Funding Archives - Page 6 of 12

Dems Deprive Republican Precincts of Services

Late in the afternoon on 9/13/22, my phone started blowing up. Frantic callers asked, “Are you watching Commissioners Court?” I wasn’t unfortunately. I was working on a post about the completion of a flood-mitigation project. But my priorities quickly changed when I learned that the three Democrats (Garcia, Ellis and Hidalgo) voted – as a block – to take take “no action” on 32 separate projects. Each will deprive residents of Precincts 3 and 4 of services.

*Adrian Garcia, Rodney Ellis and Lina Hidalgo removed 32 items from the 8/13/22 Harris County Commissioners Court Agenda that would have helped residents of Precincts 3 and 4.*

The brazen no-action votes, led by Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia, were in retaliation for Republican commissioners walking out of a vote that would have allowed Democrats to increase taxes at a time when rising inflation makes larger tax bills doubly difficult.

A quarter of the no-action votes directly targeted residents. The other three-quarters target companies that provide services that benefit residents, such as engineering companies that improve drainage.

Targeted items included residents’ community center wellness classes, maintenance, flood-rescue equipment, roadway improvements and drainage projects.

Violating Historical Norms

By agreement and tradition, historically, Harris County Commissioners do not interfere with each others’ business. So this sets a dangerous precedent in which one party weaponizes its majority to punish the opposition’s constituents. Here’s what happened.

Ramsey and Precinct 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle boycotted the meeting so that the Court would not have sufficient votes to raise taxes. In retaliation, Commissioner Adrian Garcia, aided by Commissioner Rodney Ellis and County Judge Lina Hidalgo, pulled dozens of Precinct 3 and 4 items from the agenda.

Commissioner Ramsey said in a press release that, “This is retaliation against Harris County residents at its lowest level. It punishes residents because they disagree about having a responsible fiscal budget. It’s childish and embarrassing for the Court and Harris County.”

Ramsey and Cagle have tried for several months to engage their Democratic counterparts in substantive budget discussions with little luck. The Democrats even rammed through a $1.2 billion bond proposal with no details except for a lopsided allocation plan that gave about 40% more to Democratic precincts.

Previously, Commissioners have agreed to respect the boundaries of one another’s precincts. “Today’s action is the latest example of Precinct 3 residents being stripped of services by the current Court,” said Ramsey.

Ramsey’s allusion to “latest” referred to a redistricting plan that left Ramsey with 47% of the county’s unincorporated area to maintain with only 25% of the budget.

During redistricting, Garcia also tried to shift $191 million from Precinct 3’s Cedar Bayou flood-bond budget to areas within his newly redrawn precinct.

Ramsey’s Rebuttal to Dire Dem Predictions

At one point Lina Hidalgo threatened a government shutdown. “If we don’t adopt a budget today, there would be government shutdown in essence,” she said at 35:40 into the 5-hour video.

Said Ramsey, “Judge Hidalgo and others would have you believe that since there was not a quorum at today’s Commissioners Court, the budget will fail. In reality, the lack of a quorum simply means that the maximum tax rate allowed by law – without voter consent – cannot be implemented. Instead, a smaller budget will be adopted.”

The difference between the two budgets is $100 million. Out of a $2.2 billion budget, that’s 4.5%.

Hidalgo counters that the extra money is needed for more “officers.” According to Ramsey, she referenced investigators and detention officers, “yet didn’t mention adding one patrol officer” who could combat street crime.

Hidalgo also threatened that if the maximum budget and tax rate aren’t passed, 180 flood projects that “…affect the lives of every single resident in Harris County” will be jeopardized. But the bond pays for those projects, and the difference between the two budgets for flood control is only $14 million. That’s .6% of the HCFCD’s budget. And Commissioners Ramsey and Cagle volunteered $7 million each from their precinct budgets to make up the difference.

Finally, Judge Hidalgo asserted that not passing the Voter-Approved-Rate budget instead of the No-New-Revenue budget would dramatically affect the Harris Health System. The difference between the two budgets is less than 2%. And Ramsey points out that many of the Health System’s requests are for capital investments which are not even a part of these budgets at all.

On-Call Engineering Contracts Delayed by Dems

So which projects did Dems pull from the agenda? Let’s start with retainer fees for on-call engineering in Precincts 3 and 4. The numbers below refer to agenda items. See full descriptions here.

#43 Pape-Dawson Consulting Engineers, Inc. for Precinct 3
#44 Volkert, Inc. for Precinct 3
#45 Cascade Civil Services, LLC for Precinct 3
#49 HVJ Associates, Inc. for Precinct 4
#52 Eneval, LLC for Precinct 4
#53 Volkert, Inc. for Precinct 4

Engineering Contracts for Specific Projects Also Delayed

In addition, the Dems agreed to delay approval of engineering contracts or contract amendments for specific projects in Precincts 3 and 4..

#51 Request to amend a contract Isani Consultants, L.P. for Professional Engineering Services relating to Stuebner Airline Road Segment C in Precinct 3.
#55 Approval of a contract with Edminster, Hinshaw, Russ and Associates, Inc. d/b/a EHRA to develop a Master Plan for improvements to Burnett Bayland Park in Precinct 4.
#67 Approval of an amendment to a contract with Huitt-Zollars, Inc. for improvements to Atascocita Area Trails Phase 2 in Precinct 3.
#76 Approval of Interlocal Agreement with City of Tomball to construct improvements to Nabors Parkway between Highway 249 and Holderrieth Road in Precinct 4.
#114 Approval of a contract with HNTB Corporation for engineering and landscape architecture services for a Road and Drainage Master Plan, Precinct 4.

Bizarre Delay

For unknown reasons, the Dems also voted to pull the following from the agenda:

#119 Request for approval to change the names of several projects in Precinct 3.

Delaying Release or Retention of Financial Surety

The following motions relating to approval of the release or retention of financial surety from developers were also taken off the agenda.

#123 Grand Oaks Section 9 in Precinct 4.
#124 Breckenridge West Section 7 in Precinct 3.
#125 Breckenridge West Section 10 in Precinct 3.
#126 Bridge Creek Section 2 in Precinct 3.
#127 Bridgeland Creek Parkway in Precinct 4.
#128 Bridgeland Sec 44 in Precinct 3.
#129 Bridgeland streets in Precinct 4.
#131 Groves Section 35 in Precinct 3.
#132 Groves Section 36 in Precinct 3.
#133 Newport Section 7 Partial Replat #3 in Precinct 3.
#134 Newport Section 7 Partial Replat #4 in Precinct 3.
#135 Windrow Section 3 in Precinct 4.

Delaying/Denying Services Directly Affecting Public

The items that most directly and immediately affect residents include the following. Garcia, Hidalgo and Ellis took each off the agenda.

#155 Approval to negotiate an agreement for surveying as needed in Precinct 3.
#160 Approval to convert Sam Houston Tollway Segment #3 in Precincts 3 and 4 to an all-electronic roadway.
#278 Approval to construct pedestrian trails along a drainage ditch of Brays Bayou under Addicks Clodine Road Bridge in Precinct 3.
#291 Renewal of 1-year contract for exercise classes in Precinct 3.
#342 Approval to bid reinforced concrete pipe, saddle inlets and related items for Precinct 4.
#343 Approval to bid asphalt roadway rehabilitation for the Western Trails Subdivision in Precinct 3.
#351 Approval to bid airboat and trailer purchases for Precinct 3.
#352 Approval to bid passenger buses for Precinct 3.

Most Troubling Item Cancelled, Not Just Delayed

#351 is especially concerning because the airboats would presumably be used for rescue operations during flooding…something the Lake Houston Area remembers all too well. The Dems outright cancelled that; they didn’t just delay it.

Watch the meeting and form your own opinions. Apocalyptic predictions take up the first three hours and fifty minutes. Garcia then starts listing the agenda items he wants to kill or take off the agenda.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/14/22

1842 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Update on new Woodridge Village Detention Pond

At the end of August, I checked with Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) to see how excavation of the new Woodridge Village detention pond was coming and what the next steps are.

Before and After Photos

The two photos below show the extent of excavation at the end of July and today.

Woodridge Village Excavation — *The far end of the pond reached slightly past the second cluster of storm sewers at the end of July.*

*By the end of August, excavation had reached the far end of the second pile of storm sewers.*

Eventually, the new detention basin could reach to or past the cluster of trees in the background.

Rough layout for new Woodridge basin. — *Rough layout showing the excavation limits for Sprint. Right now, they’re in the lower left of the green area.*

Progress by the Numbers

From February through August, 2022, Sprint Sand and Clay has removed 55,167 Cubic Yards of dirt from the area where a new detention pond will eventually be built.

Eventually, they could double the amount of detention on the site. Sprint’s contract lets them remove up to 500,000 cubic yards and sell the dirt at market rates. In exchange, HCFCD will pay them only $1,000. The minimum amount to be removed under the contract is 5,000 cubic yards per month.

Since January, Sprint has managed to beat the minimum each month. But regular reports show the rate of excavation slowing with the housing market.

Sprint began work on January 27, 2022.

By mid-April, Sprint was averaging a little more than 14,000 cubic yards per month.

But by the end of July, the average fell to 8,000 cubic yards per month.

And in August, Sprint removed only 6,307 cubic yards.

At 6,000 cubic yards per month, Sprint exceeds the contract minimum. But it would take the company another six years to reach 500,000 cubic yards. Flood-weary Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest residents pray it doesn’t take that long.

Slowing Rates Reflect Slowdown in Housing

The slowing rates of removal reflect a slowdown in the housing market. The Census Bureau reports that privately‐owned housing starts in July were 9.6 percent below June and 8.1 percent below July 2021. TradingEconomics.com reports that the housing sector has been cooling down amid soaring prices of materials and rising mortgage rates. The Census Bureau has not yet released August rates.

Luckily, this project and others in the Kingwood Area could potentially accelerate soon.

Status of Preliminary Engineering Review on Taylor Gully

Idcus should be done with the Taylor Gully preliminary engineering review this fall. However, the Idcus contract does not include design of the detention basin that Sprint is working on. According to Alan Black, HCFCD Director of Operations, that design will need to go under a separate contract.

Funding for Design and Construction

That’s because US Congressman Dan Crenshaw secured a $1.6 million earmark earlier this year that will pay for design. Crenshaw has also requested another $10 million earmark to complete the actual construction of the Woodridge Basin when design is finalized.

According to Black, HCFCD can’t just extend the Idcus contract. HCFCD will have to start over with a request for qualifications (RFQ) for final design of the Woodridge Village detention basin and other improvements along Taylor Gully.

“That’s because the money that we’re going to use is coming from this year’s earmark from Congressman Crenshaw,” said Black. “Because federal funds are involved, we have to issue a new RFQ. We can’t use the consultant we already have just by default. So it will take us a little bit longer. By the end of this year or the beginning of next, we need to get a consultant selected, based on qualifications, once those grants come to fruition. In this case, they will be through the EPA.”

Other Crenshaw Requests to Help Lake Houston Area

As reported last night, in the immediate future, funding for projects in the Lake Houston Area will likely have to come from the Federal, State or City governments. Crenshaw has requested $10 million for construction of the Woodridge Basin, $8 million for the Lake Houston Dam Spillway Improvement Project, and another $10 million to construct another detention basin along Cedar Bayou. Crenshaw already secured another $1.6 million for final engineering of improvements to the Kingwood Diversion Ditch.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/2/22

1830 Days since Hurricane Harvey

San Jacinto Watershed Still Virtually Ignored

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) spending data on right-of-way acquisition and construction for the first half of 2022 shows that, once again, the San Jacinto watershed has been ignored. Thus, the largest watershed in the county received virtually no help in terms of flood-mitigation funding.

Brays, where Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis lives, received $89.4 million for the completion of Project Brays. But the San Jacinto watershed and Kingwood, which he constantly berates for getting “all the money,” received only $200 thousand. Cedar Bayou, also in the northeastern part of the county, received only $160 thousand. Buffalo Bayou received only $230 thousand.

Thus, Ellis’s Brays received 389X more than Buffalo Bayou. 447X more than San Jacinto. And 559X more than Cedar. All in the name of equity.

Oh, and don’t forget that Adrian Garcia tried to move $190 million designated for Cedar Bayou in the 2018 Flood Bond to his newly redistricted Precinct 2. I’m convinced that that’s what poker players call a “tell.” See more below. But first…

FOIA Data in Graph and Table Formats

Here’s the right-of-way and construction data from my FOIA Request in a bar graph. Do those blips on the right below make you feel ignored?

*Harris County ROW and Construction dpending data obtained via a FOIA Request* *for Q1 and Q2 2022*

Here’s the same data in a table, again arranged from highest to lowest.

If it weren’t for money contributed by Federal, State and City sources, virtually nothing would get done in this part of the county. So far, Harris County has mostly paid for studies. But the studies do no good without construction to back them up. They’re just yellowing paper on a bookshelf somewhere.

It looks like the Democrats are hoarding money hoping for a larger majority in November so they can move around – at will – the remaining money in the bond.

Hypocrisy of “Worst First”

Since 1979, floods have ravaged the northeastern part of the county more than most.

historical flood loss map of Harris County after Hurricane Harvey — *Historical flood-loss map of Harris County since 1979*. From MAAPnext.

And during Harvey, we had the highest water above flood stage in the county – 20+ feet! Compare that to representative locations in watersheds getting the lion’s share of funding.

worst first — *Chart showing feet above flood stage of 33 gages of misc. bayous in Harris County during Harvey.*

It’s much more difficult to survive a 20′ flood than a flood that’s two or three feet.

When Will This Political Torture End?

The Democratic majority on Commissioners Court has proven that it won’t play fair. It’s up to voters to create a new majority in November and right this wrong. People’s lives are at risk.

*Imagine being trapped in one of these as water rose during Harvey. Parts of other townhomes were swept away and now lie at the bottom of Lake Houston somewhere.*

Just yesterday, we were treated to more political theater in Commissioners Court by members of the Northeast Action Collective whining about how they don’t get any money. Their watersheds netted approximately $78 million in the first half of this year alone! And they want to take money from Kingwood!

If you lump historical spending on top of first-half spending, the disparities become even more exaggerated. Get mad, people. Your silence only emboldens them. Demand fairness. Demand change.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/1/22

1829 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The High Price of Admission for Political Theater

Those who watched Harris County Commissioners Court on Tuesday, 8/2/22, soon realized they were in for some gripping political theater. The meeting started with a parade of 60 people making public comments. They took up more than three hours. It felt like the vast majority spoke in favor of Adrian Garcia’s proposed new $1.2 billion bond. And of those, the vast majority were Sheriff’s Deputies from a department Garcia once headed. Not one constable appeared.

*File photo of Adrian Garcia, Precinct 2 Commissioner.*

The speakers may have been describing real needs. But if the needs were really that critical, why did the deputies never complain before? I find so many sudden and simultaneous complaints highly suspicious, as if someone orchestrated them.

But it wasn’t just the orchestration that raised questions about Garcia’s $1.2 billion bond proposal.

Conflicting Cues

Conflicting cues throughout the day left me doubting and distrustful. The pieces just didn’t add up. The performers in this melodrama stumbled all over each other – for more than five hours in total if you include the debate time on Garcia’s bond motion.

Neither Hidalgo, Ellis, Garcia, the County Administrator, nor Budget Director could actually name one project where the money would go, despite previous promises to at least compile a list of flagship projects.
If needs are so glaring, compiling a list should be quick and easy.
During the debate, it came out that much of the money from the 2015 bond program still has not been spent. That raised the question, “Why do we need another bond?”
The County Administrator and Budget Director claimed the bond would not increase property tax rates. But they did not calculate the impact of skyrocketing valuations and their impact on the total cost of tax payments – at a time when personal income can’t keep pace with inflation and food banks can’t keep pace with demand.
As if on cue, Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia repeatedly said the money would go to the “worst areas first.” But they refused to define “worst.”
Neither Ellis nor Garcia mentioned the $1.25 billion collected by the City of Houston in drainage fees during the last decade or how their Precincts largely overlap with the City and other municipalities. The cities are supposed to foot the bill for drainage and street repairs within their boundaries. The County focuses on unincorporated areas.

Red “Equity” Flags

Ellis also spoke of the need to apply “equity” guidelines to Garcia’s new $1.2 billion bond proposal.

Ellis openly bragged that he had a behind-the-scenes agreement to define “equity” in the 2018 flood bond in a way that the flood-bond language did not disclose. That made one wonder whether the three Democrats would play similar word tricks with voters in this bond.

In the middle of all this, a consultant presented a compensation survey of county employees. Ellis and others suggested that “equity” guidelines should apply to low salaries and that the county should cap high salaries. No one ever addressed “pay for performance.”

The Court voted 3-2 to allocate $220 million from the bond to the two Republican-leaning precincts, leaving $380 million each for Garcia and Ellis.

Connecting a lot of dots in this rambling meeting, I started to feel that the $1.2 billion was Garcia’s attempt to secure a slush fund for political patronage workers, vendors, and pet projects that would shore up his re-election chances. Could that be why he pushed so hard to put this on the ballot this year rather than next?

Many Unanswered Questions

In a previous meeting, Garcia threatened to withhold money from Republican-leaning precincts if their commissioners did not support his bond.

Why use such threats if you plan to distribute money fairly?
And if you plan to distribute the money fairly, why not disclose the methodology?
Why spring this on people two months before the election?
What’s the resistance to identifying projects?
How could you even determine the “worst” without a list of competing projects?

It would only take a few more months to put together a plan based on a list of needed projects. Then we could see what the actual costs were and vote on an appropriate amount of money.

Show Me the Costs and Benefits

In marketing, you always try to create a perception of value against which you sell. It appears Garcia, Ellis and Hidalgo have decided to bypass that step when selling this bond proposal.

I personally don’t plan to vote FOR another bond until I start seeing some benefit from the last two. Especially when there’s no guarantee how, where, or on what the money will be spent.

The cost of this political drama could average $1000 just in principle – PLUS interest – for every homeowner in Harris County.

That’s the high price of admission to political theater.

Before I shell out that kind of money, I at least want to know what the play is about. Let’s slow this down and figure that out.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/7/22

1804 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Halls Bayou Has Come a Long Way, But Still Has Long Way to Go

A popular misperception says Halls Bayou has received no flood-mitigation funding. Yet it has received $175 million since 2000. $65 million of that happened since Harvey.

Channel widening, stormwater-detention basins and neighborhood drainage improvements have reduced flood risk somewhat, but several factors – including the need for more funding – make mitigation difficult. HCFCD has many projects still seeking federal assistance.

The Bond Program approved by voters in 2018 includes more than $110 million for the Halls Bayou watershed. That money could help attract another $236 million in federal matching grants for a total of $346 million. But many projects have yet to receive grants and start construction.

Halls cuts diagonally across the northern part of Harris County between Beltway 8 and Loop 610 North. It joins Greens Bayou before the Ship Channel.

*From HCFCD.org* on 7/24/2022. *Halls, a tributary of Greens Bayou, is the darker shaded area.*

Background: Halls Ahead

Halls received an extraordinary amount of damage during Tropical Storm Allison in 2001. Among all 23 Harris County watersheds, it ranked second only behind Greens Bayou during that storm. But Greens has four times the area and three times the population. (Greens had 15,590 damaged structures; Halls had 12,820.)

As a result, HCFCD launched many studies of Halls drainage after Allison. They culminated in the 2013 Halls Ahead Plan. But HCFCD lacked money to fully implement it and still does. All unfunded Halls Ahead projects carried forward into the 2018 Bond Program and many were able to start as you will see in the pictures below. Several have even finished. However…

A Phasing Study designated 58 flood risk reduction projects in 12 phases, with estimated costs between $100 million and $150 million per phase.

Flood Control executives recently traveled to Washington to plead for more help from the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps now has a pilot program to help economically disadvantaged areas and Halls certainly qualifies. Halls has the highest percentage of vulnerable, Low-to-Moderate Income (LMI) residents of any watershed in Harris County (71%).

Complicating Factors

*Blocked roadside ditches trap floodwater in *neighborhoods*. City of Houston and Harris County Precincts are responsible for roadside ditches, not HCFCD.*

Halls is plagued by a combination of factors that make flood mitigation difficult:

Silted-in roadside ditches
Aging stormwater infrastructure
Developments built to older standards
Homes frequently built at street level
Dense population that leaves little room for mitigation projects
Structures built in floodplains that have to be bought out before many mitigation can begin (see below).

Flood History in Halls Watershed

Much of the Halls Bayou watershed developed during or after the 1950s. Take this area immediately east of what became I-45. It was farmland before then.

*Floodplains today. Cross hatched = Floodway. Aqua = 100-year floodplain. Brown = 500-year.* *Based on data developed after Allison. Floodplains will expand even farther after new updates.*

Homes and businesses built in Halls Bayou floodplains created the flood risk. They also make widening channels or building detention basins difficult because of time-consuming, expensive buyouts.

Vital Stats

These statistics help put Halls Bayou flood problems in perspective. Here’s how Halls ranks among 23 Harris County watersheds on:

Watershed size – #16 (42.3 square miles)
Population – #10 (152,358 in 2020 census, down 5% from 2010)
Population density – #6 (3,602 people/square mile)
Dollars per capita in flood mitigation spending – #5 ($1151 per resident)
Dollars per square mile – #4 ($3.9 million dollars per square mile between 2000 and the end of last year).
Damaged structures – #4 (25,691 structures during five major storms since 2000 [Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey and Imelda])
Damage per square mile – #1 (607.4 structures/sq. mi.)

That last point makes recovery difficult for communities, especially less affluent ones. It may help explain the decrease in population.

Allison, Harvey Dramatize Need for Mitigation

HCFCD has documented flooding along Halls 14 times since 1989. But the two worst storms were Allison (2001) and Harvey (2017). Allison damaged 12,820 structures in the watershed. But Harvey damaged fewer – 11,831.

It’s fairly safe to say that without many mitigation improvements made prior to Harvey, Harvey damage would have been worse. However, rainfall distribution patterns make comparisons between the storms difficult.

The following table from HCFCD’s final Harvey report compares rainfall associated with severe, recent storms for various time periods. Tropical Storm Allison exceeds Harvey’s rainfall in the 6, 12 and 24-hr periods. But in the 2-day period, Harvey produced 6.0 inches more than Allison and 8.9 inches more over 4 days.

Photos of Stormwater Detention Projects from 7/19/22 Flyover

Last Tuesday, I flew most of the length of Halls Bayou with two fellow members of the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force, Ken Williams and Bill Callegari. Let’s take a look at several Halls projects already completed or under construction – starting upstream and working east.

Helms Street Basins

East Helms runs between these two small basins just south of Aldine Mail Route Road. HCFCD completed these last year. They hold 119 acre-feet. That’s a little less than 3″ of stormwater falling over a square mile.

*Looking NE.* *Helms Street Stormwater Detention Basins, Phases 1 & 2*.

P518-11-00

I last reported on this project in March 2022. It’s still under construction.

The $6 million stormwater detention basin project will provide regional mitigation benefits.

The basin will hold 180 acre-feet of stormwater. That’s about 3.5 inches of rain falling across a square mile. It will be a wet-bottom basin with a vegetated shelf.

*Looking S at new detention basin. Between Halls Bayou at far end and Isom Street in foreground. Aldine Mail Route Road is under the camera position.*

This basin is part of a larger mitigation project that will also extend and enlarge a channel north to the Western Homes subdivision along Aldine Mail Route Road.

Keith Weiss Park

One of the hidden gems of Houston is Keith Weiss Park east of Aldine-Westfield Road. The area is really a series of large connected detention basins disguised as a nature park with hike and bike trails, soccer fields, piers and boardwalks. City of Houston owns the park.

The Keith Weiss project removed 1,770,000 cubic yards of soil to create detention basins that hold approximately 963 acre feet of stormwater storage. That’s enough to hold a foot of stormwater falling across 1.5 square miles.

Google Earth shows that excavation started around 2006 and was substantially completed by 2010.

*Wide shot looking east from over Aldine-Westfield Road*. *Halls Bayou flows away from camera.* *See close-ups of the three detention ponds below.*

*Western-most basin. Halls Bayou in bottom center.*

*Center pond. Still looking east toward US 59.*

Channel Improvements

HCFCD is making channel improvements along Halls in many locations. See project C-41. The area below lies between Keith Weiss Park and US59.

*Looking SE along Halls toward US59. According to the HCFCD website, channel conveyance improvements and an additional detention basin are still in preliminary engineering.*

Bretshire Stormwater Detention Basin

The Bretshire Stormwater Detention Basin on Halls Bayou added approximately 635 acre feet of additional stormwater storage upstream of Jensen Drive at US 59. It holds a foot of stormwater falling across one square mile.

A large part of a subdivision had to be bought out before construction of this basin could begin. HCFCD substantially completed this basin in 2015.

Hall Park Basin

HCFCD also had to buy out a large part of a subdivision to build the Hall Park basin on the opposite side of US 59. Flood Control substantially completed this project in 2018.

Hall Park holds 835 acre-feet. That’s enough to hold a foot of water falling across 1.3 square miles.

This project involved relocating a City of Houston sanitary sewer line and removing approximately 1.2 million cubic yards of soil.

*This project required many buyouts that took almost a decade to complete.* *Roads shown inside the basin have been removed*.

As part of its Bayou Greenways 2020 project, the nonprofit Houston Parks Board is designing and constructing the Halls Bayou Greenway – which includes a hike and bike trail, landscaping and neighborhood connections – along the southern edge of the stormwater detention basin. The full Halls Bayou Greenway will provide nine miles of publicly accessible open space from Brock Park to Keith Wiess Park.

In many cases, such stormwater detention basins are disguised as parks. So, many people don’t even recognize them as basins.

Hopper and Little York Basins

Slightly east of 59 at Hopper and Little York, HCFCD constructed two smaller basins in 2021 along a tributary of Halls. Together they hold approximately 200 acre feet. That’s about a foot of rain falling over a third of a square mile. Or four inches across a whole square mile.

*Looking west toward 59 at Hopper Basin. Halls tributary cuts diagonally through pond in foreground.*

*Looking S along the same tributary (in shade* at left) at Little York basin. Little York runs along the bottom of the frame.

Such projects hold water back during storms until it can be slowly and safely released later when water in the bayou has receded.

Holding Back A Foot of Rain Falling Across Almost 5 Square Miles

Altogether, the detention basins in this post will hold almost a foot of stormwater falling across 5-square miles.

Halls Bayou has many other projects in various stages. For a complete listing, see the HCFCD website. Or review this presentation.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/23/2022

1790 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Hunting Flood-Mitigation Project Nearing Completion

When Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) and the Army Corps began Project Hunting (the Hunting Bayou Federal Flood Risk Management Project) in 2014, they estimated it would cost $100 million and take until late this year.

A flyover of the construction along Hunting Bayou looks like it is nearing completion…right on schedule. It will soon be done, except for the backslapping. Compare the shots below to those I took last year.

Hunting Bayou runs just inside North Loop 610 most of the way from US59 to Wayside. However, starting at Wayside, it dips outside the Loop, then goes back inside again, and finally outside a second time. Eventually, the Bayou works its way to the Houston Ship Channel near the City of Galena Park.

Scope of Project

Project elements include:

Excavating a stormwater detention basin on a 75-acre site near the northeast corner of Homestead Road and Loop 610
Widening and deepening about 4 miles of Hunting Bayou
9 bridge replacements / 8 modifications and channel conveyance improvements under bridges

Project Benefits

HCFCD says that most neighborhoods near the bayou will see water surface elevation reductions of 3-4 feet for the 1 percent annual chance (100-year) flooding event. The number of homes and businesses subject to the 1 percent (100-year) flooding event would drop from 5,100 to 650. And all homes and businesses will benefit from the reduced frequency and depth of flooding.

Need for Project

The Hunting Bayou watershed has Harris County’s second highest percentage of Low-to-Moderate Income (LMI) residents – 69%. That means more than two out of every three people earn less than the average income for the region.

Hunting is a small watershed. It comprises only 31 square miles. Its size ranks 19th out of 23 watersheds in the county.

Population grew only by 2,323 residents between 2010 and 2020. It went from 75,908 to 78,231. That now ranks it 14th in population among all watersheds, and 8th highest in people per square mile.

In five major storms between 2000 and today (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey and Imelda), floods damaged 15,763 structures in the watershed. But virtually all of that damage came from Allison (8,270) and Harvey (7,419). The other three storms combined damaged only 74 structures, according to statistics compiled from HCFCD Federal Reports.

Thus, Hunting ranked 7th in total damage out of 23 watersheds, but because of its small size and high density, it had 508.5 structures per square mile damaged by floods since 2000. That means…

Hunting ranked #2 out of 23 watersheds in damage per square mile.
Data Obtained from HCFCD Via foia request

The watershed is highly urbanized with a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial developments. It’s home to one of the largest rail yards in the Houston area.

*Union Pacific Englewood Yard in NE Houston along Liberty Road (right). HCFCD had to replace three railroad bridges over Hunting Bayou as part of the project.*

Aerial Survey Shows Mitigation Construction Almost Complete

On Tuesday this week, I flew over Hunting Bayou with Ken Williams and Bill Callegari. Both are fellow members of the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force. The pictures below show highlights of the construction.

*Looking west at Hunting Bayou while hovering over US59 North. The widening of Hunting stretches downstream for about 4 miles to where Loop 610 North (on the left) turns right and heads south*.

Same area. Looking SW toward 59 and downtown. Notice the rip rap (irregular chunks of broken concrete or rock) below storm sewer outlets. It disperses the force of rushing water and slows it down to reduce erosion.

*Work continues around two neighborhood bridges at Falls St. and Leffingwell St.*

*Likewise, widening continues at Hirsch Road.*

*Looking back upstream at all three bridges*, *plus a pedestrian bridge over a small tributary in the distance.*

*Wider shot, looking upstream over Wayne Street.*

*Previously finished section around Wipprecht bridge.*

*Note how bayou narrows under Lockwood Bridge due to commercial development on either side.*

*Looking back upstream (west) from over Kelly St. at linear park that parallels another large detention basin.* *Note the new pedestrian bridges.They have been widened to accommodate the wider bayou.*

*Rotating 180 degrees from shot above, we can see downstream to rest of park and where the Bayou threads its way under Loop 610N*. *Also note large detention basin in distance.*

*Looking back SW from over Kelley Street. Note concrete lining that now protects narrow section under 610 bridge.*

*Looking SW toward Homestead Road (with the bridge) across the new 75 acre stormwater detention basin.*

The Curtis M. Graves Detention Basin shown above provides approximately 1,000 acre-feet of stormwater storage capacity. That’s almost 10 inches of rain falling over a square mile. Construction of the basin began in 2020.

*Looking west along 610 N at the section of Hunting that briefly dips outside of the Loop.*

*Looking NW. Note again the new concrete lining where the channel narrows to go under the Loop 610 N bridge. Water flows toward the camera.*

Compare Bayou Downstream From Project

Where the bayou narrows to go under a bridge, the increased water pressure during a flood can cause a “jetting” phenomenon that rapidly erodes banks and undermines bridge supports. Hence, the need for concrete reinforcement.

Looking S along East Loop 610 beyond the eastern end of the project. The Bayou loops around storage tanks (lower right) and heads south toward Wallisville Road, before heading east again. This shows what the bayou looked like before widening. *Compare width to previous shots.*

The tank farm is the approximate eastern limit of Project Hunting.

Project History

This project began on December 16, 2014, long before Harris County’s Flood Bond in 2018. It was a key project of County Commissioner El Franco Lee (who lived in the area) and Congressman Gene Green. Despite a low benefit/cost ratio, they called in favors and got the project started.

The agreement between the Army Corps and HCFCD lets HCFCD qualify for reimbursement from the Federal government for work completed.

Between the channel widening and detention basin, HCFCD has removed almost a million cubic yards of soil to create more room for floodwaters. Width of the Bayou now varies from about 30 to more than 500 feet between the project limits.

According to data obtained via a FOIA Request, HCFCD and its partners spent $96 million on Hunting Bayou between 2000 and the end of last year. Some of that money has been spent on other projects. To see a complete list of HCFCD projects in Hunting Bayou, visit the District’s Hunting page.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/21/2022

1787 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Inherent Bias and Limitations of Flood-Mitigation Benefit Index

In the last few weeks, Michael Bloom, a fellow member of the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force, and I have debated the inherent bias and limitations of a Flood-Mitigation Benefit Index (FMBI) proposed by a majority of the Task Force to Harris County Commissioners Court.

According to Mr. Bloom, the index will:

Reveal and document patterns of historical discrimination.
Help plan where additional flood-risk reduction investments should be made.

Population-Based, Not Damage-Based Mitigation

The formula is:

Benefit = Total Cost/(Population X Risk)

…where:

Cost = total flood-mitigation construction spending (and only construction spending) that benefits a census tract.
Population = the number of people who live in census tracts.
Risk = the annual chance of flooding (applied to census tract(s)) expressed as a whole number. For instance, a 1% annual chance equals 1. And a 10% annual chance equals 10, etc.

The Task Force hopes to calculate and compare the results for each census tract in the county.

The formula measures the historical per capita flood-mitigation costs
supposedly associated with the “current” level of risk in a census tract – NOT historical flood damage.

According to proponents, “a high benefit score means no more mitigation spending is needed. And a low score means more spending is needed.”

But consider these two examples:

4,000 people live with a 1% annual chance of flooding and have received $200 in prior investment. Their FMBI would be 0.05. That’s extremely low. And scores that low indicate such areas need help “regardless of prior investment.”
8000 people live in the 10-year flood plain and have received $10 million in prior investment. Their FMBI equals 125. That’s 2,500 times higher.

According to a spokesperson for the FMBI, “A high FMBI means we don’t need to make more investments in that location.” Yet twice as many people live with ten times the risk in the area with the higher index.

So, who deserves the most help? Residents with the lowest FMBI? The formula SAYS they need help the most. But they actually have the lowest risk.

The Value of Market Testing

None of the hypothetical examples used to “sell” the formula hint at the possibility of such an upside-down result.

The example above proves several things:

The formula can produce inconsistent and misleading results.
It doesn’t always measure what it purports to measure. It has validity problems, as previously discussed.
Adjusting for population doesn’t prove historical discrimination. The most densely populated area has 50,000 times more investment.

The formula needs rigorous testing and ground-truthing before going any further. This is a best practice for any new scientific formula – especially one intended to guide future investment.

In addition to producing unintended results, the formula has several other problems that require discussion.

No Right-Of-Way Acquisition Costs Included

The FMBI formula includes only construction costs. It excludes right-of-way acquisition costs by assuming that they are “uniform throughout the county.” Therefore, “…costs included or excluded will not adversely impact results.”

In fact, Right-of-Way (ROW) Acquisition costs are huge and NOT UNIFORM throughout the county. I have documented that ROW costs typically comprise the second most expensive part of flood-control projects.

*All Flood Control and partner spending on all capital improvement projects from 1/1/2000 through the end of Q3 2021.* *Data obtained via FOIA Request from HCFCD.*

A quick glance at the Appraisal District website will tell you that land costs vary widely throughout Harris County and change over time.

The cost of buying floodplain land or wetlands for preservation in rural parts of Harris County pales in comparison to land acquisition costs in densely populated parts of the county.

In fact, acquiring land in densely populated areas for flood mitigation often costs more than construction, according to several engineers I consulted.

Compounding Problems?

I worry that other methodological issues may compound each other, not cancel each other out.

*Map of Census tracts in Harris County, Texas.*

Consider that:

Census tract population typically varies by up to 4X (2,000 to 8,000), according to the Census Bureau. This will produce deceptive spatial comparisons.
Some Census tracts may comprise dozens of square miles while others comprise a few city blocks. Typically, flood mitigation projects are not considered at the Census-tract level. According to three engineers I consulted, that’s too small in most cases to be workable.
Larger Census tracts may contain multiple watersheds, each with independent levels of risk – or individual watersheds with varying levels of risk. In such cases, the formula would average risk. But averaging can mask a serious problem in one area with a non-problem in another. Thus, the formula has a bias in favor of spatially smaller Census tracts.
Smaller tracts tend to be more uniform in risk, so problems will likely stand out rather than get lost in an average. But in larger watersheds, flood risk will feather out with increased elevation and distance from a river. That will make it extremely difficult to calculate the number of people exposed to varying degrees of risk.
Averaging takes the simple way out. But averaging risk is like comparing saints and sinners, then declaring “No problem.”
The data collection effort for the index omits many sources of funding. So the formula will calculate investment dollars from some entities and areas, but not others. For instance, the formula will NOT measure drainage funding from Harris County Commissioner Precincts, dozens of cities, and 389 municipal utility districts in unincorporated areas. The difficulty of data collection in these areas will produce another spatial bias. Likewise, the FMBI formula will omit the considerable drainage-improvement contributions of reputable private developers.

No one has tested how these inconsistencies will affect each other. But there’s an even bigger data integrity issue.

Partially Updated Data

HCFCD and its partners invested more than $1.5 billion in flood mitigation between Harvey and the end of 2021. Since 2000, they’ve invested more than $3.5 billion. But as of this writing, new MAAPnext flood maps only reflect the POST-mitigation risk associated with projects in FIVE bayous: Brays, Greens, White Oak, Sims, and Hunting. The Army Corps partnered with HCFCD in those.

Unfortunately, according to a knowledgeable source, HCFCD has not yet updated the risk maps for its own Capital Improvement Projects in other watersheds. So if you ran the allocation formula now, it would compare PRE-mitigation risk in 18 watersheds with POST-mitigation risk in 5.

Mitigation in those five watersheds totals $439 million out of $1.5 billion since Harvey. So true, current risk is reflected in only 29% of spending since Harvey and 13% in this century. Those percentages will no doubt increase in the future. But if you ran the numbers today, you would compare numbers with PRE- and POST-mitigation risk.

And consider this. With HCFCD spending at the current rate of about $80 million per quarter, “current risk” is a constantly changing target. So we’ll never be able to compare apples to apples in all watersheds anytime soon.

And we want to use this formula to guide future mitigation spending? Using it could send more money back to fix areas we already fixed!

Difficulty of Assigning Investments to Census Tracts

Another challenge: How do you determine which census tract(s) to apportion project benefits among? Example: Addicks and Barker Reservoirs. The Army Corps developed those back in the 1930s to protect downtown Houston…15-20 miles away!

Do you credit the investment to:

All of downtown?
People living inside the reservoirs (who have their own census tract)?
The current population of the entire Addicks and Barker Watersheds?
All census tracts along Buffalo Bayou and parts of White Oak Bayou, our second and third most populous watersheds?

The Corps certainly didn’t build the reservoirs to protect the people living inside them. That’s what all the lawsuits are about!

And virtually all residents of the Addicks and Barker watersheds live upstream from the Corps’ investment, so they will not benefit from the investment either.

Downtown has immense commercial and economic value but relatively few permanent residents.

So, who gets the benefit? Again, lots of room for interpretation and misplaced assumptions here that numbers can easily mask! Now, multiply this problem times thousands of Census tracts.

Anti-Commercial Bias

The population-based FMBI has a built-in bias against commercial areas that have little to no residential population. For example, consider the cases of Downtown, the Texas Medical Center, and the Port of Houston. Such areas support employment throughout the region, but the formula discriminates against them by giving huge weight to population and omitting actual damage.

No Thresholds Defined

To my knowledge, the task force has never discussed threshhold “benefit” levels that correlate to “needs help” or “doesn’t need help.” The extremes may sometimes be easy to determine. But what about outcomes in the middle?

Offsetting Variables

Variables in the formula can offset each other as we saw above. In tight races for funding, who gets the next flood-mitigation investment? The area with the lowest investment, highest risk, or largest population? Such quandaries have not yet been addressed.

No Agreement on Weights of Other Factors

To help make future flood-mitigation decisions, proponents of the formula also suggest weighing (separately) other factors, such as the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index. It includes the percentage of Low-to-Moderate residents in an area. However, no one has yet discussed the weight given the Benefit Index relative to other factors.

No Consideration of Actual Flood Damage

In deciding where to put flood mitigation projects, engineers traditionally look for damage clusters. It’s that simple. Dollars flow to damage.

Reducing flood damage is a tried and true, measurable way to evaluate projects. So why all the complexity?

What’s The Point?

What is this formula trying to prove? Is it attempting to develop a new approach to mitigation funding that eliminates a perceived bias in Benefit/Cost Ratios?

Commissioner Rodney Ellis often talks about how calculating the value of avoided damages in higher value homes disadvantages projects in poorer neighborhoods. That can be true in some instances. Expensive homes can ratchet up benefits (measured in dollars) faster than lower value homes can. And that can result in higher Benefit/Cost Ratios for projects in affluent neighborhoods – assuming density is held constant. But…

One high-value home on an acre would likely appraise less than an apartment building, also on an acre. In Kingwood, I compared the valuations of an expensive single-family home with a large apartment complex one block away. The appraised cost per acre (including structures) of the apartment complex is 4X higher.

Now consider that apartments accommodate almost half of Harris County’s population.

According to the latest census data, 54.9% of Harris County residents live in owner-occupied homes. The rest, 45.1 percent, live in apartments.

Most Americans aspire to and encourage home ownership, in part, because of the stability it fosters in communities. But this formula – because of its emphasis on population density – favors apartment areas over areas with owner-occupied homes. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. You just need to understand what the formula does.

Difference Between Vertical and Horizontal Density

The Benefit Index favors all areas with dense population. Proponents argue that helping more people is better. I don’t argue with that. However, the generalization masks the financial pain inflicted by a flood on owners vs. renters, and on the people who live at ground level compared to those who live above it.

Ground floor renters may lose contents in a flood, but they won’t be responsible for making structural repairs. The owner will.

And many living above the ground floor may find themselves more inconvenienced by flooding than financially devastated. So, is it fair to count all people on all floors when determining who suffers the most pain?

Five-story apartment buildings crowding Brays Bayou with ground-level parking underneath. HCFCD has no way of knowing how many people live in apartments like this, yet HCFCD will be responsible for compiling the data.

In the proposed formula, higher population will lower the benefit index, making it look as though all renters (almost half the county’s population) suffered more than owners of single-family homes.

The premise underlying such “equity” arguments is that poor people can least afford floods. But most people in apartments like those shown above won’t make structural repairs as a homeowner would.

No Perfect Formula

No perfect formula exists that’s equally fair to all in all circumstances. That’s why FEMA, HUD and the Army Corps allow consideration of multiple factors when determining which projects to fund.

The Flood Mitigation Benefit Index focuses totally on population, risk, and past investment. It ignores actual flood damage.

If we use ANY formula to HELP allocate future flood-mitigation funds, we should all strive to:

Understand its built-in biases
Maintain high standards for data integrity.

If we want to test a hypothesis of historical discrimination in flood-mitigation funding, there’s a much simpler way. It’s called direct measurement. Simply locate damage centers from past storms and compare funding in the following decade designed to mitigate those areas.

For More Information

For more background on issues with the formula, see my earlier posts:

Or consult Mr. Bloom’s rebuttals.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/14/22

1780 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Montgomery County Allocated $60 Million in Harvey Mitigation Funds

The Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments (H-GAC) has allocated $60 million to Montgomery County. The money comes out of a $488 million of Harvey flood-mitigation funds previously allocated to HGAC by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through the Texas General Land Office (GLO). The $60 million is the single largest allocation to any governmental entity in the region out of the $488 million pot.

50% Committed to LMI Areas

At least 50% of the money must go to low-to-moderate income (LMI) areas in Montgomery County. The GLO has determined that MoCo plans meet HUD rules and conditionally approved the allocation.

However, things could still change and Montgomery County has not yet received the money.

According to H-GAC, the conditionally approved preliminary method of distribution (a plan for whom gets how much) is still pending acceptance by eligible entities and is subject to change through a published re-allocation process. A complete list of eligible activities is available in the Texas General Land Office (GLO) guidelines for the Regional Mitigation Program – Council of Governments Method of Distribution (COG MODs). Depending on changes, another 30-day public comment period may necessary, according to the GLO.

Where, How MoCo Will Spend the Money

I reached out to the Montgomery County Judge’s office to see how MoCo hopes to spend the money. Jason Millsaps replied, “Montgomery County will attempt several projects with these funds as soon as final approval has been granted.”

Millsaps continued, “In East County, we will work to de-snag, de-silt and remove vegetation that hinders flow from the Peach Creek, Caney Creek, White Oak Creek, and East Fork of the San Jacinto River. We will do the same for Lake Creek and Stewart Creek in Central/North County, with additional bank armor going in for Stewart Creek near the River Plantation Subdivision.”

Those should reduce flooding in Montgomery County. This flood map shows the areas most affected by repeat flooding in the county.

And this map shows the location of each creek and how much floodwater each conveyed during Harvey.

Peak Flows During Harvey — *Peak flows in the San Jacinto Watershed during Hurricane Harvey*

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/12/22

1778 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Formula for Allocating Future Flood-Mitigation Funding Deceives

How do you fairly allocate flood-mitigation funds? Voters have argued about that since the day Harris County Commissioners Court redefined the conventional meaning of “equitable” with the first equity formula in 2019. Since then the formula has changed several times to ensure low-to-moderate income (LMI) areas continue to receive the lion’s share of mitigation funding, even as some commissioners claim LMI areas get none.

On 6/28/22, the Harris County Community Resilience Flood Task Force proposed yet another formula for allocating potentially billions of dollars in future flood-mitigation funding. It purports to objectively calculate the benefits received by different areas. But it doesn’t in any conventional sense. And therefore, the results can be deceptively counter-intuitive.

Problems With Formula

The formula shows increased benefit when:

Risk remains unchanged.
Costs increase.
Population decreases.

The formula is…

Benefit = Total Cost/(Population X Risk)

On July 2, 2022, I posted about a variety of issues that affect the validity of this formula. Admittedly, the post got complex. So let me give you two simple examples that dramatize these problems.

In each example below, I’ll hold two of the three variables constant. That makes it easy to see whether “benefit” varies in a predictable direction. And whether that matches what people expect when they hear the word “benefit.”

Cost Example

The value of “10” applied to Risk in each case represents a 10% annual chance of flooding.

If you hold risk and population constant, while increasing cost…

Population = 5000, Risk = 10 and Cost = $100,000, then Benefit = 2
Population = 5000, Risk = 10, and Cost = $1,000,000, then Benefit = 20

…benefit increases by spending more without reducing risk! A taxpayer nightmare!

Population Example

If you hold cost and risk constant, while increasing population…

Population = 2000, Risk = 10, and Cost = $1 million, then Benefit = 50
Population = 5000, Risk = 10, and Cost = $1 million, then Benefit = 20

…benefit decreases by helping more people with the same dollars! Again, counter-intuitive.

Both takeaways are confusing. What is this formula measuring?!

I would argue that, in a flood context, most people strongly associate the word “benefit” with “risk reduction.”

But this formula doesn’t measure risk reduction. And it doesn’t measure efficiency either. It measures per capita investment associated with a certain level of flood risk and calls that “Benefit.”

So, the more people you help with any given sum, the more the benefit goes down. Voila! That makes it look as though the highly populated watersheds (that have received the overwhelming majority of prior investments) have received little benefit. And that may be the point of this formula. It will send even more money to those same areas.

In logic, they call this the fallacy of incomplete evidence – more commonly known as cherry-picking. You cherry pick data that favors your argument and ignore the rest. For instance, consider the image below.

*Brays Bayou at Calhoun*, *photographed May 2021.* *Note abundance of multi-story apartments.*

The total population in some areas includes many people in tall apartment buildings or high-rises. For many of them, flooding may be more inconvenient than financially devastating. Yet the formula assumes all people suffer equally.

The formula provides the appearance of objectivity and fairness. But it masks important information by lumping everything into a single number.

But the proponents of this formula don’t even want to discuss numbers. They want to render the results as heat maps, layered with Social Vulnerability Index, LMI and other data guaranteed to mask and perpetuate the lopsided distribution of flood-mitigation funds.

Omitting Benefits to Structures

By defining Benefit as the cost per person to achieve a certain level of flood risk, the formula omits any benefit to structures. That’s the traditional way to define the benefit of a flood-mitigation project. You measure “the value of damages avoided.” Whether one person lives in a house or two people live there, the cost to protect those people and that home remains the same.

For instance, widening a channel can reduce flood risk for a house. But with the proposed formula, that home and its value no longer count – only the number of people living within it. So, doubling the number of people in a representative home cuts the Benefit of a flood mitigation project in half.

Conclusions

The formula is a vast oversimplification. It omits valuable information such as avoided damages.

It’s also confusing and semantically deceptive in that results vary in counter-intuitive directions.

Finally, as I previously posted, the formula is not valid. It masks several apples-to-oranges comparisons.

Yet the majority of the Community Resilience Flood Task Force proposes using it to help guide (potentially) billions in future flood-mitigation investments. That could hurt taxpayers, flood victims, future bonds and the credibility of local government.

The formula can deceive people into making bad flood-mitigation investments. But in this case, there’s no Securities & Exchange Commission to protect investors. Only the ballot box.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/6/22

1772 Days since Hurricane Harvey

County Discussing Another Billion-Dollar-Plus Bond

On 6/29/22, Harris County Commissioners Court discussed a billion-dollar-plus bond package presented by County Administrator Dave Berry, Budget Director Daniel Ramos and Engineering Department Head Dr. Milton Rahman, P.E. The presentation talks about a $1 billion package. But during discussion, commissioners asked to look at several higher options – $1.1 billion, $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion. The discussion, which you can see posted on the Harris County Commissioners Court website, starts at 3:32 (timecode) and goes to 4:20. Since that’s almost 50 minutes, let me try to summarize it below using some of the slides presented by Rahman.

Proposed Uses for Money

In fairness, understand upfront that Rahman presented an introductory outline, not a detailed plan. With that in mind, he pitched a $1 billion plan broken down as follows.

The package includes $200 million to improve neighborhood drainage. That’s over and above the $600 million in the current budget.

Rahman focused on both the number of people (20,000) and structures (4,000) benefitted with the $600 million. That averages to $30,000 per person or $150,000 per structure. That also works out to 5 people per structure. But the Harris County average per household, according to the US Census Bureau, is 2.84 people for the five years ending in 2020.

That made me question where Rahman obtained his numbers. He never says. Does he base his estimate on a combination of apartments and single-family households? Who will benefit from another $200 million? If that $200 million works as efficiently as the $600 million, it should help another 1,333 homes (4000/3). Where are they? Which precinct? Which neighborhoods?

Harris County already has neighborhood drainage improvements in the 2018 flood bond. Yet Rahman’s presentation says, “We do not recommend pursuing more voted authority for the Flood Control District at this time; approximately 74% of the 2018 Bond Program funds are not yet spent or encumbered.” That would mean 26% are. But Tina Petersen, the new head of the flood control district, submitted another presentation yesterday indicating that 21.8% has been spent.

I get the need for rounding at this early stage. But they’re talking about going to voters in four months. 4.2% of the $5 billion flood bond is more than $200 million dollars of rounding error! That made me wonder about the accuracy of the numbers in the slides above.

The fact that the total “ask” varied by 50% during the discussion also made me wonder about how much research and planning went into these numbers.

Yet Commissioners Ellis and Garcia are eager to put it on the agenda for a vote during the next commissioners court meeting – without any public input. That raised more red flags, because the Community Flood Resilience Task Force has demanded public input on future bond programs. In multiple languages. A majority of the task force felt so strongly about public input, that they even asked HUD to fund it!

Other Highlights from Discussion

Commissioner Ellis wants to review a tighter proposal and put it to a vote at the next commissioners court meeting on July 19, 2022.

Garcia wants it on the ballot in 2022, not 2023.

Ramsey wants to slow it down. He wants to listen to voters, develop a tight plan, communicate the elements to the public, and advocate for it. He stated that it would take a long time to recover from a bond proposal that failed. Ramsey would prefer a vote in 2023.

Commissioners Court spent considerable time discussing whether the proposal should have a list of specific projects or just generic categories of spending. But the commissioners made no decision on that point.

Milton Rahman stated, “The wish list is bigger than we can afford.” That raised another red flag for me. It means someone will have to make hard decisions about where the money goes and who benefits. Who will make those decisions? On what basis? When? After the election?

Commissioner Cagle suggested voting on this proposal with additional requests to fund flood tunnels and the coastal spine project. That could delay this bond proposal until we knew how much federal funding we could get for those projects. And that could take two years. Congress will vote on the next Water Resources Development Act in 2024.

Withholding Judgment for Now

Until I see more detail, I will withhold judgement on this bond proposal. I can see how there may be a need. But I’m not going to vote for a billion dollars of vague generalities. I want to see where the money goes and I want to have time to study the bond language. I was fooled once by a non-standard definition of “equitable” applied to the 2018 flood bond. What other surprises lurk in the wings?

One reader who prefers to remain anonymous said, “We should trust this Court with a blank check for projects that are not defined??? NO DAMN WAY!!! What is the formula to determine which Precincts get how much money? What is the prioritization framework to select projects? How will equity considerations affect funding? How will the public know where this money goes? We have NO IDEA where previous bond funding went!!! This Court has not earned our trust. Some members just cannot be trusted. NO BOND!”

Frankly, that’s a fairly typical attitude outside the Beltway from comments i get.

Yet Rahman, Berry and Ramos, in their last slide, suggest this proposal – with a barely defined project list – is a foregone conclusion. See below. They want to identify only a few flagship projects to complement other unspecified projects in the bond. And they want to start drafting bond orders now.

Let’s see if Berry, Ramos and Rahman can advertise and conduct dozens of precinct meetings; solicit public input; and define a plan responsive to community needs before the next commissioners court meeting. If not, perhaps Ellis, Garcia, Hidalgo and the Community Flood Resilience Task Force should demand their resignations.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/29/2022

1765 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.