Forestar Real Estate Group, Inc., one of the nation’s leading developers, is clearing land south of FM2090 opposite Splendora High School for a new residential development called Splendora Crossing. Forestar solicited bids for clearing Phase 1 in June 2021 and Phase 2 in September 2021. Aerial photos indicate clearing activity beyond Phase 2 is likely related. However, I can find no plans and can’t verify that. Montgomery County has not yet responded to my Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request.
Together, the cleared areas will comprise approximately 1160 acres and stretch approximately 1.5 miles along FM2090.
Estimate based on Aerial Photos, Plans and Google Earth
Plans for Phases I, 2 and beyond. Note: more clearing is already underway to the left/west of the western property boundary. See pictures below.
The Way It Was
The area in question was heavily forested.
Approximate location of new development.
Gully Branch runs through the middle of it and joins Peach Creek farther east near US59.
FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer shows a substantial 100-year flood plain along Gully Branch running through the middle of the property based on a pre-Atlas 14 study in 2014.
Peach Creek runs down the western side of Lake Houston Park and joins Caney Creek and the East Fork San Jacinto at East End Park in Kingwood.
The Way It Is
Contractors already have constructed two large detention ponds and a drainage/detention ditch on the property that fronts FM2090. The ditch parallels Gully Branch and will likely shrink the floodplain. Contractors used dirt from the ditches and ponds to elevate areas where homes will go.
Looking east along FM2090 at eastern portion of new development.Note Splendora High School in upper left.
On the western section, clearing extends about a half mile south of the road. See the picture below.
Looking SW at western portion. FM2090 snakes out of view in the upper right.It’s not clear how big the area in the distance is. I could not find plans.
Closer shot of western section. Note large detention pond in western section and Gully Branch cutting across drainage channels.
Looking south at Phase 2 Burn Pit and area still being cleared.
Close up of detention pond on eastern section. Looking east. Splendora High School is in upper left.
Looking SE. Construction roads are already snaking into forest.
Looking west along FM2090.
TCEQ permit sign on eastern portion of site.I did not see one posted on western portion.
Unlike Woodridge Village, this developer seems to be building detention during clearing rather than afterwards. That’s a good sign. More news to follow as it becomes available.
Update: A FOIA Request to Montgomery County revealed that there are actually two developers working on this land. For more on this story and to learn about the drainage impact of the development, see this post.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/8/2022 and updated on 1/15/2022
1593 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/2022/01/20220106-DJI_0326.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2022-01-08 13:04:192022-01-16 09:00:00More Than 1,000 Acres Being Cleared South of Splendora High School
On January 6, the Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus in the first of two lawsuits over the Harris County Ellis-3 redistricting plan. The Ellis-3 plan completely flipped Precincts 3 and 4 while altering the boundaries of both. The likely end result will be a 4-1 Democratic supermajority in the next election. A supermajority would let commissioners shift flood-bond funds around at will.
Mandamus is a judicial order commanding another court or person to perform a specific duty. In this case, Commissioners Cagle, Ramsey and their supporters requested the court to order Lina Hidalgo to stop the Ellis-3 Plan from moving forward.
File photo of Harris County Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis who is at the center of this controversy.
Central Issue At Stake
The central issue in the case was whether 1.1 million people had their voting rights denied or delayed by the Ellis-3 plan. The Texas Supreme Court recognized the inevitable problem of preserving (or minimizing disruption to) voting rights in staggered elections when redistricting.
“To be abundantly clear, by denying the petition today, we do not dispute that the constitutional issue Relators raise is a serious question that warrants this Court’s full consideration when properly presented. We do not prejudge the outcome.“
Basis for Denial
However, in denying the writ of mandamus, the judges cited:
A delay in filing the initial appeal after the District Court dismissed the suit. Filing for the election had already begun. The judges said, “Avoidable delays, in particular, may be fatal to the courts’ ability to proceed at all.”
The need to describe “with precision how any relief will affect that election and the larger structure of our state’s election machinery.” And “…a party who asks a court to take action that could disrupt the election calendar after the election process has begun has the duty to explain the practical consequences…”
Regarding the second point, the Justices wrote, “Relators claim to be in possession of an alternative map that lawfully redraws precincts without excluding any voter from consecutive county-commissioner elections. This map was not presented to the commissioners court, the district court, the Respondents, or this Court, and it is unclear how this map could become law.”
Justices Blacklock and Young wrote in delivering the opinion of the Texas Supreme Court that, “Expedition and precision in requesting relief help ensure that courts can never be converted, willingly or otherwise, into a partisan tool for one side or the other. Those requirements reduce the incentives for partisan adversaries to lie in wait with lawsuits that create chaos. To be clear, we do not charge Relators here with any such intention. We simply note that the rules are demanding because such conduct would otherwise go undeterred.”
Sets No Blanket Precedent
“We emphasize that our inability to address the merits of this petition on the eve of the election—because of the timing and nature-of-relief problems discussed above does not by any means establish that there is never any judicial relief that could be given,” said the ruling.
The Justices then spent several pages exploring questions about how judicial interference would affect the machinery of an election already in progress. “To be abundantly clear, by denying the petition today, we do not dispute that the constitutional issue Relators raise is a serious question that warrants this Court’s full consideration when properly presented.” The Justices just didn’t feel there were enough specifics in this case to let them do so.
Not a Summary Judgement
Significantly, the Texas Supreme Court said, “We deny the petition for writ of mandamus, but we do not do so lightly or summarily. Our decision implies no endorsement, affirmation, or other view of the redrawn map of precincts challenged here. Nor do we suggest that mandamus would never be an appropriate vehicle to resolve this question or ones like it. Our narrow holding is that this mandamus petition, under the circumstances we describe below, cannot go forward under settled precedents that sharply limit judicial authority to intervene in ongoing elections.”
Second Lawsuit Still Pending in Lower Court
A second lawsuit by former commissioner Steve Radack is still pending in the Harris County 190th Civil Court. That suit alleges the Ellis-3 plan should be invalidated because it was sprung on people at the last minute without sufficient public notice. The Texas Open Meetings Act demands a minimum of 72 hours notice.
But the Ellis-3 plan was posted online only minutes before the meeting in which the plan was approved. In that meeting, 94 members of the public signed up to speak. Not one of them mentioned the Ellis-3 plan. The first mention of Ellis-3 in the transcript is when commissioners started debating plans.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Ellis-1.jpg?fit=912%2C518&ssl=1518912adminadmin2022-01-07 13:08:532022-01-08 11:13:14Texas Supreme Court Denies Petition for Mandamus in Harris County Redistricting Lawsuit
Some say that mining sand from our rivers and flood plains is the price of progress.
Looking westat part of Hallett Mine Complex bisected by the West Fork of San Jacinto. Photographed 1/1/22.The pond in the middle foreground is part of another abandoned mine adjacent to Hallett.
Pros and Cons
Sand has its benefits. We need it to make concrete. And we need concrete to accommodate a growing population. And a growing population creates income for builders, tradesmen and other businesses.
But mining sand also has several downsides. It alters the environment on a large scale. Wildlife lose habitat. Erosion increases. The sediment can contribute to flooding by forming dams and reducing conveyance downstream. Water quality also suffers. These are global problems.
Out of Sight. Out of Time. Out of Mind.
Sand mining mostly takes place in floodplains along rivers. Because our terrain offers no elevated viewpoints, the only way to see the mines is from the air. So for the vast majority of people, they’re out of sight, out of mind and, as a consequence, we’re out of time. More than 20 square miles of sand mines already border the San Jacinto West Fork between I-45 and I-69.
The Hallett mine complex in Porter and an adjacent abandoned mine now stretch 3 miles north to south and 2 miles east to west. And Hallett is just one of several such complexes on the West Fork.
New Best Management Practices recently adopted by the TCEQ for sand mining will help in the future. But much damage has already been done.
Where Do We Go From Here?
It’s time to start a conversation about the price of progress. How do we restore this land to another useful purpose in the long run? And who should pay for that?
Looking south from farther west at the end of the pond mentioned above. Note outfall to river, top left. Also note recent repairs to Hallett dike, bottom right.
Looking east across abandoned mine complex to left of river, which flows from bottom to top. New Northpark Woods subdivision is in upper left.Part of Hallett mine is on right.
Satellite photo from 2020 courtesy of Google Earth showing Hallett and adjacent abandoned mines.
The Long-Term Question
What do you do with an area this large when miners finish?
Do the ponds turn into recreational amenities and parks? (Not when left like those in the third photo!)
Who will plant grass and trees?
What do you do with the old equipment?
How do you turn these areas into detention ponds?
Who maintains them? (Montgomery County doesn’t even have a flood control district.)
What happens to bordering neighborhoods if rivers decide to reroute themselves through the pits?
Lots of questions. Little consensus.
When you start out to create a detention pond, it’s easy to plan recreation around it. But when the primary goal is mining, the end result can be dangerous, i.e., banks that cave in after miners walk away or kids playing on abandoned equipment.
Abandoned dredge at abandoned Humble mine on north Houston Avenuehas been there since Harvey. Area is unfenced.
Rusting processing equipment left at same abandoned Humble minenear West Fork.This is between a driving range and a paintball park.
The new Best Management Practices do not require miners to post a performance bond that would ensure cleanup and conversion to a suitable post-mining use.
In some areas, city and county governments make arrangements with miners to take over abandoned mines. That seems like a decent idea to me. That may be the price of progress.
We need dialog on this issue – unless we’re willing to let private industry turn our rivers into eyesores.
Posted by Bob Rehak
1591 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/2022/01/20211231-DJI_0289.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2022-01-06 15:37:092022-01-06 15:50:13Price of Progress?
Former Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Steve Radack filed a redistricting lawsuit on New Years Eve last week. This lawsuit comes hot on the heels of a previous lawsuit by Commissioners Jack Cagle, Tom Ramsey and their supporters. That lawsuit is now in the Texas Supreme Court. Here’s an overview of where both cases stand. The fate of flood mitigation in Harris County could hang in the balance.
File photo from 2021 of Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis whose redistricting plan sparked two lawsuits.
Radack Lawsuit Alleges Lack of Sufficient Public Notice
The Radack lawsuit alleges that County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia passed a redistricting plan without providing sufficient public notice.
Radack claims that constitutes a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA). TOMA requires that members of the public must have 72 hours notice of provisions being considered, but the Ellis-3 redistricting plan was posted on the day of the meeting in which it was approved. The public had virtually no advance notice of the plan, and thus, no opportunity to comment on it. People first learned of the plan when Ellis rolled it out in the meeting during which he, Garcia and Hidalgo approved it.
The lawsuit further alleges that:
Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia planned the surprise in advance.
Their plan makes it impossible for Jack Cagle to get re-elected.
It will give Democrats a 4-1 supermajority.
Failure to timely post notice of the plan invalidates the vote on it.
In violating TOMA, Lina Hidalgo overstepped her authority and therefore does not enjoy governmental immunity.
A supermajority would give Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia the power to shift flood-bond dollars around at will.
Radack filed his lawsuit on December 31st. The county clerk posted it on her website on Monday, January 3rd. The case landed in the 190th Court where Judge Beau Miller presides.
Hidalgo, Ellis and Christian Menafee, the County Attorney, issued public denials on Tuesday’s evening news. However, they have not yet filed a formal response to Radack’s lawsuit with the court.
Hidalgo Files Response to Cagle/Ramsey Suit Pending in Supreme Court
In that case, Hidalgo filed a 185-page response on December 30th to the plaintiffs’ charges. Hidalgo contends that:
The county did not violate voting rights because when you redistrict precincts with staggered terms, voting rights for some will always be delayed but not permanently denied.
The court has no way to evaluate whether Harris County went “way beyond” what was necessary to redistrict
Plaintiffs in this case also filed a request for an expedited ruling. To affect the next election without delaying it, a ruling would reportedly have to come sometime in January.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/5/2022
1590 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/20210209-Screen-Shot-2021-02-09-at-5.16.24-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C669&ssl=16691200adminadmin2022-01-05 07:58:132022-01-08 11:01:20Former Commissioner Radack Files Second Redistricting Lawsuit; Hidalgo Responds to First
Ever wonder where your tax and flood-bond dollars go? Harris County Flood Control District shows all its active projects on one page. You can review those projects in tabular form or on a map. You can even click on links to learn more about each project. Or explore it in depth by going to its related “watershed” page.
Active maintenance (orange) and capital (purple) flood mitigation projects in Harris Countyas of 1/4/22 shown against backdrop of precinct boundaries adopted on 10/28/21.Purple = P1, Green = P2, Red = P3, Yellow = P4.
Paragon of Transparency
HCFCD’s Active Projects page is a paragon of government transparency. You can even switch out base maps to see where the projects fall in terms of the old or new precinct boundaries approved on October 28, 2021.
One side benefit of the two base maps is that they give you a clear, unambiguous view of the redistricting boundaries.
Zoom far enough in on the map and you can even see your street, home, and the drainage features around you (streams, channels, storm sewers, etc).
Physically seeing work in progress is difficult. Construction zones are dangerous and often fenced off or hidden behind trees. They’re also so large that seeing them from an entrance at ground level is almost impossible.
The good news: the projects almost always include hike and bike trails, like the one below, which you can enjoy upon completion.
However, if you want to monitor work in progress, your best bet is a drone.
Good News from Commissioners Court Today
Commissioner Tom Ramsey introduced a motion to affirm Commissioners’ intentions to complete all projects in the flood bond. Despite several previous attempts to cancel projects and change bond priorities, commissioners voted unanimously to complete the entire bond package. Ramsey will be the new commissioner for the Lake Houston Area if the Ellis-3 redistricting plan survives court challenges. See the sprawling red area on the map above.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/4/2022
1589 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/HCFCD-Actived-Project-Map-12.21.jpg?fit=1200%2C793&ssl=17931200adminadmin2022-01-04 16:43:232022-01-04 16:48:56How to Find HCFCD’s Active Projects in Your Area
The Preserve at Woodridge is a novel single-family-home rental development going in off Woodridge Parkway between St. Martha Church and Kingwood Park High School. As with Woodridge Village, on the other side of the high school, the developer claimed the property was in no known flood zone. Even though it’s just outside the pre-Atlas 14 flood zones for Ben’s Branch, those zones are based on 40% less rainfall than the current standard for the Kingwood Area.
The Developer’s plansshow this note about floodplains on virtually every page.Atlas 14 was implemented in 2018.
A major drainage ditch also runs along one side of the development and contributes to flooding along Northpark Drive almost annually. I owned property on the other side of that ditch for 20 years and can attest to frequent flooding.
And even though runoff calculations are based on Atlas 14 estimates, those estimates are based on Conroe’s rainfall which gets about 10% less than Kingwood (48 vs. 53 inches).
The ditch in question was developed for what is now the high school. The earliest photo of it in Google Earth dates to 1995. Around 2008, the ditch was extended to handle drainage from Woodridge Forest. The developer’s plans do not specify the capacity of the ditch as far as I can see.
Hundreds of homeowners next to Woodridge Village in Elm Grove, North Kingwood Forest, Sherwood Trails and Porter subsequently flooded twice in May and September of 2019. They wound up suing Perry Homes, its subsidiaries and contractors, including LJA. Those cases recently settled.
The area immediately south of the Preserve at Woodridge includes approximately 40 businesses along Northpark Drive, the high school, St. Martha’s school, two churches, and dozens of homes in North Woodland Hills.
Let’s hope the engineers got this one right. Claiming “no floodplains” based on pre-Atlas 14 data and an old ditch whose level of service has diminished over time does not inspire confidence. How do they know for sure it won’t flood? But that’s not the only worry.
Rental Homes As Small as Studio Apartments
Guefen, the developer says it plans to build 131 homes on the 17 acres you see below. But the detention pond takes up five acres. That makes about 11 homes per acre of usable land with about 5 feet between many homes. You can see how close they are in the photo below.
First foundations going in (lower left). Photo taken on 12/31/2021.
Reverse angle shot shows 5 acre detention pond on 17 acre development. Ditch in foreground joins Ben’s Branch north of Northpark Drive.
Foundation forms in NW corner of subdivision along Woodridge Parkway.See corresponding plans below.Note how three of these homes could fit in the back yard of the home in the upper right corner of the photo.
Five of the eight homes above will have access only by sidewalks, not streets.
The same holds true for most of the homes in the subdivision.
In case of an emergency, that firetruck may be parking 250 feet away from some homes. That’s almost the length of a football field.
According to RentCafe.com, the average size of an apartment in Houston is 881 square feet. These detached rental homes will range in size from 668 square feet to 1,255 square feet. At the low end of that range, the square footage is about that of most studio apartments. For those of you who have never lived in one, a studio apartment hasone big common area that triples as a living room, bedroom, and kitchen. Only the bathroom has walls.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/3/22
1588 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/2022/01/20211231-DJI_0273.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2022-01-03 19:47:362022-01-04 07:37:53Preserve At Woodridge Claims No Flood Zone; Shades of LJA?
It’s always nice to start the new year by looking at the big picture. And big pictures don’t get much bigger than this. The image below comes from NOAA’s Global Data Explorer. It shows sea surface temperature anomalies in the Pacific and Atlantic. Reds show areas with warmer than normal temperatures. Blues are cooler.
Sea surface temperature anomalies from 12/20/21 to 12/26/21. Source: NOAA.
Degrees of Variation
The dark red areas are a whopping 4-5 degrees Celsius above normal. The dark blues are 3-4 degrees Celsius below normal. It takes 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit to equal 1 degree Celsius. So in terms of the temperature scale that most people in the US use, that’s up to 9 degrees warmer and 7.2 degrees cooler – a 16.2 degree spread.
This helps to explain the record warm December we just had. Houston is in that band of red that stretches across the northern hemisphere. Also notice how red the Gulf of Mexico is.
According to the EPA, an increase in sea surface temperatures can lead to an increase in the amount of atmospheric water vapor over the oceans. “This water vapor feeds weather systems that produce precipitation, increasing the risk of heavy rain and snow.” And we just had extreme snowfalls from the Sierras to the Rockies.
Role of Ocean Currents
Ocean currents help distribute this moisture around the world. According to NOAA, “almost all rain that falls on land starts off in the ocean.”
“Ocean currents act much like a conveyor belt, transporting warm water and precipitation from the equator toward the poles and cold water from the poles back to the tropics,” says NOAA. “Thus, ocean currents regulate global climate, helping to counteract the uneven distribution of solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface. Without currents in the ocean, regional temperatures would be more extreme—super hot at the equator and frigid toward the poles—and much less of Earth’s land would be habitable.”
Cyclical Variation
Sea surface temperatures vary in cyclical, but irregular patterns (roughly every 3-6 years). Right now, we are under the influence of a La Niña pattern, that recurs every few years and can last as long as two years. This page on NOAA’s site explains what causes the changes. They often start with ocean currents veering off course for a period of time or stronger than normal trade winds.
To compensate for the potential shortfall, Commissioners established a flood-resilience trust with money from other Harris County departments and changed equity guidelines in June.
To help you follow this story, I make quarterly FOIA requests for Harris County Flood Control District spending and post the analyses on a dedicated funding page.
Sand-Mining Best Management Practices
Activists led by the Lake Houston Area Flood Prevention Initiative and the Bayou Land Conservancy petitioned the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to establish best management practices for sand mines in the San Jacinto watershed. We didn’t get everything we wanted, but we got a vast improvement over what we had. And the new BMPs may help reduce erosion that contributes to future floods in this area.
West Fork Sand Mine illustrates need for vegetative controls to reduce erosion.
May 9, 2021, was 1349 days after Hurricane Harvey ravaged Texas and the Gulf Coast. That’s the number of days it took the US and its allies to win World War II. But during that time we’ve had few victories in the fight against future flooding in the Lake Houston Area with the exception of dredging, So far, we’ve mainly completed studies. And many of those are still in the works.
For instance, the City of Houston has been studying ways to increase the release capacity of the Lake Houston Dam. Right now, the release capacity is one-fifteenth that of the gates on Lake Conroe. That makes it difficult to shed water quickly before and during floods. FEMA gave the City money to study the problem, but is still finalizing recommendations. The City hopes to make an announcement in January.
The Texas Attorney General is still suing the Triple PG Sand Mine in Porter on behalf of the TCEQ. There has been little movement on the case in the last 18 months. The mine’s owner changed legal counsel in July 2020. A TCEQ representative says the AG has not given up. The two sides are still in discovery.
Approximately 1700 homeowners in the Lake Houston Area sued sand mines for contributing to flooding during Harvey. The cases were consolidated in the 281st Harris County District Court under Judge Sylvia Matthews. She recently set deadlines in the first half of next year for motions, depositions, joinder, expert witness testimony and more. The case is known as “Harvey Sand Litigation.”
Various lawsuits against the SJRA for flooding during Harvey are still working their way through the legal system.
Kingwood residents reached a settlement with Perry Homes, its subsidiaries and contractors this year over two floods that damaged hundreds of homes in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest during 2019. The incidents had to do with development of Woodridge Village, just across the Harris/Montgomery County line.
East Fork Dredging. Photographed in early December between Huffman and Royal Shores in Kingwood.Looking south toward Lake Houston.
Bens Branch and Taylor Gully Cleanouts
In Kingwood, HCFCD finished excavating both Bens Branch and Taylor Gully to help restore their conveyance. Through gradual sediment built up, both had been gradually reduced to a 2-year level of service in places. That means they would come out of their banks after a 2-year rain.
Final phase of Bens Branch maintenance between Kingwood Drive and Rocky Woods. Note Kingwood High School in upper right.
GMA-14 will take a final vote on January 5 on the final DFCs. You still have time to protest.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/31/2021
1585 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/20210303-RJR_5778.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-12-31 10:48:382021-12-31 11:09:51Top Stories of 2021 in Review
A myth being promulgated in Harris County Commissioners Court and certain low-to-moderate income (LMI) watersheds these days goes something like this:
The FEMA Benefit/Cost Ratio (used to rank grant applications for flood-mitigation projects) favors high-dollar homes.
That disadvantages less affluent, inner-city neighborhoods compared to more affluent suburbs.
Therefore, less affluent neighborhoods get no help and the more affluent neighborhoods get it all.
This post busts that myth. But it won’t stop activists from demanding more “equity.”
If you look at all flood-mitigation spending in Harris County since 2000, on average, less affluent watersheds already receive 4.7X more partner funding per watershed than their more affluent counterparts.
Analysis of data obtained via FOIA request
Myth Ignores Other Factors, Frequently Leaps to Wrong Conclusions
Like much of political discourse these days, the myth focuses on a narrow sliver of truth, ignores other factors, and frequently leaps to the wrong conclusions.
An analysis of Harris County Flood Control District data going back to the start of this century shows how far off the myth can be.
Today, I focus on partner grants because they represent such a huge percentage of the flood-bond budget and because there is so much misinformation floating around about them.
And I will look at partner funding from the standpoint of outcomes, not just processes (as in the myth).
Methodology for Analysis
For this analysis I obtained Harris County Flood Control District spending data between 1/1/2000 and 9/31/2021 via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. I requested the data by watershed, decade, pre-/Post Harvey, source of funding (local vs. partner), and type of activity (i.e., engineering, right-of-way acquisition, construction and more). I cross-referenced this with other data such as flood-damaged structures, population, population density, and percentage of low-to-moderate income (LMI) residents.
When considering grants, the percentage of LMI residents in a watershed takes on special significance. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants often require high percentages of LMI residents in the area under consideration.
In the charts below, you will see references to watersheds with LMI populations above and below 50%. Above 50% means more than half the residents in the watershed have an income LESS THAN the average for the region. Below 50% means more than half the residents earn more than the regional average.
Harris County has 23 watersheds. Eight have LMI percentages above 50% (less affluent). Fifteen have LMI percentages below 50% (more affluent).
When reviewing the charts below, pay particular attention to the italicized words: Total, Partner, and On Average. They represent three different ways to look at the same question: Do housing values disadvantage an area when applying for grants?
For this analysis, I focused only on the long term, since decisions on more than a billion dollars in flood-bond grants are still outstanding.
FOIA Analysis Contradicts the Popular Myth
One of the first things you notice when you look at watersheds above and below 50% LMI, is that the eight least affluent watersheds have gotten more than 60% of all dollars actually spent on flood mitigation since 2000.
Less affluent watersheds, despite being half as numerous, received 60% of all dollars since 2000.
Because the allegation was that partnership grants favored affluent areas, I then analyzed whether partner dollars went mostly to affluent or less-affluent watersheds. The answer is less affluent…overwhelmingly.
More than 70% of all partner dollars in the last 22 years went to the eight less-affluent watersheds.
The last observation by itself is telling. But because of the widely different number of watersheds in each group, I also wanted to calculate the average partner dollars per watershed in each group. This blows the “rich neighborhoods get all the grants” argument to pieces. Less affluent watersheds got, on average, 4.7X more.
Dividing the total partner dollars by the number of watersheds in each group shows that less affluent watersheds average 4.7X more than affluent ones.
This busts the myth. But digging even deeper into the data reveals two things: wide variation between sources of funding and withinLMI groupings.
USACE Funding Skews Partner Totals
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) accounts for much of the partner funding. USACE has provided significant funding for projects in the Sims, Brays, White Oak, Hunting, and Greens Bayou watersheds. The Clear Creek watershed will also soon see work on a new USACE project. USACE has completed its planning process and proved positive benefits to national economic development. That made projects worthy of Federal investment.
Halls Bayou: Digging Deeper
The Halls Bayou watershed also went through the USACE planning process, but the results did not show enough flood-damage-reduction benefits to outweigh the costs of the proposed projects. Thus, the Halls Bayou watershed currently has no USACE-funded projects.
Despite that, Halls has received more partner funding than 16 other watersheds since 2000. Only two watersheds in the affluent group of 15 received more partner funding. See the table below.
Total and partner spending by watershed since 2000 arranged in order of highest to lowest LMI percentages.
USACE also evaluated the more affluent Buffalo Bayou; results showed that costs outweighed the flood-damage-reduction benefits there.
Despite Halls having the highest percentage of LMI residents in Harris County, Halls has received more total funding and 2.5X more partner funding than Buffalo Bayou in the more affluent group.
FEMA Considers More than Home Values, Not All Grants Come From FEMA
While it’s true that FEMA considers housing values as a factor in benefit/cost ratios, benefit/cost ratios (BCRs) also consider factors such as:
The number of structures damaged
Threats to infrastructure
Proximity to employment centers
Need for economic revitalization
Percentage of low-to-moderate income residents in an area
Number of structures that can be removed from the floodplain by a project.
USACE funds dozens of different types of flood-mitigation programs. Many support national defense, the national economy, strategic interests, the environment, commerce and navigation.
So don’t settle for soundbites. They often mislead.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/30/2021
1584 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Screen-Shot-2021-12-29-at-4.53.47-PM.png?fit=1366%2C740&ssl=17401366adminadmin2021-12-29 21:28:052021-12-30 14:37:20Equity Myth Buster: “Rich Neighborhoods Get All the Flood-Mitigation Funding”
Making conclusions based on hearsay or a glance at a chart could be self-defeating. There is more to the story.
Partner Funds Make It All Possible
We anticipated 43% of the dollars in the flood bond would come from partners such as FEMA, HUD and the TWDB. We also anticipated it would take another 16% in local matching funds to attract the 43%. So 59% of the flood bond revolved around partner funds. Only 41% was local cash to pay for projects totally out of pocket.
From the project spreadsheet approved by voters in 2018.
Excluding Partner Funds Could Accelerate Construction in LMI Neighborhoods, Deny Others
David Berry, the County Administrator, proposed the partnership exclusion to accelerate construction of projects in Low-to-Moderate Income (LMI) watersheds, such as Halls. Halls, in particular, has waited on grant awards from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) longer than most.
A HUD decision is expected sometime in January, according to the Texas General Land Office, which distributes HUD grants in Texas. So it’s not clear how much residents gain by Berry’s proposal. And they could lose big.
Most of the HUD grant applications for Halls are on a 90:10 basis, meaning the local share is only 10%. So excluding these grants means increasing the local contribution for that portion of the budget by 9X. That could cost local taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. For instance, HCFCD budgeted $500 million for Halls drainage alone. 90% of that is $450 million…to cover 2.4% of the county!
The effect would be to take money from affluent watersheds – which don’t qualify for HUD 90:10 grants – and shift it to LMI watersheds. No one then would get the grants and something would have to give somewhere down the road.
One Third of Way Through Flood Bond: Good Time to Take Stock
At the end of this month, exactly one third (3 years, 4 months) of the 10-year flood bond will have expired. So this is a good time to review spending versus projections.
Thirty-three percent of the way in, we’ve expended a little more than 16% of the flood-bond funds. While that may sound like a slow start, one must consider project lifecycles. Projects start with studies (feasibility, preliminary engineering, final engineering, design). These determine and validate cost projections. They also form the basis for grant applications, a plan and bids. But they are the least expensive part of a project. Together, they comprise only one eighth of project costs.
The expensive parts follow. They include right of way acquisition and construction. Those comprise more than three-quarters of all project costs. See the pie chart below which shows averages for the last two decades.
Average percent of costs in various project stages since 2000. ROW (Right of Way) Acquisition includes purchase of land upon which projects will be built.
For most flood-bond projects, we’re just now getting to the expensive phases. So I wouldn’t worry too much about that 16% overall average right now.
Spent/Unspent Funds by Watershed Gives Greater Insight
You can gain more insight by looking at spent and unspent dollars in each watershed.
Height of bars shows total amount budgeted per watershed in flood bond. Blue areas show dollars spent to date. Does not include any funds spent prior to flood bond.
From the charts above and below, you can see that spending rates vary widely among watersheds. Brays has consumed 57% of its budget already. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Sims has consumed just 1.6% of its. Why the wide variation?
To understand, we need to look at unique circumstances in each watershed. The chart below makes it easier to see actual spending as a percent of the budget that voters approved for each watershed in the flood bond.
Percentages represent the portion of budget spent to date. See discussion below for explanations of ranks.
The height of some of the bars above could be “predicted” by referring to the flood bond equity prioritization framework. Brays and Greens Bayous, for instance, are two watersheds with high percentages of LMI residents (58% and 57% respectively).
But others cannot. More than half the residents in Goose Creek/Spring Gully, Hunting, White Oak, Halls, Vince and Sims Watersheds also qualify as LMI. But dollars spent to date in those watersheds are far lower as a percent of the total budget. To see why, you need to put the numbers in a bigger context that includes:
Investment Prior to Flood Bond
Size of Total Budget for Each Watershed
Percentage of Partner Funds
Grant Application Status
Stage of Project Lifecycle
Bigger Context Shows Reasons for Variance
Brays and Greens had a large number of shovel-ready projects that had already been studied and approved when the flood bond passed. They were just waiting for dollars to become available. So they had head starts.
Other factors explain LMI watersheds further down the curve:
Sims received $380 million in federal funding for 23 Army Corps projects that finished construction by 2015. As a result, Sims was the only bayou in Harris County that stayed within its banks during Harvey. None of that spending shows up in the Bond Program charts. Because it’s already done!
White Oak received full funding in the Bi-Partisan Budget Act of 2018. The Army Corps also started addressing many projects there before the flood bond.
Vince lies wholly within the City of Pasadena and is primarily the City’s responsibility.
Halls is the poorest watershed (71% LMI) and has only spent 6% of its projected budget to date. Lest you attribute this to racism, understand that the bond allocated more than HALF A BILLION DOLLARS to Halls. In percentage terms, the $29 million dollars spent to date looks small. But in absolute dollars, it outranks 15 other watersheds.
Far more affluent watersheds – such as Buffalo Bayou, Cedar Bayou, the San Jacinto River, Barker, Willow Creek, Armand Bayou, Galveston, Luce Bayou and Jackson Bayou – have each received fewer dollars from the flood bond than Halls.
HCFCD had just finished a watershed plan for Halls Bayou in 2018 when the flood bond passed. That explains the size of the watershed budget as well as the late start compared to Brays, White Oak, Greens, and Sims.
Other factors also explain affluent watersheds further up the spending curve, such as Little Cypress. HCFCD started working on that watershed long before the flood bond, too. Dollars spent to date on Little Cypress primarily reflect right-of-way acquisition costs, not construction. It’s also important to understand that the total budget for Little Cypress is only 37% of the total budget for Halls.
Creating a Win-Win For Everyone
In another three years and four months, these charts will look totally different than the ones you see today. Construction costs will surge for some and be long gone in the rear view mirror for others.
In my opinion, we need to stop creating chaos with endless tinkering in the bond program. The people have spoken. Leaders should listen. Let’s stop changing the allocation formula, focus on construction, and work like hell to win those grants. Then everybody wins.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/28/2021
1582 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Flood-Bond-Allocation.jpg?fit=1200%2C804&ssl=18041200adminadmin2021-12-27 20:18:272021-12-28 13:28:32“Excluding” Partner Funds Could Lead to Shortfalls in Flood-Mitigation Funding
