Funding Archives - Page 8 of 16

Harris County Approves $825 Million Flood-Mitigation Project List For HUD/GLO Funds

On June 6, 2023, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) recommended to Commissioners Court a flood-mitigation and disaster-relief project list totaling $825 million. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocated the funds to Harris County via the Texas General Land Office (GLO). The projects will require another $145 million in local-match funds from the 2018 Flood Bond. Thus, the projects are worth close to a billion dollars.

Commissioners Court unanimously approved the project list with little discussion. Each precinct will receive a relatively equal amount of projects and funding, according to Commissioner Ramsey.

Two Buckets of Money

The money comes in two buckets: Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery funds totaling $322.5 million and hazard mitigation funds totaling $502.5 million. HCFCD intends to use both primarily for channel improvements and stormwater-detention-basin projects.

Further, HCFCD has divided its project list into primary and backup recommendations.

Factors Used to Determine Recommendations

HCFCD developed the project list with the following factors in mind:

Deadline requirements (ability to implement quickly/near shovel ready)
Low-to-moderate income (LMI) scores
Prioritization-framework ranking
Social-vulnerability index (SVI) scores
Racial composition of areas receiving mitigation benefits.

HUD normally gives priority to projects that help minority and low-income areas. However, the two major buckets have different LMI requirements. They also have different deadlines.

HCFCD must spend 100% of the Disaster-Relief (DR) funds by August 2026. And they must benefit areas where 70% of the residents qualify as LMI (below the average income for the region).

The Mitigation funds have more time and a 50% LMI requirement. No less than 50% of the $750,000,000 – from which the $502.5 is carved – must be expended by January 12, 2027, with the full balance expended by January 12, 2032.

So the DR funds have more urgency attached to them and that list includes projects closest to “construction ready.”

Reason for Backup Projects

According to HCFCD, the project list will likely evolve based on review by GLO, project schedules and project costs. Budgets are estimates based upon today’s dollars. They will change as projects advance.

Fatal flaws may also become visible as projects advance toward construction. So, HCFCD requested and received permission to substitute alternate projects as needed if the intended projects become non-viable.

1 Recommended, 1 Alternate Project in Lake Houston Area

The “recommended” list includes one primary project in the Lake Houston Area: Taylor Gully Improvements.

It also includes one project on the alternate list: the Woodridge Village Stormwater Detention Basin, part of which is already under construction.

*Locations of HCFCD Mitigation and Disaster-Relief project recommendations*

9 Upstream Projects

HCFCD is also recommending nine upstream projects on tributaries that feed into Lake Houston.

Primary recommendations include:

Upper Cypress Creek Floodplain Preservation
Part 3 of the Kluge Stormwater Detention Basin on Little Cypress Creek
Rehabilitation of the Kickerillo Mischer Preserve Channel on Cypress Creek
Boudreaux Stormwater Detention Basin Part 1 on Willow Creek
Channel Rehabilitation, Batch 5 on the Main Stem of Cypress Creek
East and West TC Jester Detention Basins on the Main Stem of Cypress Creek
Detention for Channel Rehabilitation on the Main Stem of Cypress Creek, Batch 5

Alternate recommendations include:

Boudreaux Stormwater Detention Basin Phase II on Willow Creek
Mercer Stormwater Detention Basin on Cypress Creek

Click here to see the full list of projects.

Project-Specific Data Available Soon

The project list does not include information on how much these projects would contribute to flood reduction – either locally or downstream. However, HCFCD expects to post that information to its website before the projects go to the GLO for approval in the coming months.

Partnership-Funding Gap Affected

Likewise, HCFCD did not include with this list an estimate of how much it would affect the partner-funding gap.

Some time ago, HCFCD projected that it could finish all the projects in the flood bond using a combination of:

Taxpayer approved funds
Partner funds already committed
Harris County Toll Road Authority money allocated to the Flood Resilience Trust.

But to finish all the projects in the Flood Bond, HCFCD “phased” some projects. It knew it wouldn’t have enough money to complete 100% of some large projects. So, several phases might have been included and others deferred.

It appears that several projects on today’s list include some deferred phases. So the “partner-funding gap” may not be reduced as much as originally thought. Net: HCFCD may or may not have to look for additional funds. The District expects it will know more after GLO approves the list.

HCFCD must also come back to Commissioners Court by July 18 with an estimate for ongoing maintenance and land management costs for all the projects.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/6/2023

2107 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Last-Minute Funding Breathes New Life into Lake Houston Gates Project

The project to install more flood gates on the Lake Houston Dam has resulted in more nail-biting than a Steven Spielberg movie. Perhaps no project inspired more hope among flood-weary home- and business owners in the San Jacinto watershed. Importance is high, but the costs turned out far higher than expected and dollars proved hard to come by.

This morning, however, Dr. Greg Bonnen, chair of the House Appropriations Committee filed a rider to this year’s appropriations bill that will likely get the job done. The rider contains two provisions that affect funding for the gates.

Sec. 17.38 (a)(1) on page IX-22 contains $50 million for improvements to the Lake Houston Dam.
Sec. 17.38 (b)(1)(2)(3) on page IX-23 contains a provision that lets unexpended balances from previous grants be redeployed, so they can be spent on EITHER gates, a sediment capture pilot project, or sediment removal.

*Lake Houston has four small floodgates only capable of releasing 1/15 the rate of Lake Conroe’s gates. New gates would go in the earthen embankment to the right of the old gates and spillway.*

Funding Now Close to Expected Costs

According to Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin, Black & Veatch Engineering estimates the cost of an 11-gate structure to be between $125 and $225 million.

Balancing that on the income side of the ledger are:

The remaining Federal funds of the $50 million provided by FEMA early on for engineering, environmental surveys, permits and construction. So far the City has reportedly spent about $5 million on upfront work.
An $8 million earmark by US Congressman Dan Crenshaw.
$20 million in County funds allocated in the 2018 Flood Bond (Project CI-61).
$11 million from the City of Houston in capital-improvement-project (CIP) funds.
The possibility of additional CIP funds from this year’s budget.
$50 million from 17.38 (a)(1) above
Up to another $50 million in State funds left over from a TWDB 2021 allocation in 17.38 (b)(1)(2)(3)
Redeployment of some FEMA dredging funds left over from the Mouth Bar Project.

That puts available funding somewhere north of $170 million. Martin says that should be enough to lock in the original FEMA funding and get the project started.

Redeployment of Funds Important

Congressman Crenshaw’s office emphasized that even though some FEMA money will be redeployed from dredging the mouth bar, additional FEMA funds from another FEMA grant will let dredging around the lake continue.

Re: 17.38 (b) above (that second bucket of $50 million in funding from the state) Martin points out that it includes two other important projects: dredging and the sediment trap pilot study. However:

The pilot study should not be very expensive and has no firm deadline.
Congressman Dan Crenshaw has helped secure additional funding for dredging from a second FEMA grant.

Finally, Martin points out that Black & Veatch is examining options to scale back the number of gates in case construction costs exceed funding if something falls through.

Enough Funding Committed to Move Forward with Confidence

While some uncertainty remains, Martin says the key point is that enough money has now been committed to move forward with confidence. This is a huge improvement over where the project stood just 8 days ago when concerned residents launched a call-in campaign to influential senators and representatives.

Lake Houston Area residents placed thousands of calls to save the project. Two days later, funding was placed in Bonnen’s rider. Martin thanks “ALL who placed phone calls, sent text messages and emailed state officials in support of our gates project.”

Thank you’s also go to all those who played key roles in this up-against-the-center-field wall catch:

State Senator Brandon Creighton
State Representative Charles Cunningham
Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick
State Representative Armando Walle
State Senator Joan Huffman
House Speaker Dade Phelan
House Appropriations Chairman Greg Bonnen
Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner
US Representative Dan Crenshaw and Kaaren Cambio, his District Director

Several others deserve special thanks:

Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin worked the phones relentlessly and made countless trips to Austin to raise awareness of the project and coordinate the area’s efforts.
City of Houston Chief Recovery Officer Stephen Costello convinced FEMA to include social benefits in the cost/benefit ratio (CBR). That raised the CBR to 3.5, making it the highest-rated project in the State of Texas.
City of Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, who called in some favors among Austin influentials to make the project happen.
Former State Representative Dan Huberty and Ben Melson, a CoH lobbyist, lobbied extensively over the last few months, working with Martin, Costello and Bill Kelly, the City’s Director of Government Affairs.

Reason More Gates Needed

Additional gates will let the City lower lake water faster as large storms approach, thus reducing flood peaks both upstream and down. That will, in turn, reduce flood risk for thousands of homeowners and businesses, not to mention all the schools that flooded.

But lowering the lake level carries some risk. If it takes too long to lower the lake, storms can veer away before they arrive, wasting water. Narrowing the window between release and the storm’s arrival, raises certainty that the storm will refill the lake.

More gates will also help balance releases from Lake Conroe with those from Lake Houston.

Next Steps

It ain’t over till it’s over. But even though only days are left in this session, Chairman Bonnen’s office said, “The legislature has never failed to pass an appropriations bill.”

More news as the project evolves.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/25/2023

2095 Days since Hurricane Harvey

San Jacinto Flood-Mitigation Spending Down 81% in One Quarter

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, it did. On 4/20/23, I reported about a drastic slowdown in the rate of Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) spending. Data obtained via a FOIA request indicate that with a few exceptions the slowdown has affected watersheds across the county.

Two thirds saw a decline in flood-mitigation spending last quarter. But the decline in the San Jacinto Watershed, which had the eighth most flood damage in Harris County in the last quarter century, was particularly steep.

The San Jacinto watershed decreased from $1.614 million in the fourth quarter of 2022 to $306,000 last quarter – an 81% decline in one quarter!

Admittedly, that’s over a very small base to start with. But that in itself is a testament to how little flood-mitigation activity there is in Harris County’s largest watershed at this time.

4Q22 to 1Q23 Changes

Comparing the last quarter of 2022 with the first quarter of 2023 shows that spending increased in only eight watersheds: Greens, Luce, White Oak, Armand, Goose Creek, Barker, Vince, and Spring Creek. Spring increased only from $24,000 to $37,000 in the first quarter.

Increases totaled only $6.1 million. They were offset by $16.4 million in decreases, for a net spending decline of more than $10 million. Spending totaled only $38 million for the quarter.

San Jacinto Ranking Slips

Below, you can see how each watershed ranked solely on the basis of first-quarter spending.

The San Jacinto watershed slipped to 17th place in 1Q23 (down from 14th when the ranking includes spending going back to 2000).

Spending by watershed since 2000 — *From 1/1/2000 to 3/31/2023*. *Data supplied by HCFCD in response to FOIA request.*

San Jac had ranked as high as 7th in post-Harvey spending back in mid-2021.

HCFCD construction in the San Jacinto watershed has seen multiyear delays in start dates while other areas received higher priority based on factors unrelated to flooding.

So-called “equity policies” instituted by a majority of Harris County Commissioners starting in 2019 have punished San Jacinto residents. That’s because the watershed contains only 31% low-to-moderate income (LMI) residents and the area is predominantly white. Under the County’s current policy…

“Socially vulnerable” areas with higher percentages of minorities and LMI residents get priority, even if they have less severe flooding.

Damage No Longer a Factor in Allocation

For instance, in five major storms since 2000 (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey and Imelda), the San Jacinto Watershed had the eighth largest number of damaged structures. It also ranked fourth in the percentage of the population affected by flooding (see below).

*When looking at flood incidents as a % of population, the San Jacinto has fourth highest % in Harris County.*

Clearly, Hunting and Halls Bayous need all the help they can get. So do Greens and the San Jacinto Watershed. But the San Jac is getting little. Despite the percentage of residents who have flooded. Not to mention that 40% of all businesses in the Lake Houston Area Chamber of Commerce also flooded.

If I hear County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Commissioner Rodney Ellis or Commissioner Adrian Garcia talk about “worst first” one more time, I’m going to send them “GET REAL” cards. What rationale do they offer for ignoring the watershed with the deepest flooding – the San Jacinto?

Here’s what that 20+ feet of floodwater looked like.

*San Jacinto West Fork* at *I-69* *during Harvey*

If Judge Hidalgo, Commissioner Ellis and Commissioner Garcia want to see “social vulnerability,” I challenge them to visit Kingwood Village Estates, a complex 1.2 miles from the San Jacinto West Fork that caters to seniors.

Residents trying to escape as Harvey's floodwaters rose — *Twelve seniors ages 65 to 95 from Kingwood Village Estates died as a result of Harvey*.

I doubt Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia will take me up on that challenge. So, in the meantime, we need to accelerate flood-mitigation spending – across the board. HCFCD spent just $38 million in the first quarter in the entire county. That’s very close to the spending rate before the 2018 flood bond.

We need to determine the reasons new projects are not starting in a timely way. We’re only 25% of the way through the flood bond. We have plenty of pressing projects waiting.

Policies, procedures, practices and people that subject anyone anywhere to higher-than-necessary flood risk longer than necessary need to change. More on that in a future post.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/22/23

2062 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.

$750 Million Flood Plan Ignores Flood Risk, Public

Twenty-two months after learning it would receive $750 million from the US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Texas General Land Office (GLO) for Harvey Flood Mitigation, Harris County Commissioners finally approved a Method of Distribution (MOD) for the money on 3/14/23.

The MOD must be approved by the GLO and HUD before the county can begin spending the money. However, the plan virtually ignores flood risk and public comments.

What Happened to Flood-Risk Reduction?

The basic purpose of the HUD money, administered by GLO, is to reduce flood risk. The word “risk” appears 490 times in the MOD submission. Only one problem!

The proposed project scoring matrices never mention “risk,” at least not directly.

The plan contains one scoring matrix for Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) Projects and another for Partnership Projects.

HCFCD Projects

For the portion of the money going to the Harris County Flood-Control District, the MOD bases funding on:

LMI (Low-to-Moderate Income) Population Percentage (35 points)
Social Vulnerability (30 points)
Population (15 points)
Repetitive Flood Loss (20 points)

Unfortunately, giving weight to damages as opposed to risk, gives the same weight to areas that have already been mitigated as it does to areas that have not received a penny.

The MOD also says distribution of flood-control funds will be governed by the Equity Prioritization Framework (even though it doesn’t explain how). The 2022 version of that Framework gives 20% weight in scoring projects to “Existing Conditions.” Existing Conditions refer to the capacity of a channel to manage flood events of different intensities. But that’s as close as the MOD comes to addressing flood risk in project scoring.

Watersheds with a majority LMI population have roughly a billion dollars worth of uncompleted 2018 flood bond projects. With roughly a half billion of the $750 million going to HCFCD, the LMI and SVI requirements put on that portion of the money virtually guarantee that none will be left for more affluent watersheds.

So even though HUD and GLO rules allow 50% of the money to be spent in more affluent watersheds, the criteria adopted by Commissioner’s Court will likely preclude any of the money going there.

Partnership Projects

The portion of the money going to Partnership Projects has slightly different criteria. But that matrix also includes NO references to flood risk. It scores projects based on:

Project Readiness (20 points)
Percent LMI Population (25 points)
Project Efficiency (cost per person and building benefitted) (20 points)
Ancillary Benefits (environmental, economic, quality of life) (10 points)
Partner Contribution (25 points)

Nowhere did the plan provide direct comparisons of flood risk so that areas with the highest risk could be addressed first. Neither did the plan address flood severity. Thus, areas already mitigated that got one inch of flooding will rank as high as unmitigated areas that got 20 feet.

Virtually No One Happy

The Harris County Community Resilience Flood Task Force submitted a letter strongly prioritizing flood-risk reduction. That got ignored as were most of the 235 pages of other public comments submitted.

Virtually no one seemed happy with the plan or the fairness of the distribution of money.

The county did not bother to respond directly to those who took the time to study the plan and submit comments. However, it did provide responses within the plan itself.

To paraphrase one of the generic responses: “Thank you for your comment. Here’s what we’re going to do. The GLO encourages regional and countywide investments in flood mitigation. But we’re prioritizing population in low income and socially vulnerable areas.”

*Typical comment and response to proposed MOD.* *Name of commenter redacted.*

Harris County has already spent $1.7 billion on flood mitigation since Harvey – the vast majority of it in LMI areas. There’s no hint of spreading the $750 million around to other areas.

Transparency Issues Also a Problem

The Harris County Community Services Department (CSD) will manage this money. But CSD has a serious transparency problem.

The transparency portion of its website hasn’t been updated in six months.
The MOD portion of the website hasn’t been updated for six weeks, even though much has changed since then.
Potential partners have complained about being in the dark.
Two weeks ago, the interim director promised to put out a call for partner projects. But the website still hasn’t announced the opportunities yet.
CSD still has not posted the plan approved by commissioners.

CSD’s lack of transparency was a major theme in the hundreds of pages of public comments.

What Next for Flood-Bond Projects in Outlying Areas?

With virtually all of the HUD money going to LMI areas, and with not enough money left in the flood bond to finish all the projects, Judge Lina Hidalgo and Commissioners Rodney Ellis and Adrian Garcia owe us an explanation. How do they intend to fulfill the County’s promise to voters who approved the 2018 Flood Bond thinking they would get something out of it?

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/29/2023

2038 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Plum Grove, Splendora, Liberty, Others Receive HUD Grants Through GLO

GLO Commissioner Dawn Buckingham, M.D., announced yesterday more than $43 million in HUD grants for 44 infrastructure projects stemming from 2019 Disasters. The $43 million is the combined total of grants made to counties and cities stretching from the Rio Grande Valley to southeast Texas.

*Counties where 2019 community development block grant disaster-relief (CDBG-DR) money will be distributed for infrastructure projects.*

The infrastructure-project grants will help communities recover from the 2019 South Texas Floods as well as Tropical Storm Imelda, which devastated SE Texas.

List of Recipients

The funds will be used to improve streets as well as water and drainage facilities in:

Counties:
- Cameron
- Chambers
- Harris
- Hidalgo
- Jefferson
- Liberty
- Montgomery
- Orange
- San Jacinto
- Willacy

Cities
- Beaumont
- China
- Combes
- Daisetta
- La Feria
- La Villa
- Laguna Vista
- Liberty
- Mercedes
- Mission
- Nome
- Old River-Winfree
- Orange
- Palmview
- Pasadena
- Pine Forest
- Pinehurst
- Plum Grove
- Port Arthur
- Port Isabel
- Primera
- Rio Hondo
- Santa Rosa
- Splendora
- Vidor
- West Orange
- Woodloch

“Here to Help”

“Consecutive disasters have devastated communities in the Lower Rio Grande Valley and Southeast Texas, but the Texas General Land Office is here to help,” said Commissioner Buckingham. “These critical infrastructure awards will divert floodwaters away from homes, increase the resiliency of communities to respond to natural disasters, and restore peace of mind when the next storm hits.”

Texas GLO 2019 Disaster-Recovery Funds

The Texas General Land Office (GLO) is administering $227,510,000 in Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) related to 2019 flooding. This is separate from the $750 million in mitigation funding related to Harvey and Harris County.

Out of the $227.5 million, GLO allocated $61,430,000 in disaster recovery funds for infrastructure projects. They will assist disaster relief, long-term recovery, and restoration of infrastructure for local communities. The rest of $227 million was allocated to grants that help individuals recover.

GLO announced the opening of the application for eligible counties and cities on March 15, 2022. Applications closed on August 1, 2022. Each applicant was eligible to submit a total of two applications. All activities had to contribute to the long-term recovery and restoration of infrastructure.

The GLO recognizes that repair and enhancements of local infrastructure are crucial components of long-term recovery and viability of communities.

To learn more, visit https://recovery.texas.gov/2018-floods-2019-disasters/programs/2019-disasters-infrastructure-competition/index.html.

Plum Grove Drainage Improvements – $1,000,000

Tropical Storm Imelda released an unprecedented 3-day total rainfall amount of 28 inches on Plum Grove. That limited the city’s ability to provide an immediate response due to the inundation of flood water. As a result, this project will provide much-needed drainage improvements within Orange Branch Creek which is located in the middle of the city and runs from the northeast down to the southeast. The project will install culverts and restore roads.

Splendora Lift Station Drainage Improvements – $596,625

Imelda flooding submerged the Pinewood Lift Station site, as well as its emergency generator and electrical switchgear located at the northern intersection of Pinewood Drive and First Street. Loss of both primary and emergency back-up power led to a sanitary sewer overflow at Pinewood lift station. Vehicular access, including emergency vehicle access, was not possible because of the depth of flooding in the area. This project includes drainage and generator improvements at the Pinewood Lift Station.

Construction will include the following activities:

Regrade ditch and install double headwalls
Install reinforced concrete pipe culverts under First Street with road restoration and ditch regrading
Install new natural gas generator and automatic transfer switch
Install an elevated metal platform, staircase and skid for generator

Liberty Water, Sewer Improvements – $1,000,000

The project will provide for water and sewer line improvements located within the eastern side of the city along Beaumont Road, Minglewood Road, Glenn Street and Tanner Street. These should reduce overflow concerns for residents and businesses along these streets. The project will make improvements to sewer lines and water lines and remove and replace existing lift stations with gravity sanitary sewer lines.

Descriptions of Other Grants

For a full description of other grants in this batch, see the GLO website.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/22/2023 based on information from the Texas General Land Office

2031 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 1280 Days since Imelda

TWDB Needs Feedback on Ranking Method for State Flood Plan

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) is soliciting feedback on its proposed scoring matrix to rank efforts for the state’s first flood plan. Each region has submitted proposed projects. The scoring matrix will help rank order them statewide. And the deadline is April Fools’ Day.

TWDB has provided several spreadsheets that show how the criteria and weights would affect ranking of sample projects. But understand that TWDB is only soliciting comments on scoring criteria and their weights at this time, not the rankings of the limited sample. All this is DRAFT data, not final recommendations.

39 Factors in Three Different Categories and Three Groups

TWDB has proposed weighing the relative merits of 39 factors that span three categories with benefits in three more groups:

Flood Management Evaluations (Studies)
Flood Mitigation Projects
Flood Management Strategies

TWDB uses three types of factors:

Flood risk
Risk reduction
Other related factors

“Other” includes such factors as cost and environmental benefits.

The 39 factors include:

Emergency Need (Y/N)
Estimated number of structures at 100yr flood risk
Residential structures at 100-year flood risk
Estimated Population at 100-year flood risk
Critical facilities at 100-year flood risk (#)
Number of low water crossings at flood risk (#)
Estimated number of road closures (#)
Estimated length of roads at 100-year flood risk (Miles)
Estimated farm & ranch land at 100-year flood risk (acres)
Number of structures with reduced 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain
Number of structures removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain
Percent of structures removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain (Calculated by TWDB from reported data)
Residential structures removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain
Estimated Population removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain
Critical facilities removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain (#)
Number of low water crossings removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain (#)
Estimated reduction in road closure occurrences
Estimated length of roads removed from 100yr floodplain (Miles)
Estimated farm & ranch land removed from 100yr floodplain (acres)
Cost per structure removed from 100-year floodplain
Percent Nature-based Solution (by cost)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Water Supply Benefit (Y/N)
Severity – Pre-Project Average Depth of Flooding (100-year)
Severity – Community Need (% Population)
Flood Risk Reduction
Flood Damage Reduction
Critical Facilities Damage Reduction
Life and Safety
Water Supply
Social Vulnerability
Nature-Based Solution
Multiple Benefits
Operations and Maintenance Costs
Admin, Regulatory Obstacles
Environmental Benefit
Environmental Impact
Mobility
Regional

Factors (in Risk, Risk Reduction and Other groups) may receive weight in one, two or all three main categories (Evaluations, Projects, Strategies).

Intent: Consistency Across All Regions Statewide

The intent of the TWDB ranking method for the state flood plan is to provide a consistent approach to be used across all Texas regions. The goal: to systematically address the flood hazards with most population, properties and critical facilities at risk in the state during a 1% annual chance flood.

TWDB bases all risk on 1% annual chance/100-year flood estimates.

Areas with widely varying measurements such as population will have answers normalized. Basically, this means adjusting widely varying scales to a common scale (such as 0 to 1) to facilitate comparison.

More Background, Sample Data, Providing Feedback

All relevant ranking workbooks, documents, and the link to the online survey tool are available on the State Flood Planning webpage.

Provide your feedback on this page. It’s a four-question survey about the:

Plan in general
Evaluations
Projects
Strategies.

The deadline to submit feedback is Saturday, April 1, 2023.

Importance of Feedback

We have seen how seriously the weights given to such rankings can skew priorities. Consider, for instance, the Equity Prioritization Framework adopted after the fact by a Harris County Judge and two commissioners for proposed 2018 Flood Bond Projects (unrelated to these projects).

So, if you have reservations with the TWDB scoring system, register your complaints NOW. My biggest concerns are that it’s hard to understand. It also contains broken links and typos that get in the way of understanding.

But understanding is critical. Many of the flood-reduction projects needed on the periphery of Harris County will need be addressed by state money. That’s because 10 of our 23 watersheds originate outside the County. I guess that would fall under #39 Regional. But…

The proposed scoring matrix gives ZERO weight to Regional benefits.

That’s kind of strange for a regional plan designed to encourage solutions that cross jurisdictions. Scoring matrix penalizes people on the periphery of large urban areas like Harris County.

watersheds in Harris and surrounding counties

I’ve already sent my feedback on that one.

Inconsistencies? TWDB refers to FMS as Flood Management Strategy on its spreadsheet and Flood Management Solution in introductory text.

Another example: In its spreadsheets, footnotes describing the listing of criteria do not correspond in all cases to the criteria listed. Nor does a link work to a supposed explanation of the criteria.

And there’s no description that I could find of how all these categories, measurements and groups fit together.

Finally, it’s not clear how they will treat areas that have a 50% annual chance of flooding (2-year flood). We’ve seen in highly urbanized areas that – after spending hundreds of millions of dollars in some watersheds – the best we can do achieve in some areas is a 25-year level of service. Achieving better would require buying out thousands of homes. What will happen in such cases?

Please make the effort to provide public feedback.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/20/2023

2029 Days since Harris County

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.

Other Areas Disclose Road-Bond Spending Details, But Not Harris County

While major cities and counties throughout Texas post maps and detailed descriptions of their road-bond spending and projects, Harris County does not.

In June 2022, County Commissioner Adrian Garcia pitched bonds for roads, parks and public safety totaling $1.2 billion. It included $900 million for roads, $200 million for parks and $100 million for public-safety infrastructure.

Commissioners Tom Ramsey and Jack Cagle tried to slow the bond offering down until projects could be identified, prioritized, and estimated. However, Garcia, with the help of Commissioner Rodney Ellis and County Judge Lina Hidalgo, put the bond on the November ballot and it passed with little disclosure.

A series of poorly advertised and attended public meetings provided no details as to how the money would be spent except for some high-level breakdowns between roads and parks. Neither did the bond website – despite promises made in Commissioners Court that it would.

Nine months later, Harris County still has not provided any details.

Rahman Presentation to ACEC Now Public

Dr. Milton Rahman, P.E., PMP, CFM, ENV SP., Executive Director and County Engineer did provide a project update earlier this month about the bond to the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) Houston. However, it provided only a little more detail than we already knew about how the money would be allocated. And it provided no location-specific data about where the money would be spent, i.e., which stretches of roads.

Below are several key slides from Dr. Rahman’s full presentation.

*Looking only at transportation and drainage (second table), Precinct 3 will receive approximately $70 to $90 million **less** than Precincts 1 and 2* *and $40 **less** than Precinct 4.*

To qualify for any funding, roads must have a Pavement Condition Index below 40 (very poor to failing). But in scoring, roads will also be ranked by their surrounding population and the number of socially vulnerable residents. (See below).

*The road bond was broken up into five different segments; this was one.* *For those other criteria, see the slide below.*

*Note references to population and social vulnerability. Rahman did not specify the weights given to these other factors.*

Rahman did assign weights to partnership dollars, but he fails to define the factors. For instance, what does he mean by “project area” below? It gets a whopping 25% of the weight.

In short, he still won’t say where the money will go.

11X More for Admin than in Flood Bond 5X Larger

But Dr. Rahman does plan to take $110 million for management and administration. Compare that to the $10 million allocated for admin in 2018 flood bond that totaled $5 billion with partner funding. Dr. Rahman will take 11 times more for a bond one-fifth the size. It’s even more than the $100 million being invested in public-safety facilities which were so sorely in need of help before the election!

The County disclosed none of this to voters before they voted on the bond.

Even now, five months later, with the little information we have, I would find it impossible to make an informed decision based on this vague, high-level, process-oriented information presented by Dr. Rahman. But I do have deep suspicions that the $110 million could go to pay raises for political hires.

Rahman Withholding Pavement Condition Information

Even though Harris County has calculated a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for every road in the county, it has not published the information. Nor did the Engineering Department supply the PCI report to ReduceFlooding.com in response to a direct request.

And even through Dr. Rahmen has already allocated the money, nowhere in his report does he address the number of lane miles needing repair in each precinct.

Other Oddities

For the record, Precinct 3 will receive the least money by far. It has almost half the county’s lane miles to maintain (47%) but will receive less than one-fifth of the bond money allocated to roads and drainage.

Moreover, large portions of Precincts 1 and 2 fall within the City of Houston and other municipalities such as Pasadena and Baytown. Thus they share responsibility and costs.

Finally, before redistricting, Commissioner Garcia made sure that most of the bad roads in his Precinct 2 magically wound up in Precinct 3.

With all the other factors folded in, there’s no guarantee most of Precinct 3’s roads will ever see 2022 road bond money.

Other Areas Far More Transparent

Because of the complexity of allocating bond dollars, virtually all major cities and counties in Texas simply publish maps that show where bond money will go.

But not in Harris County! That would be too simple. And why be transparent when you can keep people in the dark and avoid complaints about fairness?

To see how transparently other areas treat their voters, consult the links below.

When governments go out of their way to conceal information as certain commissioners have here, it raises the question “Why?”

It’s time you started demanding answers to that question. Your safety is at stake.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/8/23

2017 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.

Lake Houston Gates Project Moves Closer to Reality

The Lake Houston Gates Project is moving closer to reality with breakthroughs on the benefit/cost ratio, funding and endorsements.

City of Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin and Chief Recovery Officer Stephen Costello provided updates on 2/27/23 at City Hall on the Lake Houston Gates Project. The wide-ranging, hour-long discussion covered several related topics. They included:

A critical path for construction
Dredging of the lake
Funding for gates and dredging
Several related engineering studies
A favorable ruling from FEMA on the Benefit-Cost Ratio
An endorsement to the area’s legislators by the Greater Houston Partnership.

Need For Gates

For those new to the area, the City of Houston has been pushing to add gates to the Lake Houston Dam ever since Harvey in 2017. Upstream, Lake Conroe’s gates can release 150,000 cubic feet per second (CFS). But Lake Houston’s can only release 10,000 CFS.

The disparity in discharge capacity complicates joint-reservoir-management and pre-release strategies designed to avoid flooding by reducing the water level in Lake Houston.

Lake Houston releases cannot keep up with Lake Conroe’s. And pre-releasing water from Lake Houston takes so long that storms can veer away during the lowering process, often resulting in wasted water. That’s an important consideration for a water-supply lake.

According to Martin and Costello, the gate project will:

• Serve as the first phase of a long-term effort to extend the life of the Dam
• Enable the rapid lowering of lake levels in advance of a flood
• Eliminate the need for a seasonal lowering of both Lake Houston and Lake Conroe
• Provide potential water-rights savings
• Protect an estimated 5,000 residential properties in the surrounding area
• Yield an estimated half billion dollars in economic benefits during the life of the project

Gates, Funding, BCR, Studies

Preliminary engineering studies evaluated about a dozen different alternatives for adding discharge capacity to Lake Houston. The City initially favored adding crest gates to the spillway portion of the dam.

However, the City discarded that idea as “too risky” after further study. The engineering company cautioned the City that it would have a difficult time finding contractors willing to risk modifying a 70-year old concrete dam. The potential liability was just too great. So the City then revisited adding various numbers of tainter gates to the eastern, earthen portion of the dam.

Because tainter gates exceeded FEMA’s funding, the City had initially focused on crest gates. But after investigating the safety issues, the City decided to seek more funding for tainter gates instead.

The City now recommends adding 11 tainter gates.

*Recommended location for new tainter gates is next to old ones, not farther east as I conjectured earlier.*

The picture below is slightly wider and shows more of how both halves of the dam come together.

*If funding comes through, new gates would go in the upper right along the earthen portion of the dam, next to the old gates.*

Funding Needs

FEMA initially set aside $50 million for the gates. Plus Harris County committed $20 million in the 2018 Flood Bond to attract FEMA’s match. But the latest construction estimates show eleven tainter gates could cost between $200 and $250 million.

After engineering and environmental studies, only $68.3 million in funding remains. That includes an earmark secured by Congressman Dan Crenshaw. So the City is seeking another $150 million from the State of Texas. Martin and Costello have made weekly trips to Austin so far during this session to line up support from legislators, committee chairs, and the Texas Division of Emergency Management.

Social Benefits Improve Benefit/Cost Ratio

All this is suddenly possible because of a favorable ruling from FEMA on the benefit-cost ratio (BCR).

For years, Houston had struggled to get the BCR for the gate project above 1.0 (the point at which benefits exceed costs). Usually, FEMA strictly interprets benefits as “avoided damages to structures.”

But Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Costello met with FEMA to argue that the problem was much bigger than damaged structures.

As a result, FEMA allowed the City to add the value of “social benefits” to the BCR. Social benefits can include such things as avoiding lost wages when businesses are destroyed; transportation disruptions that reduce the region’s productivity; reducing negative impacts on student achievement when schools are disrupted; and more.

The social-benefit ruling covers a number of City projects, not just the gates. It should also benefit other areas, especially rural ones.

Said Costello, “The minute the social benefits came in, everything was great.” Instead of struggling to reach 1.0, the City is now far above it.

Greater Houston Partnership Endorsement

With that out of the way, the Greater Houston Partnership wrote a powerful letter to state legislators seeking their support for the gate project. See below.

*Greater Houston Partnership letter endorsing Lake Houston Gates. For a printable PDF, click here.*

The Partnership includes business leaders from 900 member companies in the 12-county Houston Region.

Dredging Update

While pressing ahead with the gates project, the City is also working on a long-term dredging plan for the lake and working with the SJRA on sedimentation and sand-trap pilot projects.

The Texas Water Department Board (TWDB) has estimated sediment inflow to Lake Houston at about 380 acre-feet of material annually.

The lake has already lost more than 20,000 acre feet of capacity due to sedimentation. That worsens flooding. While the Federal Government supports efforts to improve Lake Houston now, the chances of getting more money in the future will be reduced – unless we can show that we’re at least keeping pace with annual sediment deposits.

Since Harvey, FEMA, the Army Corps, TWDB, and City of Houston have removed almost 4 million cubic yards of material from the lake at a cost of $226 million.

We have to prevent more sediment from coming downstream or dredge it after it gets here.
Stephen Costello, City of Houston Chief Recovery Officer

The City is currently lobbying for another $50 million for maintenance dredging to add to the money secured in the last legislative session by now-retired State Representative Dan Huberty. New Representative Charles Cunningham will reportedly now carry that banner forward along with State Senator Brandon Creighton.

Legislative News to Follow

March 10th is the last day to file bills in the Texas Legislature this year. Please visit the legislation page on ReduceFlooding.com for updates once bills are filed and start moving forward in Austin.

Thanks to all of our elected and appointed representatives who have pushed so hard on so many fronts for the last 2008 days to tie all the pieces of this complicated flood-mitigation puzzle together.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/27/2023

2008 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Best Hope to Fully Fund Flood-Bond Projects Just Vanished into a Political Black Hole

Harris County’s best hope to fully fund the 2018 Flood Bond just vanished into a political black hole. Watching the video of Commissioners Court on Tuesday made one dizzy. My head was spinning so quickly with all of the contradictions, that it reminded me of a Chucky horror movie.

Almost 2 Years After Leaving the Starting Gate…

After almost 2 years, the County’s Community Services Department (CSD) still has not even started working on a process that would define where $750 million in Hurricane Harvey Flood Mitigation money would go.

But its new director, Thao Costis, did recommend taking 58% of the money away from Harris County Flood Control District. County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis, Precinct Two Commissioner Adrian Garcia, and Precinct 4 Commissioner Lesley Briones all voted FOR CSD’s vague proposal that gave $326.5 million to “Harris County” and almost $100 million to “planning and administration” with no further definition.

Ramsey Reminds Court of Purpose of HUD Money

Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE reminded his fellow Court members that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) grant was originally intended to fill a funding gap in the flood bond.

For those who may not remember, roughly a third of the $2.5 billion 2018 flood bond was designed to attract matching funds from state and federal entities such as HUD. Harris County Flood Control District hoped to double taxpayers’ money that way. The bond actually had projects in it totaling roughly $5 billion.

At the time, HCFCD saw HUD dollars as the best way to support the hard-hit Halls Bayou watershed where 71% of the residents have low-to-moderate incomes (LMI).

Not Even Enough Left for HCFCD to Complete Halls Projects

But the money remaining with HCFCD after commissioners voted to divert more than half of the $750 million won’t even be enough to complete Halls projects.

The Flood Bond included Halls projects estimated at almost $383 million. Halls has already received projects worth $48 million, leaving a $335 million need. But giving only $326.5 million to HCFCD would leave Halls more than $8 million short.

That would leave no money for flood control projects in other watersheds. They would vanish into a political black hole.

The good people of Halls Bayou have had their projects lined up for years. Yet at 6:28:40 into the meeting video, Director Costis admits, “Our focus is to get projects lined up.”

For Halls Bayou residents who follow Commissioners Court, the video of Tuesday’s meeting will have their heads spinning faster than Chucky’s.

Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have complained bitterly about projects in LMI neighborhoods having to wait for federal funding that might never arrive. Then they voted to take $425 million away from HCFCD when it did.

Partnership Funding Merry-Go-Round

Commissioner Garcia, who couldn’t wait on partnership funding to get started on projects, demanded a partnership policy. Ditto for Commissioner Ellis.

But Ellis didn’t want to back away from the county’s “equity principles, because some cities might not have a match.” This could further reduce funding.

At 6:34:20, Ellis, who often brags about transparency, introduced a motion to prioritize projects using unspecified criteria before CSD comes back to Commissioners Court on March 3 with final recommendations.

Admission of Funding Gap

Then Ellis complained, “Even with this money, we don’t have enough money to do everything in the 2018 Flood Bond.” Where’s the other $425 million going, Mr. Ellis, that you’re diverting from HCFCD? Into that political black hole?

More Delays Could Jeopardize Funding

At 6:41, Dr. Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD, complains, “We’ll need to get an extension.” That’s something the Texas General Land Office (GLO), which manages HUD grants in Texas, has feared. The GLO worries that additional delays could cause HUD to take its money back. Harris County has been dragging this process out for almost two years.

Garcia again asks, “Is a partnership process in place?” (6:41)

Costis admits, “No. We’re starting that process now.”

Hidalgo abruptly cuts off the embarrassing discussion, takes a vote, and moves on to the next agenda item at 6:43:48.

Saying One Thing, Doing Another

Actions speak louder than words, especially in politics. It’s one thing to say flood mitigation is a top priority and that you want to help the county’s less fortunate first. But the figures below clearly show that…

…Ellis, Garcia and Hidalgo help our least fortunate residents the least.

To get a clear picture of political priorities, let’s visualize flood-mitigation spending as a percentage of the total value of projects in the flood bond for each watershed. This shows important differences in the progress toward completion of promised projects. See the table and map below.

*Compiled from data published by HCFCD in December 2022 Flood Bond Update and March 2021 Flood Bond Update*

In case you’re unfamiliar with the location of these watersheds, see below.

Greens has received 74.9% of its funding and Brays 79.4% of its. But both have lower LMI percentages than Halls, Hunting, Sims and Vince.

For instance, Sims has the third highest percentage of LMI residents in the county (65%), but has only received 4.4% of its anticipated funding.

Eight watersheds in Harris County have majority-LMI populations. But the LMI percentages have little to do with the percentage of money actually spent out of their anticipated budgets.

Contrary to promises, some of the least affluent watersheds are being prioritized last.

Brays and Greens have received more funding to date than the other six LMI-majority watersheds put together.

This is, in large part, because Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have constantly tweaked their equity-allocation formula to ensure money goes where they want it to go.

High Price of Turnover

The Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) learned of its $488 million allocation from the GLO the same day in May 2021 that Harris County learned of its $750 million. But H-GAC developed its distribution plan and received final approval from the GLO by September of 2022. And H-GAC had to coordinate more than 100 entities!

This comparison shows the high price of turnover in the executive ranks. Costis is the sixth executive director at CSD under Hidalgo. Ms. Costis previously ran a charity for homeless people. While admirable, that’s no qualification for managing hundreds of millions of dollars. And certain commissioners have not helped the process by making it more complicated than it already is with constantly changing demands.

If Harris County wants this money, it needs to hire leaders with business acumen, wall them off from political interference, and prohibit political patronage hires. Now that would really make people’s heads spin! It would also eliminate a political/financial black hole.

Posted by Bob Rehak on February 23, 2023

2004 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.

Last Chance to Comment on Distribution of $750 Million in HUD Flood-Mitigation Funds

Tuesday 2/21/23 at 5 P.M. will be your last chance to comment on Harris County’s proposed distribution of $750 million in HUD Flood-Mitigation funds.

Harris County Community Services Department (CSD) will request Commissioners Court approval of its plan for allocating $750 million in HUD Harvey mitigation funds Tuesday. (See item 489 on the Agenda.) The Texas General Land Office (GLO) has conditionally approved the preliminary plan and sent it back to Harris County for public comment.

However, the plan still consists only of a high-level outline. The county wants to split the money between itself and Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) after allocating 13% for planning and administration.

CSD doesn’t intend to say exactly what areas will get how much for which projects until AFTER public comments.

Preliminary Plan Still Contains Little Detail

CSD has posted a 15-minute YouTube video that explains the process. See the screen captures below from the video.

Basically, CSD wants your comments on a high-level outline for dividing up the money. Below is what they recommend.

Less than half will go to HCFCD. AFTER approval tomorrow, the County will develop a list of projects for submission to the GLO. See last line in slide below.

CSD’s video discusses the criteria the county intends to use when developing a project list.

*Input obtained prior to developing list.*

It appears that Harris County wants all of the money to benefit low-to-moderate income, socially vulnerable neighborhoods…the same neighborhoods that have gotten the lion’s share of funding to date.

Sound familiar? Even though 50% of the $750 million can go to higher income areas, up to 100% could go to low-to-moderate income areas. And it looks like the county wants to go in that direction. Again.

Public Comments Close at 5 P.M. Tuesday

The only way to get your fair share is if enough members of the public demand a more even split. We don’t have enough money to finish the flood bond without spending all of the $750 million on flood mitigation. But CSD’s plan would give less than half to HCFCD.

We need the entire $750 million to fully fund the 2018 flood bond. Given the prevailing politics in Harris County these days, if any projects get cancelled for lack of funding, they will likely be those in middle- to higher-income neighborhoods.

Get Your Promised Share of the 2018 Flood Bond

So please protest any diversion of these funds away from flood mitigation.

By law, CSD must forward all comments received by Tuesday at 5 P.M. to the GLO and HUD for review.

So hurry. Email your comments NOW. It will only take five minutes.

Deadline: February 21 at 5PM.

Email to: DRplancomments@csd.hctx.net

Below is a sample letter with key points to make. Feel free to cut-and-paste or adapt.

Sample Letter

To whom it may concern:

I strongly protest the outline that Harris County Community Services presented to the GLO for the distribution of $750 million in HUD CDBG-MIT Harvey flood-mitigation funds.

Since adoption of Harris County’s Equity Prioritization Framework, the County has been funneling 2018 Flood Bond money and other local funds to projects in high LMI and SVI areas.

Now, however, without all of the $750 million going to flood mitigation, there likely won’t be enough money to finish all of the defined flood-bond projects that voters approved by 88% in 2018.

Therefore, I suggest:

The entire $750 million should go to Harris County Flood Control District to complete unfunded flood-mitigation projects in the bond.
Earmark half that money for projects in watersheds with more affluent residents (less than 50% LMI) who have been largely ignored until now.
Prioritize projects by:
- The number of damaged structures during Harvey
- Depth of flooding during Harvey
- Remaining, unmitigated flood risk
- Ability to reduce threats to infrastructure, such as bridges, schools, hospitals, and sewage treatment plants.
- Lack of previous flood-mitigation investment in watershed
The County, GLO and HUD need to be fair to all people of Harris County as HUD’s rules allow. Half of the flood-mitigation funding in Harris County since 2000 has gone to just four watersheds (Brays, Greens, White Oak, and Sims). Other areas have needs, too.
CSD should present a detailed plan and stick to it. Vague generalities invite suspicion and undermine trust in government.
Ensure transparency. Harris County CSD has a poor record of transparency and website updates. Create a dashboard that publicly displays:
- Encumbrances
- Spending to date on every project
- Who gets how much money, when, for what
- Each project’s progress
- Monthly updates
The MOD should include guarantees that the county will meet performance deadlines. Because of the 20 months already squandered since the County became aware of the $750 million, I question the county’s ability to spend the money by HUD’s deadline.

Thank you for considering these thoughts.

Don’t forget to add your contact information so Community Services can tell the General Land Office and HUD where the comment came from.

More Information

The GLO has emphasized the need for Harris County to act quickly. Flood Control has projects already defined that need money. HUD will take the money back if local authorities can’t spend the money within deadlines. So hurry. These projects take a long time. HCFCD has already defined projects in the flood bond. We can’t afford the time to start from scratch to figure out the distribution of $750 million in HUD Flood-Mitigation funds.

For more supporting information, including charts and graphs that you can use to create a custom letter, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/20/23

2001 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.