New Interactive Maps Show Flood Insurance Premium Changes With Risk Rating 2.0

Starting Oct. 1, FEMA’s new Risk Rating 2.0 will fundamentally change the way FEMA rates a property’s flood risk and prices insurance premiums. But to what extent will that affect premium changes in your area?

To help answer that question, the American Society of Flood Plain Managers (ASFPM) and The Pew Charitable Trusts recently unveiled new interactive maps. They show exactly where flood insurance premiums will decrease, increase, or remain the same — and by how much.

Risk Rating 2.0 incorporates more flood risk data to more accurately reflect a property’s individual flood risk. Types of data include:

  • Frequency and types of flooding (river overflow, storm surge, coastal erosion, heavy rainfall)
  • Distance to a water source
  • Property characteristics ( elevation, cost to rebuild).

Visual Tools Make Data More Accessible

ASFPM developed the interactive maps to help local leaders better communicate what’s occurring in their communities, but it’s also easy enough for an average person to grasp. 

“There is a fair amount of information available on Risk Rating 2.0. But getting that data out of spreadsheets is challenging. This new tool should help,” said Chad Berginnis, ASFPM’s executive director.

“Floods are this nation’s most frequent and costly natural disasters. And the trends are worsening. It’s important that people know their risk and buy flood insurance to help protect their homes and businesses. It’s equally important that communities take steps to minimize flood risk,” said Berginnis.

ASFPM used datasets from FEMA’s NFIP policyholder information to create the easy-to-use data visualization tool. The data are broken down across four categories. They range from a decrease in premiums to an increase of $20/month or more. A color-coded scale indicates the percentage of policyholders in each category.

Interactive Maps Show Premium Changes By State, Zip

The first interactive map at no.floods.org/rr2changes breaks down projected premium changes for each state and territory.

There are also two interactive maps by zip code:

The data compares a snapshot of policyholder premiums from May 31, 2020 with Risk Rating 2.0 premiums, applying statutory increase limits.

The comparison does not attempt to estimate premium increases that might have occurred without the new Risk Rating 2.0 pricing methodology.

This data won’t tell you what will happen to your premiums. But it will give you a rough idea of the percentages of people in your zip code who can expect increases within certain pricing brackets. The brackets include:

  • Decreases
  • Increases in the $0 to $10/month range
  • Increases in the $10 to $20/month range
  • Increases in the $20+/month range

Zip Codes in Lake Houston Area

The maps for local zip codes showed that the vast majority of all local policies in the Lake Houston area will increase between $0 and $10 per month.

The vast majority of policies in the upper Lake Houston area will see monthly increases of less than $10. This includes homes and businesses.

Clicking on the other tabs at the bottom of the map will show you the percentage of policies that fall into other ranges.

Very few people in these zip codes will see decreases. Almost everyone else will see increases greater than $10 or $20/month.

Looking only at increases for Single-Family-Home policies, about 90% of policies should see a monthly increase in the $0-10 range.

The maps contain far more detail than shown above. When you click on a zip code, areas surrounding the map and within the black pop-up box, display the data in tabular and graphic formats. Make sure you scroll through the data in the black pop-up box. It breaks the highest and lowest categories down into far more brackets. For instance, the $20+ category actually includes brackets up to $90-$100/per month.

Individual policyholders should contact their insurance agent for a personalized quote.

Use this data for comparison purposes to make sure you’re not overpaying. But remember, variations such as your proximity to water, first floor elevation, and the replacement value of your home could skew results from the average in your zip code.

The largest increases in the Houston area will be in Pasadena’s 77507 zip code. More that 50% of the policy holders there will see a $20+/month increase.

First Pricing Update in 40 Years

This is the program’s first pricing update in more than 40 years. 

“Under Risk Rating 2.0, FEMA is fixing longstanding inequities in the NFIP’s flood insurance pricing and establishing a system that is better equipped for the reality of frequent flooding caused by climate change,” said David Maurstad, senior executive of the National Flood Insurance Program. “Risk Rating 2.0 is not just a minor improvement, but a transformational leap forward that enables FEMA to set rates that are fairer and ensures rate increases and decreases are both equitable.”

According to FEMA, only 4% of policyholders nationwide are expected to see substantive increases. In a national rate analysis of current policyholders, FEMA has said:

  • 23% will see premium decreases
  • 66% will see, on average, premium increases of $0-$10/month (which is around what the average is now)
  • 7% will see, on average, premium increases of $10-$20/month
  • 4% will see, on average, premium increases of $20 or more per month. 


Background on Risk Rating 2.0 

Risk Rating 2.0 will deliver rates that are actuarially sound, equitable, easier to understand, and better reflect an individual property’s unique flood risk.

By communicating flood risk more clearly, the new methodology should help policyholders make more informed decisions on the purchase of adequate insurance and on mitigation actions to protect against flooding. FEMA is implementing the program in two phases:  

  • Phase I – New policies beginning Oct. 1, 2021 are subject to the new pricing methodology. Also beginning October 1, existing policyholders are able to take advantage of immediate decreases in their premiums when the policy renews. 
  • Phase II – Renewals of the remaining existing flood insurance policies will be written to the new plan starting April 1, 2022, allowing policyholders an additional six months to prepare for any adjustments.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/26/21 based on a press release from ASFPM provided by Diane Cooper

1489 Days since Hurricane Harvey


Update on Harris County Flood Mitigation Efforts

Today, at a meeting of the Harris County Flood Resilience Task Force, Vanessa Toro of the County Judge’s Office and Leah Chambers, Principal of consulting firm Outside Voices presented several slides about flooding and flood-mitigation efforts in Harris County that you might find interesting. Their presentation started with a series of slides that illuminated the history of flooding in Harris County; types of flooding; mitigation challenges, and mitigation efforts currently underway.

Historical Flooding and Mitigation

The first four slides address historical flooding and build on each other.

Selected historical milestones show dates and damage from several major storms in the last 20 years.
The next slide shows the major challenges in each epoch.
The third shows major mitigation efforts over time.
The dotted line shows spending by Harris County to help control flooding.

Different Types of Flooding Throughout County

The presentation then went into examples of the different types of flooding we experience. While river and bayou flooding are important to the Lake Houston Area, in other parts of the county, street flooding is a bigger issue. During high intensity rainfalls, water can’t get to the bayous.

Down in the southern part of the county, coastal flooding from storm surge is the main concern.

Each type of flooding requires different mitigation strategies.

For instance:

  • Flood professionals often address river- and bayou-flooding with detention ponds and channel widening.
  • Street flooding may require better maintenance of ditches, bigger storm drains and wider storm sewers.
  • Coastal flooding may require dikes and better building codes that elevate homes higher.

Key Challenges with Flood Mitigation

The presentation then segued into key challenges we face and how the county is trying to address them.

The first slide in this section discussed incomplete knowledge.

For instance, FEMA’s flood maps measure river, bayou, major channel and coastal flooding, but not street flooding, which is a major problem in the inner city. Hopefully, the next generation of flood maps (See MAAPNext) will help address that.

There’s a feeling that large scale infrastructure projects by themselves will not solve our flooding problems. Various groups within the county are looking at ways to supplement them. The engineer’s office is looking at subdivision drainage. Several other groups are collaborating to explore nature based solutions, flood proofing, and more.

The title of the slide above refers to difficulty of coordinating flood-control efforts across complex jurisdictional boundaries.

Different areas have different priorities, needs and timetables. No one understands that better than those who live near county lines. For instance, upstream counties often use lax regulation and enforcement as a way to entice developers – much to the detriment of those who live downstream.

Flood Resilience Efforts Now Underway

While the 2018 flood bond gets all the publicity, it’s certainly not the only Harris County effort underway to mitigate flooding. The slide below shows the variety of efforts.

They include:

  • The Community Flood Resilience Task Force, a group designed to give voice to communities in developing the next generation of flood mitigation efforts.
  • MAAPNext to update flood maps, incorporate the more data sources, and make flood-risk easier to understand.
  • Resilience Actions Inventory, an ongoing effort to catalog resilience initiatives, projects and programs throughout the county.
  • Infrastructure Resilience Team – an interdepartmental team planning resilience projects. It includes: Flood Control, Engineering, Community Services, Public Health, Emergency Management, and the Toll Road Authority.
  • New departments, such as the Office of Sustainability and the Deputy County Administrator for Resilience and Infrastructure.
  • Structural efforts that fall under the:

All these efforts may not mesh like the gears in a Swiss watch. At least not today. But it’s good to know that efforts are underway on more than one front.

For a high-resolution PDF of the PowerPoint, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/25/2021 based on information from the Harris County Judge’s Office

1788 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Dredging Now Closer to East Fork Than West

On July 9, the City of Houston announced a plan to dredge its way from the West Fork San Jacinto to the East Fork through a narrow channel south of Royal Shores in Kingwood. Since then, I’ve been tracking the progress. Between July 11 and August 28, the dredging moved about 1,200 feet east, or about 200 feet per week. But in the last three and a half weeks, the pace has slowed to less than 150 feet per week.

Dredging Pace Slowed During Nicholas

Hurricane Nicholas likely affected the schedule with the twin needs to secure equipment and lower the lake.

Regardless, when I put up a drone today, I found good news. The dredging is now much closer to the east fork than the west.

Dredging has now reached homes in Royal Shores. Looking south toward FM1960 and Lake Houston.
Looking east toward the East Fork. Dredging should break through in about another 1000 feet, the width of another six or seven homes.

Assuming the City can maintain a pace of 200 feet per week, that would put crews in the East Fork by the end of October.

Distance dredged in three weeks since last update on August 28th.
Looking west. At present, there appear to be two crews working. Note one still way out near the west fork, widening or deepening the channel near where they started in mid-July.
This certainly is one of the most beautiful parts of Houston for those who can afford to live with the flood risk.

Proposals for Long-Range Dredging Plan Due Today

A damage map compiled shortly after Harvey showed that 1290 Harris County homes flooded in the East Fork watershed.

Since then, a significant mouth bar has built up on the East Fork, potentially putting even more homes at risk.

The submission deadline for vendors to submit their qualifications for the development of a long-range dredging plan is today. Stay tuned for more news as it becomes available.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9.23.21

1486 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Blowup Between Mayor and Housing Director Triggers Fraud Investigation over Harvey Funds

Tuesday, City of Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Houston Housing and Community Development Director Tom McCasland got into a verbal brawl over alleged improprieties in the distribution of Harvey relief funds.

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner
Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner photographed in February of 2020.

The trigger was the award of $15 million to build a Clear Lake multi-family housing complex in which the Mayor’s former law partner is a co-developer. (Here is the group’s full application.)

The Mayor overrode the recommendations of McCasland and his staff, who pointed out that $16.2 million could have created four times the number of affordable units in poorer neighborhoods. Those projects all scored higher in the competition for funding.

General Land Office Response

Brittany Eck, a spokesperson for the Texas General Land Office (GLO), issued a statement within hours. She said, “The GLO is looking into the serious allegations of fraud or corruption regarding projects by the City of Houston’s Harvey Multifamily Program. The GLO is responsible for ensuring all money allocated through the Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) are spent appropriately. These projects and funds are intended to be utilized to aid the greatest number of low-income Texans as possible.”

Eck continued: “As such, we will re-review all requests for funding draws allocated to the City of Houston by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The GLO will coordinate with HUD and other investigative entities to determine what actions should follow regarding these allegations. Fraud has no place in helping Texans recover from disaster.”

She concluded, “Anyone with information relating to potential fraud, waste, and/or abuse is encouraged to report it by calling 1-844-893-8937 or emailing cdr@recovery.texas.gov.”

Mayor’s Response

According to multiple news reports and a press release from the Mayor’s Office, Turner denied specific knowledge of the deal with his former law partner. He claimed there was no impropriety, that McCasland had raised no objections to the deal, and that he (Turner) had the right as Mayor to override McCasland’s objections.

The Mayor also asserted he was trying “to place affordable housing projects throughout the City…” Finally, he claimed he severed all ties with his former law partner before assuming his position as Mayor.

McCasland’s Point of View

McCasland insisted this was not the first time the Mayor’s office interfered. The Houston Chronicle, which broke the story, said “McCasland acknowledged the Mayor has the authority to overturn staff recommendations, but McCasland argued that in this case it represented a subversion of a competitive process to benefit one applicant.

McCasland said he was not alleging fraud, but said the pattern of behavior was emblematic of a broader problem in Turner’s administration, a “do-it-because-I-said-so” management style. McCasland did say that drives out public servants dedicated to integrity and breeds a “culture for corruption.”

Further, the Chronicle article quoted McCasland as saying he briefed the Mayor August 17 and again on August 24.

McCasland said the Clear Lake complex (Huntington at Bay Area) ranked 8th out of 12 proposals, and had the lowest percentage (60%) of its units reserved for low income tenants.

Here’s a 77-page document that catalogs nine months of correspondence between McCasland, MST (Mayor Sylvester Turner) and their staffs regarding the controversial project.

Note McCasland’s comments on page 4. He claims “The outcome of that process was predetermined before the funding opportunity was even issued.”

If you don’t read anything else, skip to the last page. It’s an email from McCasland to the Mayor dated September 17. In it, he summarizes all his objections to the Clear Lake deal. That would seem to contradict the Mayor’s claim that McCasland did not register his objections.

Mayor Fires McCasland

McCasland said to City Council, “I am being forced to participate in a charade that this was a competitive process, when I know it was not a competitive process. That’s the problem here and I’m being forced to ask my teammates to participate in that charade and that is not something that we can do and that is not something that we will do.”

According to those who watched the gripping testimony in City Council, it was like watching someone commit career suicide. By the end of the day, the Mayor issued a terse press release. He denied McCasland’s allegations, said he had lost confidence in McCasland, and that it was time to move on.

Why All of a Sudden?

The big question is this: Why now? McCasland and his embattled department have been under fire for years:

Coming forward when he did – as he did – almost felt like a Law & Order episode in which the DA flipped a witness with a promise of immunity. Some veteran City Hall observers felt McCasland was being unusually frank and fearless for someone at the center of such a huge mess. If there was a pattern of ethics violations, why wait years before objecting to them?

Mayor Likely Overstepped Authority

Both McCasland and the Mayor said the Mayor had the right to overturn staff decisions. But Eck pointed out the Mayor did not have the power to “rewrite” the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to favor one applicant; any project selected must meet federal regulations.

She said that had the City written the NOFA to favor affluent neighborhoods, and had HUD and the GLO approved it that way, there would be no problem at this point. However, the City did not do that.

From McCasland’s report and the documentation provided, it appears the City’s award went against the scoring system laid out in the published NOFA, resulting in a competition that was not full, fair and open. The result led applicants to believe their projects would be considered against one criterion when other unknown criteria were actually utilized. 

We now know the City awarded the project to a former partner of the Mayor in a high-income area…ignoring the posted and approved scoring system. In that regard, the Mayor evidently overstepped his authority.

This was not the first time the presence of the Mayor’s former partner in a deal has raised eyebrows and questions. The Houston Chronicle reported in 2018 that several city council members complained about the optics of the partner’s role as a subcontractor for a firm hired to find Harvey victims.

What Next?

The GLO has been in touch with HUD, the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, Gov. Greg Abbott’s office and the Department of Public Safety, according to Eck.

KTRK’s Ted Oberg said DPS would only be involved to investigate criminal matters.

Oberg also reported Wednesday that Chris Brown, the city’s controller, said, “This week’s revelations underscore an ongoing pattern concerning procurement processes and a continued lack of transparency at City Hall.”

Brown, who audits City projects, continued, “In the past several months alone, our office has been denied procurement documents required to conduct an audit of the Strategic Procurement Department and were told to stop all work on a financial transparency project that would bring much-needed insight into the city’s spending practices. Taxpayers deserve a city government that is transparent and above reproach. Unfortunately, recent events suggest that the city is falling short of that goal.”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/22/2021

1485 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.

Humble ISD North Transportation Center Now Complete, New Ag Barn Getting There

Humble ISD’s North Transportation Center adjacent to Woodridge Village on Ford Road is now complete. And the District’s new Ag Barn should be completed by the start of next year.

North Transportation Center Now Fully Operational

As I drove by the transportation center on Ford Road in Porter today, I noticed a steady stream of buses exiting the facility to pick students up from schools. Contractors were still completing the interior buildout just a few months ago. I quickly put up a drone and captured the images below.

Humble ISD’s press office confirmed today that the project is now totally complete and operational.

The property, located at 24755 Ford Road, encompasses about 12 acres.  The new center will save an estimated $2 million in operating costs due to shorter routes and improved response times.

(Looking north) Note the bus exiting the facility toward Ford Road on left.
This large detention pond on the north side of the transportation center will reduce the risk of flooding caused by rapid runoff from all that concrete.
Looking south. The project was completed so recently, that silt fencing from the construction still has not been removed.

Ag Barn Construction Could Finish by Early Next Year

While I had the drone up, I also took several pics of Humble ISD’s new ag barn about a block south. Note the cell tower in the photo above. It’s the same one in the photo below.

According to an Humble ISD spokesman, the contractor has finished exterior construction and is now focusing on interior buildout.

Looking north toward Humble ISD’s new ag barn in Porter. Ford Road in upper left. Transportation center in upper right.
Looking south toward smaller, triangular detention pond next to Mills Branch Road (upper right) and North Kingwood Forest (also upper right).
Wider shot showing location of new ag barn, where Ford Road (right) turns into Mills Branch Road (top) across from entrance to North Kingwood Forest.

Mills Branch (the creek) originates in the woods in the upper left. Mills Branch then goes through Woodstream Forest and Royal Brook before joining White Oak Creek and Caney Creek.

New ag barn is right under the C in Montgomery County. From Harris County Flood Education Mapping Tool.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/21/2021

1484 Days since Hurricane Harvey

New Flood-Insurance Rating System Starts October 1

A new flood-insurance rating system, designed to make rates reflect the true risk to an individual property will go into effect on October 1. FEMA calls it their Risk Rating 2.0 system. They describe it as Equity in Action. It’s FEMA’s attempt to put the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) on a sound actuarial footing and stop the system’s financial hemorrhaging.

Says FEMA, Risk Rating 2.0 is “not just a minor improvement, but a transformational leap forward. Risk Rating 2.0 enables FEMA to set rates that are fairer and ensures rate increases and decreases are both equitable.”

Based on More Data, More Variables

“The new system moves away from basing price primarily on a handful of broadly drawn and often dated flood map zones,” according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. The new rates reflect “a more detailed set of factors, including proximity to and size of a water source, flood frequency and type (such as heavy rainfall or coastal erosion), ground and building elevation, foundation types, and drainage issues.”

Source: FEMA Presentation in MaapNext Meeting
Source: FEMA Presentation in MaapNext Meeting

Sliding Scales not Price Brackets

“The more detailed analysis allows for prices that run along a sliding scale,” says Pew, rather grouping homes into brackets because they’re in the same mapped zone. Thus, low-risk homes will no longer be carrying the freight for high-risk homes.

Under Risk Rating 2.0, policyholders can save through mitigation activities such as elevating mechanical and electrical equipment above flood levels or installing flood openings.

Also, under the old system, all National Flood Insurance policy holders paid the same base rate. However, they could purchase additional insurance at substantially discounted rates. Thus, more expensive homes enjoyed an advantage over less expensive homes. But the new system will attempt to correct that imbalance.

Risk Rating 2.0 also gives policy holders savings for practical mitigation activities, such as elevating mechanical and electrical equipment above flood levels or installing flood openings.

So far, so good. Congress mandated the change to actuarily sustainable rates in 2012. At the time, people thought the rates would also help discourage development in flood prone areas.

Not Everyone Happy with New System

Not everyone is happy with the system, however. The Sugar Land City Council unanimously approved a resolution during an Aug. 3 meeting stating its opposition to Risk Rating 2.0. They expect it to result in increased flood insurance rates for the vast majority of policyholders in Fort Bend County.

A google search turned up many news stories about fears of massive rate increases. However, by law, most new rates may not increase by more than 18% per year, according to FEMA.

Gap Between Policies and Practice, At Least Initially

Still, several insurance companies have pointed out hidden inconsistencies between policy and practice in the new system.

NU Property Casualty 360, for instance, pointed out several hidden inconsistencies that undermine the equity goal. They include:

  • A new artificial rate cap. Under Risk Rating 2.0, regardless of risk, policyholders will never pay more than $12,125 per year. This effectively creates a subsidy that encourages development in the most flood-prone areas.
  • Rates still do not align with risk. Current policy holders will not be penalized for any losses during the past two decades. That said, the artificially low rate will immediately increase to reflect actual risk after the first claim under Risk Rating 2.0. For a period at least, the NFIP provides no way for homebuyers to discover the flood-loss history of a structure.
  • Rate discounts unrelated to specific risk will continue. The NFIP’s Community Discount System will continue to provide community-wide premium reductions regardless of an individual property’s risk. These reductions impact more than 70% of NFIP policies and provide discounts of up to 45% to every structure in the community regardless of actual risk.
  • There are still no refunds for many policyholders who want to trade up. Once an NFIP policy has been in force for more than 30 days, the NFIP will not allow a refund to a policyholder who cancels an NFIP policy and replaces it with private coverage. 

Pushback from Politicians

Several senators and congress people have complained about the new system and asked to delay the rollout to study impacts more closely.

The influential, Washington publication “The Hill” published a scathing op-ed of Risk Rating 2.0 in May. The author, Jainey Bavishi, director of the NYC Mayor’s Office of Climate Resiliency, felt that rising costs would force many to let flood-insurance policies lapse. She called the rollout “rushed.” She claimed, and I quote, the new policy “threatens to transform the National Flood Insurance Program from a financial lifeline into a crippling financial burden for thousands of low-income families in coastal cities.”

Phased-In Changes

Any change this massive was bound to cause political indigestion. FEMA has heard the criticisms and is trying to roll out the new system in a way that minimizes hardships. For instance, existing policies will be on an 18% “glide path” to their full risk rate. Said another way, FEMA will phase in the increases to make them more bearable. They will also give discounts for flood proofing, adding flood vents beneath homes, elevating homes and much more.

For policy holders in multi-floor apartment buildings, FEMA will now consider the actual floor you live on, not just quote a flat rate for everyone in a building. This should benefit renters who live on upper floors.

Timing

PHASE I

New policies beginning Oct. 1, 2021, will be subject to the new rating methodology. Also beginning Oct. 1, existing policyholders eligible for renewal will be able to take advantage of immediate decreases in their premiums.

PHASE II

All remaining policies renewing on or after April 1, 2022, will be subject to the new rating methodology.  

Get a Quote From Your Insurance Agent

In its efforts to make pricing reflect true risk, FEMA will now consider many new data sources and variables. I reviewed an hour-long FEMA presentation on the subject. At the end, I was left with one overwhelming conclusion. Call your insurance agent. Your price may go down. It may go up. It costs nothing to get a quote. But the cost of NOT having insurance when you need it can break the bank as we saw during Harvey and Imelda.

Of the 154,170 homes flooded in Harvey, 64% did not have a flood insurance policy in effect.

And in Tropical Storm Imelda, almost two-thirds of the homes flooded were outside the 100-year floodplain.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/20/2021

1483 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 732 since Imelda

1985 Upper San Jacinto Flood Control Study Prophetic, But Largely Unheeded

This morning, I came across a 1985 study by Wayne Smith and Associates for the Texas Water Development Board and the San Jacinto River Authority. It’s called the San Jacinto Upper Watershed Drainage Improvement and Flood Control Planning Study.

For an engineering study, it’s exceptionally easy to understand and the recommendations were prophetic. It almost reads like a primer for flood control.

Recommendations of specific projects aside, the principal recommendations are as valid today as they were then. Had only someone acted on them.

Make sure you at least read Chapter 5: Conclusions and Chapter 6: Examination and Recommendation of Basic Design Criteria for Watershed. Together, they total just five pages.

Purpose of Upper San Jacinto Study

The Upper San Jacinto study had four main goals:

  • Develop a comprehensive stormwater drainage plan
  • Recommend specific improvements
  • Evaluate/compare alternatives
  • Provide drainage authorities with information necessary to control flooding.

Problems of Rapid Development in Flat Areas

The study begins with a discussion of the problems of rapid development in flat areas. The Upper San Jacinto Watershed covers 1200 square miles. It includes all of Montgomery County and parts of Walker, Grimes, Waller, San Jacinto, and Liberty Counties. For the purposes of this study, the Harris/Montgomery County line formed the southernmost boundary.

Seven major streams comprise the watershed: the West Fork, Lake Creek, Spring Creek, East Fork, Caney Creek, Peach Creek, Luce Bayou and Tarkington Bayou.

The topography changes from rolling hills in the north and west to flat coastal plains in the south and east. The lack of slope in the southern and eastern regions seriously affects the ability of streams to drain stormwater.

The authors warned that as development would move northward, hydraulic “improvements” would alter natural stream patterns by increasing flow velocities and reducing ponding.

Without sufficient retention, development can accelerate runoff, leading to faster, higher peaks that contribute to flooding.

Even before urban development, they said, channels in the Upper San Jacinto Watershed did not have adequate capacity to transport runoff from large storms.

In 1985, at the time of the report, less than 5% of the land area in the watershed was developed. The Woodlands was relatively new and still building out. The report warned that because of development, increases in impervious cover “will require a more efficient drainage system to collect and transport runoff.”

The report lauded the type of development in The Woodlands, where, “discharges are no higher today than they were years ago in the undeveloped stages.” However, the report also cautioned that “…with most of the current development in the southern and eastern extremities of Montgomery County, watershed flooding problems may be greatly enhanced by urbanization.”

The report even prophesied ever greater amounts of subsidence moving north with urbanization.

The chapter which discussed planning said, “Right of way and reservoir land acquisition should occur while the land is open and available.” Sadly, with the exception of Lake Conroe, which had already been built, none of that happened.

Benefit/Cost Ratios of Regional Detention in Undeveloped Areas

The last advice sounds so simple, one wonders why no one acted on it. However, as I read through the economic analyses of alternatives (reservoirs, channel improvements, etc.), the reason became blindingly clear.

So few people lived in undeveloped areas in the Upper San Jacinto Watershed in 1985 that the annual flood damages are minuscule. For instance, there were only 39 structures in four Lake Creek floodplain areas that the authors examined. Annual damages totaled only $9,600. That made the Benefit/Cost Ratios (BCRs) for the various mitigation alternatives that they developed come out to less than .001 in some cases and .09 at most. Benefits equal costs at 1.0. So FEMA usually demands BCRs exceed 1.

But compare the cost of a reservoir then and now. In 1985, the authors estimated the total cost of a Walnut Creek reservoir (a tributary to Spring Creek) to be only $41,000,000. Today, the cost would be $132 million – more than 3X. But it would take many more homes out of the floodplain. So the BCR today could be 1.04 making the project doable (see page 44)…although much more expensive and much to late to help those who flooded recently.

It’s instructive to compare the project costs in the 1985 plan to those in the San Jacinto River Basin Master Drainage Study released last December. Reliance on the BCR in this case seems to dis-incentivize future planning and cost reduction. There’s a major opportunity for improvement.

To get around this problem, the Harris County Flood Control District started its Frontier Program. The program buys up land for regional detention ponds (those that serve multiple developments), and then resells detention capacity back to developers for future use. Because regional detention is usually more efficient than developers building individual detention ponds on their own, it can actually lower developers’ costs while protecting the public and conserving money long term.

Most High-Level Recommendations Still Valid

Page 43 of the 1985 report makes six high-level recommendations (apart from specific projects) that are as valid today as they were then.

  1. Create a central agency to control, monitor, remedy and finance flood control for the entire watershed.
  2. Control development within the 100-year floodplain and prohibit it in the floodway with laws and regulations.
  3. Establish minimum building slab elevations in flood-prone areas.
  4. Limit fill in the floodplain.
  5. Develop procedures to follow when allowing floodplain development, i.e., not obstructing 100-year floods.
  6. Develop specific criteria, procedures and requirements for downstream impact analysis to compare Development A with Development B, and to analyze their combined effects.

Regular readers of this site have heard many of these recommendations before. The surprise, if there is one, is that we haven’t adopted them all already or that we haven’t adopted them consistently. Even where recommendations have been adopted, they are enforced inconsistently.

For future reference, the 1985 report can also be found on the reports page under the SJRA tab.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/19/2021

1482 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 731 since Imelda

Help Needed: Public Comment Period Swiftly Closing on $750 Million HUD Flood-Mitigation Grant for Harris County

The Texas General Land Office (GLO) has announced that the public comment period for the first amendment to the state’s action plan for Community Development Block Grants for Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) will close in twelve days – on September 29, 2021. The GLO first posted the amendment to its $4.3 billion action plan on August 23rd.

Harris County essentially got shut out of the first round of grants last summer. This amendment would allocate $750 million to Harris County in the second round. That’s good as far as it goes, but Harris County needs more and the proposed amendment needs tweaks. Read more below.

Townhome destroyed by 240,000 cubic feet per second during Harvey.

Background

Earlier this year, the GLO held a statewide competition for approximately $1.1 billion in Harvey flood mitigation funds. Harris County received none, despite being one of the most heavily populated and impacted counties in the state.

A public uproar ensued. GLO Commissioner George P. Bush then agreed to commit $750 million to Harris County for the second round of funding.

The amendment also obligates the county to define a method of distribution (MOD) for that money within US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules.

The “amendment” has been folded into the state’s action plan. The combined document totals a whopping 1134 pages – more than 100 megabytes. You can download the entire doc from the GLO site here. You can read the relevant seven pages (Section 5.4.5) here. Or read the discussion below.

Outline of MOD Rules

The amendment is based on a Method of Distribution (MOD) program. It makes the GLO the direct recipient of HUD funds and Harris County a sub-recipient.

Harris County must define the MOD plan to allocate funds to eligible entities within rules defined by HUD.

Eligible entities include:
  • Local governments (cities/towns)
  • Special purpose districts (MUDs/improvement districts/drainage districts, etc.)
  • Ports
  • River authorities

GLO encourages prioritization of projects that meet regional mitigation needs.

Harris County’s MOD plan must benefit at least 50% LMI (low-to-moderate income) residents.

Eligible activities include:
  • Flood control and drainage improvements
  • Infrastructure improvements
  • Natural or green infrastructure
  • Communications infrastructure
  • Public facilities
  • Buyouts
  • Relocation assistance to outside of floodplains
  • Public service (housing, legal, job, mental health and general health counseling with a 15% cap)
  • Economic development
  • Elevation of critical structures
  • Planning (5% cap)
Ineligible activities include:
  • Emergency response services
  • Enlargement of a dam or levee
  • Assistance for privately owned utilities
  • Improvement of buildings used by government
  • Funding USACE projects in excess of $250,000
  • Projects involving use of eminent domain that benefit private parties
Buyouts

Have their own guidelines which are too complicated to summarize here.

Timeline
  • The clock starts ticking 4 months after HUD’s approval of Amendment #1.
  • 50% of the grant must be expended by Jan. 12, 2027.
  • 100% must be expended by January 12, 2032.

Experts say all this time may be needed given the complexity of navigating HUD processes, which are lengthier than other sources.

Discussion/Recommendations

Harris County and the Flood Control District support the amendment. It is certainly justified by the number of people in Harris County and the amount of damage inflicted by Harvey.

However, $750 million is not enough. A fairer amount would be closer to $1 billion. As the action plan points out, approximately one third of Harris County went under water during Harvey.

Alan Black, interim executive director of the Harris County Flood Control District, points out several other reasons for increasing the allocation:

The City of Houston has still been left out. Flooding in Harris County has a dual nature. “You can address the rivers and channels,” he says, “but if water can’t get to the bayous, people will still flood when water ponds in neighborhoods. Both riverine and street flooding must be addressed together.”

Black also points out that administrative fees are capped at 6%, but with HUD compliance costs, 8% is more realistic. Moreover, those administrative costs must come out of the $750 million – they are not on top of it. So the real amount of money available for flood mitigation would be reduced to about $690 million.

Finally, the Amendment also allocates approximately $450 million to Houston/Galveston Area Council, much of which would go back into the City of Houston. Black points out that flood mitigation is the Flood Control District’s core competency and that HCFCD can construct projects much faster and more efficiently than HGAC.

An estimated one third of Harris County went under water during Harvey. Photo courtesy of Sally Geis before her rescue.

With the trust fund recently created by Commissioner’s Court, plus $750 million, Black feels confident every project listed under the flood bond could be constructed.

But he worries about inflation of construction costs (which he is already seeing) and the admin costs.

Black intends to build projects as quickly as he can. If there’s a project in an LMI neighborhood that’s shovel ready, he will build it with bond money and not wait for HUD funding which could add years of delays.

That said, there are many projects that are not shovel ready that could benefit from this money. In fact, the need is greater than available funding, says Black.

Make Your Feelings Known

Please consider these points and take time to submit a public comment. Email is probably the easiest way. It doesn’t require you to wait through a meeting for your turn to speak, and doesn’t limit you to a certain amount of time.

Photo by Camille Pagel. Her children are helping to gut the kitchen instead of going to school after the Harvey flood.

How to Register Your Opinion

You can register your opinion in any one of five ways.

All public comments submitted by 5 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2021, will be considered. The method of submittal does not matter. Per federal requirements, the GLO will respond to public comments before the amendment is sent to HUD for final approval.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/17/2021

1480 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Day of Terror Relived: Sally Geis’ Harvey Evacuation Story

In August 2017, Sally Geis and her husband JG watched as Harvey’s floodwaters crept over the San Jacinto West Fork river bank. They thought they would be safe. But soon rising water turned to raging water. As they moved upstairs, they took a hatchet. JG said it was to kill snakes that got in the house. But Sally wondered if it was to chop a hole in their roof in case they needed an escape hatch.

I’ve known Sally and JG for almost three years. They first contacted me in regard to development practices in floodplains and floodways. But it wasn’t until today, that Sally sent me pictures from Harvey showing her harrowing escape. Rick Alspaugh’s comment about PTSD in yesterday’s post caused her to review her pictures from Harvey and share them. Like Rick, she has a hard time overcoming the memories of what for some neighbors turned into a fatal experience.

Photographing the River’s Rise During Four Days

Sally’s rediscovered cache of photos creates a valuable addition to our understanding of how Harvey’s floodwaters rose and spread in the Kingwood area.

Before Waters Rose
West Lake Houston Parkway Bridge over West Fork San Jacinto before the flood. August 25th, 2017, 11:09 a.m.
Waters Begin to Rise
August 27th, 2017 at 7:17 a.m. Note how much closer the level of the water is to the bridge and how part of the boat dock is under water.
River Fully Out of its Banks
August 28, 2017 at 10:44 p.m. Boat dock is completely under water. Street signs visible in earlier photos are almost completely submerged.

Serious Trouble

August 29, 2017 at 8:35 a.m. Street signs are under water but top parts of light poles are still visible. Note bridge on far right. Water almost touches bridge in center. But at far end on Atascocita side, the road bed is tangent with the river. All surface features in foreground are submerged.

River Rescue

Soon a boat was the only way out…a boat which snatched them from the second story of their home.

Said Sally, “The current was very fierce — he really knew what he was doing!! We could touch the tree tops and the street name signs overhead!”

Geis rescue during Harvey. Two men from Paris, TX drove 6 hours with their boat to help. Sally said they had to rev their engine up to full speed to fight the cross current. Notice the churning waves among the trees in the background as they make their way north on West Lake Houston Parkway to the drop off point. August 29, 2017 at 6:55 P.M.

The picture above was taken north of Kingwood Drive almost two miles from the main channel of the West Fork. Yet look at that turbulence in the water. Normally, a point this far from a river would be designated as “floodplain storage.” Normally, that would mean placid waters, the opposite of what you see.

Eventually, the rescue boat dropped Sally and JG off at Wendy’s on West Lake Houston Parkway at Rustic Woods, several blocks north of where the photo above was taken. From there to the water’s edge on the south side of the West Fork is approximately 2 miles…wider than the widest part of Lake Houston itself – just upstream from the spillway – during normal times.

Eventually the river became wider than Lake Houston normally is.

From Wendy’s, a car ferried Sally and JG to a volunteer’s home where they slept the next night.

Day After Explorations

The following day, they explored the area on foot, still in shock, surveying all the damage. Water remained high in many places. Rescue operations continued.

At Woodland Hills and Tangle Lake, rescue efforts continued. August 30, 11:26 AM.
Shady Run at Kingwood Drive. Water normally flows from left to right here. But note how the trees appear to have been pushed from right to left. August 30, 2017 at noon.
At the same intersection, water reached halfway up street signs. August 30, 2017, 12:07 PM

Revisiting the Escape Route Days Later

“We went OVER this bridge in the boat!!” said Sally Geis.

West Lake Houston Bridge over Bens Branch after water receded. Photo taken 9/1/2017. Geis says her rescue boat went OVER, NOT UNDER THESE BRIDGES.

According to Geis, on the way out, rescue-boat propellers kept striking submerged cars, nearly capsizing boats on more than one occasion.

Photo taken 9/1/2017 after water receded. Car destroyed by propeller of rescue boat was totally submerged when struck. Side window was likely blown out by water pressure.

“A lot of boats were hitting submerged signs, cars, heavy things — they had no idea what was underwater. One boat hit a car, began to sink and nearly capsized. Thankfully it didn’t. A lady onboard could not swim. The water was over our heads and the current was scary and swift, plus contaminated. I heard there were 500 rescue boats in all — including the Cajun Navy, helicopters, jet skis,” said Geis.

After Shocks

Sally and JG lost their vehicles in the flood. And like so many others, they lost all the belongings on the lower floor of their home. Here is a short video of a scene they filmed on a walkabout after Harvey’s floodwater’s receded.

Video of Harvey Debris in Kingwood, TX by Sally Geis. Shot September 3, 2017, at 5:29 PM.

Sally’s brother later picked the couple up when the water receded and took them to a friend’s home. The friend was on vacation, so they got to rest up for five days before facing the destruction.

Says Sally, “Those images of every street lined with trash – of complete households hauled to the curb – for months on end added to the depression and PTSD.”

Geis and her husband spent the next two years restoring their home.

After fighting developers who wanted to build in the floodway of the West Fork, they finally sold their home earlier this year. They now live in a high rise downtown.

Sally says, “People who have never been through an experience like this have no idea how real the PTSD can be. It can take over your life.”

Posted by Bob Rehak on September 16, 2021, based on the photos and memories of Sally Geis

1479 Days since Hurricane Harvey


The Long Road to Recovery: Rick Alspaugh’s Harvey Story

Four years after Harvey, the storm’s effects are still visible at Alspaugh’s Hardware Store in Kingwood’s Town Center. To this day, Rick Alspaugh struggles to balance inventory with service, the thing that made his business formula unique. This is the story of how Harvey affected him, his business, his customers and 60 employees.

Bob: Your family’s first hardware store in Kingwood was up near the front. When did you move to Town Center?

Rick: We bought our property from Friendswood in 1993 and opened our store in ‘94.

Rick Alspaugh (center), wife KellyAnnette (right) and manager Dallas Behman (left)

27 Years of Success Based on Unique Formula

Bob: You’ve been there 27 years! Did the entry of Lowe’s into the market affect your business?

Rick: Not really. They don’t do what we do.

Bob: How would you characterize that?

Rick: They have great inventories. But we have people who can walk you through a project. We were the go-to place for service. People don’t come here for lumber, tile, sinks and carpet. They come for parts, paint, smaller things. And we have this amazing boutique with unique things that nobody else carries. With goods at all price levels. Plus free gift-wrapping. You can’t get that anywhere else in the city. 

Back before Harvey, we also had a huge selection of barbecue equipment. We’re struggling right now, but God’s going to get us through it. 

Bob: Let’s go back to Hurricane Harvey. 

3.5 Feet of Water in 16,000 SF Store, But No Flood Insurance

Rick: August 28th 2017. I’ll never forget it. Everything went underwater. Deep under water – three and a half feet.

Alspaugh’s during Harvey

We lost twenty-seven computers. They were all on desktops, but that wasn’t high enough.

The height of Harvey’s floodwaters meant Alspaugh lost 27 computers sitting on desktops – all but one in the paint department.

Bob: Were you insured for that?

Rick: Not a bit.

Bob: (shocked) You didn’t have flood insurance?!

Rick: About a month before Harvey, my insurance agent came in. We talked about how we had grown and increased my coverage. Then Harvey hit. I’ll come back to that in a minute.

60 Employees Help Jumpstart Business

Rick: At the time, I had about 60 employees. The day after Harvey, everyone showed up and started cleaning. It was amazing, Bob. They rebuilt the store. It was unreal. It was just… We came together!

Within three days, we were able to open by working out of trailers and a cargo container outside with one surviving computer from the paint department. We ran wires out there. And we re-opened out of that container.

I ordered about $400,000 worth of stuff that people would need for cleanup.

“I Just Assumed I Had Flood Insurance”

Rick: In the flood, we also lost three trucks. A generator. And our forklifts. I used up all my cash reserves to get going again and keep people working. So, I called my agent to make some insurance claims and he says, “For what?” 

“We flooded in Harvey! This was a total loss,” I said.

Alspaugh tossed his entire inventory, fearing contamination from a sewage treatment plant just upstream.

He goes, “You’re not covered for rising water. You don’t have flood insurance.”

My agent never once asked me if I wanted flood insurance. And I never asked if I had it. I just…assumed. I assumed I had it. 

Luckily, the three trucks were covered under our automotive policy. So, I got money for them. But it was not enough to replace them.

Bob: How long did it take to reopen? 

Doing Business Outside While Rebuilding Inside

Rick: By September 1st, we were selling outside. But for all of September and October, and most of November, we were rebuilding the inside.

At lunch, our barbecue vendor came in to cook for us. We would pressure wash the tables, turn a bunch of buckets upside down, sit, pray, and eat. That really brought us together. 

Before the store was even cleaned out, I targeted reopening inside for the Saturday before Thanksgiving. Everyone just looked at me with giant eyes. But by God, we got to work. And we made it happen. 

Bob: Were there any setbacks? 

Rick: We received three 18 wheelers of shelving…in the wrong order. We needed uprights first. But they came on the last truck…a week late. So, we literally lost a week of assembly. But we were back in the store by Monday before Thanksgiving.

Bob: Wow.

Rick: In about eight weeks, we completely redid the store. But that was eight hours a day for 60 people.

Starting over from the ground up

$3.2 Million in Flood Losses

Bob: How much did you lose in Harvey?

Rick: $3.2 million dollars. We lost the entire inventory. We trashed it all because I was concerned about contamination. It was nasty. We’re less than a quarter of a mile downriver from Kingwood’s main sewage treatment plant. We just had to trash everything.

Store interior after floodwater receded. Note water line on standing cardboard cartons.

But when we reopened, everything was 100 percent clean. Brand new. We threw out everything touched by Harvey. Four trailer loads of barbecue pits were crushed and hauled straight to the scrap yard. 

Even the barbecues, his signature product line, went to the dump.

Bob: I had no idea. Did any of the newspapers write that story?

Rick: No. I never felt I was special to where I needed to talk about it. All the people around me suffered similar losses. The jewelry store. The photofinisher. The barbershop. The cupcake guy. Everybody in Town Center lost everything. 

Bob: Did you ever think the water would get this high?

Rick: I knew it could reach Town Center because of the 1994 flood. So, during Harvey, we tried to raise everything up about a foot. But I never thought three and a half feet!

If you had three and a half feet of snow, it would melt by next week and it would be business as usual. But when you have three and a half feet of water in your store…well, here I am talking about the recovery four years later.

Plagued by PTSD

Bob: How has this affected you personally?

Rick: People don’t realize how real PTSD is. I have my eye on the Weather Channel all the time now.

Bob: Do you have flood insurance now?

Rick: Yes, sir. And I’ve got a different insurance agent, too.

Business Since Harvey

Bob: So, you lost $3.2 million worth of inventory and computers. You had to start over. Without help from insurance. How has Harvey affected your business since then?

Rick: Harvey not only destroyed our store, it wiped out 3000 homes within a nine-iron shot of here. This entire neighborhood…gone. Customers didn’t need most of what I had at that point. They needed major remodel stuff: carpet, tile, wallboard, like that. They needed contractors, not light switches. Plus, they didn’t have flood insurance and had to bear the cost of recovery out of pocket. 

We have problems. But not like most people. We’re not on the way to M.D. Anderson. Having burned through my own savings, I just don’t have enough money to offer the kind of service people came to expect.

Government Grants Slow in Coming

Bob: What comes next?

Rick: We’re poised to recover. I just need inventory. We filed for some Harvey help.

I got some tax relief, which was very nice. An SBA loan which we’re paying back. The Humble Chamber helped us, which was a huge blessing. 

Congress appropriated $100 million to small businesses for Harvey grants. But they take forever. Worse, they had $250 million worth of need.

Luckily, friends in the community stepped up to help fill that gap. That’s why we are here today. I’m not begging friends anymore. I’m just not. But I would like to get some of this Harvey aid. I certainly qualify.

Banking on Community Spirit

Bob: So where do you go from here?

Rick: We’re here every day. The lights are on. And we still have stuff to sell. Just not as much as we used to.

Bob: You know, I can’t imagine cooking barbeque without your store.

Rick: Thank you.

Bob: I see Alspaugh’s as a central location for community spirit.

Rick: It used to be. And it can be again. There’s not a whole lot that we can’t do as a community.

Posted by Bob Rehak on September 15, 2021 based on an interview with Rick Alspaugh

1478 Days since Hurricane Harvey