Racial Rhetoric Distracts from Focus on Real Solutions to Flooding Problems. Here is Why.

Fifth in a series of eight articles on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County

On June 11, Russ Poppe, executive director of the Harris County Flood Control District, resigned after two years of hounding by Commissioners Rodney Ellis and Adrian Garcia over the distribution of flood-bond money. Ellis and Garcia kept pushing Poppe to accelerate flood-mitigation projects in minority/low-income neighborhoods, using racial “equity” as the justification. But the discussion should be about damage, not race.

Alleged “Back-of-the-Bus” Treatment

Ellis was particularly vocal. He described Halls and Greens Bayous as getting “back-of-the-bus” treatment. With Shakespearean flare, he would rub his bald head and perfectly frame himself in front of aggressive artwork that says “Pay,” “We are fed up,” and “No Way.”  Then he would lean into his camera and pronounce, “They flood every time.” If we don’t fix that, “We’ll have blood on our hands.”

Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis during the Feb. 9, 2021, Commissioners Court Meeting.

But there was also a Shakespearean irony to Ellis’ monthly melodrama. As the posts in this series have shown…

Those minority, low-income neighborhoods have received the vast majority of flood-control district funding since 2000.

Narrow Questions Lead Viewers to Wrong Conclusion

This is a manufactured melodrama, born from a lie, and then exploited for political gain. Ellis even sweeps up community groups and flood survivors into his monthly melodrama. He would trot them out in meeting after meeting to anecdotally embellish his narrative, as he grilled Poppe like a prosecutor.

“Russ Poppe, is it not true? Did you not tell me that FEMA evaluates flood control projects with a benefit/cost ratio?”

Poppe would respond, “Yes, Commissioner.”

Ellis continued to ask pointed questions that demanded yes or no answers and could only lead to the conclusion he wanted. “Are the home values in Kingwood higher than around Halls Bayou?”

“Yes, Commissioner.” 

“Would that not raise Kingwood’s benefit/cost ratio?”

“Yes, Commissioner.”

You get the idea. Ellis would focus on a narrow sliver of truth that bolstered his narrative of discrimination. Basically, it was a story of systemic racism – that the white man built the system to favor white men. He led listeners to conclude that areas like Kingwood got all the flood mitigation money, and that poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods got none. 

However, Ellis had viewers looking through the wrong end of the telescope. He focused them on process, not outcomes. Had he bothered to check the facts, he would have found two problems:

Halls’/Greens’ Funding vs. Kingwood’s as of March 31, 2021.

Benefit/Cost Ratios Factor in Far More than Home Value

The federal grant-funding process includes dozens of other factors besides home values. And when you combine them all, watersheds such as Greens, Brays, and Sims came away with benefit cost ratios as high as 6 or 7, while areas like Kingwood struggled to get above 1.  The Flood Control District’s Federal Briefing document shows the benefit-cost ratios for all Federal Projects. See for yourself. 

Benefit/Cost Ratios (BCRs) also factor in such things 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.

When you look at outcomes, instead of one small part of the process, you see that poorer, inner-city watersheds get the vast majority of funding in Harris County.

Dollars Flow to Damage

The two tables below compare actual flood-mitigation funding since 2000 in high and low quartiles when ranked by “damaged structures” in four major storms: Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, and Harvey. The last column ranks watersheds by LMI%. That’s the percentage of low-to-moderate-income residents with less-than-average income for the region. Halls has the highest LMI rank of any watershed – 71%, making it the lowest income watershed.

Capital improvement funds; includes no maintenance dollars. Listing omits Vince. It lies almost wholly within Pasadena and is the City’s responsibility.
Omits Little Cypress Creek, which includes the Flood Control District’s experimental “frontier program.”

In comparing these two groups, several things become clear:

  • Dollars flow to damage.
  • Damage happens primarily in low-income watersheds.
  • Low-income watersheds received a billion more than the high-income (low LMI%) watersheds
  • Low-income watersheds averaged 3X more dollars
  • The median for low-income watersheds was 4X higher.

Stats Show No Racial Bias in Distribution of Flood-Mitigation Funding

Harris County does not discriminate against minority, low-income groups in the allocation of flood-mitigation funds. Dollars flow to damage. Of all the factors I examined, flood-mitigation funding most closely tracked damage. That’s a logical, valid basis for distribution of funding.

The most money went to the watersheds with the highest damage. They just also happened to be watersheds with high percentages of minority and low-income residents. 

The discussion should be about flood damage, not race.

The real factors that contribute to flooding have become lost in the racially charged rhetoric. The sooner we lose the racial rhetoric, the easier it will be to address flooding. 

The real factors that contribute to flooding become apparent when you look at the maps below. They correspond to the tables above.

  • Watersheds with the most damage lie mostly inside Beltway 8.
  • Watersheds with the least damage all lie outside Beltway 8.

Low Income Watersheds

All mostly inside Beltway. Part of Greens skirts north side of Beltway

Higher Income Watersheds

All outside Beltway

Neighborhoods inside the Beltway:

  • Are older
  • Were developed decades ago, with lower drainage standards
  • Have more structures built in floodplains and closer (lower) to street level
  • Have structures built right up to the edges of ditches and streams
  • Are downstream from newer areas, often in other counties that don’t mandate detention ponds
  • Are more densely populated, and thus have higher percentages of impervious cover

As a consequence, it also becomes harder to implement flood mitigation projects. For instance, HCFCD had to buy out whole subdivisions to make room for giant detention ponds in the Halls Bayou Watershed. This is just one reason why these projects cost so much money and take so much time.

Two giant detention ponds straddle I-69 along Halls Bayou. Before HCFCD could build these ponds, they had to buy out the areas circled in red.

The sooner we can focus this discussion on issues such as these, the sooner we will solve our flooding problems. Polluting the discussion with antagonizing, racial rhetoric will only delay solutions and drive off more good people like Russ Poppe. Poppe’s only “sin” was that he was appointed in 2016, a year when Republicans controlled Commissioner’s Court. So, he became an easy target, like so many other department heads before him. 

For More Information

For more information, see: 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/24/2021

1396 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.

Low-Income Watersheds Get Three Times More Flood-Mitigation Funding Per Square Mile

Fourth in a series of eight on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County

Since 2019, Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have harped on the need for more “equity” in flood-mitigation funding. They and some residents in their precincts allege that all the money is going to high-income watersheds while minority, low-income watersheds get “none.” Ellis repeatedly complains that Harris County Flood Control District gives those minority neighborhoods “back-of-the-bus” treatment. Garcia says he feels like he was “hit with a baseball bat.”

Unfounded Allegations of Racism in Construction Funding

In March, I became so alarmed at the allegations of racism, that I submitted a Freedom of Information Act Request to see if they were true. They aren’t. Funding data for new construction projects dating back to 2000 shows that:

Those first three articles in this series should suffice to disprove discrimination against minority, low-income watersheds. But more statistics just keep jumping out of the data. 

So, today let’s compare watersheds with percentages of low-to-moderate-income (LMI) residents above and below 50%:

  • The low-income group has 7 watersheds, comprising 584 square miles.
  • The high-income group has 14 watersheds, comprising 1123 square miles. 

The two groups vary radically in number and geographic size. So, to provide a valid comparison, we must evaluate them first on a per-square-mile basis. This pie chart shows how the smaller, low-income group gets triple the dollars per square mile.

On a per-square-mile basis, low-income watersheds (blue) have received 3X more capital improvement funding than high-income.

Watersheds Above/Below 50% LMI 

Here are the percentages of LMI residents in each group.

Shows proportion of low-to-moderate-income residents in each watershed. Those with higher percentages actually have lower average income. So to avoid confusion, I refer to these groups as low- and high-income.

Lower Income Watersheds Get 3X More Construction Funding Per Square Mile

On a per-square mile basis, the low-income group averaged $2.5 million. The high-income group averaged only $0.8 million. See Table 2 below.

Includes dollars for funding of construction projects (not maintenance) since 2000. Remember: ABOVE 50% LMI actually means BELOW AVERGE INCOME.

When looking at funding per square mile, the low-income group averaged 3X more.

 

Smaller, Low-Income Group Also Receives About a Third More in Total Dollars

Comparing the total dollars (not $/square mile) received between the two groups is also illuminating. 

In total dollars, the low-income group of 7 received $400 million dollars more than the high-income group of 14 since 2000. That skewed the averages back toward 3X again. See Table 3.

The small low-income group received a third more funding in total dollars since 2000. And the average per watershed was 2.6X higher than the high-income group.

But More Damage in Low-Income Group

As we have seen elsewhere in this series, dollars flow to damage. Low-income watersheds had twice the total damage despite being half the size and number. 

In four major storms since 2000 (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey), the seven low-income neighborhoods had 146,832 structures damaged, compared to 70,719 for the higher income group of 14. However, on a per square mile basis, low-income group had four times as much (251 vs. 63). 

Structures damaged in four major storms in the groups of watersheds listed above in Table 1. Note that these averages can conceal wide variations within groups. Cypress Creek, for instance, had 20 times more damage than several other watersheds in its group.

So, the hardest hit watersheds already receive the most funding. By a wide margin. And they have since at least 2000.

Together with other data in previous posts, this proves HCFCD does not discriminate against minority low-income neighborhoods in flood-mitigation spending.

Dollars flow to damage – not affluent communities. 

Low-income watersheds still have ongoing HCFCD construction for flood mitigation projects. But they also have other large problems that contribute to flooding for which HCFCD is not responsible. I’m talking about issues related to street flooding such as: 

  • Aging storm sewers with low capacity built to old development standards
  • Roadside drainage swales filled with sediment
  • Homes not elevated enough above street level

Other people and groups are responsible for fixing such problems – including the City of Houston and Harris County Precinct Commissioners themselves. 

In conclusion, elected representatives have misled Harris County residents. This raises the question, “Why?” I will discuss my opinion in a future post. 

For More Information

For more information, see: 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/24/2021

1395 Days since Hurricane Harvey

*Vince Bayou omitted from the first group because it lies almost wholly within the City of Pasadena and is the City’s responsibility. Little Cypress Creek also omitted from second group because it is a newly developing area. Very few people live there and that skews statistical comparisons. HCFCD spending in Little Cypress relates to an experimental “frontier program.”

Six Low-Income Watersheds Receive More Funding than 15 Higher Income Watersheds Combined

Third of an eight-part series on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County

Some people and their representatives in low-to-moderate-income (LMI) watersheds have complained that they get “no” flood-mitigation funding and that the money is all going to richer watersheds. Allegedly, that’s because home values are higher there and thus favor higher benefit/cost ratios (a sort of systemic racial discrimination). But is that true? Do higher home values in a neighborhood really translate into “projects funded”? No. The allegation ignores many other factors that enter into funding, such as damage and population density. Density is two to three times higher in low-income neighborhoods and that influences damage totals. When you look at funding outcomes as opposed to a sliver of the mitigation process, low-income neighborhoods get far more money. Here’s how it breaks down.

Where Money is Really Going

Recently, I obtained flood-mitigation funding data for every watershed in Harris County via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. It sheds new light on this subject.

In addition to the quartile comparisons I did in earlier posts, I also compared the top quartile (six watersheds) to the rest with one exception in each group noted in previous posts and the footnote below.* The data showed that six watersheds with the highest percentages of LMI residents (meaning low income) have received 56.8% of HCFCD spending out of the 21 remaining watersheds since 2000.

Harris County Flood Control District data obtained via FOIA request.

A second pattern also clearly emerged from the data. Long before “equity” guidelines were put in place, HCFCD spending closely tracked flood damage. It still does. And the most damage occurred in lower-income watersheds.

In this post, I will examine both trends by looking at six watersheds with the highest percentages of LMI residents. They include Brays, Greens, Sims, Halls, Hunting and White Oak Bayous. 

As a group, they:

  • Comprise 30.9% of the square miles in the county
  • Received 56.8% of total spending – $1.52 billion of the $2.6 billion spent by HCFCD since 2000.

That’s more than 15 higher income watersheds combined.

Dollars Flow to Damage

But if you stopped there, you could conclude that these six watersheds were getting more than 2-3X their fair share of funding. However, also consider that they had 144,754 out of the 222,739 structures damaged in Harris County during Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey floods.

One thing is certain: these six watersheds have not been at the “back of the bus.” They received more than $1.5 billion out of $2.6 billion invested by HCFCD since 2000. 

The data DISPROVES discrimination on an income or racial basis. Money is not going disproportionately to rich neighborhoods. Far from it. It’s going disproportionately to poor and minority neighborhoods. However, that is also where the most flood damage occurred. Let’s take a closer look at each of the six low-income watersheds.

Brays Bayou:
  • Received 19% of total spending since 2000, but represents just 6% of the county’s area.
  • Received more than half a billion dollars since 2000, the most of any watershed, and about one-fifth of all flood-mitigation spending in 23 watersheds in 21 years.
  • Received the second most funding since Harvey ($130,685,844.43).
  • Got 4 times the average and 7 times the median of flood-mitigation funding for all watersheds.

It certainly seems like an outsized injection of flood-mitigation funds. But the improvements also protect some major infrastructure and employment centers including the Texas Medical Center. See this photo essay taken from the air.

Also consider that Brays had the most damage in four major storms (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey) – 32,194 structures flooded. 

Brays has the fifth highest percentage of low-to-moderate income residents (58%).

HCFCD construction is on-going in this watershed.

Greens Bayou:

Commissioners Ellis and Garcia often cite Greens Bayou as a “back-of-the-bus” watershed. They also say, that if the County doesn’t fix it, “we’ll have blood on our hands.” 

Greens received the 3rd most dollars since 2000 and the 2nd most since Harvey. That’s 11% and 14% of all HCFCD spending respectively during those two time periods. Only in Harris County politics can you call second place out of 23 “back of the bus.” 

But Greens also had the second most damage in four major storms (28,815 structures). 

Greens Bayou has the sixth highest percentage of LMI residents in the county (57%).

HCFCD construction is also on-going in this watershed.

Halls Bayou:

Mr. Ellis and Mr. Garcia also consider Halls Bayou funding to be “back of the bus.” It comprises only about 2.4% of the county but received almost 5% of total spending since 2000. It also received:

  • The fourth most funding per capita ($841.77)
  • The third most funding per square mile ($3,031,912)
  • The eighth most funding since 2000 ($128 million).

Residents still believe they received “nothing,” but I photographed eight large detention ponds recently completed or under construction. Four are right next to US 59.

Halls has the highest percentage of LMI residents (71%) in Harris County.

HCFCD construction is on-going in this watershed.

Sims Bayou:

Sims Bayou runs through the southern part of the county. It:

  • Ranks as the 8th largest watershed.
  • Received the 6th most funding since 2000 ($165,013,368)
  • Has the 7th largest population (310,537)
  • Has the 5th highest population density (3755 per sq. mi.)
  • Had the 6th most damage (18,122 structures)

Sounds proportional and it is. 

However, these calculations do not include $254 million, which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spent on Sims between 1990 and 2015 (by itself) for a major flood-reduction project. The Corps’ contribution to Sims Bayou alone was almost 10% of all HCFCD spending since 2000 ($2.68 billion).

If you add the Federal contribution to HCFCD’s funding, Sims would have ranked second on the list of flood-mitigation dollars received since 2000. Only Brays received more.

Sims has the third highest percentage of LMI residents (65%).

Hunting Bayou

Hunting Bayou is one of the county’s smaller watersheds. It comprises 31 square miles or 1.7% of the county’s land mass. That ranks it as the 19th largest bayou out of 23. And it has the 14th largest population (78,213). Yet, since 2000, it has:

  • Had the seventh most damage (15,728 structures)
  • Received the third most dollars per capita since 2000 ($952.18)
  • Received the fourth most dollars per square mile ($2,402,908)

Hunting Bayou has the second highest percentage of LMI residents (69%).

HCFCD construction is on-going in this watershed.

White Oak

White Oak Bayou is the sixth largest watershed in Harris County. Yet it received 13% of the flood-mitigation funding since 2000 – $349 million, the second highest total of any watershed. It also ranked second in dollars received per square mile – $3.14 million.

But also consider that it had the third highest number of damaged structures – 24,989 in Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey floods combined.

51% of the residents in White Oak qualify as low-to-moderate income. 

HCFCD construction is on-going in this watershed.

Damage-to-Dollar Rankings

“Damaged structures” and funding received had the highest correlation of any relationship I tested. For math majors, the coefficient was .86. That’s high. A perfect correlation would be 1.0. For the less technically inclined, see the table below.

Contrary to the “rich-watersheds-get-all-the-money” narrative, flood-mitigation funding, data shows that HCFCD is putting the most money in the hardest hit watersheds.Dollars flow to damage.

Many projects in these lower income watersheds are still under construction or preparing for it. And major storms have not yet tested many recently constructed improvements. Regardless, their residents are safer than they otherwise would be. And they can take some comfort in knowing that the system is working for them, not against them. 

For more information, see: 

Posted by Bob Rehak, based on information compiled from a FOIA request and Federal Briefings

1394 days since Harvey 

*Omits Vince Bayou in low-income group because it is entirely within the City of Pasadena, which has responsibility for it. Includes White Oak Bayou instead. Also omits Little Cypress, which has a very small population and is an experiment by HCFCD in preventing future flooding.

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.

Six Low-Income Watersheds Receive One Billion Dollars More than Six High-Income Watersheds

Second in a Series of Eight Articles on Flood-Mitigation Funding in Harris County

If the charges of racial and income bias in flood-mitigation funding in Harris County were true, you would expect the poorest neighborhoods to get less funding than the most affluent. But the opposite is true. They get a billion dollars more

Contrary to the “equity” narrative repeated ad nauseum in Harris County political circles, an analysis of flood-mitigation spending shows that JUST SIX low-income watersheds already:

  • Received a billion dollars more than six high-income watersheds since 2000
  • Averaged three times more funding per watershed
Data obtained from HCFCD via FOIA Request compares six highest and lowest income watersheds. These numbers include only capital improvement projects, not maintenance.

Data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request debunks the narrative that falsely claims high-income watersheds get more funding because they have higher home values. Higher home values theoretically create higher Benefit/Cost Ratios. And some political leaders claim that causes the Federal government to favor projects in affluent neighborhoods, compared to poor. 

However, that argument ignores dozens of other factors that enter into grant funding. 

So, look through the other end of the telescope. Examine actual funding instead of the funding process. You will see that, in Harris County at least, actual flood-mitigation funding favors low-to-moderate-income (LMI) watersheds by a wide margin. If the process favors high-income watersheds, why do the low-income get a billion dollars more?

Analysis Reveals Funding Favors Low-Income Neighborhoods

I requested from Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) the following data by watershed – broken up into various time periods:

  • Capital improvement funding (excluding maintenance)
  • Population totals
  • Low-to-moderate income (LMI) population
  • Watershed size in square Miles
  • Damaged structures in major storms

From that, I computed other factors such as $/square mile, population density, LMI %, LMI Rankings, etc. The data goes back to 2000, but also includes “Since Harvey.”

Comparing the quartiles for lowest- and highest-income watersheds since 2000 showed that HCFCD spent more than $1.5 billion dollars in six low-income watersheds, but only $472 million in six high-income watersheds.

The lowest income quartile received a billion dollars more than the highest. There’s just no truth to the “rich-neighborhoods-get-all-the-funding” story.

Terminology and Methodology

Before going further, let’s clarify some terms. LMI means Low-to-Moderate Income. 

  • High LMI means watersheds with a high percentage of low-to-moderate income residents.
  • Low LMI means watersheds with a low percentage of low-to-moderate income residents, which actually means High Income.

Instead of bogging readers down in confusing double negatives, I will simply use the terms “High Income” and “Low Income” for this discussion.

The numbers in the lists below represent the percentages of people with incomes below the average for the region. So, with 16% LMI, Little Cypress has 84% of residents making above the average. That’s why it ranks as “higher income” even though it has a lower LMI percentage.

To create each group of six, I started with seven. That’s because each included a statistical anomaly explained below.

Watersheds with the highest income (lowest LMI ranking) include:

  1. Little Cypress (16%)*
  2. Barker (22%)
  3. Cypress Creek (26%)
  4. Armand (26%)
  5. Willow Creek (27%)
  6. Jackson (30%)
  7. Spring Creek (31%)

The seven with the lowest income (highest LMI ranking) include:

  1. Halls (71%)
  2. Hunting (69%)
  3. Sims (65%)
  4. Vince (62%)*
  5. Brays (58%)
  6. Greens (57%)
  7. White Oak (51%)

*Note: For this analysis I substituted Spring Creek for Little Cypress because Little Cypress is a statistical anomaly. Harris County is buying vacant land there along creeks to prevent future flooding as part of their “frontier program.”  But the small number of people who currently live in the Little Cypress watershed skews most statistical comparisons. I also excluded Vince in the low-income category because it lies almost wholly within the City of Pasadena, which is responsible for it.

Summary of High-Level Findings

The six low-income watersheds received $1.52 billion since 2000. But the six high-income watersheds received $472 million – more than billion dollars less.

Let’s also compare total spending since 2000 per square mile in each group.

  • Low-income watersheds got $2.8 million/sq. mi. 
  • High-income watersheds received $0.9 million/sq. mi.

Again, the 3X advantage for the low-income quartile held up.

Finally, let’s compare average dollars per watershed for all groups since 2000 (not adjusted by square mileage). The 3X advantage held up yet again for the low-income group, which also more than DOUBLED the countywide average. See below.

These comparisons make compelling evidence that the political narrative is misleading! However, these numbers don’t tell the whole truth either.

Low-income watersheds had 7X more damaged structures in four major floods (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey) – 144,754 vs. 19,677.

If there’s one truth about flood-mitigation funding in Harris County, it’s that “dollars flow to damage.” The following tables show funding, damage and LMI% rankings for both income groups. 

Only one of the watersheds in the high-income group received more funding than Hunting, the lowest in the low-income group. (I will explore this further in article #7 in this series.) 

Reasons for Rankings

If you understand Houston neighborhoods, the reason for these rankings becomes apparent when you look at a watershed map. Here are the high-income watersheds…

High-income watersheds are generally newer and built to higher standards on the periphery of the City. They also generally have fewer developments beyond them to create flooding issues. Not one is predominantly inside the Beltway.

Now, let’s look at the low-income watersheds.

Each low-income watersheds IS predominantly inside the Beltway.
Homes and drainage in these older areas are not built to current standards.

Role of Density in Flooding and Flood-Mitigation Funding

Another huge disparity exists between these two groups of watersheds: population density. 

  • 1,517 per square mile for the high-income group 
  • 3,912 for the low-income – 2.6X more.

Higher density brings with it more impermeable surface; more and faster runoff; more crowding of floodplains; plus, less room for detention facilities, channel expansion and wetlands. Often, wetlands are destroyed to accommodate higher density.

Very high density can also escalate flood-mitigation costs and delay flood-mitigation construction projects. Sometimes, homes or even entire subdivisions must be “bought out” to widen ditches or install detention ponds. For an example, see this post about Halls Bayou.

Also understand that when homes must give way to flood-mitigation projects, the projects often generate significant pushback from people being displaced.

Moving Forward, Let’s Ask the Right Questions

The statistics in this post disprove racial bias in funding. However, inner-city, minority residents are more susceptible to flooding than their suburban counterparts. But it’s largely because of where they choose to live for whatever reason: affordability, proximity to work, transportation, etc. Sometimes people just have no options, despite flooding. (I’ll explore this subject more in #7 of this series.)

To help residents in these low-income areas, HCFCD is already spending 3X more than it does in high-income areas. This raises the question, “Are we underfunding some watersheds?” 

As development pushes past today’s high-income watersheds, they too will come under pressure from even newer developments beyond the Grand Parkway. It’s already starting to happen to the west, north and northeast. Those along Cypress Creek may first to feel the full brunt on this (see rankings above).

To solve the problems that really plague us, we need to bury the racial rhetoric, realize the true nature of the problems, and work together on solutions. 

The current inflammatory “equity” discourse only seems to distract and divide people. The real question we should ask ourselves is, “How can we upgrade the drainage infrastructure (streets and storm sewers) in neighborhoods that are 60 – 70 years old?” I’ll discuss that more in the seventh article in this series.

If leaders truly want to reduce flood risk, then the discussion needs to focus on how best to support the professionals and organizations toiling to protect all residents from the next flood. 

If the conversation does not change, then that will prove flood prevention is not really a priority for Harris County leadership. 

For More Information on Flood-Mitigation Funding

For more information, see: 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/22/2021 based on data received from a FOIA request

1393 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.

Surprise! Surprise! Halls, Greens Watersheds Get $422 Million of Flood-Mitigation Funding, Not “ZERO.”

First in an Eight-Part series on Flood-Mitigation Funding in Harris County

Recently, many local leaders, citizens and media have claimed that two largely minority and low-to-moderate-income (LMI) Harris County watersheds – Halls and Greens Bayous – have gotten no flood-mitigation funding. The actual data shows the exact opposite of what many people have been told, i.e., that racial bias affects the distribution of flood mitigation funds. 

Halls and Greens have received $422 million since 2000. And they received $200 million of that since Harvey. Meanwhile, Kingwood has never had one Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) capital improvement project.

FOIA Request Shows Where Money Has Actually Gone

Information, newly available through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request, reveals that Greens and Halls Bayous, have received 16% of all Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) funding since 2000 and 18% since Hurricane Harvey. That’s almost one fifth of all flood-mitigation funding for 23 watersheds in the whole county!

Data based on information provided by Harris County Flood Control in response to FOIA request

But the popular perception is that flood mitigation money is all going to affluent neighborhoods like those in Kingwood at the expense of low-to-moderate income areas, such as Greens and Halls.  Local media have helped spread this misinformation:

From the twitter feed of a Houston Chronicle writer who covers flooding.

FOIA Request Reveals Flaws in Narrative

One Harris County commissioner frequently claims Greens and Halls are being discriminated against in the allocation of flood-mitigation funding. He says residents in those watersheds are at the “back of the bus” and if commissioners don’t fix that, “We’ll have blood on our hands.” 

That sounded extreme. So, to see how bad the problem was, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in early March. Out of 23 watersheds: 

  • Since 2000, Halls and Greens rank #8 and #3 respectively in flood mitigation “dollars received.” 
  • Since Harvey, Halls and Greens rank #11 and #2 respectively

While #11 and #8 may sound “middle of the pack” for Halls, keep in mind that Halls ranks #16 in size. The entire watershed is only 42 out of 1,776 square miles that make up Harris County. 

Halls actually ranks #3 among all watersheds in “dollars/square mile” 
since 2000 (eclipsed only by Brays and White Oak).

Since 2000, Halls has received more than $3 million per square mile. Compare that to $0.5 million for the San Jacinto watershed, a frequent target of Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis and his followers. 

Here’s what all watersheds have received and where they rank, along with other measures, such as:

  • Watershed area
  • Population
  • Density
  • LMI population 
  • Spending per capita
  • Spending per square mile
  • Structures damaged in floods
Current as of end of March 2021. Note: data excludes maintenance spending. Spending shows only capital-improvement flood-mitigation projects. To see the original HCFCD data, click here. For a high resolution, printable PDF of my summary sheet above, click here.

You can look at this data in dozens of ways. And I will. However, any way you cut it, it does not support discrimination against the poor or a racial bias in funding. If you didn’t look any further, you could use this data to support the opposite point of view, i.e., that funding discriminates against more affluent neighborhoods. However…

Spending Actually Closely Tracks Damage

Halls and Greens Bayou watersheds contain large percentages of low-to-moderate income (LMI) households. Versus other watersheds, Halls ranks #1 in LMI households (71%) and Greens ranks #6 (57%).

Of all the rankings on all the measures, the measure that seems to track most closely with funding is “properties damaged.” One would hope for that! It’s a perfectly rational, non-biased basis for allocating funds. 

Data shows that the Flood Control District is spending the most money where flooding has damaged the most structures. 

Dollars Flow to Damage

See below.

Flood-mitigation funding by watershed arranged from highest to lowest with spending and damage rankings.

To underscore that point, consider that:

  • Greens ranks #3 in funding since 2000 and #2 since Harvey. It also had the 2nd most damage in four major floods (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, and Harvey).
  • Halls ranks 3rd in spending per square mile since 2000 and 4th since Harvey. It also had the 4th most damage in all four storms. 

Together, Halls and Greens have received $422 million since 2000. That’s hardly “nothing.” Hardly “back of the bus.” And their high rankings hardly make an argument for racial or income bias.

Crucial Role of Tropical Storm Allison

Flood-mitigation studies, funding, and construction can take years and even decades. Tropical Storm Allison, 20 years ago this month, played a role in the rankings above. Compare the watershed and rainfall maps below. The heaviest rainfall in Allison fell directly over Halls and Greens Bayous. Thus, both of these watersheds experienced major damage two decades ago.

Map of Harris County Watersheds. Note the location of Halls and Greens in the upper left quadrant of Beltway 8. 
Allison rainfall map. Source: HCFCD via NOAA. Rain was heaviest within the northeast quadrant of Beltway 8. It contains Halls and Greens Bayous. The 15” band also tracked WNW across the upstream portions of Halls and Greens.

Projects Identified Earlier Are Farther Along 

That actually helps explain why they rank so high in funding today. During Allison, Greens ranked #1 in damage (15,590 structures) and Halls ranked #2 (12,820). 

Many projects identified decades ago, such as those in Halls and Greens, received sporadic funding before the 2018 flood bond. Surveys and engineering reports may have been completed or “rights of way” acquired. But many costly construction projects had to be postponed until money became available.

Before 2018, the Flood Control District only had $60M per year to spend across all of Harris County. Then, when voters approved the flood bond in 2018, Halls and Greens projects were “shovel ready” and could start immediately.  In essence, they had a head start and it shows in funding!  

Also, in 2019, commissioners adopted an “equity” prioritization plan that accelerated spending in LMI watersheds. So, Halls and Greens got an extra boost. 

That’s not to say these watersheds have gotten everything residents wanted or needed. But then, who has? 

Numbers Contradict Narrative

Those who watch Commissioners Court are treated month after month to tales about how flood-mitigation spending has discriminated against people in low-income watersheds with high percentages of LMI households. Halls and Greens are repeatedly held up as examples. 

The FOIA data does not support that theory. It shows that low-income watersheds are not being ignored. And higher income watersheds are not getting all the money. Anyone who says they are is not looking at the numbers.  

In fact, data from the FOIA request revealed that the Kingwood area has had exactly ZERO Flood Control District capital improvement projects in the last 20 years. The often-cited Buffalo Bayou watershed has had exactly TWO capital Flood Control District capital improvement projects in the last 20 years.  

Those who make allegations of racial bias ignore projects on the ground. 

To learn more about recently completed projects or projects currently under construction in Halls and Greens Bayou watersheds, see these previous posts:

Tomorrow, I will examine flood-mitigation funding in six watersheds with the lowest income rankings versus six with the highest. 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/21/2021 based on HCFCD data supplied in response to a FOIA request.

1392 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.

Brays Bayou Received Approximately Half Billion in Flood Mitigation Funding In Last 23 Years

Since 1998, the Brays Bayou watershed has received approximately a half billion dollars in flood-mitigation funding. To compile that estimate, I consulted Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) 2019 Federal Briefing (see page 45) and HCFCD’s “active construction projects” page for May 2021.

Map of Improvements

From page 57 of HCFCD 2019 Federal Briefing. Note all of the projects recently funded, completed or under construction.

Nature of Improvements

The 2019 Federal Briefing (page 56) separates Brays improvements into two areas:

  • Upstream (west of Sam Houston Tollway)
    • 3 detention basins: 595 surface acres; 9,623 acre-feet of storage – enough to hold a foot of water falling over 15 square miles (13% of entire watershed)
    • 3.7 miles of channel conveyance improvements, including control structures, from Old Westheimer Rd. to SH 6
  • Downstream (east of Sam Houston Tollway)
    • 17.5 miles of channel conveyance improvements from the mouth to Fondren Rd.
    • 1 detention basin: 252 surface acres; 1,865 acre-feet of storage – enough to hold a foot of water falling over 3 square miles
    • 30 bridge replacements/modifications, and/or channel conveyance improvements under bridges (16 due for completion this year)

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) manages, designs, and builds the projects; buys land, easements, rights-of-way; relocates utilities; adjusts bridges (except for railroads); and operates and maintains the channel after construction.

Benefits and Costs

After completion, upstream improvements should give residents a 100-yr. level of flood protection (1% annual chance).

Likewise, downstream improvements should reduce the number of structures:

  • In the 4% or 25-year flood plain from 3,520 to 50.
  • In the 100-year flood plain from 16,800 to 1,800.

Total Cost Estimate: $480M though 2019 (Source: 2019 HCFCD Federal Briefing, Page 45)

Benefit-Cost Ratio: 7.0 (Source: 2019 HCFCD Federal Briefing, Page 56)

The size of the cost in conjunction with the benefit-cost ratio makes these numbers impressive. The primary requirement for the ratio is that it exceeds 1.0, i.e., that the benefits exceed the costs.

Brays’ watershed includes 114 square miles. That makes the cost per square mile a whopping $4.4 million throughout the watershed. However, one must also consider that the population of Brays is the largest of any watershed in Harris County – more than 700,000 of which (57.5%) qualifies as low-to-moderate income.

The map below, taken from a 2020 HCFCD grant application to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), shows the distribution of income throughout the watershed. Areas such as West University and the Medical Center in the middle (blue) rank higher in income than areas east and west (tan/red).

LMI quartiles within Brays Bayou Watershed as of 2020. Source: HCFCD HUD grant application.

Possible Reasons for Large Investment

You could justify this extraordinary level of investment any number of ways. By the:

  1. Large population
  2. High population density
  3. High benefit/cost ratio
  4. Protection of critical infrastructure, such as the Texas Medical Center
  5. Number of homes and businesses flooded historically – also the largest in Harris County: 32,194 structures since Allison (Source: 2019 Federal Briefing: Pages 16-21)
  6. Length of time projects have been in the pipeline (most before Harvey and some even before Allison)
  7. Proximity to older, central part of county

Do not underestimate the last two points. Funding for many flood-mitigation projects can take decades.

Disproven Theories

Regardless of the reasons why Brays has received so much investment, one can also look at what this example does not show. It does not support the “equity” narrative propounded by some. That narrative asserts low-to-moderate-income neighborhoods receive less flood-mitigation funding because of lower home values compared to more affluent neighborhoods. Those affluent neighborhoods theoretically get more flood-mitigation funding because they allegedly support higher benefit-cost ratios (BCRs).

Home Value Alone Does Not Determine Benefit/Cost Ratio

The 7.0 BCR in Brays proves that low-to-moderate income neighborhoods are not automatically disadvantaged. Population density can offset lower property values. A whole apartment complex can sit on the same amount of land as one suburban home, yet the apartments would have higher value.

Experts also point out that many other elements affect calculation of BCRs. This study from the William & Mary Law School summarizes the approaches of HUD, FEMA, the Corps and others in determining BCRs. Table I.1 on page 11 shows many of the factors considered:

  • Resiliency benefits
    • Direct Physical Damages to Buildings, Contents and Inventory
    • Essential Facility and Critical Infrastructure Serivce Loss
    • Human Impacts
    • Economic Losses
  • Environmental Benefits
    • Provisioning Services
    • Regulating Services
    • Supporting Services
    • Cultural Services
  • Social Benefits
    • Recreational Benefits
    • Health Benefits
    • Aesthetic Benefits
  • Economic Revitalization
Brays Watershed Investment Not Suffering From Discrimination

The Brays watershed cuts across racial, ethnic and socio-economic boundaries. Flooding has been recognized as a problem here for decades and HCFCD has successfully obtained many grants during that time. HCFCD has also invested more in Brays than any other watershed. Like Halls Bayou and Greens Bayou, the narrative re: Brays is far more complex than some acknowledge.

Photos of Improvements in Bray’s Bayou Watershed

On May 26, I flew from Beltway 8 West to the Ship Canal east of downtown along Brays Bayou. Out of more than 1100 images, here are 16 that represent what you see along the way. Lots of detention ponds, channel improvements, and new bridges. The bridges are higher and often wider, with wider supports to avoid constrictions and blockages. New bridges never have more than two supports in the water flow; some old ones had seven.

Arthur Storey Park at Beltway 8 West and Bellaire Blvd. Looking N toward Westchase District.
Southern part of same park. Looking NE across BW8 West.
Looking NNE at Hilcroft and North Braeswood Blvd.
Looking WSW across same new bridge at Hillcroft. Note wide spans and wings designed to prevent erosion.
Looking north at new bridge over Brays at Chimney Rock
SW Corner of Loop 610 looking toward downtown in upper right.
Same intersection south of Galleria area. Note complexity where seven streams of traffic intersect.
Looking east toward downtown along Brays just inside of Loop 610 at detention pond. Note sewage treatment plant across bayou.
Looking north across new bridge over Brays along Buffalo Speedway toward Greenway Plaza in background.
Looking NE toward downtown in background along Main Street. Medical Center is in middle of frame.
Looking NE toward downtown where Fannin St. crosses Brays at UT Health Science Center.
Looking NE toward Med Center and downtown in background across another new bridge over Brays. Note the electrical infrastructure next to the bayou.
288 and Brays. Bridge construction on Almeda.
New Bridge over Brays at South 75th.
Looking NE across Brays at new railroad bridge near Tipps Street.
Downstream end of Brays near Buffalo Bayou. The ship canal and Port of Houston are in background.

As these pictures show, flood mitigation funding isn’t all about home value. Brays traverses some of Houston’s most critical infrastructure, job centers, rail lines, diverse neighborhoods and employment centers.

HCFCD describes Project Brays as the largest it has ever managed. To learn more more and see before/after pictures of many improvements, visit Project Brays’ own website.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/3/2021

1374 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Halls Bayou Illustrates Cost, Difficulty of Flood Mitigation in Overdeveloped Areas

Flooding within the Halls Bayou watershed illustrates what happens when development, density, lack of detention and insufficient distance from streams put people and their property in harm’s way. Instead of protecting a strip of green space near the bayou years ago, developers built right up to the edge. As density increased and developers built further upstream without sufficient detention, people who crowded the Bayou then started to flood repeatedly.

As the images below show, once developed, the cost and time of mitigation increases exponentially.

All of that argues for better planning and the protection of green spaces that can accommodate future floods and flood mitigation projects throughout the region.

Halls Bayou Not Unique

This same scenario happened repeatedly in other Houston watersheds: Greens Bayou; Brays Bayou, White Oak Bayou, and Cypress Creek, for instance. But let’s save those for future posts. For now, let’s go back in time.

Solution Well Known for More than a Century

In 1913, recognizing the potential for continued growth, a well-known landscape architect, Arthur Comey created the first comprehensive plan for the Houston Park Commission. He observed that Houston ranked far behind other major U.S. cities in parkland. It had one acre of park for every 685 residents. Seattle was a distant second at 224 residents per acre.

To address this inequity, Comey’s plan included a visionary idea. Noting that the city’s network of bayous were already “natural parks,” he proposed a series of linear and large parks along their lengths.

As he wrote, the “bayous and creek valleys readily lend themselves to trails and parks and cannot so advantageously be used for any other purpose.”…

Unfortunately, developers ignored him.

About Halls Bayou

The Halls Bayou Watershed comprises a city within a city.

  • Older homes and businesses are densely packed.
  • Many are built right up to the edge of the Bayou.
  • 70% of the population is low-to-moderate income.
  • You see far more signs in Spanish than English

Economically, the area looks poor. Culturally, it feels rich.

Frankly, as I drove through it last weekend to photograph flood mitigation projects, it felt much more vibrant than more affluent neighborhoods father to the north or south.

For the most part, people have fixed their homes since the last big flood. These folks may be poor, but the vast majority take great pride in what they have.

The map below shows the route of Halls Bayou through surrounding mid-north neighborhoods. Homes are packed so close to the bayou that it’s hard to see it in places, so I outlined the route in red.

Route of Halls Bayou through mid-north part of Houston. Airline Drive is on left, I-45 in middle and US 59 on right.

Now, let’s superimpose floodplains over the same area.

Floodway = cross hatch, 100-year floodplain = aqua, and 500-year floodplain =tan. Map last updated in 2007 based on data from Tropical Storm Allison.

North to south along US 59 (on right), the floodplain extends almost 3 miles. And it will extend even farther when new maps based on Atlas 14 are officially released based on Harvey data. The image below shows what the area around US 59 and Halls looked like in 2002 shortly after Tropical Storm Allison.

Note subdivisions built right next to bayou.

Next, see how that area looks today where Halls Bayou crosses under US 59. Two large detention ponds exist where the subdivisions used to be.

Note the two large detention ponds, one on either side of the freeway. The one on the left was substantially completed in 2015 and the one on the right in 2018.

Each detention basin took about three years to build.

Time, Costs of Buyouts

Before HCFCD could construct the detention ponds, it had to buy out homes in adjacent subdivisions and demolish them. Buyouts near the detention areas above began in 2002 when HCFCD received a large grant from the federal government after Allison. Google Earth images show that the buyouts took at least another three years.

Then Flood Control had to get permits from the City of Houston to demolish the streets. That took additional years.

So from 2002 until the completion of construction took 13 to 16 years (2015 and 2018). But the construction itself took only 3 years.

Thus, the total project took 4-5X longer than construction.

$1 of Prevention Worth a $1000 of Flood Mitigation

This area started to develop in the 1940s. The earliest image in Google Earth (1944) shows that it was at the edge of the City then. With more wetlands and farm land to absorb rainfall, the flooding problems were probably not as bad. A few scattered subdivisions pressed against the edges of the bayou. But the lots were large. And had green space been set aside then, the story today might be different.

Halls Bayou in 1944. Note: only two subdivisions started to encroach on the bayou. Rest was rural.

Compare again the shot above with the one below for a dramatic example of infill development. The shot above is NOTHING like today’s below.

Compare the dramatic increase in density with the decrease in bayou width.

Just looking at these two maps, you can see how the dramatic increase in density limits flood mitigation possibilities and raises costs.

We no longer have any easy solutions.

To make matters worse, despite flooding, people often fight buyouts. Most people in neighborhoods like this depend on support networks of friends and family. They fear leaving those networks. Many date back generations.

Should Have Known Better

Developers and home buyers knew or should have known this area was flood prone. But still, they built or bought here at great risk to themselves, and ultimately at great cost to the community.

That raises the question: Why were people allowed to build so close to the bayou in the first place? Why wasn’t sufficient green space left along the bayou to widen it or build detention ponds?

There are no simple answers to that question. Residents may not have felt at risk until upstream development sent more water downstream faster. They may not have been knowledgeable enough about flooding to ask the right questions.

Some just wanted to live close to work. Some wanted to be near family and friends. Some needed the support. And some just pushed their luck because they liked the view or location and the lots were cheap. Regardless, everyone is paying the price for decisions often made decades ago.

Posted by Bob Rehak on April 28, 2021

1338 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Harris County Commissioners Supplement Flood-Bond Funds with Highway Money to Accelerate Mitigation

Tuesday, Harris County Commissioners Court voted 5-0 to transfer $315 million of toll road revenue, unallocated County road bonds and other county funds to accelerate the construction of certain flood-bond mitigation projects. They will allocate the funds to mitigation projects using the 2018 Flood Bond Prioritization Criteria.

The transfer will provide backstop funding for 100% of the projects in the Road & Bridge Subdivision Drainage Program of the 2018 Flood Control Bond Program, removing the risk that partner-funding shortfalls prevent projects from being completed.

Text of Motion

The final language as amended and approved reads as follows:

Create a new funding facility of $115 million, made up of County road bonds or HCTRA surplus revenue, to free up Flood Control bond capacity currently used for the Subdivision Program.  The Flood Control bond capacity will be allocated by utilizing the 2018 Flood Bond prioritization criteria.

Create an additional funding facility of $200 million, comprised of HCTRA surplus revenue or other County resources, to support completion of projects that are part of the 2018 bond program with the required transportation nexus.

Here is a background sheet from the county’s budget management department that explains the switch.

The Subdivision Program consists of 91 projects which, according to HCFCD estimates, reduce the risk of flooding to more than 45,000 homes.

Background

The projects benefit neighborhoods with outdated drainage infrastructure or which never had modern drainage systems in the first place. Furthermore, multiple projects are located in watersheds that have been historically disadvantaged in securing federal funds for flood control. According to the Office of the County Engineer, the Subdivision Program has a current estimated total cost of $535 million (or ~$590 million including an approximately 10% contingency).

Among the objectives:

  • Provide backstop funding for partnership projects in case grants don’t materialize or are delayed beyond a reasonable time
  • Let projects with mature or advanced partner funding opportunities pursue those opportunities for a defined (but not unlimited) period of time..

The background sheet contains a list of eligible projects in each precinct. Any Subdivision Program project costs that have not received a notice or award of partner funding by August 31, 2021, would be eligible to receive additional money from the backstop funding.

Discussion

Discussion on the motion and amendment lasted about an hour. It became clear that commissioners believe they:

  • Must complete all projects in the bond.
  • Expect not to find partnership funds for some projects, leaving those projects underfunded.
  • Need more money.
  • Must use diverted funds on flood projects that have some connection to transportation, i.e., problems created by new highway construction.
This approval will remove a cloud of uncertainty from projects that rely on partnership funding which has not yet materialized for some projects.

Including projects from all four precincts helped ensure a unanimous vote.

Another Bond? Not So Fast

Commissioners talked about the possibility of another flood-bond offering. However, the likelihood of that passing is slim. Poor people feel the money is going to affluent neighborhoods and affluent people feel the money is going to poor neighborhoods. If no one is happy with the way the current bond money has been handled, why would anyone vote to approve more?

Commissioners have grappled for more than a month with how to handle a possible shortfall in partner funding. Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis threatened to slow down or halt all flood-bond projects until Flood Control found a way to fully fund projects in Halls and Greens Bayous. Today’s development, seemed to avoid that showdown.

Flood Control will try to collapse a ten-year timeline down to five years.

It’s unclear at this time how today’s development will affect HUD grants in the pipeline, the interest costs on borrowed money, or the availability of qualified contractors.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/28/2021

1338 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Four Halls Bayou Detention Ponds Recently Completed; Four More Virtually Done

If you saw the recent front page article in the Houston Chronicle about Halls Bayou, you would think that Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) relegated residents in the watershed to “the back of the bus.” Even before the bond, Halls received four floodwater retention projects, three of which are major. HCFCD is trying to expand the fourth of those. And since the flood bond, HCFCD has virtually completed four more floodwater retention projects..

Here’s what I found by simply driving around after consulting the HCFCD website and Google Earth Pro. I wish the Chronicle writer had done the same. There’s just no substitute for laying eyeballs on the job sites before riling up millions of people. Let’s start with the flood-bond projects first. I took all the photos below on 4/25/21 and 4/26/21.

Almost Completed Stormwater Detention Basins in Halls Watershed

Basin on Little York east of US59
New basin at Hopper and US59
Third new basin north of Helms Road east of Airline Drive
Fourth new basin south of Helms Road west of Airline Drive.

Recently Completed in Halls Watershed

Hall Park Stormwater Detention Basin East of US59 at Parker. Google Earth images show this project was substantially completed in 2018.
Bretshire Stormwater Detention Basin West of US59 at Parker. Google Earth images show this project was substantially completed in 2015.
Keith Weiss Park Stormwater Detention Basin on Halls Bayou east of Aldine Westfield. Google Earth images show this project was substantially completed in 2015.
West of Aldine Westfield, there’s a small basin owned by TxDOT. HCFCD hopes to enlarge this basin into the surrounding wooded areas as part of bond project C-25. Google Earth images show the first phase of this project was completed in 2012.

Funding “Shortfall” Not Yet Known

The Chronicle writer also claimed a “funding shortfall” for Halls of $272 million. Curious that he would make this statement just days before the GLO announces the winners of a statewide competition. Harris County could get some, none or all of its requests. To be clear, the competition is stiff; Harvey affected more than 40 counties. Regardless, there’s more than $2 billion up for grabs ($1 billion in this round and $1.144 billion in the next). It seems to me, the Chronicle writer could have waited a few days to publish results rather than rumors.

We Need Real Historical Data on Flood Mitigation Spending

Whether you agree with Rodney Ellis, Adrian Garcia and Lina Hidalgo or not, they have fought tenaciously for their constituents. They succeeded in reordering the priorities in flood-bond spending to serve low-to-moderate income neighborhoods first. For the Chronicle to imply that they failed their constituents is an insult to the Judge and Commissioners.

And to imply that all the money is going to more affluent neighborhoods is simply false. That claim seems designed to inflame racial hatred. Kingwood, for instance, has NEVER received one federally funded capital improvement project from HCFCD. Yet the Chronicle’s readers evidently concluded rich neighborhoods get all the money. Again, there’s no substitute for research.

From the Chronicle writer’s Twitter feed.

Inflaming racial tensions based on false information is the last thing America needs at this time.

In my opinion, we need facts, not fiction. Asserting discrimination is not the same as proving it.

Chronicle Article Also Ignores Tax Issue, Funding Realities

The Chronicle’s “HCFCD-puts-poor-people-at-the-back-of-the-bus” narrative also ignores the mechanics of funding projects. Before the flood bond vote in 2018, I spent an hour with former County Judge Ed Emmett discussing funding needs. A high priority at that point was to make local tax dollars stretch as far as they could by leveraging partner funding.

The need to leverage partner funding was even addressed in the final flood bond language. Paragraph 14 G states “…the commissioners court shall provide a process for the equitable expenditure of funds recognizing that project selection may have been affected in the past and may continue to be affected by eligibility requirements for matching Federal, State and other local government funds.”

Nobody stretches local tax dollars like the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD is one of the main sources for funding projects in low-to-moderate income neighborhoods. Why?

HUD often offers a 90% match.

But there are two catches. First, you’re only eligible if at least 70% of residents that benefit from a project qualify as “low-to-moderate income” (LMI). Second, HUD is slow. To put “slow” in perspective, the Texas General Land Office just started accepting HUD grant applications from Imelda last Saturday. Imelda happened 586 days ago.

Looking at the flood bond spreadsheet (Page 6 of 10) and the expected partnership share of Halls Bayou Projects, you can see that 90/10 ratio reflected in most of the projected funding for Halls.

It’s unclear whether voters would have approved a flood bond that was 9X higher, especially when everyone, rich and poor alike, expressed concerns about not getting their fair share.

Alternative Sources of Halls Funding More Risky

Had HCFCD tried for FEMA funding instead, the low home values in Halls neighborhoods may have yielded a poor Benefit/Cost Ratio. Commissioner Ellis constantly reminds people about the perils of FEMA funding when applied to LMI neighborhoods.

So really, HCFCD had no choice but to focus on HUD for Halls projects.

  • The neighborhoods qualified.
  • The HUD match was far higher.
  • That minimized a tax increase.
  • It also maximized the number of possible Halls projects.

This was not a “gamble” as the Chronicle headline implied; it was actually the least risky option that seemed to benefit the most people.

Map above taken from HUD CDBG-MIT Draft Grant Application from Halls Bayou Watershed shows that 144,000 people in the watershed qualify as LMI (low to moderate income). That’s 70.6% of the total residents. To see the complete draft, visit this page.

We all need to calm down and wait to see how much money HUD grants the Hall’s Bayou Watershed projects. Brittany Eck of the GLO told me that she expects decisions by the end of this month. That’s this Friday.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/27/2021

1337 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 586 since Imelda

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 Issues Flood Bond Update as of March 30, 2021

In the March 30, 2021 Harris County Commissioner’s Court Meeting, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) gave a Flood Bond update. Here’s where projects in the 2018 Flood Bond program stand.

Overview

In the 30 months since the bond was approved by Harris County voters, the Harris County Flood Control District has used bond funds to:

  • Accept 25 grants totaling approximately $960 million with Bond funds providing around $259 million in local matching funds
  • Execute 326 engineering agreements totaling $241 million
  • Award 39 construction agreements totaling $296 million
  • Procure 19 staff augmentation agreements providing 113 contract staff members
  • Acquire nearly 340 properties at a value over $208 million for construction projects, floodplain preservation, and wetland mitigation banks
  • Make $115 million available to the Office of the County Engineer to manage and construct drainage improvements in nearly 100 subdivisions across Harris County
  • Conduct 140 community engagement meetings with over 11,413 attendees
  • Complete nearly 630 home buyouts at a value over $130 million with over 680 additional in process for a buyout (since Hurricane Harvey)
  • Complete over $125 million repair program to address damages to District infrastructure caused by Hurricane Harvey

19 Projects Completed, 372 Underway

The flood bond update shows that of the 19 projects completed so far, investigations, analyses and studies comprised 15.

Altogether there are 372 individual HCFCD projects in progress related to the Bond Program. The table below shows the stages of those projects.

88% of all projects identified in the flood bond are currently underway and at some state of completion.

Only 21 Projects Not Yet Started

Only 21 Bond projects have not yet started. They are all in the fourth quartile of the bond prioritization framework and will begin between July 2021 and March 2022. Of those, two are in the San Jacinto watershed: CI-61 (East Fork, West Fork, and Lake Houston Dredging) and F-15 (General Drainage Improvements near Atascocita).

Dredging included a $10 million match with estimated partner funds of $40 million.

FEMA/Army Corps, TWDB and City of Houston funds have covered dredging in the river to date.

Status of Lake Houston Area Projects

Other projects in the Lake Houston Area at least partially underway.

Luce Bayou and Huffman

Project underway include right-of-way acquisition, design and construction of general drainage improvements in the Luce Bayou Watershed and near Huffman (total $20 million). Luce Bayou right-of-way acquisition and floodplain preservation ($10 million) has also started.

Gates on Lake Houston Dam

Design and construction of additional gates on Lake Houston ($20 million) is nearing completion of the design phase. The City of Houston has taken the lead on that project but has made no announcements on it recently.

Other Projects Lake Houston Area Partially Underway
  • The San Jacinto Watershed Study ($625,000)
  • Funding for future partnership projects based on the SJR watershed study ($18.75 million)
  • Investigation of potential detention sites around the Glendale Dredge site in Partnership with the City of Houston ($50,000)
  • Conveyance improvements along Panther Creek ($10 million)
  • General drainage improvements east of Lake Houston ($10 million)
  • General Drainage Improvements near Kingwood ($10 million)

One Third of Projects Now Past Design Phase

One third of all projects have already begin work outside.

Ellis Not Content with 40% of Construction Going into Two Bayous in His Precinct

40% of all projects under construction are in Greens and Halls Bayou Watersheds, the two Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis cares most about. He wants to slow down projects in other areas to focus more on projects in his area.

For a discussion of how the meeting went, check back tomorrow.

For the full Flood Bond update, click here. For future reference, this link is also posted on the Reports page under the Harris County Flood Control District, tab.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/30/21

1309 Days after Hurricane Harvey