7/16/25 – Brays Bayou, the watershed where Harris County Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis lives, has received virtually as much capital-improvement spending as 12 other watersheds put together. The county has 23 watersheds in all. So…
Ellis’ watershed received as much capital-improvement funding as half of all other watersheds combined.
For this analysis, I focused on Capital Improvement spending because it actually reduces flood risk. Maintenance usually keeps flood risk from getting worse.
The 12 “have not” watersheds include:
Bottom 12 watersheds in HCFCD Capital Improvement Project Spending between 2018 Q3 and 2025 Q2
In contrast, Ellis’ watershed benefited from $170.58 million in capital improvement spending.
Highest Flooding, Lowest Funding
Among the 12 are the San Jacinto River and Spring Creek Watersheds. They had the highest flooding in Harris County during Harvey.
Chart showing feet above flood stage of 33 gages of misc. bayous in Harris County during Harvey.
Capital Improvement spending from all sources between the start of the flood bond in 2018 and the end of 2025 Q2.
To see CIP spending, select “CIP” under the Project-Group filter on the left. That removes “maintenance expenditures.” Now dig deeper.
“District Funds” Even More Skewed
As I explored the data, I found another inequity. The District has spent $281 million from its own budget since 2018 Q3 (as opposed to bond or partner funds). To see this, leave CIP selected and select “District Funds” under Fund Source.
The seven watersheds at the bottom received a tiny percentage of Brays – Ellis’ watershed.
Ellis’ watershed (Brays) also received the lion’s share of this pot of money – almost $58 million. More than one fifth of all District Funds spent in seven years went to the watershed Rodney Ellis lives in.
Meanwhile, the San Jacinto Watershed – the county’s largest – received only about $3 thousand. That’s 17,000 times less.
District Funds spent in the San Jacinto watershed don’t even round to one-hundredth of a million dollars– only $3,430.
By almost any metric you look at, you see the same discrimination. Consider “construction” spending. Why? Money spent on upfront engineering studies and land acquisition doesn’t reduce flood risk one iota until someone actually starts turning dirt. Real reductions in flood risk begin with construction.
Ellis’ watershed received $126.58 million to date in construction spending. But the San Jacinto watershed has received only $18.49 million – one seventh of what Ellis gave himself.
It’s good to be king of commissioners court. You even get to filibuster about how Kingwood is getting all the money while Greens and Halls get none.
Download the spreadsheet on the HCFCD Activity page above the Power BI tables. Sort the 13,155 invoices paid to date since the start of the flood bond. You will see that…
Greens Bayou received $112 million capital improvement construction dollars; Halls Bayou received $27 million and Kingwood received ZERO.
No Fairness, No Future
The language and project lists associated with the 2018 flood bond were promises designed to reassure voters that the bond money would be distributed fairly throughout the county. So far, that promise has been broken.
And there’s no hint that the distribution of aid would be any better if we voted another $5 billion. This Commissioners Court has ignored the requirements in the bond language that voters approved.
And with the 2022 Bond which had a billion dollar drainage component, they first pledged an equal distribution of funds among precincts. Then AFTER voters approved the bond, they reversed their own motion.
I fear for the future of Harris County if this unfairness continues. Why would anyone vote for another bond?
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/16/25.
2879 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/2025/07/CIP-Thru-2Q25.png?fit=2430%2C1746&ssl=117462430adminadmin2025-07-16 17:00:102025-07-17 07:10:21The Inequities of Equity: Ellis’ Watershed Receives as Much CIP Spending as 12 Others Put Together
7/15/25 – Texas State Representative Steve Toth of Conroe announced today that he will run for U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw’s job next year in the Second Congressional District. But Toth, who is campaigning on protecting our security, has repeatedly voted against it.
Toth: Ultra-Right Mr. No
Toth voted against HB-13, designed to improve warnings in natural disasters, such as the July 4 Hill-Country floods this year and Panhandle wildfires last year. As of this writing, 134 are confirmed dead in the floods and close to a hundred are still missing.
Toth also voted against proposals to create a Lake Houston Dredging District three times: 2021, 2023 and 2025. The last time, State Rep. Charles Cunningham even modified the wording of HB 1532 so that it would NOT be tax-funded. But Toth still voted against it.
In the last redistricting effort, Toth helped redraw his home outside to Texas District 2, which he now wants to represent. Voter registration records indicate he lives in Texas District 8.
The ultra-conservative, far-right Toth also has a reputation for campaigning against Republicans. He previously ran against Kevin Brady of the Woodlands and lost.
A Personal Endorsement for Crenshaw
I have known Dan Crenshaw since he first ran for office and have immense respect for him. He has worked hard to protect the people of this district by securing funding for numerous flood-mitigation projects including dredging. But Toth has consistently voted against creating a Lake Houston Dredging District. He even voted against it when it wouldn’t have raised taxes. That tells me he’s out of touch with the needs of people in this congressional district. I plan on voting for Crenshaw.
Flickinger Emphasizes Vital Need For Dredging
Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger who testified in favor of Cunningham’s Dredging District Bill said: “House Bill 1532 is arguably the most important piece of legislation for the Lake Houston area passed in the last several decades.”
“HB 1532 created a dredging district, which allows us to address sediment in Lake Houston and the tributaries flowing into it proactively rather than reactively after our area has flooded.
Slightly different versions of the dredging district bill were introduced in the previous two sessions, but failed thanks in part to Toth.
Said Flickinger, “Last May’s rain event was a perfect example of how dredging improves drainage. The San Jacinto River crested two feet lower than predicted due to the dredging which had been completed over the last several years.”
Flickinger credits Congressman Crenshaw, former Representative Huberty, Senator Creighton and Council Member Martin for that. “They deserve special credit for securing the funding to complete these dredging efforts, some of which are ongoing today.”
Toth is UN-Representative
I just don’t get why someone who wants to represent 13,000 families and 3,300 businesses that flooded in the Lake Houston area would vote against a dredging bill that helps protect them. Those 3,300 businesses represented 44% of all the businesses in the Lake Houston Chamber.
Overall, 20% percent of homes and 40% of businesses in the Lake Houston area have been affected by flooding. That last figure includes 100% of ALL businesses in Kingwood Town Center.
I know families that were destroyed financially by the flooding and people who were killed. But the man who wants to represent this area has repeatedly stood in the way of a bi-partisan, tax-neutral solution designed to protect their homes and businesses.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/15/2025
2877 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/2018/10/Harvey-SanJac_437exposureadj.jpg?fit=2000%2C1054&ssl=110542000adminadmin2025-07-15 18:03:282025-07-15 18:11:04Toth, Who Voted Against Warning System, Dredging-District Bills Running Against Crenshaw
7/14/25 – I incorrectly reported four totals in my 7/12/25 story about the revised 2025 first-quarter, flood-bond update. I would like to set the record straight. I would also like to apologize to people at the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) and my readers. I take great pains to present accurate, reliable information that readers can count on. And I want to correct the historical record for future reference.
What Happened
In the first iteration of the 2025 Q1 report, I found a billion-dollar discrepancy. HCFCD admitted the mistake and corrected it in the revised report.
While double checking the revised report, I thought I discovered some other inconsistencies between the high-level, summary information at the front and the backup documentation at the end. They included:
“Bond Funds”
“Partner Funds”
“Secured Funds”
“Funds Spent”
Unfortunately, the discrepancies resulted from an inaccurate automated export of data from a PDF file to Microsoft Excel. Four lines out of hundreds did not translate properly. Using different, third-party software, HCFCD did the same export/import operation and encountered the same problem.
Highlighted and enlarged translation error from PDF to Excel. Note how expenditures became misaligned.
So, the incredibly dedicated person I talked to manually copied and pasted hundreds of figures to double check the totals in a ten-page spreadsheet.
That led to the discovery of the translation error, which explained the inaccurate totals.
During the translation, the programs shrank the size of the type. So, the figures no longer appeared in their proper columns. They also became virtually invisible because of their small size.
New Totals Agree
After hours of checking, I’m confident that the totals in the documentation now agree with the claims in the introduction. For the record:
2018 Bond Funds = $2.5 billion
Partner Funds = $2,697,565,889 (rounded to $2.7 Billion)
Total Funds = $5,227,103,996 (rounded to $5.2 billion)
Total Spent to Date = $1,569,557,746.
Questions about Other Figures Still Unanswered
In my 7/12/25 post, I also raised other questions that HCFCD has not yet answered.
First, where does the half-billion dollar increase in work in progress during the first quarter come from? I don’t see it in construction activity on the ground, in bids, or in work approved by Commissioners Court.
Second:
Where does the $1.3 billion funding shortfall came from that HCFCD Executive Director Tina Petersen claimed in Commissioner Court?
Why did no mention of the shortfall appear in the 2024 Year-End Bond Update or either of the two first-quarter updates?
A Start on Answers
HCFCD is starting to work on answers to those questions. Regarding the $1.3 billion shortfall, an HCFCD spokeswoman said, “One of the big asks was to produce our (sometimes rough) estimates of unmet need. That fell into two categories:
Current unmet need – Funding needed to take current projects through construction, even if the bond only originally provided funds for a study or engineering work. A good example of this is the projects included in Bond ID F-14. (Planning, Right-Of-Way Acquisition, Design and Construction of General Drainage Improvements Near Kingwood.)
Future unmet need – Funding needed to take the next phase of a project through construction. Examples would include engineering work that showed we need channel conveyance improvements and a stormwater detention basin in an area, but we currently only have funding for the stormwater detention basin. Or if studies showed we could construct a four-compartment basin, but we currently only have funding for two compartments.
“That is not how we have managed the bond program to date, so it represented a shift in thinking. These were meant to be high-level estimates for discussion, not an actual estimate of need associated with the bond program.”
Working to Make Financial Reporting More Transparent
In working with HCFCD to resolve these an other questions, I found them very open and collaborative. At this point, I no longer feel they are trying to hide something.
I also have a greater appreciation for the complexities the 2018 bond program. Finding a way to summarize changes in scope on hundreds of projects and Bond IDs is difficult, especially when tracking money from multiple sources. From a communication point of view, it all comes down to inspiring trust instead of raising skepticism.
HCFCD has not yet agreed to any specific changes. But they did accept the challenge to find clearer ways to communicate.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/14/2025
2876 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/2025/07/Translation-Error.png?fit=2198%2C542&ssl=15422198adminadmin2025-07-14 18:02:312025-07-14 18:04:54Correction to Revised 2025 First-Quarter Flood-Bond Update Story
The Inequities of Equity: Ellis’ Watershed Receives as Much CIP Spending as 12 Others Put Together
7/16/25 – Brays Bayou, the watershed where Harris County Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis lives, has received virtually as much capital-improvement spending as 12 other watersheds put together. The county has 23 watersheds in all. So…
For this analysis, I focused on Capital Improvement spending because it actually reduces flood risk. Maintenance usually keeps flood risk from getting worse.
The 12 “have not” watersheds include:
Highest Flooding, Lowest Funding
Among the 12 are the San Jacinto River and Spring Creek Watersheds. They had the highest flooding in Harris County during Harvey.
How to Explore the Data Yourself
I obtained the spending figures from a Microsoft Power BI table on the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) website’s Activity page.
To see CIP spending, select “CIP” under the Project-Group filter on the left. That removes “maintenance expenditures.” Now dig deeper.
“District Funds” Even More Skewed
As I explored the data, I found another inequity. The District has spent $281 million from its own budget since 2018 Q3 (as opposed to bond or partner funds). To see this, leave CIP selected and select “District Funds” under Fund Source.
Ellis’ watershed (Brays) also received the lion’s share of this pot of money – almost $58 million. More than one fifth of all District Funds spent in seven years went to the watershed Rodney Ellis lives in.
Meanwhile, the San Jacinto Watershed – the county’s largest – received only about $3 thousand. That’s 17,000 times less.
Other area watersheds didn’t fare much better:
Ellis Hogs “Construction” Spending, Too
This skewed funding is a direct result of statistical gerrymandering in Ellis’ race-based Equity Prioritization Framework.
By almost any metric you look at, you see the same discrimination. Consider “construction” spending. Why? Money spent on upfront engineering studies and land acquisition doesn’t reduce flood risk one iota until someone actually starts turning dirt. Real reductions in flood risk begin with construction.
Ellis’ watershed received $126.58 million to date in construction spending. But the San Jacinto watershed has received only $18.49 million – one seventh of what Ellis gave himself.
It’s good to be king of commissioners court. You even get to filibuster about how Kingwood is getting all the money while Greens and Halls get none.
Download the spreadsheet on the HCFCD Activity page above the Power BI tables. Sort the 13,155 invoices paid to date since the start of the flood bond. You will see that…
No Fairness, No Future
The language and project lists associated with the 2018 flood bond were promises designed to reassure voters that the bond money would be distributed fairly throughout the county. So far, that promise has been broken.
And there’s no hint that the distribution of aid would be any better if we voted another $5 billion. This Commissioners Court has ignored the requirements in the bond language that voters approved.
And with the 2022 Bond which had a billion dollar drainage component, they first pledged an equal distribution of funds among precincts. Then AFTER voters approved the bond, they reversed their own motion.
I fear for the future of Harris County if this unfairness continues. Why would anyone vote for another bond?
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/16/25.
2879 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.
Toth, Who Voted Against Warning System, Dredging-District Bills Running Against Crenshaw
7/15/25 – Texas State Representative Steve Toth of Conroe announced today that he will run for U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw’s job next year in the Second Congressional District. But Toth, who is campaigning on protecting our security, has repeatedly voted against it.
Toth: Ultra-Right Mr. No
Toth voted against HB-13, designed to improve warnings in natural disasters, such as the July 4 Hill-Country floods this year and Panhandle wildfires last year. As of this writing, 134 are confirmed dead in the floods and close to a hundred are still missing.
Toth also voted against proposals to create a Lake Houston Dredging District three times: 2021, 2023 and 2025. The last time, State Rep. Charles Cunningham even modified the wording of HB 1532 so that it would NOT be tax-funded. But Toth still voted against it.
In the last redistricting effort, Toth helped redraw his home outside to Texas District 2, which he now wants to represent. Voter registration records indicate he lives in Texas District 8.
The ultra-conservative, far-right Toth also has a reputation for campaigning against Republicans. He previously ran against Kevin Brady of the Woodlands and lost.
A Personal Endorsement for Crenshaw
I have known Dan Crenshaw since he first ran for office and have immense respect for him. He has worked hard to protect the people of this district by securing funding for numerous flood-mitigation projects including dredging. But Toth has consistently voted against creating a Lake Houston Dredging District. He even voted against it when it wouldn’t have raised taxes. That tells me he’s out of touch with the needs of people in this congressional district. I plan on voting for Crenshaw.
Flickinger Emphasizes Vital Need For Dredging
Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger who testified in favor of Cunningham’s Dredging District Bill said: “House Bill 1532 is arguably the most important piece of legislation for the Lake Houston area passed in the last several decades.”
“HB 1532 created a dredging district, which allows us to address sediment in Lake Houston and the tributaries flowing into it proactively rather than reactively after our area has flooded.
Slightly different versions of the dredging district bill were introduced in the previous two sessions, but failed thanks in part to Toth.
Said Flickinger, “Last May’s rain event was a perfect example of how dredging improves drainage. The San Jacinto River crested two feet lower than predicted due to the dredging which had been completed over the last several years.”
Flickinger credits Congressman Crenshaw, former Representative Huberty, Senator Creighton and Council Member Martin for that. “They deserve special credit for securing the funding to complete these dredging efforts, some of which are ongoing
today.”
Toth is UN-Representative
I just don’t get why someone who wants to represent 13,000 families and 3,300 businesses that flooded in the Lake Houston area would vote against a dredging bill that helps protect them. Those 3,300 businesses represented 44% of all the businesses in the Lake Houston Chamber.
Overall, 20% percent of homes and 40% of businesses in the Lake Houston area have been affected by flooding. That last figure includes 100% of ALL businesses in Kingwood Town Center.
I know families that were destroyed financially by the flooding and people who were killed. But the man who wants to represent this area has repeatedly stood in the way of a bi-partisan, tax-neutral solution designed to protect their homes and businesses.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/15/2025
2877 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.
Correction to Revised 2025 First-Quarter Flood-Bond Update Story
7/14/25 – I incorrectly reported four totals in my 7/12/25 story about the revised 2025 first-quarter, flood-bond update. I would like to set the record straight. I would also like to apologize to people at the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) and my readers. I take great pains to present accurate, reliable information that readers can count on. And I want to correct the historical record for future reference.
What Happened
In the first iteration of the 2025 Q1 report, I found a billion-dollar discrepancy. HCFCD admitted the mistake and corrected it in the revised report.
While double checking the revised report, I thought I discovered some other inconsistencies between the high-level, summary information at the front and the backup documentation at the end. They included:
Unfortunately, the discrepancies resulted from an inaccurate automated export of data from a PDF file to Microsoft Excel. Four lines out of hundreds did not translate properly. Using different, third-party software, HCFCD did the same export/import operation and encountered the same problem.
So, the incredibly dedicated person I talked to manually copied and pasted hundreds of figures to double check the totals in a ten-page spreadsheet.
That led to the discovery of the translation error, which explained the inaccurate totals.
During the translation, the programs shrank the size of the type. So, the figures no longer appeared in their proper columns. They also became virtually invisible because of their small size.
New Totals Agree
After hours of checking, I’m confident that the totals in the documentation now agree with the claims in the introduction. For the record:
Questions about Other Figures Still Unanswered
In my 7/12/25 post, I also raised other questions that HCFCD has not yet answered.
First, where does the half-billion dollar increase in work in progress during the first quarter come from? I don’t see it in construction activity on the ground, in bids, or in work approved by Commissioners Court.
Second:
A Start on Answers
HCFCD is starting to work on answers to those questions. Regarding the $1.3 billion shortfall, an HCFCD spokeswoman said, “One of the big asks was to produce our (sometimes rough) estimates of unmet need. That fell into two categories:
“That is not how we have managed the bond program to date, so it represented a shift in thinking. These were meant to be high-level estimates for discussion, not an actual estimate of need associated with the bond program.”
Working to Make Financial Reporting More Transparent
In working with HCFCD to resolve these an other questions, I found them very open and collaborative. At this point, I no longer feel they are trying to hide something.
I also have a greater appreciation for the complexities the 2018 bond program. Finding a way to summarize changes in scope on hundreds of projects and Bond IDs is difficult, especially when tracking money from multiple sources. From a communication point of view, it all comes down to inspiring trust instead of raising skepticism.
HCFCD has not yet agreed to any specific changes. But they did accept the challenge to find clearer ways to communicate.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/14/2025
2876 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.