Groups Distorts True Picture
They alleged bias against LMI groups by focusing on only one aspect of flood mitigation: buyouts. They said that high-income areas received preference over low-income areas when buying out flooded homes. That’s because of higher home values and thus higher repetitive losses. However, by focusing on this one issue, and ignoring the big picture of Flood Control construction spending, these groups distort the true picture of where flood mitigation dollars actually go.
In the last 21 years, Precinct 1 has received at least four to five times more construction dollars from Harris County Flood Control than Precinct 4 which contains Kingwood.
In fact, Precinct One received the single largest construction project in the history of Harris County Flood Control. The excavation of the Kuykendahl and Glen Forest Stormwater Detention Basins cost $59,840,117.41. In contrast, during the last 21-years, the entire San Jacinto River Watershed (the largest in the county) received only $3,345,976.28 in construction funds – one-eighteenth of what that Precinct 1 detention basin project cost!
The money spent on the San Jacinto also represented just one half of one percent of the $663,894,766.38 spent on all construction by the Flood Control District during that 21-year period.
In contrast, the Brays and Sims Bayous, both of which run through Commissioner Ellis’ district, received almost 100 times that amount. The $330 million spent on those two watersheds alone represented virtually HALF of the entire $663.9 million Flood Control District construction expenses in the last 21 years!
Lopsided Distribution of Flood Mitigation Money
In fairness, note that those watersheds do not lie entirely within Precinct 1. However, Precinct 1 also contains parts of Greens Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Halls Bayou, Hunting Bayou, Buffalo Bayou and Clear Creek (see map above). If you add in even a small portion of $229.4 million spent on those watersheds, the Precinct 1 construction numbers become even more lopsided.
Greens received $74.3 million
White Oak received $47.8 million
Halls received $22.3 million
Hunting received $23.7 million
Buffalo received $44.3 million
Clear Creek received $17 million.
Meanwhile, Kingwood received $0 construction dollars but suffered more than a billion dollars worth of damage during Harvey. Yet Mr. Ellis and his friends imply we hog flood mitigation dollars from poor people. THEY demand EQUITY! It’s time someone called this what it is – BS.
Actual Construction Spending by Precinct since 1998
Between 1998 and 2019, Precinct 1 received 47% of all Flood Control District construction funds spent on projects entirely within each precinct. These percentages do NOT include spending on projects that cross districts.
Precinct 1
$275,835,964
Precinct 2
$103,529,679
Precinct 3
$143,873,825
Precinct 4
$62,427,867
Precinct Discrimination Disguised as “Equity”?
Precincts are supposed to be roughly equal in population. Yet these figures are so lopsided, one could argue that Mr. Ellis and his friends are deliberately crying discrimination to get a larger share of the pie at the expense of areas like Kingwood. But it’s more complicated than that; Precinct 1 is also taking money from LMI neighborhoods in other precincts.
Look at the distribution of LMI neighborhoods throughout Harris County in the map below. It’s based on five years of recent HUD data. You can see a broad, concentrated LMI band across northern and eastern Harris County.
If anything, these numbers demonstrate a consistent pattern of geographic discrimination against residents of other precincts. Rodney Ellis’ Precinct 1 received 47% of construction dollars for flood control, leaving the other three precincts to divvy up the other half. Precinct 4 contains roughly one fourth of the population but received just 11% of construction dollars.
I’m not suggesting that the Precinct 1 projects were not needed or that the money was not spent wisely. I am suggesting that Precinct 1 LMI residents should not paint Kingwood as a villain. To do so is intellectually dishonest. We are not taking construction dollars from LMI neighborhoods. The County’s own data shows the opposite.
Precinct 1 is taking dollars from affluent and LMI neighborhoods alike.
I will cover other aspects of this story in upcoming posts. In the meantime, County Commissioners vote today on approving the vendor for the Kingwood Area Drainage Assessment. See item 2-B-5 on page 9. The approval of the study caused the equity flap at the last meeting. Let’s hope it doesn’t cause another one in this meeting. After all, the Flood Bond was sold to citizens as a tool to correct problems based on need, not income.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/25/2019
665 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Active-Construction-Projects.jpg?fit=1500%2C999&ssl=19991500adminadmin2019-06-25 00:53:512021-07-29 16:18:03Where Flood Mitigation Money Has Really Gone: Part One
A close reading of the Woodridge Village Section One plat shows that the Montgomery County engineer disclaimed any responsibility for the impact of Woodridge Village both upstream and downstream, in fact, anywhere in the watershed. At the same time, the county engineer certified that the plans developed by LJA Engineering met all the requirements of Montgomery County Commissioners. See below.
Enlargement from first page of plat for Woodridge Village.
Gaps in Regulations
On May 7th, at least 196 homes flooded downstream of Woodridge Village. Many other homes in Porter also flooded on the upstream side of the subdivision.
This raises the question of whether Montgomery County floodplain regulations are sufficient to protect neighboring residents.
To complicate matters, the flooding happened before construction of several detention ponds – despite the fact that the land near the area that flooded had been clearcut for more than six months. However…
According to Montgomery County’s Floodplain Administrator, County regulations look only at pre- and post-construction runoff rates. They do not address anything that happens during construction.
Montgomery County has no regulations that dictate the sequence of construction. For instance, could building detention ponds on one section of land before clearcutting another have reduced flood risk and averted disaster?
Need for More Consistency to Protect Neighbors
I have previously posted about the differences in floodplain building regulations in various jurisdictions. These differences cause confusion for residents and property owners. They may feel protected when builders ten feet away on the other side of a county or city line play by an entirely different set of rules.
These gaps in regulation provide a good example of why the State of Texas should step in and bring some uniformity to guidelines. We need sensible regulations that enable growth without endangering downstream residents.
The thoughts in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/24/2019
664 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Screen-Shot-2019-06-23-at-5.59.29-PM-e1561331450467.png?fit=1500%2C445&ssl=14451500adminadmin2019-06-23 19:39:052019-06-23 20:01:43Fine Print: Montgomery County Engineer Disclaimed Responsibility for Impact of Woodridge on Upstream and Downstream Drainage
Since Harvey, the Lake Houston Area has seen some huge changes for the better in the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA). When the Governor visited Kingwood and took a helicopter tour of the San Jacinto River basin after Harvey, he directed the SJRA to establish a flood mitigation division. He also appointed two directors from the Lake Houston area to ensure downstream representation on the SJRA board.
Many Improvements Since March 2018
Since then, Kaaren Cambio and Mark Micheletti, the two new directors from the Lake Houston area, have led the charge to lower Lake Conroe seasonally. This ensures a greater buffer against floods.
The effort paid off this year when heavy back-to-back-to-back rains in early May would have forced a large release from Lake Conroe had it not already been lowered. That release, added to already swollen tributaries, would almost certainly have threatened low lying homes and businesses.
The SJRA will again lower Lake Conroe during the peak of Hurricane season. Starting August 1, it will take Lake Conroe down one foot. Beginning August 15, they will take it down another foot until October 1.
The SJRA is also working with Harris County Flood Control to install more upstream gages and turn the Harris County Flood Warning System into a Regional Flood Warning System with customizable alerts. The goals: create more awareness of upstream dangers to give people more time to evacuate and save valuables in the event of a flood. Said another way, avoid middle-of-the-night surprises like we had during Harvey.
Finally, the SJRA is leading a joint river basin study that hopefully will lay the groundwork for additional upstream detention, more flood gates for Lake Houston, and an ongoing maintenance dredging program. So, many good things are happening.
Cambio’s Term Expiring
However, Cambio’s term on the board expires this year. She wants to stay in the position and I hope she does. Cambio has worked tirelessly to mitigate flooding on so many levels. Her position as a key staffer for Congressman Dan Crenshaw also makes her uniquely qualified to help coordinate efforts from Federal, State and local agencies. She deserves reappointment.
The answer is, “In the short term, no.” Cambio’s seat on the board is the only one up for renewal this year.
SJRA Sunset Review Coming Up
However, in two years, the entire SJRA will come under close scrutiny as part of a sunset review. A sunset review is an evaluation of the need for the continued existence of a program or an agency. It assesses their effectiveness and performance, and recommends either retaining, modifying, or terminating them.
No one expects the SJRA to be terminated. But many other river authorities that have gone through the sunset review process, have had a complete overhaul, said one source who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The Sunset Commission has been brutal at times. For instance, between 2016 and 2017, the Commission reviewed four river authorities and noted:
“Sulpher River Basin Authority Board has not built the trust needed to effectively carry out its mission.”
“Central Colorado River Authority no longer serves a necessary public purpose.”
“Upper Colorado River Authority has not set priorities to ensure its operations meet changing local watershed needs.”
“Palo Duro River Authority of Texas lacks flexibility to adapt to changed local circumstances.”
Their report makes fascinating reading. One thing that became clear in scanning it is that, like most good performance reviews, the Commission judges performance against objectives. In the case of these Authorities, enabling legislation spells out the objectives.
Enabling Legislation Established SJRA Goals
That prompted me to review the enabling legislation for the SJRA. The sections discussing goals begin on page 2 of this PDF. I have summarized them below.
The state created the SJRA (originally called the San Jacinto River Conservation and Reclamation District) to “conserve, control, and utilize to beneficial service the storm and flood waters of the rivers and streams of the State.” Section 2 of the enabling legislation mentions floodwaters three times.
Prevent the devastation of land from recurrent overflows.
Protect life and property.
Regulate the waters of the San Jacinto River and its tributaries.
Build dams and distribution networks that provide waters for cities, towns, irrigation, agriculture, commercial, industrial, mining and other beneficial uses.
Develop drainage systems that enable profitable agricultural production.
Conserve “soils against destructive erosion and thereby preventing the increased flood menace incident thereto.”
Forest and reforest the watershed to aid in the prevention of soil erosion and floods.
Encourage, aid, and protect navigation and harbor improvements.
Acquire land for parks and recreation, and to build park and recreational facilities thereon.
Dispose of sewage and industrial waste.
Construct, improve, maintain, operate and repair water and sewage plants and distribution networks.
How Would You Rate Performance against These Goals?
It seems to me that the SJRA does a great job at its basic mission. And they’re improving at flood mitigation. However, for decades, the SJRA ignored other crucial parts of its job description, including flood and erosion prevention; reforestation; parks and recreation; and navigation protection. In fairness, the Legislature never funded those mandates. The SJRA’s only income comes from the sale of water which it impounds.
Still, you would think somebody could pick up a phone and call the TCEQ for help with some of these things. For instance, sand mines along the banks of the river dump effluent and sediment directly into the drinking water supply for millions of people. It will be interesting to see what kind of changes the Texas Sunset Commission recommends when the SJRA comes up for review.
For an interesting history of the SJRA, see Chapter 4 of this doctoral dissertation by Andrew C. Baker at Rice University. It paints a fascinating picture of the problems the SJRA had in originally fulfilling its basic mission and how the SJRA overcame them with help from the City of Houston.
Note: For future reference, the SJRA enabling legislation has been added to the Reports page under the SJRA tab.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/23/2019
663 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Untitled-1.jpg?fit=260%2C279&ssl=1279260adminadmin2019-06-23 00:22:542024-05-09 20:16:47SJRA Update, Upcoming Sunset Review and Enabling Legislation
Where Flood Mitigation Money Has Really Gone: Part One
“Equity” proponents would have you believe that Harris County flood mitigation money is all going to high-income neighborhoods. However, data obtained from Harris County Flood Control under the Freedom of Information Act shows that construction spending for flood mitigation is highly concentrated in Precinct 1, which contains many low-to-moderate-income neighborhoods.
At the last Harris County Commissioner’s Court meeting, the issue of “equity” in the prioritization of bond funds came up again. Commissioner Rodney Ellis from Precinct 1 invited several groups to testify about how Low-to-Moderate Income (LMI) groups suffered at the expense of more affluent areas like Kingwood.
Alleged Bias Against LMI Groups Distorts True Picture
They alleged bias against LMI groups by focusing on only one aspect of flood mitigation: buyouts. They said that high-income areas received preference over low-income areas when buying out flooded homes. That’s because of higher home values and thus higher repetitive losses. However, by focusing on this one issue, and ignoring the big picture of Flood Control construction spending, these groups distort the true picture of where flood mitigation dollars actually go.
Precinct 1 is 76% African-American and Hispanic
Rodney Ellis’ Precinct 1 website contains a description of the ethnic composition of his constituents. “With approximately 1.1 million residents, Harris County … Precinct One’s multi-racial, multi-ethnic population is roughly 39 percent African American, 37 percent Latino, 18 percent Anglo, 5 percent Asian and 1 percent other,” it says.
Large Disparities in Construction Spending Favor Precinct 1
Yet according to historical data on construction spending obtained from Harris County Flood Control District through the Freedom of Information Act…
In fact, Precinct One received the single largest construction project in the history of Harris County Flood Control. The excavation of the Kuykendahl and Glen Forest Stormwater Detention Basins cost $59,840,117.41. In contrast, during the last 21-years, the entire San Jacinto River Watershed (the largest in the county) received only $3,345,976.28 in construction funds – one-eighteenth of what that Precinct 1 detention basin project cost!
The money spent on the San Jacinto also represented just one half of one percent of the $663,894,766.38 spent on all construction by the Flood Control District during that 21-year period.
In contrast, the Brays and Sims Bayous, both of which run through Commissioner Ellis’ district, received almost 100 times that amount. The $330 million spent on those two watersheds alone represented virtually HALF of the entire $663.9 million Flood Control District construction expenses in the last 21 years!
Lopsided Distribution of Flood Mitigation Money
In fairness, note that those watersheds do not lie entirely within Precinct 1. However, Precinct 1 also contains parts of Greens Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Halls Bayou, Hunting Bayou, Buffalo Bayou and Clear Creek (see map above). If you add in even a small portion of $229.4 million spent on those watersheds, the Precinct 1 construction numbers become even more lopsided.
Of the $586 million spent by Flood Control on projects entirely within a single precinct (i.e., projects that did not bridge two or more precincts), Precinct 1 received 47% of all Flood Control District construction spending. Here’s how it breaks down.
Actual Construction Spending by Precinct since 1998
Precinct Discrimination Disguised as “Equity”?
Precincts are supposed to be roughly equal in population. Yet these figures are so lopsided, one could argue that Mr. Ellis and his friends are deliberately crying discrimination to get a larger share of the pie at the expense of areas like Kingwood. But it’s more complicated than that; Precinct 1 is also taking money from LMI neighborhoods in other precincts.
Look at the distribution of LMI neighborhoods throughout Harris County in the map below. It’s based on five years of recent HUD data. You can see a broad, concentrated LMI band across northern and eastern Harris County.
I’m not suggesting that the Precinct 1 projects were not needed or that the money was not spent wisely. I am suggesting that Precinct 1 LMI residents should not paint Kingwood as a villain. To do so is intellectually dishonest. We are not taking construction dollars from LMI neighborhoods. The County’s own data shows the opposite.
I will cover other aspects of this story in upcoming posts. In the meantime, County Commissioners vote today on approving the vendor for the Kingwood Area Drainage Assessment. See item 2-B-5 on page 9. The approval of the study caused the equity flap at the last meeting. Let’s hope it doesn’t cause another one in this meeting. After all, the Flood Bond was sold to citizens as a tool to correct problems based on need, not income.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/25/2019
665 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Fine Print: Montgomery County Engineer Disclaimed Responsibility for Impact of Woodridge on Upstream and Downstream Drainage
A close reading of the Woodridge Village Section One plat shows that the Montgomery County engineer disclaimed any responsibility for the impact of Woodridge Village both upstream and downstream, in fact, anywhere in the watershed. At the same time, the county engineer certified that the plans developed by LJA Engineering met all the requirements of Montgomery County Commissioners. See below.
Gaps in Regulations
On May 7th, at least 196 homes flooded downstream of Woodridge Village. Many other homes in Porter also flooded on the upstream side of the subdivision.
To complicate matters, the flooding happened before construction of several detention ponds – despite the fact that the land near the area that flooded had been clearcut for more than six months. However…
Montgomery County has no regulations that dictate the sequence of construction. For instance, could building detention ponds on one section of land before clearcutting another have reduced flood risk and averted disaster?
Need for More Consistency to Protect Neighbors
I have previously posted about the differences in floodplain building regulations in various jurisdictions. These differences cause confusion for residents and property owners. They may feel protected when builders ten feet away on the other side of a county or city line play by an entirely different set of rules.
These gaps in regulation provide a good example of why the State of Texas should step in and bring some uniformity to guidelines. We need sensible regulations that enable growth without endangering downstream residents.
The thoughts in this post represent my opinions on matters of public policy and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/24/2019
664 Days since Hurricane Harvey
SJRA Update, Upcoming Sunset Review and Enabling Legislation
Since Harvey, the Lake Houston Area has seen some huge changes for the better in the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA). When the Governor visited Kingwood and took a helicopter tour of the San Jacinto River basin after Harvey, he directed the SJRA to establish a flood mitigation division. He also appointed two directors from the Lake Houston area to ensure downstream representation on the SJRA board.
Many Improvements Since March 2018
Since then, Kaaren Cambio and Mark Micheletti, the two new directors from the Lake Houston area, have led the charge to lower Lake Conroe seasonally. This ensures a greater buffer against floods.
The effort paid off this year when heavy back-to-back-to-back rains in early May would have forced a large release from Lake Conroe had it not already been lowered. That release, added to already swollen tributaries, would almost certainly have threatened low lying homes and businesses.
The SJRA will again lower Lake Conroe during the peak of Hurricane season. Starting August 1, it will take Lake Conroe down one foot. Beginning August 15, they will take it down another foot until October 1.
The SJRA is also working with Harris County Flood Control to install more upstream gages and turn the Harris County Flood Warning System into a Regional Flood Warning System with customizable alerts. The goals: create more awareness of upstream dangers to give people more time to evacuate and save valuables in the event of a flood. Said another way, avoid middle-of-the-night surprises like we had during Harvey.
Finally, the SJRA is leading a joint river basin study that hopefully will lay the groundwork for additional upstream detention, more flood gates for Lake Houston, and an ongoing maintenance dredging program. So, many good things are happening.
Cambio’s Term Expiring
However, Cambio’s term on the board expires this year. She wants to stay in the position and I hope she does. Cambio has worked tirelessly to mitigate flooding on so many levels. Her position as a key staffer for Congressman Dan Crenshaw also makes her uniquely qualified to help coordinate efforts from Federal, State and local agencies. She deserves reappointment.
A reader asked whether there’s an opportunity to increase downstream representation on the SJRA board with more representatives like Cambio and Micheletti.
The answer is, “In the short term, no.” Cambio’s seat on the board is the only one up for renewal this year.
SJRA Sunset Review Coming Up
However, in two years, the entire SJRA will come under close scrutiny as part of a sunset review. A sunset review is an evaluation of the need for the continued existence of a program or an agency. It assesses their effectiveness and performance, and recommends either retaining, modifying, or terminating them.
The SJRA comes up for sunset review in the 2020-2021 cycle. Section 325.025 of the Texas Sunset Act mandates a review by September 1, 2021, and every twelfth year thereafter. See page 34 of the this PDF.
No one expects the SJRA to be terminated. But many other river authorities that have gone through the sunset review process, have had a complete overhaul, said one source who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The Sunset Commission has been brutal at times. For instance, between 2016 and 2017, the Commission reviewed four river authorities and noted:
Their report makes fascinating reading. One thing that became clear in scanning it is that, like most good performance reviews, the Commission judges performance against objectives. In the case of these Authorities, enabling legislation spells out the objectives.
Enabling Legislation Established SJRA Goals
That prompted me to review the enabling legislation for the SJRA. The sections discussing goals begin on page 2 of this PDF. I have summarized them below.
The state created the SJRA (originally called the San Jacinto River Conservation and Reclamation District) to “conserve, control, and utilize to beneficial service the storm and flood waters of the rivers and streams of the State.” Section 2 of the enabling legislation mentions floodwaters three times.
Section 3 starting on page 3 of the same PDF lays out additional goals. For instance, to:
How Would You Rate Performance against These Goals?
It seems to me that the SJRA does a great job at its basic mission. And they’re improving at flood mitigation. However, for decades, the SJRA ignored other crucial parts of its job description, including flood and erosion prevention; reforestation; parks and recreation; and navigation protection. In fairness, the Legislature never funded those mandates. The SJRA’s only income comes from the sale of water which it impounds.
Still, you would think somebody could pick up a phone and call the TCEQ for help with some of these things. For instance, sand mines along the banks of the river dump effluent and sediment directly into the drinking water supply for millions of people. It will be interesting to see what kind of changes the Texas Sunset Commission recommends when the SJRA comes up for review.
For an interesting history of the SJRA, see Chapter 4 of this doctoral dissertation by Andrew C. Baker at Rice University. It paints a fascinating picture of the problems the SJRA had in originally fulfilling its basic mission and how the SJRA overcame them with help from the City of Houston.
Note: For future reference, the SJRA enabling legislation has been added to the Reports page under the SJRA tab.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/23/2019
663 Days after Hurricane Harvey