10/26/26 – Few people understand that floodplains are a shifting target. They are determined by LIDAR accurate to within a centimeter, certified by professional engineers, and enshrined in government regulations. At the end of that process, residents borrow billions of dollars for mortgages, often based on where a professional surveyor determines a line should appear on a map.
How could they all be wrong? They aren’t. They’re right for a period of time. But those floodplains shift based on:
Hundreds of jurisdictions within the San Jacinto River Basin that may not share Harris County’s flood-prevention priorities
Who wins the political battle for flood-mitigation dollars at the state, county and local levels.
Shifting-Target Horror Story
How fast can things change? In the early eighties, I bought a house in the Dallas area on Spring Creek downstream from Plano. The engineer, survey, and developer certified that it was two feet above the hundred year floodplain. But Plano was the fastest growing city in America at the time. Within two years, floodwater entered our house after a minor rain.
So, the Army Corps resurveyed the creek. They determined that we were ten feet below the 100-year floodplain, not two feet above it. That was an expensive lesson for young homeowners. After making repairs, we sold the house at a huge loss.
We then moved to Houston, but on much higher ground relative to the floodplain at the time. We bought a home a mile beyond the 500-year floodplain. Now, however, new flood maps show the 500-floodplain reaches within 50 feet of my house.
Do Maps Really Reflect Everything Going on Around You?
As a result, I have learned all over again that floodplains are a shifting target.
“Now, where is that floodplain?” Illustration by ChatGPT.
If you came across a bear in the woods, you would immediately sense a threat and turn around. But when searching for a new home, you may not feel an immediate threat from flooding. So, many people let their guards down.
Even if you wanted to learn what a new home’s flood risk is, how would you?
The new flood maps posted on MAAPnext.org are not yet official. And even if they were, Harris County Flood Control based them on data it started acquiring in 2019. Since then, Montgomery County has become the third-fastest growing county in America – a game changer.
FEMA is now reviewing protests by home and business owners who fear their property values could plummet re: the extent of floodplains.
Engineering for additional gates for the Lake Houston Dam has not yet finished. But we know we will need more funding that could potentially torpedo the benefit/cost requirement.
No additional upstream detention projects have yet started.
The Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District is scrambling to put together a business plan.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Houston-Floodplain-Shuffle.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2026-10-26 20:26:062026-10-26 23:05:44Floodplains: A Shifting Target and a Political Swamp
10/25/26 – Texas General Land Office (GLO) Commissioner Dawn Buckingham M.D. has announced the launch of a $92 million program to reallocate flood mitigation funding along with a call for projects in eligible Texas communities until November 18th.
A 10/20/26 GLO press release says that Buckingham launched a Mitigation Reallocation Program (MRP). The effort will help ensure $92 million in available funding reaches Texas communities that need dollars for flood-mitigation projects.
The funding can be used for mitigation needs such as flood and drainage improvements, water-system improvements, wastewater improvements, street improvements and permanently affixed emergency communications equipment. In short, anything that reduces the impacts of future hurricanes, storms and flooding. The deadline for applications: Nov. 18, 2026, at 5 p.m. (Central Time).
Beating the Federal Clock
“The GLO is setting a record pace in administering mitigation funds across several disasters,” said Commissioner Dawn Buckingham, M.D. The mitigation funding comes from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
It is a one-time opportunity to accomplish resilience infrastructure priorities in Texas communities frequently impacted by disasters. However, these funds must be used expeditiously before the federal clock runs out.
“The MRP reinforces the GLO’s commitment to helping Texas communities prepare, withstand, and recover from disasters with stronger, more resilient systems in place,” said Buckingham.
The MRP utilizes de-obligated and un-utilized Community Development Block Grant funds for Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) from HUD. Currently, the GLO has identified $92 million in funding available for the MRP. That total may increase as GLO identifies additional funds.
Who is Eligible and Where?
Eligible entities include units of local government (cities and counties), Indian Tribes and special purpose districts in counties eligible for CDBG-MIT grants. Each may submit up to three (3) projects.
GLO will consider projects based on the criteria identified in the action plan. Projects must cost between $2.5 million and $10 million. Because of their emphasis on preventing future flooding, they do not need to a tie-back to a particular disaster, such as Hurricane Harvey.
Eligible counties include the dark-shaded areas.
Webinar Explains Application Process for Community Officials
The GLO hosted a webinar for community officials in eligible counties regarding the call for projects process including federal eligibility requirements, scoring criteria, and key deadlines. The webinar was recorded and is available on the MRP website.
From the date of contract execution, sub-recipients will have a maximum of three years to complete the project. Entities must carefully consider the timeline provided in their submission. Each project contract will have a specific timeline and milestones. They will vary based on the execution date and the project submission details.
No Deadline Extensions; Recapture of Funds Possible
The Mitigation Reallocation Program cannot allow extensions on these grants due to the federally imposed deadline for using the funds.
HUD has set deadlines for the expenditure and closeout of the CDBG-MIT grant. Failure to complete projects and finalize HUD’s closeout process will result in “HUD initiating the recapture process” said the GLO. That means any funds used towards incomplete projects must be repaid to HUD.
Due to the gravity of the deadlines, the GLO will only consider projects that can be completed in enough time to allow for the close-out process.
How Communities Can Apply
Eligible entities must submit projects through the Texas Integrated Grant Reporting (TIGR) system. Entities that require TIGR access will need to submit a TIGR access form by Wednesday, Nov. 11 at 5 p.m., to allow time for processing.
According to a GLO spokesperson, other counties are eager to get their hands on this money and put it to work. One former Harris County insider suspected that Buckingham’s announcement “will be met with applause outside of Harris County.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/25/26
3344 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/2026/10/mitigation-action-plan-eligible-counties_crop.png?fit=580%2C580&ssl=1580580adminadmin2026-10-25 18:23:022026-10-25 18:23:03GLO Commissioner Announces Launch of $92 Million Mitigation-Reallocation Program
10/19/26 – Update includes several changes to text to clarify origin and status of $113 million. See GLO clarification at bottom of post.
10/16/26 – GLO Commissioner Dawn Buckingham says she is moving $133 Million of Community Development Block Grant funds for Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) designated for Harris County to another county. [GLO disputes this. See clarification below.]
Here’s how the story unfolded.
Garcia Pulls CDBG Update from Commissioners Court Agenda
Agenda Item 93 for the 10/15/26 Harris County Commissioners Court Meeting concerned an update on $322 million of HUD CDBG-DR funds that were at risk because of an imminent 2/28/27 deadline.
Two weeks ago, a one-year extension from the Texas General Land Office (GLO) gave Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) more breathing room. However, it was not clear whether HCFCD could expend all the money … even with the extension.
But yesterday, before Marcus Stuckett, the new executive director of HCFCD, could answer that question, Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia pulled Item 93 from the agenda. It will now be considered on November 12 – AFTER the upcoming election. Hmmmm. That made me curious!
No one with Harris County or HCFCD could or would tell me why it was pulled from the agenda. And the County refused my Public Information Request for Stuckett’s presentation … within minutes. They said the presentation didn’t exist. Never a good sign! See below.
Record request denial. Red box added to redact my phone number and address.
So, I sent my request for information to the GLO. They immediately supplied two letters that explain what happened and what will happen.
Letter #1: Stuckett Request to GLO
On 10/2/26, Stuckett sent a letter to GLO Deputy Director Heather Lagrone. In it, he thanks the GLO for the one year extension, and says that it will give HCFCD time to finish the CDBG-DR projects.
But he also explains that $113 million of the $322 million – more than a third of the total – will not be expended before the extended deadline. The reason: Actual project bids compiled under his predecessor came in lower than initial estimates used for grant applications. Stuckett also references “scope changes” as a reason for the lower-than-expected billing.
The first paragraph says she is pleased that the extension will give HCFCD time to complete the CDBG-DR projects.
But Paragraph #2 says “Harris County” failed to provide information that it promised “months ago” about swapping projects from the MIT category to DR – a proposal initiated by Stuckett’s predecessor, Dr. Tina Petersen. Stuckett has been in his new job for only about three months.
In addition to the vague timing reference, the generic “Harris County” reference also stood out. Harris County Housing & Community Development and Harris County Engineering also manage CDBG grants. Buckingham did not specify whether HCFCD, one of the others, or all of the above failed to comply.
Paragraph #3 explains that Buckingham will reallocate the Harris County funds to another county because she fears Harris County will eventually fail to complete the projects. [GLO disputes this. See clarification below.]
Buckingham does not acknowledge that several of the projects that Stuckett proposed moving from MIT to DR were already completed.
One thing is clear, however. Harris County will lose $113 million of flood mitigation funds … at a time when Harris County just raised taxes by a record amount.
Image created by ChatGPT
How We Got Here
It’s important to remember that we would not even be in this position if it weren’t for Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia. He pushed to remove exceptional HCFCD leaders who sold the 2018 Flood Bond and were delivering projects at a record pace through 2022. After pushing those leaders out, he replaced them with an inexperienced, unqualified leader he could control.
And boom. Here we are today. $113 million. Gone. Precinct 2 residents should remember that when early voting starts.
To read the full text of Stuckett’s letter to the GLO, click here.
And to read the full text of the GLO’s response to Stuckett, click here.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/16/2026
3335 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.
GLO Clarification
We would like to clarify Commissioner Buckingham’s intent with regards to the $322 million in CDBG-DR funding currently being administered by HCFCD.
In your story you state, “GLO Commissioner Dawn Buckingham says she is moving $113 Million of Community Development Block Grant funds for Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) designated for Harris County to another county.” That is not accurate. Commissioner Buckingham has not identified any amount of funding to be removed from the $322 million in CDBG-DR (disaster recovery funding) that she secured for Harris County projects. All Commissioner Buckingham has said specifically relating to reducing the funding was in her 9/28/2026 letter to Judge Hidalgo in which she states, “But in this contract, failure to meet each benchmark will result in the unused balance being reclaimed and reallocated to other shovel-ready projects not managed by HCFCD.”
To be very clear, Commissioner Buckingham’s intention since taking office has been for this funding to benefit Harris County area residents. Who administers the funding and for what projects has rested with Harris County for more than 3.5 years. HCFCD has the contract, but the Harris County Commissioners Court has had authority over HCFCD the whole time.
The $113 million figure has only been mentioned by HCFCD Executive Director Marcus Stuckett. In his letter to the GLO, Mr. Stuckett stated that HCFCD “now anticipates approximately $113 million in CDBG-DR funds will remain unallocated.” HCFCD has not provided any data or documentation to support that figure or claim. The only basis for the $113 million amount is his mention of it. In fact, Mr. Stuckett’s team has failed to provide the specific documentation the GLO has requested to properly identify the current status of the budget or plans for how to spend the remaining allocations. In the past six months, HCFCD has only provided vague ideas and undefined concepts. That is not how the HUD funding process works. Subrecipients cannot piecemeal projects and Frankenstein together proposals. HUD demands specifics about complete projects that result in a defined benefit to a defined population by a defined deadline.
As we discussed, the GLO has an obligation to ensure the entirety of the $5.676 billion entrusted to the State of Texas specifically for Hurricane Harvey disaster recovery is expended in full compliance with federal regulations and within HUD’s mandatory deadlines for the full grant process. Who administers the funding and for what projects continues to be adjusted based on what can be accomplished within the deadline.
Since taking office in 2023, Commissioner Buckingham has taken every action within her authority to ensure funding is provided to benefit Harris County residents. Harris County promised “shovel ready” projects and the GLO has continued to provide technical support to facilitate federal compliance in effectively administering the funds.
Commissioner Buckingham’s intent continues to be for the full $322 million to be spent on projects to benefit the people who call Harris County home. However, if HCFCD cannot complete promised projects that can benefit residents within HUD’s mandatory process before the federal deadline, we may have to find alternative means to spend the money before time runs out. It won’t automatically go to projects outside of Harris County, but there are countless federally eligible projects in need of funding, and the clock is running out.
Emailed on October 18, 2026, by Brittany Eck, GLO Director of Communications for Disaster Recovery
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/113-Million-in-Flames.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2026-10-16 20:03:092026-10-19 16:41:26Harris County Could Lose $113 Million in CDBG Funds Despite 1-Year Extension
8/17/2026 – Daniel Ramos, Executive Director of Harris County’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), presented a detailed general fund budget for Fiscal Year 2027 this morning to a special meeting of Harris County Commissioners Court. The budget contained an estimated $327 million/12% increase over the 2026 budget. That increase could raise the average homeowner’s Harris County property tax bill next year to approximately $1,350. But if your house is worth more, that number could go far higher.
The county has two ways to raise property taxes: through your home’s valuation and the tax rate applied to it. But in 2026, total valuations throughout the county rose by only 0.8%. That means in order to pay for 12% increased costs, the tax rates themselves must increase.
Programs Vs. Priorities
Finalizing a budget requires debating priorities. And the presentation Ramos made today mapped proposed expenses to the priorities adopted earlier by the county. The 112-page explanation contains illuminating information about the county’s growth and demographics that drive the proposed increase.
Current Level of Service and Spending
One of the key terms used in the budget is “CLS/S.” It stands for Current Level of Service and Spending. Growth in law enforcement pay parity (with City of Houston), employee health care and benefits, CLS/S requests by departments, pay equity and other changes account for most of the projected $327 increase.
The first three categories alone account for more than two-thirds of the total increase. CLS/S includes the costs of maintaining the same level of service year over year. For instance, it includes $61 million of such things as facility maintenance, fleet operations, utilities, cost-of-living adjustments, changes in state law, and unplanned budget adjustments.
The $61 million also includes $14 million for ARPA programs which would otherwise go away at the end of this year when ARPA funding expires. So those aren’t purely inflationary costs.
The 12% increase is not principally a story about Harris County launching a huge collection of new programs. Approximately half is employee compensation and healthcare.
From Ramos presentation to Commissioners Court on 8/17/2026
And using OMB’s own accounting framework, approximately $287 million of the $327 million year-over-year increase was already embedded in the cost of maintaining existing services and spending commitments. That’s 88% not classified as expansion of services.
Existing recurring commitments are growing faster than sustainable recurring revenue.
And that points to a recurring, structural problem.
It’s important to distinguish between “unavoidable” versus “already committed.” CLS/S does not mean unavoidable. It means current level of service and spending. Some items — healthcare inflation or statutory mandates — may be difficult to avoid.
Other items — pay-parity commitments, continuing ARPA programs, staffing levels, compensation policies — are the consequences of earlier policy decisions that Commissioners Court could theoretically change.
It’s also important to realize that the General Fund numbers cited above do NOT cover Flood Control, Port of Houston, or Public Health which have their own budgets (to be discussed at a later date).
Impact on Typical Homeowner’s Property Tax Bill
At the proposed maximum rate increase allowable without an election – and taking into account homestead exemptions and new construction growth – the average residential homestead would pay $1,350 in County property taxes vs. $1,202 last year, a 12.3% increase. See Page 40 of budget discussion.
The discussion of strategic objectives and their budget impact begins on Page 67 of the PDF. The budget is VERY complex and difficult to follow. However, several appendices may help.
Proposed department budgets on page 99
Glossary of terms on page 103
Which funds pay which departments on page 109
Salary increases of elected officials on page 111
Proposed benefit rates, also on 111
All pages refer to the PDF numbering system, not the numbers listed at the bottom of pages. That makes it easier to fast-forward within the document.
Make Your Feelings Known
Commissioners will vote on the final 2027 budget on September 8, 2026. Unfortunately, that’s before the November elections. So, if you’d like to limit that 12% increase in your property taxes, the time to start mailing, phoning and protesting is now.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/17/2026
3275 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Budget-Cover.jpg?fit=1100%2C673&ssl=16731100adminadmin2026-08-17 22:12:092026-08-18 00:08:13Harris County Considers $327 Million 2027 Budget Increase
8/14/26 – Yesterday, someone asked me why flood mitigation takes so long. It’s a simple question that ultimately demands another question. How can we speed it up? Let me outline what I’ve learned about the “why so long” issue before wading into whether we can speed it up.
The process isn’t always linear. Surprises in one step may require adjustments in another. And there are many steps.
Flood-mitigation-process diagram produced by ChatGPT.
Overview of Key Steps in Mitigation Process
Cities and counties generally have the responsibility for flood prevention and mitigation. But they rarely have the money. Unless you live in a place like Harris County, flooding happens infrequently enough that officials generally don’t budget for disasters. They have other urgent needs and limited cash. Even in Harris, needs outstrip available funding.
So when disasters do happen, local governments look for financial assistance. That assistance could come from state or federal sources. But states and the federal government don’t just hand over piles of cash and say, “Go to it.”
Note: the steps below are not necessarily in chronological order depending on findings in other stages.
Feasibility Studies
First, local authorities must prove that they have a valid, constructible solution to a recurring problem. They start with a feasibility study. This usually involves establishing the magnitude of the problem and looking at alternative solutions to see if any are a) effective and b) affordable before investing more time and money.
Proving “No Adverse Impact”
Next, comes engineering and design. Local authorities must move a project far enough along to prove that the proposed solution does not create an adverse impact downstream. Simply getting rid of the water faster upstream, for instance, may create higher flood peaks downstream.
Finding the Local-Match Money
State and federal authorities almost always demand that cities and counties have “skin in the game.” So, the local authorities must put up a “local match,” usually 30% of estimated grant costs. Raising that 30% may require selling bonds. Which may require a bond referendum/election like Harris County had in 2018.
Benefit/Cost Analysis
Assuming local authorities can scrape up enough money for the local match, they must then actually apply for the grants. This will likely require a deeper level of engineering than the high-level feasibility study had. It will also require a BCA (benefit/cost analysis) to ensure the benefits exceed the costs. And that may require actual design.
Grant Applications
Applying for grants can be quite costly and time-consuming. The local authorities must first determine where a request is most likely to succeed (FEMA, HUD, EPA, etc.). To complicate matters, such agencies usually have multiple programs geared to different needs.
Environmental Studies
But that’s not all. Local authorities must also conduct environmental studies. An environmental study evaluates how a proposed flood-mitigation project could affect natural and human resources such as: wetlands, waterways, wildlife, water quality, cultural resources, and nearby communities. It also identifies regulatory requirements and measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts.
Regulatory Approval/Permitting
Then come the regulatory approvals. If the solution impacts “waters of the U.S.”, for instance, it will need to be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Congressional Appropriations and Rules
After a disaster, Congress must appropriate money for disaster relief and flood mitigation. But the money doesn’t go directly to cities and counties. It goes to states…after FEMA and HUD write rules for how the money can be used.
State-Level Administration
State authorities, such as the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) and Texas General Land Office (GLO), then review grant applications and determine whether projects comply with all relevant rules attached to funding.
If they do, the state agency then contracts with cities or counties which are considered sub-recipients. The state may have more applications than funding. So, it must prioritize projects, just like cities and counties do. This process requires:
An application period long enough for all interested parties to develop and submit requests
A review period to establish compliance with federal rules for the money
Time for public comments
Ranking of applications received
Coordination with federal authorities.
Bidding and Construction
Once state and federal authorities approve a project, local authorities must actually build it. This can take several years. Groups, such as Houston Public Works or the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD):
Determine specs for the project
Get approval to proceed from their oversight bodies such as Houston City Council or Harris County Commissioners Court
Seek qualified bidders
Give them time to compile and submit bids
Evaluate the bids and determine the winning bidder
Negotiate the contract
Get the contract approved by the relevant oversight body
Receive “authorization to use government funds” (AUGF) by TDEM or GLO
Build the project.
Aligning Dominos
Getting all the dominos aligned with all the supporting studies and documentation can take years. The money involved can be hundreds of millions…or even billions. So, the rules are both rigorous and onerous. And there are multiple audits along the way designed to prevent fraud.
But nobody has deeper pockets than the federal government. Typically, FEMA pays for 70% of each project. HUD ranges up to 90-100%. So, that makes the wait worthwhile.
Can We Speed Things Up?
As a former business owner, if I were looking for ways to speed up this convoluted process and reduce overall administration costs, I would examine two areas:
Reducing the number of layers or steps where possible
Improving efficiency within each step.
It would be difficult to reduce the number of layers and steps.
If you tried to cut out state agencies, you would lose local expertise and reduce local control. That might not be politically palatable. You would also likely just wind up transferring state costs to the federal level.
Reducing steps, such as “bidding” would likely be an invitation to fraud – also not politically palatable.
The Need to Spread Risk
The multi-level system we have spreads risk, much like an insurance company would. So, cutting out the federal government and funding everything locally or at the state level would also be difficult.
The National Hazard Mitigation Association points out that inland riverine flooding has affected 99% of U.S. counties in the past 20 years. Such flooding has also caused more than $45 billion of damage since 1980.
Flooding happens sporadically. Years can roll by without a disaster. Then suddenly you get a Hurricane Harvey. That’s when you need help from neighbors. And almost every community will need help sooner or later.
Prevention Easier, Less Expensive Than Correction
There may be room to improve efficiency within each step. However, that could only be determined on a case-by-case, location-by-location basis, as we saw recently with HCFCD.
Only one thing is certain. Prevention is far less expensive and less time-consuming than correction. Preventing floods through measures such as better building codes and floodplain preservation is always a more cost-effective solution than correcting flooding after the fact.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/14/2026
3272 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Flood-Mitigation-Process.png?fit=1254%2C1254&ssl=112541254adminadmin2026-08-14 18:20:122026-08-15 11:32:50Why Flood Mitigation Takes So Long
8/7/26 – Yesterday, Harris County Commissioners discussed the largest tax hike in Harris County history. Before raising taxes a penny, they should examine the efficiency of the departments they oversee.
Harris County Commissioners discuss budget proposals on 8.06.26
Since 2022, I have posted about slowdowns in Harris County flood-mitigation projects as one deadline after another slipped. It started with wholesale management changes made by the Democratic majority on Commissioners Court.
The slowdowns became so serious in the case of HCFCD that the department head recently resigned under pressure. As statistics below show, she left her successor, Marcus Stuckett, with huge challenges.
The problems at HCD have not yet received the attention that HCFCD received. But they are also serious.
Both groups must use grant money by strict deadlines or lose it. And both are far behind schedule.
They raise the questions, “Will tax increases continue to fund inefficiency? And if so, are increases really necessary?”
CDBG Projects Bring Efficiency Issues into Sharp Focus
At HCFCD, the potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds brought the former Executive Director’s efficiency into sharp focus. She failed to advance projects in a timely manner. And that is jeopardizing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding. Harris County taxpayers backstop those funds.
Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, PE fought to expose HCFCD’s problems, even as Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia fought to keep in place the very people covering the problems up.
So, where exactly do things stand? How bad is the problem?
GLO awarded HCD $204 million dollars on 8/31/2022. To date, HCD has expended $69 million (34%). They must expend the remaining two thirds by August 31, 2027. So…
HCD has expended only 34% of the funds in 80% of available time.
Their $204 million includes 10 neighborhood drainage infrastructure projects valued at $168 million. Of the 10:
Construction is complete on one
Six are in various stages of construction (46-89% complete)
One is being advertised for bids
Two are still in design.
GLO also awarded HCD $37.5 million for 30 planning studies. Of those:
One was withdrawn
One is complete
The remainder are just starting or in various stages of completion ranging from 1% to 50%.
These also have deadlines of August 31, 2027.
HCFCD CDBG Mitigation Grants
HCFCD received an allocation of $546 million in CDBG Mitigation (MIT) funds in 2023. To date, it has expended only $25 million. HCFCD must complete construction and GLO must receive final billing by 3/31/28 – only 20 months away. Thus, under Dr. Tina Petersen…
HCFCD managed to spend 5% of its MIT money in 64% of available time.
HCFCD CDBG – DR Grants
GLO also approved an HCFCD allocation for $322 million in CDBG-Disaster Relief (DR) funds on 11/27/23. Almost 34 months later, HCFCD has expended only $15.6 million. So…
HCFCD has spent less than 5% of DR funds in 84% of available time.
Summary Table
This table summarizes the status of CDBG projects.
According to the GLO, only seven of 29 HCFCD DR and MIT projects are actually in construction.
HCFCD’s report submitted to Commissioners Court this week shows 12 “in construction.” However, only seven of the 12 have any work billed against them. Delays in contractor mobilization may account for the difference.
So, where do we go from here?
The Bundle Jumble
Before Dr. Tina Petersen resigned, she tried to cobble together a plan that would get HCFCD past the $322 million DR hurdle.
She reached agreement in principle* with both the GLO and Harris County Commissioners Court to apply work billed to date in all four categories above against the $322 million DR obligation. That would give the county a little more breathing room.
In a best-case scenario, the county might bill enough to meet the entire $322 million obligation and lose nothing. In a less-than-best-case scenario, the county would narrow its losses.
Will It Work?
To date, the county has spent only $109 million in all four programs together. That covers only about a third of the $322 million.
What happens if HCFCD’s new management and HCD can’t spend another $213 million in the next six months? Potentially, HUD could start clawing back money from the GLO and the GLO could start clawing it back from the County.
But Harris County has already encumbered money for its suppliers. So, the buck stops with Harris County taxpayers.
Remember as you follow the county’s budget debate in coming weeks to ask whether you’re paying for additional services you want or simply funding inefficiency.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/7/2026
3265 Days since Hurricane Harvey
*When I asked the GLO for the wording of the agreement, a spokesperson said, “It has not been finalized yet. We are still getting details we need to write the amendment.”
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/CC-260806.jpg?fit=1100%2C610&ssl=16101100adminadmin2026-08-07 20:02:552026-08-07 20:21:52Largest Tax Hike in Harris County History Raises Efficiency Question
Since Dr. Tina Petersen’s last update on 5/1/2026, the new schedule shows that, of 28 projects in the Disaster Relief (DR) and Mitigation (MIT) groups, expected completion dates have:
Marcus Stuckett, new Executive Director of HCFCD, at Taylor Gully/Woodridge Groundbreaking on 7/20/26
Of an additional seven neighborhood drainage projects, six should finish before the end of this year.
Beating the CDBG Clock
Stuckett replaced Petersen a little more than a month ago. Petersen resigned under pressure when it finally became clear that the county could lose hundreds of millions of dollars due to missed deadlines on CDBG jobs.
As Petersen came under increasing pressure, she developed a plan with the Texas General Land Office (GLO). The plan applied spending from three different types of CDBG jobs against the $322 million designated for the DR group. Those have the tightest deadline – February 28, 2027. Just seven months away!
The other two types of projects being applied against the DR total include Mitigation (MIT) and neighborhood drainage.
By applying spending from the latter two groups against the DR total, HCFCD hopes to meet its obligation to spend $322 million by the end of February, 2027. Worst case, HCFCD will reduce its potential losses.
Only $56.77 million has been spent to date in the DR and MIT groups, with $67.33 million in the neighborhood drainage group. Those total $124.1 million. That means…
…the $322 million finish line is still $197.9 million away.
Calculated from HCFCD spreadsheet submitted to Commissioners Court for 8/6/26 meeting.
How Deep is the Hole?
This transmittal shows that Stuckett still needs to get HCFCD out of a deep hole that Petersen left HCFCD in.
About one third of the $322 million has been spent to date.
That leave two thirds to spend within the next seven months.
Seven months represents about 15 percent of the time between the announcement of the CDBG-DR award and the deadline for spending it.
So, HCFCD must spend the remaining two thirds in 15 percent of the time.
That’s a tall order. It’s sad that Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia defended Stuckett’s predecessor to the bitter end and delayed her exit by a year or more as the CDBG funds fell into a deeper and deeper hole.
Now, it will take extraordinary effort to climb out of that hole.
The spreadsheet submitted by Stuckett for the next commissioners court meeting is extremely detailed: about 40 lines deep by 51 columns across.
Such updates will hopefully let commissioners discuss any concerns they have. And help HCFCD answer their questions.
In the next few months, accurate and timely updates will also show whether the current “running rate” will get us to the $322 million finish line in time.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/1/26
3259 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/2026/08/Stuckett-at-Woodridge-Groundbreaking.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2026-08-01 17:07:542026-08-01 18:44:27HCFCD Still Has Steep Hill to Climb on CDBG Projects
07/28/2026 – Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has released new figures showing where it has spent money through 2026 Q2. The County has spent only $49.15 million dollars in the entire San Jacinto Watershed since passage of the 2018 Flood Bond eight years ago.
That compares with $367,450,000 worth of projects advertised for the San Jacinto in the 2018 Bond Project list.
Thanks goodness HCFCD got a new executive director last month!
Little Money Spent on Construction
The previous executive director kept slighted the San Jacinto watershed for years. Studies dragged out for years with no end in sight. HCFCD spent little money in the watershed. Period. And it spent even less on construction.
When you look at the spending by project stage, construction ranked highest. That actually surprised me.
Calculated with data from HCFCD Activities Page
But of the $21.7 million total spent on construction, HCFCD spent only one third on capital improvement projects (CIP construction = $7.28 M). The remainder went to maintenance.
While maintenance spending is absolutely critical, we shouldn’t forget that it is designed to keep flooding from getting worse as opposed to CIP projects which actually improve flood risk.
So, in eight years, HCFCD spent only about $7 million to actually improve flood risk in the county’s largest watershed.
To date, HCFCD hasn’t come close to delivering what was promised in 2018.
What Did Bond Advertising Promote?
The final project list came with 13 Bond IDs for the San Jacinto Watershed; each contained one or more projects. Together the money allocated for them totaled $367,450,000. So, with only $49.15 million spent to date, just 13% of promised funding has been delivered in the last 8 years.
Start drilling down further; you will find even more egregious examples.
Floodgate Example
Take for example the new floodgates on Lake Houston. Initial plans allocated $70 million ($50 million coming from the federal government and $20 million from the flood bond as a local match).
If the reported figures are accurate, the county actually spent only $20,000 so far – one thousandth of the local match. And 1/3,500th of the total. In fairness, perhaps they’re waiting for the City to finish the engineering.
Dredging Example
And then there’s dredging. Dredging was supposed to receive $50 million ($10 million from local funds with a $40 million match). But so far, HCFCD reports only $7.28 million spent for dredging. (See CI-61.)
Hopefully, Marcus Stuckett, HCFCD’s new executive director, can right some of the slights from the past administration. On a positive note, the recent start of construction on the Taylor Gully/Woodridge project may help turn the San Jacinto spending drought around.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/28/2026
3255 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/HCFCD-Spending-by-Stage-in-San-Jacinto-2018-2026.png?fit=2018%2C1190&ssl=111902018adminadmin2026-07-28 21:46:362026-07-28 23:35:41HCFCD 2026 Q2 Spending Update: San Jacinto Watershed Still Ignored
07/27/26 – New spending figures are available from Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) through the end of 2026 Q2. This quarter marks the end of Dr. Tina Petersen’s administration and the start of new Executive Director Marcus Stuckett’s. In that sense, it represents (pardon the pun) a watershed moment.
HCFCD spending data shows that Stuckett inherits a production pipeline that was not pushing flood-mitigation projects into and through construction at historically normal rates.
Eight years into what was supposed to have been a 10-year bond program, Harris County has spent only 37% of the dollars approved by voters while inflation in the heavy-construction sector of the economy has totaled more than 50%.
As a consequence, inflation is taking a huge toll on the Flood Bond’s purchasing power…and making residents live with higher flood risk longer than necessary.
But there’s also some good news: 6 HCFCD construction jobs on the Harris County Commissioners Court Agenda this week!
Let’s look at each of these points.
Construction Slowdown
Shortly after voters approved the flood bond in 2018, spending on flood-mitigation projects soared. But then, the team that sold the bond and defined hundreds of projects was pushed out by Democrats starting in 2021.
Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia managed to get Dr. Tina Petersen appointed head of HCFCD at the start of 2022. And ever since, for whatever reason, project activity has plummeted. You can clearly see it in the rate of spending below – despite having billions of dollars available.
HCFCD spending since 2018 Flood Bond as of 26Q2.Far right reflects only 2 quarters. But even doubled, 2026 would represent a continuation of the long-term decline.
The gray area in the graph above represents construction spending. It has dropped almost by half since its peak during the previous administration. Construction is down to $90 million per year [annualized] from $160 million per year [actual].
As a result of the slowdown, Harris County could lose hundreds of millions of dollars in HUD Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Relief, whose deadlines are fast approaching.
Lower-than-Normal Construction Expenditures as Percent of Total
Typically, construction accounts for about 65% of most flood-mitigation projects, give or take 10%.
That number can vary even more depending on land-acquisition costs, environmental permitting, etc. There are always exceptions. But on average, 65% is considered a defensible rule of thumb for planning purposes by many flood experts; some suggest the figure may even be higher.
So, how has HCFCD spending compared? It falls far short of 65%. Looking at everything spent to date, only 46% has been on construction. But even that number may be deceptively high.
Construction spending on maintenance masks what’s happening on the capital-improvement side. So let’s also look at each sub-category.
HCFCD capital-improvement construction spending to date is just 37% of all capital improvement costs. And the Total percentage is buoyed up by construction spending on Maintenance.
Remember that only capital-improvement construction dollars actually reduce flood risk.
Only 37% of Bond Money Spent After 8 Years into 10-Year Bond Program
There’s another significant takeaway from last quarter’s update. HCFCD has spent only 37% of the bond money approved by voters – eight years into what was supposed to have been a 10-year bond program.
Sorting expenditures on the HCFCD Activity Page by “Fund Source” shows that only $932.69 million of the $2.5 billion bond has actually been spent to date. This excludes district and partner funds.
54% Inflation in Heavy Construction Sector Since Start of Flood Bond
But all the data above illustrates only part of the problem. Cumulative inflation in the heavy-construction sector of the economy totals 54% from mid-2018 (when voters approved the Flood Bond) to mid-2026. (Source: Federal Highway Administration’s National Highway Construction Cost Index, considered by many as a good analog for flood-control work).
This inflation has progressively eroded the purchasing power of flood-mitigation construction budgets.
A Bad Institutional Hangover
Problems moving projects into and through HCFCD’s production pipeline in a timely way has resulted in:
Inflation gobbling up a large percentage the bond’s purchasing power
Fast-approaching deadlines jeopardizing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding
People living with higher flood risk longer than necessary.
There is some good news in all of this on the horizon. It looks like HCFCD’s new Executive Director, Marcus Stuckett, is making an immediate impact. This Thursday’s Commissioner’s Court agenda shows six CIP projects starting construction or going out for construction bids. They include:
Meyergrove Stormwater Detention Basin
Halls Bayou Channel Conveyance Improvements – Phase II
T.C. Jester Stormwater Detention Basins – Compartments 1A and 2
Hopefully Stuckett can get construction projects moving again.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/27/26
3254 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/2026/07/Construction-as-Percent-of-Total-Table.png?fit=1880%2C584&ssl=15841880adminadmin2026-07-27 17:38:302026-07-27 17:38:32HCFCD Construction Slowdown May Be on Verge of Turnaround
6/17/26 – Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE addressed the Kingwood Executive Group this morning about flooding and infrastructure as the season’s first tropical storm formed less than a hundred miles away from Houston. Local business owners comprise the group. Many had flooded badly during Hurricane Harvey.
Kingwood Executive Group with Ramsey and State Rep. Charles Cunningham in blue blazers, center/front row.
They came eager to learn more about the status of flood-mitigation efforts in the area, turmoil at the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD), and a new, 5,300-acre proposed floodplain development just upstream from Kingwood. And true to form, Ramsey addressed each issue head on. But first…
Tropical Storm Arthur
Ironically, just as Tropical Storm Arthur formed, the rain started to end in the Lake Houston Area. That’s because of the lopsided nature of Arthur. See the infrared water-vapor satellite image below. Most of the rain is falling offshore and to the east of Galveston Bay.
NHC expects Arthur to dump torrential rains on East Texas and Louisiana as it moves inland – up to 20 inches in places. Freeport received 9 inches this morning. However, totals dropped off farther inland with much of SE Harris County receiving only 2-4 inches. My rain gage in Kingwood recorded less than a half inch between midnight and 11 AM.
Arthur has affected primarily coastal counties as it tracked NE parallel to the coast. It should make landfall near High Island late this afternoon or early this evening.
Arthur formed a timely and ironic backdrop for a speech about flooding to many whose homes and businesses flooded severely.
Ramsey’s Priorities
Ramsey began his talk to the Executive Group with a story about his focus compared to others on Commissioners Court. “My job is to, number one, take care of infrastructure,” he said. “That’s what I get most of my calls on. Most people don’t call me about my policies. They call me on, ‘When are you going to fix something?’ My colleagues, on the other hand, are focused more on social programs.”
Ramsey puzzling over the budget priorities of some other commissioners
He then added, “We will appoint a new director next week. And it will be an engineer, not a politician. An engineer who can deliver projects, not hold press conferences and tell you what you want to hear. It will be someone that actually understands what it takes to get projects delivered.”
Flood Bond Update
After emphasizing the need to speed up project delivery, Ramsey gave a brief update on the 2018 Flood Bond. The $2.5 billion approved by voters attracted another $2.7 billion in matching funds for a total of $5.2 billion available. But the county has only spent about $1.5 billion of that since 2018.
“So, we have a lot to do,” said Ramsey. “Probably another $3+ billion in the next four years. You better have someone who understands construction, who can deal with the things that happen during construction. My concern is that the easiest part is done. Design work is the easy part. Go actually build $3.5 billion worth of improvements! That’s a huge deal.”
Kingwood Flood-Mitigation Projects
Ramsey noted that the Taylor Gully/Woodridge project has started construction, but that the Kingwood Diversion Ditch project is still being studied. He wants to put the pedal to the metal on that one too. HCFCD spent 4 years doing a preliminary engineering review on the Diversion Ditch that was supposed to have taken 300 days. The latest Flood Bond Update shows the project may start construction in 2030, after HCFCD completes another study.
“You must have other projects queued up ready for construction,” Ramsey said. “I don’t know that we have all the money lined out for that construction, but you have to get the design work done. I’d rather have a whole lot of projects sitting on the shelf ready to build, than sit around and wait for someone to decide for us what the priorities are.”
Scarborough Floodplain Development
Ramsey next addressed the proposed 5,300-acre development north of Harris County in the floodplain at the confluence of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and Spring Creek. He called it “A really bad idea.”
“Some ill-advised folks are trying to do some development there.” Ramsey suggested instead that the area should become a park. “What a great park that 5,000 acres would make for this entire area. What a great location for significant flood mitigation for the entire county!”
He emphasized that every drop of rain falling north and west of the confluence funnels past Kingwood. “Sometimes we lose sight of that,” he said.
Ramsey spent much of the rest of his time discussing a series of related issues, their connections, and finding funding for them.
In regard to adding more floodgates to the Lake Houston Dam, he noted potential significant cost escalation. That led to a discussion of partnership funding, surplus toll-road income, and using money for pressing state-mandated obligations versus other issues that have no constitutional mandate.
Before becoming commissioner in 2020, Ramsey began his engineering career 50 years ago designing drainage systems in the Porter/New Caney area. So, he is thoroughly versed on infrastructure issues in the Lake Houston Area and is fighting to make us safer.
The timing of his talk as Arthur was forming in the Gulf provided an irony worthy of a Hollywood movie!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/17/2026
3214 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/DSC_5428.jpg?fit=1100%2C407&ssl=14071100adminadmin2026-06-17 13:56:532026-06-20 18:39:24Ramsey Addresses Kingwood Group as Tropical Storm Forms Offshore
