Examination of bond language that voters approved shows Ellis and his colleagues likely violated six provisions: 14 A, B, C, D, F, and G. Let’s examine each, starting with G.
Basis for Prioritization Distorted
Paragraph 14(G) specifies an “equitable” distribution of funds. Ellis “reminds” people constantly that bond language gives commissioners the right to prioritize projects. But he never mentions how he redefined the basis specified for prioritization.
Ellis uses a self-serving definition of “equity” instead of “equitable.” His race-based formula prioritizes social vulnerability instead of flood-risk and flood-damage reduction.
Open any dictionary and you will see that equitable means fair and impartial. That’s not Ellis. His self-serving formula penalizes areas that have higher flood risk than his and that have received no or little help from HCFCD.
Funds Not Used for Purposes Described
Paragraph 14(A) says that funds must be used only for purposes described.
Yet the bond came packaged with a heavily promoted list of projects, many of which are being defunded to pay for items that were not on the list.
Due to a lack of transparency and questionable accounting, it is unclear what the bond proceeds are being spent on. That may also violate 14(A).
Not Providing Benefits Throughout the County
Paragraph 14(B) says that projects will provide benefits throughout the county. Defunding all but the highest ranked “equity” projects will effectively create “funding deserts.” Remaining projects will not benefit taxpayers throughout the county.
Commissioner Tom Ramsey said, “This decision puts voter-approved funding of over $220 million in Precinct 3 at risk. It also threatens partnerships and matching funds from local, state, and federal agencies worth another $206 million. But the court voted to do just that, thus violating 14(B).
Bait-and-Switch
Paragraph 14(C) says that projects will include those described in the bond. But Ellis’ defunding will effectively kill many. Meanwhile, Ellis plans to fund others not in the bond. Promising one thing and delivering another is called bait-and-switch advertising.
The language in 14(C) was intended to focus HCFCD on delivering promised projects, not commissioners’ pet projects. But now, we are getting Ellis’ pet projects.
Rights of Way Endangered
Paragraph 14(D) says bond money will be used to purchase rights of way for the construction of future detention basins and channel improvements. The original bond list contained money to acquire land in the Little Cypress and Cedar Bayou watersheds.
But those projects fall below the cutoff in Ellis’ gerrymandering Equity formula. In the future, it may be impossible to purchase those rights of way. And without them, growth in those watersheds may doom another generation to flooding.
Slow-Motion Project Delivery
Paragraph 14(F) specifies that projects will be undertaken in an expeditious manner. But execution of the bond program has slowed dramatically under HCFCD’s current leadership.
Under the previous management team, HCFCD projects were launched quickly. Not so much anymore!
HCFCD bid only three projects in 2024.
Slow execution has resulted in inflation undermining the bond’s purchasing power. It is unconscionable given the project output under previous HCFCD management. But Ellis doesn’t seem concerned about the slowdown or impact of inflation, either.
In fact, faced with tight Federal deadlines on HUD projects, he gave HCFCD Director Dr. Tina Petersen another 2.5 months to figure out how his equity cuts would affect projects.
Fine Print vs. Voter “Takeaway”
There may be fine print in the bond language that gives Ellis a technical “out” on some of these points. But generally, fine print does not legally excuse advertisers from creating a false or misleading impression. And this bond was heavily advertised.
In advertising law, especially under Federal and Texas consumer-protection laws:
Overall Impressions Matter: Courts look at the net impression an advertisement conveys to a reasonable consumer. If the overall impression is misleading, disclaimers buried in fine print generally won’t cure it.
FTC Standards: The Federal Trade Commission explicitly states that disclosures must be clear and conspicuous. Disclaimers that consumers are unlikely to notice or understand do not meet FTC standards.
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices If overall impressions mislead consumers, disclaimers hidden in fine print typically won’t absolve liability. The Texas Attorney General’s office has a clear standard: fine print does not cure deception.
Courts Generally Do Not Accept Fine Print as a Shield: Judges typically base rulings on the takeaway of an average consumer at first glance, not careful study of fine print.
Fine print can clarify net impressions, but it does not excuse deception.
The Ballot Box Cure
On balance, I feel misled. But rather than sue, I plan to use my voice and vote in the upcoming election. That will likely produce results faster than the courts.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/5/2025
2867 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/2020/08/Ellis.jpg?fit=1200%2C809&ssl=18091200adminadmin2025-07-05 18:50:272025-07-05 22:50:22Ellis Equity Cuts Likely Violate Bond Language Approved by Voters
7/4/2025 – Let the fireworks begin early today. Comparing the two most recent flood-bond updates – Year End 2024 and First Quarter 2025 – shows that HCFCD spent about $44 million in the first quarter. But more than a billion dollars has disappeared from “funds remaining” during the same period.
Totals should offset each other, but they don’t.
This isn’t simply moving money from one side of the ledger to the other. Something else is going on here that’s hidden from plain view. Below is the raw spending data reported by HCFCD for the two time periods.
As I stared at these, problem after problem emerged. For instance, HCFCD “spent” only one dollar in the Spring Creek Watershed, but “funds remaining” mysteriously went down by almost $12.5 million. It’s like that for virtually every watershed.
We need an immediate audit by an independent state agency.
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) released the reports after the last commissioners court meeting on 6/26/25. In that meeting, HCFCD executive director Dr. Tina Petersen claimed the county could be short as much as $1.3 billion to fulfill promises made to the public during the 2018 flood-bond election.
Four Democrats on Commissioners Court then used that as an excuse to reallocate all remaining funds to projects that scored the highest on Rodney Ellis’ Equity Prioritization Framework. Only the lone Republican, Tom Ramsey, raised an objection.
A Billion Dollars Goes MIA with Suspicious Timing
Interestingly, HCFCD released the two bond updates simultaneously but AFTER the court discussion. The timing precluded any public analysis of the reports before the meeting in which Commissioners reallocated all the remaining money in the bond to “equity” projects. The timing also precluded any public comment on the accounting and reallocation.
Debits and Credits Don’t Match
The two Flood Bond updates contain lists of watersheds with “money spent” and “remaining money available.” But the columns are not totaled. That’s always a suspicious practice from an accounting point of view.
So, I totaled and compared them:
HCFCD spent only $43.9 million in the first quarter. But $1.1 billion less remains in the till.
And no one thought to explain that!? Where did the money go? The public needs an answer!
Large Amounts Disappear In Virtually Every Watershed
Here’s how the billion dollars that mysteriously vaporized affected the San Jacinto Watershed.
After spending only $168thousand, “funds remaining” decreased by almost $143million without explanation.
Backup documentation in the report showed only one line item changed during this time period and only for $169,000. It provides no clue where $143 million went.
Other notable unexplained decreases included:
$726.7 million in Countywide Funds
$168 million in the Clear Creek Watershed
$77 million in the Buffalo Bayou Watershed
$59 million in Halls Bayou
One Billion Dollars Goes “Poof”!
Such unexplained decreases added up to the mysterious disappearance of $1,073,078,534.
Only Greens Bayou and Brays Bayou showed substantial increases. They totaled $80.3 million – not nearly enough to compensate for decreases in other watersheds. So this was not simply about moving money from one watershed to another.
Open one report and you see the cash. Open the next and you don’t. No explanation provided.
But it gets worse.
No Mention of Trouble in Bond Updates
Neither of the bond updates warns the public about any impending crisis in bond funding. Just the opposite.
The 2024 Year-End Report says…
The County is “exceeding the original goal of the program and removing any funding uncertainty.”
Page 6 of 2024 Year End Bond Update
If this were the private sector, the Securities and Exchange Commission would investigate that.
Smoke and Mirrors Should Trigger Immediate Audit
There’s too much here that just doesn’t add up. We need an audit by the Texas Attorney General or U.S. Department of Justice immediately to see if money has really disappeared. I’m not alleging fraud. This could simply be a case of incompetence, sloth, mislabeling, bad proofreading, or the sloppiest financial reporting ever.
Yet Dr. Tina Petersen, head of HCFCD, just received a salary increase of almost $90,000. She now makes $434,000. That’s $65,477 dollars more than HCFCD spent on 11 of the county’s 23 watersheds in the first quarter – combined! Altogether, those 11 watersheds received only $368,533 from HCFCD.
Read them. Then write your county and state representatives today and demand an investigation.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/4/25
2866 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/Slide1.png?fit=1100%2C825&ssl=18251100adminadmin2025-07-04 12:41:092025-07-05 13:27:03Unexplained Billion-Dollar Discrepancy in HCFCD Flood-Bond Reports
7/2/2025 – Part 2 of a 3-Part Series about the integrity of HCFCD’s information and its transparency. On 6/26/25, HCFCD’s director testified in Harris County Commissioners Court that the 2018 Flood Bond could have a $1.3 billion shortfall.
HCFCD Executive Director Dr. Tina Petersen testifying before Commissioners Court on Flood Bond shortfall on 6/26/25.
But two flood-bond updates (Year End 2024 and Q1 2025), strangely released after her testimony, make no mention of a shortfall and starkly contradict her testimony. The disconnect is stunning.
Bleak Testimony in Commissioners Court
Dr. Tina Petersen claimed a flood-bond funding shortfall of $1.3 billion – 25% of all bond and partner funds. Four Democratic commissioners used that to justify cutting 80% of all remaining projects in the bond.
They then reallocated all remaining money exclusively to projects with a high “equity” component. They also decided to fund those projects all the way through construction, even if the bond included only a preliminary engineering review. But…
Bond Updates Make No Mention of Shortfall, Just Sunshine Galore
In stark contrast to the bleak discussion in commissioners court, HCFCD released two Flood-Bond Updates hours after the meeting– one for Year End 2024 and the other for First Quarter 2025.
Petersen’s Year End 2024 report is full of sunshine. It never mentions a shortfall. Instead, it talks about “Achieving Funding Stability.” It brags about “closing the funding gap” and how the District can now “move forward with financial stability, ensuring we can deliver projects with confidence and certainty.”
Further, it says, “This report provided clarity and accountability across all 181 bond IDs, providing alignment between budgets, project scopes and goals of the program.”
That’s a pretty rosy picture compared to the dire report she had just delivered in Commissioners Court.
The Q1 ’25 update never mentioned an impending shortfall either.
And just this April, I captured the screen image below. At the time, HCFCD claimed no projects would be cancelled.
Voters I talked to felt blindsided by this whole mess.
Suspicious Timing
The timing of the release of the bond updates is suspicious. Affected voters had NO WARNING and NO CHANCE to protest the re-allocation of the tax dollars they approved for projects in their areas.
After listening to two hours of one-sided public comments from Rodney Ellis surrogates, Democratic commissioners voted 4:1 to reallocate all money remaining in the flood bond to projects that will benefit only communities with the highest equity scores, regardless of the volume of flood damage elsewhere. The motion they adopted will penalize 1.2 million Precinct 3 residents disproportionately.
Stay tuned for more on this topic as we head into another Harris County budgeting cycle.
I suspect the Democrats are getting ready to tell us they need another flood bond if we want to complete the previous flood bond. County Judge Lina Hidalgo has mentioned it already.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/2/25
2864 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/Tina-Petersen.jpg?fit=1100%2C608&ssl=16081100adminadmin2025-07-02 14:02:182025-07-02 21:26:53HCFCD Bond Updates Make No Mention of Surprise $1.3 Billion Shortfall
Ellis Equity Cuts Likely Violate Bond Language Approved by Voters
In Harris County Commissioners Court on June 26, 2025, Democrats voted 4:1 along party lines to reallocate all remaining money in the 2018 Flood Bond to projects that scored in the top quartile of Commissioner Rodney Ellis’ Equity Prioritization Framework.
That will defund all but a handful of projects that voters approved. Is that legal?
Examination of bond language that voters approved shows Ellis and his colleagues likely violated six provisions: 14 A, B, C, D, F, and G. Let’s examine each, starting with G.
Basis for Prioritization Distorted
Paragraph 14(G) specifies an “equitable” distribution of funds. Ellis “reminds” people constantly that bond language gives commissioners the right to prioritize projects. But he never mentions how he redefined the basis specified for prioritization.
Ellis uses a self-serving definition of “equity” instead of “equitable.” His race-based formula prioritizes social vulnerability instead of flood-risk and flood-damage reduction.
Open any dictionary and you will see that equitable means fair and impartial. That’s not Ellis. His self-serving formula penalizes areas that have higher flood risk than his and that have received no or little help from HCFCD.
Funds Not Used for Purposes Described
Paragraph 14(A) says that funds must be used only for purposes described.
Yet the bond came packaged with a heavily promoted list of projects, many of which are being defunded to pay for items that were not on the list.
Due to a lack of transparency and questionable accounting, it is unclear what the bond proceeds are being spent on. That may also violate 14(A).
Not Providing Benefits Throughout the County
Paragraph 14(B) says that projects will provide benefits throughout the county. Defunding all but the highest ranked “equity” projects will effectively create “funding deserts.” Remaining projects will not benefit taxpayers throughout the county.
Commissioner Tom Ramsey said, “This decision puts voter-approved funding of over $220 million in Precinct 3 at risk. It also threatens partnerships and matching funds from local, state, and federal agencies worth another $206 million. But the court voted to do just that, thus violating 14(B).
Bait-and-Switch
Paragraph 14(C) says that projects will include those described in the bond. But Ellis’ defunding will effectively kill many. Meanwhile, Ellis plans to fund others not in the bond. Promising one thing and delivering another is called bait-and-switch advertising.
The language in 14(C) was intended to focus HCFCD on delivering promised projects, not commissioners’ pet projects. But now, we are getting Ellis’ pet projects.
Rights of Way Endangered
Paragraph 14(D) says bond money will be used to purchase rights of way for the construction of future detention basins and channel improvements. The original bond list contained money to acquire land in the Little Cypress and Cedar Bayou watersheds.
But those projects fall below the cutoff in Ellis’ gerrymandering Equity formula. In the future, it may be impossible to purchase those rights of way. And without them, growth in those watersheds may doom another generation to flooding.
Slow-Motion Project Delivery
Paragraph 14(F) specifies that projects will be undertaken in an expeditious manner. But execution of the bond program has slowed dramatically under HCFCD’s current leadership.
Slow execution has resulted in inflation undermining the bond’s purchasing power. It is unconscionable given the project output under previous HCFCD management. But Ellis doesn’t seem concerned about the slowdown or impact of inflation, either.
In fact, faced with tight Federal deadlines on HUD projects, he gave HCFCD Director Dr. Tina Petersen another 2.5 months to figure out how his equity cuts would affect projects.
Fine Print vs. Voter “Takeaway”
There may be fine print in the bond language that gives Ellis a technical “out” on some of these points. But generally, fine print does not legally excuse advertisers from creating a false or misleading impression. And this bond was heavily advertised.
In advertising law, especially under Federal and Texas consumer-protection laws:
Courts look at the net impression an advertisement conveys to a reasonable consumer. If the overall impression is misleading, disclaimers buried in fine print generally won’t cure it.
The Federal Trade Commission explicitly states that disclosures must be clear and conspicuous. Disclaimers that consumers are unlikely to notice or understand do not meet FTC standards.
If overall impressions mislead consumers, disclaimers hidden in fine print typically won’t absolve liability. The Texas Attorney General’s office has a clear standard: fine print does not cure deception.
Judges typically base rulings on the takeaway of an average consumer at first glance, not careful study of fine print.
Fine print can clarify net impressions, but it does not excuse deception.
The Ballot Box Cure
On balance, I feel misled. But rather than sue, I plan to use my voice and vote in the upcoming election. That will likely produce results faster than the courts.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/5/2025
2867 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.
Unexplained Billion-Dollar Discrepancy in HCFCD Flood-Bond Reports
7/4/2025 – Let the fireworks begin early today. Comparing the two most recent flood-bond updates – Year End 2024 and First Quarter 2025 – shows that HCFCD spent about $44 million in the first quarter. But more than a billion dollars has disappeared from “funds remaining” during the same period.
This isn’t simply moving money from one side of the ledger to the other. Something else is going on here that’s hidden from plain view. Below is the raw spending data reported by HCFCD for the two time periods.
As I stared at these, problem after problem emerged. For instance, HCFCD “spent” only one dollar in the Spring Creek Watershed, but “funds remaining” mysteriously went down by almost $12.5 million. It’s like that for virtually every watershed.
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) released the reports after the last commissioners court meeting on 6/26/25. In that meeting, HCFCD executive director Dr. Tina Petersen claimed the county could be short as much as $1.3 billion to fulfill promises made to the public during the 2018 flood-bond election.
Four Democrats on Commissioners Court then used that as an excuse to reallocate all remaining funds to projects that scored the highest on Rodney Ellis’ Equity Prioritization Framework. Only the lone Republican, Tom Ramsey, raised an objection.
A Billion Dollars Goes MIA with Suspicious Timing
Interestingly, HCFCD released the two bond updates simultaneously but AFTER the court discussion. The timing precluded any public analysis of the reports before the meeting in which Commissioners reallocated all the remaining money in the bond to “equity” projects. The timing also precluded any public comment on the accounting and reallocation.
Debits and Credits Don’t Match
The two Flood Bond updates contain lists of watersheds with “money spent” and “remaining money available.” But the columns are not totaled. That’s always a suspicious practice from an accounting point of view.
So, I totaled and compared them:
And no one thought to explain that!? Where did the money go? The public needs an answer!
Large Amounts Disappear In Virtually Every Watershed
Here’s how the billion dollars that mysteriously vaporized affected the San Jacinto Watershed.
Backup documentation in the report showed only one line item changed during this time period and only for $169,000. It provides no clue where $143 million went.
Other notable unexplained decreases included:
One Billion Dollars Goes “Poof”!
Such unexplained decreases added up to the mysterious disappearance of $1,073,078,534.
Only Greens Bayou and Brays Bayou showed substantial increases. They totaled $80.3 million – not nearly enough to compensate for decreases in other watersheds. So this was not simply about moving money from one watershed to another.
Open one report and you see the cash. Open the next and you don’t. No explanation provided.
But it gets worse.
No Mention of Trouble in Bond Updates
Neither of the bond updates warns the public about any impending crisis in bond funding. Just the opposite.
The 2024 Year-End Report says…
If this were the private sector, the Securities and Exchange Commission would investigate that.
Smoke and Mirrors Should Trigger Immediate Audit
There’s too much here that just doesn’t add up. We need an audit by the Texas Attorney General or U.S. Department of Justice immediately to see if money has really disappeared. I’m not alleging fraud. This could simply be a case of incompetence, sloth, mislabeling, bad proofreading, or the sloppiest financial reporting ever.
Yet Dr. Tina Petersen, head of HCFCD, just received a salary increase of almost $90,000. She now makes $434,000. That’s $65,477 dollars more than HCFCD spent on 11 of the county’s 23 watersheds in the first quarter – combined! Altogether, those 11 watersheds received only $368,533 from HCFCD.
For More Information
Here are the full 2024 Year End and 2025 First Quarter Reports. See pages 8 and 9 in the 2024 report and page 6 in the 2025 report (shown in screen capture above).
Read them. Then write your county and state representatives today and demand an investigation.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/4/25
2866 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.
HCFCD Bond Updates Make No Mention of Surprise $1.3 Billion Shortfall
7/2/2025 – Part 2 of a 3-Part Series about the integrity of HCFCD’s information and its transparency. On 6/26/25, HCFCD’s director testified in Harris County Commissioners Court that the 2018 Flood Bond could have a $1.3 billion shortfall.
But two flood-bond updates (Year End 2024 and Q1 2025), strangely released after her testimony, make no mention of a shortfall and starkly contradict her testimony. The disconnect is stunning.
Bleak Testimony in Commissioners Court
Dr. Tina Petersen claimed a flood-bond funding shortfall of $1.3 billion – 25% of all bond and partner funds. Four Democratic commissioners used that to justify cutting 80% of all remaining projects in the bond.
They then reallocated all remaining money exclusively to projects with a high “equity” component. They also decided to fund those projects all the way through construction, even if the bond included only a preliminary engineering review. But…
Bond Updates Make No Mention of Shortfall, Just Sunshine Galore
In stark contrast to the bleak discussion in commissioners court, HCFCD released two Flood-Bond Updates hours after the meeting– one for Year End 2024 and the other for First Quarter 2025.
Petersen’s Year End 2024 report is full of sunshine. It never mentions a shortfall. Instead, it talks about “Achieving Funding Stability.” It brags about “closing the funding gap” and how the District can now “move forward with financial stability, ensuring we can deliver projects with confidence and certainty.”
Further, it says, “This report provided clarity and accountability across all 181 bond IDs, providing alignment between budgets, project scopes and goals of the program.”
That’s a pretty rosy picture compared to the dire report she had just delivered in Commissioners Court.
The Q1 ’25 update never mentioned an impending shortfall either.
And just this April, I captured the screen image below. At the time, HCFCD claimed no projects would be cancelled.
Voters I talked to felt blindsided by this whole mess.
Suspicious Timing
The timing of the release of the bond updates is suspicious. Affected voters had NO WARNING and NO CHANCE to protest the re-allocation of the tax dollars they approved for projects in their areas.
After listening to two hours of one-sided public comments from Rodney Ellis surrogates, Democratic commissioners voted 4:1 to reallocate all money remaining in the flood bond to projects that will benefit only communities with the highest equity scores, regardless of the volume of flood damage elsewhere. The motion they adopted will penalize 1.2 million Precinct 3 residents disproportionately.
Stay tuned for more on this topic as we head into another Harris County budgeting cycle.
I suspect the Democrats are getting ready to tell us they need another flood bond if we want to complete the previous flood bond. County Judge Lina Hidalgo has mentioned it already.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/2/25
2864 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.