News Archives - Page 114 of 277

County Discussing Another Billion-Dollar-Plus Bond

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

Proposed Uses for Money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Highlights from Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Withholding Judgment for Now

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/29/2022

1765 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

HCFCD Asking to Tap Flood Resilience Trust for Bond Projects

Item #123 on the Harris County Commissioners Court Agenda for 6/28/22 is a request to tap the County’s Flood Resilience Trust Fund to help finance 16 flood-bond projects in the coming year. The request also seeks approval for a method of allocating future funds that weighs projects using a social vulnerability index.

A Backstop for Partner Funds

The introduction to the request states, “Although the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) continues to aggressively pursue partnership dollars … substantial amounts of anticipated partner funding remain unrealized.”

Of the roughly $5 billion in 2018 Flood-Bond Projects, officials hoped that Federal, State and local partners would supply roughly half the money. But it hasn’t all materialized yet. So last year, Commissioners created a flood-resilience trust fund to create backstop funding. Until now, the county has not needed it. But now the county does…for the sixteen projects listed below.

*Projects recommended for first round of backstop funding. Some of these projects started before the flood bond, were later included in it, and ran over budget.*

To date, Harris County has secured $1.275 billion in partnership funding for 2018 Bond Program projects from Federal, State, and local partners. Of the $2.5 billion in partner funds originally anticipated, “the county has not yet identified $754.2 million. This gap includes projects for which grant applications were submitted to various Federal and State programs such as CDBG-MIT, FEMA-BRIC, and others but not awarded,” says HCFCD.

Ironically, the backup documentation provided to commissioners by HCFCD makes no mention of the $750 million allocated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Texas General Land Office (GLO) to Harris County. More on that below.

Ranking Methodology

The document provided to commissioners by HCFCD contains information about the Trust, its history and intent, projects that need funding help now, and a methodology for ranking projects.

After ranking all flood-bond projects that are short of funding using the proposed matrix below (Appendix B), the county began whittling away from Trust funds. HCFCD started with the top-ranked project and proceeded to the lowest until the money ran out, i.e., the balance in the trust fund went negative. Only two projects from the entire San Jacinto Watershed made the “eligible” list: one near the ship channel and another below Highway 90. But neither of those is part of the group of 16 above.

Weighting Factors in Proposed Matrix

The scoring matrix used by the County includes evaluations of:

Cost per person (15%)
Cost per structure (30%)
Non-structural benefits (45%)
Existing conditions (20%)
Social Vulnerability Index (20%)
Long-term maintenance (5%)
Minimizing environmental impacts (5%)
Ability to deliver multiple benefits, i.e., flood mitigation, social and environmental (5%)

As additional partnership funding sources are identified, money remaining in the Trust may cover additional projects…assuming inflation doesn’t eat it all up.

For this exercise, HCFCD analyzed all projects with partnership funding gaps. However, that doesn’t mean that those projects will necessarily receive Flood Resilience Trust funds. When and if HCFCD identifies funding partners, some projects could drop off the list of those needing help. That could make funds available for lower ranking projects. See Appendix B, last page.

Future Plans

If approved, HCFCD will return to Commissioners Court twice each year with additional requests from the Flood Resilience Trust. Each of those requests will include an updated analysis of partnership and contingency funding needs, Trust funds remaining, and eligible projects.

HCFCD will request money from the Trust only when projects cannot move forward without it.

$750 Million HUD Allocation Not Discussed

The County’s Community Services Department is currently developing a Method of Distribution (MOD) for the $750 million designated earlier this year for Harris County by HUD. A MOD is a plan for distributing the $750 million. Where and how will the county use the money? Who will benefit?

HUD and the GLO require that at least 50% of the money benefits Low-to-Moderate Income neighborhoods.

At the time the GLO and HUD dedicated $750 million to Harris County, they also dedicated $488 million to the Houston Galveston Area Council (HGAC).

HGAC has already submitted its MOD to the GLO and received preliminary, conditional approval. Conditional approval requires:

Validation of all calculations
Meeting HUD requirements
Verification that all recipients are still interested in participating.

According to a GLO spokesperson, HGAC began developing its MOD when the GLO submitted its action plan to HUD. However, Harris County reportedly delayed planning until AFTER HUD approved the GLO’s recommendations.

That delay could mean spending more local money. And that could penalize Harris County watersheds farther down on the Trust Fund priority list that don’t currently meet SVI and other requirements. Will there be money left for the Lake Houston Area by the time we work our way further down this list? Only time will tell.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/28/2022

1764 Days since Hurricane Harvey

May Flood-Bond Update Shows Spending Drought in Lake Houston Area Continues

The Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) posted the June 2022 status of 2018 flood-bond expenditures for Commissioners Court last Friday. Among the report’s highlights: the spending drought continues in the Lake Houston Area where only two capital improvement construction projects are active. Their total reported value: $2 thousand. That’s out of more than $235 million in active construction projects during the month of June.

Said another way, the Lake Houston Area is getting less than one-thousandth of 1% of the construction budget (0.000851%). March and April updates show that no new capital improvement construction projects have started in the Lake Houston Area in months.

*See last page of full report for high resolution version.* *Note spending drought in NE portion of county.*

Project Highlights

In the good news category, HCFCD:

Completed the $480 million Project Brays
Finished detention Basins near Little York and Hopper in the Halls Bayou Watershed, with combined 200 acre-feet of storage.
Wrapped up Halls Bayou conveyance improvements
Began demolition of the old Raveneaux Country Club on Cypress Creek
Started drainage repairs in the Carpenters Bayou watershed
Issued a purchase order for the Atascocita Area Drainage Study, which had been approved on February 8.
Released the Phase II, 1800-page report on flood tunnel feasibility

Spending Breakdowns by Watershed

Harris County contains 23 major watersheds shown below.

*The 23 watersheds in Harris County and the amount spent to date from all sources under the 2018 flood bond.*

The table and bar graph below make the rank-order and relative magnitude of spending in various watersheds more apparent.

*Spending by watershed ranked from high to low.* *San Jacinto is middle of pack despite being largest watershed in county,*

Factors Affecting Watershed Spending

Several factors affect the magnitude of spending in each watershed. They include:

Equity Prioritization Framework – This scoring matrix gives higher priority to projects in low-to-moderate income watersheds that have a high social vulnerability index. Projects with high scores started sooner.
Project Lifecycle Stage – Generally speaking, the earlier a project kicked off, the further along it is in its lifecycle. Studies have completed and construction has started or even completed. Some areas that flood repetitively had engineering studies completed and were already shovel-ready after Harvey.
Repetitive damage to population centers – More damage in highly populated areas gets more attention.
Prior Investment – Sims had massive investment by the Army Corps before Harvey and, comparatively speaking, had less flooding than other watersheds.
Partner Funding Availability – Projects with committed local, state or federal matches get higher priority.
Buyouts/Right of Way Acquisition – Sometimes entire subdivisions must be bought out to make room for flood mitigation projects. This can delay construction for years.
Lobbying – Squeaky wheels play a role on multiple levels.

Usually, no one factor accounts for a project’s or an area’s ranking. But multiple factors – working together – can push an area up or down the list.

Certainly, some areas have suffered spending-wise because of political priorities.

Other Highlights

HCFCD spent a total of $1.05 billion through the end of May. That compares to $1.025 billion through the end of April. So HCFCD spent $25 million in May.

Of the $1.05 billion spent to date, bond funds comprised $545 million. Grants comprised $367 million. And $140 came from other local funds.

HCFCD reported a schedule performance index of .97. That means projects are running slightly behind schedule. On-schedule performance would have earned a 1.0.

Overall, HCFCD has completed 21.8% of the bond projects when we’re 37.5% of the way through the 10-year program (45 months out of 120).

For the complete June update on bond spending, click here. Remember to review the last page. It shows capital improvement construction projects throughout the county and the spending drought in the Lake Houston Area.

Posted by Bob Rehak on June 26, 2022

1762 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Slight Chance of Tropical Cyclone Formation in Gulf Next Week

A weak surface low pressure system may develop into a tropical system over the northern Gulf of Mexico early to mid next week. The National Hurricane Center estimates the chance of development over the next 5 days at 20%. Chances of formation for another disturbance in the Atlantic remain at 60%.

What’s behind this prediction? A front will push through Houston Monday morning. It will move into the northern Gulf of Mexico early next week and then stall.

AND it will stall over warm waters.

*Sea surface temperature anomalies as of 6/25/22*. *The darker the color, the more above average the temperatures.* *The whitish blob off the coast of Texas and Louisiana indicates the location of possible cyclone formation next week.* *Elongated blob at the bottom right indicates forecast track of disturbance in Atlantic.*

Currently, the sea surface temperature in Galveston is 87 degrees – 4 degrees above the average for this time of year.

The National Hurricane Center said that if the system does develop, “[It] would likely be slow to occur as it drifts westward toward the northwestern Gulf of Mexico.”

Rainfall Implications

According to Jeff Lindner, Harris County’s meteorologist, “Numerous showers and thunderstorms will accompany this frontal trough.”

This will bring increasing rain chances to Houston. And potentially alter rainfall accumulation forecasts. Depending on location, you could receive anywhere from a half inch to three inches, according to Space City Weather.

The National Weather Service (NWS) predicts the highest 7-day rainfall totals farther to the east. Our neighbors in Louisiana could see up to five inches.

*NWS Weather Prediction Center 7-day rainfall forecast starting today shows highest rainfall totals around Mississippi delta.*

At this time, NWS predicts NO flooding for next week. The drought has soil so dry that most rainfall should soak in. Our channels, creeks and bayous should handle any runoff.

Historical Curiosity

Here’s a historical curiosity. This morning, the NWS Houston/Galveston office noted some weather history on this day. “The first half of 1996 was extremely dry over all of Southeast Texas but heavy rains returned during the last week of June. On June 25th 1996, a swath of 2 to 4 inches of rain fell across the southern half of the region with Danevang recording 6.07 inches of rain and Houston Hobby Airport recording 3.30 inches of rain.”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/25/22

1761 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Chances of Formation Increase to 60% for Invest 94L

Overnight, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) increased the chances of tropical cyclone formation for Invest 94L to 60% in the next five days. Yesterday, NHC estimated 20%. “Invest” stands for Area of Investigation.

Reasons for Increased Chance of Formation

According to Harris County Meteorologist Jeff Lindner, “The tropical wave located over the far eastern Atlantic is fairly disorganized this morning with scattered areas of deep convection. The wave is moving westward and this motion will continue for the next 5-7 days.”

If you looked only at climate history for this time of year, says Lindner, you would not give this disturbance much of a chance to intensify into a tropical cyclone.

However, low wind shear, modest forward motion, and available moisture in the wave all support some degree of development in the next few days.

Storm Track Forecasts

Most models show development as the wave nears or reaches the eastern Caribbean Islands. European and Global forecast models tightly align with a track through the extreme southern Caribbean Sea. Meanwhile, the Canadian model shows the storm tracking farther north at a higher intensity.

Virtually all models indicate similar tracks until the system reaches the central Caribbean Sea.

Lindner believes the southern track is most likely given the time of year. He also sees potential for intensification due to favorable atmospheric conditions along the path. The satellite photo below shows the current extent of the disturbance.

The National Hurricane Center says, “A tropical depression could form during the early to middle part of next week while it moves westward at around 15 mph over the tropical Atlantic and approaches the Windward Islands.”

If you like viewing satellite images and animations from a wide variety of sources, I highly recommend the following sites:

More news to follow.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/24/22

1760 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Weather Pattern Changing Soon

According to Harris County Meteorologist Jeff Lindner, the high pressure weather pattern that has created unprecedented temperatures since late May will finally move away early next week. That should bring decent rain chances to the region.

The mid- and upper-level ridge of high pressure over Texas will meander overhead through the weekend with highs ranging from 99-103 each day. Then, the ridge will break down and shift westward early next week. Until then, however, we will be near or at heat-advisory criteria from Friday through the weekend. Sea-breeze showers are possible today, but less likely Friday-Sunday.

Global models consistently predict that the high-pressure ridge will shift westward. That will let a frontal system slip into the region from the NE/ENE either late Sunday or early Monday.

“If you wanted cooler temperatures and some rainfall…this is one way to get it in the middle of summer.”
Jeff Lindner, Harris County meteorologist

Rainfall Chances Next Week

Gulf moisture should also increase early next week. That will bring desperately needed showers and thunderstorms as early as Sunday night and continuing into much of next week. Widespread rainfall amounts of .50-1.0 of an inch will be possible, with some locations seeing higher totals of 2-3 inches. Rainfall will likely affect much of the state.

The front should stall near the coast or even offshore at some point next week and eventually wash out.

*Most of the Houston area could see up to an inch of rain next week.*

Galveston Sea Surface Temps

Lindner warns that “We will have to keep an eye on the decaying boundary for any sort of low pressure area that may try to develop. No models show anything of concern at this point. But we should carefully watch any front over the very warm Gulf waters this time of year.

Today’s Galveston sea temperature is 87°F. Statistics for 23 Jun (1981–2005) show that the mean temperature is 83 °F, and normally ranges from 81 °F to 85 °F. So we’re much above normal. And higher sea surface temperatures correlate strongly with more intense tropical cyclones. Meanwhile, we need to keep an eye on another weather pattern.

Tropics

A strong tropical wave is moving westward into the Atlantic from Africa. The National Hurricane Center expects little development of this wave over the next 2-3 days. However, global models indicate that as this wave nears the Caribbean next week, conditions may be favorable for some development.

Right now, the wave is producing disorganized showers and thunderstorms. The disturbance is moving westward at around 15 mph over the tropical Atlantic.

According to Lindner, tropical development this far east rarely happens this time of year. However, it does happen occasionally.

Tropical waves tend to struggle in this area this time of year. So development chances are only 20% right now. But no one knows yet what will happen when it reaches the Caribbean next week.

*Season’s first Saharan tropical wave is moving toward the Caribbean and could arrive next week.*

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/23/2022

1759 Days since Hurricane Harvey

$230 vs. $2,000,000,000: Where’s the “Historic Disinvestment”?

Pardon my rant about the phrase “historic disinvestment.” I just came out of another Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force meeting. Much of the conversation centered around “historic disinvestment” in low-to-moderate income (LMI) neighborhoods.

Having examined Harris County flood-mitigation spending in detail for two years now, I asked a simple question. “What is your basis for claiming historic disinvestment?”

No one had an answer. But they’re hoping to find one. In logic, they call this “begging the question.” Begging the question is a fallacy that occurs when an argument’s premise ASSUMES the truth of the conclusion.

The problem: sometimes data contradicts the premise. So let’s take a look at data. Via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, I obtained HCFCD and partner spending by watershed going back to 2000. Here’s what it looks like as of the end of the first quarter of 2022.

Four LMI Watersheds Received More Than Half of All Spending

Focus on the four watersheds at the left in the bar graph below. Together, they have received $2 billion out of $3.8 billion. That’s 53% of all flood-mitigation spending since 2000. Out of 23 watersheds!

All four have LMI majorities. Brays has 58% LMI residents. White Oak has 51%. Sims has 65%. And Greens has 57%.

*Data obtained from HCFCD via FOIA Request. Valid through end of Q1 22.*

Kingwood Doesn’t Get All the Money

Regardless, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis frequently says, “Kingwood gets all the money and poor neighborhoods get none.”

So I looked up the amount of capital improvement construction spending in Kingwood this morning. To my knowledge, in the history of the Flood Control District going back to 1937, we’ve had one capital improvement project that has gotten to the construction phase. That’s an excavation and removal contract now underway in Woodridge Village. The screen capture below shows that HCFCD has paid out $230 dollars on the $1225 contract to date.

*From https: //www.hcfcd.org/Activity/Capital-Improvement-Program*. *Screen capture on 6/22/22.*

Ellis constantly complains about this project and how hard people lobbied him to approve it. Thank you for the magnanimous gesture, Commissioner!

Hmmmm. $230 vs $2,002,838,150. That works out to about one ten-thousandth of one percent (0.00001%) for Kingwood. And the $2 billion represents just four LMI watersheds! Add the other four and that percentage starts to look road-kill bad.

Gee, with math skills like Rodney’s, little wonder the county is in financial trouble.

But we’re comparing a subdivision to watersheds. So, to be fair, let’s look at affluent watersheds, not just affluent neighborhoods.

Four Affluent Watersheds Get One Third of Four LMI Watersheds

Since Ellis’ argument is that rich neighborhoods like Kingwood get all the flood-mitigation money, let’s look at spending in the four most affluent watersheds (those with the lowest percentages of LMI residents). That should make the most extreme test case.

Little Cypress has 16% LMI. Barker has 22%. Armand has 26%. And Cypress Creek has 26%. Spending in those four watersheds since 2000 totals $599 million out of a total $3.8 billion. That’s 15% compared to 53% for the LMI watersheds.

LMI watersheds still received more than three times the funding of the most affluent. That’s hardly historical discrimination any way you look at it.

Look Forward, Not Back

In the face of these numbers, to talk about historic disinvestment in LMI watersheds stretches credulity. Some might say it sounds downright self-serving. The Latin phrase ignorantia affectata describes what I think is causing the data denial.

I found a great description of it on this blog. “The deniers first deceive themselves that they are sincere in their adherence to falsehoods. Thus they cannot be faulted for acting on genuinely held views. But in truth, they have cultivated an ignorance of the facts, an ignorance so useful that one protects it at all costs … in order to continue using it in one’s own self interest.”

To find genuine solutions to Harris County’s flooding problems, we need to start looking forward, not back. We must focus on the real causes of flooding; not imagined ones. We must put our money where the most flood risk remains after investing nearly $4 billion in the last 22 years. But, sadly, we don’t yet know where that is.

Posted by Bob Rehak on June 22, 2022

1758 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.

Remembering Hurricane Harvey: Impact and Response

Two months shy of Hurricane Harvey’s fifth anniversary, I came across a 52-page book called Hurricane Harvey: Impact and Response in Harris County. Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) published it in May 2018 as the final toll of the storm became clear.

*Free download, still available on the HCFCD website.* *53 Megabytes.*

An Emotional and Statistical Recreation of the Event

Unlike the statistical report put out by HCFCD on Harvey, this book is filled with poignant pictures and informative graphics that emotionally and statistically recreate the impact of the storm and our immediate response to it. (Unfortunately, virtually all images are copyrighted, so I cannot show them here.)

The foreword contains the Army Corps plea to Congress for $10 billion against the backdrop of a $20 billion economic impact from damage to Texas Ports. It also contains additional requests by the Texas Congressional delegation and senators for an additional $8.7 billion for disaster recovery funds, state educational agencies, SBA disaster loans, economic development aid, and transportation infrastructure repairs.

Book Includes…

These requests form the backdrop for the rest of the book. Various sections show:

The scope and and scale of the storm
Human impacts
Economic impacts
How the storm developed
Comparisons to other record storms
Rescue efforts
The flood history of Harris County
Damages
Lake Houston and Lake Conroe dam performance
Disaster response efforts/first responders

Statistics show the unprecedented intensity, breadth and duration of this storm which dumped the greatest amount of rain in North American history.

Watershed by Watershed Impacts

The book also highlights the storm’s impact on every watershed, damage to drainage infrastructure, the port of Houston, downtown, and how previous flood-damage-reduction projects performed.

For anyone trying to help friends, loved-ones or newcomers understand the punishment dished out by Harvey, this is a go-to resource. Beautifully written and art directed, it may bring a tear to survivors’ eyes.

The photo that got me was by Elizabeth Conley of the Houston Chronicle. It showed volunteers sorting acres of donated clothes at the George R. Brown Convention Center. Somehow, that captured the scope of the human impact like few other photos have.

Hurricane Harvey – Impact and Response in Harris County is a free download from HCFCD.

In the coming weeks, I plan to explore what we have accomplished in terms of flood mitigation since Harvey. More to follow.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/21/2022

1757 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Mythbusters: Common Misperceptions about Flooding in Harris County

Since Hurricane Harvey, I’ve continually run into several widely held misperceptions about flooding in Harris County. As we head into another hurricane season, let’s set the record straight about the most common myths. Some of the facts below have been adapted from information provided by the Harris County Flood Control District.

MYTH: The Harris County Flood Control District is responsible for addressing all types of flooding.

FACT: The Harris County Flood Control District is responsible for bayous and many of their tributaries. However, the City of Houston, other municipalities, and Precincts – in unincorporated Harris County – handle storm sewers and roadside ditches.

The Texas Department of Transportation handles drainage of highways and their feeder roads.

The moral of this story: make sure you call the right people when you see a problem developing.

MYTH: I’ve lived in my house for more than 30 years and I’ve never flooded. Therefore, I don’t need flood insurance.

FACT: Most Harris County residents live in homes vulnerable to flooding because:

Our topography is flat.
Many of us have impermeable clay soils that increase runoff.
Our subtropical climate can produce large amounts of rain in short periods of time.

Storm rainfall patterns may have spared your area since you have lived there. But that could change like the weather.

Remember. People thought Tropical Storm Allison was the worst. It caused all the flood maps to be revised. Then along came Harvey. Now, HCFCD and FEMA are revising the flood maps again.

During Harvey, more than 68 percent of the homes that flooded in Harris County were outside the 100-year flood plain. So, consult your insurance agent. Most homeowner insurance policies do not cover flooding. You need a separate policy for that.

MYTH: A 1-percent (100-year) flood occurs only once every 100 years.

FACT: A 1-percent (100-year) flood can occur multiple times throughout a century. A 100-year flood has a 1-percent chance of occurring in any given location in any given year. Doesn’t sound like a lot? Think of it this way: A home in a 1-percent (100-year) floodplain has at least a 26-percent chance of flooding during a 30-year period of time – the duration of many home mortgages. And remember, Harris County experienced four hundred-year events in four years (Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey, and Imelda).

MYTH: I only need to worry about flooding during hurricane season.

FACT: Flooding can happen any time of the year. Of the four storms mentioned above, two occurred outside of hurricane season.

Short, high intensity rainfalls can cause street flooding that invades vehicles and homes built close to street level or near developments with insufficient mitigation.

Hundreds of homes flooded in Elm Grove on May 7, 2019. The causes: 5.64″ of rain in about 12 hours. And a 270-acre tract upstream that had recently been clearcut with only 9% of the promised detention ponds constructed.

high water rescue truck — *High water rescue truck on flooded Elm Grove Street, May 2019*

MYTH: If I didn’t flood during Allison or Harvey, chances are I won’t ever flood.

FACT: The greatest rainfall brought by Tropical Storm Allison hit the northeast part of Houston and Harris County, dropping more than 28 inches of rain in 12 hours and 35 inches of rain in five days. However, some areas received fewer than 5 inches of rain. Had the damaging rains of Allison targeted other areas, they would have experienced similar, devastating flooding.

Harvey also hit and missed certain areas. But the differences were even more dramatic. While Friendswood received 56″ of rain, Willis in Montgomery County received only 5″ between August 25 through September 1, 2017. See USGS, Table 1, Page 3.

MYTH: I don’t need flood insurance because I don’t live in a mapped floodplain.

FACT: We are all at risk for flooding regardless of our proximity to a mapped floodplain. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs or floodplain maps) published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency are good indicators of flooding risks from bayous and creeks overflowing their banks. However, they do not show flooding risks from storm sewers and roadside ditches exceeding their capacity, risks from unstudied bayous and creeks, or risks from storms greater than a 0.2 percent (500-year) flood — such as Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 or Hurricane Harvey in 2017.

MYTH: New land development causes flooding.

FACT: New development can accelerate the time of concentration of floodwaters, contributing to faster, higher flood peaks. That’s why cities and counties regulate development. But some see lax regulation and enforcement as a tool to attract new development. And even those with strict regulations may find that they aren’t strict enough to handle storms of increasing intensity.

*HCFCD graph showing effect of development in Brays Bayou watershed. Insufficiently mitigated development over 85 years accelerated runoff, building flood peaks faster and higher.*

Flooding can be inherited from areas developed before our understanding of flooding improved. So it would be safer to say that “Insufficiently mitigated development causes flooding.”

Regulations dating to the early 1980s in many areas require stormwater runoff after development to be no greater than runoff before development. Developers must detain any excess stormwater on site. However:

Development prior to the 1980s was not as regulated.
Our understanding of what constitutes a 100-year rainfall continues to evolve. So pre/post estimates may be off.
Loopholes exist in many jurisdictions that allow developers to avoid building detention ponds.

Today, we have a hodge-podge of regulations throughout the region. Learn regulations in your area and monitor new developments to ensure compliance.

MYTH: A storm surge from a tropical storm or hurricane will inhibit our bayou system’s ability to drain.

FACT: Most of our bayous and creeks are upland and drain by gravity. Because of their natural slope toward Galveston Bay, a storm surge caused by a tropical storm or a hurricane will not impede this process. Of the roughly 2,500 miles of bayous and creeks in Harris County, only a small portion near Galveston Bay will be influenced by storm surge for a short period of time.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/20/22 with thanks to the Harris County Flood Control District

1756 Days after Hurricane Harvey

HCFCD Recommends More Study for $30 Billion Flood Tunnels

(Update: Since posting this story, HCFCD has provided a link to the entire 1860-page flood tunnel study online.)

On June 16, 2022, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) held a virtual meeting to present the results of Phase 2 of its flood-tunnels study. Phase 2 recommended eight tunnels estimated to cost $30 billion for further study. The purpose of Phase 3: to advance the design far enough to quantify the benefits and validate cost assumptions in order to apply for grants that would help offset costs.

The secondary purpose of the meeting: to gage public support for tunnels, none of which would benefit the Lake Houston Area.

Below, see a brief summary of the one hour and twenty minute meeting.

Watersheds Where Tunnels Being Considered

Phase 2 recommended additional study for tunnels in the following watersheds:

Brays Bayou
Buffalo Bayou
Clear Creek, Berry and Vince Bayous
Halls and Hunting Bayous
Little Cypress and Cypress Creeks
Sims Bayou
White Oak Bayou

*From Page 34 of presentation delivered by Scott Elmer, Asst. Director of Operations, HCFCD*

The conveyance of all eight projects would TOTAL approximately 75,000 cubic feet per second (CFS). To put that in perspective, that’s approximately 4,000 CFS less than the SJRA released from Lake Conroe during Harvey.

Potential Advantages of Tunnel System

Scott Elmer, P.E. CFM and Assistant Director of Operations for HCFCD, gave most of the presentation. A large part of it focused on the benefits of a flood tunnel system. The hour and twenty minute presentation contained more information than the presentation online. So, I will try to fill in some blanks for you.

Mr. Elmer talked extensively about “inherited flooding.” Much of Harris County, he says, developed before we fully understood flood risk and developed regulations to reduce it. For instance, he showed a series of three images around Halls Bayou and I-45.

#1 showed rural farmland.
#2 showed development starting near the bayou.
#3 showed development so dense that it would require buyouts before mitigation by conventional means.

Mr. Elmer then discussed the time, cost, and disruption of buying out enough properties to construct basins and widen channels. I posted about this last year in regard to the detention basins that straddle Halls at US59. Entire subdivisions had to be bought out before construction could begin. Each of those two basins took approximately a decade to finish, with most of the time consumed by buyouts.

Example of Ideal Location

Here’s an example of another location, farther up Halls between I-45 and Airline Drive.

*One of the areas of heavy, repetitive flood damage in Harris County*. *Image from 1978. Area was farmland in the 1950s.*

Many homes in this flat area are no more than a foot or two above the bayou banks. Some even sit below street level.

*Same area seen in FEMA’s national flood hazard layer viewer.* *Cross hatch = floodway. Aqua = 100-year floodplain. Brown = 500-year.*

The entire area lies within some kind of flood hazard. And keep in mind, that this flood map was developed after Tropical Storm Allison in 2001. It does not even represent the risk under Atlas 14, the new flood probabilities developed after Harvey.

Harris County’s Flood Warning System shows Halls has come out of its banks at Airline Drive at least 12 times since 1984. Yet there is very little room to widen the channel or build detention basins.

Best Locations for Tunnels

Tunnels represent an ideal complement to traditional solutions in such cases. They:

Expand options for flood damage reduction
Make the county’s stormwater network more robust
Reduce community disruption and increase resiliency

They make the most sense in areas where:

Land for traditional solutions is unavailable
Residential property acquisition would disrupt neighborhoods
Surface solutions would result in environmental impacts

Elmer presented a hypothetical situation to demonstrate equivalent risk reductions. Thirty-four acres required for tunnel construction could offset 3,145 acres of land needed for channel improvements and stormwater basins.

How Tunnel Locations Chosen

In describing how HCFCD chose the eight watersheds for further study, Elmer focused on:

Population density
Damage centers with high risk
Safety of lives
Strategic locations for intakes and outfalls
Identifying opportunities to integrate tunnels with other flood damage reduction measures
Avoiding geologic and man-made hazards, such as oil and water wells; or geologic faults.

As for the absence of tunnel recommendations on the eastern side of the county, Elmer simply said, other solutions would be more cost effective. He did not provide additional explanation.

For Elmer’s full presentation, click here.

To see a YouTube Video of this entire presentation including the Q&A that followed, click here. The meat of the presentation starts at about 8 minutes and 30 seconds into the video.

Elmer’s presentation lasts a little more than half an hour.
A moderator describes the need for public comment before September 30 at 41:26.
Q&A begins 42:30.
The video ends at 1:18:00.

Items Not Covered

HCFCD gave no specific rationales for:

Locations of each of the eight tunnels.
Excluding large areas of the county.

I, for one, want to read the entire report before submitting my comments. But HCFCD has not made the report available online.

The presenters did not mention current flood risk in the respective locations. Nor did they say whether their recommendations accounted for recent flood mitigation investments.

Since 2000, the watersheds benefitting from the eight tunnels have already received 64 percent of all flood mitigation investments in Harris County. That includes partner spending. For instance:

Brays Bayou has received $575.3 million.
White Oak has received $526.3 million.
Sims Bayou has received $460 million.
Cypress and Little Cypress have received $442.5 million.
Greens has received $440 million.
Hunting and Halls have received $293.7 million.

Full Study Not Released

Before I vote on flood tunnels for these areas, I want to know how much flood risk remains compared to other areas that received less investment.

However, HCFCD has not yet released a study on the level of service (flood frequency likelihood) for every channel in the county.

The Phase 2 study just completed indicates we could spend $30 billion more on 132 miles of tunnels. That works out to almost a quarter billion dollars per mile.

Before I invest that much, I want to know how engineers arrived at these recommendations. Specifically, how much did politics enter into these decisions? The write up on HCFCD’s tunnel page makes it clear that “equity considerations” including the social vulnerability index weighed heavily.

I also want to know how the Cypress tunnel emptying into the San Jacinto West Fork between US59 and West Lake Houston Parkway would affect flooding in the heavily populated Humble/Kingwood Area.

Public Comment Period Lasts Through September 30

If you wish to submit public comments on the flood tunnels, you have until September 30, 2022. Submit comments at Public Input.com/tunnels. I intend to request the entire engineering study and will post more when I learn how HCFCD made the recommendations.

Posted by Bob Rehak

1755 Days since Hurricane Harvey