3/2/26 – In one of the most hotly contested primaries in recent memory, State Rep. Steve Toth is running against Congressman Dan Crenshaw in the newly redrawn Congressional District 2. I urge you to vote for Crenshaw who has consistently delivered flood-mitigation dollars for the Lake Houston Area. But that’s not the only reason.
Speech Suppression, Refusal to Debate, Lies, Black Money
Toth’s supporters have:
Relentlessly destroyed Crenshaw signs
Rudely interfered with Crenshaw campaign workers at polling places
Loudly disrupted Crenshaw meetings
One of many Crenshaw signs destroyed in the middle of the night the day before the primary.Another destroyed earlier
Mr. Toth tears down his opponent because he has virtually nothing positive to say about himself. Toth has one of the most negative voting records in the Texas Legislature.
Understanding what Toth voted NO on gives you deeper insight into the man and his values.
In 2025, Toth voted against flood mitigation, flood-warning systems, free speech, food banks, cybersecurity, conservation, grid reliability, open meetings, transparency, ethics, border security, fraud protections, and disclosure of campaign finance information.
Toth also voted against groups, such as law enforcement, first responders, consumers, patients, motorists, veterans, educators, CPAs, dentists, dental hygienists, farmers, restauranteurs, insurers, aviators, heath-care providers, seniors, schoolchildren, whistleblowers, correctional officers, manufacturers, attorneys, college students, utility employees, people who work from home, flood victims, crime victims, and rural Texans.
Allowing people to affiliate with the political party of their choice
The Texas Ethics Commission
Sexual harassment prevention
Gulf Coast hurricane protection
Online consumer protections
Property tax relief
Combatting human trafficking
Workplace violence prevention policies
Whistleblower protection
Training programs for child-abuse investigators
Prohibiting construction of assisted-living facilities in Harris County 100-year floodplains
Reporting cybersecurity breaches
Toth voted against a majority of Republicans on every single one of these measures and hundreds more. On many of them, more than 90% of Republicans voted FOR the bills.
How Extremists Like Toth Can Hijack an Election
Voting NO so often helps Toth boost his conservative rating among some far right-leaning groups. But it also means, he has accomplished virtually nothing. He has nothing positive he can say about himself. He has NO record to run on. So, he tears down his opponent. That’s all he can do. And all he has done.
As of the end of two weeks of early voting, 8.1% of registered voters had voted. If half of those are Democrats, that means 4% of voters will determine the Republican candidate in CD-2 – unless YOU vote Tuesday, March 3rd.
Extremists like Toth represent a huge percentage of that 4%. The nut cases ALL vote.
Don’t let them determine your choices in November.
Please vote for Crenshaw if you want to continue seeing flood-mitigation improvements. He has brought hundreds of millions of flood-mitigation dollars to the Lake Houston Area.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/2/26
3107 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Crenshaw-Sign-Ripped.jpg?fit=1100%2C482&ssl=14821100adminadmin2026-03-02 17:40:432026-03-02 19:17:08Toth Continues Assaults on First Amendment, Human Rights, Common Sense
2/19/26 – Texas 2036 and the American Flood Coalition hosted an informative seminar on 2/17/26. It emphasized lessons learned from other states that help ensure flood resilience. One of the dominant themes of the day was the need for watershed-wide flood solutions. Without watershed-wide solutions, upstream communities can create the conditions of their own future flooding while putting downstream communities on an expensive flood-mitigation treadmill.
About the Sponsors
The mission of Texas 2036 is to enable Texans to make policy decisions through accessible data, long-term planning and statewide engagement. Its goal is to make Texas the best place to live and work. 2036 refers to Texas’ upcoming bicentennial year.
The American Flood Coalition (AFC) is a bipartisan, member-driven coalition working at all levels of government to scale innovative solutions to the country’s toughest flood-adaptation challenges.
A Watershed-Based Approach to Flooding
Dr. Ruth Akintoye kicked off the first presentation with a reminder that the new Texas State Flood Plan is organized along watershed boundaries. And not just sub-watersheds, but entire river basins. That’s because floodwater does not respect jurisdictional boundaries.
On left: map showing the 15 river basins in Texas. On right, diagram of how rain can fall in one part of a watershed and flood other parts where it did not even rain.Watersheds are large areas that drain to single points.
“This requires communities to collaborate regionally and also to coordinate with the state,” said Akintoya.
Akintoya gave a shout-out to more than 50 Texans for their leadership on flooding issues and securing more than $4 billion to fund flood and water projects across the state. She singled out Congressman Dan Crenshaw by name.
Texas Members of the American Flood Coalition. (Crenshaw Top Row/Middle)
As a group, they’re trying to bring a 360-degree view of flooding to everyone in the state. “Texas is already a leader in how states approach flood resilience,” said Akintoya. “Yet we all know that resilience is not static and it never fully gets checked off.”
Benefits of a Watershed-Wide Approach
Throughout the seminar, speakers kept referring to the benefits of a watershed-wide approach to flood resilience. They include:
Comprehensive solutions where the pieces work better together
Saving money through various techniques
Better flood prediction
Increased coordination when pursuing funding from partners at various levels of government.
High-level benefits of a watershed wide flood-mitigation approach
Florida’s Always-Ready Long-Range Plan
Former speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Chris Sprowls, amplified those thoughts. He talked about the passage of Florida’s landmark “Always Ready” legislation. AFC called it “the nation’s most comprehensive state-level flood resilience and adaptation initiative.”
The initiative positioned Florida as a leader in preparing communities for rising flood risks. The Florida Plan looks 30 years into the future. Sprowls talked about similarities between Texas and Florida. Namely, both are hubs for domestic migration.
“People are coming to find a better life for their families and a pathway to prosperity. But the downside of that is that we have to plan further into the future,” said Sprowls.
“In Florida,” said Sprowls, “we think about water from a watershed perspective.” In the past, “we weren’t doing the planning and making the investments really needed to keep our communities safe.”
New Texas Flood Plan Based on River-Basin-Wide Approach
Former executive director of the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), Jeff walker, talked about the river-basin-wide approach in the first Texas State Flood Plan. The total cost of recommendations was $51 billion. “But to give some perspective, the losses associated with Hurricane Harvey were over $125 billion. That’s from one storm,” he said.
One of the first things Texas learned, said Walker, was that “a large, large majority of the flood maps were out of date.”
“The FEMA maps did not give a full picture of the risk or pinpoint mitigation measures,” he added.”Except for the larger metropolitan areas, most cities and counties do not have a good picture of flood risks. As you can imagine, many cities need technical assistance to help them identify such risk.”
Even worse, Walker said, “Many entities cannot access funds because they do not have a good plan for how to use them. And there is not a good mechanism for flood funding at the city level – especially small cities – because they do not have a source of [matching] funds for such projects.”
Walker believes one of the biggest impacts of the State Flood Plan is that state, local, and watershed-level districts are finally engaging with one another about projects. “It’s not happening in little silos anymore,” he said. He believes that “gives one dollar the power of two.”
“There are more than 1,200 flood managers in Texas, and some of them hold 3 or 4 hats.”
Jeff Walker, Former Exec. Dir., TWDB
He referred to mayors and city managers responsible for flood projects “they don’t know how to do.” A river-basin-wide flood-control district would put that expertise at their disposal.
Fast Growth Argues For Wider Outlook
Florida’s Sprowls fielded many of the questions during Q&A. Several questions addressed fast growth. “It’s really important to fold vulnerabilities into future development plans,” he said. “As population grows and economic development booms in new areas, you need to understand how risk scales relevant to that development. And you can make smart choices to mitigate that risk.”
Texas State Rep. Dennis Paul sponsored such a bill in 2025 to expand Harris County Flood Control District’s geographic scope, but it never made it out of the Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Paul reportedly plans to introduce it again in 2027.
As awareness grows about the benefits of flood-control districts that cover entire river basins, he may have better luck next time. It’s important. The state flood plan shows that the San Jacinto Basin (Region 6) has the largest flood-mitigation needs in the state…by a wide margin.
From Jeff Walker’s presentation. San Jacinto needs (Region 6 in center) approach $8 billion.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Screenshot-2026-02-17-at-1.11.45-PM-scaled-e1771549101284.png?fit=1100%2C611&ssl=16111100adminadmin2026-02-19 19:49:452026-02-19 19:49:46Need for Watershed-Wide Solutions to Ensure Flood Resilience
2/1/26 – State Representative Steve Toth is running against U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw in the Republican primary for the second congressional district of Texas.
To date, Toth has run a largely negative campaign, smearing Crenshaw with half-truths and lies. When I posted a positive story about Crenshaw’s work in Congress to reduce flood risk, dozens of hired Toth trolls flooded Facebook with false negative comments about Crenshaw – all unsubstantiated.
Usually, when candidates have nothing positive to say about themselves, they tear down opponents. That made me curious. So, I investigated Toth’s voting record in Austin. Toth voted NO on every bill below. And…
On every vote, Toth went against a majority of Republicans voting YES.
Because bill descriptions can get quite long, I summarized them. However, using the bill numbers and their years in the table below, you can easily look up everything about them in the Texas Legislature Online website. (So far, I’ve only gotten through the 2021 and 2023 sessions.)
Steve Toth Voted NO on…
Steve Toth voted NO on all of these bills. What would you have voted?
Steve Toth:
Bill #
% Other Republicans Voting FOR
Voted against a hotline to report workplace violence
HB 915 in 2023
83%
Voted against allowing people to affiliate with the political party of their choice.
HB 1635 in 2023
94%
Voted against handicapped parking at polling places
HB 386 in 2023
92%
Voted against simplifying disclosure of election information
HB 4053 in 2023
53%
Voted against the Texas Ethics Commission educating people about its work, which includes campaign finance disclosure
SB 62 in 2021
57%
Voted against sexual harassment prevention
SB 2233 in 2021
81%
Voted against expanding water infrastructure
HJR 169 in 2023
91%
Voted against oil well cleanup
HB 3973 in 2021
53%
Voted against hurricane protection for the Gulf Coast
SB 1160 in 2021
76%
Voted against military law enforcement
HB 3452 in 2021
80%
Voted against economic growth
HB 1392 in 2023
90%
Voted against highway improvements
HB 1392 in 2023
90%
Voted against cybersecurity protection
HB 4018 in 2021
70%
Voted against disaster response loans
HB 2812 in 2021
77%
Voted against training for drug overdose treatment
SB 998 in 2023
89%
Voted against “Made-in-Texas” labeling standards
HB 2194 in 2023
83%
Voted against basic standards of care for dogs and cats bred in captivity
SB 876 in 2023
72%
Voted against child-labor penalties
HB 2459 in 2023
75%
Voted against penalties for importing invasive snake species
HB 2326 in 2021
63%
Voted against tax relief for farm families
HB 3241 in 2023
98%
Voted against online consumer protection
HB 3745 in 2021
80%
Voted against preventing sexual-harassment in the workplace
SB 45 in 2021
67%
Voted against uniform election dates
HB 2133 in 2023
88%
Voted against higher qualifications for sheriffs
SB 1124 in 2023
77%
Voted against making it easier for people with disabilities to vote
SB 477 in 2023
69%
Voted against financing water projects
SJR 75 in 2023
94%
Voted against improving electric reliability
HB 1607 in 2021
68%
Voted against consumer protections for electricity customers
HB 16 in 2021
68%
Voted against making it easier to buy solar products
SB 398 in 2021
75%
Voted against making it easier for energy companies to repay repair expenses from Winter Storm Uri
HB 4492 in 2021
78%
Voted against property tax relief
HJR 102 in 2023
56%
Voted against reporting cybersecurity breaches
SB 271 in 2023
98%
Voted against pay parity for Texas police officers
HB 2297 in 2023
98%
Voted against the economic stabilization fund
HJR 82 in 2021
83%
Voted against disclosure of occupational licenses
HB 2404 in 2021
95%
Voted against improving state information technology
HB 4018 in 2021
70%
Voted against mental health funding
HB 15 in 2023
63%
Voted against the Texas University Fund
HJR 3 in 2023
88%
Voted against providing opioid intervention on college campuses
HB 3338 in 2023
80%
Voted against bonds for a Brain Institute of Texas
HJR 5 in 2021
56%
Voted against a Texas Epidemic Public Health Institute
SB 1780 in 2021
71%
Voted against combatting human trafficking
HB 3772 in 2023
59%
Voted against closing massage parlors involved in human trafficking
HB 3579 in 2023
80%
Voted against training hotel/motel employees to recognize human trafficking
HB 390 in 2021
78%
Voted against improving preparedness for wind/hail storms
HB 4354 in 2023
85%
Voted against requiring insurers to disclose prescription drug coverage
SB 622 in 2023
73%
Voted against access to fertility preservation services for cancer patients
HB 1649 in 2023
63%
Voted against requiring health plans to cover ovarian cancer screening in annual exams
HB 428 in 2021
79%
Voted against allowing clinicians to dispense cancer drugs
HB 1586 in 2021
73%
Voted against updating voyeurism laws to account for hidden cameras
HB 2306 in 2023
98%
Voted against making criminal sentencing data available to public
HB 3937 in 2023
77%
Voted against classifying highway obstruction by street gangs as a criminal offense
HB 1442 in 2023
81%
Voted against a task force to prevent organized retail theft
HB 1826 in 2023
93%
Voted against minimum salaries for county sheriffs
HB 626 in 2023
94%
Voted against requiring perpetrators of certain felonies to provide DNA
HB 3956 in 2023
88%
Voted against requiring correctional officers to wear body cams
HB 1524 in 2023
63%
Voted against increasing fines on those engaged in anti-trust activities
HB 5232 in 2023
99%
Voted against cracking down on the use of AI to generate false sexualized images of people
HB1896 in 2023
98%
Voted against speeding up DNA analysis
HB 3957 in 2023
93%
Voted against dismissing controlled-substance cases even when tests proved no controlled substance was involved
HB 3686 in 2023
92%
Voted against creating a centralized portal for DPS lab records
SB 991 in 2023
92%
Voted against expanding the definition of stalking to include previous family violence
SB 1717 in 2023
67%
Voted against handgun proficiency instruction for security officials
HB 3424 in 2023
88%
Voted against limiting physician liability for medically necessary procedures when patients give informed consent
HB 3058 in 2023
87%
Voted against reimbursing counties for GPS monitoring in family violence cases
HB 1906 in 2021
65%
Voted against preventing financial abuse of nursing home residents
SB 270 in 2021
95%
Voted against increasing punishments for criminal offenses against public servants
HB 624 in 2021
84%
Voted against creating a new offense for boating with a child while drunk
HB 2505 in 2021
84%
Voted against ensuring accuracy of DPS databases of street-gang members
HB 1838 in 2021
72%
Voted against increasing the penalties for assault against a process server
HB 1306 in 2021
91%
Voted against installing climate control systems in prisons
HB 1971 in 2021
77%
Voted against making retaliation against a public servant a second-degree felony
HB 285 in 2021
94%
Voted against creating an offense for providing false or misleading information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
SB 162 in 2021
83%
Voted against restricting the use of choke holds by police
SB 69 in 2021
91%
Voted against prohibiting entity names that falsely imply governmental affiliation
HB 1493 in 2021
83%
Voted against making ballot language consistent with election orders
HB 4704 in 2023
76%
Voted against giving surviving spouses and children of those who died while serving in the US Armed Forced free access to state parks
HB 1740 in 2023
97%
Voted against increasing homestead exemptions for surviving spouses of members of US Armed Forces
HB 4181 in 2023
92%
Voted against mental health services for vets and their families
HB 1457 in 2023
78%
Voted against 100% property tax exemptions for totally disabled vets
HB 1613 in 2023
93%
Voted against employment training for vets
HB 739 in 2021
68%
Voted against limited property-tax exemptions for homeowners with intellectual or developmental disabilities
HB 3640 in 2023
93%
Voted against allowing local tax exemptions for day care facilities
SJR 64 in 2023
59%
Voted against protecting landlords that evict illegal massage operators
HB 3536 in 2023
74%
Voted against economic development programs that allowed ISD tax abatement agreements
HB 5 in 2023
85%
Voted against tax abatement for physicians who offered free services to the indigent
HJR 25 in 2021
89%
Voted against pre-kindergarten
HB 1615 in 2023
74%
Voted against sharing existing school-training courses with employees of child-care facilities
HB 1905 in 2023
60%
Voted against CPR instruction for grades 7-12
HB 4375 in 2023
93%
Voted against “career-investigation days” for high school juniors and seniors
SB68 in 2023
98%
Voted against school-crossing-zone protections for high schools
HB 1263 in 2023
95%
Voted against allowing accredited armed-forces instructors to teach in K-12 public schools while they complete civilian educator-prep programs
SB 544 in 2023
96%
Voted against prohibiting parents who injured officials at sporting events from attending future events
HB 2484 in 2023
89%
Voted against “digital citizenship” instruction
HB 129 in 2021
58%
Voted against child-abuse, family-violence, dating-violence and sex-trafficking education
SB 9 in 2021
65%
Voted against workplace-violence-prevention policies
SB 240 in 2023
69%
Voted against requiring health plans to apply third-party payments that would reduce prescription costs
HB 999 in 2023
92%
Voted against extending Medicaid coverage for pregnant women
HB 12 in 2023
90%
Voted against allowing Physician Assistants from certain other pre-approved states to practice in Texas without a new license
HB 2544 in 2023
87%
Voted against reporting maternal mortality data to Dept. of State Health Services
HB 663 in 2023
87%
Voted against requiring assisted-living facilities to provide Alzheimer’s training to staff
HB 1673 in 2023
82%
Voted against prohibiting nursing home facilities from misappropriating federal grants made to residents on Medicaid
HB 1290 in 2023
95%
Voted against improving public access to occupational therapy
HB 1683 in 2023
93%
Voted against including the names of people found guilty of child abuse or neglect in a central registry
HB 2572 in 2023
66%
Voted against prohibiting the state from retaliating against employees who report a criminal offense
SB182/Amendment 1 in 2023
52%
Voted against expanding disposal programs for expired prescription drugs statewide
SB 2173 in 2023
60%
Voted against a program to improve health outcomes for pregnant women and their children
HB 1575 in 2023
87%
Voted against a training program for those investigating child abuse/neglect
SB 1447 in 2023
64%
Voted against providing luggage for transporting belongings of foster children
HB 3765 in 2023
74%
Voted against aid for human-trafficking victims
HB 2633 in 2021
71%
Voted against waiving driver’s license fees/costs for foster or homeless children
SB 2054 in 2021
87%
Voted against a bill prohibiting construction of new assisted living facilities in Harris County 100-year floodplains
HB1681 in 2021
61%
Voted against a bill increasing penalties for felons in unlawful possession of a firearm
HB4843 in 2023
82%
Voted against a motor-fuel tax exemption for food-bank trucks
HB 3599 in 2023
97%
Voted against creating a Texas Space Commission
HB 3447 in 2023
86%
Voted against record-keeping requirements for used catalytic converter sales
HB 4110 in 2021
63%
Actions Speak Louder than Hired Trolls and Campaign Platitudes
By voting NO, Toth boosts his “conservative” rating among some right-leaning think tanks. He touts that rating heavily, but…
Understanding what Toth voted NO on gives you deeper insight into the man and his values.
Toth Voted No On Flood-Mitigation
Toth represents the sand-mining areas in Montgomery County. They send much of the sediment downstream that reduces conveyance of our rivers and streams. Yet he has done nothing I have seen to help control them.
Even worse, he voted NO on Charles Cunningham’s bill (HB 1532) to create a dredging district for the Lake Houston Area in the last session.
He also voted NO on HB 1681 in 2021, a bill that prohibited building assisted-living facilities in Harris County’s 100-year floodplains. (See red entry above.)
Make sure you vote in the upcoming primaries. And make sure you get all your friends and neighbors out to vote, too. This will literally be a life-and-death election for the Lake Houston Area.
I’m voting for Crenshaw. I hope you do, too.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/1/2027
3078 Days since Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/20250722-Toth-Video-Keyframe.jpg?fit=1100%2C714&ssl=17141100adminadmin2026-02-01 14:38:272026-02-03 09:36:07Steve Toth’s Shocking Voting Record on Flooding and Other Issues
12/28/2025 – This is the second part of a three part series on the top flood-related stories of 2025. Part I covered the major disasters of the year. Part II will cover the government response in terms of regulations and funding for flood mitigation efforts. And Part III will cover the progress of mitigation.
Government Response to Camp Mystic/Guadalupe Tragedy
Hearings on the Camp Mystic disaster last July identified a failure of warning signs (weather reports, alarm systems, etc.) as one of the primary causes. Investigations also discovered that the camp’s operators lobbied for changes to flood maps so that they could build in floodplains. And then they evidently expanded the camp before regulators became aware. Finally, evacuation plans were evidently not well communicated or understood.
In response, the Texas Legislature passed the Heaven’s 27 Camp Safety Act (a reference to the number of young girls who died at Camp Mystic). The act bars camp cabins in high risk areas. It also requires camps to have state-approved emergency plans, regular evacuation drills and disaster alert systems.
Lawmakers approved nearly $300 million “to boost flood preparedness, including $200 million to match federal disaster aid, $50 million for local grants to purchase flood warning equipment and $28 million to improve weather forecasting.” A companion bill also expanded government oversight of youth camps.
It also canceled the fiscal year 2024 notice of funding opportunity (NOFO), involving $750 million for grants.
BRIC was FEMA’s largest pre-disaster mitigation program. Congress established it through the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018. Its purpose: to fundamentally shift federal-disaster spending from post-disaster recovery to pre-disaster risk reduction. In other words, to encourage a shift from “Repair” to “Resilience.”
BRIC aimed to prevent disasters by helping communities build to higher standards. Flood-risk reduction grants typically helped finance projects such as:
Elevation or floodproofing of critical facilities (hospitals, EOCs, fire stations)
A press release that accompanied the cancellation of the BRIC program called it a “wasteful, politicized grant program.” However, investments in hazard mitigation programs are the opposite of “wasteful,” according to the Association of State Flood Plain Managers. They point to studies showing flood-hazard mitigation investments return up to $8 in benefits for every $1 spent.
States sued to prevent the cancellation. The lawsuits are still locked up in courts.
Prevention is always cheaper than correction. After Harvey, a Harris County engineering study found 20 times less damage in subdivisions using newer, more stringent building codes compared to those built under older codes.
FEMA Slowdown
Meanwhile, approvals for other types of FEMA grants have slowed. According to The Hill, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noem has adopted a policy of personally approving all major expenditures that cost $100,000 or more. The Hill article reported $900 million in grants and loans reportedly awaiting Noem’s review.
Separately, in other FEMA news, according to the Washington Post, hundreds of residents signed up for FEMA buyouts after Cat 4 Hurricane Helene devastated the southeast in 2024. Not one has yet been approved.
HUD/GLO Finish Rebuilding Program
On a more positive note, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) administers U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) flood-mitigation/disaster-relief programs in Texas. The GLO recently announced completion of the rebuilding of more than 9600 homes across the state under its Homeowner Assistance Program (HAP). That total includes mostly homes from its Hurricane Harvey disaster recovery mission. But it also includes homes impacted by Imelda, Laura, and repetitive flooding events in the Rio Grande Valley.
GLO poster celebrating program completion.
Status of Other GLO/HUD Programs
The GLO continued advancing long-term recovery and resilience by administering more than $1 billion in Community Development Block Grant for Disaster Recovery and Mitigation Projects. Additionally, HUD approved the GLO’s plan for $555 million to help communities impacted by 2024 Disasters.
The GLO completed reviews and approvals of all remaining project applications under the Regional Mitigation Program (RMP), providing funding for critical infrastructure improvements including drainage systems and flood-prevention measures. In total, the GLO has approved more than 200 RMP projects for more than $1.1 billion.
The GLO also approved more than $135 million in applications through the Disaster Recovery Reallocation Program (DRRP). It utilizes unspent disaster recovery funds from older disasters to help communities with outstanding unmet needs. These investments will reduce risk related to hurricanes, tropical storms, flooding, and other hazards.
The agency also announced it will be closing applications at the end of the year for both the Local Hazard Mitigation Plans Program (LHMPP) and the Resilient Communities Program (RCP). Both are part of the GLO’s long-term strategy to help communities strengthen local planning efforts, modernize codes, and protect life and property from future disasters.
Montgomery County Updates Flood Regulations
Eight years after Harvey, Montgomery County finally adopted new subdivision, floodplain, and drainage regulations.
The county adopted its new subdivision (development) regulations on March 4, then amended them on May 27 and October 14. MoCo also issued subdivision guidelines and recommendations on November 4.
Commissioners adopted a new Drainage Criteria Manual on August 26. And new Floodplain Management Regulations became effective on October 1, 2025.
While MoCo regs don’t perfectly reflect the Minimum Drainage Standards recommended by Harris County for other counties draining into it, they are a great improvement.
Competing Forces at Work
Flood safety is a constant struggle between competing forces that increase or reduce flood risk. There are so many, the public can hardly know whether it’s winning or losing.
Just because the government appropriates money, doesn’t mean it’s enough or will be spent promptly.
Even if it is, will it actually reduce risk in the face of offsetting factors such as legislative loopholes, grandfather clauses, willful blindness, the profit motive, shifting political winds, and insufficiently mitigated upstream development?
And maybe that’s THE Top Flood-Related Story of 2025. More on that tomorrow.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/28/2025
3043 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/20230716-Screenshot-2023-07-16-at-10.29.06-AM.jpg?fit=1100%2C579&ssl=15791100adminadmin2025-12-28 20:24:522026-01-03 14:59:08Top Flood-Related Stories of 2025: Part II – Regs and Funding
12/13/25 – On 12/11/25, Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, PE, introduced a resolution in Harris County Commissioners Court that urges Montgomery County (MoCo) to impose certain conditions on the proposed 5,300-acre Scarborough Development west of Kingwood. Harris County Flood Control tried to buy the property after Hurricane Harvey because they feared that if it got developed, “it would be like aiming a fire hose at Kingwood and Humble.” Ryko, the property owner at the time, quoted a price far over market value. So, the deal fell through. But those fears still exist.
While Harris County can’t force MoCo to do anything, the proposed conditions include:
Recognizing the extreme flood risk of development for current residents in both counties
Using portions of the property for flood mitigation and parks
Ensuring development meets or exceeds Harris County standards including:
Finished floor elevations
Placing mitigation ponds outside the 100-year floodplain and floodway
Fostering growth of wetlands and water filtration.
Scarborough bought most of the land you see in this picture between Spring Creek (l) and San Jacinto West Fork (r). Base flood elevation at the confluence is 25.1 feet above ground levelusing old, pre-Harvey flood maps.
Ramsey’s resolution is high-level; most resolutions are. But it makes good points. For instance, while MoCo’s new Drainage Criteria Manual is a vast improvement over their previous one, it still falls short of Harris County’s on several key criteria including finished floor elevations and placing fill in the 500-year floodplain. Those concerns are expressed in the text below.
Exact Text of Harris County Resolution
WHEREAS, Harris County leads the country in flood prevention investments with $3.5 billion being spent on flood mitigation projects in the next few years, and calls upon Montgomery County leadership to adopt the minimum drainage criteria as per the previously approved Harris County Commissioner’s Court document; and
WHEREAS, the land under development in Montgomery County for the Scarborough Lane Project, is situated in close proximity to Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, and the San Jacinto River, and the historical flood data of this tract of land causes concerns for residential development, and any further development on this property in the flood zone may result in a negative impact to current residents of Montgomery and Harris counties; and
WHEREAS, portions of this property should be reviewed and considered for flood mitigation, flood preservation and park development; and
WHEREAS, any development of this parcel should meet or exceed the Harris County standards, including the finish floor elevations of the structure, and any mitigation ponds be considered only outside the current 100-year floodplain and all the floodway; and
WHEREAS, any mitigation completed should consider trying to hold back water early in a storm, detaining the first of the water that falls; and
WHEREAS, this tract of land renders a significant and affordable flood mitigation opportunity that would not only prevent flood damage, but foster wetland growth and ground water filtration; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Harris County Commissioners Court calls upon the Montgomery County leadership to take into consideration the concerns described above.
Considerations Related to the Scarborough Lane Project
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this resolution be spread upon the minutes of The Harris County Commissioners Court this 11th day of December 2025.
Ramsey’s Motion Passed Unanimously; Next Up CoH
County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Ramsey and all three other commissioners voted for Ramsey’s resolution. It passed 5-0.
Houston City Council will reportedly consider a similar resolution on Wednesday. District E Council Member Fred Flickinger says he is optimistic that he has the votes to get it approved.
Note that the City actually has a bigger stick in this fight because most of the land lies within the City limits or the City’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). ETJ helps cities plan and regulate development in unincorporated areas near their borders, influencing growth before annexation.
On October 30, Scarborough and its engineers met with the City and Harris County to discuss their plans. At the time, they presented some high-level documents claiming that half the land would be preserved as green space. That’s certainly a step in the right direction. But is it enough? We will be in a better position to tell when we’ve reviewed their complete plans. And when Harris County Flood Control and FEMA release updated flood maps.
In the meantime, I’ll be watching to see what City Council does next Wednesday.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/13/25
3028 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/20251211-DJI_20251211085941_0651_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-12-13 17:29:072025-12-13 20:14:54Harris County Passes Ramsey Resolution on Scarborough Development In MoCo
12/11/2025 – This morning, the City of Houston Public Works Department shut down a developer bringing fill dirt into the floodway and floodplain of the San Jacinto West Fork. City regulations prohibit such fill because it raises flood levels for other people and creates a public danger.
Ongoing Issue
I first reported on this problem on 12/9/25, based on a tip from a reader who noticed an unusual amount of dirt on the roads outside the site. Aerial photos showed that the fill operation, which was behind high fences, had been ongoing for quite some time. The fill violates multiple city regulations.
The flood-prone property sits at the corner of Sorters-McClellan and Savell Roads near the US59 Bridge over the San Jacinto West Fork. More aerial photos taken today show multiple large trucks dumping more fill just moments before City inspectors arrived.
Three trucks were simultaneously offloading dirt in what appeared to be the floodway of the San Jacinto West Fork.
While the trucks were still dumping, Public Works vehicles sped onto the site. City inspectors and District E City Council Member Fred Flickinger’s Chief of Staff Dustin Hodges jumped out of their vehicles and started taking pictures.
Three Public Works vehicles entered the site while Houston Police stood guard outside.Hodges and Public Works inspector (left) observe truck leaving site after dumping its load. Note how bed of truck was not even down yet.
Hodges described the volume of fill dirt as “unbelievable,” “egregious,” “above and beyond.”
Height of fill was twice as tall as inspector taking pictures on pond’s bank.Another view of fill heightFill extends all the way to San Jacinto West Fork and is higher than several small trees.
Citations for Multiple Issues
The inspectors found multiple violations affecting multiple City departments. They include floodplains, engineering, permitting, plumbing, HVAC and more.
Hodges said that the owners of the property would be fined each day for each violation until the property is returned to its original condition. That means the owners must remove all the dirt that they brought in.
They will incur a new fine for each day for each violation as long as the violations remain.
Dustin Hodges, Council Member Fred Flickinger’s Chief of Staff
The total could be substantial, although it is not clear yet exactly what that will be.
City Will Use LIDAR to Monitor Restoration
The City will use LIDAR studies to make sure the property is properly restored to previous conditions, according to Hodges.
Developer’s Employee Couldn’t Find ID
The owners were not on site, but a representative was. That individual refused to produce a drivers license until the inspectors called in the Houston Police Department, which was standing by across the street. Then, said Hodges, the representative suddenly found his driver’s license.
I deduce from that last bit of information that the employee knew his employer should not have been doing what it was doing.
What City Regulations Say
I hope this story signals to others that it’s not safe to constrict the conveyance of floodwaters and that the City is serious about enforcing its regulations.
The site is at the confluence of Spring Creek and the West Fork (R) across from Costco and Main Event at top of frame. Both businesses flooded badly during Harvey.
Harris County Flood Warning System records show that this location had the highest flooding in the county during Hurricane Harvey – a whopping 27 feet above the normal water level.
City of Houston regulations prohibit bringing fill dirt into floodways and floodplains. Chapter 19 Div. 2 Sec. 19.34 states:
No fill may be added to a 100-year floodplain.
Any loss of floodplain-storage volume must be mitigated onsite.
“No floodplain development permit shall be issued for a development to be located in any floodway…”
“The development will not impede the flow of floodwaters.”
“The development will not result in an adverse effect on the conveyance capacity during the occurrence of the base flood.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/11/2025
3026 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/20251211-DJI_20251211090749_0686_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-12-11 15:14:172025-12-11 15:21:54Busted: City Shuts Down Developer Filling Floodplain, Floodway
A new definition of “Waters of the U.S.” proposed by the Army Corps and EPA would eliminate the federal brakes on development of upstream wetlands, such as those in the Lake Houston Area and Montgomery County. Time is running out to file a protest letter. Less than a month remains before the close of public comment; the government must receive your letter by January 5, 2026.
I received the Bayou Land Conservancy’s protest letter this morning and am reprinting it here verbatim in case you want to borrow language from it. First, some context.
What’s at Stake?
Wetlands near Lake Houston where Romerica wanted to build a 50-story high rise and now wants to build a luxury resort.Wetlands near confluence of Spring Creek and West Fork being filled by developer
Immediately across the river…
A Dallas-based developer is trying to develop 5300 acres laced with wetlands.Wetlands near Kings Point and Royal Shores on East Fork above Lake Houston
The old definition of “Waters of the U.S.” gave the EPA and Army Corps legal authority to protect wetlands far upstream. Wetlands act as nature’s sponges. They soak up floodwater, reducing downstream impacts. They also clean water, reducing filtration costs. And finally, they provide habitat for wildlife that enriches the human experience.
What’s Changing?
The proposed new definition would stop Army Corps and EPA jurisdiction at the first dam on a river. Anything upstream would no longer enjoy federal protection. Local governments often do not regulate development of wetlands; historically they have relied on the federal government to do that.
The regulatory vacuum created by the change would open up millions of acres to development, especially in fast growing areas like north Houston where flood-prone wetlands are cheap and plentiful. Increases in impervious cover in wetland areas that once retained water will likely increase flood risk for everyone living downstream.
Bayou Land Conservancy Letter
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0322
To: Administrator Zeldin, Environmental Protection Agency
Re: Opposition to Updated Definition of Waters of the United States (89 FR 79549, November 20, 2025)
The Bayou Land Conservancy (BLC) submits this comment letter in strong opposition to the updated definition of “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army.
About Bayou Land Conservancy and Our Standing
Bayou Land Conservancy is a community-sponsored land trust working to permanently preserve land along streams for flood control, clean water, and wildlife. As an accredited land trust, we are the primary non-profit organization preserving land within the watersheds that feed into Lake Houston, focusing our efforts on northern Harris and Montgomery counties. Since 1996 BLC has permanently preserved more than 15,000 acres of land in southeast Texas.
BLC has direct standing to comment on this proposed rule because we are not merely observers; we are property interest holders and stewards of the very landscapes this rule affects. We hold perpetual conservation easements and own fee-simple land throughout this region. Our legal obligation is to protect the conservation values of these properties in perpetuity.
Because water flows downhill, the integrity of the lands we protect is inextricably linked to the regulatory status of the waters flowing through and above them. If the definition of WOTUS is narrowed to exclude ephemeral streams and adjacent wetlands, the conservation values we are legally bound to uphold, specifically water quality maintenance and flood storage, are put at direct risk by upstream unregulated activity. Therefore, BLC submits these comments as a directly affected stakeholder whose ability to fulfill its non-profit mission is threatened by the proposed reduction in federal jurisdiction.
The Critical Importance of the Lake Houston Watershed
The Lake Houston watershed is not merely an ecological region; it is a vital piece of the Houston-Galveston metropolitan area’s public infrastructure. Lake Houston is the largest single source of surface drinking water for the City of Houston. Protecting the quality and quantity of water flowing into this reservoir is a non-negotiable imperative for public health and economic stability for millions of residents.
Our area is defined by some of the fastest-growing communities in the nation, including The Woodlands, Conroe, Tomball, and Kingwood. This rapid urbanization creates immense pressure on the natural systems, increasing runoff, sedimentation, and pollutant loads. The Clean Water Act applied broadly is essential to mitigate these impacts.
Hydrological Features at Risk
The proposed updated definition, if finalized, risks removing federal protections from essential water features that are demonstrably connected to Lake Houston and its major tributaries. A narrow definition that excludes ephemeral streams or wetlands without a continuous surface connection ignores the scientific reality of our region’s hydrology.
Specific features at risk in our area include:
The San Jacinto River System (West Fork and East Fork):
As the primary artery feeding Lake Houston, the San Jacinto River relies heavily on a vast network of headwater streams. In Montgomery County, many of these headwaters are ephemeral, flowing only after our region’s intense rain events. If these “temporary” streams lose protection, they become prime targets for development-related filling. This would sever the hydrological connection that sustains the river’s base flow and water quality, turning the San Jacinto into little more than a conveyance channel for untreated stormwater.
Spring Creek:
Serving as the natural border between Harris and Montgomery counties, Spring Creek is one of the most pristine waterways remaining in the region. Its sandy banks and associated wetlands act as a massive filtration system. However, the health of Spring Creek is dependent on the lateral connectivity of adjacent wetlands that may not have a “continuous surface connection” year-round. Excluding these adjacent wetlands from WOTUS protection would allow for their destruction, leading to immediate sedimentation of the creek, choking off aquatic life and destroying the recreational value of the Spring Creek Greenway.
Lake Creek:
This major tributary flows into the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and drains a rapidly developing portion of Montgomery County. The watershed is characterized by “flashy” hydrology; it rises and falls quickly. The wetlands surrounding Lake Creek are critical for slowing this water down. Removing protection from the smaller, non-perennial feeders of Lake Creek will eliminate the natural braking system for floodwaters, increasing the velocity and height of flood peaks downstream in densely populated areas.
Palmetto and Bottomland Hardwood Wetlands:
Our region is home to unique forested wetlands that may be separated from the main channel by natural berms or levees. Under a restricted WOTUS definition, these vital flood-storage basins could be deemed “isolated” and paved over. This would result in a direct transfer of flood volume from undeveloped land into the living rooms of downstream residents.
Additionally, three important factors should also be considered in noting BLC’s opposition to this proposal:
Drinking Water Quality
Unprotected upstream wetlands and tributaries will be subject to increased filling, dredging, and chemical/sediment runoff from development, industrial activity, and agriculture. This degradation will lead to a marked decrease in water quality in Lake Houston, requiring exponentially higher treatment costs for the City of Houston and increasing the risk of contamination.
Flood Mitigation
The wetlands and ephemeral stream systems BLC works to protect act as natural sponges, reducing the velocity and volume of stormwater during increasingly frequent high-intensity rain events. Stripping WOTUS protection from these features will allow for their unmitigated destruction, directly exacerbating the already severe and costly flooding issues in northern Harris and Montgomery counties. Protecting these small, non-perennial waters is directly linked to the safety and resilience of downstream communities like Kingwood and Humble.
Conservation Mission
A narrower WOTUS definition undermines the BLC’s mission, and the conservation investments made by public and private partners across the watershed. If the federal backstop of the Clean Water Act is removed from key headwater systems, state and local regulations will be insufficient to protect the water quality and flood storage capacity essential for this rapidly expanding region.
Conclusion and Request
The BLC respectfully urges the EPA and the Department of the Army to reconsider the updated definition of WOTUS and adopt a definition that robustly protects the waters of the United States, including all tributaries and adjacent wetlands that have a significant nexus to navigable waters. For the Lake Houston watershed, a narrow interpretation of WOTUS threatens the largest source of drinking water for the City of Houston, jeopardizes our communities’ flood resilience, and contravenes the fundamental goals of the Clean Water Act.
We urge the agencies to maintain comprehensive jurisdiction over all features that provide filtration and flood control benefits to downstream communities and critical public drinking water sources. Sincerely,
Signed,
Jill Boullion
Executive Director
Bayou Land Conservancy
Please Help
Every voice counts. Make sure the government hears yours. Please compose a letter protesting the proposed changes to the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” This post that I wrote in November contains more background on the issue.
Please feel free to write your own comment or adapt language from the letter above. But do it NOW. And get your friends and neighbors to do it too! Perhaps nothing you can personally do will have a greater impact on your safety and the safety of your home or business in the next flood.
If this proposed definition is adopted as is, it will make it easier for developers like the one I posted about yesterday to fill in wetlands near rivers and streams.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/10/2025
3025 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250411-Swamp-area-with-6-to-12-inch-deep-water-a-week-after-a-rain.jpg?fit=1100%2C716&ssl=17161100adminadmin2025-12-10 15:39:222025-12-10 15:50:03BLC Letter Protests Redefinition of “Waters of the U.S.”
11/11/25 – The San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group will consider adopting a set of proposed minimum floodplain management practices for the entire river basin at its meeting on November 13. The standards are part of a requirement by the Texas Water Development Board for the 2028 update of the state’s next flood plan.
The recommendations start on page 22 of the technical document. However, the document is 634 pages long and 214 megabytes in size. So, I’ve extracted them for easy reference.
They are targeted to floodplain managers in cities and counties in the San Jacinto River Basin. But they affect everyone from developers, homebuilders, and home buyers to home owners, insurers and first responders. So, I will add some explanatory comments below the proposed regs for those who may not understand their logic or language.
Proposed Minimum Floodplain Management Practices
Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
All regulatory entities to implement ordinances that meet minimum requirements per the NFIP
All regulatory entities to remain active NFIP participants in good standing
All regulatory entities to participate in the Community Rating System (CRS) Program to reduce flood insurance rate premiums across the region.
Development of “No Adverse Impact” Policies
All regulatory entities to define a no adverse impact policy.
The no adverse impact policy should be focused on preventing negative impacts. Evaluation of impacts should be completed using best available hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, where appropriate.
Establish Minimum Finished Floor Elevations
All new habitable structures shall have a finished floor elevation established at or above or waterproofed to the FEMA effective 0.2% Annual Chance of Exceedance (ACE) flood elevation as shown on effective FIRMs except in areas designated as coastal flood zones.
Where regulatory mapping has been updated using Atlas 14 or newer rainfall data, all new habitable structures shall have a finished floor elevation established at or above or waterproofed to the FEMA effective 1.0% ACE flood elevation as shown on effective FIRMs except in areas designated as coastal flood zones.
In areas designated as coastal flood zones, all new habitable structures shall have a finished floor elevation established at or above or waterproofed to the FEMA effective 1.0% ACE flood elevation as shown on effective FIRMS plus 1 foot of freeboard.
All new critical facilities shall have a finished floor elevation established at or above or waterproofed to the FEMA effective 0.2% ACE flood elevation as shown on effective FIRMs plus 2 feet of freeboard except in areas designated as coastal flood zones.
Where regulatory mapping has been updated using Atlas 14 or newer rainfall data, all new critical facilities shall have a finished floor elevation established at or above or waterproofed to the FEMA effective 1.0% ACE flood elevation as shown on effective FIRMs plus 2 feet of freeboard except in areas designated as coastal flood zones.
In areas designated as coastal flood zones, all new critical facilities shall have a finished floor elevation established at or above or waterproofed to the FEMA effective 1.0%ACE flood elevation as shown on effective FIRMS plus 2 feet of freeboard.
Encourage Use of Best Available Data
Utilize the latest rainfall data, NOAA Atlas 14 or newer rainfall data, when conducting new analyses, designing drainage infrastructure, or developing regulations and criteria.
Compensatory Storage Requirements in the 1.0% ACE Floodplain
Any reduction in floodplain storage or conveyance capacity within the 1.0% ACE regulatory floodplain must be offset with a hydraulically equivalent (one-to-one) volume of mitigation sufficient to offset the reduction, except in areas identified as coastal flood zones.
A full hydrologic and hydraulic analysis should be performed to demonstrate that floodplain fill mitigation provided is sufficient.
Compensatory Storage Requirements in the 0.2/% ACE Floodplain
Any reduction in floodplain storage or conveyance capacity within the 0.2% ACE regulatory floodplain must be offset with a hydraulically equivalent (one-to-one) volume of mitigation sufficient to offset the reduction, except in areas identified as coastal flood zones.
A full hydrologic and hydraulic analysis should be performed to demonstrate that floodplain fill mitigation provided is sufficient.
Development of Detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Criteria/Requirements
All regulatory entities to develop hydrologic and hydraulic modeling criteria or requirements.
All regulatory entities to identify features of a proposed development that would warrant a full hydrologic and hydraulic analysis.
Incentivizing the Preservation of the Floodplain
All regulatory entities to explore and develop systems for incentivizing the preservation of the floodplain directly within the regulatory floodplain or within 100 feet of the banks of unstudied streams.
Nature-Based Solutions
All regulatory entities to adopt criteria for design of nature-based solutions for drainage infrastructure and stormwater quality management. TWDB’s nature-based solutions guidance manual should be referenced when adopting criteria.
All regulatory entities to establish criteria that would require new construction to incorporate, or minimally consider, nature-based solutions in design of drainage infrastructure and mitigation.
Operations and Maintenance
All flood-related authorities who own and operate drainage infrastructure to create a maintenance plan for those assets to manage and reduce future replacement costs.
All flood-related authorities who own and operate drainage infrastructure to develop and maintain an asset management plan, including GIS dataset of assets, to support maintenance of infrastructure. Datasets to leverage infrastructure toolkit that has been prepared by the TWDB to improve the assessment of drainage infrastructure condition and functionality.
Property Acquisition Program
All regulatory entities to develop property acquisition program for repetitive loss structures.
Flood Warning System
All regulatory entities to develop flood warning system for public awareness.
Hazard Mitigation Plan
All regulatory entities to develop a Hazard Mitigation Plan to help prepare for, respond to, and recover from flood events and maximize funding eligibility for disaster recovery funding.
Explaining the Proposed Minimum Floodplain Regulations
If you’re scratching your head about anything above, the following explanations may help.
NFIP and CRS
The National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System (CRS) encourages counties and municipalities to go beyond minimum floodplain management requirements in exchange for discounts on flood insurance premiums for their residents.
CRS rewards local governments that implement regulations which:
Reduce flood losses
Encourage accurate insurance rating
Promote awareness of flood risk
Depending on the strength of a community’s practices, it could earn its residents anywhere from 0% to 45% discounts on their flood insurance premiums. Currently, Houston and Harris County earn 25% discounts. Montgomery County earns 15%.
So encourage your elected officials. This recommendation hits you in the pocketbook.
No Adverse Impact
Chapter 11.086 of the Texas Water Code says “No person may divert or impound the natural flow of surface waters in this state, or permit a diversion or impounding by him to continue, in a manner that damages the property of another by the overflow of the water diverted or impounded.”
The San Jacinto Flood Groups recommendation encourages local governments to adopt policies and best practices that prevent such adverse impacts.
Finished Floor Elevations
These recommendations encourage cities and counties to establish minimum heights above expected flood levels for buildings. “Finished floor” refers to living space. Sometimes people park cars under the first finished floor. This recommendation does not count garages below living space.
Together these recommendations say that if an area has adopted Atlas 14 (the latest rainfall probability statistics) and flood maps have been updated, the first finished floor can be set at or above the 100-year (1%) flood level. Otherwise, the first finished floor should be elevated at or above the 500-year (.02%) flood level.
Critical facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, police stations and evacuation centers should always be at least 2 feet above the 500-year flood elevation.
Compensatory Storage Requirements
This recommendation is the same as “no net fill” requirements already in effect for many 100-year floodplains in the region. It has the effect of saying, “You can’t bring dirt into the floodplain, but you can move it around.” For instance, to elevate homes, builders would have to use the dirt excavated from a detention basin. It’s designed to prevent constriction of the floodplain, which could raise flood heights.
Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) Analyses
H&H Studies define where and how flooding occurs, including how fast runoff occurs, how fast it will move and where it will go. They replace flood maps based on outdated or incomplete data. They incorporate Atlas 14 rainfall data and account for new development, impervious cover, and drainage changes, including recent channel improvements or detention basins.
They enable updated floodplain mapping and help build regional consistency in data and methodology. That in turn helps improve local floodplain regulations and insurance accuracy.
Floodplain Preservation and Nature-Based Solutions
The farther homes are from floodplains, the safer they are. Preventing flood damage is vastly cheaper than correcting damage afterwards, often by a factor of 5 to 10 times or more.
Floodplain preservation provides permanent benefits including economic continuity, insurance savings, environmental benefits, and recreational benefits. It also avoids post-flood recovery costs including infrastructure repair, housing assistance, insurance claims, business disruption, and environmental cleanup.
O&M, Property Acquisition, Flood-Warning System, and Hazard Mitigation Plan
The last four floodplain management recommendations emphasize preparation.
Regular maintenance, for instance, can keep channels from becoming clogged with sediment.
Buyouts in areas that flood repeatedly prevent future damage and mitigation costs.
Flood warning systems can tell people when to evacuate or streets to avoid in a flood.
A hazard mitigation plan helps identify natural hazards, assess risks and vulnerabilities, and outline long-term strategies to deal with them.
9/19/25 – On 9/18/25, Harris County Commissioners reviewed a presentation about the status of 2018 Flood Bond Projects. They also.adopted six motions that will affect the future of Harris County Flood Control District and the 2018 Flood Bond. In fact, they will result in an “updated bond package.” (See Motions below.)
Highlights of Presentation
The presentation identified 75 active bond IDs out of the original 181 that are moving forward into construction. They include projects that rank in the top quartile of the 2022 Equity Prioritization Framework as well as those in lower quartiles that already had partner funding committed.
An additional 26 projects will be paused and reactivated if additional funding materializes.
15 Projects will be closed because they turned out not to be technically feasible or because partner funding never materialized.
54 projects have been marked “completed” meaning their full scope as outlined in the original flood blond has already been realized.
In all, 75 bond IDs that include 248 discrete projects will move forward. They include stormwater detention basins, channel improvements and bridge replacements that theoretically remove 183,000 people from the floodplain.
According to Eric Heppen, Precinct 3’s director of engineering, the engineering teams from each precinct have met weekly with HCFCD since June to arrive at recommendations that all four precincts and Flood Control could agree on. In that respect, yesterday’s meeting represents a dramatic improvement over earlier meetings that rapidly devolved into brawls.
This set of recommendations means the County is only $400 million short, not the $1.3 billion that Dr. Tina Petersen, executive director of HCFCD, previously alluded to.
Substance of Six Motions Adopted by Court
Commissioners adopted the following six motions.
Funding Allocation:
Motion to approve the allocation of 2018 Flood Bond funds for each Bond ID and all associated projects, as presented in the Updated Bond Package and as directed by Commissioners Court, funding current and future needs for all projects in Quartile 1 of the 2022 prioritization framework and projects with secured partnerships.
Dashboard:
Motion to direct Flood Control to maintain the public 2018 Flood Bond dashboard – which includes but is not limited to project schedules, prioritization scores, budget, location, and lifecycle stage for all projects – and to update the dashboard quarterly in advance of Commissioners Court updates, including directing the Flood Control District to continue to work with court offices and the community to improve the dashboard’s user friendliness, including but not limited to:
Providing Bond ID previews
Improved language accessibility
Incorporating the ability to filter projects by features such as:
Partnership projects
Quartile score
Project status, and
Project precinct;
Opportunities for the community to be engaged on testing the dashboard and relevant applications
Court Updates:
Motion to direct Flood Control to provide quarterly updates to Commissioners Court on the progress of all bond projects including spending and lifecycle stage.
Working Group:
Motion to direct Flood Control to convene the 2018 Flood Bond Working Group – composed of staff from the Court offices – at least quarterly in advance of Court updates:
The Working Group will be consulted on the following:
Project progress, schedules, and spending
New partnership opportunities that may arise
Unneeded/excess funds that may be freed up for reallocation
For projects completing a lifecycle stage where the estimated budget exceeds 15% of the allocated amount for that project or the proposed scope materially shifts from what was originally identified and agreed to, approval by Court will be required. The Working Group will work with Flood Control to define what constitutes a material shift and transmit the agreement to Court.
Prioritization Framework:
Move to direct the Flood Control District to use the 2022 Prioritization Framework scores to allocate any 2018 Flood Bond funds that become available to Bond IDs that are paused and other bond projects where the scope and funds identified in the Updated Bond Package need to be increased. Funds shall be considered available when the bond reserve contingency exceeds 15% of the total remaining funds left to be spent. Any deviation from the Framework shall require prior approval by a majority vote of Commissioners Court.
Prioritization Scoring:
Move to direct Flood Control District to add 2022 Prioritization Framework scores to every Bond ID and associated projects where feasible and with the exceptions of buyout projects and countywide projects as noted in the 2022 Prioritization Framework transmittal.
Additional Information about Project Rankings and Spending
Heppen also provided two spreadsheets shared with commissioners:
In future posts, I will discuss how these changes affect Bond IDs and projects in the Lake Houston Area and elsewhere that didn’t make the cut. So check back often.
Posted by Bob Rehak
2943 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/75-remaining-projects--e1758333314133.png?fit=1100%2C578&ssl=15781100adminadmin2025-09-19 21:11:092025-09-19 21:12:24Harris County Commissioners Adopt Six Motions Affecting Future of 2018 Flood Bond
Montgomery County has finally updated its drainage criteria manual…eight years after Hurricane Harvey caused widespread flooding that exposed shortcomings in its previous manual which dated to the 1980s.
Unanimously Approved
MoCo Commissioners approved the new manual unanimously this morning. The draft of the new manual was first proposed in early 2024. That followed a minor update in 2019 from the county’s old 1988 drainage criteria manual in effect at the time of Harvey.
The new manual does not adopt all of the minimum drainage recommendations proposed by Harris County for areas draining into Harris, though it is a vast improvement over the previous iteration.
Minimum Drainage Requirements Proposed by Harris County
1. Using Atlas 14 rainfall rates for sizing storm water conveyance and detention systems. 2. Requiring a minimum detention rate of 0.55 acre-feet per acre of detention for any new development on tracts one acre or larger. A single-family residential structure and accessory building proposed on an existing lot is exempt from providing detention. 3. Prohibiting the use of hydrograph timing as a substitute for detention on any project, unless it directly outfalls into Galveston Bay. 4. Requiring “no net fill” in the current mapped 500-year floodplain, except in areas identified as coastal zones only. 5. Requiring the minimum Finished Flood Elevation of new habitable structures be established at or waterproofed to the 500-year flood elevation as shown on the effective Flood Insurance Study.
Major Changes in New MoCo Drainage Criteria Manual
MoCo’s new drainage criteria manual includes some, but not all, of those recommendations.
Comparison of Recommendations
Measure
Harris
Montgomery
Use of Atlas 14 Rainfall Standards
Yes
Yes
Minimum Detention Rate
.55 acre feet/acre
.55 acre feet/acre for areas greater than 20 acres (see page 57)
Prohibit Hydrographic Timing
Yes
Yes, but with limitations (see page 68)
No Net Fill in 500-Yr Floodplain
Prohibited
Still allowed
Finished Floor Elevation
At 500-yr flood elevation
Requires drainage be maintained one foot below lowest finished floor elevation for 100-year event (See page 54)
It’s not perfect. But it’s a vast improvement. Assuming the county enforces them.
Montgomery County resident Chad Price addressed Commissioners Court before the vote. He applauded most of the updates in the manual. However, he also urged commissioners to adopt ALL of Harris County’s minimum requirements.
Price emphasized the uncertainty surrounding rainfall rates, the increasing frequency of storms that exceed predicted maximums, and flood maps that have yet to be updated to reflect Atlas-14.
He made two excellent points:
We must not design drainage systems based on outdated data.
Better flood regulations are not about stopping growth—they’re about making sure growth is sustainable and safe.
In that regard, Price urged commissioners to update building codes, require smarter drainage planning, preserve natural floodplains, and use science-based floodplain mapping. He said, “These steps will reduce long-term costs to taxpayers, protect property values, and most importantly, safeguard our communities.”
Next Up
Montgomery County’s Floodplain Manager currently shows floodplain regulations adopted in 2014. That’s before the Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey, Imelda and May Day 2024 floods. Given the thousands of homes in MoCo that flood repeatedly, there may be some opportunities for improvement in those floodplain regs.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/26/25
2919 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/20250826-MoCo-DCM-Cover.jpg?fit=1100%2C710&ssl=17101100adminadmin2025-08-26 16:41:062025-08-26 17:26:10MoCo Adopts New Drainage Criteria Manual 8 Years After Harvey