The City of Houston’s Office of Emergency Management is updating its Hazard Mitigation Plan and Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Hazard mitigation is about lessening the severity of future disasters. Emergency Management is about responding to disasters after they happen.
The Hazard Mitigation Plan guides actions the City will take to reduce risk and impacts from disasters over the next five years and beyond. It also allows Houston to receive funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to reduce our community’s vulnerability to disasters.
The City’s goal is to prevent damage before it occurs, save lives, protect property, and limit the cost of recovery throughout Houston. The Hazard Mitigation Plan is important for our City to be safe and resilient.
Please take the survey. It will help the City understand our area’s priorities when mitigating hazards such as flooding. The online survey takes about only about five minutes to complete.
The Office of Emergency Management will release the draft plan in March 2023. The public comment period will extend through April. Then FEMA and the Texas Division of Emergency Management will review and approve it before the City Council adopts it. The plan should carry us through 2028.
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Meeting, Survey
The purpose of the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) is to help prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters.
The CEMP helps the City provide services and support to residents before and after a disaster occurs.
One public meeting remains on February 23rd at 6PM. It will be at the CDC building at 3517 Irvington Boulevard, Houston, TX 77009. You can also attend virtually via FaceBook Live.
So help the City better prepare for disasters. The community meeting will provide a forum both to raise awareness and collect feedback from the community. Topics discussed during the meeting will include:
Emergency plan development
Mitigation actions resulting from a flood or hurricane
While visiting the OEM website, make sure to sign up for emergency alerts. I did so after Harvey and have found the alerts very helpful on numerous occasions since then, including floods, tornados, hail- and windstorms.
Points to Emphasize
Two of my greatest concerns are evacuation routes and floodplain development. During Harvey, we saw how water came up quickly in the middle of the night without warning. This cut people off from emergency escape routes. All three major evacuation routes out of Kingwood (Hamblen, Kingwood Drive, and Northpark Drive) were impassable to many people.
Hamblen Road during Harvey. Photo courtesy of Jim Balcom.Kingwood Drive and West Lake Houston Parkway during Harvey. Photo courtesy of Sally Geis.
Gallery-furniture owner James McIngvale and investigative reporter Wayne Dolcefino are suing the Harris County Elections Administrator’s Office for refusal to produce documents related to the controversial 2022 Harris County Election on November 8. “If there’s nothing to hide,” said Dolcefino, “the best way to clear this up is to produce the documents.”
The lawsuit in Harris County District Court seeks the documents requested under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) and recovery of legal fees. It raises huge issues about the transparency of Harris County government in performing one of its most sacred jobs – conducting elections.
Plaintiffs Dolcefino and McIngvale at press conference with lawyer Jeff Diamant announcing lawsuit on 2/14/23.
Internal Investigation Called “Inconclusive” by Election Administrator
In a post-election assessment of the 2022 elections issued by Clifford Tatum, the County Elections Administrator, he called his own internal investigation “inconclusive” His office’s report acknowledged issues such as malfunctioning voting machines, short staffing, and lack of supplies on election day. The report also blamed the United States Postal Service for not moving mail-in ballots quickly enough. And in a first, the report blamed the Astros World Series parade for causing school district closures. The closures allegedly caused delays by presiding judges in opening voting centers located in schools.
Documents Sought
To get to the bottom of these and other issues, Dolcefino requested production of documents in the following categories:
Phone records including text and phone messages for Clifford Tatum between August 1, 2022 and the present. Tatum’s emails and their attachments on Election Day. And all emails between Precinct 1 and Tatum since August 1, 2022.
All documents dealing with voting machine maintenance issues on Election Day, plus all documents pertaining to inspection of their logic and accuracy before Election Day.
The amount of ballot paper provided to each precinct on Election Day and the number of voters who voted at each precinct. This includes emails between the Administrator’s office and precinct judges regarding paper shortages.
All election complaints, whether by email or phone, received by the Election Administrators Office and County Judge Lina Hidalgo between November 8 and the present.
A list of all polling locations for 2020 and 2022 elections, plus all emails to/from Tatum re: an audit by the Secretary of State.
Emails to/from Tatum between May 1, 2022, and Election Day re: maintenance of polling machines, ballot paper supplies, and changes in polling locations.
Documents Produced
According to the lawsuit, to date, the Elections Administration Office has only produced documents relating to:
One portion of #3 – number of voters, but not the amount of ballot paper supplied for them.
One portion of #5 – the list of polling locations, but no audit emails.
Reasons Cited for Not Releasing Documents
The Elections Administration Office repeatedly cites pending litigation as the reason for refusing to produce the requested documents. The lawsuit lays out why Dolcefino and McIngvale believe the “litigation exception” should not apply. He cites extensively from the Texas Government Code Section 552.103(A). It was intended to prevent the litigation exception from circumventing the intent of the TPIA, i.e., to make public information available to the public.
The Elections Administration Office also claims an “audit working-papers exception” to TPIA. It allows withholding information under audit.
However, Dolcefino points out that release of the documents is discretionary. There’s no law or rule saying the county must withhold them.
Plaintiffs Claim Defendant Has Not Met Burden of Proof
However, McIngvale and Dolcefino claim that the Elections Administration Office has failed to meet its burden of proof re: the exceptions. The lawsuit says that the Election Administrator Office has blocked virtually all releases of information without valid explanations or precedents. The bulk of the 20-page lawsuit examines, on a case-by-case basis, why McIngvale and Dolcefino believe legal precedents cited by the Elections Administration office should not apply.
They request a jury hearing on the merits of their arguments.
Says the suit, “Simply because litigation pertaining to an election has been filed or is anticipated does not permit the Harris County Elections Administrator to withhold his communications simply by benefit of his office.”
County Shortcomings Identified by State Audit
The plaintiffs’ lawsuit cites repeated and widespread failures in Harris County. For instance, in December 2022, a Texas-Secretary-of-State audit of Harris County found:
Mobile ballot boxes containing 184,999 cast-vote records that were included in the tally did not have a proper chain of custody.
Documentation for the creation of 17 mobile ballot boxes accounting for 124,630 cast-vote records could not be produced.
Unlike other counties, Harris County did not release a list showing polling locations comparing variance between the number of voters checked in and the number of votes cast.
The State’s Forensic Audit Division was not allowed to speak to pertinent Elections Administration staff until the month before the election.
Dolcefino said, “The quickest way to make all this go away is to release the documents.”
Needed to Hold Government Officials Accountable
In my opinion, this is information that citizens need to hold their government officials accountable. As the Washington Post says, “Democracy dies in darkness.”
The preamble to the Texas Government Code holds that “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what isnot good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
In my limited experience, I have found that departments that have nothing to hide willingly produce information. On the other hand, those that withhold information trigger suspicion, undermine trust, and cause more journalists to dig deeper. The resulting public outrage, often backfires on the stonewallers in the long run.
Unfortunately, the courts move so slowly these days, this dispute may not be settled before the next election. So the information the secret documents contain may not help us conduct a better election next time. Now let’s see. Who’s responsible for courts?
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/2023/02/20230214-IMG_4416.jpg?fit=1200%2C836&ssl=18361200adminadmin2023-02-14 15:08:112023-02-16 21:32:45Harris County Stonewalling Production of Documents Related to Election Irregularities
In the last Harris County Commissioners Court Meeting, Lina Hidalgo admitted that Harris County doesn’t have enough money to finish all projects in the 2018 Flood Bond. See the video starting at 5 hours and 10 minutes.
The $2.5 billion 2018 Harris County Flood Bond program actually contained flood-mitigation projects worth $5 billion dollars. The County anticipated using a third of the original $2.5 billion to attract matching funds from Federal, State and other partners worth another $2.5 billion. However, to date, only about $1.7 billion in partnership funds have been committed. (See page 11 of last bond update.) That leaves a shortfall of about $800 million.
Yet Harris County has had $750 million of HUD Harvey Mitigation Funds sitting on the table for 20 months now. During that time, the County has only submitted a vague, high-level outline for how it wants to spend the money with no specifics. The County wants:
10% for planning and administration ($75 million)
45% for the Flood Control District ($325 million)
45% for “Harris County” ($325 million)
For more details on the plan which has received “conditional” approval, pending public comments, click here.
Where Will Next Half Billion Come From?
$800 minus $325 equals a $475 million shortfall. So only using $325 million for flood control projects still leaves us about half a billion in unfunded projects. The flood resilience trust won’t cover all that. And those calculations, by the way, don’t even include inflation. Project overages are running about 10% to date, according to Dr. Tina Petersen, Executive Director of the Harris County Flood Control District. As more years go by, that 10% is likely to increase given the cumulative impact of inflation.
The entire $325 million being allocated to HCFCD out of the $750 million would not even cover the $335 million of unfinished bond projects in the Halls Bayou watershed alone. Nothing would be left for anyone else.
The outline did not specify how the second $325 million for Harris County would be used. However, the County did reserve the right to shift money to cities (which already had opportunities to submit grant requests to the Texas General Land Office and the Houston-Galveston Area Council).
Get Your Promised Share of the 2018 Flood Bond
Please protest the diversion of these funds. Submit a public comment to Harris County Community Services Department (HCCSD), which prepared the plan. You must submit it by February 21 at 5PM via:
You may also comment at in-person public hearings on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, at 10 a.m. or 5:30 p.m.:
Harris County Community Services Department
9418 Jensen, Houston, Texas, 77093
Original letters always carry more weight than form letters. But if you don’t have time to write your own, copy or adapt the one below and email it to Harris County Community Services Department. By law, Community Services must forward ALL public comments to the Texas General Land Office and HUD. They will give final approval to any plan.
Sample Letter with Key Points
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, there likely won’t be enough money to finish all of the defined flood-bond projects that voters approved by 88%.
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.
For more supporting information, including charts and graphs that you can use to create a custom letter, click here.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/13/2023
1994 days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Screenshot-2023-02-13-at-12.43.19-PM.png?fit=1142%2C312&ssl=13121142adminadmin2023-02-13 12:58:102023-02-17 15:18:22Action Needed re: $750 Million for Flood-Control Funding
Says Lindner, “Early on the 24th, surface low pressure developed over south-central Texas. It helped draw a warm front northward. It eventually formed a line from near Sealy to Downtown Houston to Chambers County. This warm front when combined with strong lift, impressive low level wind shear, and winds changing direction, resulted in the formation of supercell thunderstorms along a line from near Victoria to Sealy to Conroe.
They trained across northwest Harris County. Rainfall amounts southeast of US59 ranged from 1-2 inches, but 2-6 inches northwest of 59.
One of the storms along the front produced a tornado over southern Fort Bend County. Another formed over northern Brazoria county near Pearland. Rotation increased as it tracked through SE Houston, Pasadena, Deer Park and Baytown.
Duration and Rates
The heaviest rainfall occurred over portions of west, northwest, and northern Harris County in a 3 to 6 hr period. Several locations in northwest Harris County recorded 1.0-3.0 inches of rainfall in an hour during the late morning hours. Additionally, as the line of storms moved eastward, numerous locations recorded 1.0-2.0 inches of rainfall in 15-45 minutes. That resulted in rapid street flooding over many portions of Harris County during the early to mid afternoon hours.
Total 6-hr rainfall amounts ranged from 3.0-6.0 inches from north of Katy along west/north of FM 1960 into the Humble and Kingwood areas. The highest amount was at John Paul Landing Park in northwest Harris County where 5.48 inches was recorded in 3 hours. Unfortunately, most of this rain fell on grounds that were still wet from heavy rainfalls on January 8 and 9. This maximized runoff into area creeks.
Lindner points out that, “Heavy rainfall and flooding can occur every month of the year in Harris County and there have been other recent heavy rainfall events in January. Compare rainfall duration and intensity in the table below.”
“Cool season” events tend to be short in duration with the majority of the rain occurring in 6 hours or less,” says Lindner.
Interestingly, all of the January flooding events listed above had identical contributing factors: a surface warm front, high moisture levels, and training movement over the same area.
Rainfall amounts for the 1- and 3-hour time periods ranged from 2- to 10-year rains on the Atlas 14 scale. For the most part, channels could accommodate the rainfall. No widespread house flooding occurred although streams came out of their banks at numerous locations and came dangerously close to homes. See below.
Homes surround by floodwaters near West Fork San Jacinto on 1/30/23.
Tornado Impacts
The tornados were a different story, though. As they swept across the southern part of the county at 40 to 60 mph, they produced significant damage.
Lindner said, “Video obtained from the City of Deer Park indicated a tornado heavily shrouded in heavy rainfall with very little if any visibility of a condensation funnel or lofted debris. Unlike tornadoes in the Great Plains, many of the tornados along the US Gulf coast are hidden within heavy rainfall and very difficult to observe.”
Damage assessments as of February 7, from the cities impacted indicate approximately 1,635 single family homes were damaged, 855 multi family units, and 15 mobile homes. The tornados ranged from EF0 to EF2 in intensity. EF2 winds range from 111-135 mph.
Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist
For a complete listing of rainfall intensities and damage assessments at different locations through the county, see Lindner’s report here. It contains an interesting history of tornados in Harris County.
The pictures below were taken by a retired Kingwood resident, John Knoerzer, who owned a business in one of the hardest hit areas. They illustrate damage in Pasadena at one of his former employee’s home and shop.
Roof and walls torn away by winds. Note sheet metal twisted around tree in upper right. That came from a neighbors home several hundred feet away.Sheet metal from same building shredded the power lines in this 23-second video.
Never Bet Against Mother Nature
Lindner’s report and these images provide powerful reminders of why we should never take flood or wind risk for granted. And why we need to see flood-mitigation projects through to completion.
These were only 5-year storms. But remember. Those exceedance probabilities are like odds on a Las Vegas roulette wheel. I once saw the same number come up six consecutive times!
Don’t bet against Mother Nature. Insurance gives you much better odds.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/8/23 with thanks to John Knoerzer for his imagesand Jeff Lindner for his reporting
1989 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/20230130-DJI_0904.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2023-02-08 11:53:382023-02-08 12:13:53HCFCD Issues Reports on Late January Flooding, Tornados
According to Fourth Quarter 2022 data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD), the San Jacinto Watershed has fallen further behind other watersheds in flood-mitigation funding on a number of measures.
Since 2000, HCFCD has spent $3.437 billion. The San Jacinto Watershed is the county’s largest and had the deepest flooding during Harvey as measured by feet above flood stage.
Chart showing feet above flood stage of 33 gages of misc. bayous in Harris County during Harvey.
The Minnow’s Share of Funding
Yet it has received only $65.5 million in flood mitigation funding since 2000, ranking it 14th among the county’s 23 watersheds. The 215-square mile San Jacinto Watershed received only $1.5 million out of $54.6 million spent by HFCD in the fourth quarter. Meanwhile, all of the following watersheds are surging ahead in the funding sweepstakes:
Addicks Reservoir received $1.9 million
Brays Bayou – $3.6 million
Buffalo Bayou – $4 million
Cypress Creek – $6.3 million
Greens Bayou – $5.3 million
Halls Bayou – $6.3 million
Hunting Bayou – $2.3 million
Little Cypress Creek – $3 million
Luce Bayou – $2.5 million
Sims Bayou – $4.6 million
White Oak Bayou – $2.1 million.
Most of these watersheds have received extensive funding in the past. For instance, Brays Bayou has received more than half a billion dollars since 2000 and $175 million since Harvey.
Low-to-Moderate Income Watersheds Leave the Pack Behind
And since 2000, four low-to-moderate income (LMI) watersheds have received virtually half of all funding. Brays, Greens, White Oak and Sims received half of $2.4 billion – as much as all 19 other watersheds combined.
Brays, Greens White Oak and Sims have consumed half of all flood-mitigation funding since 2000.
If you compare ALL watersheds with a majority LMI population, 8 LMI watersheds received 60% compared to 40% for 15 others.
This next table shows watersheds ranked by LMI percentage and the amount spent on each. Halls is one fifth the size of the San Jacinto and has about half the population. But it has almost double the LMI population and received almost twice as much money.
Omits $1 Billion in countywide spending to compare watershedsbetter.
The Slippery Slope
The chart below shows the rank order of all watersheds based on total funding – both before and after Harvey.
Since Harvey, the San Jacinto has fallen below both the average and median spending per watershed.
An almost 90X disparity exists between the high and low since Harvey. The difference between Brays and San Jacinto is almost 5X.
Here’s the breakdown in a table format of who got how much.
Flood mitigation funding totals by watershed from 1/1/2000 to 12/31/2022.
Percent of Planned Spending
Another way to look at spending is by comparing the percentages of planned to actual for each watershed.
The San Jacinto has received approximately $30 million from the flood bond as of Flood Control’s last update. That’s out of $360 million on the project list – only one twelfth of the planned total for the San Jacinto.
Compare that with $185 million in flood-mitigation funding so far from the flood bond for Brays Bayou. That’s out of a planned total of $286 million. Brays has already received two thirds of its flood-bond total. That’s the power of equity.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/7/2023
1988 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/image-1.png?fit=936%2C614&ssl=1614936adminadmin2023-02-07 21:14:172023-02-13 08:33:33Flood-Mitigation Funding: San Jacinto Falls Further Behind
In the 1/31/2023 Harris County Commissioners Court Meeting, Commissioners voted to use another $64.8 million from the Harris County Flood Resilience Trust to keep 11 projects moving. All but one are in watersheds with a majority of low-to-moderate income (LMI) residents.
Projects Approved for Funding
Halls Bayou received:
$600,000 for construction of a stormwater detention basin
$1 million for channel conveyance improvements
$11.45 million for another channel conveyance improvement project.
Halls Bayou’s population is 72.5% LMI, the highest in the county.
Sims Bayou received:
$3 million for a stormwater detention basin and channel conveyance improvements
$4.4 million for another stormwater detention basin project.
Sims Bayou’s population is 60.8% LMI.
Greens Bayou received:
$2.3 million for mid-reach channel conveyance improvements
$4.5 million for the Smith Road channel diversion project
$1.8 for improvements to the Cutten Road Stormwater Detention Basin (Precinct 3)
$11.3 for the next phase of the Lauder Stormwater Detention Basin
Greens Bayou’s population is 59.8% LMI.
White Oak Bayou received:
$18 million for construction of the Inwood Forest Stormwater Detention Basin.
White Oak Bayou’s population is 51.9% LMI.
Armand Bayou received:
$6.5 million for convenance improvements along a tributary, Horsepen Bayou.
Armand Bayou’s population is 28.4% LMI.
All but one of the projects are in Commissioner Rodney Ellis’ Precinct 1 and Commissioner Adrian Garcia’s Precinct 2.
The lone project in Precinct 3 (Commissioner Tom Ramsey) will benefit Precincts 1 and 2 because Greens Bayou drains through those precincts.
About the Flood Resilience Trust
The Flood Resilience Trust uses Harris County Tollroad Authority money to backstop 2018 Flood Bond Projects that have come up short to date on Partnership Funding.
After these expenditures, $31.7 million will remain in the Flood Resilience Trust.
Of the $64.8 million approved for expenditure, $24.5 million will help make up for partnership funding shortages. The remainder will help make up for cost escalation.
For a full discussion of the expenditures and the Trust, see the table on the last page of this summary provided to Commissioners by the Flood Control District.
None of these Trust withdrawals benefit Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, San Jacinto, or Luce watersheds.
Harris County Watershed Map
$750 Million In HUD Funds Not Discussed
Commissioners did not discuss the status of the long-awaited Method of Distribution (MOD) for the $750 million grant allocated to Harris County by the the Texas General Land Office and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The MOD details the county’s plan to spend the money. Pre-approval is necessary to ensure the plan complies with HUD requirements. The County has known it would get the money for one year and nine months. H-GAC, which learned of a similar $488 million grant on the same day in 2021, got its MOD approved early last year.
Curiously, Harris County Community Services Department (CSD) learned it received conditional approval of a DRAFT MOD on January 25th, almost a full week before the January 31 Commissioner’s Court Meeting. Yet the approval was not on the agenda for discussion.
How Will Flood Bond Be Completed?
During the meeting, however, commissioners talked at length about a shortfall in partner funding and how to fill the gap.
Garcia fears there won’t be enough funding to do all the projects in the flood bond. But with the $750 million in HUD funds and money in the Flood Resilience Trust, the County could complete every project in the Flood Bond. That makes the County’s recommendation to shift money away from flood mitigation all the more puzzling. Flood Control would get only $325 million in CSD’s MOD. That wouldn’t even complete all the planned projects in the Halls Bayou Watershed.
Meanwhile, the San Jacinto had $223 million in planned flood bond projects. Of that amount, we have received only 13% so far while Brays Bayou has received 79% of its planned budget.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/6/2023 based on information provided by the Harris County Flood Control District
1987 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Garcia.jpg?fit=764%2C586&ssl=1586764adminadmin2023-02-06 16:24:292023-02-09 21:19:15Harris County Taps Flood Resilience Trust For Another $64.8 Million
After Hurricane Harvey, Harris County Engineering examined regulations throughout the region and recommended minimum drainage standards to reduce future flooding in the region’s cities and counties. Harris County even offered to pay the cost of inventorying existing standards and having an engineering firm draft recommended revisions. But almost 2000 days after Harvey, only half of the area’s cities and counties have taken action. Among those not acting: Montgomery and Liberty Counties. Here’s a breakdown of who has done what as of January 18, 2023, according to Harris County.
Already Upgraded
Twenty took Harris County up on its offer. They have already successfully updated their drainage regulations. They include:
Cities of
Baytown
Bellaire
Bunker Hill Village
Deer Park
El Lago
Friendswood
Galena Park
Hilshire Village
Houston
Humble
Jersey Village
Katy
La Porte
Pasadena
Piney Point Village
Seabrook
Southside Place
Taylor Lake Village
Tomball
Waller County
Considered Updates But Haven’t Acted
Twelve had requested and received an analysis, but had not yet implemented recommendations. They include:
Cities of:
Hedwig Village
Jacinto City
League City
Missouri City
Nassau Bay
Pearland
Shoreacres
South Houston
Spring Valley
Webster
West University
Fort Bend County
Not Acting
Eight have not updated ordinances and regulations. These include communities that did not respond to and those that refused Harris County’s offer. They include:
Cities:
Hunter’s Creek Village
Morgan’s Point
Stafford
Waller
Counties:
Brazoria
Galveston
Liberty
Montgomery
In fairness, Montgomery County did hire a firm in August 2022 to update/revise its drainage criteria manual and subdivision rules. The scope of work included examining some of the recommendations below made by Harris County. But work was expected to take at least a year.
Recommendations for Minimum Drainage Standards
The minimum drainage standards recommended by Harris County included:
Use Atlas 14 rainfall rates for sizing storm water conveyance and detention systems.
Require a minimum detention rate of 0.55 acre feet per acre for any new development on tracts one acre or larger. However, single-family residential structures and accessory buildings on existing lots would be exempt.
Prohibit the use of hydrographic timing as a substitute for detention on any project, unless it directly outfalls into Galveston Bay.
Require “no net fill” in the current mapped 500-year flood plain, except in areas identified as coastal zones only.
Require minimum Finished Floor Elevation (FFE) of new habitable structures be established at or waterproofed to the 500-year flood elevation as shown on the effective Flood Insurance Study.
I would add one more to the list:
No clearing or grading before environmental and drainage studies are completed, and during grading, measures are taken to protect neighbors from runoff.
This seems to be particularly troublesome issue for those surrounding new developments.
Self Interest
Harris County Engineering originally positioned adoption of the minimum drainage standards as a condition for receiving partnership money from the 2018 flood bond.
Clearly, not everyone sees that has a powerful incentive. Those outside Harris County likely see little benefit, especially since the Equity Prioritization Framework has delayed funding in those areas.
Perhaps Harris County should have emphasized how adoption of the minimum standards could help reduce flooding for ALL people in the region – including those within Montgomery and Liberty Counties.
During heavy rains in late January, I received dozens of reports of flooding in Montgomery and Liberty Counties. As growth in surrounding areas explodes, lax regulations are starting to inflict suffering on those area’s own citizens.
They should adopt higher standards for their own benefit, not just Harris County’s.
Photo taken January 30, 2023 along Harris/MoCo border near San Jacinto West Fork after 1.32 inches of rain.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/5/23
1986 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/2023/02/20230130-DJI_0926.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2023-02-05 12:25:022023-02-05 12:32:31Montgomery, Liberty Counties Still Have Not Adopted Minimum Drainage Recommendations
Adventure awaits. After more than a year under construction, the controversial Laurel Springs RV Resort has finally opened between the Union Pacific Railroad tracks that parallel Loop 494 and Lakewood Cove.
Oh, and then there were the mysterious, unexplained black spots that kept showing up in the detention basin.
Grand Opening Theme: Adventure Awaits
With all that in mind, the Laurel Springs RV Resort came up with the perfect theme for its Grand Opening: “Adventure Awaits.”
In lieu of Grand Opening banners, marching bands, cookies and punch, the owner is offering 50% discounts through February 15th. The online booking form showed one flat rate – $69 per night – for all spots, sizes, and lengths of stay.
But the form was a bit confusing; it showed yucca trees and mountains in the background! Imagine the surprise when the snowbirds arrive!
Photos Taken During Grand Opening
Here’s what the resort looked like earlier this week.
Looking NNW from over Lakewood CoveLooking NNE from over power line corridorNorthern portion was not yet complete. Looking S. Ideal spot for railroad buffs.Water collecting below detention basin has not dried in months.
I counted ten RVs on the day I took these photos. But I never did see the yucca trees and mountains featured on their reservation page.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/4/2023
1985 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.
It won’t be long now before we start seeing moving trucks at the Preserve at Woodridge. The new high-density, low-grass, pet-friendly, community of 131 free-standing rental homes has reached a milestone. The entire development is framed out. See the pictures below.
Photos Taken on January 29, 2023
Looking SE toward Kingwood Park High School from over St. Martha Catholic Church parking lot.Last homes under construction on the SW corner of the new subdivision.Looking toward the west from over the detention pond gives you a feeling for how close together these homes are.65% impervious cover according to the RG Miller plans.The pearlescent, allegedly “grass lined” stormwater detention basin seems to still leak silty stormwater into this tributary of Ben’s Branch.
Who is the Market For These Homes?
It will be interesting to see what types of tenants this subdivision attracts. The website shows a picture of young adults by a pool. These homes might represent a step up from apartments for some of them.
But none of the website’s pictures feature empty-nesters who might be looking to downsize. The long walks between cars and front doors could make it difficult to get all those groceries into the kitchen.
And the small amount of parking could deter families with more than one car.
Glad it’s not my money at risk. But maybe they’ve identified a new market niche.
The biggest complaints I hear are that these homes don’t fit the character of the surrounding community. People worry about negative impacts on their property values.
I have also heard firefighters express safety concerns about the proximity of the homes.
Regardless of how you feel, it’s too late to do anything about these now.
History of Project
To see the progression of this project, see the following posts:
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/2023/02/20230129-DJI_0830.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2023-02-03 17:07:162023-02-03 17:14:01Preserve At Woodridge All Framed Out
Correction: Since publishing this, Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey contacted me to say that the discrepancy is not as bad as this article makes it look. He believes the percentages described below will be applied in a different order resulting in different outcomes. However, he could not provide final totals, saying that the SVI percentages were still being examined.Finally, he emphasized that the money Precinct 3 does get will be put to good use.He also emphasized the need to incorporate miles of roadway in each precinct into the allocation formula. Commissioner Garcia has not responded to my invitation to supply his point of view.
Original Article as First Published
To sell the controversial $1.1 Billion Road and Parks bond in 2022, Democrats on Harris County Commissioners Court passed a resolution promising voters that each precinct would get at least $220 million. The $220 million minimum was promoted to voters on the web, in the press, at community meetings, and in handouts and flyers county-wide for three months prior to the November election. For example…
Dems adopted an allocation plan that gives Republican-led Precinct 3 only $173 million – almost $50 million less than the promised $220 million.
Commissioner Adrian Garcia introduced his complicated allocation scheme in a five-part motion. He never did reveal the totals although he did admit that not every precinct received the minimum. Because he bases his scheme on the CDC’s social vulnerability index, not miles of roads that need to be maintained, Precinct 3 will get less money in total and less than one-fifth the dollars per “lane mile” compared to Garcia’s Precinct 2.
Who Gets How Much
Garcia never revealed totals for each precinct. To learn who gets how much, you have to calculate the totals yourself using a vague procedure Garcia verbally outlined during commissioners court on 1/31/23. It’s a confusing, multi-part formula that requires calculating percentages of percentages of percentages of figures found in different documents. Only after adding totals from three different subcategories does the ugly truth became apparent.
Harris County Engineering gets 10% or $110 million.
Each precinct then gets a flat baseline amount equal to 63.64% of the remainder.
Each precinct also gets an amount that varies based on the number of “socially vulnerable” residents from the remaining 26.36%.
SVI percentages vary widely. And they radically skew the final totals. Here’s how the math works out.
Precinct
Baseline Amt.
SVI %
Total Each Precinct
P1
$157,509,000
$117,446,067
$274,955,067
P2
$157,509,000
$147,186,806
$304,695,806
P3
$157,509,000
$15,645,510
$173,154,510
P4
$157,509,000
$79,690,617
$237,199,617
Calculations based on Garcia’s description of formula in meeting and the SVI numbers he supplied
The final totals could vary slightly if you applied the percentages in a different order. But any way you cut it, P3 still gets far less that the minimum guarantee and $50 – $100 million less than Democratic precincts..
This PDF explains what the 10% for Engineering covers and lists SVI populations in each precinct. SVI stands for the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index. However, Garcia does not list a source or date for the SVI numbers, so we have to take his word for their accuracy.
Now, remember, this is primarily a road bond. So, let’s also look at how this allocation translates into dollars per lane mile.
Precinct
Lane Miles
Allocation
$/Mile
P1
2100
$274,955,067
$130,931
P2
2230
$304,695,806
$136,634
P3
6750
$173,154,510
$25,652
P4
3120
$237,199,617
$76,025
Lane miles supplied by Harris County Precinct 3 staff
Precinct 3 has 2-3X the lane miles compared to other precincts. Yet it gets the smallest allocation. Compared to Garcia’s Precinct 2…
Precinct 3 gets less than one-fifth the dollars per lane mile. This is no accident.
During the hotly contested redistricting process in 2021, Democrats gave Ramsey the lion’s share of unincorporated Harris County to maintain. Now, the final shoe drops. They denied him the ability to maintain those roads.
What Do YOU Call It?
Is this a political vendetta? Voter fraud? Financial fraud? Theft of services? A bald-faced lie? Business as usual in Harris County Commissioners Court? Or all of the above? You could build a case for “all of the above.” In my opinion:
If this were the prospectus for a new stock offering, the Securities and Exchange Commission would likely launch an investigation.
If it were an advertisement, the Federal Trade Commission could level hefty “bait-and-switch” fines.
If you told someone you were going to provide $50 million worth of services and then didn’t, but still took their money, the Texas Attorney General could build a felony case for theft of services.
Right now, the New York attorney general is suing a former U.S. President for making misleading financial statements.
No Transparency
Before the vote on the bond in November, Garcia could have offered up his allocation formula. But he didn’t do that.
And before the vote on the allocation formula Tuesday, Garcia could have easily said, “Here’s what each Precinct will get.” But he didn’t do that either. As with the Flood Bond and the Equity Prioritization Framework, this is another example of changing the deal after voters vote.
That’s why, in my opinion, this is deliberate concealment with intent to defraud taxpayers.
Garcia replied, “No.”Then, instead of explaining, he obfuscates. He quickly launches into a description of how the formula incorporates socially vulnerable populations. Garcia never does say what the totals are.
Ellis responds, “I’m fine with that.” And Hidalgo never circles back to ask what Garcia meant by “No.”
Despite Precinct 3 Commissioner Ramsey’s reservations and his plea for more time to study the impact of the proposal, the Dems approved Garcia’s allocation formula on the spot. This was carefully rehearsed.
Garcia also revealed other screening criteria for project consideration. Just in case you thought a project benefitting you might squeak through, the eligibility criteria involve factors such as:
Encouraged by a 4:1 majority on commissioners court, Democrats have become brazen. Tuesday’s revelation concerning the 2022 bond was one of many.
Commissioners still didn’t take any action on the $750 million in HUD funds that have been sitting on the table for a year and nine months.
That $750 million – with the flood resilience trust – could pay for every unfunded project in the 2018 flood bond. But instead of asking why Community Services has not prepared a detailed plan that HUD could approve, Commissioners allocated $64 million from local Toll Road funds to keep flood projects moving in Democratic precincts.
I suspect Dems want to cancel Flood-Bond projects in Precinct 3 and then blame the cancellations on a Republican-led GLO, which administers HUD funds in Texas.
That could push independents toward the blue column…at least those not paying close attention.
Lingering Concerns
The concerns outlined above are serious. But those aren’t the only concerns. Readers have written asking:
1) Will there be transparency for this bond like we had for the flood bond? Or will this turn into another give away to campaign donors?
2) How were the SVI numbers calculated? Are they available for review? How can we trust those numbers?
3) What other large public agency divides infrastructure money by SVI? Prove that it is a “best practice” and not a way to game the system to get more money in Precinct 2.
4) This is clearly political punishment for Precinct 3 that puts Republican lives at risk. Is this the example that Harris County “leadership” wants to set for future generations?
Garcia addressed none of those issues. Only one thing is clear. Last Tuesday was a tipping point in the history of Harris County.
If Commissioner Garcia wishes to write a rebuttal, I will post it.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/2/2023
1983 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/2023/02/Flier.jpg?fit=1511%2C544&ssl=15441511adminadmin2023-02-02 11:42:582024-09-18 07:15:14Dems Shortchange Precinct 3 by Almost $50 Million in 2022 Bond Allocation
