Questionable Validity of Flood-Mitigation Equity Formula

The results of an apparently invalid flood-mitigation equity formula could be used to steer billions of dollars in future flood-mitigation funding. Multiple data quality and collection issues may compound errors and the formula itself sometimes renders inconsistent, counter-intuitive results.

In the 6/28/22 Harris County Commissioners Court meeting, the Community Flood Resilience Task Force presented its first annual report. The report contains a lengthy discussion of a flood-mitigation equity formula developed by several Task Force members to “objectively” compare the “equity” of flood-mitigation investments (project costs). See the appendix starting on Page XVI and ending on Page XX.

The attempt to create objective comparisons between investments in different areas is well intentioned. However, I fear the proposed formula will create the appearance of objectivity while skewing data and producing misleading results. Here’s why.

The Formula

The formula is…

Flood Mitigation Benefits Index = Total Cost to Date/(Population Density X Risk)

…where…

  • Population Density is the number of people per square mile, calculated at the US Census Tract level.
  • Flood Risk is the current annual chance of inundation. For instance, a 1% chance = 1. Or a 10% chance = 10, etc.
  • Total Cost to Date shows cumulative dollars spent on flood-risk-reduction projects (construction only, adjusted for inflation) over the longest time period for which records are available, calculated at the US Census Tract level.

The report claims that a higher index means people have received more investment and therefore have less flood risk (i.e., more benefit). Conversely, a low index indicates less investment, more risk and less benefit.

The focus on census tracts is designed to make the data more granular than watersheds. Flood risk estimates will be averaged across the census tract and updated after MAAPnext data becomes available.

Here are several issues I have articulated to the Task Force.

Data Collection and Quality Issues

  1. Calculating only construction costs excludes other capital improvement costs such as engineering, design and right-of-way acquisition. Since 2000, construction costs have comprised only 40% of capital improvement costs. See below. And those costs don’t even reflect maintenance and repairs, which are crucial in reducing flooding.
All Flood Control and partner spending on all capital improvement projects from 1/1/2000 through the end of Q3 2021. Data obtained via FOIA Request from HCFCD.

2. According to the report, costs factored into the formula will include those from City of Houston projects and Harris County Flood Control projects. But they don’t include other municipalities’. There are at least 33 other cities in the County. The formula will reflect street-flooding risk, but not all spending to reduce that risk.

3. Likewise, it’s not clear whether the risk reflects pre- or post-mitigation spending, or both. Every time I ask about that, I get silence not an answer. Flood Control has spent more than $1.5 billion on flood mitigation since Harvey, while simultaneously developing new flood maps. Will the numerator of the formula sometimes reflect that investment but not the denominator?

4. Readily available digital spending data goes back only to 2000. But the Task Force committee chairman insists on getting data going back to the start of the Flood Control District – in 1937. If those records still exist, they will radically skew historical comparisons between watersheds, many of which were farms or forests until much more recently.

5. Flood risk depends on more than just mitigation investments. It’s a shifting target that has changed multiple times since 1937 as our understanding of rainfall probabilities has improved, and as different jurisdictions recognize that risk at different times. Flood risk also depends on upstream growth. That has been exponential. In the 2020 Census, Harris County had 4.7 million people. But in the 1930 Census, Harris County had only 359,328 – one thirteenth of today’s population, and presumably one thirteenth of the census tracts. So, attributing all change in risk to investment is fallacious.

6. Many of the census tracts have changed since the 1930s. Census tract boundaries are only “relatively” permanent. They often change based on Census results. For instance, when a census tract’s internal population grows over 8,000 persons, it may split into two or more smaller census tracts. Also, census tract boundaries may cross watershed boundaries. Major thoroughfares usually define census tract boundaries, not the direction of flowing water.

7. HCFCD has said they do not collect spending data by census tract. They calculate how much it costs to remove structures from the floodplain. So census tract data will have to be estimated manually – something that makes data-quality experts nervous.

8. Many neighborhoods outside Beltway 8 didn’t exist back in the 1930s. Beltway 8 didn’t even exist then. Nor did Lake Houston; the City began impounding water only in 1954.

9. The formula – designed to reduce flood damage – doesn’t measure flood damage.

10. So much data in this study won’t be directly comparable that I worry the authors won’t be able to highlight areas worthy of future investment. Final results will include compounded error on multiple levels. It doesn’t compare apples to apples; it compares apples to oranges, bananas, blueberries, cherries, strawberries, coconuts, Monty Python’s elderberries and more.

Questionable Validity

In fairness, I’m sure the final report, when it becomes available, would disclose these problems in an appendix or footnotes. But how many people dig into those? And who will “peer review” this study?

I have worked with market research my entire career and know the painstaking extents to which researchers go to ensure validity of their studies.

Validity has to do with accuracy. Are you really measuring what you purport to measure? For instance, is flood risk influenced ONLY by mitigation investment? Or is it ALSO influenced by other factors, such as:

The answer is a resounding YES to all those questions and more.

Good research studies typically measure the impact of one variable on another variable. For instance, in Harris County, what was the death rate last year among adults over 50 who contracted Covid among vaccinated and unvaccinated groups? Researchers carefully match the two groups being studied for factors such as randomness of subject recruitment, age, living situation, and history of other diseases. There is only one variable: vaccination. That way, they can tell whether the death rate varies among vaccinated people.

But the Flood Mitigation Benefit Index wasn’t designed with that kind of rigor. For example:

While purporting to compare ‘benefits’ of flood-mitigation to different areas, it doesn’t even employ pre- or post-measurements.

Further reducing comparability of results during the period studied:

  • Census tracts changed.
  • Population density changed.
  • Building codes changed.
  • Channels filled up with sediment, but maintenance won’t be measured.
  • AND the data does not measure street-flooding mitigation investments in almost HALF the county.

Because the flood-equity formula doesn’t control for such factors, we won’t know what caused variation in the results.

Formula Produces Inconsistent Results

The flood-equity formula does not even yield results that vary intuitively. For instance, when you hold population density and flood risk constant, but increase investment, the benefit goes up.

  • Example A: If Density = 5000, Risk = 10 and Investment = $100,000, then Benefit Index = 2
  • Example B: If Density = 5000, Risk = 10, and Investment = $1 million, then Benefit Index = 20

So, spending more money to get the same results increases benefits? Shouldn’t it be the opposite?

That’s both depressing and confusing. You spend 10X the money; flood risk remains the same; and the “benefit” increases!!!???

You would think spending less money to achieve identical results would be more beneficial. It certainly is for taxpayers.

Although the Task Force won’t admit it, the formula is really trying to prove “historical disinvestment,” a claim tossed around frequently in Task-Force and Commissioners Court meetings without data to back it up.

But if the goal is to protect the most people from future flooding, why not just invest in projects where the highest risk remains for the greatest number of people? Both of those are simple, unambiguous direct measurements. But those might not produce the results that the authors of this formula hope to get.

I believe we should look forward, not back, with our flood-mitigation dollars. We can’t change the past…whatever it was. We can only affect the future by what we do today.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/3/2022

1769 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.

Progress Report: Woodridge Village Excavation and Removal Contract

As of the end of June 2022, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) had removed 42,483 cubic yards of dirt from the Woodridge Village property in Montgomery County. The dirt is part of an excavation and removal (E&R) contract that allows removal of up to 500,000 cubic yards. That amount would double the floodwater detention capacity on the site and help reduce the risk of flooding in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest along Taylor Gully. Heavy rains in May and September of 2019 flooded approximately 600 homes in the area.

History of Project

Harris County purchased Woodridge with the City of Houston from Perry Homes in February 2021. At the time of purchase, the site had enough detention capacity to meet pre-Atlas 14 requirements in Montgomery County. But Atlas-14 requirements call for about 40% more. Hence the need to increase floodwater detention capacity.

Harris County Commissioners Court approved the contract with Sprint Sand and Clay on July 20, 2021. It obligates Sprint to remove at least 5000 cubic yards per month. Excavation started on January 27, 2022. Five months later, Sprint has removed 42,483 cubic yards, 17,000 cubic yards more than the minimum.

Sprint will excavate within red area.

Chronological Excavation Photos

Woodridge Village Before e&r contract
Looking NE at Woodridge Village before start.
Woodridge Village E&R contract
Start of E&R Contract on January 27, 2022. Tree Line on right is the Montgomery/Harris County Line. Harris is on right.
January 29, 2022
February 27, 2022

Woodridge Village E&R
March 28, 2022
April 30, 2022
May 22, 2022
June 13, 2022, 41,174 cubic yards of material removed from the site
June 30, 2022, 42,483 cubic yards of material removed

Excavation & Removal Contract

E&R contracts provide a head start on construction of detention basins before completion of their final design.

Sprint has agreed to remove up to half a million cubic yards of soil for only $1000. But it gets to sell the soil for a profit on the open market. This provides significant savings to taxpayers by minimizing trucking and disposal fees.

By contract, Sprint has up to 36 months. If Sprint continues removing dirt at the rate of about 8,000 cubic yards per month, they should remove another 248,000 cubic yards before the end of the contract term.

With the dirt already removed, that would only put them at 290,00 cubic yards at the end of three years. So at some point, Sprint will have to sprint to catch up if they want to remove all 500,00 cubic yards.

Future of Woodridge Village

The rate of removal will ultimately depend on developments in the housing market. The latest report by the Census Bureau shows housing starts in May 2022 were down 7% from April 2022, but still 0.2% ahead of May 2021.

An engineering study currently underway includes the Woodridge property. HCFCD has the flexibility to change the E&R contract if necessary to accommodate any design requirements that emerge from the study.

Community engagement should be scheduled soon to gather input from area residents on the proposed project and to present project alternatives.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/1/2022

1767 Days since Hurricane Harvey

June Construction Update: Six Lake-Houston-Area Projects

Here’s a construction update on six large Lake-Houston-Area construction projects, told in aerial photos and captions. All photos were taken on the last day of June, 2022. Dry weather created almost ideal conditions for construction with little risk of sediment-laden runoff. But as the tropics heat up, that could soon change.

High Street Residential

At West Lake Houston Parkway between Upper Lake Drive and Kings Park Way, High Street Residential has finished clearing 19.7 acres for an apartment complex. Now the company is constructing drainage and detention ponds. After that come utility installation; concrete for building pads and streets; and finally construction of the apartments.

High Street is a subsidiary of Trammell Crow, the Dallas-based developer with billions in assets. They are known for high-end work.

High Street Residential Property. Looking S across Upper Lake. West Lake Houston Parkway on right.
Looking S across middle of property. Could that be a detention pond in the middle?

Kingwood Middle School

As the new Kingwood Middle School nears completion, contractors have ripped up the parking lots and driveways of the old school in the foreground. During last week, contractors excavated a new detention pond (foreground below).

New detention pond in front of old school.

They moved the dirt to the old, temporary detention pond…and filled it in.

Old temporary detention pond adjacent to Cedar Knolls now filled and compacted.

Meanwhile, an army of contractors prepare the new school for its grand opening later this year.

Louvers on the south-facing, two-story window wall of the new school will help keep students from broiling in the Texas sun.

Humble ISD still lists the opening date for the new school as 2022. At this point, with access to the old school mostly blocked, there’s no turning back.

Laurel Springs RV Resort Construction Update

The Laurel Springs RV Resort opposite Lakewood Cove is still trying to grow grass in its half-sized detention pond…

Eight months after construction began, still very little grass on/in detention basin.

…while it lays more rebar and pours concrete.

Laying rebar for more acres of concrete.

The developer estimated that when complete, concrete would cover only two-thirds of the site. Get out the tape measure.

Preserve At Woodridge

The developer of the Preserve At Woodridge is beginning to lay rebar before pouring concrete for more roads and the last rows of houses. Contractors are also busy building a retaining wall around the detention pond. Since a TCEQ investigation, I have not caught them pumping any more silty water into Bens Branch. The developer also finally posted his permits, but still has not posted the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).

Contractors have approximately two thirds of the homes in various stages of completion.
They’re also starting to lay rebar for the remaining streets and homes on the last third of the site.

These will become rent homes, some as large as 668 SF on Woodridge Parkway between St. Martha Catholic Church and Kingwood Park High School. This developer also claims it will have 65% impervious cover…with homes as close together as four to five feet and 11 homes to the acre.

Note the retaining wall going up around the detention pond. And the lack of a silt fence protecting adjoining property.

TCEQ has not yet finalized its investigation into construction practices at this job site.

Royal Pines

At the north end of West Lake Houston Parkway, contractors have been clearing land for several months for a new subdivision called Royal Pines.

Corpses of once-Royal Pines
Contractors piled tree stumps two stories high at the entrance.

This land used to be owned by the Guniganti family, which also owns the Triple PG Sand Mine immediately to the east. The Texas Attorney General is suing Guniganti for more than a million dollars, for alleged violations of TCEQ regulations. That case, which began in October 2019 was still in discovery last week.

New Caney ISD West Fork High School Construction Update

South of Kingwood Medical Center on Sorters-McClellan Road, New Caney ISD’s West Fork High School is nearing completion.

Entrance and courtyard of new three-story high school. Looking south toward 59 bridge over West Fork.
Contractors widening Sorters-McClellan Road to accommodate high school traffic. Note new landscaping bordering road.
First things first. This IS Texas after all.

New Caney ISD posted a new web page about the high school. They’ve:

In a way, I envy these students starting out on their journey with a chance to start their own traditions.

Let’s hope this hurricane season doesn’t spoil the party. We’ll have another construction update next month, featuring other projects.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/30/2022

1766 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.

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,
Bar graph of table above.

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.

Location of front on Monday.

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.

Invest 94L

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.

94L is in lower right.

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.