Funding Archives - Page 12 of 16

More than $400 million in Unexplained Harris County Transfers Receive No Discussion During Rants On Other Items

A Harris County Commissioners Court meeting yesterday lasted 8 hours and 30 minutes. While viewers were repeatedly treated to rants alleging racial discrimination, partially documented transfers of approximately $470 million received absolutely NO discussion.

Let’s begin with the rants. Here’s one example. A revision to equity guidelines for the Flood Resilience Trust consumed 20 minutes of discussion including a 6-minute monologue from Commissioner Rodney Ellis. In essence, Ellis said, “I support the new formula” in 894 words. I transcribed the rant in its entirety below. See if you can follow it. Among other things, Ellis:

Says he hopes to reduce a HUD appropriation from $750 million to $250 million.
Confuses the County with the City; and flood mitigation with parks and police.
Drags Harris Health into the discussion for some unexplained reason.
Invokes ‘back of the bus’ language to describe watersheds receiving the lion’s share of funding.
Threatened to sue a federal agency trying to give the county $750 million.
Claims the County didn’t make specific project recommendations/allocations for the flood bond (which it did).
Overlooks the contribution of partner funding to build a case for not chasing partner funding.

It gets better! Read on.

Rodney Ellis on New Equity Formula

“Commissioner Garcia, some of the issues that you were raising and Commissioner Ramsey were raising, I think that this proposal for prioritization-framework modifications will address some of them. Commissioner Ramsey, first of all, I want to point out that the 2018 package of $2.5 billion would in no way fund all of the projects that people talked about. I also want to reiterate that coming off city council a long time ago, I argued to list specifically what the projects were. It was a short fuse. If you remember Commissioner Cagle, you might agree with me. I was worried about having the election in August, as opposed to when more people would show up.

“But I didn’t win that battle and it passed despite my misgivings. But we were on a short time frame and I was told you cannot lay out the specific projects, because if a project…If you put in 20 million and it costs 50 million, can you get the creek? Or you put in 50 million and it costs 40 million and it didn’t quite sound right to me. Because unless the city did a better job of projecting what parks and police command stations will cost, you know, inflation. But that’s what was said. And I was not going to argue with it and didn’t think I had the support of the court anyway.

“But 2.5 billion was never going to fund all of the items that were on the radar, shall we say, because a decision was made not to lay them out with specificity was how to do a cap improvement program. I also want to say that to my knowledge, maybe others’, two projects had come to my mind that weren’t on the radar. One was in your precinct. The education project came from them.

“The other one was in another county – Commissioner Cagle’s area. I don’t know where it is now, buying some land in another area that certainly had some political gravitas to it.

“I argued for two things. The varnish was coming off. What I wanted to despair to say, and everybody said that they were for getting rid of disparities until it was time to vote. Send somebody to do statistical analysis to see if they had one. And I was told, you pay for it. And you can do it. So Precinct One paid for it. Thank you to the women. Precinct One, you added $660,000 back. And of course, it showed there was a tremendous disparity. I would encourage you to listen to Harris Health’s discussion of why they’re going to lay off the expert study off. So it will be interesting to see what Bert came up with, but that’s history. Going forward, we will do better as we are doing better here, I think.

“The other item I wanted was the equity guidelines. Now, once it passed, there were those who thought equity meant just split 2.5 billion…four ways…which would be highly inequitable if we all agreed that chasing federal money with a cost benefit ratio and a host of other issues meant certain neighborhoods that flooded all the time didn’t get funding regardless of why, chasing federal money, that’s what happened. So all of these projects were started. We know three big ones, Commissioner Garcia, in your precinct and mine, and might touch all our precincts, in Halls and Greens.

“We were chasing GLO money or federal money that never came, so they were delayed. So, then resiliency was created as a way to get stuff here created to fill up the gap. And whether or not it would fill it all up, I don’t know. But I, for one, would not just talk the talk. You got to pay for it, pay for it. Or maybe politely find a way to just pass a resolution and say you resolve to do it down the road. This prioritization framework makes sense because it places a greater emphasis on the number of people that a project would address instead of what neighborhood you live in.

“I can’t say it enough. Something’s wrong. When this county had a system where you protect the neighborhood I live in now, but the neighborhood I came out of – even if that one historically flooded more. It also says we do not consider partner funding as a factor because who gets partner money? Well, that’s part of the funding.

“The neighborhoods have always been privileged. It’s just that way. And we use the latest data to invest in projects that address structural delay both inside and outside the 100-year network. So, I can’t wait until you bring it up and I’m going to vote for it when it comes up.

“And I tell you, just as I’m proud of what Texas Housers did, and I’m proud of what HUD did to get us our 750. Hope we get down to 250 and I hope the city gets this bigger because they deserve it. We both do.

“And if we don’t follow prioritization framework like this, I will be the first one finding somebody to file a lawsuit and raising all kind of hell at HUD because we will continue to neglect those neighborhoods that have always been on the back of the bus. But other than that, thank you very much.”

– End of Ellis Monologue –

Diversionary Tactic?

How can one react to rambling, unsubstantiated rants such as this!

During the meeting, as I tried to look for backup on several agenda items, the county website froze on numerous occasions – shades of the IT debacle at Universal Services.

To set the record straight, Brays Bayou, the watershed in which Commissioner Ellis grew up AND in which he now lives, has received $575 million in flood-mitigation funding in the last 22 years. White Oak, the watershed where Commissioner Garcia now lives, has received $525 million in funding. That’s almost one third of all the flood mitigation money spent in the county since 2000 – on two watersheds out of 23. No watersheds have received more!

*Flood mitigation spending in Harris County during first quarter 2022 and since 2000. Obtained via FOIA Request.*

Greens and Halls received another $620 million. That makes $1.72 billion. And that’s 46% of all the flood mitigation money in recent history.

More than one long-time Harris County insider has characterized such rants as a diversionary tactic. Elsewhere on the agenda yesterday was a motion to make “routine transfers” between departments (see Item 17).

It received absolutely NO discussion and the Budget Management Department provided no backup for the agenda item. But the transfers totaled almost half a billion dollars. I had to obtain the backup through a special request. Notice how many of the transfers do not follow the industry standard for double-entry accounting – even though the forms request it.

Double-entry accounting shows where money is coming from and going to. That facilitates balancing the books and auditing. But in this case, the ‘from’ or the ‘to’ were omitted in 21 of 39 transactions for this year. Those 21 transactions alone totaled approximately $470 million.

I have no proof that anything illegal occurred and I’m not suggesting it did. But I am suggesting that Democrats, who pride themselves on transparency, could improve on that score.

Eight hour meetings filled with incomprehensible rants, agenda items without backup, backup that omits crucial elements, and a website that intermittently stopped responding during the meeting create barriers to public participation and government oversight.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/27/2022

1702 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.

Harris County still has not posted video of yesterday’s meeting. Here’s an audio recording of Mr. Ellis‘ rant so you can check the transcription yourself. He is admittedly hard to understand at times.

First Quarter 2022 Flood-Mitigation Spending Update, New Equity Formula

In the first quarter of 2022, Harris County Flood Control District spent a total of $84 million. That brought the total of flood mitigation spending since 2000 up to almost $3.8 billion.

For the first time since ReduceFlooding.com started tracking these numbers via Freedom of Information Act requests, spending in the Hunting Bayou watershed led all other watersheds. Brays Bayou, the previous front runner, dropped into second place. Cypress Creek, White Oak Bayou, Clear Creek, and Halls and Greens Bayous virtually tied for third place in spending. The San Jacinto Watershed came in 17th despite the fact that it is the largest in the county.

*Watershed spending by Harris County Flood Control District last quarter and since 2000. Includes partner funds and all phases of all projects.*

The Galveston Bay and Vince Bayou Watersheds had no invoices reported during the quarter. Totals for Jackson and Addicks were restated to account for a change in accounting, resulting in negative numbers. Previously HCFCD reported dollars spent by project management status. The District now reports totals by invoice date. The new method is more precise.

First Quarter 2022 Watershed Rankings

*Negative numbers reflect adjustment for change in accounting described above.*

Cumulative Spending Since 2000

*Ratio between highest and lowest is almost 100 to 1.*

Totals Since Harvey

Between Harvey and the end of 2021, HCFCD spent $1.45 billion on all watersheds. The $85 million spent in the first quarter of 2022 brings the total since Harvey up to $1.535 billion.

San Jacinto Watershed

Of the almost half million dollars spent in the San Jacinto Watershed during the first quarter of 2022, virtually all of it was spent on preliminary engineering and design. The Harris County Flood Control District shows only one active capital improvement construction project in the San Jacinto Watershed valued at $1,000. That’s the Excavation and Removal Contract on the Woodridge Village Property to develop additional floodwater detention capacity. Compare that to the $15.6 million spent on construction in Hunting Bayou.

Equity Formula Being Changed Again

The disparity in totals between watersheds largely has to do with Federal partner funding and the equity funding formula passed by three Democrats at Harris County Commissioners Court. The original formula has been revised again and again to send more and more funding to watersheds with high percentages of low-to-moderate income residents. Commissioners started debating another set of changes to the formula today that would apply to money in the Flood Resilience Trust, but did not vote on it.

The changes recommended include:

Prioritizing people over structures
Eliminating partnership funding from consideration
Recommending proxies for FEMA data since 1977

People Over Structures

This change would favor spending in densely populated neighborhoods inside Beltway 8 as opposed to neighborhoods with more single-family homes outside Beltway 8. For example, 100 people could live in an apartment building on a single acre. So could 3 people in a single family home. The only problem: Flood control has no way of determining how many people live in an apartment building. So the District will have to use an average for the watershed, according to Dr. Tina Petersen, the new head of flood control.

Partner Funding

Democrats don’t want to wait for partner funding. They want to start projects right away, using bond money and other funds diverted from the toll road. Using out of pocket money could speed up flood-mitigation projects in low-to-moderate income neighborhoods, but it could also reduce the size of the total pot, jeopardizing badly needed projects somewhere.

Dated Data

Using 1977 data would disadvantage areas outside the Beltway, which was under construction at that time. Places like Kingwood were just beginning to be built. So using the older data from the Seventies would stack the deck in favor of inner-city neighborhoods. However, there was no universal agreement on a suitable substitute for the FEMA damage claims.

“Who Goes First?” No Longer the Issue

These constant changes to an equity formula which was originally conceived as a “Who goes first?” tool, seem to make less and less sense now that all flood bond projects have started. So commissioners are considering these changes in regard to the Flood Resilience Trust. That money will theoretically allow development of more projects when the flood bond expires. But no one has yet determined the list of projects for that money. So Commissioners still have many details to work out.

One huge related detail is developing a plan for how to spend $750 million in HUD partner funds. The county administrator seems to have turfed the assignment to the Community Services Department. Said another way, they took it out of Flood Control and put it in a department that has had four leadership changes in four years.

Out of 154,000 homes in the county damaged by Harvey, Community Services managed to distribute only $21.4 million in repair funds.

*Screenshot from HarrisRecovery.org as of 4/26/2022.*

No offense. I’m sure this is a difficult job. And I’m sure the county has talented people. But justifying flood-mitigation grants seems to be more of a job for engineers than people who handle claims. The adventure continues. More details in coming weeks.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/26/2022

1701 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Flood Bond Progress: 35% Time Elapsed, 19.4% Money Spent

A February update by Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) on the status of the 2018 Flood Bond showed that 35% of the way into the program (42 out of 120 months), 19.4% of the funds from all sources (including grants and partnerships) had been spent. That percentage was based on $967 million spent out of $5 billion projected.

Cost of Studies vs. Construction

While one percentage seems to lag the other by a factor of almost 2X, HCFCD estimates it is virtually on schedule. That’s because studies conducted up front cost far less than construction. And only 44 of 181 Bond program projects have entered construction at this point (24%). As more projects enter the construction phase, the pace of spending should accelerate.

From High-Level Summary to Nitty-Gritty Detail

The 13-page update features three major sections:

Summary statistics for the entire bond program
Project flow charts showing status of all projects
Watershed maps showing the amount spent to date; funded to date; and the values of all active maintenance and capital projects.

*Spending by watershed on HCFCD flood bond projects through the end of February 2022.*

Skewed Distribution of Capital Improvement Projects

Out of 75 active capital improvement projects, I counted only 13 in Precincts 3 and 4 which have Republican commissioners. Those contracts totaled only about $82 million out of about $249 million. That’s a testament to how thoroughly the Democrat-controlled Commissioners Court has relentlessly tweaked the Equity Prioritization Framework. For instance…

In northeastern Harris County, the update shows only two active capital projects valued at a whopping $1,000 each.

Of the 13 active capital projects in Precincts 3 and 4, six are E&R contracts valued at just $6,125 altogether. See page 13. The report lists no E&R contracts in Precincts 1 and 2.

Excavation and removal contracts let contractors sell dirt they remove from a site as a way of making back their normal profit margin. They’re a good deal for taxpayers as long as the demand for fill dirt remains high. But if demand slows, excavation progress could stall. In other words, they come with uncertainty attached.

Breakdown of San Jacinto Watershed Projects

Of ten bond projects listed in the San Jacinto Watershed, schedules show:

4 in the feasibility-study phase
2 in preliminary-engineering reviews
1 in construction
3 not yet started.

To see the full February Update presented at the March 22, 2022 Commissioner’s Court Meeting, click here.

The February report did not address a method of distribution for $750 million allocated by HUD and the GLO for flood mitigation to Harris County. The award happened on March 18, 2022 and will likely be covered next month.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/30/2022

1674 Days since Hurricane Harvey

How Do You Define “Worst First”?

In the rush to mitigate flooding after Hurricane Harvey, most people agreed that we should attack the areas with the worst flooding first. While almost everyone agreed with the “worst first” mantra, no one defined it – until after the flood bond passed.

Alternative Ways to Define “Worst First”

How would you define the “worst” flooding? The area with the:

Most flooded homes?
Most frequent flooding?
Most damage in dollar terms?
Largest population living in a 100-year floodplain?
Most low-to-moderate income residents who can least afford to fix their homes?
Largest minority populations?
Highest Social Vulnerability Index (SVI)?
Most damage to infrastructure (bridges, hospitals, grocery stores, schools, sewage treatment plants, etc.)?
Highest water above the tops of banks in a widespread storm like Harvey?

You could make valid arguments for each. And people have – almost from the day the flood bond passed – as they fought for more funding for their watersheds.

Least Considered Alternative

But the one I have heard talked about the least is the last one: highest water above tops of banks. Surely, the depth of a flood must count for something. It affects the ability to evacuate and rescue people. It puts lives at risk. Can destroy infrastructure. Spread sewage. Increase erosion. Even cause rivers to migrate. And sweep whole apartment buildings into rivers.

Yesterday, as I reviewed a doctoral thesis from a student at the Colorado School of Mines, I saw a graph that compared the height of the Harvey flood at the San Jacinto West Fork and US59 to other rivers/streams in the region. The West Fork flood towered above the others. So it made me wonder. How did the flood at that location compare to other streams and bayous in Harris County?

How to Determine “Feet Above Flood Stage”

There’s an easy way to find out. The Harris County Flood Warning System contains all the pertinent information.

Go to the home page.
Click on a gage.
Click on the “For more information” link in the pop-up box.
On the new page (dedicated to historical information about that gage), click on the stream elevation tab.
Note the “flooding likely” elevation. This roughly coincides with the top of bank, though banks can vary slightly.
Scroll down to the bottom of the page and note the elevation of the flood at that location during Hurricane Harvey.
Subtract the “flooding likely” level from the Harvey level, to determine the feet above flood stage in Harvey.
Click on the drop-down box with the gage information to compare the same stats for additional gages.

North Harris County Had Highest Floods

This morning, I compiled the data for 33 gages. The chart below shows what I found. Of the gages I sampled, the four highest floods all occurred in the upper San Jacinto River Basin: West Fork at 59, Spring Creek at 45, Cypress Creek at Cypresswood, and West Fork at 99. Also note the preponderance of high water along Greens Bayou at numerous locations.

*Data compiled from Harris County Flood Warning System using the technique described above.*

Limitations of Measure

“Feet above Flood Stage” by itself won’t tell you which area had the worst flooding during Harvey. It’s just one measure. You must consider other factors, too, such as those listed above.

But this chart sure makes it hard to ignore the fact that something is happening in north Harris County to exacerbate flooding. I’ve chronicled many of those things in the pages of this website: sand mining, development, rapid growth, impervious cover, loss of wetlands, lack of detention ponds, lax regulation/enforcement and more.

One must also acknowledge the role that topography plays in a chart, such as this. A narrow floodplain with steep banks can force water higher. A wider floodplain through a flat area allows water to spread out, lowering the height of floodwaters.

Variations in rainfall across an area can also skew results.

And finally, I didn’t click on every gage in the region. There are hundreds. You wouldn’t have been able to read the chart because the type would have been so small. So investigate on your own and let me know what you find.

Need for Active Discussion/Debate in Upcoming Elections

The Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force just voted to change the way “worst first” is calculated – again! The highest correlation between funding and all of the other factors I have evaluated is now with low-to-moderate-income population. It’s not with damaged structures, dollar damage, watershed size, or population density.

If you want to ensure that outlying areas get their fair share of flood mitigation dollars in the future, you need to demand them when you go to the polls this fall.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/29/2022

1673 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.

HUD Approves $750 Million to Harris County for Flood Mitigation

Today, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) approved the Texas General Land Office’s (GLO) amended plan for Community Development Block Grant Mitigation (CDBG-MIT). The amended plan allocates $750 million in funding for Harris County and an $488 million to the Houston-Galveston Area Council for additional mitigation projects in the region. The funds allocated to the county should now mean that the 2018 flood bond is fully funded, if numbers provided last month on partner funding to date are accurate.

George P. Bush Quote on Process

According to a press release issued by the GLO at 7PM, 3/18/22, “Ensuring Texans receive disaster recovery and mitigation funding in a timely manner to recover from Hurricane Harvey has always been my top priority,” said GLO Commissioner Bush. “The Biden Administration’s politically weaponized Department of Urban Development and Housing has forced us to fight through mazes of red tape to secure this direct allocation for Houstonians. I will continue to fight to send money to Texans as quickly as possible. The $750 million allocation will go directly to Harris County for projects that help mitigate future flooding events, creating a stronger more resilient Texas.”

*George P. Bush, Commissioner, Texas General Land Office*, *2019 photo*

$1.138 Billion Total

HUD’s approval of the latest Harvey Action Plan brings the total infrastructure and mitigation investments in Harris County to more than $1.1 billion. HUD’s approval of the GLO’s plan to provide $750,000,000 to Harris County is in addition to HUD’s direct allocation of $61,884,000 to the City of Houston, plus $117,213,862.96 in CDBG-MIT awards for Harris County projects, plus $209,221,800 in infrastructure funds from CDBG-DR, equals $1,138,319,662.96 in total investment in projects within Harris County. Additionally, H-GAC continues to develop its method of distribution on more than $488 million for mitigation projects within the greater Houston region.

Bush first requested a direct allocation for Harris County in May of 2021 after the county received very little money from the first round of competition for HUD. A direct allocation would have allowed Harris County to work directly with HUD and taken the GLO out of the loop. However, HUD reportedly insisted that the GLO remain involved. Subsequently, the GLO developed a 650-page action plan for the $750 million. However, HUD found it insufficient. As of early this week, the action plan exceeded 1000 pages, according to a GLO spokesperson. That apparently provided HUD what it needed. HUD notified the GLO in a letter received after 5PM today.

Method of Distribution Must Still be Developed

However, Harris County won’t get all the money immediately.

Since last November, H-GAC has been developing something called a MOD (Method of Distribution) for its allocation. However, according to the GLO, because of the expense involved, Harris County has delayed developing its MOD until the the award was approved by HUD.

Harris County’s next step will be to develop its MOD which describes where the money will go, how it will be used, and who will get it. GLO will review that and forward it to HUD. After HUD approves the MOD, HUD still won’t write a check for $750 million to the county. The money will be reimbursed to the county in batches as it is spent on approved projects.

Flood Bond Close to Fully Funded Even without Resilience Trust

Still, this will go a long way toward fulfilling the potential shortfall in partner funding for the Harris County Flood Bond. Of the original $5 billion bond, half is being paid for by Harris County taxpayers. The County hoped to get local, state, and federal partners to fund the other half.

Last July, when it looked like the $750 million might not materialize, Harris County Commissioners approved a Flood Resilience Trust that committed $833 million from the Toll Road Authority and other Harris County sources of funding. That, along with partner funding already committed, was enough to keep construction of Harris County Flood Bond projects rolling through approximately 2026.

*From a presentation to the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force in February 2022.*

Today’s approval should make the flood bond fully funded if the numbers above are accurate. That should come as good news for all citizens who have been fighting for limited dollars. With money in the trust, this should accelerate mitigation projects throughout the county. And even fund some not identified in the original bond!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/18/2022

1662 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Latest Flood-Mitigation Funding Trends

New data obtained from Harris County Flood Control District via a FOIA Request breaks down flood-mitigation funding by watershed through the end of 2021. It shows where your flood-bond money is going. It also debunks some popular myths. Those include the oft repeated:

Rich watersheds get all the funding; poor watersheds get none.
Partner funding favors rich watersheds because home values are higher.
HCFCD has historically discriminated against low-to-moderate income (LMI) watersheds.

Eight out of 23 watersheds in Harris County have a majority of residents that fall into the LMI category. That means a majority make less than the average annual income for the region. As the data below shows, those eight LMI watersheds get the vast majority of county, partner, and total funding. In fact, four have received 54% of total flood-mitigation funding since 2000.

Funding now correlates more highly with LMI population than damage!

Data also calls into question why some feel compelled to tweak the equity prioritization framework endlessly.

Improved Basis for Reporting

Before I dive into the data, though, let me point out that between the 3Q21 and the end of last year, the county changed the way it compiles historical data. Instead of using the start/stop dates in project management software and reporting only completed projects, the county is now using invoice dates. This produces much higher accuracy. Dollars do not spill over from one period into another. The new data also reflects spending on projects that are ongoing, but still open.

In response to my FOIA Request, the county provided spending using both the old and new methods. They differ by roughly $615 million. Of that, approximately $215 million reflects actual fourth-quarter spending and $400 million reflects the change in when expenses are recognized.

Spending by Watershed

The rank order of spending by watershed has not changed much since last year. Several watersheds moved up or down by a place or two.

The top four are still the top four in the same order. But some of the amounts changed radically, mostly due to the change accounting. For instance, White Oak increased from $387 million to $521 million. But out of the $134 million difference, $102 million comes from when expenses are recognized.

Because this gets so confusing, and because the rank order did not change much, I will use only the new totals compiled by invoice date from now on. I will not compare old and new totals based on the different accounting methods.

*Spending by watershed between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/2121 broken down by county and partner contributions, and LMI/Other watersheds.*

Graphs of Spending

Here’s a graph of total funding by watershed since 2000, arranged from highest to lowest.

*Watersheds rank ordered by amount of flood-mitigation funding received between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/2121.*

Funding correlates with population. But you can see notable exceptions below. Some watersheds get far more funding than their proportion of the population, i.e., White Oak, Sims and Greens. Others get far less.

*Spending is not allocated proportionately to population in all cases. Six out of eight LMI watersheds received more funding than their population alone would justify.*

But population alone does not tell the whole story. Some watersheds are huge and some small. So I also looked at population density per square mile. The curves correlated even less.

Graphing population density vs. total spending shows more variance. Of the eight LMI watersheds, four (Brays, White Oak, Sims, and Greens) get far more than their population density alone would dictate.

As we saw last year, funding flows primarily to damage. The chart below plots funding versus the total number of structures in each watershed damaged in five major storms (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey, and Imelda). The slope of the curves closely match. But several major exceptions exist.

Historical Discrimination?

Many community groups from LMI neighborhoods have alleged historical discrimination in the distribution of flood-mitigation funding. I just don’t see it. All of the pie charts below take into account all funding between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/2021 based on invoice dates.

*The county itself sent almost 60% of its flood-mitigation funding to one third of the watersheds* *with majority LMI populations.*

*An even larger percentage came from partner funding.*

*Whether you look only at county funding, partner-funding, or the total, the picture is still roughly the same.* *One third of the watersheds get almost two thirds of the funding.*

*Top 4 include Brays, White Oak, Sims and Greens. All have an LMI percentage higher than 50%.*

LMI Population Now Correlates Higher with Funding than Damage

A coefficient of correlation of 1.0 is considered perfect. A good example: between gallons of gas in your car and the distance they will take you.

As a result of the constant tweaking of the equity funding formula, “Population” and “LMI Population” now correlate more highly with “Funding” than “Damage.” The correlation between “Funding since 2000” and:

Population Density = .54
Damage = .85
Population = .87
LMI Population = .89

Statisticians consider all of the last three very high.

With all the rhetoric flying around these days, it’s more important than ever to have facts to base your decisions on. To see all the original data from my FOIA Request, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/26/2022

1642 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Making Informed Flood-Mitigation Funding Decisions: Partnership Dollars

Tonight, members of the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force will vote whether and/or how to recommend changes to the equity funding formula for the third time in three years. On the table for discussion: partnership dollars.

One of the proposals under consideration is NOT to consider potential partnership funding. Said another way, taxpayers would pay for projects out of pocket rather than wait for federal and state dollars to filter down to the county level.

The main argument FOR this? Low-to-moderate income neighborhoods would not have to wait for HUD or FEMA dollars to begin construction.

The main argument AGAINST? Partnership dollars have funded roughly one-third of all flood-mitigation projects in Harris County since 2000.

So saying that you’ll bypass partnership dollars could eliminate one third of all flood-mitigation funding unless you want to increase taxes.

Definition of Leverage

Partnership funding is the definition of leverage. A good example: last year, the county obtained $250 million for sediment removal in eight watersheds while putting up only $6.25 million. In that case, FEMA paid for most of the construction and the State (Texas Division of Emergency Management) paid for most of the local match.

Latest on HUD Money

A highly publicized setback in the Texas GLO competition for HUD funds last year delayed a recommended $750 million award to Harris County. The delay hurt, but there’s still hope. HUD did not reject the GLO application. They just said they needed additional documentation. The two agencies have met several times since. GLO has already started reformulating its proposal and expects a decision as early as next month.

Should We Turn Our Back on Hundreds of Millions?

So should the plan now be to turn our noses up at the $1.15 billion that the county has received in partnership dollars since 2000. Should we say, “Let’s go it alone!” from now on? Should we stand by while that money goes to other areas that need it less?

LMI Neighborhoods Would Be Hurt the Most

Another argument proposed for ignoring the partnership funding: it disadvantages LMI neighborhoods because affluent neighborhoods have higher home values and therefore get higher Benefit Cost Ratios.

*$797.4 million out of $1.149 billion in total partnership funds went to LMI watersheds. Percentages just happen to equal those in graph above.*

While the logic sounds plausible, the only problem is that the eight LMI watersheds in Harris County (those where a majority of residents make below the average income for the region) actually receive 69% of all grants. Since 2000, they have received $797 million out of $1,149 million. So one third of the watersheds received more than two-thirds of all partnership funding.

That closely reflects the percentage of all spending (local + partnership) since 2000. The eight LMI watersheds received $2.3 billion out of $3.7 billion – 62%. Harris County has 23 watersheds in total.

The data clearly does not support discrimination against LMI neighborhoods in either partnership or overall spending. Greens Bayou for instance has received more money overall ($436 million) than all but three other watersheds since 2000. It also ranks #3 in partnership funding with $200 million. Partner dollars paid for 46% of the projects there.

Placing a Third of All Projects in Jeopardy

Eliminating partnership funds and relying on local funds will disadvantage Harris County taxpayers everywhere or cause a third of projects to be eliminated.

Date of Damage Assessments, Mitigation Also Crucial

Partnership funds can make a huge difference in watersheds in terms of flood reduction. Sims Bayou was the only bayou in Harris County that didn’t flood during Harvey. Of the $201 million it received in partnership funds since 2000, $198 million came before Harvey.

Sims also illustrates the problem with another proposal on the table tonight – using flood data going back to 1977 to determine who deserves more money. That will artificially disadvantage outlying neighborhoods which didn’t even exist in 1977. And it will funnel money into a watershed that has already largely been remediated.

When people come at these decisions from an ideological perspective without looking at data, it hurts everyone…sometimes even themselves.

My personal opinion is that when people talk about partnership funding, the debate should be, “When do you go it alone?” not “Should we go it alone?”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/8/2022

1624 Days since Hurricane Harvey

How to Find HCFCD’s Active Projects in Your Area

Ever wonder where your tax and flood-bond dollars go? Harris County Flood Control District shows all its active projects on one page. You can review those projects in tabular form or on a map. You can even click on links to learn more about each project. Or explore it in depth by going to its related “watershed” page.

*Active maintenance (orange) and capital (purple) flood mitigation projects in Harris County* *as of 1/4/2*2 *shown against backdrop of precinct boundaries adopted on 10/28/21.* *Purple = P1, Green = P2, Red = P3, Yellow = P4.*

Paragon of Transparency

HCFCD’s Active Projects page is a paragon of government transparency. You can even switch out base maps to see where the projects fall in terms of the old or new precinct boundaries approved on October 28, 2021.

One side benefit of the two base maps is that they give you a clear, unambiguous view of the redistricting boundaries.

Zoom far enough in on the map and you can even see your street, home, and the drainage features around you (streams, channels, storm sewers, etc).

As of today HCFCD has 64 active projects.

31 maintenance projects total $60 million
33 capital projects total $232.4 million

In case you want to see how the map changes from time to time, you can even download a PDF, such as this one from December 2021. Save it for future comparison.

Monitoring Work in Progress

Physically seeing work in progress is difficult. Construction zones are dangerous and often fenced off or hidden behind trees. They’re also so large that seeing them from an entrance at ground level is almost impossible.

The good news: the projects almost always include hike and bike trails, like the one below, which you can enjoy upon completion.

*Willow Water Hole near South Post Oak and Highway 90.* *One part of a six compartme*nt *detention basin complex ringed by hike and bike trails.*

However, if you want to monitor work in progress, your best bet is a drone.

Good News from Commissioners Court Today

Commissioner Tom Ramsey introduced a motion to affirm Commissioners’ intentions to complete all projects in the flood bond. Despite several previous attempts to cancel projects and change bond priorities, commissioners voted unanimously to complete the entire bond package. Ramsey will be the new commissioner for the Lake Houston Area if the Ellis-3 redistricting plan survives court challenges. See the sprawling red area on the map above.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/4/2022

1589 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Equity Myth Buster: “Rich Neighborhoods Get All the Flood-Mitigation Funding”

A myth being promulgated in Harris County Commissioners Court and certain low-to-moderate income (LMI) watersheds these days goes something like this:

The FEMA Benefit/Cost Ratio (used to rank grant applications for flood-mitigation projects) favors high-dollar homes.
That disadvantages less affluent, inner-city neighborhoods compared to more affluent suburbs.
Therefore, less affluent neighborhoods get no help and the more affluent neighborhoods get it all.

This post busts that myth. But it won’t stop activists from demanding more “equity.”

If you look at all flood-mitigation spending in Harris County since 2000, on average, less affluent watersheds already receive 4.7X more partner funding per watershed than their more affluent counterparts.
Analysis of data obtained via FOIA request

Myth Ignores Other Factors, Frequently Leaps to Wrong Conclusions

Like much of political discourse these days, the myth focuses on a narrow sliver of truth, ignores other factors, and frequently leaps to the wrong conclusions.

An analysis of Harris County Flood Control District data going back to the start of this century shows how far off the myth can be.

There are dozens of different ways to slice and dice the data. I’ve looked at most of them and validated “dollars invested” with aerial photography.

Today, I focus on partner grants because they represent such a huge percentage of the flood-bond budget and because there is so much misinformation floating around about them.

And I will look at partner funding from the standpoint of outcomes, not just processes (as in the myth).

Methodology for Analysis

For this analysis I obtained Harris County Flood Control District spending data between 1/1/2000 and 9/31/2021 via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. I requested the data by watershed, decade, pre-/Post Harvey, source of funding (local vs. partner), and type of activity (i.e., engineering, right-of-way acquisition, construction and more). I cross-referenced this with other data such as flood-damaged structures, population, population density, and percentage of low-to-moderate income (LMI) residents.

When considering grants, the percentage of LMI residents in a watershed takes on special significance. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants often require high percentages of LMI residents in the area under consideration.

In the charts below, you will see references to watersheds with LMI populations above and below 50%. Above 50% means more than half the residents in the watershed have an income LESS THAN the average for the region. Below 50% means more than half the residents earn more than the regional average.

Harris County has 23 watersheds. Eight have LMI percentages above 50% (less affluent). Fifteen have LMI percentages below 50% (more affluent).

When reviewing the charts below, pay particular attention to the italicized words: Total, Partner, and On Average. They represent three different ways to look at the same question: Do housing values disadvantage an area when applying for grants?

For this analysis, I focused only on the long term, since decisions on more than a billion dollars in flood-bond grants are still outstanding.

FOIA Analysis Contradicts the Popular Myth

One of the first things you notice when you look at watersheds above and below 50% LMI, is that the eight least affluent watersheds have gotten more than 60% of all dollars actually spent on flood mitigation since 2000.

*Less affluent watersheds, despite being half as numerous, received 60% of all dollars since 2000.*

Because the allegation was that partnership grants favored affluent areas, I then analyzed whether partner dollars went mostly to affluent or less-affluent watersheds. The answer is less affluent…overwhelmingly.

*More than 70% of all partner dollars in the last 22 years went to the eight less-affluent watersheds.*

The last observation by itself is telling. But because of the widely different number of watersheds in each group, I also wanted to calculate the average partner dollars per watershed in each group. This blows the “rich neighborhoods get all the grants” argument to pieces. Less affluent watersheds got, on average, 4.7X more.

*Dividing the total partner dollars by the number of watersheds in each group shows that less affluent watersheds average 4.7X more than affluent ones.*

This busts the myth. But digging even deeper into the data reveals two things: wide variation between sources of funding and within LMI groupings.

USACE Funding Skews Partner Totals

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) accounts for much of the partner funding. USACE has provided significant funding for projects in the Sims, Brays, White Oak, Hunting, and Greens Bayou watersheds. The Clear Creek watershed will also soon see work on a new USACE project. USACE has completed its planning process and proved positive benefits to national economic development. That made projects worthy of Federal investment.

Halls Bayou: Digging Deeper

The Halls Bayou watershed also went through the USACE planning process, but the results did not show enough flood-damage-reduction benefits to outweigh the costs of the proposed projects. Thus, the Halls Bayou watershed currently has no USACE-funded projects.

Despite that, Halls has received more partner funding than 16 other watersheds since 2000. Only two watersheds in the affluent group of 15 received more partner funding. See the table below.

*Total and partner spending by watershed since 2000 arranged in order of highest to lowest LMI percentages.*

USACE also evaluated the more affluent Buffalo Bayou; results showed that costs outweighed the flood-damage-reduction benefits there.

Despite Halls having the highest percentage of LMI residents in Harris County, Halls has received more total funding and 2.5X more partner funding than Buffalo Bayou in the more affluent group.

FEMA Considers More than Home Values, Not All Grants Come From FEMA

While it’s true that FEMA considers housing values as a factor in benefit/cost ratios, benefit/cost ratios (BCRs) also consider factors such as:

The number of structures damaged
Threats to infrastructure
Proximity to employment centers
Need for economic revitalization
Percentage of low-to-moderate income residents in an area
Number of structures that can be removed from the floodplain by a project.

And not all grants come from FEMA. For instance:

HUD offers 15 different types of grants. Many favor distressed neighborhoods and HUD often offers a 90:10 match.
Texas Water Development Board Grants have their own criteria.
USACE funds dozens of different types of flood-mitigation programs. Many support national defense, the national economy, strategic interests, the environment, commerce and navigation.

So don’t settle for soundbites. They often mislead.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/30/2021

1584 Days since Hurricane Harvey