Funding Archives - Reduce Flooding

Harris County Considers $327 Million 2027 Budget Increase

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.

Here is Ramos’ “overview” presentation. And here is a 112-page explanation posted to the (OMB) website.

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

Why Flood Mitigation Takes So Long

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

Largest Tax Hike in Harris County History Raises Efficiency Question

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.

CC Meeting 08 06 2026 — *Harris County Commissioners discuss budget proposals on 8.06.26*

To see why, review the recent history of the Harris County Housing & Community Development (HCD) Department and Flood Control District (HCFCD). Together, they manage more than a billion dollars of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) via the Texas General Land Office (GLO).

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?

To answer those questions, I relied on data supplied by the GLO in Austin.

Housing and Community Development Projects

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.

*Compiled from GLO 7/23/2026 Report*. *Amount = $ committed, not spent.*

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.”

HCFCD Still Has Steep Hill to Climb on CDBG Projects

8/1/26 – A transmittal from Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) to Commissioners Court for their 8/6/26 meeting shows the updated status of all Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects.

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:

Slipped on 10
Remained the same on 8
Sped up on 10.

However, schedule delays exceeded gains by a total of 862 days. I assume that’s due to more accurate reporting under HCFCD’s new Executive Director Marcus Stuckett.

Woodridge Taylor Gully Groundbreaking — *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.

HCFCD 2026 Q2 Spending Update: San Jacinto Watershed Still Ignored

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.)

I’ll bet Charles Cunningham’s new Lake Houston Dredging District could use some of the difference!

How to Explore Data Yourself

There are millions of ways to slice and dice this data. Explore it for yourself. Here’s how.

Look up projects near you on the HCFCD website: https://www.hcfcd.org/Activity/Projects/San-Jacinto-River
See how much was allocated before the bond vote: https://reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2018bondprojectlist2018-08-06-1130.pdf
Compare how much HCFCD has actually spent through July 1 this year: https://www.hcfcd.org/Activity

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

HCFCD Construction Slowdown May Be on Verge of Turnaround

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.

*As of 7/1/2026. Computed from HCFCD 26Q2 Bond Update.*

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.

*2018 Flood Bond Funds spent to date by watershed*

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.

Yet Commissioner Adrian Garcia defended former HCFCD Executive Director Dr. Tina Petersen to the bitter end… against the interests of his own constituents. It will be interesting to see if this affects his re-election campaign this Fall.

Some Good News This Thursday

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
Lauder Stormwater Detention Basin – Phase 3A
Genoa Red Bluff Stormwater Detention – Basins Phase 2 – CDBG-DR/MIT
Kluge Stormwater Detention Basin – Phase 3 – CDBG-DR/MIT

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.

Ramsey Addresses Kingwood Group as Tropical Storm Forms Offshore

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.

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.

*Image from National Hurricane Center posted at 10:31 AM CDT.*

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*

Replacement of HCFCD Director

Ramsey then segued to the resignation of HCFCD Executive Director Dr. Tina Petersen last week. “It may have been some concern to people, but it was a necessary thing if we’re going to do what we need to get done.”

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.

More than 7,500 flood-weary residents from surrounding areas have signed a petition against the development.

Lake Houston Dam Gates Funding, Other Issues

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

Showdown Over Slowdown at HCFCD

6/8/2026 – In their 6/11/2026 meeting, Harris County Commissioners will revisit the future employment of Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) Executive Director Dr. Tina Petersen, PhD, PE. The immediate issue: slippage of 11 CDBG-DR projects that could cost the county $322 million if they miss their deadlines on February 28, 2027.

Roughly 84% of the time for those has elapsed with less than 4% of their budgets expended.
GLO Data as of 6/3/26

Despite deadlines only a little more than eight months away, the projects typically take 1-2 years to construct.

HCFCD also expects to miss deadlines on 13 of 18 CDBG Mitigation Projects (CDBG-MIT) worth another $362.7 million dollars. But that deadline is 3/31/28.

Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE has sounded the alarm for months about this problem. So, has the Texas General Land Office (GLO), which administers HUD funds in Texas.

Predictably, the parties involved are offering their own versions of how we reached this point. Dueling press releases today differed starkly.

The GLO says HCFCD promised it “shovel-ready” projects.

On the other hand, HCFCD calls them “complex, large-scale flood risk reduction projects under strict federal timelines, evolving program requirements, construction market pressures, and funding structures that were not originally designed for this level of accelerated delivery.”

Unusual 5-Part GLO Press Release

The GLO issued a five-part press release, unusual in its detail. There was:

The press release itself
An open letter to Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo
Photographs of 11 projects supposedly under construction, only three of which were actually moving dirt.
Timeline of critical events during the life of the CDBG-DR Program (the one with the most pressing deadline).
A list of “Failures” by HCFCD.

The GLO press release summarized the letter to Hidalgo. It quoted GLO Commissioner Dawn Buckingham as saying Harris County needed “Shovels, Not Scapegoats.”

The press release also said that, “We have grave concerns about Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) not meeting its benchmarks…” It went on to say that if the county didn’t change its business processes…

“…there is likely zero chance of successfully meeting the grant timeline established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.”
Dawn Buckingham, GLO Commissioner

Buckingham stated that the GLO spent more than $5 million of its own grant funding to teach HCFCD about grant requirements and provide technical support with grant applications. The GLO claims its team conducted more than 750 meetings “to provide staff support to Harris County to ensure these projects are completed on time in accordance with the federal deadline, yet there are still too few shovels in the ground.”

Commissioner Buckingham concludes her letter by saying, “It’s time to … finish the job. Shovels, not scapegoats.”

Click here for the:

Later in the day, GLO also provided an update on reimbursable expenditures to date associated with CDBG-DR and MIT projects.

Page 15 of 18 shows that with roughly 84% of time elapsed, HCFCD has spent only about 3.9% of available DR funds.

Page 11 of 18 shows that HCFCD has spent only 4.4% of available MIT funds.

HCFCD Paints Rosy Picture Despite Obstacles

The GLO press release this morning emphasized that in 2023 projects were supposed to have been shovel ready. HCFCD’s press release this afternoon never mentions “shovel ready.” Instead it paints a nightmare picture of impossible complexity before claiming it has, ta da, a “plan” to solve the problem.

HCFCD will unveil its new “plan” to commissioners on Thursday. According to HCFCD, it “protects federal funding, maintains and strengthens our commitment to communities, and ensures residents receive the flood risk reduction benefits these programs were designed to deliver.”

HCFCD had planned a press conference tomorrow to explain the plan to reporters, but cancelled it late today.

Proposed Solution

While details of the plan have not yet been divulged, in principle, GLO and HCFCD agree on the following outline. It involves:

1) Putting all CDBG-DR and -MIT projects in one giant “budget bucket,” including some funds still at Harris County Housing and Community Development.

2) Billing everything possible from that giant bucket against the DR budget before the 2/28/27 deadline.

3) Billing the rest against the MIT budget, which has a 3/31/28 deadline.

This approach at least kicks the can down the road past the next election. However, Buckingham cautions that the 2/28/27 deadline is firm. Without taking a position on Petersen’s employment, GLO does warn that HCFCD and the County need to move much faster.

Thursday’s Decision on Petersen

GLO’s list of Harris County “failures” is unambiguous. Ramsey can elaborate on them at length and provide examples. Despite extensive support provided by GLO, they include:

Missed deadlines
Reprioritizing projects repeatedly
Submitting incomplete or inaccurate documentation that failed to adhere to federal grant regulations
Failing to respond to GLO requests regarding federal grant processes
Significant employee turnover and loss of experienced staff capacity
Failure to achieve timely engineering design, environmental clearance, procurement, vendor contracting and construction starts…

HCFCD’s own spending data shows that its slowdown cuts across project phases, types of projects, and funding sources. The graph below shows all 2018 bond spending. You can see that problems go far beyond CDBG, GLO and HUD.

The downturn you see coincides with Petersen’s appointment to manage HCFCD.

HCFCD 2026 Q1 spending — *HCFCD spending over time. Petersen took over in 2022* *after Democrats started pushing out the previous management team in 2021.*

Changing Horses in Midstream

Petersen supporters argue that it could be dangerous to change horses in midstream, especially now that the immediate crisis seems to be solved with the “one big bucket” plan.

But her opponents argue that staying with the status quo carries the larger risk. They argue that poor performance during a crisis may be a reason for change, not a reason against it.

In my opinion, the real question is not whether you’re midstream, but whether the current horse is still the best one to get you across.

Fox26’s Greg Groogan interviewed GLO commissioner Dr. Dawn Buckingham. After recounting a litany of concerns about HCFCD’s performance under Petersen, he asked, “Commissioner, you are … a Doctor. This patient looks sick. Is that a fair assessment?”

Buckingham answered, “This patient is in the middle of a code and about to die.”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/8/2026 and updated with Fox link on 6/9/26

3205 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 Document Shows It Misled Commissioners, Public on CDBG Funding Worth Hundreds of Millions

5/4/2026 – On May 1, 2026, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) finally submitted a detailed spreadsheet demanded by Harris County Commissioners. It shows key milestones in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects receiving $868 million in federal funding.

The data raises two red flags:

Only 11 of 28 projects will meet deadlines
Construction bids far below initial estimates could leave tens of millions of dollars on the table.

Here is the detailed spreadsheet. The data directly contradicts rosy, high-level claims made by Dr. Tina Petersen, HCFCD’s executive director, in Commissioners Court on January 8, 2026. At that time…

Petersen assured commissioners that HCFCD was “ahead of schedule.”

So, let’s look at the deadlines with the detailed information now in hand. This story has the sad feeling of a football game with the home team down 30 points and only three minutes left on the scoreboard clock.

Deadlines Looming

The 28 CDBG projects are split into two groups with different deadlines:

11 CDBG-Disaster Relief (DR) worth $322 million
17 CDBG-Mitigation (MIT) worth $546 million.

DR projects have, by far, the tightest deadline – February 28, 2027. MIT projects have longer; 50% of that money must be spent by March 31, 2028, with the remainder spent by 2032. So, let’s look at DR projects now and save the MIT discussion for another day.

New Doc Predicts Only Five DR Projects Will Beat 2/28/27 Deadline

Of the 11 DR projects, HCFCD now predicts that only five will beat their deadline. (Estimate “substantial completion” dates shown in parentheses below.)

Brookglen Stormwater Detention Basin (SWDB) (12/21/2026)
Keegans Bayou SWDB (12/18/26)
Arbor Oaks (10/25/26)
Lauder SWDB (12/26/2026)
Jackson Bayou SWDB (9/3/2026)

Of these five projects, HCFCD is only actually moving dirt on two so far.

Arbor Oaks (30% complete with 51% of construction days elapsed)
Brookglen (8% complete with 9% of construction time elapsed).

Can they be completed in time? The Arbor Oaks job is a cautionary example. Contractors have completed only 30% of the job in half the allotted time.

Six DR Projects Now Predicted to Miss 2/28/27 Deadline

According to HCFCD’s latest spreadsheet, the six projects below will miss their deadlines. Construction bids on four of the six have not even been awarded yet (Genoa, Kluge, Isom, Dinner).

Genoa Red Bluff Regional SWDB (11/72027)
East TC Jester SWDB (3/4/2027)
Kluge SWDB (6/10/2027)
Greens Bayou Midreach Channel Conveyance Improvements (5/11/27)
Isom SWDB (6/19/2027)
Dinner Creek SWDB (3/24/28)

HCFCD is not moving dirt on ANY of the projects in this second group yet, though a construction trailer is on the East TC Jester Site and clearing reportedly started last week.

Less than 10 months remain on the game clock for the 11 DR projects.

How Reliable are Completion-Date Estimates?

But how much can we depend on HCFCD projections given delays and promises to date? We should remember that under Petersen, HCFCD attempted to build the Mercer SWDB on an expedited basis in ONE YEAR. It took FOUR!

Is There Flexibility in Deadline?

The Texas General Land Office (GLO), which administers US Department of Housing and Urban Development CDBG funds in Texas, has given itself a year after 2/28/27 to close out all DR jobs.

GLO might be able to give up a few months of that year – if projects are close to completion. For instance, several projects in the second group are currently projected to miss the deadline by less than three months.

However, GLO needs the rest of that year to do its work. Beyond that year, it would literally take an act of Congress to extend the deadline. Good luck with that, given the current political gridlock in Washington.

All Construction Bids Lower than Estimates So Far

Close examination of the HCFCD CDBG spreadsheet shows that ALL DR construction bids so far have come in lower than engineers’ estimates. This could create a budget surplus.

A GLO spokesperson says that in cases like that, the money could be shifted to other projects within the group that might have a deficit. Potentially, extra projects might also be possible.

However, at this stage of the game, finding a shovel-ready project that could be bundled into the DR group would be difficult. Any surplus would likely be grouped into a Disaster Recovery Reallocation Program (DRRP) at some future date.

We saw this recently when the GLO allocated unspent funds from disasters before Harvey to Harvey-related projects. That sweetened HCFCD’s DR pot by more than $100 million.

At this very moment, county and GLO officials are scrambling to identify eligible projects. However, construction experts I talked to doubt there’s time to do them before the deadline – even if one or more could be identified.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/4/2026

3170 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 Has Taken 4 Years to Spend 4% of HUD CDBG-DR Funds

4/21/26 – Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has taken more than 4 years to spend about 4% of the $322 million that HUD allocated to HCFCD for Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Relief (CDBG-DR). That figure is carved out of a larger total ($868 million) that also includes CDBG Mitigation funds.

Former Texas General Land Office (GLO) Commissioner George P. Bush announced his intention to allocate $750 million of US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds to Harris County on 5/26/21. HUD approved that amount on 3/18/22. Subsequently, it increased when the GLO also re-allocated unused funds from storms before Harvey to Harris County.

Here’s a high-level breakdown as of today.

*Source: Texas General Land Office. 4/21/26*.

HCFCD has spent only 3.59% of the CDBG-DR project funds to date. That group has the tightest deadline, just 313 days away and involves roughly a third of a billion dollars.

Why Such a Low Percentage So Late In the Game?

To be fair, HCFCD had a lot of dominos to align:

A method of distribution (how and where the money would be spent)
Feasibility, preliminary-engineering, and final design studies
Cost estimates
Bids
Property acquisition (for some projects)
Obtaining GLO and HUD approval for all of the above.

But still…

Unnecessarily Burdensome Processes, Changing Horses in Midstream

Harris County made it more difficult than necessary with its own equity prioritization framework, which changed several times.

Judge Hidalgo and Commissioners Ellis and Garcia also forced out the management team that developed and sold the 2018 flood bond. Their replacement, Dr. Tina Petersen, had a long, steep learning curve and big shoes to fill. She also lost many key employees. That disrupted business continuity and cost institutional knowledge.

Since she took office, spending has gone down consistently as the pace of work slowed, partly as a consequence of a management style she calls “being more intentional.”

Self-Inflicted Wound

Having spent four years bickering about equity, the county now has just 10 months left to actually build all the jobs in order to beat a firm 2/28/27 deadline and avoid losing potentially ALL of the CDBG-DR funds.

According to a document submitted to commissioners court on 4/16/26 by Petersen and aerial photographs that I have taken, it appears that contractors are actually only turning dirt on one of 11 CDBG-DR projects.

*Arbor Oaks Construction on White Oak Bayou*. *Project started clearing last September.*

Compare that with the TC Jester Basin project shown below. Both photos were taken on 4/19/2026.

TC Jester East basin — *TC Jester East Basin will go in the big treed area in the center. “Construction” was announced last December 5.*

Past Experience a Logistical Red Flag

If history is any indication, the vast majority of the CDBG-DR projects will take longer than 10 months to build. Ten of the 11 are large detention basins that typically take one to two years to build. The Mercer Basin on Cypress Creek, finished just last week, took three years. And TC Jester, above, is 55% larger.

If Petersen can pull the projects off before the buzzer sounds, she deserves that $90,000 raise she got last year. If not, she won’t be the only one with egg on her face.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/21/26

3157 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.