The map below shows active HCFCD projects for January 2021. HCFCD says it updates the maps in the first week of each month. Projects that start after that may not show up until the following month. Active projects include both capital (new construction) and maintenance projects.
Click on the map to launch the app. Click on any project listed on the left or corresponding number on the map to review project description, budget and location in all Harris County Commissioners Court Precincts.
You will find both the legend and filters in the upper right corner. Red circles represent capital projects and black circles represent maintenance projects. To focus only on one type, click the layer icon in the far upper right. Press one type of project or the other to deselect it.
Capital projects include major projects that reduce flooding risks and damages by:
Increasing stormwater conveyance capacity in bayous and drainage channels
Excavating stormwater detention basins.
Stormwater detention basins reduce flooding risks and damages during heavy rain events by safely storing excess stormwater and slowly releasing it back to the bayou when the threat of flooding has passed.
More About Maintenance Projects
Maintenance projects include repair projects aimed at returning flood damage reduction channels and other infrastructure to their original designed level of performance by:
Repairing sinkholes, slope failures and other damage caused by erosion
Removing sediment that can reduce stormwater conveyance capacity.
Smaller maintenance projects grouped together under one construction contract are often given both individual Project Identification Numbers and an umbrella number that begins with the letter “Z,” since there is often more than one watershed involved in the group. “Z-packages” have numbers such as Z100-00-00-X223.
What Map Does NOT Include
This map does not include flood damage reduction studies or projects in other preliminary phases; smaller maintenance projects performed by Flood Control District work crews; or completed construction projects.
Equity?
One of the first things that strikes me about the January map is the lack of projects in the northeastern portion of the county. To be fair, two small maintenance projects have started in Kingwood since the map above was compiled. But still, a glance at the map shows that projects are heavily skewed toward the south, central and western sides of the county.
Example: The construction projects now underway on Brays, White Oak, and Hunting Bayous total more than $100 million. But there are ZERO construction projects underway in Kingwood, Humble, Huffman, Atascocita, Spring, Tomball, and Crosby – all areas hard hit by Harvey.
Commissioner’s Court has pushed the Flood Control District to start projects in lower income areas first based. A majority of commissioners worry that low income residents are less able to recover from floods. They also worry that money in the flood bond won’t cover all projects identified in the 2018 flood bond. Some have even talked about floating another bond.
Good luck with that if they don’t adopt a more equitable definition of “equity” which the 2018 flood bond promised!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/25/2021 based on public information provided by HCFCD
1145 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Screen-Shot-2021-01-25-at-11.31.31-AM.jpg?fit=1200%2C791&ssl=17911200adminadmin2021-01-25 12:56:142021-07-29 16:15:19How to Find Active HCFCD District Capital and Maintenance Projects
Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia are pushing the idea of a Community Resilience Task Force focused on helping socially vulnerable neighborhoods receive a higher percentage of the $2.5 billion flood bond.
Data obtained from HCFCD via the Freedom of Information Act shows that in Harris County…
…the two most socially vulnerable quartiles are FOUR TIMES more likely to receive a buyout.
HCFCD Buyouts Favor Socially Vulnerable Population 4:1
As of 7/28/2020. Source: Data obtained from HCFCD via FOIA request. Quartiles 3 and 4 are the most vulnerable on the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index.
Here’s how that looks as a pie chart.
HCFCD Buyouts by SVI Quartile. The two most socially vulnerable quartiles receive 80% of all buyouts.
This is not surprising. For months, Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia have pushed the District to incorporate the Social Vulnerability Index into its priorities. It has worked.
Do We Need More Balance?
Socially vulnerable neighborhoods get 80% of HCFCD buyouts and 79% of flood bond projects. Do those seem like fair percentages to you?
You can register your opinion from now until July 30th, 2020, via one of the following methods:
Email CRTF@cjo.hctx.net and submit comments digitally, beginning July 21
Join a virtual focus group via Zoom. After registering, participants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
For more information on the “equity bias,” see this series on “Where Flood Mitigation Dollars Have Really Gone.” It was developed a year ago so the focus is on historical spending.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Pie-Chart-Percent-Buyouts-by-Quartile.jpg?fit=1200%2C802&ssl=18021200adminadmin2020-07-28 23:20:122024-11-19 16:37:47HCFCD Data Shows Socially Vulnerable Zip Codes Receive 80% of Buyouts
Imagine you pull up to a stoplight and two needy people approach you for a handout. You want to help, but have only $1 in your pocket.
Do you give the dollar to the person who has not eaten for the longest time? Or to the person from the zip code with the highest percentage of minorities and lowest average household income?
As you may have guessed, the people at the stoplight are a metaphor for flood victims.
More Needs than Dollars
Harris County doesn’t have enough dollars to build every flood mitigation project that everyone needs. Flood mitigation requires tough choices.
So the County is setting up a supposedly unbiased task force to decide whom to help. But its composition will be biased toward people who believe flood bond money should favor low income, minority neighborhoods, i.e., the constituents of the three politicians pushing the task force (Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia).
Stacking the Jury
Look at the proposed overview and bylaws for the Community Resilience Task Force. You will see that they embed the concepts of equity, social justice, and social vulnerability into every recommendation the task force will make. For flood mitigation. Housing. Health. Construction. Urban planning. And more. For the next 30 years!
Proposed bylaws for the task force explicitly state that the members MUST demonstrate:
An interest in “equitable” flood mitigation.
Interest in socioeconomic and demographic factors that affect resilience.
So they are baking “equitable” into the job descriptions.
Difference Between Equitable and Equal
“Equitable” treatment sounds like “equal” treatment. But it’s not.
Treating people equally means treating them identically. Treating people equitably means treating them differently, but fairly.
For instance, handicapped people get to park closer to the door. That’s fair…based on need.
But what happens when you start making flood mitigation decisions on the basis of race, income, and social vulnerability? Is that fair to more affluent communities destroyed by flooding?
Because poor people have a harder time recovering from floods, they should get more protection from flooding. They can’t afford to flood (…as if anyone can).
Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia all advocate the use of a CDC social-vulnerability index and LMI (low-to-moderate-income) data to prioritize flood projects.
They argue in meeting after meeting that FEMA bases grant decisions on a benefit/cost ratio (BCR) that favors neighborhoods with more expensive homes. That’s true, but…
They never mention that Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grants for mitigation (CDBG-MIT) and disaster recovery (CDBG-DR) already favor poorer (LMI) neighborhoods.
Nor do they mention that the County has already received a BILLION dollars in CDBG-DR funds. Or that the Texas General Land Office is sitting on top of approximately $4.2 billion in CDBG-MIT funds that it’s trying to distribute. The vast majority of those funds must go toward LMI/socially vulnerable neighborhoods. (The exact percentages vary by storm and type of grant. But they often range up to 70%.)
Problems With Basing Flood-Mitigation Decisions on LMI Data
There are two more problems with basing flood-mitigation decisions on racial and LMI data.
First, it ignores need. Shouldn’t projects that help the largest numbers of people or the worst flooding be mitigated first?
Second, LMI data only comes by zip code. Zip codes can mask huge disparities in wealth. So even if you feel poor people deserve more flood protection than the middle class, it’s hard to ensure that result with zip code data. Elm Grove, for instance, is an LMI neighborhood embedded within an affluent zip code.
He did not mention Army Corps of Engineers grants to HCFCD for work on four bayous in his precinct. Nor did he mention that in the entire history of Harris County Flood Control (which dates back to 1937), not one federal dollar has ever been funneled through HCFCD by the Corps for work in the Lake Houston Area.
4 Out of 5 Flood Bond Projects in SVI Neighborhoods
How much have Ellis, Hidalgo and Garcia skewed flood bond spending to date?
During the Commissioners Court meeting on June 30, 2020, Harris County Flood Control was asked to prepare a report to document the status of flood bond risk reduction projects in socially vulnerable neighborhoods. See Item 2E on Tuesday’s Commissioners Court Agenda. It shows a startling fact.
Out of the 145 active bond projects, 79% are located in high or moderately high SVI areas.
Letter from HCFCD to Commissioners Court
The distribution looks like this.
79% of Flood Bond Projects are located in the most socially vulnerable neighborhoods; only 21% in the least socially vulnerable neighborhoods. Source: Memo to Commissioners Court from HCFCD.
If you live in a “socially vulnerable” neighborhood, you’re 4X more likely to have a flood bond project near you.
And those are just the projects based on Flood Bond money. The Flood Control District is also pursuing additional CDBG grants and Army Corps funding to help fund even more projects in socially vulnerable areas. Those projects are not reflected in these percentages.
Rushing Through Public Comment Period
One measure of how much Ellis, Hidalgo and Garcia want to institutionalize their own definitions of equity is that they’re giving only six more days for public comment with little public warning.
You can bet that the commissioners court meeting on the 28th will be packed with surrogate speakers for Ellis, Hidalgo and Garcia who favor the “equity bias.” They’ve shown up in Commissioners Court for months.
Why wouldn’t they? It’s worked. They now have 4 out of every 5 flood bond projects going into their neighborhoods and they could get even more if this task force goes through in its current form.
Meanwhile, the San Jacinto watershed, says the Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium, received 0% of the mitigation budget prior to Harvey, yet had 14% of the region’s damages during Harvey.
How Do We Decide What’s Fair?
So, should projects go to neighborhoods that:
Had the fewest flood mitigation projects?
Flooded the worst?
Help the greatest number of people for the dollars invested?
Are the poorest?
Or should the money be split equally or on some other basis?
Personally, I think decisions like these should be left in the hands of engineers, not partisan politicians.
Register Your Opinion
The County Judge’s office is inviting the public to share their thoughts and ideas on the proposed draft bylaws of the Task Force. You can register your opinion from now until July 30th, 2020, via one of the following methods:
Email CRTF@cjo.hctx.net and submit comments digitally, beginning July 21
Join a virtual focus group via Zoom. After registering, participants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Bond-Spending-by-SVI-Index.jpg?fit=1200%2C691&ssl=16911200adminadmin2020-07-24 17:07:032021-07-29 16:06:18Harris County Changing How It Will Choose Which Flood Projects to Support; Welcome to the “Equity Bias”
The last three posts on the equity flap have focused on how minority neighborhoods in Precinct 1 already receive more flood mitigation funding than affluent areas like Kingwood. Tonight, I focus on why that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. But first, a recap for context.
Biggest Beneficiary of Funding Claims Discrimination
Last Tuesday, the equity flap erupted again in Harris County Commissioners Court. Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis complained that because of historical discrimination (i.e., slavery, which was abolished more than 150 years ago), he needs to fight for “equity” in the distribution and implementation flood bond projects. Precinct 1 already receives the lion’s share of many types of funding.
What Mr. Ellis does not point out to the Commissioners Court is that Precinct One:
When talking about “historic discrimination,” Commissioner Ellis needs to shift his focus forward in time and look at other areas of the county that receive NO such joint projects and far fewer flood mitigation dollars. Take the San Jacinto Watershed, for instance. It contains Kingwood. Because of Kingwood’s affluence, it’s one of the favorite whipping boys for Commissioner Ellis and his surrogates who argue for equity. They keep bringing equity up every time a Kingwood-related item is on the Flood Control agenda at commissioners court. But the Kingwood/Lake Houston Area has NO such joint projects. Why?
Causes of Inequity
There are two reasons for this inequitable distribution: one obvious, one not so.
First, the obvious: The Houston region has grown from the downtown area outward. Precinct 1, which includes downtown, is older. Flood problems became apparent sooner. Precinct 1 documented problems, identified solutions, and rallied Federal support decades ago.
Commissioner Ellis’ predecessors also started this process decades ago and Precinct 1 enjoys the rewards today. As a consequence…
Buffalo Bayou and all of its tributaries are eligible for Corps support on non-emergency projects; the San Jacinto is not.
The Corps is working on Buffalo Bayou and all of its tributaries thanks to legislation passed years ago. The Cypress Creek watershed actually overflowed into the adjoining watershed during Harvey.For a complete Corps presentation on Buffalo Bayou and its tributaries, see this link.
Even though the problems in the Lake Houston Area have been building for decades, the danger didn’t become apparent until Harvey.
At this point, rallying the kind of Federal support that Precinct 1 has historically enjoyed will involve an act of Congress and Presidential approval. Literally. That’s an uphill battle compared to the battle that Mr. Ellis’ projects face.
Political Challenges for San Jacinto Watershed
A local sponsor, such as the City, would have to file an application for a project. Congressional representatives would have to get the President to build it into the annual budget, then include it in the Water Resources Development Act. Both houses of Congress would have to pass the act. The President would have to sign it. And then the government would have to distribute the money. The distribution usually happens in phases, after approval of each phase of a project, such as:
Feasibility study
Engineering and design
Construction, operation and maintenance
Changes after construction authorization
Changes after construction
It could easily take three to five years just to get the engineering and design phase on a project, such as additional flood gates for Lake Houston.
A second challenge: Mr. Ellis and his surrogates using unfounded “equity” arguments to further handicap and delay flood mitigation in the Lake Houston Area.
Damages in Lake Houston Area
Unfortunately, the sedimentation and conveyance problems on the San Jacinto only became apparent after decades of additional upstream development. That exacerbates flooding by funneling water to the river faster. In recent years, Conroe was the fastest growing city in America.
Then along came the Tax Day, Memorial Day and Hurricane Harvey floods. They deposited an estimated 5 to 10 million cubic yards of sediment in the East and West Forks. Much of that came from sand mines upstream of Lake Houston, which Lake Conroe inundated when it released 80,000 cubic feet per second at the peak of the storm. This further exacerbated flooding by backing water up in the river and drainage ditches.
Citing historical discrimination that goes back to pre-Civil-War days, Mr. Ellis argues for equity to increase his precinct’s share of flood mitigation dollars and to accelerate projects in his precinct.
As the data shows, his precinct already has far more than its fair share of mitigation dollars. Now, he threatens other areas, property and lives by delaying and usurping their aid.
If any area is underfunded and fighting discrimination now, it’s the Lake Houston Area. Ironically, the discrimination is coming from the Rodney Ellis’ of the world.
I don’t begrudge Precinct 1 a penny of the flood mitigation funds it has received to date. And I admire Mr. Ellis for fighting so hard for his constituents. However, I despise the way he does it.
Mr. Ellis represents one fourth of the people in the county. Yet he cries “equity” and ignores facts to usurp more than half of flood mitigation funding and put his Bond projects at the front of the construction line. I wish he would acknowledge:
The inequality that exists in current funding and that is likely to continue for years.
That a Kingwood, Humble, Atascocita or Huffman life is as valuable as a life in Precinct 1.
Facts.
Ironically, the Lake Houston Area argued for equity in the bond language to prevent the very kind of reverse discrimination that we are now seeing. We need to work together to mitigate flooding everywhere as quickly as we can. This equity flap is fanning racial flames that divide us, perpetuate distrust, delay mitigation, and threaten lives. It’s time to get on with the hard work at hand. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/28/2019
668 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/BBT.jpg?fit=1500%2C971&ssl=19711500adminadmin2019-06-27 23:07:522021-07-29 16:17:10Where the Flood Mitigation Dollars Have Really Gone: Part 4
Yesterday, the equity flap continued in Harris County Commissioners Court. Surrogates for Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis again took the podium to talk about how affluent neighborhoods deprived low-to-moderate neighborhoods of flood mitigation dollars. The argument they use: FEMA prefers buying out high dollar homes to reduce repetitive flood insurance losses.
Low-to-moderate-income neighborhoods by precinct in Harris County.
Harris County has four precincts; each has roughly the same number of people. In an equitable world, you would expect roughly 25% of the buyouts to be in each district. If there really is a “buyout bias” against low income neighborhoods, you would expect Precinct 1 to have less than 25%. But it doesn’t.
Precinct 1 Gets More Than Its Fair Share of Buyouts
Under the Freedom of Information Act, I requested the number of buyouts in Precinct 1 and other precincts since 2000. Once again, hard data contradicts the self-serving myth. Since 2000, when buyouts began in Precinct 1, HCFCD bought 955 homes in Precinct 1 and 2,413 homes in other precincts.
Precinct One has slightly more than its fair share of buyouts.
So where’s the discrimination in buyouts?
HCFCD is buying out homes faster than ever. To learn more about their process, visit this page. With FEMA funds from Harvey, HCFCD hopes to buy out 1,100 homes in the next few years. By comparison, the District bought out only 2,075 homes in the 32 years before Harvey.
Precinct 1 Gets More Than Its Fair Share of HCFCD Construction
In part one of this series, we learned that Precinct One gets the lion’s share of Harris County Flood Control District construction spending for flood mitigation.
Precinct One receives almost half of all Flood Control District spending on construction, leaving the other three precincts to divvy up the other half.
Precinct 1 Gets More Than Its Fair Share of Federal Benefits
In part 2 of this series, we also learned that five of the six active federally-funded flood mitigation construction projects in Harris County are on bayous that flow through Precinct One. No other precinct comes close to receiving that kind of support. That means Precinct One receives more benefits from federally funded flood mitigation projects than any other Precinct in Harris County.
Based on total estimated contributions when completed. Data source: Harris County 2018 Federal Report.
If Commissioner Ellis or his surrogates have any data to back up their claims of discrimination in flood mitigation spending, they should share it. In every commissioners court meeting they spout the same half truths to bolster their share of flood mitigation dollars. So far, it appears to be working quite well for them. And not so well for residents in other precincts.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/26/2019
666 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Buyouts.jpg?fit=1500%2C907&ssl=19071500adminadmin2019-06-26 17:22:492021-07-29 15:53:48Where Flood Mitigation Money Really Goes: Part Three
At Harris County Commissioners Court yesterday, “equity” proponents from low-to-moderate-income (LMI) neighborhoods in Precinct 1 again complained they weren’t getting their fair share of flood mitigation dollars. In crying “foul” over a perceived lack of buyout dollars, they ignore the fact that the bulk of Federal mitigation spending is on construction projects that benefit their precinct.
The Federal Government is contributing $814 million to joint HCFCD/Army Corps projects that benefit Precinct 1. Only one joint project in Harris County does NOT benefit Precinct 1.
Part One of this series focused on Harris County construction spending for flood mitigation. It found that Precinct 1, which is 78% African-American and Hispanic, received 47% of all Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) dollars spent on construction. That left three other precincts to divvy up the remaining half. But Federal contributions for construction spending are even more lopsided as the chart above shows.
2018 Federal and Harvey Reports Yield Surprises
In Part Two, I examine Federal construction spending in Harris County on joint Army Corps/HCFCD projects. Some are Corps-led; others County-led. Regardless, they all involve Federal contributions. Close review of the latest Federal Report from HCFCD and other information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveals some startling facts.
Precinct 1 benefitted from more Federally-backed projects than any other precinct.
Only one Federal project did not benefit Precinct 1.
Sims Bayou, which lies mostly within Precinct 1, was the only one of six Federal projects completed before Harvey. And it was one of the few bayous in the County that did not widely flood.
The Lake Houston Area received no Federal dollars for flood mitigation prior to 2018.
Federal Investments Ignored by Precinct 1 Activists
The only joint project actually completed before Hurricane Harvey was in Precinct One. It involved the widening of Sims Bayou and creating additional detention ponds. Together, these actions almost eliminated flooding during Harvey. A huge benefit to Precinct 1. See map below.
Sims Bayou in Precinct 1 was one of the few bayous in Harris County that did NOT come out of its banks during Harvey. See green arrow. The San Jacinto watershed (red arrow) flooded along its entire length and received NO Federal dollars prior to Harvey.
Sims Completed and Did Not Flood Widely
On page 6 of its Final Harvey Report, HCFCD states, “Sims Bayou was one of the few channels in the entire county that did not suffer widespread and extensive overbank channel flooding largely due to the completion of the federal flood risk reduction project and three HCFCD regional detention basins. Water levels for Harvey were generally below the historical records of Tropical Storm Allison and averaged between a 2.0% (50-yr) and 1.0% (100-yr) level downstream of Martin Luther King Blvd and generally below a 10% (10-yr) annual exceedance probability from Airport Road upstream to the headwaters.”
Sims Project Saved Thousands of Homes from Flooding
“Bottom line – the larger channel carried a lot more stormwater downstream away from subdivisions along the bayou and the large detention basins stored stormwater that would otherwise flow through subdivisions along the bayou.”
The Sims project received $390 million: $125 million from HCFCD and $265 million from the Army Corps.
In contrast, the Federal Briefing lists $0 in federal funding for the San Jacinto watershed.
Hunting Bayou and Achieving “Social Justice” in Precinct 1
At least one Army Corps project in Precinct One won Corps support becauseof the presence of LMI neighborhoods. Yet “equity” proponents contend the Federal government discriminates against them.
Page 79 of the Federal Report indicates Hunting Bayou (entirely within Precinct 1) received $98 million from the County and $68 million from the Corps, in part because of social justice factors. That’s another $165 million.
Residents claimed in their plea for funds that:
“Residents in the Hunting Bayou watershed deserve the same level of potential flood risk reduction as those who live in other parts of Harris County.“
“The economically disadvantaged Hunting Bayou residents struggle severely to recover from house and business flooding.”
“The Corps’ economic analysis is an important factor in prioritizing competing projects for annual Federal funding, but it is biased against economically disadvantaged communities like in Hunting Bayou.”
Prior to 2018, had Hunting Bayou residents received the same level of support as those in the more affluent Lake Houston Area, they would have received NO support from the Federal government.
Three Other Precinct 1 Watersheds Receive Major Federal Support, Too
Three other watersheds in Precinct 1 have received major federal and county commitments for construction of flood mitigation measures. Because they are in various stages of completion, I show total costestimates below to facilitate comparison.
Brays Bayou which flows through precincts 1, 2 and 3 will receive a total of $480 million; half from the county and half from the Corps. See page 60.
White Oak Bayou flows through Precincts 1 and 4. There, the County and Corps are excavating 9.7 million cubic yards of detention basins. That’s more than 5 times the volume of sediment removed from the San Jacinto to date. Estimate: $124 million, $90 million of it at Federal expense. See page 68.
Clear Creek flows through Precincts 1 and 2. Estimate: $249 million, $98 from local and $151 million from the Corps. See Page 91.
One Lone Exception
The Federal government partnered with HCFCD on only one project in Harris County that did not directly benefit Precinct One: a detention pond in Precinct 4 on Greens Bayou near 249, Beltway 8 and Cutten Road. This $58 million project received $43 million from the Corps. See Page 97.
The Corps does have other projects in Harris County, such as the Addicks and Barker reservoirs. However, HCFCD plays no active role in those. Likewise for the San Jacinto dredging project. This analysis looks only at joint projects that involve Harris County and the Corps.
Federal Construction Versus Buyout Dollars
Because Mr. Ellis’ surrogates base their arguments on buyouts, we need to put those in perspective.
Buyouts are tiny compared to construction spending. In Harris County, they represent just 6.6% of Federal construction spending for flood mitigation.
Page 120 of the 2018 Federal Brochure deals with buyouts. It shows approximately two dozen buyout projects completed in Precinct One. However, few if any appeared active at the time of publication in 2018.
In the entire county, FEMA was funding only $57.1 million in buyouts.
But the Army Corps contributes 19 times more than that in construction dollars for projects that benefit Precinct 1.
The numbers below represent Federal contributions only:
Sims – $265 million (In Precincts 1, 2)
Hunting – $68 million (In Precinct 1)
Brays – $240 million (In Precincts 1, 2, 3)
White Oak – $90 million (In Precincts 1, 4)
Clear Creek – $151 million (In Precincts 1, 2)
Total Estimated Federal Contribution to Joint Construction Projects that benefitted Precinct 1: $814 million
Total Estimated Federal Contribution to Joint Construction Projects NOT benefitting Precinct 1 (Greens): $43 million
Total Estimated Federal Contribution to Joint Projects in Lake Houston Area before 2018: $0
And Commissioner Ellis’ surrogates complain about discrimination! Maybe that’s why they get so much money.
Note that HCFCD does not break out spending “by precinct” for bayous that flow across precinct boundaries; they list only project totals. The list of bayous above represented ALL the HCFCD/Corps projects in the 2018 Federal Report.
Note also: Video of the commissioners meeting still had not been posted at the time I posted this story.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/26/2019
666 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Federally-Funded.jpg?fit=1500%2C1103&ssl=111031500adminadmin2019-06-26 00:52:242021-07-29 15:55:28Where the Flood Mitigation Money Has Really Gone: Part Two
“Equity” proponents would have you believe that Harris County flood mitigation money is all going to high-income neighborhoods. However, data obtained from Harris County Flood Control under the Freedom of Information Act shows that construction spending for flood mitigation is highly concentrated in Precinct 1, which contains many low-to-moderate-income neighborhoods.
At the last Harris County Commissioner’s Court meeting, the issue of “equity” in the prioritization of bond funds came up again. Commissioner Rodney Ellis from Precinct 1 invited several groups to testify about how Low-to-Moderate Income (LMI) groups suffered at the expense of more affluent areas like Kingwood.
Alleged Bias Against LMI Groups Distorts True Picture
They alleged bias against LMI groups by focusing on only one aspect of flood mitigation: buyouts. They said that high-income areas received preference over low-income areas when buying out flooded homes. That’s because of higher home values and thus higher repetitive losses. However, by focusing on this one issue, and ignoring the big picture of Flood Control construction spending, these groups distort the true picture of where flood mitigation dollars actually go.
In the last 21 years, Precinct 1 has received at least four to five times more construction dollars from Harris County Flood Control than Precinct 4 which contains Kingwood.
In fact, Precinct One received the single largest construction project in the history of Harris County Flood Control. The excavation of the Kuykendahl and Glen Forest Stormwater Detention Basins cost $59,840,117.41. In contrast, during the last 21-years, the entire San Jacinto River Watershed (the largest in the county) received only $3,345,976.28 in construction funds – one-eighteenth of what that Precinct 1 detention basin project cost!
The money spent on the San Jacinto also represented just one half of one percent of the $663,894,766.38 spent on all construction by the Flood Control District during that 21-year period.
In contrast, the Brays and Sims Bayous, both of which run through Commissioner Ellis’ district, received almost 100 times that amount. The $330 million spent on those two watersheds alone represented virtually HALF of the entire $663.9 million Flood Control District construction expenses in the last 21 years!
Lopsided Distribution of Flood Mitigation Money
In fairness, note that those watersheds do not lie entirely within Precinct 1. However, Precinct 1 also contains parts of Greens Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Halls Bayou, Hunting Bayou, Buffalo Bayou and Clear Creek (see map above). If you add in even a small portion of $229.4 million spent on those watersheds, the Precinct 1 construction numbers become even more lopsided.
Greens received $74.3 million
White Oak received $47.8 million
Halls received $22.3 million
Hunting received $23.7 million
Buffalo received $44.3 million
Clear Creek received $17 million.
Meanwhile, Kingwood received $0 construction dollars but suffered more than a billion dollars worth of damage during Harvey. Yet Mr. Ellis and his friends imply we hog flood mitigation dollars from poor people. THEY demand EQUITY! It’s time someone called this what it is – BS.
Actual Construction Spending by Precinct since 1998
Between 1998 and 2019, Precinct 1 received 47% of all Flood Control District construction funds spent on projects entirely within each precinct. These percentages do NOT include spending on projects that cross districts.
Precinct 1
$275,835,964
Precinct 2
$103,529,679
Precinct 3
$143,873,825
Precinct 4
$62,427,867
Precinct Discrimination Disguised as “Equity”?
Precincts are supposed to be roughly equal in population. Yet these figures are so lopsided, one could argue that Mr. Ellis and his friends are deliberately crying discrimination to get a larger share of the pie at the expense of areas like Kingwood. But it’s more complicated than that; Precinct 1 is also taking money from LMI neighborhoods in other precincts.
Look at the distribution of LMI neighborhoods throughout Harris County in the map below. It’s based on five years of recent HUD data. You can see a broad, concentrated LMI band across northern and eastern Harris County.
If anything, these numbers demonstrate a consistent pattern of geographic discrimination against residents of other precincts. Rodney Ellis’ Precinct 1 received 47% of construction dollars for flood control, leaving the other three precincts to divvy up the other half. Precinct 4 contains roughly one fourth of the population but received just 11% of construction dollars.
I’m not suggesting that the Precinct 1 projects were not needed or that the money was not spent wisely. I am suggesting that Precinct 1 LMI residents should not paint Kingwood as a villain. To do so is intellectually dishonest. We are not taking construction dollars from LMI neighborhoods. The County’s own data shows the opposite.
Precinct 1 is taking dollars from affluent and LMI neighborhoods alike.
I will cover other aspects of this story in upcoming posts. In the meantime, County Commissioners vote today on approving the vendor for the Kingwood Area Drainage Assessment. See item 2-B-5 on page 9. The approval of the study caused the equity flap at the last meeting. Let’s hope it doesn’t cause another one in this meeting. After all, the Flood Bond was sold to citizens as a tool to correct problems based on need, not income.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/25/2019
665 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Active-Construction-Projects.jpg?fit=1500%2C999&ssl=19991500adminadmin2019-06-25 00:53:512021-07-29 16:18:03Where Flood Mitigation Money Has Really Gone: Part One
