3/28/26 – At the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) Board Meeting on 3/26/26, HCFCD Executive Director Tina Petersen updated the board on a number of Lake Houston Area projects including the Kingwood Diversion Ditch. She confirmed it is fully funded – through construction.
However, design of the Diversion Ditch Project has not yet started. It should begin in April and finish by the end of 2027.
A year ago, the preliminary engineering study estimated the cost of the project at $40.7 million. Current estimates put the cost at $43 million, according to Petersen.
Looking N at the Kingwoodwood Diversion Ditch from over the Walnut Lane Bridge
Relationship to Bens Branch Flooding
The Diversion Ditch splits off of Bens Branch near St. Martha Catholic Church north of Northpark Drive.
Stormwater flow to Bens Branch will be restricted by pipes. That will force more stormwater into the expanded Diversion Ditch. In the process, that would take enough stormwater out of Bens Branch to improve it from a 2-year level of service to a 100-year level.
Red Diagonal = Bens Branch. White = Kingwood Diversion Ditch. Green = new outfall to river.
Diverting water from Bens Branch is important because Bens Branch runs through Kingwood Town Center where 12 people died from Harvey flooding.
Crenshaw Connection
Ironically, funding obtained by US Congressman Dan Crenshaw back in 2024 to widen the bridge shown above at Walnut Lane saved this project from the chopping block – even though it was ranked the most important project in Kingwood by the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis.
At the time, Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE warned that killing projects in Quartiles 2, 3 and 4 could have dire unintended consequences. The Diversion Ditch project fell into Quartile 3.
After the Democrats saw how much partnership funding they would lose by killing projects in the lower quartiles, they relented. In their next meeting, they voted to exempt projects in the lower quartiles that already had partnership funds committed.
That breathed new life into the Kingwood Diversion Ditch project because it included widening of the Walnut Lane Bridge which Crenshaw had already secured funding for.
HCFCD spokesperson Emily Woodell confirmed the Diversion Ditch funding today. “It was categorized as a partnership project during the bond update presented to commissioners court in August [2025] which means it is fully funded through construction.”
For Updates on Other San Jacinto Watershed Projects
It covers a lot of territory including the history of HCFCD, status of the bond program, partnership funding, maintenance programs, gauges, the flood-warning system, and more.
Other capital improvement projects in the Lake Houston Area that she discusses include:
Woodridge Village/Taylor Gully – Construction starting in April.
Jackson Bayou Detention Basin – Construction starting Q3/2026.
Barrett Station Drainage Improvements – Currently in Design Stage.
Lake Houston/East Fork/West Fork Dredging – Completed.
Lake Houston Gates – Engineering should finish by end of this year.
1/30/26 – A four-million dollar earmark secured by U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw for widening the Walnut Lane Bridge in Kingwood saved the entire $44 Million Kingwood Diversion Ditch Project from being killed by the Democratic members of Harris County Commissioners Court.
U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw gives the thumbs up to the Walnut Lane Bridge project. Widening the bridge is necessary to widen the Kingwood Diversion Ditch (background) which will also help reduce flood risk along Bens Branch.
At the time, Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE warned that killing projects in Quartiles 2, 3 and 4 could have dire unintended consequences. The Diversion Ditch project fell into Quartile 3.
After the Democrats saw how much partnership funding they would lose by killing projects in the lower quartiles, they relented. In their next meeting, they voted to exempt projects in the lower quartiles that already had partnership funds committed.
That breathed new life into the Kingwood Diversion Ditch project because it included widening of the Walnut Lane Bridge which Crenshaw had already secured funding for.
Multiple Benefits: A Texas Twofer
But the project will benefit far more of Kingwood than just the people who live in Diversion Ditch floodplains. It will also benefit people who live near Bens Branch. That includes the Villages of Bear Branch, Kings Forest, Hunters Ridge, Town Center, Kings Harbor and Kingwood Greens.
That’s because widening the Diversion Ditch will take excess stormwater out of Bens Branch and allow water to move safely down the Diversion Ditch. The planned improvements will take Bens Branch from a 2-year level of service to a 100-year level.
Kingwood Diversion Ditch in white, new outfall in green, and Bens Branch in red.
That means homes in the Bens Branch floodplains should be safe in anything up to a 100-year storm. Currently, the stream is at risk of flooding parts of its watershed every two years.
When the Diversion Ditch project is completed, Crenshaw will have helped protect people and property values in approximately half of Kingwood.
Bob Rehak
Crenshaw Support Crucial on Other Projects, Too
The Kingwood Area Drainage analysis found that, based on the number of people who benefit, the Diversion Ditch project is one of the two most important in Kingwood. Another is the Taylor Gully/Woodridge Project which Crenshaw also secured funding for.
Editorial Comment: I interviewed Crenshaw in 2018 when he first ran for Congress and have followed his work in Washington ever since. The man is a warrior, scholar and leader. He fights tirelessly to improve the lives of his constituents. He studies issues. And thoughtfully and patiently explains them. There’s no way he could have known what Commissioners Court would do in 2025 when he proposed the Walnut Lane Bridge funding in 2023. Regardless, his proactive effort will improve the safety of tens of thousands of his constituents.
Two Houston groups – the Northeast Action Collective and Texas Housers – claimed the GLO ignored Houston and Harris County in the distribution of the first tranche of Harvey aid. Houston and Harris County got $0 from the first $1 billion. But the Northeast Action Collective and Texas Housers ignored the fact that ALL of the next $750 million went to Harris County.
Moreover, the GLO announced the $750 million a full month BEFORE the two groups filed their discrimination complaint in 2021.
GLO Cleared
The investigation began on June 25, 2021. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity found that “no reasonable cause exists to believe the GLO has violated the Fair Housing Act, Title VI, or the Housing and Community Development Act through its administration of the 2019 CDBG-MIT funds, including the Hurricane Harvey State Mitigation Competition.”
Complainant Allegations
Complainants alleged discrimination on the basis of race and national origin, and that scoring criteria systematically and deliberately advantaged white communities while disadvantaging low- and moderate income (LMI) African-American and Hispanic communities.
GLO Defense
Looking only at the first billion dollars, GLO presented evidence that roughly 1.2 million of the 1.5 million Texans who benefited from the approved projects were Hispanic, Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, or Native American. The GLO also showed that 100% of the awards went to projects in majority LMI areas.
GLO also argued that complainants could not look only at one portion of the grants. Or look only at the first round of Harvey Grants and ignore 2015 and 2016 grants.
Findings
HUD found that the GLO substantially exceeded HUD’s requirement to direct at least 50% of funds to Most Impacted and Distressed (MID) areas. In 2015, 2016 and the first round of Harvey, GLO directed roughly 60% of all HUD funds to MID areas.
GLO later cancelled the second round of Harvey competition and allocated $750 million exclusively to Harris County. The County’s population is 42.9% Hispanic and 18.6% Black – a total of 61.5%. With other minorities, that brought minority beneficiaries for all phases to more than 66%.
Location of HUD/GLO projects in Harris County as of 2024.
Thus the complainants failed to show a disproportionate impact on minorities. Northeast Action Collective and Housers failed to assess the share of total beneficiaries that were black, white or Hispanic compared to the racial demographics of eligible areas.
Even when looking at just Round One of the Harvey competition, “no reasonable cause exists to believe the GLO’s administration had a disparate racial impact on funding.”
The complainants focused on Houston and Harris County not winning any awards during the Harvey Round One competition. Another section of the 22-page legal brief deals with why. To a large degree, not winning any awards in Round One resulted from the Benefit/Cost Analyses of submitted projects. Smaller jurisdictions just had lower costs per beneficiary. (See page 13.)
For instance, one project submitted by the City would have benefitted fewer than 10,000 people, but cost $94 million. In other words, the City was seeking 18% of Round One funds to benefit less than a half-percent of the City’s population.
HUD determined that “Houston’s poor performance in the Harvey Competition is attributable, at least in part, to its expensive, low-impact project proposals.”
Conclusion
“The facts of this case do not suggest that GLO intentionally discriminated against any racial or ethnic group through its administration of the CDBG-MIT funds,” said the final ruling.
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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20241015-CDBG.jpg?fit=1100%2C643&ssl=16431100adminadmin2026-01-29 20:30:112026-02-03 09:38:49HUD Clears GLO of Discrimination in Distribution of Harvey-Mitigation Funds
1/7/26 – The final Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) spending numbers are in for 2025. And they show a disturbing story of deception that calls for political change. The latest numbers show that HCFCD is fixing the worst flooding last, not first, as promised. See the two graphs below.
Compare Spending to Flood Height
The first shows flood height. The San Jacinto watershed had the worst flooding in Harris County.
Yet when you look at where the money goes, the San Jacinto ranks nearly last.
HCFCD cumulative spending for each watershed since flood bond as percent of projected expenditures in 2018.
The San Jacinto Watershed has only received 13% of the money allocated to it in the flood bond. Yet almost half of the flood-related deaths in Harris County during Harvey occurred in the San Jacinto Watershed – 15 out of 36. Most of those were elderly.
Why the huge disparity between these two graphs? Unfortunately and unbelievably…
The Democratic majority on commissioners court removed flood-risk reduction as a factor in prioritizing mitigation projects in 2022.
To Change Priorities, Change Leaders
But you can change that at the ballot box this year.
In that regard, I’ve had the pleasure of meeting one of the front runners for county judge this year, Marty Lancton. As a leader of first responders, he has experienced the terrible human toll of flooding as few others have. And he has made flood mitigation one of his top priorities. Most importantly…
Lancton believes in restoring flood-risk reduction as a factor in prioritizing projects.
It’s time we put the worst flooding first, not last. We must improve fairness to restore faith in government.
The Raw Data
Live in another watershed and wonder whether you got shortchanged, too? Here’s where HCFCD spent your money to date.
Projected vs. actual spending by HCFCD since start of flood bond for each watershed.Total includes bond plus partner dollars.
Eight watersheds exceed the average percent spent, while fifteen fall below it. This isn’t accidental. It’s deliberate. And this is the year to fix that.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/7/26
3053 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Worst-Last-e1767828948303.png?fit=1100%2C661&ssl=16611100adminadmin2026-01-07 19:18:232026-01-07 19:30:10We Must Make Addressing “Worst Flooding First” a Campaign Issue
12/30/25 – Part III of the top flood-related stories of 2025 concerns a slowdown in flood-mitigation activity at Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) and how it is already becoming an issue in the election of a new Harris County Judge. Let’s look at the slowdown part first.
Spending Drops for Fifth Year
The graph below illustrates the slowdown.
HCFCD 2018 Bond spending through Q3 2025. Approximately 60% of bond/partner funds remain unspent 8.5 years after Harvey. The bond was originally sold as a 10-year program.
That slowdown means people live with higher flood risk than necessary.
Potential Loss of $322 Million in Partner Funding At Stake
The slowdown also puts 11 grants totaling $322 million at risk.
That’s the total of Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Relief (CDBG-DR) to Harris County from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Texas General Land Office (GLO) administers those grants for HUD.
All have a firm deadline of 2/28/2027, according to the GLO. But most have not even been advertised for bids yet and won’t be until the first quarter of next year.
CDBG-DRprojects highlighted in red have not yet been bid or bids have not yet been awarded.All must be completed by 2/28/27.
Only one CDBG-DR project so far is in construction: Arbor Oaks. Brookglen bidding has closed. Three others are still in bidding: Lauder, Greens Mid-Reach, and Keegans. Others highlighted above haven’t even started bidding yet.
It typically takes three to four months from advertising a project for bids until a winner is selected, Commissioners Court approves the award, contracts are signed and a notice to proceed is issued. That leaves less than a year for construction on most of these projects. And many could take longer than a year to build, if history is any guide.
T.C. Jester Project Illustrates Problem
For instance, HCFCD has issued a press release saying that construction of the T.C. Jester East Basin (partially funded by CDBG-DR dollars) will not finish until Q4 of 2028. HCFCD finished the preliminary engineering review in 2021.
T.C. Jester project area on Cypress Creek. The small basin (r) will expand to cover most of the forested area in center.
It’s all part of a bigger story about the slowdown and complacency. Collectively…
“We have lost the sense of urgency that once fueled our flood mitigation crusade after Hurricane Harvey.”
Bob Rehak
According to an HCFCD press release, $20 million HUD CDBG-DR dollars are at risk for one of the three detention basin compartments that will be built on the site above. But the project also involves funding from other sources. State Rep Sam Harless secured $12 million for the project through the Texas Water Development Board.
If the HUD funding falls through, what will happen to the state money? There likely wouldn’t be enough money to complete the project.
Two additional stormwater detention basin compartments on the east side of TC Jester have longer deadlines, but are scheduled to finish earlier in 2028 – ten years after the flood bond and eleven years after Harvey! They involve funding from FEMA (via Congressman Dan Crenshaw).
Any time you get two departments of the federal government (each with their own rules), the state government (with its own rules), and county government (with its rules), things get complicated. And the current leadership in Harris County has added bureaucracy that has contributed to the slowdown.
Lancton Makes Slowdown an Election Issue
The potential loss of funding has already become a campaign issue in the Harris County Judge election year.
Candidate Marty Lancton, now endorsed by Governor Abbott, has jumped on it. He issued this statement.
“The implementation of CDBG funds has taken an unacceptably long amount of time. As County Judge, I will ensure that every Harris County department is thoroughly evaluated to identify and implement process improvements. The Harris County Flood Control District will be among the first departments reviewed.”
Lancton continued, “In developing the current funding priorities, three commissioners and the current County Judge established a project list that did not adequately prioritize initiatives with the greatest potential impact, nor did it sufficiently account for whether projects could realistically be completed within the required timelines.
“As County Judge, I will ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested responsibly and that funding priorities are established based on effectiveness, feasibility, and measurable benefit to Harris County residents. Finally, I will work closely with HUD and the Texas General Land Office to improve coordination and accelerate the implementation of projects that protect and serve the people of Harris County.”
Lancton is a long time leader of first responders and is extremely aware of flood risk.
In major storms, Cypress Creek is usually one of the hardest hit areas in the County. For people who live in that area as well as downstream areas, such as Lake Houston, flood-risk reduction can’t come fast enough.
In the last 125 years, we’ve been hit with major floods 48 times. We were lucky this year. But it’s only a matter of time before one strikes again. We must be prepared.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/30/2025
3045 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/HCFCD-spending-through-Q3-2025-e1762554426251.png?fit=1100%2C430&ssl=14301100adminadmin2025-12-30 14:50:412025-12-30 19:59:44Top Flood-Related Stories of 2025: Part III – Mitigation Slowdown Becomes Election Issue
12/28/2025 – This is the second part of a three part series on the top flood-related stories of 2025. Part I covered the major disasters of the year. Part II will cover the government response in terms of regulations and funding for flood mitigation efforts. And Part III will cover the progress of mitigation.
Government Response to Camp Mystic/Guadalupe Tragedy
Hearings on the Camp Mystic disaster last July identified a failure of warning signs (weather reports, alarm systems, etc.) as one of the primary causes. Investigations also discovered that the camp’s operators lobbied for changes to flood maps so that they could build in floodplains. And then they evidently expanded the camp before regulators became aware. Finally, evacuation plans were evidently not well communicated or understood.
In response, the Texas Legislature passed the Heaven’s 27 Camp Safety Act (a reference to the number of young girls who died at Camp Mystic). The act bars camp cabins in high risk areas. It also requires camps to have state-approved emergency plans, regular evacuation drills and disaster alert systems.
Lawmakers approved nearly $300 million “to boost flood preparedness, including $200 million to match federal disaster aid, $50 million for local grants to purchase flood warning equipment and $28 million to improve weather forecasting.” A companion bill also expanded government oversight of youth camps.
It also canceled the fiscal year 2024 notice of funding opportunity (NOFO), involving $750 million for grants.
BRIC was FEMA’s largest pre-disaster mitigation program. Congress established it through the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018. Its purpose: to fundamentally shift federal-disaster spending from post-disaster recovery to pre-disaster risk reduction. In other words, to encourage a shift from “Repair” to “Resilience.”
BRIC aimed to prevent disasters by helping communities build to higher standards. Flood-risk reduction grants typically helped finance projects such as:
Elevation or floodproofing of critical facilities (hospitals, EOCs, fire stations)
A press release that accompanied the cancellation of the BRIC program called it a “wasteful, politicized grant program.” However, investments in hazard mitigation programs are the opposite of “wasteful,” according to the Association of State Flood Plain Managers. They point to studies showing flood-hazard mitigation investments return up to $8 in benefits for every $1 spent.
States sued to prevent the cancellation. The lawsuits are still locked up in courts.
Prevention is always cheaper than correction. After Harvey, a Harris County engineering study found 20 times less damage in subdivisions using newer, more stringent building codes compared to those built under older codes.
FEMA Slowdown
Meanwhile, approvals for other types of FEMA grants have slowed. According to The Hill, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noem has adopted a policy of personally approving all major expenditures that cost $100,000 or more. The Hill article reported $900 million in grants and loans reportedly awaiting Noem’s review.
Separately, in other FEMA news, according to the Washington Post, hundreds of residents signed up for FEMA buyouts after Cat 4 Hurricane Helene devastated the southeast in 2024. Not one has yet been approved.
HUD/GLO Finish Rebuilding Program
On a more positive note, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) administers U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) flood-mitigation/disaster-relief programs in Texas. The GLO recently announced completion of the rebuilding of more than 9600 homes across the state under its Homeowner Assistance Program (HAP). That total includes mostly homes from its Hurricane Harvey disaster recovery mission. But it also includes homes impacted by Imelda, Laura, and repetitive flooding events in the Rio Grande Valley.
GLO poster celebrating program completion.
Status of Other GLO/HUD Programs
The GLO continued advancing long-term recovery and resilience by administering more than $1 billion in Community Development Block Grant for Disaster Recovery and Mitigation Projects. Additionally, HUD approved the GLO’s plan for $555 million to help communities impacted by 2024 Disasters.
The GLO completed reviews and approvals of all remaining project applications under the Regional Mitigation Program (RMP), providing funding for critical infrastructure improvements including drainage systems and flood-prevention measures. In total, the GLO has approved more than 200 RMP projects for more than $1.1 billion.
The GLO also approved more than $135 million in applications through the Disaster Recovery Reallocation Program (DRRP). It utilizes unspent disaster recovery funds from older disasters to help communities with outstanding unmet needs. These investments will reduce risk related to hurricanes, tropical storms, flooding, and other hazards.
The agency also announced it will be closing applications at the end of the year for both the Local Hazard Mitigation Plans Program (LHMPP) and the Resilient Communities Program (RCP). Both are part of the GLO’s long-term strategy to help communities strengthen local planning efforts, modernize codes, and protect life and property from future disasters.
Montgomery County Updates Flood Regulations
Eight years after Harvey, Montgomery County finally adopted new subdivision, floodplain, and drainage regulations.
The county adopted its new subdivision (development) regulations on March 4, then amended them on May 27 and October 14. MoCo also issued subdivision guidelines and recommendations on November 4.
Commissioners adopted a new Drainage Criteria Manual on August 26. And new Floodplain Management Regulations became effective on October 1, 2025.
While MoCo regs don’t perfectly reflect the Minimum Drainage Standards recommended by Harris County for other counties draining into it, they are a great improvement.
Competing Forces at Work
Flood safety is a constant struggle between competing forces that increase or reduce flood risk. There are so many, the public can hardly know whether it’s winning or losing.
Just because the government appropriates money, doesn’t mean it’s enough or will be spent promptly.
Even if it is, will it actually reduce risk in the face of offsetting factors such as legislative loopholes, grandfather clauses, willful blindness, the profit motive, shifting political winds, and insufficiently mitigated upstream development?
And maybe that’s THE Top Flood-Related Story of 2025. More on that tomorrow.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/28/2025
3043 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/20230716-Screenshot-2023-07-16-at-10.29.06-AM.jpg?fit=1100%2C579&ssl=15791100adminadmin2025-12-28 20:24:522026-01-03 14:59:08Top Flood-Related Stories of 2025: Part II – Regs and Funding
Yet whether you look at total dollars spent or construction dollars, the 2% figure remains.
San Jacinto Watershed Receives Less than $5 Million Per Year in 5 of 8 Years
According to the most recent figures available from Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD), the county has spent $2,071.59 million ($2+ billion) in total since passage of the flood bond in 2018. Yet the San Jacinto watershed has received only $43.65 million of that – 2.11%.
And of the $948.38 million spent on construction since Bond passage, the San Jacinto watershed has received only $19.65 million – 2.07%. See the breakdown by years below:
Data for both graphs sourced from HCFCD Activity Page. *Includes 1 Quarter. **Includes 3 Quarters.
So, whether you look at total or construction spending, the San Jacinto watershed has received less than $5 million per year in five of the last eight years.
So Much for Worst First!
To put those numbers in perspective, compare the size of the watershed to the size of the spending.
The portion of the San Jacinto watershed inside Harris County ranks it as the largest watershed in the county. But that is the smallest portion of the watershed.Compiled from HCFCD data above.
The County sold the flood bond to voters by saying it would fix the worst areas first. However, that has not been the case.
Shortly after voters approved flood bond language that guaranteed an “equitable distribution of funds,” the County adopted an “Equity Prioritization Framework” that eliminated flood damage and flood risk in the allocation of dollars. Linguists and historians may be interested in reviewing accepted definitions of equity and equitable in Websters Third International and Oxford English Dictionaries. The words sound alike, but are not the same.
Some Other Watersheds Have Received Even Less
But as bad as this is for the San Jacinto watershed, consider other watersheds that have gotten even less.
In my opinion, the issue with flood-control spending to date is not just slowness, it’s also fairness.
We’ll have a chance to fix that next year. Primary elections for county commissioners and county judge begin in March 2026. And the general election is in November 2026.
We have another hurricane season to get through before then. Don’t count on another as mild as this one.
Posted by Bob Rehak on October 27, 2025
2981 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-27-at-5.04.28-PM.png?fit=1502%2C894&ssl=18941502adminadmin2025-10-27 17:44:042025-10-27 17:57:58San Jacinto Watershed Received Only 2% of Mitigation Dollars since Passage of Flood Bond
10/7/2025 – Newly posted spending figures on the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) website for the third quarter of 2025 show a continuing slowdown in spending. Last quarter, HCFCD spending fell below where we started after the flood-bond election in 2018 … almost to a quarter of what it was at the peak under previous management.
Adjusted for 25% inflation during the period shown, the drop off is even more dramatic. Yet we have more than $3 billion waiting to be spent for flood-mitigation projects.
HCFCD explained the delays by saying it is troubleshooting and working through issues related to each of the projects on its plate. When asked for details, a HCFCD spokesperson cited environmental and Army Corps permitting as examples.
HCFCD on Track to Spend $80 Million Less This Year than Last
The first shows incremental spending since the start of the 2018 flood bond.Last period reflects nine months.The second shows that spending in 2024 totaled $246 million.And the third shows that in the first 9-months of 2025, HCFCD spent only about half ($125 million) of the 2024 total.
At the current rate, annualized 2025 would equal $167 million. That’s $80 million less than last year’s total – a third less.
Only $2.1 Billion Spent after 7 Years
This graph shows that flood-bond spending to date totals almost $2.1 billion out of the $5.2 that voters and partners have pledged.
Screen capture from Microsoft Power BI chart on HCFCD Activity page showing breakdown of spending to date.
Out of that, spending in 2025 Q3 totaled approximately $33 million
During the third quarter, HCFCD spent at a rate lower than before the bond, especially when discounting for inflation.
Importance of Speed: Inflation and Deadlines
The first graph above (spending by quarter since 2018) shows two distinct trends: one up and the other down. The difference largely coincides with a management change in 2021.
The decline in the rate of project spending continues to concern flood victims. Not only do delays expose residents to more flood risk, delays also take a toll in inflation. Partially as a result, County Commissioners have already adopted a plan that trims the flood-bond project list. In making cuts, they focused on three primary factors:
Expected benefits that didn’t materialize
Projects that failed to attract matching funds
Projects that had low equity scores.
But there’s another threat: looming deadlines from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In May 2021, GLO Commissioner George P. Bush announced that Harris County would receive $750 million.
However, the Disaster Relief grants come with a firm deadline of 2/28/27 – less than 15 months away. One former HCFCD employee told me that it typically takes 2 years to develop a detention-basin project. But another one told me HCFCD can put the pedal to the metal and do it in less time – if pushed.
The question at this point is, “Can HCFCD’s current management push hard and fast enough to get the jobs done before time runs out?” All of the HUD money is on a reimbursement basis. So, not finishing projects in time puts hundreds of millions at risk.
Of the Disaster Relief projects that have received authorization to use government funds so far, one is in construction – Arbor Oaks on White Oak Bayou.
In sharp contrast, according to the GLO, Phase II of the Brookglen Stormwater Detention Basin received authorization to use government funds in August 2024. And HCFCD anticipates advertising it for bids in November 2025.
Harris County’s purchasing database shows that, so far this year, HCFCD has only bid six capital improvement projects. Now it must bid and complete more than 30 projects in the next 2+ years to avoid losing close to a billion dollars.
Even my Weird Nephew Izzy understands that math. He called today and said, “We dug ourselves into a hole without digging many holes, Uncle Bob.” Longtime readers may remember that Nephew Izzy applied for the job of HCFCD executive director in 2021. Fortunately or unfortunately, he didn’t get the job. For Izzy’s take on all this, come back tomorrow.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/7/2025
2961 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Q3-25-Spending-e1759876554808.png?fit=1100%2C660&ssl=16601100adminadmin2025-10-07 17:58:192025-10-07 18:14:182025 Q3 HCFCD Spending Figures Show Continuing Decline
9/27/25 – The information below comes from a Texas Water Development Board newsletter pertaining to water supply funding propositions on the November Ballot. Buried within them are some rules that could also benefit flood mitigation. I am reprinting the newsletter verbatim.
Proposition 4 and Texas Water Fund
Frequently Asked Questions
Proposition 4 will be on the ballot in November
Texans will be voting in November on a number of propositions, including Proposition 4, which if approved would allocate a portion of state sales and use tax to the Texas Water Fund. The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) assembled the following FAQs as an informational resource for Texans.
1. What would House Joint Resolution 7 and Proposition 4 do?
Contingent upon voter approval, House Joint Resolution (HJR 7) would require the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts each state fiscal year to deposit to the credit of the Texas Water Fund the first $1 billion of the net revenue derived from the imposition of the state sales and use tax that exceeds the first $46.5 billion of that revenue coming into the treasury in that state fiscal year. This provision would go into effect September 1, 2027, and would expire August 31, 2047.
The HJR 7 Proposition 4 ballot language is:
“The constitutional amendment to dedicate a portion of the revenue derived from state sales and use taxes to the Texas water fund and to provide for the allocation and use of that revenue.”
The availability of sales and use tax deposits into the Texas Water Fund for Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) financial assistance programs is contingent upon:
voter approval of Proposition 4 in the November 2025 election,
subsequent legislative appropriations, and
availability of state sales and use tax revenue that exceeds the first $46.5 billion coming into the treasury in that state fiscal year.
2. What is the Texas Water Fund and how was it created?
The Texas Water Fund is a special fund in the state treasury outside the general revenue fund that is administered by the TWDB. Senate Bill 28 and Senate Joint Resolution 75, passed in 2023 by the 88th Texas Legislature, provided for creation of the fund. In the November 2023 election, Texas voters passed Proposition 6 (associated with Senate Joint Resolution 75), creating the Texas Water Fund to assist in financing water projects in Texas.
3. What does the Texas Water Fund do for Texas?
The Texas Water Fund supports the TWDB mission of leading the state’s efforts in ensuring a secure water future for Texas. The Texas population is projected to increase
53 percent between 2030 and 2080, from 34.2 million to 52.3 million, according to the projections included in the adopted 2026 regional water plans.
The Texas Water Fund helps communities implement cost‐effective water, wastewater, and flood projects through new and existing TWDB programs. The costs associated with these types of projects can often make them difficult for some communities to implement. By providing low‐cost, flexible financing options, the funding provides economic opportunity for communities to overcome cost hurdles.
More information on funding needs for water and wastewater infrastructure across the state, as well as water supply strategies recommended in the state water plan and flood mitigation solutions recommended in the state flood plan, can be found in this infographic.
4. What can the Texas Water Fund be used for?
The TWDB may only use the Texas Water Fund to transfer money to the following funds or accounts administered by the TWDB (those in bold were added by Senate Bill 7 in 2025):
5. What statutory changes were made to the Texas Water Fund by the 89th Texas Legislature?
In 2025, the 89th Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 7, which made some changes to the Texas Water Fund statute. The legislature also passed House Joint Resolution 7, which proposes a constitutional amendment (Proposition 4) that will appear on the November 2025 ballot, to dedicate a portion of the revenue derived from state sales and use taxes to the Texas Water Fund and to provide for the allocation and use of that revenue.
Statutory changes to the Texas Water Fund by Senate Bill 7 include the following expansion of:
Funds and accounts to which funds may be transferred
Priorities for funding
Eligibility for the New Water Supply for Texas fund
Additional statutory changes contingent upon voter approval includes the following:
For the purposes of the constitutionally dedicated revenue stream, groundwater is considered brackish if the total dissolved solids concentration is not less than 3,000 milligrams per liter at the time of production from a well.
Of the money deposited to the credit of the Texas Water Fund (subject to expiration August 31, 2047), the TWDB shall allocate no less than 50 percent for transfer to the New Water Supply for Texas Fund and/or the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas.
6. How much money has been appropriated to the Texas Water Fund to date and what has it been used for?
The 88th Texas Legislature authorized a one-time, $1 billion supplemental appropriation of general revenue to the Texas Water Fund, as approved by voters in 2023. Of the initial amount appropriated to the Texas Water Fund, the TWDB was required to allocate no less than 25 percent ($250 million) to the New Water Supply for Texas Fund.
With the initial appropriation, the TWDB is required to ensure that a portion of the money transferred from the fund is used for the following:
Water infrastructure projects, prioritized by risk or need, for
rural political subdivisions; and
municipalities with a population less than 150,000;
Projects for which all required state or federal permitting has been substantially completed, as determined by the Board;
The statewide water public awareness program;
Water conservation strategies; and
Water loss mitigation projects.
To meet these statutory directives and in response to solicited stakeholder feedback, the TWDB Executive Administrator developed a Texas Water Fund implementation plan. As of September 2025, the TWDB has committed more than $735 million in funding from the Texas Water Fund through several financial assistance programs, as outlined in the plan.
7. When will new funding be available and what is the anticipated timeline?
Contingent upon voter approval, legislative appropriations, and the availability of sales tax revenue that exceeds the first $46.5 billion of that revenue coming into the treasury in state fiscal year 2028, funding may be transferred by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts to the Texas Water Fund late in fiscal year 2028 and may be available for financial assistance through the TWDB in state fiscal year 2029.
If the collected sales tax revenue does not exceed $46.5 billion in a state fiscal year, then no money would be transferred to the Texas Water Fund, and no additional funding would be made available through the TWDB financial assistance programs.
Anticipated timeline:
November 4, 2025: Consideration of Proposition 4 by Texas voters
May 2027: General Appropriations Act (90th Texas Legislative Session)
Summer 2028: Transfer of constitutionally dedicated funds by Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts to the Texas Water Fund, contingent upon revenue availability and legislative appropriation
Fall 2029: Availability of funds via TWDB financial assistance programs.
8. Where can information on sales tax revenue be found?
In January of each odd-numbered year, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts releases its Biennial Revenue Estimate for the upcoming biennium, including a projected estimate of the amount of sales tax revenue.
The January 2025 Biennial Revenue Estimate projects an estimated $94 billion in sales tax collections for the 2026 to 2027 biennium; the Biennial Revenue Estimate for the 2028 to 2029 biennium will be available in January 2027. The Comptroller’s website also features monthly updates on state revenue collections deposited to general revenue-related funds.
9. What are the Texas Legislature’s priorities for use of the Texas Water Fund?
The TWDB must ensure that a portion of the money transferred from the fund is used for the following (those in bold were added by Senate Bill 7):
Water and wastewater infrastructure projects, including projects to rehabilitate or replace deficient or deteriorating infrastructure, prioritized by risk or need for financial assistance, including grants for rural political subdivisions and municipalities with a population of less than 150,000;
Projects for which all required state or federal permitting has been substantially completed;
The statewide water public awareness program;
Water conservation strategies;
Water loss mitigation projects; and
Technical assistance for applicants in obtaining and using financial assistance from funds and accounts administered by the TWDB.
10. Where will the money for the Texas Water Fund come from and how will it be managed?
The Texas Water Fund will receive additional transferred funding from the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, subject to the availability of revenue. Money in the Texas Water Fund will be held and invested by the Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company.
The TWDB may not transfer money to a fund or account, other than the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas and the Texas Water Fund Administrative Fund, until the project application for which the money is to be used has received a financial assistance commitment from the TWDB governing Board. Additionally, the TWDB may only transfer money to a fund or account subject to legislative appropriation.
11. Is the Texas Water Fund a financial assistance program?
The Texas Water Fund is not a TWDB financial assistance program and cannot offer loans or grants directly. Rather, it will enable the TWDB to provide funding through existing financial assistance programs and the newly created New Water Supply Fund for Texas. Each program will have administrative rules, guidance documents, and in some cases an “Intended Use Plan” that outlines how the program will allocate and distribute funds.
12. Does the Texas Water Fund allow for grants in addition to loans?
Money appropriated to the Texas Water Fund will be transferred to allowable program funds and accounts, as approved by the TWDB governing Board. Once funds are transferred, all statutory and rule requirements applicable to each program will apply.
Programs that have authorization for grants (or principal forgiveness) include the:
Rural Water Assistance Fund
Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
Economically Distressed Areas Program
Flood Infrastructure Fund
Agricultural Water Conservation Fund
Newly created New Water Supply for Texas Fund.
Some programs, such as the Texas Water Development Fund and State Water Implementation Fund for Texas, do not offer grants due to statutory or constitutional limitations.
13. What is the New Water Supply for Texas Fund?
The New Water Supply for Texas Fund is a special fund in the state treasury administered by the TWDB. Of the money deposited to the credit of the Texas Water Fund from the constitutionally dedicated revenue stream before September 1, 2047, the TWDB is required to allocate no less than 50 percent for transfer to the New Water Supply for Texas fund or the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas.
The New Water Supply for Texas Fund may be used for the following purposes (additional purposes added by Senate Bill 7 are in bold):
To provide financial assistance to political subdivisions of the state to develop water supply projects that create new water sources for the state, including:
desalination projects, including marine and brackish water desalination;
produced water treatment projects, other than projects that are only for purposes of oil and gas exploration;
aquifer storage and recovery projects;
water and wastewater reuse projects;
the required land has already been acquired;
a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material has been issued by the United States Secretary of the Army;
a permit for the storage, taking, or diversion of state water has been issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; and
the development of infrastructure to transport water or integrate water into a water supply system, other than groundwater produced from a well in this state that is not part of a project described by this subdivision.
To make transfers to:
the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas or
the Texas Water Development Fund II.
To make transfers to the Texas Water Bank Account, which was established to facilitate the transfer, sale, or lease of water and water rights throughout the state, including purchasing, holding, and transferring water rights in the name of the TWDB.
To make transfers to the State Participation Account of Development Fund II.
The TWDB is directed to undertake project financing through the New Water Supply Fund for Texas that will lead to 7 million acre-feet of new water supplies by December 31, 2033.
14. Does the New Water Supply Fund allow for public-private partnerships?
Yes, financial assistance may be provided from the New Water Supply Fund for a qualifying project under Chapter 2267, Government Code, which covers public-private partnerships. The project must comply with all requirements of that chapter of the Government Code. The applicant must be a political subdivision of the State of Texas.
15. What is the Statewide Water Public Awareness Program?
Senate Bill 28 directed the TWDB to develop and implement a statewide water public awareness program to educate residents about water. The program will consider the difference in water needs of various geographic regions of the state and will be designed to complement and support existing local and regional water education or awareness programs.
In 2025, the TWDB awarded a contract to fund a statewide water public awareness campaign in the form of a grant from the Texas Water Fund. Campaign development is underway with plans to launch in 2026. The TWDB will seek feedback on other TWDB-led initiatives to further public awareness of water.
16. How are TWDB financial assistance program funds disbursed?
The TWDB follows administrative rules and, in some cases, an Intended Use Plan for each financial assistance program eligible to receive funds; these outline the intended method for allocating funds for that program. Eligible entities will apply for financial assistance, and the TWDB will evaluate projects according to specific application requirements. Funds will be disbursed for projects that meet all requirements, rank within the amount of funds available, and receive a formal commitment from the TWDB governing Board.
17. How can I stay informed?
Subscribe to our “General Information” and “Financial Assistance” email lists to receive the latest information.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/TWDB_Primary_Horizontal_Digital_RGB-clear-space-sides-e1758998304546.png?fit=1100%2C329&ssl=13291100adminadmin2025-09-27 12:28:482025-09-27 12:50:08FAQs About Water Propositions on November Ballot
According to ChatGPT, the 2025 Texas legislature this year devoted 2.7 times more money to increasing water supply than to mitigating flooding.
The water-supply funding aims to keep Texas growing, even as large sections of the state struggle with water shortages, drought, aquifer depletion and subsidence.
Dual-Purpose Funding
But some of the money allocated by the legislature to water supply can also be used for flood mitigation – if it serves a dual purpose, such as new reservoirs. This may be a way to reduce flooding and sustain growth at the same time.
Location of Winters Bayou Project approximately 10 miles upstream from Cleveland on the East Fork in San Jacinto County.
They chose the site for its ability to reduce flows in downstream damage centers, limited development within the footprint, and steep terrain that allows for increased storage volume.
But detention basins don’t qualify for water infrastructure funding under Texas Water Development Board SWIFT fund guidelines. SWIFT stands for State Water Infrastructure For Texas.
However, some changes in the name and design might make the Winters Bayou Project eligible.
Winters Bayou Project Might Qualify
Of all the projects listed in the San Jacinto Watershed Flood Plan, the Winters Bayou project was one of the largest.
A 54-ft tall concrete dam would create a 1.60-mile-long impoundment that captures runoff from Winters Bayou. It was conceived as a dry dam with five reinforced 10×10 concrete culverts and twin 300′ backup spillways that could hold 45,000 acre feet of floodwater (see page 180). To put that in perspective…
45,000 acre feet is about a third of the storage volume of Lake Houston.
The Winters Bayou project is already in the Lake Houston watershed. And the City’s Northeast Water Purification Plant on Lake Houston could purify the water.
But could a water-supply reservoir still serve a flood-control purpose? Perhaps with a different design.
The project made it into the final version of the 2024 state flood plan – as a flood-mitigation-only project. But it ranked #82 in the state. And its projected $134 million cost means it won’t be done for decades, if ever.
Perhaps given the state’s new water-supply priorities, a dual purpose reservoir would rank higher and get built sooner. Plus, the sale of water might help generate revenue that defrays expenses.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/24/25 based on a suggestion from Kingwood flood fighter Chris Bloch
