Commissioners Clarify Stance on Flood-Bond Partnership-Project Funding

7/10/25 – In today’s Harris County Commissioners Court meeting, the Court clarified its stance on funding flood-bond partnership projects in the face of spending cuts announced in the last meeting.

Commissioners revisited a vote on a motion from their 6/26/25 meeting that cast doubt over completion of 80% of the projects in the 2018 flood bond. Among them were many projects that involved money pledged by partners at the federal, state and local levels.

Today’s meeting clarified that Commissioners do intend to fund partnership projects that fell below the first quartile on Rodney Ellis’ Equity Prioritization Framework. Including more flood gates for Lake Houston.

Revisiting Vote that Potentially Defunded Partnership Projects

Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey kicked off the discussion on Item 277. (Note, however, that the video, which starts at approximately 58 minutes, calls it #177.)

The debate addressed the consequences of the vote in the last meeting to focus all remaining money in the bond on the top quartile of equity projects.

Further, the 6/26/25 motion said that future phases of those projects would also be funded – even if they weren’t included in the original bond.

That motion from June was approved 4:1 along party lines. However at the time, Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey warned that it could potentially impact projects that had already received federal, state and local funding commitments. Partners included FEMA, HUD, the Texas Water Development Board, cities, and MUDs.

And, in fact, a scramble occurred among officials at all those levels as well as affected citizens to understand what the impacts were. They wanted to know whether Harris County was still committed to projects it originally had promised to help fund.

Prominent among those was the project to add more floodgates to the Lake Houston Dam. The County had pledged to donate $20 million to that project to complement more than $100 million pledged by other parties. But the project did not even receive an equity ranking.

Before the debate, Houston District E City Council Member Fred Flickinger spoke to Court about how important the gate project was. He addressed water security as well as flood safety. He also reminded commissioners about damage to the Lake Livingston dam after massive rains in May 2024. Flickinger’s message was clear: jeopardizing the water supply for more than two million people is unthinkable.

Ramsey Presents A Simplified Bond-Spending Analysis

Commissioner Ramsey presented much simpler bond-spending analysis than HCFCD had in the previous meeting.

Truth about the bond
Ramsey’s Full Presentation

And he arrived at very different conclusions. Ramsey made several key points.

  • The county needed to send a clear message about its commitment to HUD CDBG projects regardless of which quartile they fell into.
  • We have enough money left in the bond for many projects below the first quartile, plus contingency funds if we don’t fund future projects not in the original bond.
  • Decisions about funding should be on a project-by-project basis. But that may take several months to work through.

In the meantime, Ramsey made three motions to help reduce uncertainty re: the county’s commitment to certain projects. He introduced motions to fund:

  • All current needs of projects with CDBG commitments
  • Gates for Lake Houston (CI-028) and Buffalo Bayou Storage and Channel Conveyance Improvements (CI-017) for TIRZ 17
  • All current needs for Quartile 1

None of Ramsey’s motions received a second.

Ramsey Motions Modified by Ellis

Ellis then made a substitute motion which Ramsey agreed to:

“To fund all existing CDBG and other secured partnerships and grants tied to the Harris County 2018 Flood Bond.”

Ellis’ substitute motion carried unanimously. In other news…

Outrageous Travel Costs Approved

Also on the agenda was an $8,120 Flood Control District request for one person to attend a three day convention in San Francisco.

Ramsey made a motion to approve all spending requests except that one. However, the other commissioners and the county judge approved the junket.

The voting confused many viewers who initially thought Ramsey’s motion to kill the request was approved. That’s because of an unexplained two-part procedure for such motions.

Ramsey provided this clarification. “If we are pulling expenses out of a list of expenses, the process is for the Court to approve all expenses except the one I targeted. Then someone else makes a motion to approve the one I pulled. And that vote passed 3 to 1.”

Still confused?

All parties involved have confirmed the trip IS still on.

Commissioner Ramsey and HCFCD

The junket includes:

  • $3500 for three nights in a hotel when rooms could be booked through the convention sponsors for $249 per night.
  • $1700 for a registration fee listed at $945
  • $1500 for airfare that could be booked through Expedia for $185.

A HCFCD spokesperson explained that “The amount submitted was a rough estimate and is intended to provide an upper limit for approval and include buffers.”

Then she added, “All actual expenses are paid at reasonable market rates and in line with applicable public-sector pricing policies.”

No wonder we’re debating which projects to cut!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/10/2025

2872 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.

More Inconsistencies in HCFCD Bond Updates Demand State Audit

7/6/25 – The closer you look at the two most recent 2018 Flood Bond Updates from Harris County Flood Control District – 2024 Year End and 2025 First Quarter – the more eyebrow-raising inconsistencies you see in accounting.

Last week, I reported how “funds remaining” in the 2018 Harris County Flood Bond mysteriously decreased by a billion dollars.

Today, let’s focus on inconsistencies from the other side of the ledger – “spending.” Spending has two main components: Spent + Remaining Work in Progress. That’s because contractually HCFCD must pay to finish work under contract.

Breaking down those two components reveals another published inconsistency totaling $461 million.

Together, the “spending” and “funds remaining” inconsistencies may exaggerate a crisis being used to justify defunding projects in all but Rodney Ellis’ preferred neighborhoods. They make it appear as though we are both spending money and depleting reserves faster than we really may be. It’s hard to tell because I no longer trust the published numbers.

We need a state audit BEFORE defunding any projects.

Compare Reported Spending + Work in Progress

The graphics below come from the two reports. They summarize both money already spent and the value of remaining work in progress. At the end of 2024, Spent + In Progress work totaled $3.245 billion.

money spent and work in progress at end of 2024
From Page 3 of 2024 Year End Bond Update

But during 2025 Q1, the comparable total rose to $3.749 billion.

From Page 2 of 2025 First-Quarter Flood-Bond Update

That’s an increase of $504 million dollars in just three months.

Pretty impressive! Especially when you consider that it’s taken HCFCD seven years to spend $1.5 billion.

Now let’s subtract money already out the door so that we can focus on the “work in progress” component only. That’s where the mystery deepens.

HCFCD Spent Only $43 Million in Q1

HCFCD says it “spent” (past tense) $1.526 billion through the end of 2024.

From page 8, 2024 Year End Report

But by the end of the first quarter, money spent had climbed to $1.569 billion.

From Page 5 of 2025 Q1 Report

So, HCFCD actually spent – out of pocket – only an additional $43 million in the first quarter. Not nearly enough to account for a $504 million increase in three months. Subtracting $43 million from $504 million means…

HCFCD is claiming “Work in Progress” increased $461 million during the first quarter. But where is it?

No Proof Shown for Spending Commitments

HCFCD’s previous management used to update “active projects on the District’s website monthly. That enabled reporters like me to verify where the money was going.

In sharp contrast, HCFCD’s new management no longer lists “active projects” on the District’s website.

The 2025 Q1 update contains no backup information that shows where $461 million is being spent.

Neither does the county’s purchasing website.

Nor did a review of all Commissioners Court agendas for the quarter.

Too much just doesn’t add up. I’m not saying there’s fraud. This could just be sloth, incompetence, disorganization, the world’s worst financial reporting or the work of someone’s clueless cousin. But these numbers are being used to make policy decisions.

Long story short: We need a state audit before Rodney Ellis dismantles the 2018 bond program beyond all recognition.

Write your state representative, state senator, the Governor and the Attorney General today. It’s your tax money. Make sure you get some value for it.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/6/2025

2868 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.

Ellis Equity Cuts Likely Violate Bond Language Approved by Voters

In Harris County Commissioners Court on June 26, 2025, Democrats voted 4:1 along party lines to reallocate all remaining money in the 2018 Flood Bond to projects that scored in the top quartile of Commissioner Rodney Ellis’ Equity Prioritization Framework.

That will defund all but a handful of projects that voters approved. Is that legal?

Examination of bond language that voters approved shows Ellis and his colleagues likely violated six provisions: 14 A, B, C, D, F, and G. Let’s examine each, starting with G.

Basis for Prioritization Distorted

Paragraph 14(G) specifies an “equitable” distribution of funds. Ellis “reminds” people constantly that bond language gives commissioners the right to prioritize projects. But he never mentions how he redefined the basis specified for prioritization.

Ellis uses a self-serving definition of “equity” instead of “equitable.” His race-based formula prioritizes social vulnerability instead of flood-risk and flood-damage reduction.

Open any dictionary and you will see that equitable means fair and impartial. That’s not Ellis. His self-serving formula penalizes areas that have higher flood risk than his and that have received no or little help from HCFCD.

Funds Not Used for Purposes Described

Paragraph 14(A) says that funds must be used only for purposes described.

Yet the bond came packaged with a heavily promoted list of projects, many of which are being defunded to pay for items that were not on the list.

Due to a lack of transparency and questionable accounting, it is unclear what the bond proceeds are being spent on.  That may also violate 14(A).

Not Providing Benefits Throughout the County

Paragraph 14(B) says that projects will provide benefits throughout the county. Defunding all but the highest ranked “equity” projects will effectively create “funding deserts.” Remaining projects will not benefit taxpayers throughout the county.

Commissioner Tom Ramsey said, “This decision puts voter-approved funding of over $220 million in Precinct 3 at risk. It also threatens partnerships and matching funds from local, state, and federal agencies worth another $206 million. But the court voted to do just that, thus violating 14(B).

Bait-and-Switch

Paragraph 14(C) says that projects will include those described in the bond. But Ellis’ defunding will effectively kill many. Meanwhile, Ellis plans to fund others not in the bond. Promising one thing and delivering another is called bait-and-switch advertising.

The language in 14(C) was intended to focus HCFCD on delivering promised projects, not commissioners’ pet projects. But now, we are getting Ellis’ pet projects.

Rights of Way Endangered

Paragraph 14(D) says bond money will be used to purchase rights of way for the construction of future detention basins and channel improvements. The original bond list contained money to acquire land in the Little Cypress and Cedar Bayou watersheds.

But those projects fall below the cutoff in Ellis’ gerrymandering Equity formula. In the future, it may be impossible to purchase those rights of way. And without them, growth in those watersheds may doom another generation to flooding.

Slow-Motion Project Delivery

Paragraph 14(F) specifies that projects will be undertaken in an expeditious manner. But execution of the bond program has slowed dramatically under HCFCD’s current leadership.

Declining graph
Under the previous management team, HCFCD projects were launched quickly. Not so much anymore! 

HCFCD bid only three projects in 2024.

Slow execution has resulted in inflation undermining the bond’s purchasing power. It is unconscionable given the project output under previous HCFCD management. But Ellis doesn’t seem concerned about the slowdown or impact of inflation, either.

In fact, faced with tight Federal deadlines on HUD projects, he gave HCFCD Director Dr. Tina Petersen another 2.5 months to figure out how his equity cuts would affect projects.

Fine Print vs. Voter “Takeaway”

There may be fine print in the bond language that gives Ellis a technical “out” on some of these points. But generally, fine print does not legally excuse advertisers from creating a false or misleading impression. And this bond was heavily advertised.

In advertising law, especially under Federal and Texas consumer-protection laws:

  • Overall Impressions Matter:
    Courts look at the net impression an advertisement conveys to a reasonable consumer. If the overall impression is misleading, disclaimers buried in fine print generally won’t cure it.
  • FTC Standards:
    The Federal Trade Commission explicitly states that disclosures must be clear and conspicuous. Disclaimers that consumers are unlikely to notice or understand do not meet FTC standards.
  • Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
    If overall impressions mislead consumers, disclaimers hidden in fine print typically won’t absolve liability. The Texas Attorney General’s office has a clear standard: fine print does not cure deception.
  • Courts Generally Do Not Accept Fine Print as a Shield:
    Judges typically base rulings on the takeaway of an average consumer at first glance, not careful study of fine print.

Fine print can clarify net impressions, but it does not excuse deception.

The Ballot Box Cure

On balance, I feel misled. But rather than sue, I plan to use my voice and vote in the upcoming election. That will likely produce results faster than the courts.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/5/2025

2867 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.

With 25% Funding Shortfall, 80% of Flood-Bond Projects Cut

6/30/25 and 7/3/25 – Updated to clarify a distinction between Bond Projects and Bond IDs, and also correct several entries in tables.

6/29/25 – Analysis of documents released after the Harris County Commissioner’s Court meeting on 6/26/25, shows that because of a claimed 25% flood-bond funding shortfall, the county will stop funding 80% of Bond IDs and 75% of Bond projects. Precinct 3 will bear the most cuts.

Usually, precincts share equally, but in this case, Precinct 3, the lone Republican-led district will retain only 14% of active projects.

Before the meeting, the county had released only one blank page about what turned out to be the disappearance of more than a billion dollars.

Even worse, to make up for the claimed shortfall, Democratic Commissioners voted 4:1 along party lines to defund most of the remaining projects voters approved in the 2018 Flood Bond.

Something’s not adding up that demands an explanation.

Huh? 80% of Projects Cut after Losing 25% of Funding?

The $2.5 billion Bond was sold with a project list that totaled roughly $5.1 billion. However, partner funding more than made up the difference. Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has commitments for another $2.7 billion – bringing the total available to $5.2 billion. A $1.3 billion shortfall is 25% of that total.

Questions:

  • Why the shortfall?
  • Why the disproportionate cuts?
  • Why are we only learning now – seven years into the bond?
  • Are the proposed cuts fair?

Reasons Proposed for Shortfall

In her presentation Dr. Tina Petersen, executive director of HCFCD, attempted to explain the shortfall by alluding to:

  • Cost increases (i.e., due to inflation)
  • Grant requirements
  • Changing regulations
  • Right-of-way acquisitions
  • Program structure

Others have alluded to:

  • Scope creep
  • Cumbersome processes related to Ellis equity formula
  • Slow execution
  • Political interference
  • Need for more money in the original bond
  • Changes in leadership at HCFCD
  • Personnel turnover at lower levels
  • Unnecessary bureaucracy that adds cost without adding value
  • Covid
  • Low initial estimates
  • Addition of projects
  • IT system issues

Why Such Draconian Cuts?

Why are the cuts so disproportionate to the shortfall?

High on the list of possible explanations would be the motion that Democratic members of Commissioners Court approved.

It called to focus only on projects in the top quartile of Ellis’ Equity Prioritization Index.

But it also called to fully fund future costs associated with those projects. That builds scope creep into the bond.

If, for instance, the Flood Bond only included a preliminary engineering review for a project, it will now include full engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition, construction, landscaping, turnover costs and bagels.

In other words…

Funding for projects that voters approved is being cut to pay for projects they didn’t approve.

It’s a fundamental breach of public trust.

Why Are We Only Learning Now?

Since Harris County Democratic Commissioners brought in new management, HCFCD has largely gone dark. For example:

  • The District, once a paragon of transparency, efficiency, and speed under the previous leadership, has largely stopped updating its website as performance decreased.
  • Harris County Flood Control bid only three projects last year.
  • Active projects used to be updated weekly. Now they’ve disappeared from the website.
  • Bond-update frequency fell from monthly to quarterly to semi-annually to whenever-we-get-around-to-it. The last one took more than a year.
  • When commissioners asked for an update in February, it took HCFCD five months to produce an overly complicated report that few understood.
  • The County’s Flood Resilience Task Force is still waiting for flood-risk data it requested years ago.

The lack of information masks serious issues that have built for years concerning the efficiency and transparency of Flood Control.

In last week’s discussion, Judge Lina Hidalgo complained repeatedly and bitterly about her lack of understanding, a lack of transparency and her inability to get simple, straight answers.

But hey, what kind of manager puts up with that? For seven years!

Are Cuts Fair?

The County uses Rodney Ellis’ Equity Prioritization Index to rank flood-mitigation Bond IDs from 0 to 10 using a multi-factor index. Some Bond IDs contain multiple projects. But whether you assess the cuts by Bond ID or Projects, P3 still suffers the most.

After a marathon 5-hour discussion, Commissioners voted to continue funding only projects scoring above 7.5. The rest will die.

Ellis’ scoring matrix gives 65% weight to factors such as race, household income, social vulnerability, population density, and housing density.

It gives no weight to flood damage, severity of flooding, flood frequency, or flood risk.

Ellis cherry-picked statistics to gerrymander flood-control dollars, not reduce damage.

Many of the remaining dollars in the bond will go to watersheds that have already received hundreds of millions of dollars in mitigation funds. Meanwhile…

Other watersheds that have been shortchanged will now have their pockets picked.

Precinct 3 had the highest flooding in the county during Harvey.

Yet Precinct 3, the lone, Republican-led precinct, bore the brunt of the funding cuts wide margins.

Precinct 3 projects will suffer the most.

Here’s a breakdown of the totals by quintile and precinct. Because projects sometimes cross precinct boundaries, when a project did so, I counted it once for each precinct it benefitted.

Next, look at Bond IDs. A bond ID may contain multiple projects. And again, when a Bond ID benefited two precincts, I counted it twice. Percentages change slightly. But the same basic picture emerges…only more so:

Precinct 3 had the most Bond IDs defunded and kept the fewest.

Barrett Station is in Precinct 3. It’s one of the poorest areas in the county. And it had its funding cut. That shows this is more about politics than concern for the poor.

To compile these tables and the pie chart above, I counted Bond IDs and Projects in each quartile in this spreadsheet,

The funding cuts likely won’t affect a subset of 29 projects funded by HUD because those are 100% federally funded. Regardless…

The county will now pursue only one in four or five of the remaining bond projects/IDs.

Stunned citizens are struggling to comprehend the scope of the cuts, which will negatively impact roughly 80% of the county.

No wonder the county kept a tight lid on its analysis and didn’t post anything for the public to review before the meeting. Protesters might have showed up to counter two hours of testimony by Ellis’ surrogates last Thursday.

We Need to Demand…

  • Answers.
  • Action.
  • Accountability.
  • Fairness.

And we need them fast. Frankly, I’m surprised no one has filed a lawsuit yet. This feels like slow-motion voter fraud.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/29/25 and updated on 6/30/25

2861 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.

GLO Provides Update on HCFCD Grant Applications Totaling $850 Million

6/7/2025 – The Texas General Land Office (GLO) has provided an update on the status of more than $850 million in Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) grant applications related to Hurricane Harvey – including two that affect the Humble/Kingwood/Lake Houston Area.

GLO manages grants for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in Texas. The grants in question are HUD Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Relief and Flood Mitigation – CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT.

The dollars allocated to various projects have shifted slightly since the May update as HCFCD received firmer bids/estimates and revised applications slightly.

HCFCD DR-MIT Projects_rev 060625Download

The first category (disaster relief) totals $323.2 million. The second (flood mitigation) totals $529.5 million. Together, they total $852.7 million.

Approval Status

GLO has approved all but one of the Disaster Relief grants and is in the process of finalizing the Flood Mitigation applications with HCFCD.

Brittany Eck, a GLO spokesperson, said “There is a tremendous amount of work in progress, reviewing applications and request-for-information (RFI) responses to ensure all HUD eligibility requirements are met.”

In addition, 10 of the CDBG DR projects are in various stages of design. Two have already attained authority to use grant funds and will soon be going to bid. Arbor Oaks has already been bid and soon will be awarded, according to Eck. Bids closed on June 2.

There are 15 CDBG MIT project applications under various levels of review and two still in development.

This is no small task. Applications average around a hundred pages of technical data and there are 28 applications altogether. In addition to developing all that information, proving up the beneficiaries and LMI requirements is an even bigger part of the process, according to the GLO.

Projects Affecting Lake Houston Area

Two projects on the list greatly affect residents and businesses in the Humble/Kingwood/Lake Houston Area.

TC Jester Basin

The first is the East TC Jester Basin/Compartment 1B. It is located on the east side of TC Jester Boulevard in the Cypress Creek Watershed.

A regional drainage study for the watershed found that flooding along tributaries of Cypress Creek is predominately due to stormwater from Cypress Creek backing up into tributaries, rather than a lack of sufficient stormwater conveyance capacity on the tributaries themselves.

Therefore, stormwater detention basins were recommended to help to reduce the risk of flooding.

East Basin/Compartment 1 is the large one in the center.

In September 2023, several parties held a press conference to announce funding for this project at the job site. This should be the last piece of the puzzle to fall into place.

Major funding announced for Cypress Creek Detention Project by Crenshaw, Harless, Ramsey and Petersen
2023 photo at TC Jester Detention Basin Press Conference, L to R, U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw, State Representative Sam Harliss, Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, and Dr. Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD

The entire project (west and east basins) reportedly comprises 171 acres. The photo below shows the area where the first of the East Basins will go.

Looking east across TC Jester. Cypresswood Dr. runs up left side. HCFCD owns the large wooded property in center. Cypress Creek runs diagonally along the right side of the wooded area toward top of frame.

While benefits will accrue primarily to those who live nearby, Cypress Creek is a major tributary to Lake Houston. And all stormwater held back upstream helps people downstream, too.

GLO has already approved $24.6 million for this project.

Taylor Gully Channel Conveyance Improvements/Woodridge Stormwater Detention Basin

These two projects have been combined to speed up their approval. Together they should cost approximately $42 million and benefit residents in northeastern Kingwood.

Woodridge Village is the former Perry Homes development along the headwaters of Taylor Gully. After the developer cleared the property, hundreds of homes flooded multiple times.

Before Perry sold the property to HCFCD and the City of Houston, it excavated several small detention basins. But they fell about 40% short of Atlas 14 standards.

HCFCD then entered into an excavation and removal contract with Sprint Sand and Clay to increase stormwater detention capacity. The contractor eventually excavated almost enough to meet Atlas 14 standards. However, HCFCD was forced to terminate the contract when it applied for the HUD grant.

Woodridge Detention Basin on left. Long red/blue line is Taylor Gully.

Here’s how the site looked last week.

Woodridge Village on May 31 2025. New detention basin started but not connected yet to Taylor Gully (upper right).

This also will be a cooperative venture between local, state and federal authorities, including:

  • U.S. Congressman Dan Crenshaw (TX-02)
  • State Representative Charles Cunningham (TX HD-127)
  • Harris County Commissioner Tom Ramsey, P.E. (Precinct 3)
  • Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger (District E)
  • Dr. Tina Petersen, P.E., Executive Director, Harris County Flood Control District

At a press conference on September 17, 2024, they discussed funding.

What Woodridge/Taylor Gully Project Includes

HCFCD applied for grants to:

  • Expand a portion of Taylor Gully and line it with concrete.
  • Build another stormwater detention basin on Woodridge Village holding 412 acre-feet.
  • Replace the culverts at Rustling Elms with a clear-span bridge.

HCFCD is working closely with GLO to move the application along as quickly as possible. That’s also true for the other CDBG-MIT projects. The CDBG-DR projects have tighter deadlines, which is why HCFCD/GLO focused on those first.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/7/2025

2839 Days since Hurricane Harvey

New State Budget Includes $200 Million for Area Flood Projects, Dredging

6/3/25 – The new 1,056-page Texas state budget includes more than $200 million for Houston-area flood mitigation projects and dredging.

The legislature allocated $50 million for Lake Houston dredging through the Texas Water Development Board and another $150 million for Houston/Harris County Area flood-mitigation projects.

That’s out of a total $581 million appropriated to TWDB for funding infrastructure, flood, wastewater and water-supply projects.

List of Other Local Flood-Mitigation Projects

Other Houston/Harris County flood-related projects include:

Dredging Program Must Make Business Sense

For the Lake Houston dredging district (HB1532) to succeed long term, the operation must make business sense. The legislation that formed the district stipulates it cannot impose taxes or fees. So operations must generate a funding stream from the sale of spoils for beneficial uses such as roads, development, and the Ike Dike.

However, in the near term, the dredging money allocated by the legislature could be used to help purchase dredging equipment and set up operations.

Many decisions lie ahead re: equipment, staging areas, staffing, sales of the spoils, maintenance, trucking, and more.

Frankly, I thought we might have to wait until the next session of the legislature in two years before we had a chance at seed money to launch the dredging district.

So, seeing the money in this state budget is a very pleasant surprise…as is the additional $150+ million for other flood-mitigation projects coming to the Houston region!

For More Information

To see the entire 1068-page state budget, click here. (Warning: 10 meg download.)

For the two pages relating to TWDB and flood mitigation projects, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/3/2025

2885 Days since Hurricane Harvey

On Eve of Hurricane Season, NOAA, NWS, NHC, FEMA Struggle with Cuts

5/31/25 – The 2025 Hurricane Season starts tomorrow, 6/1/25. But ironically, despite predictions of an above-average season, the federal agencies that help forecast hurricanes, issue warnings, and provide disaster relief are struggling with significant funding, staff and program cuts.

Poignant Letter in New York Times

Michael Lowry, who served as a senior scientist at the National Hurricane Center (NHC), a planning chief at FEMA, and a hurricane expert at the Weather Channel, wrote a poignant letter published in the New York Times today under the headline “A Hurricane Season Like No Other.”

The letter began with an anecdote about data collection from inside Hurricane Milton last year by a Hurricane Hunter crew. The data they collected about “vortex alignment” heralded rapid intensification of the storm. Within 24 hours, it had become the strongest hurricane in 20 years with 180 MPH winds.

Milton satellite
Milton as it began intensifying and heading toward the Florida Coast

But there was no surprise on the Florida coast. The forecasts gave “enough time for people in the highest-risk areas to safely evacuate and businesses to prepare for the worst.”

Lowry then segues to budget, staff and program cuts at FEMA, NOAA, NHC, the National Weather Service (NWS), Hurricane Hunters, and more. Some examples:

  • NWS offices that have lost 60 percent of their staff members, including entire management teams.
  • Nearly half of NWS local forecast offices are understaffed, with vacancy rates of 20 percent or higher.
  • Weather balloon launches are down 15 to 20 percent nationwide. The balloons increase forecast confidence and let evacuation orders be made sooner. 
  • New budget documents released Friday propose eliminating NOAA’s research wing, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, which lends mission-critical support to the hurricane hunters.

Along the way, Lowry points out that “The National Weather Service costs the average American $4 per year in today’s inflated dollars — about the same as a gallon of milk — and offers an 8,000 percent annual return on investment, according to 2024 estimates.”

“Without the arsenal of tools from NOAA and its 6.3 billion observations sourced each day, the routinely detected hurricanes of today could become the deadly surprise hurricanes of tomorrow,” he says.

Bottom line: Lowry says we’re jeopardizing decades of progress that have increased forecast accuracy and warning times. And that will put more people at risk.

Dizzying Days for FEMA: Cuts and More Cuts

Andrew Rumbach, a Senior Fellow with the Urban Land Institute writes about policies for disaster risk reduction. He wrote a Substack post in early May called “100 Dizzying Days for FEMA.” It details the dismantling of disaster-relief and flood-mitigation capabilities including:

Could States Do What FEMA Does?

An article in the June 9 issue of Time Magazine addresses whether states could do what FEMA does. The consensus: it makes more sense to manage disaster response at the federal level. Why? It’s more efficient. If you spread disaster responsibilities among 50 states, you will have a lot of people sitting around a long time between disasters. FEMA can shift people from state to state, disaster to disaster, and keep them busier.

Experts cite the need for reform. But getting rid of the system without a meaningful replacement is likely to cause harm.

My takeaway from the article: Surgeons experience better outcomes with scalpels than cannons.

Erosion of Safety Margins

We live in a time of uncertainty. I’m not sure which is scarier: major hurricanes, a reduction in forecasting capabilities, or the loss of disaster-relief and flood-mitigation assistance.

These cuts will erode safety margins. Sixty million Americans reportedly live in areas regularly impacted by hurricanes.

If you haven’t already completed preparations for hurricane season, check out this NWS page on Hurricane Safety Tips and Preparations. Before someone takes it down to save a buck.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/31/25

2832 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Where Texas Gets Its Money and Why It Matters

4/26/25 – Where does Texas get its money and why does it matter?

According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau analyzed by the Pew Foundation, the State of Texas received almost as much revenue from the Federal Government as it did from taxes in 2022.

That means that cutbacks in federal spending could affect disaster preparedness, flood mitigation, and recovery efforts in the Lone Star State at a time when more and more hurricanes are rapidly intensifying.

Texas Gets 38% of Its Money From Federal Government

In 2022, the last full year for which the Census Bureau has published data, Texas received 38% of its revenue from the federal government.

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s 2022 Annual Survey of State Government Finances

Texas receives more than the national average in terms of the percentage of its funds received from the federal government.

From Pew based on data above.

Over time, the percentage has trended up.

Data downloaded from Pew, Where States Get their Money

The percentage peaked in Texas during the Pandemic, but otherwise has hovered in the 30-40% range for the last quarter century.

How States Use Federal Money

According to Pew, the funding states receive from the U.S. government helps pay for public services, such as health care; education and training; public safety and justice; housing and community development; child care; transportation; and infrastructure.

In Texas, billions also help mitigate flooding in the form of buyouts; grants for studies; and design and construction of flood-reduction projects.

Budget Cuts Could Impact Disaster Spending

Recent budget cuts driven by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump administration have significantly impacted both the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), affecting disaster preparedness.

The cuts come in the form of program terminations, staff reductions, and shifts in responsibilities. The administration has signaled intentions to drastically reduce or even eliminate FEMA’s role in disaster response, shifting responsibilities to states. 

The reductions not only diminish the federal government’s capacity to respond to emergencies, but also place additional burdens on state and local governments to fill the gaps left by these federal withdrawals.​

Axios published a story on 4/25/25 about the effects of staff and budget cuts on FEMA headlined “FEMA staff fear they aren’t ready for 2025 hurricane season.”

More Hurricanes Rapidly Intensifying

Sea surface temperatures in the Gulf are already raising concerns.

Yesterday’s Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies from NOAA

Recent studies indicate a notable increase in the frequency and magnitude of rapid intensification events:​

  • Increased Frequency Near Coastlines: The frequency of rapidly intensifying storms within 240 miles of coastlines has significantly increased over the past 40 years. ​National Geographic
  • Higher Intensification Rates: Between 1971 and 2020, mean maximum intensification rates for Atlantic tropical cyclones increased by up to 28.7% compared to earlier decades. ​Nature
  • Global Trends: The occurrence of rapid intensification events has tripled in global coastal regions from 1980 to 2020, highlighting a worldwide trend. ​

These changes are largely attributed to warmer ocean temperatures, which provide more energy for storms, and a more humid atmosphere. ​Wikipedia+1The Atlantic+1

Recent Examples of Rapid Intensification

Several recent hurricanes exemplify this alarming trend:​

  • Hurricane Otis (2023): Transformed from a tropical storm to a Category 5 hurricane with 165 mph winds in less than 24 hours before striking Acapulco, Mexico. ​
  • Hurricane Milton (2024): Rapidly intensified from a Category 1 to a Category 5 hurricane within 12 hours over the Gulf of Mexico, fueled by exceptionally warm sea surface temperatures. ​The Atlantic
  • Hurricane Beryl (2024): Became the earliest Category 5 hurricane on record in the Atlantic, intensifying rapidly due to unusually warm ocean waters. ​

Implications for Coastal Communities

The increasing frequency of rapid intensification events poses significant risks, including:

  • Reduced Preparation Time: Communities have less time to prepare and evacuate, increasing the potential for loss of life and property.​
  • Forecasting Challenges: Rapid changes in storm intensity complicate forecasting efforts, making it harder to provide accurate warnings.​
  • Increased Damage Potential: Stronger storms can lead to more severe flooding, higher storm surges, and greater overall destruction.​

Given these trends, it’s crucial for coastal regions, including Texas, to enhance their disaster preparedness plans and capabilities.

Tax-Free Emergency Supplies Through 28th

And that reminds me, emergency supplies such as batteries, flashlights and generators, are tax free this weekend. So stock up now. Here’s a list of tax free items from April 26-28.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/26/25

2797 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Why Flood Mitigation Needs Steady Funding Source

4/15/25 – At a flood resilience workshop yesterday in Houston, the importance of a steady funding source for flood-mitigation projects became abundantly clear.

The Biannual Resiliency Workshop of the Society of American Military Engineers (S.A.M.E.) drew a star-studded lineup of speakers for the hundreds of engineers, lawyers and business people in attendance.

Alia Vinson, a partner at the law firm of Allen Boone Humphries Robinson LLP, made steady funding for flood mitigation the focus of her entire talk. She even wore green to underscore her theme. (“The color of money,” she said.)

Alia Vinson, partner at Allen Boone Humphries Robinson LLP, speaking at S.A.M.E. workshop.

After Vinson, the keynote speaker, Congressman Wesley Hunt, talked about “unsustainable federal spending.” The Federal government provides most of the flood-mitigation financial assistance in the country through FEMA and HUD. But both agencies have come under fire by President Trump and Elon Musk lately. That creates uncertainty for Texas where more people live in floodplains than the entire populations of 30 other states.

Competition for Flood Mitigation Funding Getting Stronger

Vinson’s talk focused primarily on the vigorous competition for funds in this Texas Legislature and the previous session. She began with the creation of the Texas Water Fund (Proposition 6) in 2023, which triggered a $1 billion investment in new water infrastructure needed to support a growing population.

The Texas Water Development Board administers the Texas Water Fund. It has the authority to shift money as needed between at least eight different programs. They award loans and grants to political subdivisions for local water and wastewater infrastructure projects. They include:

  • New Water Supply Fund
  • SWIFT
  • State Revolving Funds
  • Rural Water Assistance Fund
  • DFund
  • State Participation Fund
  • Water Awareness Fund
  • Water Assistance Fund

At least 25% of the $1 billion must go to the New Water Supply Fund, which supports projects such as:

  • Desalination
  • Aquifer storage and retrieval
  • Use of produced water
  • Transport of water

The point:

None of these has to do with flooding or flood mitigation.

This year, “new water” again is high on the Legislature’s agenda. Although nothing is final yet, base budgets have set aside $2.5 billion for the Texas Water Fund.

Pending Legislation Could Help Address Mitigation Needs

Vinson then shifted focus to this year’s SB7 by Senator Charles Perry and HB16 by Rep. Cody Harris.

The Senate has already approved SB7 and sent it to the House Natural Resources Committee. A key provision makes the Flood Infrastructure Fund eligible for money from the Texas Water Fund.

HB16 does the same thing, but hasn’t made it out of the Natural Resources Committee yet for a vote by the House.

Two other bills pending this year would create a dedicated revenue stream of $1 billion per year for the Texas Water Fund. They are SJR 66 and HJR 7. The big difference between them: the Senate Bill requires at least 80% to be used ONLY for New Water Supply. That would limit flood mitigation funding to only 20% of $1 billion.

Still No Dedicated Funding Stream

I took away two main things from Vinson’s speech:

  • Texas doesn’t yet have a dedicated funding source for water OR flood mitigation projects.
  • The money available for flood mitigation is being fragmented among competing needs.

That dedicated funding source could quickly become increasingly important. Uncertainty continues to swirl around financial support from the federal government, which has the deepest pockets when it comes to flood mitigation and disaster relief.

This morning, Politico ran a story with the headline, “FEMA denies Washington state disaster relief from bomb cyclone, governor says.” FEMA denied the State’s request for $34 million for disaster relief even though it reportedly met all the criteria for assistance. According to the State’s governor, FEMA provided no explanation for the denial, but said “assistance was not warranted.”

Federal Support Uncertain

Another speaker yesterday at the S.A.M.E. workshop, U.S. Congressman Wesley Hunt, said he had talked directly with President Trump and Elon Musk at length about the Federal budget.

Congressman Hunt addresses S.A.M.E. workshop about ballooning federal deficit and need to cut spending.

Hunt said the U.S. has a $2 trillion annual deficit and that we are $36 trillion in debt. He characterized both as “unsustainable.”

However, a group called “Truth in Accounting” that monitors government finances reported this morning that the situation is even more dire. The group applies generally accepted accounting principles from the private sector to government spending reports.

According to Truth in Accounting, the government’s financial position worsened by $4.7 trillion last year, not $2 trillion.

Truth in Accounting also says the government needs $158.6 trillion to pay its bills, not $36 trillion. And that each taxpayer’s share of the burden is $974,000.

The ominous warnings from Hunt and Truth in Accounting come as President Trump has questioned whether to disband FEMA entirely and give money directly to states to handle disasters. According to Politico, Trump has created “a council to study what to do with FEMA and whether to get rid of it.”

The uncertainty surrounding future availability of Federal aid makes it all the more important for Texas to provide a dedicated, steady funding stream for flood mitigation.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/15/2025

2786 Days since Hurricane Harvey

FEMA Eliminating Important BRIC Grants

4/5/2025 – On 4/4/25, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced the termination of BRIC grants.

The Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Grant Program encouraged better building practices. The grants also funded mitigation projects that reduced future flood damage.

Through its project scoring matrix, BRIC grants incentivized the adoption of building codes that strengthened infrastructure and buildings against natural disasters. The codes address issues, such as elevation above floodplains and types of foundations, that help improve safety and prevent future damage.

Photo Courtesy of Denise Faulkner

Program Linked to Building Codes that Reduced Future Damage

To maximize a project’s “score” during competitive evaluation, states had to adopt, at a minimum, the International Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code (IRC) as published by the International Code Council (ICC). ICC updates the codes annually.

According to Alan Black, vice president of Quiddity Engineering in Houston, “BRIC applications receive 20 points (out of a possible 100) if the State has adopted the 2018 version (or later) of both IBC and IRC.”

However, Black also points out that Texas currently only mandates the 2012 codes as a minimum, even though municipalities may adopt higher standards. The 2012 code put many Texas applications at a competitive disadvantage.

Black says, “Unincorporated areas by state law are prohibited from adopting their own building codes, and as such, applications from these areas receive 0 out of 20 points.”

Positive Payback for Higher Building Codes

Regardless, encouraging adoption of higher building standards in densely populated flood-prone areas is positive.

John Blount, a former Harris County Engineer, studied how areas in Harris County that had and hadn’t adopted a 2009 building code update handled Hurricane Harvey.

The study found 20 times less damage in subdivisions using the newer, more stringent building codes.

Even more impressive, Blount found that not one home built to the higher standards suffered substantial damage during Harvey.

A national study published by FEMA in 2020 demonstrated the value of adopting hazard-resistant building codes. They can provide an 11-to-1 return by reducing losses and helping communities get back on their feet faster after disasters.

That’s right. Every $1 spent on mitigation in new-building-code construction saves $11 in disaster repair and recovery costs.

Black, also a former acting director of Harris County Flood Control, said that 11:1 sounded a bit high in his experience. He used a rule of thumb of 4:1 for this area.

Easily Correctable Rules May Have Doomed Entire Program

Regardless, yesterday, Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security (FEMA’s parent department), announced she was “eliminating the wasteful, politicized grant program” started during President Trump’s first term.

A FEMA spokesperson said, “The BRIC Program was yet another example of a wasteful and ineffective FEMA program. It was more concerned with political agendas than helping Americans affected by natural disasters.”

Noem is canceling all BRIC applications from 2020 to 2023 and clawing back any unspent money, according to her press release. It said, “Approximately $882 million of funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will be returned to the U.S. Treasury or reapportioned by Congress in the next fiscal year.”

Noem said she is doing this to “return FEMA to its core mission of helping Americans recover from natural disasters.”

An analogy: It feels as if she would rather reconstruct a plane after it crashed than help land it safely.

Third-party press reports shed a bit more light. Grist reported a FEMA spokesperson as saying that FEMA “was more concerned with climate change than helping Americans affected by natural disasters.” Grist also pointed out that BRIC generally shouldered 75 percent of the cost of a given resilience project, and up to 90 percent of the cost of projects in disadvantaged communities.

Scientific American reported that “President Joe Biden ordered the program to address climate change and spend 40 percent of its grant money on projects that help communities with high rates of poverty, unemployment and environmental exposure.”

“The program’s emphasis on equity is what may have marked it for demolition,” concluded Grist.

Local Impact

The cancellation of BRIC grants will reportedly crush projects underway, but not yet completed. FEMA says it is clawing back all unspent money, even if a project has already started.

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure released a report yesterday detailing how much each state would be affected by the loss of BRIC funding. Texas will lose $510,667,172, second only to California.

A FEMA spreadsheet shows that Harris County and the Harris County Flood Control District had applied for 10 BRIC grants:

Forest Shadows Subdivision Flood Mitigation BRIC
Bear Creek Village Subdivision Flood Mitigation BRIC
Project Scoping for Cypress Creek Watershed Study – Harris County Flood Control District, TX
Harris County TX Greens Bayou Mid-Reach Channel Conveyance Improvements – Segment 1 FY2022 BRIC
BRIC 2020 Buyout
Project Scoping for Cole Creek Stormwater Detention Basin Preliminary Engineering Report “ HCFCD, TX
South Post Oak Detention Basin C547-00-00 & Channel Improvement C147-00-00 in Harris Co, TX BRIC
Little Cedar Bayou Flood Risk Reduction Project Scoping – Harris County Flood Control District, TX
Cloverleaf Area Drainage Improvements – Phase 2 – Harris County Flood Control District, TX
Cypress Trace Stormwater Detention Basin C&CB Project Scoping“ Harris County Flood Control District

It’s not immediately clear how the BRIC decision will affect the fate of those projects. FEMA may have rejected some projects previously. And some, if cancelled, may have alternative sources of funding available.

Editorial Comment

If Noem felt BRIC did not meet the Administration’s objectives, it seems she could have easily modified the program rather than killing it.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/5/25

2776 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.