HCFCD Spending Declines for Fourth Straight Year, San Jacinto Watershed Still Slighted

1/26/25 – According to data provided in response to a FOIA request, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) spending has now declined for the fourth straight year, despite $3 billion left in the flood bond (including committed partnership funding).

HCFCD spending more than doubled after passage of flood bond in 2018, but is now less than in 2019. $2.1 billion of the $5 billion in the bond has now been spent.

High Cost of Slowing Down

HCFCD spending picked up slightly last quarter compared to the previous quarter. But overall, the trend is still down compared to the years following passage of the flood bond in 2018.

A quarter-by-quarter analysis shows the decline has not been perfectly smooth. Dips and bumps have occurred with changes in management, direction, organization, and processes imposed by Commissioners Court. But overall the slowdown has been unmistakeable and costly.

Between 2018 and January 2025, the United States experienced a cumulative inflation rate of approximately 25.62%. Thus, the $3 billion remainder of the $5 billion flood bond has lost approximately a quarter of its purchasing power. And that means some planned projects may not get done.

Equity Prioritization Index Ignores Flood Damage

One of the biggest changes: the county’s focus on equity in prioritizing bond projects. On the left of the graph above, money was allocated to mitigation projects in areas with the most flood damage.

But starting in August 2019, that changed. Commissioners started ranking projects using a multi-factor index that omitted damage while emphasizing the average income in an area. Then, they kept tweaking the formula for the next three years.

The constant changes let Democratic commissioners direct money to pet projects in their precincts. But it also has reportedly slowed down HCFCD, and delayed or denied flood-mitigation assistance to areas that desperately need it.

San Jacinto Watershed: Worst Flooding, Modest Mitigation Investment

For instance, in five major storms since 2000 (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey and Imelda), the San Jacinto watershed ranked 8th among Harris County’s 23 watersheds in terms of damaged structures.

Based on HCFCD Federal Reports. Total number of damaged structures in five major storms between 2000 and 2020 shown on right.

The San Jacinto also ranked 4th in the percentage of its population that experienced flood damage in those storms. That indicates how disruptive flooding has been to a watershed.

Based on 2022 population estimates by HCFCD in each watershed.

The San Jacinto had almost half the flood-related deaths in Harris County during Harvey – 15 out of 36.

And we also had the deepest flooding in the county during Harvey – more than 20 feet above flood stage!

worst first
Chart showing feet above flood stage of 33 gages on misc. bayous in Harris County during Harvey. San Jacinto is at far left.

However, since Harvey, the San Jacinto watershed ranks 14th in terms of HCFCD spending.

Hopeful Comparisons Between Short- and Long-Term Trends

The San Jacinto watershed’s ranking increased from 8th place last quarter compared to 14th “since Harvey”. That’s a hopeful sign. Work in some other watersheds, such as Brays, finally appears to be winding down. Compare the relative positions of Brays and San Jacinto above and below.

Here are the actual spending totals during the two time periods. They vary by more than a 1000 to 1. Political priorities have skewed the numbers.

As of end of 2024

The lifecycle stages of projects have also skewed the numbers. For instance, within a project’s lifecycle, construction usually ranks as the most expensive stage by far. Looking at the percent of construction dollars within the “Total Since Harvey” column on the right above, yields the table below.

From Harvey through end of 2024

Watersheds near the bottom of the list may have had upfront studies completed, but little more. The San Jacinto’s low ranking (#17) indicates that commissioners have prioritized mitigation work in other watersheds higher.

Remember that studies don’t mitigate flooding. Construction does.

Another hopeful comparison shows how the percentage of HCFCD spending in watersheds with a majority of low-to-moderate income (LMI) residents decreased last quarter compared to the longer-term trend.

Harris County has eight watersheds with majority LMI populations. LMI means residents earn less than the median income for the region.

Since Harvey, LMI watersheds have received more than half of all funding from HCFCD, despite the fact that there are only eight such watersheds vs. 15 others.

On a per watershed basis, the LMI watersheds received twice the money on average. But last quarter, the percentages were much closer to equal.

Of course, the imminent kickoff of $863 million worth of projects funded by HUD – with a 70% cumulative LMI percentage – could skew these percentages back in the other direction faster than you can say Rodney Ellis.

I have two big worries at this point:

  • Inflation’s Toll – Will there be enough money left in the flood bond to complete all the projects in it – especially if we have to wait years more to finish the HUD projects?
  • HCFCD Spending Slowdown – Will HCFCD be able to complete almost a billion dollars worth of flood-mitigation projects before HUD deadlines?

If either worry comes to pass, projects that benefit higher income neighborhoods may not get done.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/26/25

2707 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 Kicking Off Study to Make Half of Harris County SAFER

1/5/2025 – At a Community Resilience Flood Task Force Meeting in December last year, the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) announced that it would be kicking off a new feasibility study in Q1 2025 designed to make half of Harris County SAFER from flooding.

SAFER stands for Solutions for Advancing Flood Mitigation, Equity, and Resilience. The study area includes 11 of Harris County’s 23 watersheds.

HCFCD issued this statement about the study.


Overview of Study from HCFCD

The SAFER Study has the potential to address one of the most impactful threats to the Houston/Harris County region: severe storm events that cause catastrophic flooding. 

This study will look broadly across the county and consider not only the effectiveness of large-scale flood mitigation projects within strategic locations, but also how they will function collectively as a system to provide flood mitigation, and the associated benefits, across broad regions of the county.

With the SAFER Study, the Flood Control District will be seeking to:

  1. Identify substantial, wide-ranging flood mitigation across the region rather than depending solely on smaller, incremental projects that address the needs slowly.
  2. Conduct the study in a way that allows the Flood Control District to identify flood risk reduction projects that could be cost-shared with the Federal government and constructed in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
  3. Identify project recommendations based on comprehensive benefits, which include social effects and environmental quality, as well as regional and national economic impacts.
  4. Identify opportunities to integrate nature-based solutions.

The study area spans across eleven (11) watersheds within Harris County, including:

  • Brays Bayou
  • Buffalo Bayou
  • Clear Creek
  • Cypress Creek
  • Greens Bayou
  • Halls Bayou
  • Hunting Bayou
  • Little Cypress Creek
  • Sims Bayou
  • White Oak Bayou
  • Vince Bayou

The goals of this study effort are to reduce flood risks and strengthen resiliency within Harris County, to be grounded in the principles of equity, to pursue larger transformational solutions with broad benefits, and to better prepare the region to withstand both the flood risks of today and those of the foreseeable future.  

The SAFER Study will evaluate traditional flood mitigation measures, such as increasing channel capacity and construction of new stormwater detention basins, as well as new options including large-scale stormwater tunnels, and non-structural measures.  

The study will consider social, economic, and environmental benefits and impacts while evaluating flood mitigation effectiveness.

While the Flood Control District will be leading the study, we will be following federal laws, regulations, and guidance applicable for feasibility studies of water resources development projects, such as the SAFER Study.

We will be working with USACE for input throughout the study process to ensure recommendations are developed that follow USACE policy and guidelines.

We anticipate initiating the SAFER Study during the first quarter of 2025.


Saving the Worst Flooding for Last

Twelve watersheds are not included in the study. Among them are two that had the worst flooding in the county during Hurricane Harvey: the San Jacinto and Spring Creek Watersheds.

worst first
Chart showing feet above flood stage of 33 gages of misc. bayous in Harris County during Harvey.

So much for the oft repeated promise to fix the worst flooding first. HCFCD did not explain why it is including only half the watersheds.

From Hurricane Harvey through Q3 2024, HCFCD spent $1,444,838,886 on mitigation and maintenance in all of the county’s 23 watersheds, excluding county-wide projects.

Of that total, the 11 watersheds included in the SAFER study have received $1,132,471,139. That’s 78% of the total.

The 12 watersheds excluded from the SAFER study have received only 22% of all HCFCD spending.

Data supplied to ReduceFlooding.com in response to a FOIA request.

Here’s how the forgotten majority looks in a pie chart.

More than half of the watersheds have received less than a quarter of all HCFCD spending since Harvey.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/5/25

2686 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.

System Capacity Maps for Harris County Channels Reveal Widespread Problems

12/2/24 – System capacity maps for each of Harris County’s 23 watersheds show widespread problems and raise questions about whether the county’s most severe needs are confined to historically underserved areas.

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) released the maps in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

What “System Capacity” Means

System capacity reflects the ability of a stream or channel to handle rainfall of different intensities before coming out of its banks. The way system capacity is expressed also reflects the expected frequency of over-bank events.

A channel that can hold a:

  • 100-year rainfall has a 1% system capacity
  • 50-year rainfall has a 2% system capacity
  • 25-year rainfall has a 4% system capacity, etc.

“1% system capacity” indicates that the infrastructure is designed to handle the peak flow or volume associated with a 1% event without causing overflow or flooding.

One Key Part of Comprehensive Flood-Risk Picture

System-capacity maps are one piece of information used in determining a comprehensive view of flood risk. They help you quickly spot areas that need closer examination.

Other key factors used to determine flood risk include: topography around the channel, the elevation of a structure, degree of development in an area, building codes in effect when an area was built, population density, and more.

Impact of Atlas 14

The maps released today rely on pre-Atlas 14 data. Harris County did not provide current maps. Nor do they reflect improvements made to channels recently. But the older maps are still instructive because they formed the starting point for spending billions of flood-mitigation dollars. However…

Because these maps are based on old rainfall standards, today’s true system capacity is actually lower than shown.

Said another way, the situation on the ground is worse than the maps show. That’s because the transition from pre-Atlas 14 to Atlas-14 data in Harris County resulted in significant increases in estimated rainfall depths for various storm events.

Notably, the 1% annual exceedance probability (AEP) 24-hour rainfall depth—commonly referred to as the “100-year” event—experienced substantial changes.

Prior to Atlas 14, Harris County was divided into three hydrologic regions with the following 100-year, 24-hour rainfall depths:

  • Region 1: 12.4 inches
  • Region 2: 12.8 inches
  • Region 3: 13.5 inches

With the implementation of Atlas 14, these values increased to:

  • Region 1: 16.3 inches
  • Region 2: 16.9 inches
  • Region 3: 18.0 inches

This represents increases of approximately 31%, 32%, and 33% for Regions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 

These updated figures reflect a more accurate understanding of rainfall patterns, incorporating additional years of data and improved analytical methods. Consequently, infrastructure design and floodplain management practices in Harris County have been adjusted to align with these revised estimates, enhancing resilience against flooding events. 

Value of Maps Based on Old Rainfall Standards

Still, these maps have value. They are a starting point for the $2.5 billion 2018 Flood Bond. They also show that:

  • All watersheds have problem areas
  • Channel capacity in some areas is extremely low
  • Some watersheds that are not “historically underserved” have more severe system-capacity issues than those that are underserved.

System Capacity Maps

Below are low-resolution maps for each of the 23 watersheds in Harris County. For high-resolution maps of all watersheds in one file, click here. Caution: [26-meg download.]

Correlation of Maps with Spending

It’s instructive to correlate HCFCD flood-mitigation spending with these maps. Below is where more than $2 billion has gone since Hurricane Harvey, in large part, to address the problems shown above.

Spending by Watershed since Harvey
Data supplied by HCFCD. Shows relative spending by watershed since Harvey through Q3 2024.
HCFCD spending by watershed through Q3 2024 since Harvey in dollars.

Compare the maps with the spending. And use the contact form of this website to let me know if you feel your area is not getting its fair share of flood-mitigation funding.

Note on Next Update with Atlas 14 Data

I have tried to get accurate flood risk data for years. However, HCFCD says it does not routinely update these maps every time it completes a new construction project. The District says it may update them again as part of the MAAPnext project after FEMA approves new maps based on Atlas-14 data.

Posted by Bob Rehak on December 2, 2024

2652 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, HUD Funding Approved for 7 HCFCD Projects So Far

11/20/2024 – The Texas General Land Office (GLO) confirmed funding approval from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for seven Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) projects.

In June of last year, HCFCD submitted two projects lists to GLO for $825 million in HUD Community Development Block Grant disaster relief (CDBG-DR) funding and flood mitigation (CDBG-MIT) funding.

Since then, HCFCD has worked with GLO to finalize the HUD applications. HCFCD presented an update to Commissioner’s Court in early October, 2024. Today, GLO provided an update to the update.

CDBG-DR Projects

According to an email from GLO spokesperson Brittany Eck received today, seven DR projects have received funding approvals to date. They include:

Eck also said that five more CDBG-DR projects are under final quality-control review. “We are making sure the project submissions are complete and meet all federal eligibility requirements so that there are not issues or concerns down the road.”

Disaster Relief projects have the tightest deadlines. So, all parties focused on those first.

CDBG-MIT Funding Still Under Review

“Seventeen CDBG-mitigation projects are still in various stages of preliminary review,” said Eck.

“We are working back and forth on requests for more information required by HUD on many of the projects,” said Eck. “We continue to work very closely with the HCFCD team to make sure they have all available resources needed to complete the applications. Overall our team is very pleased with the progress being made and the relationship continues to be strong.”

Only two mitigation projects have not yet been submitted for preliminary review.

  • Kickerillo-Mischer Preserve Channel Rehabilitation (100-00-00-X115)
  • Channel Conveyance Improvements (C147-00-00-E002) in the Sims Bayou Watershed.

Tremendous Progress

“HCFCD has made tremendous progress on these funds,” said Eck. “However, the rate of approval may not yet demonstrate the progress being made behind the scenes.”

She added, “This process, especially considering the amount funds being administered is an extremely lengthy federal process. Additionally HCFCD has needed to combine projects due to functionality and the GLO is working closely with them to ensure eligibility in the most efficient timeframe imaginable.”

Kingwood Projects Not Mentioned in This Update

Eck did not comment on the status of two Kingwood projects. I can only assume they are still under review. She did not mention any that had been eliminated.

The two Kingwood projects:

Woodridge Village detention basin photographed on 10/25/24. Project paused pending outcome of HUD financing approval.

In its October update to Commissioners Court, HCFCD said the Woodridge Stormwater Detention Basins were originally below the funding line for CDBG-DR.

“The original engineering analysis indicated that only Woodridge Basin Compartment 1 was needed for the Taylor Gully mitigation,” said the update. “As the analysis has progressed it indicates that Compartment 2 (or a portion of it) may also be needed. Due to other projects potentially reducing in budget from the initial estimates, there may be funding available to include the Woodridge basin in the Taylor Gully project.”

That word “may” in the last sentence worries me.

HCFCD did not propose the Kingwood Diversion Ditch project for HUD consideration. HCFCD called the diversion ditch one of the two most important projects in Kingwood. That funding will have to come from somewhere else.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/20/24

2640 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Before You Vote, Know Where HCFCD Maintenance Dollars Go

Correction 10/28/24 – The table showing maintenance dollars/square mile has been updated with maintenance dollars/stream miles, a more appropriate metric for maintenance dollars.

10/21/24 – Today is the first day of early voting. Knowing where maintenance dollars go may affect how you vote on Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) proposed 63% maintenance-tax increase.

Before you vote, you should know that maintenance dollars spent per stream mile in different watersheds vary by 28:1. And that the San Jacinto, Spring Creek, Little Cypress Creek, Luce Bayou and Cedar Bayou watersheds are among those that receive the fewest maintenance dollars per stream mile. They all fall in the bottom third.

Why HCFCD Requested Tax Increase

HCFCD says it needs the additional tax revenue because:

  • Money available for maintenance has remained flat for many years, while…
  • Assets needing maintenance have grown, especially since the 2018 flood bond.

Assets include flood-mitigation features, such as stormwater detention basins and channels. HCFCD has built many new ones with capital improvement funds from the bond.

What They Don’t Tell You in Flood-Tax Meetings

HCFCD has been holding in-person and virtual meetings throughout the county to explain the need for its proposed tax increase. But the one I attended did not offer any explanations for the magnitude of the tax increase.

Neither could/would HCFCD personnel answer my questions about the allocation of tax dollars among watersheds.

How, when, where, why, and on what basis will the new tax revenue be spent? My fear: another Equity Prioritization Framework for maintenance-tax dollars.

Where Money is Already Going

When looking at the data, it seems we may already have an equity prioritization framework for maintenance dollars – in practice if not in policy. To date, flood-bond dollars have gone disproportionately to watersheds where more than 50% of residents qualify as low-to-moderate income (LMI). See the eight highlighted in gold below.

Maintenance $/stream mile from Hurricane Harvey through 3Q24. Gold watersheds have majority LMI population.

The San Jacinto River watershed, Spring Creek, Little Cypress Creek, Cedar Bayou and Luce Bayou all fall predominantly within the Republican-led Precinct 3. And they all fall to the bottom of the list.

I suspect the highlighted watersheds above float higher because, as LMI-majority watersheds, they have received a disproportionate share of capital-improvement spending.

As a generalization, maintenance money follows capital-improvement spending. So, we can probably expect to see a continuation of that trend.

Other Factors Affecting Maintenance Spending

But ranking maintenance allocations is not as clearcut as ranking overall spending. In addition to watershed size, everal other factors also influence the need for maintenance. They include:

  • Degree of development (Undeveloped areas require less maintenance.)
  • Age of assets (New assets require less maintenance than older ones.)
  • Severity of flooding (Larger floods erode more.)
  • Type of asset (Is it a concrete channel or grass-lined? Concrete costs more to repair.)
  • Size of watershed. (Larger watersheds convey more water, creating greater damage/erosion.)

Political factors also likely influence the allocation of dollars. For instance:

  • Commissioner Rodney Ellis lives in the Brays Bayou watershed.
  • Right now, HCFCD is juggling projects to raise the LMI percentage of HUD applications totaling $825 million. HUD requires 50%. HCFCD is trying to get the percentage to 70%.

All told, if you vote for the maintenance-tax increase, understand that you may not see as much benefit from it as other parts of the county…if you see any benefit at all. Nothing in the wording of the ballot item guarantees a fair share to each watershed.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/21/2024 and updated 10/28/24

2610 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.

Details of HCFCD Spending in San Jacinto Watershed Since Harvey

10/20/24 – My latest FOIA request revealed some surprising details about Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) spending in the San Jacinto Watershed and how it contrasts to the Brays Bayou Watershed.

For several years, I have tracked HCFCD spending by watershed and project phase on a quarterly basis. I have discovered tremendous disparities in flood mitigation funding across the county.

From high to low, the ratio varies by more than 1000:1. The types of activities also vary greatly from watershed to watershed. The Brays and San Jacinto Watersheds make illuminating examples.

San Jacinto Watershed Vs. Brays

Out of the county’s 23 watersheds, the San Jacinto ranks in the bottom half of total funding since Harvey. Despite being the county’s largest watershed and having the most severe flooding, it comes in at #13 in terms of dollars received.

The San Jacinto Watershed received approximately $40 million between Harvey and the end of the third quarter in 2024. That’s less than 2% of the total $2.03 billion HCFCD has spent since Harvey.

Compare that to Brays Bayou where Commissioner Rodney Ellis lives.

Brays has received 10% of all the money spent by HCFCD since Harvey – $202.4 million out of $2.03 billion. That’s more than five times as much as the San Jacinto.

The totals show an impressive difference. But they don’t tell the whole story.

71% of Brays spending has gone into construction activities that actually reduce flood risk.

Meanwhile, the San Jacinto watershed received a fifth as much in total dollars. And one tenth as much went into construction that actually reduces flooding.

Data from FOIA Request

Details of San Jacinto Spending: Where Money Went

Drilling down even deeper into the data, I discovered that virtually all of the San Jacinto “construction” spending was classified as maintenance. In other words, the construction dollars went toward repairing the insufficient infrastructure that resulted in the county’s worst flooding. Very little went toward construction of new capital improvement projects.

On a sad note, HCFCD reported spending $230 on true capital-improvement construction in the San Jacinto Watershed. That’s not a typo. We’re not talking about thousands or millions. We’re talking about just a little more money than the default withdrawal from most ATMs.

That was for the Excavation and Removal (E&R) Project on the Woodridge Village property. HCFCD later cancelled the E&R project when it applied for HUD grants for Woodridge and Taylor Gully improvements.

E&R contracts give contractors the right to sell dirt excavated from detention basins in exchange for a nominal fee, usually $1,000. They make their money, not from HCFCD, but from developers, homebuilders and road builders who buy the dirt at market rates.

The single largest expenditure in the San Jacinto Watershed since Harvey was for the purchase of the Woodridge Village property itself for $13,994,735.

Spike in middle of graph is purchase of Woodridge property. Other spike in 2022 was dredging.

Here’s a breakdown of $40 million in spending against all significant projects.

Spending in San Jacinto Watershed Since HarveyAmount 17Q3 – 24-Q3
Purchase of Woodridge Village $13,994,735
Unspecified Maintenance Projects, most classified as construction$8,303,416
County’s Share of Dredging (East and West Forks)$7,278,626
SJRA’s San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Plan $2,777,980
Bens Branch Conveyance Improvements (maint)$1,788,949
Panther Creek Feasibility Study$1,744,343
Kingwood Diversion Ditch Preliminary Engineering$872,759
Baytown Storm Sewer Improvements Design Study $810,869
Taylor Gully Preliminary Engingeering Study $584,179
Atascocita Preliminary Flood Reduction Study$541,186
Drainage Study for Watersheds East of Lake Houston$298,534
Deer Park Project(s)/Design and Right of Way$213,089
SJRA’s River Basin Sedimentation Study $162,500
Indian Shores Partnership Project$130,000
SJRA’s San Trap Location Study$128,820
Redesign of Failed Sheet Pile Wall/Location Not Specified)$118,799
Boggy Gully Study$42,280
Lake Houston Gates Study$23,547
USACE Support on West Fork Dredging $9,265

$7.2 million of the HCFCD money spent in the San Jacinto Watershed since Harvey has gone toward studies. That’s almost twice as much as the $3.7 million spent on studies in the Brays Watershed during the same period.

The engineering studies are necessary to qualify for grants which might eventually lead to construction projects that mitigate flooding. But since the studies exist only on paper, they don’t actually reduce any flooding. At least, not until they qualify the area for funding.

For instance, none of the studies that HCFCD partnered with the SJRA on (River Basin Master Drainage Study, Sedimentation, Sand Traps) have advanced to the construction phase yet.

Less than $2 Million Per Quarter with Two Exceptions

Here’s how San Jacinto Watershed funding breaks down over time.

Tall blip in middle contains Woodridge purchase. Blip in Q3 22 includes county’s share of dredging.

The thing that chaps me most about all this is Commissioner Rodney Ellis continually harping about how Kingwood gets all the money. He has convinced low-income people throughout the county that areas with high-dollar homes get all the money. The opposite is true according to the data.

Meanwhile, Ellis is pushing funding from just about everywhere else into the watershed where he lives.

Such heavy-handed politics make me skeptical about the 63% tax increase being proposed by HCFCD.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/20/2024

2609 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 Spending Drops Even As It Seeks Massive Tax Increase

10/15/24 – Even as Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) pleads with voters for a 63% tax increase, its spending continues to decrease – on both a quarterly and annual basis.

Come to the meeting Wednesday night at the Kingwood Community Center to learn more about HCFCD’s Proposition A on your ballot.

According to HCFCD data obtained via a FOIA request, HCFCD spending declined:

  • 36% from the second to third quarter of this year ($67,983,033 to $43,179,077).
  • 13% from 2023 to 2024 ($252,949,555 to $219,207,447 annualized. I estimated the annualized 2024 figure by adding the average of the first three quarters to their totals.)

See the first two graphs below.

Unless we see a dramatic turnaround in the fourth quarter of this year, spending will decline for four straight years since its peak in 2020.

Spending ramped up rapidly after Hurricane Harvey with the passage of the 2018 flood bond. But since 2020, it has declined precipitously and is now almost down to pre-bond levels. Why?

Possible Reasons for Decline

In fairness, the pandemic slowed many businesses, not just HCFCD. But the pandemic is behind us. And flood mitigation spending continues to fall.

The decline also coincides with a change in leadership at HCFCD and a change in direction from Commissioners Court.

The Democratic majority in Commissioners Court has burdened HCFCD processes with frequent changes to the “Equity Prioritization Framework.” The framework prioritizes projects that benefit low-to-moderate income (LMI) areas, not necessarily those with the most flood damage, the most severe flooding, the most frequent flooding or the highest flood risk.

HCFCD hasn’t yet even released flood-risk data requested by the Harris County Community Resilience Flood Task Force four years ago. If this were a poker game, I’d call that a “tell.”

Money Waiting to be Used

To its credit, HCFCD has secured enough matching partnership funding to more than double the $2.5 billion dollars approved by voters. But the District isn’t spending it.

It has taken two years to compile a project list for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Texas General Land Office (GLO), which administers HUD funds in Texas.

Meanwhile, $825 million dollars are waiting in the wings.

PowerPoint slide from April 2024

HCFCD keeps trying to get the LMI percentage of that $825 million up to 70%, even though HUD requires only 50%. And the deadline for those 13 Disaster Recovery Projects worth $290 million is rapidly approaching.

Roughly 37% of Bond Spent in 60% of Time

More than six years after the passage of the flood bond, HCFCD has spent only about $1.9 billion out of the $5.1 billion available through bond and matching funds. So, the District has used only 37% of the money committed in 60% of the 10 years originally projected for the bond program.*

Meanwhile inflation has taken its toll on purchasing power, putting the future of many projects at risk. HCFCD has requested extensions on CDBG projects, but GLO is still evaluating them on a case-by-case basis.

The LMI Imperative

Currently, LMI considerations heavily influence HCFCD spending. Brays, Greens, White Oak, Halls, Hunting and Sims Bayous all have a majority of LMI residents. Brays is the first bayou to top $200 million in HCFCD spending since Harvey. Greens has topped $175 million. And White Oak is a whisker short of $150 million.

Meanwhile, the San Jacinto watershed ranks 13th out of 23 watersheds. Yet it had the highest flooding in the county during Harvey.

Why vote? Worst flooding in the county.
San Jacinto at US59 circled in red. Note locations of areas on right that didn’t even flood.

Current Priorities Shifting a Bit

When looking only at the third quarter of 2024, the picture has somewhat improved for the San Jacinto. During the last quarter, the San Jacinto watershed ranked 7th, but still fell behind White Oak, Halls, Greens and Brays watersheds, all of which have LMI-majority populations.

HCFCD announced the completion of Project Brays more than two years ago. And yet HCFCD still spends more money there than in the San Jacinto watershed, which is the county’s largest … with the county’s worst flooding.

But alas, Commissioner Rodney Ellis lives in the Brays Bayou Watershed. So, we in the San Jacinto will have to wait to see if any money is left to improve Taylor Gully, Woodridge Village or the Diversion Ditch.

And those poor souls who live near Spring Creek, which had the second highest flooding? Well, they’ll have to wait too.

Strange how most of the waiting is being done in Republican-dominated areas. For instance, Jackson and Luce Bayous (both east of Lake Houston) barely register as blips on the graph above.

Tough Tax Questions

So, should you vote for the new flood tax? Not until you learn more.

HCFCD is pushing the 63% tax increase as a maintenance tax, even though nothing in the ballot language restricts the tax to maintenance.

Wednesday night, HCFCD will hold a meeting at the Kingwood Community Center from 6 to 7:30 PM. Be there!

HCFCD Prop A open house

Ask whether you will see any benefit from the tax.

  1. Why does HCFCD need a 63% increase when it has trouble spending the money it already has?
  2. Is HCFCD capable of administering a larger budget in a timely way?
  3. Is there any guarantee the money will be spent here?
  4. If money will be spent here, when?
  5. Why is the ballot language so vague and open ended?
  6. Will commissioners divert the tax proceeds to other purposes?
  7. Can you trust commissioners not to change the deal after the vote as they did with the 2022 bond?
  8. If capital improvement money is largely going elsewhere, shouldn’t we assume that maintenance money will follow it?

I’m going to see what they say before I make any recommendations. Hope to see you there.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/15/24

2604 Days since Hurricane Harvey

* A word about data. The data provided by HCFCD includes maintenance spending, not just capital improvement expenditures from the bond. So $1.9 billion is an estimate. If it varies, it would vary downwards, making the disparity in the percentages greater.

Where HCFCD Spending Goes

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) spending data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act Request shows that countywide:

  • Spending now tops $2 billion since Hurricane Harvey back in 2017
  • It modestly rebounded between the first and second quarters of this year
  • More money is now going to land acquisition and construction compared to other phases of the project lifecycle, while less money is going to upfront studies
  • On a per watershed basis, watersheds with a majority of Low-to-Moderate Income (LMI) residents still get far more than those with a minority of LMI residents.
  • Spending in the San Jacinto Watershed continues to lag despite high flood risk
  • Spending has fallen off a cliff in some watersheds.

For details, see below.

Modest Rebound Compared to 1Q24

The chart below shows HCFCD spending in 27 quarters since Hurricane Harvey. It shows a dramatic uptick between 2018 and 2021, followed by an even more dramatic decline through the first quarter of 2023. Since then, spending has averaged slightly more than $60 million per quarter, about half of the peak in 2021.

What accounts for the lower totals recently?

  • Changes in leadership and personnel turnover at HCFCD
  • Restructuring at HCFCD
  • Numerous changes in “equity” allocation formulas that required reprioritization of projects
  • Lengthy delays at Harris County Community Services involving more than $750 million in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funds.
  • COVID
  • Inflation during COVID forcing a re-evaluation of the Bond project list

The 2018 Flood Bond was considered a 10-year project. We are now almost 6 years into the bond, which was approved on the first anniversary of Harvey, but the money is only about 40% spent. That means projects are moving slower than originally anticipated. And that gives inflation a chance to gobble up a higher percentage of them.

More Money Now Going to Land Acquisition and Construction

On a positive note, more projects are moving off the drawing boards and into construction. You can see this trend most clearly by comparing two pie charts that show spending broken down by project phase. The first shows spending since Harvey and the second shows spending during the last quarter.

Looking back at the last 27 quarters, HCFCD spent 76% of its funds on right-of-way acquisition and construction. But during the last quarter, those combined percentages jumped to 85% – up 9%.

Meanwhile, feasibility studies and preliminary engineering reviews fell from 8% to 3% during the comparable periods.

Perhaps we’re starting to mitigate more than ruminate.

Since Harvey
During second quarter this year

The following table may make it easier for you to compare percentages if you are viewing this on a phone.

Spending in Watersheds with Majority LMI Populations

The percentage of LMI residents in a watershed helps determine eligibility for flood-mitigation grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Harris County has 23 watersheds. Of those, 8 have a majority of LMI residents.

Regardless, since Harvey, those 8 received almost as much money as the other 15 put together.

Since Harvey

Looking only at the last quarter, that trend has moderated somewhat.

Second quarter this year only

But on a per watershed basis, the 8 LMI watersheds still each receive an average of 5.5% of the budget. Meanwhile, the 15 other watersheds each receive an average of 3.7%.

This is largely a function of the weighting given to LMI-majority projects in Harris County’s equity prioritization project scoring formula.

Spending by Watershed: A Study in Extremes

Comparing bar graphs of spending by watershed shows extreme differences between the highs and lows that are getting wider.

Since Harvey, difference between high and low equaled 100 to 1.

Note also the disappearance of the middle ground.

During second quarter, difference between high and low equaled 375 to 1.

During the second quarter, the entire San Jacinto Watershed – the county’s largest – received less than $400,000 of support…while moving up from 13th place to 11th.

Harris County watersheds in the upper San Jacinto River Basin include Spring, Cypress, Willow, Little Cypress, Luce and San Jacinto. They all funnel through the Lake Houston Area.

Since Harvey, they have received about 20% of HCFCD spending. But they drain an area about 50% larger than where the rest of the other 80% of the money went.

And as we saw in May, that can have a huge impact on flood damage.

From the San Jacinto River Basin Master drainage study.

I wish HCFCD spending flowed to the Lake Houston Area as fast as the water.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/5/2024

2502 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Area Leaders Meet with GLO Commissioner Buckingham

Harris County and the Houston area are receiving $863 million from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) via the Texas General Land Office (GLO) for disaster relief and flood mitigation. So, on Thursday, April 25, 2024, GLO Commissioner Dr. Dawn Buckingham met with a group of Lake-Houston-Area leaders to discuss the area’s flood mitigation needs.

The meeting, arranged by State Representative Charles Cunningham, also included Director Tina Petersen of the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD); Director Thao Costis of Harris County Community Services (CSD); Humble Mayor Norman Funderburk; and Dustin Hodges, Chief of Staff for City of Houston Council Member Fred Flickinger.

(L to R) Dustin Hodges; Tina Petersen; Thao Costis; Dr. Dawn Buckingham; Rep. Charles Cunningham; Norman Funderburk; Alice Rekeweg;  Scott Elmer, HCFCD; and Kathleen Jordan.

Projects Vie for Funding

As reported on 4/23, Buckingham was in Houston to discuss Disaster Relief and Mitigation projects totaling $863 million. But there are more deserving projects than money to fund them all. So Buckingham, her team, HCFCD and CSD met with area leaders to discuss needs.

The GLO administers the distribution of HUD funds in Texas. Among Lake Houston Area projects discussed for funding were:

  • Taylor Gully Channel Improvements ($25.5 Million)
  • Woodridge Stormwater Detention Basin – Compartment 1 ($13.3 Million)
  • Woodridge Stormwater Detention Basin – Compartment 2 ($17.5 Million)
  • Mercer Park Drainage Improvements ($5.3 Million)
  • Mercer Detention Basin ($15.4 Million)
  • Mercer Botanic Garden Restroom Improvements (0.6 Million)
  • New Humble Fire Station ($4.5 Million)

No commitments were made at the meeting, but the mood was positive and everyone left smiling.

Buckingham is still collecting information. She listened attentively, asked probing questions and left with a better understanding of the area’s needs.

Splitting the Woodridge Basin into two phases helps ensure that at least one compartment will get funded and provide enough mitigation to let the Taylor Gully Channel Improvements move forward.

Other Topics

Several other topics came up toward the end of the hour-long meeting. They included sedimentation, dredging, and the need for sand to nourish beaches along the Texas coast. The GLO needs sand to replace eroding beaches…and this area needs to remove sand collecting in streams and Lake Houston.

That raised the tantalizing possibility of collaboration for mutual benefit and solving two problems at once.

More news to follow.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/26/24

2432 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Flickinger Provides Updates On Gates, Dredging, Northpark, More

City of Houston District E Council Member Fred Flickinger addressed a group of local executives at the Kingwood Country Club this morning. He covered a wide range of topics, both in his talk and during Q&A. They included the status of five flood-related topics for the Lake Houston Area:

  • New Gates for the Lake Houston Dam
  • Seasonal Lake Lowering
  • Additional dredging in Lake Houston
  • Kingwood Diversion Ditch expansion
  • Last weekend’s flooding on Northpark Drive
Flickinger addressing the Kingwood Executive Group at the Kingwood Country Club on 4/24/24

Floodgate Construction Could Start in ’25 or ’26

Within two sentences of standing up, Flickinger got straight to the subject of flooding and new, bigger floodgates for the Lake Houston Dam. He said, “Obviously, the big thing is getting additional gates. That is currently pending a FEMA review and approval.”

He continued, “We have about $150 million secured for those. Much of that has come via Rep. Dan Crenshaw’s office. Also the State, thanks to Representatives Dan Huberty and Charles Cunningham, and Dave Martin, my predecessor. Stephen Costello [the City’s Flood Czar] has also all done great work. They’ve all really done yeomen’s jobs getting money for the dam gates.”

Looking S. New gates will be built in the earthen portion of the dam to the left of the four small gates you see now.

“We’re looking at construction probably in late 2025 or sometime in 2026,” said Flickinger. “That’s obviously the biggest key to reducing flooding.”

Flickinger also said that he believes the current Mayor remains committed to the project.

Seasonal Lake Lowering

Regarding lowering Lakes Houston and Conroe, Flickinger said the City and SJRA have moved to an event-driven strategy rather than a seasonal one. Automatically lowering the level of Lake Conroe twice a year to reduce flood risk in the Lake Houston Area generated pushback from Lake Conroe residents.

For some time now, the politically divisive strategy has been replaced by an “as-needed” lake-lowering policy in one or both lakes depending on where and when rain falls.

However, the “as needed” policy requires precise forecasting. And several times lately, rain has shifted at the last minute. Ironically, that supports the need for bigger gates that release water faster. They can create extra storage in Lake Houston while still reducing the lead time needed, so forecasters can be absolutely certain of the need to lower the lake.

After all, that’s the drinking water supply for more than 2 million people. You don’t want to lower it needlessly if it won’t be refilled right away.

More Dredging on Tap

Flickinger next addressed the need for more dredging. He said that the City is currently removing another 800,000 yd³ of sediment between Kings Point and FM1960.

“Again, funding for that largely came from Rep. Dan Crenshaw’s office,” he said. “Some people in the government questioned whether that was Harvey-related sediment. But we got the funding! And dredging has started. So that’s a really good thing.”

Diversion Ditch/Walnut Lane Bridge

“The next issue with flooding,” said Flickinger, “is really the Kingwood Diversion Ditch.” The ditch cuts south from St. Martha’s Catholic Church to River Grove Park through the western portion of Kingwood.

“The Walnut Lane Bridge has about a fourth of the surface area below it that the Kingwood Drive and North Park Bridges have. Because of that, it works somewhat like a dam. Crenshaw just secured $4 million to address that, but we have got to have a cost/benefit ratio of one or greater, which will be a challenge. So, we’re working on that.”

Looking north along Diversion Ditch. Notice how it narrows under the Walnut Lane Bridge.

“And that money probably won’t become available for another six months. Hopefully, we can get that cost/benefit analysis to where we need it by then and use that money to rebuild the Walnut Lane Bridge. It’s a huge deal that affects Trailwood, Forest Cove, and even people who live along Bens Branch.”

“Part of the water from Ben’s branch is actually supposed to go to the lake via the Diversion Ditch,” said Flickinger. (That’s how the ditch got its name.) However, Flickinger noted that when the Diversion Ditch backs up, water goes down Bens Branch instead.

“And we’re getting more and more of that because of the development in Montgomery County…That’s part of why Kingwood High School flooded.”

Northpark Flooding

Last weekend, Northpark Drive flooded near the construction zone.

At the time, I conjectured that one or more of the drains may have been blocked. Flickinger revealed the cause this morning.

He said the drain was never tied into the new drainage system.

“It turns out that they had a change in foremen on the job, and one of the drains was not connected to the storm sewer.”

Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger

“That is what caused that big fiasco. Now our office is going to contact the construction team every time we have a significant rain event and ask them to double check, so we don’t have any issues obstructing stormwater,” said Flickinger.

“Anytime you’ve got construction, there’s a certain amount of mess associated with it. But obviously, we don’t need somebody causing flooding by forgetting or blocking something.”

Looking E along Northpark on Sunday morning, 4/21/24 at area where drain was not tied in.

Before Flickinger had to leave for a meeting downtown, it became clear to everyone in the room that flooding was one of his primary concerns.

For someone who’s been in the job less than four months, he was very aware of the complex intricacies and interdependencies of the Lake Houston Area’s drainage problems. And that was very encouraging news!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/24/24

2430 Days since Hurricane Harvey