Broken Promise: Garcia Trying to Divert $191 Million in Cedar Bayou Flood-Bond Funds

Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia is trying to move $191 million designated for Cedar Bayou in the flood bond, but has not yet said where. Commissioners will vote on the measure Tuesday before they hold another special redistricting meeting on Thursday. My guess is that Garcia will try to move the money within the boundaries of a newly redrawn Precinct 2. That would give him a better chance at re-election.

After Hurricane Harvey, voters approved this flood-bond project list and budget. When Democrats reprioritized the order of projects in 2019…

…they promised no flood-bond projects would be cancelled. That could now change.

Earlier this year, the Northeast Action Collective (NAC) demanded the cancellation of projects in affluent neighborhoods so money could be redeployed to their area. Cedar Bayou could form the opening volley in that war.

Seven Items to Watch in Tuesday’s Commissioners Court

Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia has posted seven items relating to Cedar Bayou on next Tuesday’s Commissioners Court Agenda. If successful, Garcia will divert $191 million from the flood-prone watershed – at a time when Democrats are attempting to hand the area off to Precinct 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle, a Republican.

See agenda items 136 and 323. #136 calls for discussion of the diversion; #323 calls for a vote on it. Garcia added #323 to the “Emergency” agenda at 6 PM Friday without any explanation as to where the money will go.

But that’s not all. The other five items on Tuesday’s agenda call for approving preliminary engineering reviews (PERs) on proposed Cedar Bayou projects. (See highlighted items 124, 125, 126, 127, and 128.) These studies could easily cost $5 million.

Diversion Likely Tied to Ellis’ Redistricting Recommendation

The attempted diversion likely ties into the Democratic redistricting plan proposed last Thursday. Democrat Rodney Ellis’ plan calls for putting the Cedar Bayou watershed in Republican Jack Cagle’s precinct. So Garcia would no longer have responsibility for Cedar Bayou and Cagle would have no money to build improvements.

Yet Garcia could spend the money now within the boundaries of a newly redrawn Precinct 2 (see blue area below) to help his re-election chances.

Proposed new Harris County Precinct Boundaries in Ellis Plan
Proposed new Harris County Precinct Boundaries in Ellis Plan. Lines represent existing precinct boundaries. Colors represent boundaries proposed by Democrats. Most of the blue area is already incorporated. Purple area on upper right contains Cedar Bayou and would shift from Garcia’s Precinct 2 to Cagle’s Precinct 4. That area is already largely Republican and hurts Garcia’s election chances.

Garcia’s seat was widely regarded as the most vulnerable on Commissioners Court. Losing it could cost Democrats a majority and they are loathe to let that happen.

Political Payback?

But another question remains. Why even conduct the preliminary engineering studies if there would not be enough money to implement the recommendations? The rationale could relate to political payback.

Campaign finance reports show that the principals of one recommended company (Item 124), Binkley and Barfield, Inc., donated tens of thousands of dollars to Garcia.

  • Barfield $3,400 on 5/25/2021
  • Binkley $3,300 on 5/25/2021
  • Barfield $3,300 on 6/24/20
  • Binkley $3,300 on 6/23/20
  • Barfield $10,000 on 1/28/2019
  • Binkley $10,000 on 1/28/2019

That totals $33,300 dollars – long after one election and even longer before another.

The political action committee for another recommended company (Item 126), HR Green, donated $20,000:

  • HR Green Texas PAC $5,000 on 5/11/21
  • HR Green Texas PAC $5,000 on 12/09/20
  • HR Green Texas PAC $4,000 on 12/17/19
  • HR Green Texas PAC $1,000 on 2/1/19
  • HR Green Texas PAC $5,000 on 12/6/18

Very curious timing! Again, long after one election and even longer before another. It certainly merits further investigation. So do links to the other engineering companies on Tuesday’s agenda. But that will take more time.

I am not implying that Binkley and Barfield are not qualified. I’m not implying they “bought” the job. And I’m not suggesting a quid pro quo exists between their donations and Garcia’s recommendation. I have no proof that any promises were made between Binkley, Barfield and Garcia. However…

It’s bizarre that a Commissioner would recommend an expensive study that will likely never be acted on – especially when better uses for the money exist.

HCFCD.org shows that such studies can easily cost a million dollars. A quick search turned up six ranging from $650,000 to $1.2 million. (Note: In fairness, some of that would have to go to subcontractors for things such as surveying and soil testing.)

But $5 million in wasted studies could easily repair a drainage ditch somewhere and give people some real help instead of false hope.

Separating Facts from Speculation

Most of what I’m talking about in this post is fact. But some thoughts admittedly cross into speculation when I discuss decisions that have not yet been made.

Flood Mitigation Less Expensive Before Development

The Cedar Bayou watershed is largely rural now, but will develop rapidly as construction of the Grand Parkway moves south to I-10.

After the watershed develops, flood mitigation costs will escalate exponentially. We have seen this along Halls, Greens and Brays Bayous. Without buyouts, there simply isn’t enough room to implement flood mitigation projects in those areas.

HCFCD’s Frontier Program buys up land in developing areas, such as the Cedar Bayou watershed, so flood-mitigation projects can be located in optimal areas before land prices skyrocket. After developing floodwater detention capacity that would mitigate future development, the Flood Control District then sells capacity back to developers to recoup its costs.

Grand Parkway extension near Cedar Bayou shows vast new areas opening up for development.

One Pro Vs Multiple Cons

On the other hand, the wording of Cedar-Bayou-related motions shows how the three Democrats will attempt to justify transferring the money. They are saying it can help more people sooner in other locations. That could be true, but without knowing where the money will go, we can’t verify it.

What they aren’t telling you is that:

  • If these motions are successful, Cedar Bayou will be left without money to implement PER recommendations.
  • There’s very little unincorporated area in the new Precinct 2 recommended in the Ellis Plan. And the county’s primary mission is to help unincorporated areas. Cities are supposed to fund their own flood mitigation.
  • Garcia will gain political favor during his re-election campaign if he can bring $191 million to the mayors within his newly redrawn precinct.
  • Voters did not approve eliminating Cedar Bayou projects.

So much for transparency in county government!

The Big Lebowski

As Lebowski said, “This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you’s.”

Only two things are certain:

First, the Democrats are breaking a promise. They are going against the will of voters.

Second, if this all comes to pass, someone will have to tell angry Cedar Bayou residents what happened to their flood-bond allocation. And right now, that someone will likely be Jack Cagle or an HCFCD employee. Not Adrian Garcia.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/23/2021, updated with more campaign spending data on 10/25/21

1516 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

HCFCD Issues Update on Bond Spending In Advance of Harvey’s Fourth Anniversary

Last Friday, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) issued a 37-page report detailing spending on 2018 flood-bond projects to date. It was attached to the agenda for the Harris County Commissioner’s Court meeting on Tuesday, August 24, 2021.

Total spent by watershed from all sources as part of HCFCD bond program. One of ten similar maps in the report.

Background

Late this week and early next will be the fourth anniversary of Harvey’s four day rampage through the Houston area. The storm broke so many records that NOAA retired its name. A year later, still reeling from the storm’s effects, Harris County voters approved a $2.5 billion bond issue to catch up with decades of chronic underfunding for HCFCD.

Since then, the rate of spending on flood mitigation projects has more than doubled. And the rate will accelerate even more as more projects move from engineering to construction.

High-Level Findings

Three years into a 10-year bond, HCFCD has spent slightly more than 30% of the money. That puts them exactly on track time-wise.

Among other things, the full report released last Friday shows that:

  • 175 of 181 bond projects have been initiated
  • $251 million in contracts have been awarded to engineering companies
  • $552 million in contracts have been awarded for construction of capital improvements and repairs.
  • 27 projects have completed, removing 11,000 homes from 100-year floodplains
  • Another 660 buyouts have been completed with another 662 in process.

Back in 2018, the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) vowed to be open and transparent with bond funds. This report shows how, when, and where it spent the public’s money.

Accurate Snapshot of Progress

Until now, HCFCD’s website was the primary means for communicating with the public. But information was scattered across hundreds of pages and updates took place incrementally. That meant information on some watersheds was current and others could be months old. That made it difficult to get an accurate snapshot of progress.

To rectify this problem, HCFCD last week released the first in a series of new monthly reports. It gives everybody in every watershed information about what’s happening that affects them…at a glance.

Types of Information Included

The first report is 37 pages and tracks spending through the end of July 2021.

It’s broken down into a series of sections that include:

  • An introduction that summarizes active bond projects, grants, local partner funding, buyouts, contracts awarded, projects completed, community engagement, floodplain preservation, selective clearing and turf establishment
  • A visual timeline that tracks the progress of projects by month and year
  • Key performance metrics
  • Recent news
  • A GANNT chart showing the stages and progress of every single project approved by voters
  • Eight maps showing cumulative spending from different sources of funding
  • Two maps showing the location and spending to date on all active construction and maintenance projects in the county.

The Ultimate Go-To Doc on Where Your Money Has Gone

This is the ultimate go-to document for everyone who wants to know what’s happening near them. And HCFCD vows to update it monthly.

If you compare this to articles I previously published on funding, keep in mind that this data includes:

  • Four more months of spending
  • Only spending starting August 2018 (approval of the bond fund).

So numbers may vary from posts you see on ReduceFlooding’s Funding page. I also included historical spending going back to 2000 to help put the current spending in context.

Replacing Fear with Facts

All in all, HCFCD’s monthly spending reports will advance the public dialog. It will be good to have discussions based on facts, not just fear.

Flooding is one of the most terrible things that can happen to someone. It produces lasting trauma and alters the trajectory of lives.

To complicate matters, not many people understand what a flood control project is. They may see a jogging trail in a park and not realize it is a massive flood detention basin. They may not realize that a channel through their neighborhood has been widened. And they likely don’t know how to track historical gage data to see if their neighborhoods are flooding from bayous or streets.

This report won’t solve all those problems. But it will go a long way toward helping people understand they have not been forgotten.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/22/2021

1454 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Changes to ReduceFlooding: New “Funding” Page

I have made two major changes to ReduceFlooding.com by adding a new page dedicated to “Funding” and removing the “High Rise” page from the menu.

High-Rise Issue No Longer Topical, Funding Is

Funding is a hot topic at the moment and the high-rise battle is over…at least for now. Even though I removed the high-rise page from the menu, I did not delete it. Historical researchers can still find it by searching for “High Rise.” If the topic becomes active in the future, I will restore it to the menu again.

The Funding Page contains links to every funding post since 2019 when the equity debate first arose and commissioners adopted an “equity prioritization framework.” That framework put projects in low-to-moderate-income watersheds at the front of the line. And now some are trying to cancel projects in affluent watersheds to send more money to low-income watersheds that have already received hundreds of millions of dollars.

Learn Where Your Money is Going

The Funding page is broken into two parts. The left contains a summary of the equity debate and how it has evolved in the last three years. It also contains links to the volumes of data obtained from Harris County via Freedom-of-Information-Act requests, as well as statistical analysis of the data. The right part contains links to every related post published since the equity debate started.

Collecting all information related to funding in one place should make it easy for people to find information about their watersheds and where their money is going.

Please explore and send me feedback. I’m always eager to make ReduceFlooding better. And if you see information in the media that is demonstrably false, please send them to the Funding page to find the real data.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/29/2021

1430 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.

Baseless Claims of Historic Racism, White Supremacy in Allocation of Flood Funds

Members of the Northeast Action Collective (NAC) have falsely alleged “historic racism” in the allocation of flood-mitigation funds. And without evidence, the group also cited “a rising white supremacist movement” in Harris County as a reason to move money from high-income to low-income watersheds “as quickly as possible.”

Analysis of historical funding data obtained from Harris County via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request shows that minority and low-income watersheds have received the lion’s share of funds since 2000. Yet at the 6/29/21 Harris County Commissioners Court meeting, NAC members claimed the opposite.

From Baseless to Bizarre

“Historic racism” and “white supremacy” were just two of dozens of baseless and bizarre claims in the group’s manifesto.

NAC also claimed that:

  • It is “fighting for better drains and more regular drain upkeep.” NAC then blames the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) for being insensitive to residents needs. Perhaps that’s because HCFCD is not responsible for street drainage; the City and (in unincorporated areas of Harris County) Precinct Commissioners are.
  • “The City won’t pay attention to neighborhoods where Black and Brown people live” … even as they complained to County Commissioners.
  • HCFCD has “underfunded” Greens and Halls Bayous for decades while ignoring the fact that the entire county was underfunded before the 2018 flood bond.
  • HCFCD needs more transparency, even though NAC ignored readily available information about HCFCD spending.
  • The flood bond was supposed to counteract historic racism, even though the language approved by voters never mentions race.

These claims deserve closer scrutiny. Let’s look at some of the most serious falsehoods.

Racial Equity Not in Flood-Bond Language

NAC claims the flood-bond promised racial equity in the distribution of funds; it didn’t. The text of the flood bond never mentions race, minorities, historic underinvestment, income, social justice, social vulnerability or any of the other things NAC says it does. Those concepts were all heaped onto the one mention of “equitable” in the bond language (paragraph 14G). It puts equity in a geographic context with a prefatory clause focused on political boundaries. (“Since flooding issues do not respect jurisdictional or political boundaries, the Commissioners Court shall provide a process for the equitable distribution of funds…).

Areas, such as Lake Houston, asked to include that because flood mitigation requires upstream detention in other counties. The inability to cross political boundaries for flood mitigation would handicap areas near the county line forever.

Historic Racism Not Evident in Funding

NAC claims “historic racism” in flood mitigation funding, but refuses to acknowledge historic advantages in funding:

  • Eight minority and low-income watersheds (out of 23 total) received 71% of all HCFCD capital funds between 2000 and Harvey. ($1.1 billion out of $1.5 billion.) The other 15 higher income watersheds split the remaining $400 million. So “historic racism” in funding does not exist, at least not in Harris County and not at HCFCD. See links to data and related articles below.
  • Out of 23 watersheds, Halls and Greens Bayou Watersheds alone received $222 million between 2000 and Harvey. That’s 15% of all funding during those years.
  • They also received another $200 million out of $1.1 billion spent since Harvey – 18%.
HCFCD Capital-Improvement Spending between 2000 and Harvey arranged by percentage of low-to-moderate income (LMI) residents. Halls has the highest LMI % and Little Cypress the lowest. The top eight watersheds (darker blue) have LMI percentages above 50%; the others below. Data obtained via FOIA request.
New detention basin at Hopper and US59, photographed in April. One of four new basins in the Halls Bayou watershed that doesn’t exist according to NAC.

“Rising White Supremacist Movement” Not Seen in Funding or Evidence

NAC claims, “The most viable path to equity is to reallocate money for projects in wealthier watersheds to projects in watersheds with predominantly BIPOC and LMI residents.” (BI-POC stands for Black, Indigenous and People of Color. LMI stands for Low-to-Moderate Income.) But NAC doesn’t stop there.

Because of “a rising white supremacist movement in Texas and the county, and decades of underinvestment, the only strategy rooted in justice is to move as much money as quickly as possible to low-income watersheds.”

Northeast Action Coalition

Then NAC claims that its members do not believe that “current HCFCD leadership is actually committed to racial equity or justice.” I guess they don’t get out in the neighborhood much and look at all the flood-mitigation projects going in!

One of three new detention basins under construction in the Greens Bayou Watershed. It doesn’t exist either according to NAC.

Demand for Transparency That Already Exists

The NAC manifesto also demands, “full transparency on spending.” Yet:

  • HCFCD supplied historical funding data going back more than two decades. NAC and partner organizations ignored it.
  • All HCFCD spending is audited.
  • HCFCD’s website details spending and projects in each watershed.
  • It also shows – by watershed – all active construction and maintenance projects, and their value.
  • All HCFCD expenditures are approved by Commissioners in open, public meetings.

When Commissioners Ellis and Garcia claim that all the funding is going to rich watersheds and none to poor watersheds, they should know better. They approved all the money going to low-income areas!

The Real Problem

In the 18 years between 2000 and Harvey, the Flood Control District had only $1.5 billion to spend on capital improvement projects. Even with partner funding, that works out to only a little more than $80 million per year. According to multiple sources, for decades HCFCD had to save up money – sometimes for years – to afford construction projects. So, in some years, there were NO flood-mitigation projects at all, anywhere in the county.

Despite that, eight LMI watersheds received $1.1 billion out of $1.5 billion total dollars. That’s 71% of all capital spending – hardly “historic racism” or evidence of “white supremacy.” The other 15 more affluent watersheds combined got only 29%.

The sad fact is that no one in Harris County got enough flood-control dollars to prevent flooding before Harvey. It took Harvey to wake voters up to the need for better flood control.

In fairness, as I have shown in related articles below, minority, low-income watersheds did suffer a disproportionate share of damage in the last two decades. But dollars have flowed to that damage. Those damaged communities have received the vast majority of flood-mitigation funds.

Halls and Greens didn’t flood because of racism. And shouting racism from the rooftops won’t fix their flooding problems. It will only cloud issues and divide people.

For More Information

In early March, I submitted a FOIA request to Harris County for capital improvement funds by watershed dating back to 2000. Here is the county’s response: HCFCDs historical construction funding by watershed.

I then compiled a summary spreadsheet that includes related information, such as population and watershed size, also supplied by the County in response to my FOIA request.

After analysis, I published these findings:

Also, here are several articles with aerial photos that show what the money bought.

Finally, here’s an article about how Commissioner’s filled a potential shortfall in partnership funds to prevent possible delays in construction of flood mitigation projects. Trust To Fully Fund Flood Mitigation Projects Without Partner Assistance For At Least Next Six Years.

Posted by Bob Rehak on July 7, 2021

1408 Days after 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 Creates Trust To Fully Fund Flood Mitigation Projects Without Partner Assistance For At Least Next Six Years

On Tuesday, 6/29/21, Harris County commissioners voted unanimously to shift Harris County Toll Road Authority and other county funds into a trust designed to help bridge potential shortfalls in partnership funding. The amount would be $40 million per year. As a result, construction of Flood Bond Projects can continue without interruption or delay for at least the next six years. If more partnership funding materializes during that time, funds deposited in the trust could help cover non-bond projects farther into the future.

The issue of a potential shortfall in bond funding boiled into headlines back in March. Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis demanded to know where the money would come from to finish construction projects in Halls and Brays Bayou Watersheds if partnership funds did not materialize as planned. He gave Budget Management and the Flood Control District three months to develop a plan for backstop funding.

As of June 2021, HCFCD Needed to Find Additional $951 Million

When considering all flood-bond projects – not just those in Halls and Greens watersheds – the situation looks like this as of the end of June. See explanation of chart below.

As of 6/28/21, without any additional partnership funding, the potential need could be $951 million.

In 2018, voters approved a $2.5 billion flood bond that included $5 billion worth of projects (first column). Part of the $2.5 billion voters approved (third column) was designed to help attract another $2.5 billion in partnership funding. But only $1.25 billion has materialized so far (fourth column). With other transfers already made (fifth, sixth and seventh columns), that leaves a need of $951 million.

Commissioners wanted to know where that money could come from. Especially after HCFCD received nothing in a statewide competition for $1.1 billion in US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) hazard mitigation funds. General Land Office Commissioner Bush later requested a direct allocation of $750 million for Harris County, but that could take years – if it comes.

Trust Not a Substitute for Partnership Funding

The county intends to step up the search for partner funding. But if that funding does not materialize, it has also created a Flood Resilience Trust. The Trust would:

  • Backstop the 2018 Bond Program
  • Mitigate risks of increased construction costs
  • Potentially fund future flood risk reduction projects beyond the 2018 Bond Program

The Trust does not eliminate the need for partner funding. If partner funds materialize as hoped, HCFCD can use any excess money in the trust to construct future flood mitigation projects beyond the bond program.

The graphic below shows that $489 million has already been identified and allocated to the trust from various sources. The new element added on Tuesday (column six) includes $343 million in HCTRA funds. With rounding and other funds, that would help create a proposed Flood Resilience trust of $833 million to help cover the $951 need.

$40 Million Transfer Per Year from Toll Road Funds

Approximately $40 million per year would be transferred into the trust (red line in chart below). That should cover any unsecured spending through about 2027. By then, hopefully, HCFCD will have identified more partnership funds.

Commissioners spent a considerable amount of time debating the legality of transferring toll road funds to flood mitigation projects. The consensus: toll road development has impacted flooding in Harris County. Flood Control identified a $15 billion need to mitigate increased stormwater runoff caused by historical development of roadways. So, it should not be hard to find a transportation connection to most flood control projects that would satisfy auditors.

Equity Prioritization Framework Will Apply to Trust

The pie chart below shows the weights that will be given to various factors when deciding which projects to develop first with the additional funds.

Weighting in new prioritization framework

This differs slightly from the original equity prioritization framework. Compare the table below.

Weighting in 2019 Equity Prioritization Framework

They seem substantially similar, but the names of some factors have changed. For instance:

  • “Cost per structure” has replaced “project efficiency.”
  • “Flooding Frequency” has replaced “Existing Conditions/Drainage Level of Service.”
  • “Structures Benefitted” has replaced “Flood Risk Reduction.”

Cost per structure is not home value. It is the cost of the project divided by the number of homes benefitted.

“Structures Benefitted” counts the number of structures only, not the the value of those structures.

Thus, this factor gives more weight to densely developed urban areas.

Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have complained bitterly and repeatedly that FEMA Benefit/Cost Ratios for flood mitigation projects include a weighting factor for home value that theoretically gives higher preference to affluent neighborhoods. But that’s only one of many factors that FEMA considers.

This report from William & Mary’s law school explains that “impoverished communities may receive a Federal cost share of up to 90 percent of the total amount approved under the Federal award to implement eligible approved activities in accordance with the Stafford Act, but these communities must meet stringent criteria to receive funding.”

Regardless, I see no weight given to more valuable homes in Harris County’s prioritization guidelines. In fact, the density factor and social vulnerability combine for 45% of a project’s total score.

The biggest problem with this framework is that it doesn’t differentiate between street flooding and bayou flooding. Additional flood control projects for the bayous may not help homes that flood due to water collecting in streets.

For More Information

Here’s the full presentation made by the Flood Control District’s new acting director, Alan Black. And here’s a high-level summary prepared by the Harris County Budget Management Department.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/1/2021 based on information provided by Harris County Flood Control and Budget Management departments

1402 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Flood-Mitigation Funding Flows to Damage, Not High-Income Neighborhoods

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

For two years, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia have alleged that rich watersheds get all the flood-mitigation funding, while poor and minority watersheds get none. But data suggests that is far from the truth.

Three months ago, the din from Ellis and Garcia reached a crescendo. I became so alarmed about the allegations of racism in flood-mitigation funding, that I submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request to Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) for historical funding data by watershed. I also requested related data such as watershed size, damaged structures, the number of low-to-moderate-income (LMI) residents, and more.

Data Contradicts Ellis/Garcia Narrative

My analysis contradicted the carefully crafted Ellis/Garcia narrative. I found the exact opposite of what they claimed.

The most dollars flow to low-income watersheds which, coincidentally, have the most flood damage.

The strongest correlation I found with flood-mitigation “funding” since 2000 was “damaged structures.” And the percentage of low-to-moderate income residents in a neighborhood correlates very strongly to damage per square mile.

When you think about this, it makes sense. We put the most flood-control dollars in areas that flood the most.

Damage Per-Square Mile Correlates Highly with LMI %

To understand patterns in the data, one must start by evaluating damage “per square mile.” That’s because high- and low-income watersheds differ radically in size and number.

  • Harris County has only eight low-to-moderate income watersheds, but 15-high income watersheds.
  • The low-income watersheds are half the total size – 600 square miles vs. 1176 square miles.

When looking at damage on a per square mile basis, the highest concentrations occur in low-income neighborhoods.

LMI percentage and damaged structures per square mile have a 0.82 coefficient of correlation. Mathematicians consider that very strong. 1.0 is the highest you can get, a perfect correlation.

Damage includes structures flooded in four major storms since 2000 (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey).

Low-income watersheds cluster on the left and high-income watersheds on the right because of “Damage,” not racial discrimination in mitigation funding. Mitigation dollars already overwhelming flow to minority and low-income neighborhoods as they have for decades.

Flood-Control Dollars Flow to Damage

There’s also a strong relationship between total funding and total damage. Notice how the shape of the curves align closely with a few exceptions.

Total funding since 2000 and the number of damaged structures show a 0.84 coefficient of correlation. Mathematicians consider that very strong.

You can see a general downward trend in both blue and orange, indicating a strong correlation. This relationship supports other statistical analyses in this series. (See links to previous articles listed below.)

At the highest level, when you look at the data from multiple perspectives, one thing stands out: 

Dollars flow to damage, not affluent watersheds.

Possible Causal Links Between LMI Percentage, Damage and Funding

Touring lower income watersheds by car or helicopter helps explain why those watersheds have so much more damage and consequently receive so much more funding. In general, they:

  • Are much more densely packed with buildings, a consequence of more than twice the population density (3,900 residents/square mile compared to 1,600).
  • Have more impervious cover, so water can’t soak in as quickly or as much
  • Tend to crowd floodways and floodplains, which have expanded over time with upstream development
  • Are downstream from rapidly growing areas.
  • Are 70 to 80 years old and therefore built to lower development standards
  • Have many homes that sit almost at street level instead of being elevated above it.
  • Have many clogged roadside ditches and storm drains, due to poor maintenance by county precinct crews and the City of Houston’s Public Works Department. (Water has a hard time getting out of neighborhoods.)
  • Have more structures per acre.

Re: the last point, in Kashmere Gardens (an LMI neighborhood), I found six homes on a third of an acre worth more than my house on a full acre in Kingwood. The density can offset higher home values in suburban neighborhoods when calculating Benefit/Cost Ratios for FEMA or HUD.

Flood-Mitigation Funding by Watershed Since 2000

Here’s how much money each watershed received for capital improvement projects since 2000. No maintenance dollars or dollars committed to complete projects are included – only dollars “out the door” as of the end of March 2021.

The graph above dramatizes two things: 

  • The wide variation from high to low. Luce Bayou received only $4.5 million while Brays received $510 million. That’s 113 to 1.
  • A few watersheds received multiples of the average and median, while far more received a small fraction.

Funding Data Disproves Racist Allegations

Remember that the next time you hear the allegations of racial discrimination from Ellis and Garcia. This discussion shouldn’t be about race. It should be about fixing flooding problems.

The government is not funding flood-control projects in rich areas that didn’t experience flood damage. It funds them in areas that had the MOST damage. Those just happen to be in minority and low-income neighborhoods. And it is critical that people focus on WHY those structures flooded if we are to find solutions. 

Implying that they flooded because of racial bias is misdirection. The racial allegations divide and distract people. They also keep HCFCD, from focusing on real solutions to our flooding problems. That harms all voters in Harris County.

If commissioners continue to focus on race, it will prove they care more about political gamesmanship than fixing drainage.

While that may win them re-election, we all lose.

For More Information

For more information, see: 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/28/2021

1399 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.

Looking Through the Wrong End of the Drainpipe: The Politics of Misdirection

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

For the last two years, I’ve heard the same tirades in Commissioners’ Court – that rich neighborhood’s get all the flood-mitigation money while the poor neighborhoods get none. According to Commissioners Ellis and Garcia, that’s because higher home values in rich neighborhoods generate higher Benefit/Cost Ratios and therefore get more FEMA grants. Problem is, FEMA looks at many other factors. And HUD grants favor low-income neighborhoods. But you never hear Ellis or Garcia talk about those.

In reality, most flood mitigation-money in Harris County goes to watersheds with high percentages of low-income residents. (See links to previous posts below.)

By focusing on a narrow part of the flood-mitigation funding process as opposed to outcomes, Ellis and Garcia have been looking though the wrong end of the telescope. Why? To focus attention on the wrong end of the drainpipe! 

In the most flooded parts of Halls and Greens watersheds, street after street has clogged ditch drains. Responsibility for cleaning those drains falls onto, you guessed it, Ellis and Garcia, along with their counterpart at the City of Houston, Mayor Sylvester Turner.

Simple FOIA Request Disproves Narrative

The Ellis/Garcia narrative just didn’t sound right to me. So I submitted a Freedom-of-Information-Act (FOIA) request to the Harris County Flood Control District in March for historical funding data. I wanted to see if the allegations were true. They’re not.

Analysis shows that the Ellis/Garcia narrative is 180-degrees from the truth. By almost any statistical measure, flood-mitigation spending favors the poorer watersheds in Harris County. That’s where most of the damage is. 

Surely Commissioners Ellis and Garcia can’t be oblivious to more than a billion dollars of construction benefitting their own precincts. 

And had they bothered to look, they would have found Kingwood, their favorite whipping boy, has never received one Harris County Flood Control District Capital Improvement Project.

Verbal Sleight of Hand Deflects Attention from Who’s Responsible

So, what’s going on here? Why the constant barrage of racial accusations and divisive rhetoric? 

In my opinion, the deception, omissions and distortions of fact are about misdirection.

They seem designed to deflect attention from those responsible for a crucial part of the problem: street drainage.

And if you don’t fix that, you will never solve flooding no matter how much money you throw at channel widening, detention ponds and green solutions.

A process engineer in the oil and gas industry once told me, “There’s always a bottleneck in every system somewhere.” And one of the biggest issues in neighborhoods that flood repetitively is street drainage. Water can’t get out of the neighborhoods to the bayous.  

Poor Ditch Maintenance Contributes to Street Flooding

By alleging racism in the HCFCD funding, Commissioners Ellis and Garcia are deflecting attention from a serious issue; many of the neighborhoods in their jurisdictions have awful internal drainage (streets and storm sewers) that contribute to frequent street flooding. Street flooding happens when high rainfall rates exceed the capacity of storm drains and ditches to carry the water away. The reduced capacity of the ditches below makes the streets flood on smaller rains.

Swale filled with sediment, almost totally blocking drain on Kashmere Street between Octavia and Engleford in Kashmere Gardens. City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.
Ignacio Vasquez has lived in Kashmere Gardens for 45 years. He says he has called 311 about blocked drains like this one on Engleford St. “thousands of times”, but they never get fixed. City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.

Vasquez says that after a heavy rain, this drain backs water up throughout his neighborhood and contributes to flooding. He says it can take up to 3-4 days for water to drain away. Completely unprompted, he then said that Kingwood was getting all the help from the City. I told him that I lived in Kingwood and that our drains were just as bad as his. See below.

Drainage swale on Valley Manor Drive in Kingwood is completely filled in. City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.

But I digress. Here are some more street drainage photos taken on 6/26/21 in Halls and Greens Bayou Watersheds as well as Kashmere Gardens on the southeast corner of US59 and Loop 610.

Wherever I drove for five hours, residents repeatedly told me that because of poor maintenance, water has a hard time getting out of neighborhoods. It must either sink in or evaporate. See below.

Amboy and Octavia Streets. City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.
On Octavia just east of Amboy St. City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.
Etheline St. near Korenek St. Harris County Precinct 1’s maintenance responsibility.
Octavia St. near Kashmere Street. City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.

To be fair, not all the ditches were this bad. But I saw thousands like these on hundreds of streets while driving around for five hours. Sometimes sediment almost completely covered drains. I often had hard times spotting the pipes.

On north side of Laura Koppe just east of Arkansas Street. Harris County Precinct 2’s maintenance responsibility.
On Kowis Street a few hundred feet east of the Hardy Tollroad. Harris County Precinct 2’s maintenance responsibility.

The saddest sight I saw all day was this home on Etheline Street between Homestead and US59.

Note the mold and rotting exterior. Also note how close to street level this home is. Harris County Precinct 1’s maintenance responsibility.
Red circle shows location of drain completely blocked by sediment. Harris County Precinct 1’s maintenance responsibility.
Sixteen more representative shots in Harris County Precinct 1, Precinct 2 and City.

With drainage this bad, water may evaporate or infiltrate faster than it flows out of neighborhoods!

Who is Responsible for Streets and Storm Sewers?

Who is responsible for clearing blockages like these? Not the Harris County Flood Control District.

Inside the City of Houston, it is the Houston Public Works Department and a mayor who has been sued for diverting drainage fees.

Who is responsible for the unincorporated areas of Harris County? The Precincts. And the worst drainage happens in Precincts One and Two with Commissioners Ellis and Garcia.

  • Why does Kashmere Gardens (in the City) have open ditch drainage that hasn’t been maintained in years?  
  • How do areas in East Aldine still have barely functional roadside ditches and residents who do not have municipal water and sewer service?  

Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have the power and the money to address these issues. Yet they have chosen not to. Why have they not helped the very people they claim are left behind?  

Show Us the Data

It is important to note the questions NOT being asked in this so-called “equity” debate. 

  • How much has the City of Houston invested in these flood-damaged areas to remediate drainage?  
  • How much have Precincts 1 and 2 invested?  
  • What drainage projects have they completed since 2000?
  • What is the capital improvement plan for each precinct, and how much of that includes drainage improvements?
  • What is the equity prioritization framework for precinct spending?
  • How much unspent money does each precinct have for infrastructure?

The answers may point right back at the people making racial accusations.

The City and Commissioners Ellis and Garcia need to provide answers. Let’s see the data. How much have the City and the Precincts spent in these areas? If these areas are underserved, Commissioners Ellis and Garcia, and Mayor Turner are responsible.

They have claimed transparency is important to them. The time to prove that is now. 

Blaming the problems on racial discrimination is an easy sell in minority neighborhoods. But it’s misdirection and it keeps the spotlight off Commissioners.

Hounding talented executives like Russ Poppe, the soon to be ex-head of the flood control district, out of their jobs won’t fix the issue either. That’s also misdirection.

And it diverts focus from finding solutions to the real problems that contribute to flooding. For that, many people need look no further than the end of their driveways.

We all need to step back and look at flooding from end to end. Then maybe we’ll make life easier for the most vulnerable people among us.

For More Information

For more information, see: 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/27/2021

1398 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.

Watersheds with Low Voter Turnout Get Most Flood-Mitigation Funding

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

In August of 2018, Harris County voters approved a historic flood bond of $2.5 billion. Afterwards, KTRK ABC13 created an interactive precinct-by-precinct voter turnout map for the referendum.  Now, with spending data for flood mitigation projects in hand, we can see that, in general, but not in every case:

  • Watersheds with the highest turnout are getting the least money
  • Those with the lowest turnout are getting the most money.

Ironically, the worst-damaged areas generally had the lowest turnout.

Four Maps Tell Story

Let’s start by looking at four maps. They show: 

  • Location of six low-income watersheds used in a quartile analysis
  • Location of six six high-income watersheds used in the same analysis
  • Voter turnout for the 2018 Harris County flood-bond referendum
  • Damage from Harvey

Ironically, low-income watersheds had the lowest turnout for the 2018 flood-bond referendum and they’re getting the vast majority of flood mitigation funding.

Previous articles in this series have shown that, out of 23 watersheds in Harris County, six low-income watersheds:

Location of Lowest Income Watersheds

The low-income watersheds are all located primarily inside the Beltway.

Most of Greens Bayou is inside Beltway 8, though a portion of it wanders just outside.

Location of Watersheds with Highest Income

Now let’s look at the location of the six high-income watersheds.

High-income watersheds are all outside the beltway.

Who Approved that $2.5 Billion Flood Bond?

Now look at the voter turnout map below from the 2018 flood bond referendum. 

  • Light areas had the lowest voter turnout. 
  • Dark areas had the highest voter turnout. 

Note the area inside the yellow outline. It contains all the watersheds that Commissioners Ellis and Garcia complain about the most as having the least funding: Greens, Halls, Hunting, White Oak and Sims.

To see turnout in both absolute numbers and percentages in individual precincts, go to the interactive version of this map. Click on the visual above or here.

Some precincts in those watersheds had 0 voters. That’s right. No one showed up at the polls. At all. Many precincts had less than 1% turnout. Those light tan-colored areas generally had 1-5%. 

The darkest areas, such as those around Kingwood, had turnout in the 20 to 30% range – generally 5-20 times higher than in the neighborhoods where most of the money is going. 

In fact, Kingwood precincts had five of the top eight turnout percentages in the county. But Kingwood has NEVER received even ONE Harris County FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT capital improvement project.

Damage Concentrations

Compare damage in Harvey (below) with the area outlined in yellow in the map above.

When you consider these four maps together with the historical funding data discussed in previous posts (see links below), they show that most of the money is already going where most of the damage was. 

But large pockets of damage exist elsewhere that get comparatively little to no funding.

For instance, in the map above, note the curving arc of damage along Cypress Creek in the northern part of the county which extends into the Humble/Kingwood area.

People in those damaged areas turned out in high percentages for the flood bond. But they are seeing the vast majority of flood-mitigation projects being built in neighborhoods that didn’t even bother to vote in many cases. That doesn’t bode well for future bonds referendums.

Misleading Statements Undermine Trust in Government and Future

Some political leaders are telling poor people that flood-mitigation projects are all going to rich neighborhoods and the Houston Chronicle blindly repeats what they say without checking the real numbers. Or even bothering to mention projects already completed.

Twitter feed of Chronicle writer who wrote the article above.

But as I’ve shown in previous articles (see links below), depending on how you measure it, up to three quarters of the money is actually flowing to poor neighborhoods.

Funding in six highest and lowest income quartiles.
Funding in six low income watersheds compared to 15 higher income watersheds

Certain Harris County commissioners have fought to prioritize funding for minority and low-income neighborhoods. And in the next Commissioners Court meeting on Tuesday 6/29/21, they’re pushing to expand that prioritization framework to include future projects and funds. See Item 191 on the agenda.

Yet poor people believe all the money is going to rich watersheds – because that’s what their leaders tell them. And rich people see the lion’s share of the money going in the opposite direction.

Everyone believes someone else is getting the funding. So who would vote for another flood bond at this point? No one.

How are you going to convince people that taxed themselves $2.5 billion – and think they aren’t receiving any benefit from it – to vote for the next bond?

We need to restore trust in government by giving people accurate information, not misleading them with racial rhetoric for political gain. More on that tomorrow.

For More Information

For more information, see: 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/26/2021

1397 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.

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.”