Last week, I reviewed Texas Senate Bill 7 (SB7) which creates a Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund. The fund, if approved, will help local governments by providing grants and low- and no-interest loans for flood mitigation projects in four major categories. Categories include Floodplain Management, Hurricane Harvey, Floodplain Implementation and Federal Matching accounts. A competing bills has emerged in the House called HB13.
Dome of the Texas state capital in Austin
The Senate specified funding for SB7 in SB500, an omnibus appropriations bill. SB500 appropriated $1.65 billion for SB7 from the Economic Stabilization (Rainy Day) Fund. See Section 29a on page 12.
However, when SB500 moved to the House, the House Appropriations committee voted to remove the funding for SB7. The committee report states, “The substitute does not include an appropriation to the comptroller for the Texas infrastructure resiliency fund or certain other provisions relating to that fund.” See the second to the last paragraph on page 9.
Meanwhile, State Representative Dade Phelan from Orange, Tx. filed House Bill 13 (HB13). SB7 and HB13 do many of the same things, but have some important differences. HB13 would provide $3.26 billion out of the economic stabilization fund.
SB7 creates something called the “Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund”; HB13 sets up a “Flood Infrastructure Fund.”
Important Similarities Between SB7 and HB13
Both SB7 and HB13:
Relate to flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects
Could make loans at or below market rates
Could make grants to cities and counties to provide matching funds that make them eligible to participate in a federal program for a flood project
Provide seed money to help attract federal grants
Would likely accelerate flood mitigation.
Differences
The Texas Water Development Board would control grants and loans made under HB13, but SB7 would create a separate board to control and distribute funds.
Compared to SB7, HB13 takes twice as much from the Rainy Day Fund.
Principal and interest payments on loans made under HB13 could be deferred for not more than 10 years or until construction of the flood project is completed, whichever is earlier.
HB13 would give special consideration to cities and counties whose median household income falls more than 15% below the state median.
HB13 encourages regional solutions by requiring cities and counties to demonstrate that they have acted cooperatively with other cities and counties. In other words, they don’t want people passing problems downstream. For instance, adding additional gates to the Lake Houston Dam might flood properties downstream. If so, HB13 could require buying out properties below the dam to avoid flooding them before adding gates to the dam (something that is already happening).
How does HB13 encourage cooperation? By requiring that all political subdivisions substantially affected by any given flood mitigation project: 1) participate in the process of developing the proposed flood project; 2) hold public meetings on proposed flood projects; and 3) compare their impacts versus other potential flood projects for the same area.
HB13 also requires the state to prepare:
A statewide flood plan that must be updated every five years
A 10-year dam and maintenance plan.
What Happens Next?
The full House has not yet voted on HB13. Consideration of SB7 will likely be delayed in the House until HB13 is voted up or down by the House. In the meantime, the House deferred any action on funding for SB7 by taking it out of SB500. It could always be handled separately at a later date in a supplementary appropriations bill.
If the House votes FOR HB13, we will then have two partially approved bills that do substantially the same thing. They would go to a conference committee to forge a compromise bill.
A conference committee consists of 10 people. The leader of each house appoints five. They work with each other to incorporate the best aspects of each bill. When a bill comes out of conference committee, it goes back to the House and Senate for straight up or down votes. Rules do NOT allow any amendments to bills that come out of conference committees.
With the amount of dollars at stake, not to mention the number of flood mitigation projects that depend on those dollars, everyone should closely watch the progress of these bills.
One Concern About HB13
After pondering each of these bills, I have one concern about HB13: the requirement to gain cooperation from all affected parties. In principle, it sounds good. In action, it could delay mitigation projects for years. It assumes political willpower and financial capabilities among multiple jurisdictions that may not exist. Mitigation for tens of thousands of people could be held up by a handful of folks that refuse to cooperate. There needs to be some way to arbitrate in such cases.
For instance, the San Jacinto River touches multiple cities and counties, has two major lakes, and is governed by the San Jacinto River Authority and the Coastal Water Authority. Lining up all those dominos every time someone somewhere wants to improve drainage may represent an impossible hurdle to clear.
The good news: the best minds in the state are all focused on ways to speed up and fund flood mitigation projects. A good compromise will likely emerge
I will continue to follow both of these bills as they work their ways through the House and Senate.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/27/19
575 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/dome2_1024.jpg?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=17681024adminadmin2019-03-27 14:35:162019-03-27 14:40:24Senate Appropriates $1.65 Billion for SB7, But House Omits Funding For It While Considering $3.26 Billion For HB13
At the start of this legislative session, I added a new page to this web site called Legislation. Its purpose: to help people track key pieces of proposed legislation affecting the Lake Houston area that have to do with sand mining and flood mitigation.
On it, you can see summaries of issues, links to the actual text of proposed bills, a “status tracker,” and posts that describe bills in more detail. I update these every few days. If you need to check on updates that have not yet been posted, consult Texas Legislature Online. It’s updated nightly during legislative sessions.
Key Bills Affecting Lake Houston Area
HB13 Creates a flood infrastructure fund of $3.26 billion taken from the Economic Stabilization (Rainy Day) fund for flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects. (Comparable to SB7 below but with some differences.)
HB509 Allows Texas Railroad Commission to regulate APOs with TCEQ. Requires: hydrologic impact study, public notice, public hearings, and provides fines up to $10,000 and 1-year in jail for false statements.
HB 907 Doubles the penalties for not registering a sand mining operation. New penalties can range from $10,000 to $20,000 per year with the total not to exceed $50,000.
HB 908 Provides for penalties up to $50,000 for water code violations and every-other-year inspections.
HB 909 Calls for the TCEQ to adopt and publish best management practices for sand mines (aggregate production operations) that comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations.
HB 1674. Extends water quality protections to the West Fork of the San Jacinto currently enjoyed by the John Graves District on the Brazos as part of a pilot program. Attaches penalties for non-compliance with best practices defined under HB909.
SB 7. Creates a dedicated Texas Infrastructure Fund for flood control planning and the funding of flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects.
SB500. An omnibus appropriations bill that includes funding for SB7 and an amendment that would dedicate $30 million for dredging of the West Fork Mouth Bar in Lake Houston.
Status of Each as of 3/26/19
HB13 Filed on March 7, 2019. Referred to Natural Resources on 3/11. Reported favorably by committee. Sent to Calendars Committee on 3/25.
HB509 Filed Dec. 11, 2018, Referred to Energy Resources 2/20/2019.
HB 907 Filed Jan. 17, 2019, Referred to Environmental Regulation 2/25/2019.
HB 908 Filed Jan. 17, 2019, Referred to Environmental Regulation 2/25/2019.
HB 909 Filed Jan. 17, 2019, Referred to Environmental Regulation 2/25/2019.
HB 1671 Filed on March 4, 2019, Referred to Natural Resources 3/4/2019.
SB 7 Filed on March 6, 2019, Referred to Water & Rural Affairs on 3/7, Public testimony 3/11. Senate passed unanimously by voice vote on 3/20. Received by House on 3/21.
SB500 Approved by Senate on 3/13. Engrossed, sent to House, and referred to Appropriations committee on same day. Approved with changes by House Appropriations on 3/19. The Appropriations Committee analysis of CSSB500 says on page 9, “The substitute does not include an appropriation to the comptroller for the Texas infrastructure resiliency fund or certain other provisions relating to that fund.” A separateHuberty amendment proposed on 3/22 would dedicate $30 million for dredging the West Fork mouth bar in Lake Houston.
Developments to Watch
Nothing has happened yet on any of the sand-mining bills since being sent to committees.
HB509 is reportedly dead in the water. That’s a shame. It was the only bill that made hydrologists consider the aggregate impact of all mines in an area when permitting an operation. And that is precisely our issue.
HB907, 908, 909 and 1671, according to Dan Huberty’s office, will soon be scheduled for committee hearings. That’s worth a trip or four to Austin!
SB7 created a Texas Infrastructure Resilience Fund (TIRF) which was funded within SB500, an omnibus appropriations bill. But when SB500 got to the House, the Appropriations Committee deleted funding related to the TIRF – at least temporarily, while the House considers its own HB13. HB13 has many of the same objectives as SB7, but it has not yet reached the House floor for a vote.
Braden Kennedy, an assistant of Senator Brandon Creighton who sponsored SB7 had this to say. “It was unfortunate to see the House remove the funding to TIRF. However, Senator Creighton is confident we can find common ground down the road and achieve a Texas-sized appropriation hopefully during conference committee, when members of the Senate and House get together and settle the differences on the bill. Right now, House Bill 13 includes the appropriation itself while in the Senate, the members believe these expenditures should be in the supplemental budget (SB 500). We still think SB 7 has many certain advantages in that it is versatile in use – Harvey recovery dollars, future mitigation project funding, and Army Corps matching funds – and it includes several oversight and transparency safeguards.”
Check back soon and often. This is a $3.2 billion issue!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/26/2019
574 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/capitole_1024.jpg?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=17681024adminadmin2019-03-26 16:30:372019-03-26 17:47:17Updates Relating to Proposed Sand Mining and Flood Mitigation Legislation
Senate Bill 500 is an omnibus appropriations bill passed by the Texas Senate on March 13. The bill passed to the House for committee review and consideration the same day. Last Friday, March 22, State Representative Dan Huberty offered an amendment to SB 500. It would allocate $30 million to dredging the mouth bar where the West Fork of the San Jacinto meets Lake Huston.
Text of Huberty Amendment
The text reads:
“Out of the funds appropriated in Subsection (1), $30 million dollars is dedicated to the Texas Water Development Board to provide a grant to Harris County for the purchase and operation of equipment to remove accumulated siltation and sediment deposits located at the confluence of the San Jacinto River and Lake Houston.”
Great News for West Fork Residents
This is great news for Lake Houston and West Fork residents. We faced six floods last year on relatively small rains. The mouth bar and other sediment dams left by Harvey created backwater effects that exaggerated flood heights. The exaggerated response of the river to these modest rains forced the City to prerelease water to avoid flooding.
It’s not clear how much funding the City will get from FEMA, if any, to address the mouth bar. The two sides have been arguing for more than a year about how much of the sediment is due to Harvey. Stephen Costello, the City’s Chief Recovery Officer, told a town hall meeting in Kingwood last week that there was at least 1.5 million cubic yards of sediment that needs to be removed to restore the river’s natural conveyance. Local geologists estimated that at least a third of that was due to Harvey.
Matching Funds for County
Last year, the County Flood Bond approved by voters in August included a $10 million match for dredging of the East Fork, West Fork and Lake Houston. The project description read: “Potential partnership project with the City of Houston, Coastal Water Authority, and the State of Texas to permit, design, and complete dredging of the East Fork, West Fork and Lake Houston area waterways to reduce flooding risks.”
The County expected to provide one-fifth of the total $50 million projected cost.
If the Huberty amendment and the appropriations bill pass, suddenly we have a clear path to funding… regardless of what FEMA does and how long it takes their money to get here.
Includes Purchase of Equipment
The Huberty amendment calls for the purchase and operation of equipment. That means the equipment could be owned and used wherever needed. For about a year, the Army Corps has emphasized the need for maintenance dredging to prevent re-accumulation of massive deposits.
Matching Funds Mean Higher Priority
There’s a lot to like about this simple amendment. Consider this. Many have worried lately about prioritization of flood bond projects, i.e., which would kick off first. Readily available matching funds would give the dredging project a very high priority. That would accelerate execution of the project.
Posted by Bob Rehak on March 25
573 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Cutterhead.jpg?fit=856%2C914&ssl=1914856adminadmin2019-03-25 20:43:282019-03-25 20:44:00Huberty Proposes Amendment to Appropriations Bill that Would Allocate $30 Million to Dredge Mouth Bar
Senate Appropriates $1.65 Billion for SB7, But House Omits Funding For It While Considering $3.26 Billion For HB13
Last week, I reviewed Texas Senate Bill 7 (SB7) which creates a Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund. The fund, if approved, will help local governments by providing grants and low- and no-interest loans for flood mitigation projects in four major categories. Categories include Floodplain Management, Hurricane Harvey, Floodplain Implementation and Federal Matching accounts. A competing bills has emerged in the House called HB13.
The Senate specified funding for SB7 in SB500, an omnibus appropriations bill. SB500 appropriated $1.65 billion for SB7 from the Economic Stabilization (Rainy Day) Fund. See Section 29a on page 12.
However, when SB500 moved to the House, the House Appropriations committee voted to remove the funding for SB7. The committee report states, “The substitute does not include an appropriation to the comptroller for the Texas infrastructure resiliency fund or certain other provisions relating to that fund.” See the second to the last paragraph on page 9.
Meanwhile, State Representative Dade Phelan from Orange, Tx. filed House Bill 13 (HB13). SB7 and HB13 do many of the same things, but have some important differences. HB13 would provide $3.26 billion out of the economic stabilization fund.
SB7 creates something called the “Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund”; HB13 sets up a “Flood Infrastructure Fund.”
Important Similarities Between SB7 and HB13
Both SB7 and HB13:
Differences
HB13 also requires the state to prepare:
What Happens Next?
The full House has not yet voted on HB13. Consideration of SB7 will likely be delayed in the House until HB13 is voted up or down by the House. In the meantime, the House deferred any action on funding for SB7 by taking it out of SB500. It could always be handled separately at a later date in a supplementary appropriations bill.
If the House votes FOR HB13, we will then have two partially approved bills that do substantially the same thing. They would go to a conference committee to forge a compromise bill.
A conference committee consists of 10 people. The leader of each house appoints five. They work with each other to incorporate the best aspects of each bill. When a bill comes out of conference committee, it goes back to the House and Senate for straight up or down votes. Rules do NOT allow any amendments to bills that come out of conference committees.
With the amount of dollars at stake, not to mention the number of flood mitigation projects that depend on those dollars, everyone should closely watch the progress of these bills.
One Concern About HB13
After pondering each of these bills, I have one concern about HB13: the requirement to gain cooperation from all affected parties. In principle, it sounds good. In action, it could delay mitigation projects for years. It assumes political willpower and financial capabilities among multiple jurisdictions that may not exist. Mitigation for tens of thousands of people could be held up by a handful of folks that refuse to cooperate. There needs to be some way to arbitrate in such cases.
For instance, the San Jacinto River touches multiple cities and counties, has two major lakes, and is governed by the San Jacinto River Authority and the Coastal Water Authority. Lining up all those dominos every time someone somewhere wants to improve drainage may represent an impossible hurdle to clear.
The good news: the best minds in the state are all focused on ways to speed up and fund flood mitigation projects. A good compromise will likely emerge
I will continue to follow both of these bills as they work their ways through the House and Senate.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/27/19
575 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Updates Relating to Proposed Sand Mining and Flood Mitigation Legislation
At the start of this legislative session, I added a new page to this web site called Legislation. Its purpose: to help people track key pieces of proposed legislation affecting the Lake Houston area that have to do with sand mining and flood mitigation.
On it, you can see summaries of issues, links to the actual text of proposed bills, a “status tracker,” and posts that describe bills in more detail. I update these every few days. If you need to check on updates that have not yet been posted, consult Texas Legislature Online. It’s updated nightly during legislative sessions.
Key Bills Affecting Lake Houston Area
HB13 Creates a flood infrastructure fund of $3.26 billion taken from the Economic Stabilization (Rainy Day) fund for flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects. (Comparable to SB7 below but with some differences.)
HB509 Allows Texas Railroad Commission to regulate APOs with TCEQ. Requires: hydrologic impact study, public notice, public hearings, and provides fines up to $10,000 and 1-year in jail for false statements.
HB 907 Doubles the penalties for not registering a sand mining operation. New penalties can range from $10,000 to $20,000 per year with the total not to exceed $50,000.
HB 908 Provides for penalties up to $50,000 for water code violations and every-other-year inspections.
HB 909 Calls for the TCEQ to adopt and publish best management practices for sand mines (aggregate production operations) that comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations.
HB 1674. Extends water quality protections to the West Fork of the San Jacinto currently enjoyed by the John Graves District on the Brazos as part of a pilot program. Attaches penalties for non-compliance with best practices defined under HB909.
SB 7. Creates a dedicated Texas Infrastructure Fund for flood control planning and the funding of flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects.
SB500. An omnibus appropriations bill that includes funding for SB7 and an amendment that would dedicate $30 million for dredging of the West Fork Mouth Bar in Lake Houston.
Status of Each as of 3/26/19
HB13 Filed on March 7, 2019. Referred to Natural Resources on 3/11. Reported favorably by committee. Sent to Calendars Committee on 3/25.
HB509 Filed Dec. 11, 2018, Referred to Energy Resources 2/20/2019.
HB 907 Filed Jan. 17, 2019, Referred to Environmental Regulation 2/25/2019.
HB 908 Filed Jan. 17, 2019, Referred to Environmental Regulation 2/25/2019.
HB 909 Filed Jan. 17, 2019, Referred to Environmental Regulation 2/25/2019.
HB 1671 Filed on March 4, 2019, Referred to Natural Resources 3/4/2019.
SB 7 Filed on March 6, 2019, Referred to Water & Rural Affairs on 3/7, Public testimony 3/11. Senate passed unanimously by voice vote on 3/20. Received by House on 3/21.
SB500 Approved by Senate on 3/13. Engrossed, sent to House, and referred to Appropriations committee on same day. Approved with changes by House Appropriations on 3/19. The Appropriations Committee analysis of CSSB500 says on page 9, “The substitute does not include an appropriation to the comptroller for the Texas infrastructure resiliency fund or certain other provisions relating to that fund.” A separateHuberty amendment proposed on 3/22 would dedicate $30 million for dredging the West Fork mouth bar in Lake Houston.
Developments to Watch
Nothing has happened yet on any of the sand-mining bills since being sent to committees.
SB7 created a Texas Infrastructure Resilience Fund (TIRF) which was funded within SB500, an omnibus appropriations bill. But when SB500 got to the House, the Appropriations Committee deleted funding related to the TIRF – at least temporarily, while the House considers its own HB13. HB13 has many of the same objectives as SB7, but it has not yet reached the House floor for a vote.
Braden Kennedy, an assistant of Senator Brandon Creighton who sponsored SB7 had this to say. “It was unfortunate to see the House remove the funding to TIRF. However, Senator Creighton is confident we can find common ground down the road and achieve a Texas-sized appropriation hopefully during conference committee, when members of the Senate and House get together and settle the differences on the bill. Right now, House Bill 13 includes the appropriation itself while in the Senate, the members believe these expenditures should be in the supplemental budget (SB 500). We still think SB 7 has many certain advantages in that it is versatile in use – Harvey recovery dollars, future mitigation project funding, and Army Corps matching funds – and it includes several oversight and transparency safeguards.”
Check back soon and often. This is a $3.2 billion issue!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/26/2019
574 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Huberty Proposes Amendment to Appropriations Bill that Would Allocate $30 Million to Dredge Mouth Bar
Senate Bill 500 is an omnibus appropriations bill passed by the Texas Senate on March 13. The bill passed to the House for committee review and consideration the same day. Last Friday, March 22, State Representative Dan Huberty offered an amendment to SB 500. It would allocate $30 million to dredging the mouth bar where the West Fork of the San Jacinto meets Lake Huston.
Text of Huberty Amendment
The text reads:
Great News for West Fork Residents
This is great news for Lake Houston and West Fork residents. We faced six floods last year on relatively small rains. The mouth bar and other sediment dams left by Harvey created backwater effects that exaggerated flood heights. The exaggerated response of the river to these modest rains forced the City to prerelease water to avoid flooding.
It’s not clear how much funding the City will get from FEMA, if any, to address the mouth bar. The two sides have been arguing for more than a year about how much of the sediment is due to Harvey. Stephen Costello, the City’s Chief Recovery Officer, told a town hall meeting in Kingwood last week that there was at least 1.5 million cubic yards of sediment that needs to be removed to restore the river’s natural conveyance. Local geologists estimated that at least a third of that was due to Harvey.
Matching Funds for County
Last year, the County Flood Bond approved by voters in August included a $10 million match for dredging of the East Fork, West Fork and Lake Houston. The project description read: “Potential partnership project with the City of Houston, Coastal Water Authority, and the State of Texas to permit, design, and complete dredging of the East Fork, West Fork and Lake Houston area waterways to reduce flooding risks.”
If the Huberty amendment and the appropriations bill pass, suddenly we have a clear path to funding… regardless of what FEMA does and how long it takes their money to get here.
Includes Purchase of Equipment
The Huberty amendment calls for the purchase and operation of equipment. That means the equipment could be owned and used wherever needed. For about a year, the Army Corps has emphasized the need for maintenance dredging to prevent re-accumulation of massive deposits.
Matching Funds Mean Higher Priority
There’s a lot to like about this simple amendment. Consider this. Many have worried lately about prioritization of flood bond projects, i.e., which would kick off first. Readily available matching funds would give the dredging project a very high priority. That would accelerate execution of the project.
Posted by Bob Rehak on March 25
573 Days after Hurricane Harvey