At 10 p.m. CDT, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) posted an update on the two areas of disturbed weather that were approaching the windward islands this morning. One has already crossed the islands and has been downgraded. The NHC now gives it a 0% chance of tropical development. However, NHC upgraded the other storm system and gave it a number – Tropical Depression 5. NHC also issued a tropical storm warning for Barbados, Martinique and St. Lucia. They also issued a tropical storm watch for St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Guadaloupe.
The warning means that they expect tropical storm conditions in the next 36 hours. But a warning means that tropical storm conditions are possible within the next 48 hours.
Happy Fourth of July, Florida
At this point, however, it appears the storm will track toward Florida. The earliest arrival time of tropical storm force winds: Sunday evening.
But the probability of that is less than 20% as of tonight.
Rescue Efforts in Condo Collapse Could be Affected
If the storm follows the predicted path, it will put Surfside, Florida on the dirty side of the storm, complicating rescue efforts in the condo collapse. However, NHC hastens to add that track questions exist given the high degree of uncertainty in the long-range forecast.
Pray for the rescuers and anyone who may still be alive in the rubble.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/30/2021 at 11PM based on information from the National Hurricane Center
1401 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/025646_5day_cone_no_line_and_wind.png?fit=897%2C736&ssl=1736897adminadmin2021-06-30 22:53:232021-06-30 22:53:27One Storm Upgraded, Second Downgraded
A strong tropical wave located midday between Africa and the eastern Caribbean Sea continues to show increasing signs of organization. The red area below has an 80% chance of tropical formation in the next five days, according to the National Hurricane Center (NHC) as of 8 a.m. this morning.
Red storm has 80% chance of tropical formation as of 8 am, June 30, 2021 according to National Hurricane Center.
Storm Farthest East Represents Biggest Threat
Convection has increased near a developing low-level, low-pressure system designated 97L for the moment. 97L has a large moisture envelop and conditions generally favor development as it moves westward.
According to Jeff Lindner, Harris County meteorologist and the National Hurricane Center, a tropical depression will likely form in the next few days. It may also turn into a tropical storm as it approaches the Windward Islands. They expect continued W to WNW motion bringing the system into and through the eastern Caribbean Sea by the weekend.
Models Diverge on Direction After Storm Enters Caribbean
It’s too early to tell where it goes after that. Some models suggest the system will turn WNW and NW while others maintain a more westward track. “There is reasonable support for both,” says Lindner.
Lindner emphasizes that it is early for tropical cyclones to form in this region of the Atlantic. While 97L may become a tropical storm as it approaches the Windward Islands, once it gets past them, it may encounter slightly less favorable conditions over the eastern Caribbean Sea.
While there is no significant threat to SE TX at this time, you should monitor 97L daily.
Nearest Storm Poses Less Threat
The yellow area is a second, separate area being monitored by the NHC. It is moving quickly WNW at 20 to 25 mph and will enter the Caribbean later today. However, it is producing only disorganized showers and thunderstorms so far and diverging trade winds may tear it apart. The NHC only gives it a 10% chance of tropical formation. So while it will bring heavy rainfall to the Lesser Antilles, it poses little danger to Houston.
For the latest information, the NHC updates storm tracks every 12 hours during the hurricane season and even more frequently if storms approach the U.S. mainland.
Posted by Bob Rehak based on information from HCFCD and the National Hurricane Center
1401 Days after Hurricane Harvey
00adminadmin2021-06-30 11:48:382021-06-30 11:49:41Two Systems Approaching Caribbean
Last in an eight part series on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County
For two years, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia have alleged that rich watersheds get all the flood-mitigation funding, while poor and minority watersheds get none. But data suggests that is far from the truth.
Three months ago, the din from Ellis and Garcia reached a crescendo. I became so alarmed about the allegations of racism in flood-mitigation funding, that I submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request to Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) for historical funding data by watershed. I also requested related data such as watershed size, damaged structures, the number of low-to-moderate-income (LMI) residents, and more.
Data Contradicts Ellis/Garcia Narrative
My analysis contradicted the carefully crafted Ellis/Garcia narrative. I found the exact opposite of what they claimed.
The most dollars flow to low-income watersheds which, coincidentally, have the most flood damage.
The strongest correlation I found with flood-mitigation “funding” since 2000 was “damaged structures.” And the percentage of low-to-moderate income residents in a neighborhood correlates very strongly to damage per square mile.
When you think about this, it makes sense. We put the most flood-control dollars in areas that flood the most.
Damage Per-Square Mile Correlates Highly with LMI %
To understand patterns in the data, one must start by evaluating damage “per square mile.” That’s because high- and low-income watersheds differ radically in size and number.
Harris County has only eight low-to-moderate income watersheds, but 15-high income watersheds.
The low-income watersheds are half the total size – 600 square miles vs. 1176 square miles.
When looking at damage on a per square mile basis, the highest concentrations occur in low-income neighborhoods.
LMI percentage and damaged structures per square mile have a 0.82 coefficient of correlation. Mathematicians consider that very strong. 1.0 is the highest you can get, a perfect correlation.
Damage includes structures flooded in four major storms since 2000 (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey).
Low-income watersheds cluster on the left and high-income watersheds on the right because of “Damage,” not racial discrimination in mitigation funding. Mitigation dollars already overwhelming flow to minority and low-income neighborhoods as they have for decades.
Flood-Control Dollars Flow to Damage
There’s also a strong relationship between total funding and total damage. Notice how the shape of the curves align closely with a few exceptions.
Total funding since 2000 and the number of damaged structures show a 0.84 coefficient of correlation. Mathematicians consider that very strong.
You can see a general downward trend in both blue and orange, indicating a strong correlation. This relationship supports other statistical analyses in this series. (See links to previous articles listed below.)
At the highest level, when you look at the data from multiple perspectives, one thing stands out:
Dollars flow to damage, not affluent watersheds.
Possible Causal Links Between LMI Percentage, Damage and Funding
Touring lower income watersheds by car or helicopter helps explain why those watersheds have so much more damage and consequently receive so much more funding. In general, they:
Are much more densely packed with buildings, a consequence of more than twice the population density (3,900 residents/square mile compared to 1,600).
Have more impervious cover, so water can’t soak in as quickly or as much
Have many clogged roadside ditches and storm drains, due to poor maintenance by county precinct crews and the City of Houston’s Public Works Department. (Water has a hard time getting out of neighborhoods.)
Have more structures per acre.
Re: the last point, in Kashmere Gardens (an LMI neighborhood), I found six homes on a third of an acre worth more than my house on a full acre in Kingwood. The density can offset higher home values in suburban neighborhoods when calculating Benefit/Cost Ratios for FEMA or HUD.
Flood-Mitigation Funding by Watershed Since 2000
Here’s how much money each watershed received for capital improvement projects since 2000. No maintenance dollars or dollars committed to complete projects are included – only dollars “out the door” as of the end of March 2021.
The graph above dramatizes two things:
The wide variation from high to low. Luce Bayou received only $4.5 million while Brays received $510 million. That’s 113 to 1.
A few watersheds received multiples of the average and median, while far more received a small fraction.
Funding Data Disproves Racist Allegations
Remember that the next time you hear the allegations of racial discrimination from Ellis and Garcia. This discussion shouldn’t be about race. It should be about fixing flooding problems.
The government is not funding flood-control projects in rich areas that didn’t experience flood damage. It funds them in areas that had the MOST damage. Those just happen to be in minority and low-income neighborhoods. And it is critical that people focus on WHY those structures flooded if we are to find solutions.
Implying that they flooded because of racial bias is misdirection. The racial allegations divide and distract people. They also keep HCFCD, from focusing on real solutions to our flooding problems. That harms all voters in Harris County.
If commissioners continue to focus on race, it will prove they care more about political gamesmanship than fixing drainage.
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/2021/06/LMI-v-Funding-Per-Sq-Mi.jpg?fit=1200%2C713&ssl=17131200adminadmin2021-06-28 13:24:492021-11-18 15:37:54Flood-Mitigation Funding Flows to Damage, Not High-Income Neighborhoods
Seventh in a series of eight articles on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County.
For the last two years, I’ve heard the same tirades in Commissioners’ Court – that rich neighborhood’s get all the flood-mitigation money while the poor neighborhoods get none. According to Commissioners Ellis and Garcia, that’s because higher home values in rich neighborhoods generate higher Benefit/Cost Ratios and therefore get more FEMA grants. Problem is, FEMA looks at many other factors. And HUD grants favor low-income neighborhoods. But you never hear Ellis or Garcia talk about those.
In reality, most flood mitigation-money in Harris County goes to watersheds with high percentages of low-income residents. (See links to previous posts below.)
By focusing on a narrow part of the flood-mitigation funding process as opposed to outcomes, Ellis and Garcia have been looking though the wrong end of the telescope. Why? To focus attention on the wrong end of the drainpipe!
In the most flooded parts of Halls and Greens watersheds, street after street has clogged ditch drains. Responsibility for cleaning those drains falls onto, you guessed it, Ellis and Garcia, along with their counterpart at the City of Houston, Mayor Sylvester Turner.
Simple FOIA Request Disproves Narrative
The Ellis/Garcia narrative just didn’t sound right to me. So I submitted a Freedom-of-Information-Act (FOIA) request to the Harris County Flood Control District in March for historical funding data. I wanted to see if the allegations were true. They’re not.
Analysis shows that the Ellis/Garcia narrative is 180-degrees from the truth. By almost any statistical measure, flood-mitigation spending favors the poorer watersheds in Harris County. That’s where most of the damage is.
Surely Commissioners Ellis and Garcia can’t be oblivious to more than a billion dollars of construction benefitting their own precincts.
Verbal Sleight of Hand Deflects Attention from Who’s Responsible
So, what’s going on here? Why the constant barrage of racial accusations and divisive rhetoric?
In my opinion, the deception, omissions and distortions of fact are about misdirection.
They seem designed to deflect attention from those responsible for a crucial part of the problem: street drainage.
And if you don’t fix that, you will never solve flooding no matter how much money you throw at channel widening, detention ponds and green solutions.
A process engineer in the oil and gas industry once told me, “There’s always a bottleneck in every system somewhere.” And one of the biggest issues in neighborhoods that flood repetitively is street drainage. Water can’t get out of the neighborhoods to the bayous.
Poor Ditch Maintenance Contributes to Street Flooding
By alleging racism in the HCFCD funding, Commissioners Ellis and Garcia are deflecting attention from a serious issue; many of the neighborhoods in their jurisdictions have awful internal drainage (streets and storm sewers) that contribute to frequent street flooding. Street flooding happens when high rainfall rates exceed the capacity of storm drains and ditches to carry the water away. The reduced capacity of the ditches below makes the streets flood on smaller rains.
Swale filled with sediment, almost totally blocking drain on Kashmere Street between Octavia and Engleford in Kashmere Gardens.City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.
Ignacio Vasquez has lived in Kashmere Gardens for 45 years. He says he has called 311 about blocked drains like this one on Engleford St. “thousands of times”, but they never get fixed.City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.
Vasquez says that after a heavy rain, this drain backs water up throughout his neighborhood and contributes to flooding. He says it can take up to 3-4 days for water to drain away. Completely unprompted, he then said that Kingwood was getting all the help from the City. I told him that I lived in Kingwood and that our drains were just as bad as his. See below.
Drainage swale on Valley Manor Drive in Kingwood is completely filled in. City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.
But I digress. Here are some more street drainage photos taken on 6/26/21 in Halls and Greens Bayou Watersheds as well as Kashmere Gardens on the southeast corner of US59 and Loop 610.
Wherever I drove for five hours, residents repeatedly told me that because of poor maintenance, water has a hard time getting out of neighborhoods. It must either sink in or evaporate. See below.
Amboy and OctaviaStreets. City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.
On Octavia just east of Amboy St.City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.
Etheline St. near Korenek St.Harris County Precinct 1’s maintenance responsibility.Octavia St. near Kashmere Street. City of Houston’s maintenance responsibility.
To be fair, not all the ditches were this bad. But I saw thousands like these on hundreds of streets while driving around for five hours. Sometimes sediment almost completely covered drains. I often had hard times spotting the pipes.
On north side of Laura Koppe just east of Arkansas Street.Harris County Precinct 2’s maintenance responsibility.On Kowis Street a few hundred feet east of the Hardy Tollroad. Harris County Precinct 2’s maintenance responsibility.
The saddest sight I saw all day was this home on Etheline Street between Homestead and US59.
Note the mold and rotting exterior. Also note how close to street level this home is.Harris County Precinct 1’s maintenance responsibility.
Red circle shows location of drain completely blocked by sediment.Harris County Precinct 1’s maintenance responsibility.
Sixteen more representative shots in Harris County Precinct 1, Precinct 2 and City.
With drainage this bad, water may evaporate or infiltrate faster than it flows out of neighborhoods!
Who is Responsible for Streets and Storm Sewers?
Who is responsible for clearing blockages like these? Not the Harris County Flood Control District.
Inside the City of Houston, it is the Houston Public Works Department and a mayor who has been sued for diverting drainage fees.
Who is responsible for the unincorporated areas of Harris County? The Precincts. And the worst drainage happens in Precincts One and Two with Commissioners Ellis and Garcia.
Why does Kashmere Gardens (in the City) have open ditch drainage that hasn’t been maintained in years?
How do areas in East Aldine still have barely functional roadside ditches and residents who do not have municipal water and sewer service?
Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have the power and the money to address these issues. Yet they have chosen not to. Why have they not helped the very people they claim are left behind?
Show Us the Data
It is important to note the questions NOT being asked in this so-called “equity” debate.
How much has the City of Houston invested in these flood-damaged areas to remediate drainage?
How much have Precincts 1 and 2 invested?
What drainage projects have they completed since 2000?
What is the capital improvement plan for each precinct, and how much of that includes drainage improvements?
What is the equity prioritization framework for precinct spending?
How much unspent money does each precinct have for infrastructure?
The answers may point right back at the people making racial accusations.
The City and Commissioners Ellis and Garcia need to provide answers. Let’s see the data. How much have the City and the Precincts spent in these areas? If these areas are underserved, Commissioners Ellis and Garcia, and Mayor Turner are responsible.
They have claimed transparency is important to them. The time to prove that is now.
Blaming the problems on racial discrimination is an easy sell in minority neighborhoods. But it’s misdirection and it keeps the spotlight off Commissioners.
And it diverts focus from finding solutions to the real problems that contribute to flooding. For that, many people need look no further than the end of their driveways.
We all need to step back and look at flooding from end to end. Then maybe we’ll make life easier for the most vulnerable people among us.
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/2021/06/20210626-RJR_8673.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200adminadmin2021-06-27 12:35:382022-01-03 15:25:38Looking Through the Wrong End of the Drainpipe: The Politics of Misdirection
Location of six six high-income watersheds used in the same analysis
Voter turnout for the 2018 Harris County flood-bond referendum
Damage from Harvey
Ironically, low-income watersheds had the lowest turnout for the 2018 flood-bond referendum and they’re getting the vast majority of flood mitigation funding.
Previous articles in this series have shown that, out of 23 watersheds in Harris County, six low-income watersheds:
The low-income watersheds are all located primarily inside the Beltway.
Most of Greens Bayou is inside Beltway 8, though a portion of it wanders just outside.
Location of Watersheds with Highest Income
Now let’s look at the location of the six high-income watersheds.
High-income watersheds are all outside the beltway.
Who Approved that $2.5 Billion Flood Bond?
Now look at the voter turnout map below from the 2018 flood bond referendum.
Light areas had the lowest voter turnout.
Dark areas had the highest voter turnout.
Note the area inside the yellow outline. It contains all the watersheds that Commissioners Ellis and Garcia complain about the most as having the least funding: Greens, Halls, Hunting, White Oak and Sims.
To see turnout in both absolute numbers and percentages in individual precincts, go to the interactive version of this map. Click on the visual above or here.
Some precincts in those watersheds had 0 voters. That’s right. No one showed up at the polls. At all. Many precincts had less than 1% turnout. Those light tan-colored areas generally had 1-5%.
The darkest areas, such as those around Kingwood, had turnout in the 20 to 30% range – generally 5-20 times higher than in the neighborhoods where most of the money is going.
Compare damage in Harvey (below) with the area outlined in yellow in the map above.
When you consider these four maps together with the historical funding data discussed in previous posts (see links below), they show that most of the money is already going where most of the damage was.
But large pockets of damage exist elsewhere that get comparatively little to no funding.
For instance, in the map above, note the curving arc of damage along Cypress Creek in the northern part of the county which extends into the Humble/Kingwood area.
People in those damaged areas turned out in high percentages for the flood bond. But they are seeing the vast majority of flood-mitigation projects being built in neighborhoods that didn’t even bother to vote in many cases. That doesn’t bode well for future bonds referendums.
Misleading Statements Undermine Trust in Government and Future
Some political leaders are telling poor people that flood-mitigation projects are all going to rich neighborhoods and the Houston Chronicle blindly repeats what they say without checking the real numbers. Or even bothering to mention projects already completed.
Twitter feed of Chronicle writer who wrote the article above.
But as I’ve shown in previous articles (see links below), depending on how you measure it, up to three quarters of the money is actually flowing to poor neighborhoods.
Funding in six highest and lowest income quartiles.
Funding in six low income watersheds compared to 15 higher income watersheds
Yet poor people believe all the money is going to rich watersheds – because that’s what their leaders tell them. And rich people see the lion’s share of the money going in the opposite direction.
Everyone believes someone else is getting the funding. So who would vote for another flood bond at this point? No one.
How are you going to convince people that taxed themselves $2.5 billion – and think they aren’t receiving any benefit from it – to vote for the next bond?
We need to restore trust in government by giving people accurate information, not misleading them with racial rhetoric for political gain. More on that tomorrow.
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/2021/06/Voting-Map-W-Legend-and-Outline-Small.jpg?fit=1200%2C599&ssl=15991200adminadmin2021-06-26 10:05:322021-06-26 12:34:20Watersheds with Low Voter Turnout Get Most Flood-Mitigation Funding
Fifth in a series of eight articles on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County
On June 11, Russ Poppe, executive director of the Harris County Flood Control District, resigned after two years of hounding by Commissioners Rodney Ellis and Adrian Garcia over the distribution of flood-bond money. Ellis and Garcia kept pushing Poppe to accelerate flood-mitigation projects in minority/low-income neighborhoods, using racial “equity” as the justification. But the discussion should be about damage, not race.
Alleged “Back-of-the-Bus” Treatment
Ellis was particularly vocal. He described Halls and Greens Bayous as getting “back-of-the-bus” treatment. With Shakespearean flare, he would rub his bald head and perfectly frame himself in front of aggressive artwork that says “Pay,” “We are fed up,” and “No Way.” Then he would lean into his camera and pronounce, “They flood every time.” If we don’t fix that, “We’ll have blood on our hands.”
Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis during the Feb. 9, 2021, Commissioners Court Meeting.
But there was also a Shakespearean irony to Ellis’ monthly melodrama. As the posts in this series have shown…
Those minority, low-income neighborhoods have received the vast majority of flood-control district funding since 2000.
Narrow Questions Lead Viewers to Wrong Conclusion
This is a manufactured melodrama, born from a lie, and then exploited for political gain. Ellis even sweeps up community groups and flood survivors into his monthly melodrama. He would trot them out in meeting after meeting to anecdotally embellish his narrative, as he grilled Poppe like a prosecutor.
“Russ Poppe, is it not true? Did you not tell me that FEMA evaluates flood control projects with a benefit/cost ratio?”
Poppe would respond, “Yes, Commissioner.”
Ellis continued to ask pointed questions that demanded yes or no answers and could only lead to the conclusion he wanted. “Are the home values in Kingwood higher than around Halls Bayou?”
“Yes, Commissioner.”
“Would that not raise Kingwood’s benefit/cost ratio?”
“Yes, Commissioner.”
You get the idea. Ellis would focus on a narrow sliver of truth that bolstered his narrative of discrimination. Basically, it was a story of systemic racism – that the white man built the system to favor white men. He led listeners to conclude that areas like Kingwood got all the flood mitigation money, and that poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods got none.
However, Ellis had viewers looking through the wrong end of the telescope. He focused them on process, not outcomes. Had he bothered to check the facts, he would have found two problems:
Kingwood has NEVER received a Harris County Flood Control District Capital Improvement Project.
Halls’/Greens’ Funding vs. Kingwood’s as of March 31, 2021.
Benefit/Cost Ratios Factor in Far More than Home Value
The federal grant-funding process includes dozens of other factors besides home values. And when you combine them all, watersheds such as Greens, Brays, and Sims came away with benefit cost ratios as high as 6 or 7, while areas like Kingwood struggled to get above 1. The Flood Control District’s Federal Briefing document shows the benefit-cost ratios for all Federal Projects. See for yourself.
Percentage of low-to-moderate income residents in an area
Number of structures that can be removed from the floodplain by a project.
When you look at outcomes, instead of one small part of the process, you see that poorer, inner-city watersheds get the vast majority of funding in Harris County.
Dollars Flow to Damage
The two tables below compare actual flood-mitigation funding since 2000 in high and low quartiles when ranked by “damaged structures” in four major storms: Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, and Harvey. The last column ranks watersheds by LMI%. That’s the percentage of low-to-moderate-income residents with less-than-average income for the region. Halls has the highest LMI rank of any watershed – 71%, making it the lowest income watershed.
Capital improvement funds; includes no maintenance dollars. Listing omits Vince. It lies almost wholly within Pasadena and is the City’s responsibility.Omits Little Cypress Creek, which includes the Flood Control District’s experimental “frontier program.”
In comparing these two groups, several things become clear:
Dollars flow to damage.
Damage happens primarily in low-income watersheds.
Low-income watersheds received a billion more than the high-income (low LMI%) watersheds
Low-income watersheds averaged 3X more dollars
The median for low-income watersheds was 4X higher.
Stats Show No Racial Bias in Distribution of Flood-Mitigation Funding
Harris County does not discriminate against minority, low-income groups in the allocation of flood-mitigation funds. Dollars flow to damage. Of all the factors I examined, flood-mitigation funding most closely tracked damage. That’s a logical, valid basis for distribution of funding.
The most money went to the watersheds with the highest damage. They just also happened to be watersheds with high percentages of minority and low-income residents.
The discussion should be about flood damage, not race.
The real factors that contribute to flooding have become lost in the racially charged rhetoric. The sooner we lose the racial rhetoric, the easier it will be to address flooding.
The real factors that contribute to flooding become apparent when you look at the maps below. They correspond to the tables above.
Watersheds with the most damage lie mostly inside Beltway 8.
Watersheds with the least damage all lie outside Beltway 8.
Low Income Watersheds
All mostly inside Beltway. Part of Greens skirts north side of Beltway
Higher Income Watersheds
All outside Beltway
Neighborhoods inside the Beltway:
Are older
Were developed decades ago, with lower drainage standards
Have more structures built in floodplains and closer (lower) to street level
Have structures built right up to the edges of ditches and streams
Are downstream from newer areas, often in other counties that don’t mandate detention ponds
Are more densely populated, and thus have higher percentages of impervious cover
Two giant detention ponds straddle I-69 along Halls Bayou. Before HCFCD could build these ponds, they had to buy out the areas circled in red.
The sooner we can focus this discussion on issues such as these, the sooner we will solve our flooding problems. Polluting the discussion with antagonizing, racial rhetoric will only delay solutions and drive off more good people like Russ Poppe. Poppe’s only “sin” was that he was appointed in 2016, a year when Republicans controlled Commissioner’s Court. So, he became an easy target, like so many other department heads before him.
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/2021/06/20210209-Screen-Shot-2021-02-09-at-5.16.24-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C669&ssl=16691200adminadmin2021-06-25 06:49:082022-06-27 21:09:23Racial Rhetoric Distracts from Focus on Real Solutions to Flooding Problems. Here is Why.
Fourth in a series of eight on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County
Since 2019, Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have harped on the need for more “equity” in flood-mitigation funding. They and some residents in their precincts allege that all the money is going to high-income watersheds while minority, low-income watersheds get “none.” Ellis repeatedly complains that Harris County Flood Control District gives those minority neighborhoods “back-of-the-bus” treatment. Garcia says he feels like he was “hit with a baseball bat.”
Unfounded Allegations of Racism in Construction Funding
In March, I became so alarmed at the allegations of racism, that I submitted a Freedom of Information Act Request to see if they were true. They aren’t. Funding data for new construction projects dating back to 2000 shows that:
Those first three articles in this series should suffice to disprove discrimination against minority, low-income watersheds. But more statistics just keep jumping out of the data.
So, today let’s compare watersheds with percentages of low-to-moderate-income (LMI) residents above and below 50%:
The low-income group has 7 watersheds, comprising 584 square miles.
The high-income group has 14 watersheds, comprising 1123 square miles.
The two groups vary radically in number and geographic size. So, to provide a valid comparison, we must evaluate them first on a per-square-mile basis. This pie chart shows how the smaller, low-income group gets triple the dollars per square mile.
On a per-square-mile basis, low-income watersheds (blue) have received 3X more capital improvement funding than high-income.
Watersheds Above/Below 50% LMI
Here are the percentages of LMI residents in each group.
Shows proportion of low-to-moderate-income residents in each watershed. Those with higher percentages actually have lower average income. So to avoid confusion, I refer to these groups as low- and high-income.
Lower Income Watersheds Get 3X More Construction Funding Per Square Mile
On a per-square mile basis, the low-income group averaged $2.5 million. The high-income group averaged only $0.8 million. See Table 2 below.
Includes dollars for funding of construction projects (not maintenance) since 2000.Remember: ABOVE 50% LMI actually means BELOW AVERGE INCOME.
When looking at funding per square mile, the low-income group averaged 3X more.
Smaller, Low-Income Group Also Receives About a Third More in Total Dollars
Comparing the total dollars (not $/square mile) received between the two groups is also illuminating.
In total dollars, the low-income group of 7 received $400 million dollars more than the high-income group of 14 since 2000. That skewed the averages back toward 3X again. See Table 3.
The small low-income group received a third more funding in total dollars since 2000. And the average per watershed was 2.6X higher than the high-income group.
But More Damage in Low-Income Group
As we have seen elsewhere in this series, dollars flow to damage. Low-income watersheds had twice the total damage despite being half the size and number.
In four major storms since 2000 (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey), the seven low-income neighborhoods had 146,832 structures damaged, compared to 70,719 for the higher income group of 14. However, on a per square mile basis, low-income group had four times as much (251 vs. 63).
Structures damaged in four major storms in the groups of watersheds listed above in Table 1. Note that these averages can conceal wide variations within groups. Cypress Creek, for instance, had 20 times more damage than several other watersheds in its group.
Together with other data in previous posts, this proves HCFCD does not discriminate against minority low-income neighborhoods in flood-mitigation spending.
Dollars flow to damage – not affluent communities.
Low-income watersheds still have ongoing HCFCD construction for flood mitigation projects. But they also have other large problems that contribute to flooding for which HCFCD is not responsible. I’m talking about issues related to street flooding such as:
Aging storm sewers with low capacity built to old development standards
Roadside drainage swales filled with sediment
Homes not elevated enough above street level
Other people and groups are responsible for fixing such problems – including the City of Houston and Harris County Precinct Commissioners themselves.
In conclusion, elected representatives have misled Harris County residents. This raises the question, “Why?” I will discuss my opinion in a future post.
*Vince Bayou omitted from the first group because it lies almost wholly within the City of Pasadena and is the City’s responsibility. Little Cypress Creek also omitted from second group because it is a newly developing area. Very few people live there and that skews statistical comparisons. HCFCD spending in Little Cypress relates to an experimental “frontier program.”
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Screen-Shot-2021-06-24-at-7.44.08-AM.png?fit=1112%2C340&ssl=13401112adminadmin2021-06-24 09:56:492021-06-24 10:05:34Low-Income Watersheds Get Three Times More Flood-Mitigation Funding Per Square Mile
Third of an eight-part series on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County
Some people and their representatives in low-to-moderate-income (LMI) watersheds have complained that they get “no” flood-mitigation funding and that the money is all going to richer watersheds. Allegedly, that’s because home values are higher there and thus favor higher benefit/cost ratios (a sort of systemic racial discrimination). But is that true? Do higher home values in a neighborhood really translate into “projects funded”? No. The allegation ignores many other factors that enter into funding, such as damage and population density. Density is two to three times higher in low-income neighborhoods and that influences damage totals. When you look at funding outcomes as opposed to a sliver of the mitigation process, low-income neighborhoods get far more money. Here’s how it breaks down.
Where Money is Really Going
Recently, I obtained flood-mitigation funding data for every watershed in Harris County via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. It sheds new light on this subject.
In addition to the quartile comparisons I did in earlier posts, I also compared the top quartile (six watersheds) to the rest with one exception in each group noted in previous posts and the footnote below.* The data showed that six watersheds with the highest percentages of LMI residents (meaning low income) have received 56.8% of HCFCD spending out of the 21 remaining watersheds since 2000.
Harris County Flood Control District data obtained via FOIA request.
A second pattern also clearly emerged from the data. Long before “equity” guidelines were put in place, HCFCD spending closely tracked flood damage. It still does. And the most damage occurred in lower-income watersheds.
In this post, I will examine both trends by looking at six watersheds with the highest percentages of LMI residents. They include Brays, Greens, Sims, Halls, Hunting and White Oak Bayous.
As a group, they:
Comprise 30.9% of the square miles in the county
Received 56.8% of total spending – $1.52 billion of the $2.6 billion spent by HCFCD since 2000.
That’s more than 15 higher income watersheds combined.
Dollars Flow to Damage
But if you stopped there, you could conclude that these six watersheds were getting more than 2-3X their fair share of funding. However, also consider that they had 144,754 out of the 222,739 structures damaged in Harris County during Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey floods.
One thing is certain: these six watersheds have not been at the “back of the bus.” They received more than $1.5 billion out of $2.6 billion invested by HCFCD since 2000.
The data DISPROVES discrimination on an income or racial basis. Money is not going disproportionately to rich neighborhoods. Far from it. It’s going disproportionately to poor and minority neighborhoods. However, that is also where the most flood damage occurred. Let’s take a closer look at each of the six low-income watersheds.
Brays Bayou:
Received 19% of total spending since 2000, but represents just 6% of the county’s area.
Received more than half a billion dollars since 2000, the most of any watershed, and about one-fifth of all flood-mitigation spending in 23 watersheds in 21 years.
Received the second most funding since Harvey ($130,685,844.43).
Got 4 times the average and 7 times the median of flood-mitigation funding for all watersheds.
It certainly seems like an outsized injection of flood-mitigation funds. But the improvements also protect some major infrastructure and employment centers including the Texas Medical Center. See this photo essay taken from the air.
Also consider that Brays had the most damage in four major storms (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey) – 32,194 structures flooded.
Brays has the fifth highest percentage of low-to-moderate income residents (58%).
HCFCD construction is on-going in this watershed.
Greens Bayou:
Commissioners Ellis and Garcia often cite Greens Bayou as a “back-of-the-bus” watershed. They also say, that if the County doesn’t fix it, “we’ll have blood on our hands.”
Greens received the 3rd most dollars since 2000 and the 2ndmost since Harvey. That’s 11% and 14% of all HCFCD spending respectively during those two time periods. Only in Harris County politics can you call second place out of 23 “back of the bus.”
But Greens also had the second most damage in four major storms (28,815 structures).
Greens Bayou has the sixth highest percentage of LMI residents in the county (57%).
HCFCD construction is also on-going in this watershed.
Halls Bayou:
Mr. Ellis and Mr. Garcia also consider Halls Bayou funding to be “back of the bus.” It comprises only about 2.4% of the county but received almost 5% of total spending since 2000. It also received:
The fourth most funding per capita ($841.77)
The third most funding per square mile ($3,031,912)
The eighth most funding since 2000 ($128 million).
Halls has the highest percentage of LMI residents (71%) in Harris County.
HCFCD construction is on-going in this watershed.
Sims Bayou:
Sims Bayou runs through the southern part of the county. It:
Ranks as the 8th largest watershed.
Received the 6th most funding since 2000 ($165,013,368)
Has the 7th largest population (310,537)
Has the 5th highest population density (3755 per sq. mi.)
Had the 6th most damage (18,122 structures)
Sounds proportional and it is.
However, these calculations do not include $254 million, which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spent on Sims between 1990 and 2015 (by itself) for a major flood-reduction project. The Corps’ contribution to Sims Bayou alone was almost 10% of all HCFCD spending since 2000 ($2.68 billion).
If you add the Federal contribution to HCFCD’s funding, Sims would have ranked second on the list of flood-mitigation dollars received since 2000. Only Brays received more.
Sims has the third highest percentage of LMI residents (65%).
Hunting Bayou
Hunting Bayou is one of the county’s smaller watersheds. It comprises 31 square miles or 1.7% of the county’s land mass. That ranks it as the 19th largest bayou out of 23. And it has the 14th largest population (78,213). Yet, since 2000, it has:
Had the seventh most damage (15,728 structures)
Received the third most dollars per capita since 2000 ($952.18)
Received the fourth most dollars per square mile ($2,402,908)
Hunting Bayou has the second highest percentage of LMI residents (69%).
HCFCD construction is on-going in this watershed.
White Oak
White Oak Bayou is the sixth largest watershed in Harris County. Yet it received 13% of the flood-mitigation funding since 2000 – $349 million, the second highest total of any watershed. It also ranked second in dollars received per square mile – $3.14 million.
But also consider that it had the third highest number of damaged structures – 24,989 in Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey floods combined.
51% of the residents in White Oak qualify as low-to-moderate income.
HCFCD construction is on-going in this watershed.
Damage-to-Dollar Rankings
“Damaged structures” and funding received had the highest correlation of any relationship I tested. For math majors, the coefficient was .86. That’s high. A perfect correlation would be 1.0. For the less technically inclined, see the table below.
Contrary to the “rich-watersheds-get-all-the-money” narrative, flood-mitigation funding, data shows that HCFCD is putting the most moneyin the hardest hit watersheds.Dollars flow to damage.
Many projects in these lower income watersheds are still under construction or preparing for it. And major storms have not yet tested many recently constructed improvements. Regardless, their residents are safer than they otherwise would be. And they can take some comfort in knowing that the system is working for them, not against them.
Posted by Bob Rehak, based on information compiled from a FOIA request and Federal Briefings
1394 days since Harvey
*Omits Vince Bayou in low-income group because it is entirely within the City of Pasadena, which has responsibility for it. Includes White Oak Bayou instead. Also omits Little Cypress, which has a very small population and is an experiment by HCFCD in preventing future flooding.
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/2021/06/Six-v.-15.jpg?fit=1200%2C679&ssl=16791200adminadmin2021-06-23 10:00:382021-06-23 10:01:21Six Low-Income Watersheds Receive More Funding than 15 Higher Income Watersheds Combined
Second in a Series of Eight Articles on Flood-Mitigation Funding in Harris County
If the charges of racial and income bias in flood-mitigation funding in Harris County were true, you would expect the poorest neighborhoods to get less funding than the most affluent. But the opposite is true. They get a billion dollars more
Contrary to the “equity” narrative repeated ad nauseum in Harris County political circles, an analysis of flood-mitigation spending shows that JUST SIX low-income watersheds already:
Received a billion dollars more than six high-income watersheds since 2000
Averaged three times more funding per watershed
Data obtained from HCFCD via FOIA Request compares six highest and lowest income watersheds.These numbers include only capital improvement projects, not maintenance.
Data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request debunks the narrative that falsely claims high-income watersheds get more funding because they have higher home values. Higher home values theoretically create higher Benefit/Cost Ratios. And some political leaders claim that causes the Federal government to favor projects in affluent neighborhoods, compared to poor.
So, look through the other end of the telescope. Examine actual funding instead of the funding process. You will see that, in Harris County at least, actual flood-mitigation funding favors low-to-moderate-income (LMI) watersheds by a wide margin. If the process favors high-income watersheds, why do the low-income get a billion dollars more?
I requested from Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) the following data by watershed – broken up into various time periods:
Capital improvement funding (excluding maintenance)
Population totals
Low-to-moderate income (LMI) population
Watershed size in square Miles
Damaged structures in major storms
From that, I computed other factors such as $/square mile, population density, LMI %, LMI Rankings, etc. The data goes back to 2000, but also includes “Since Harvey.”
Comparing the quartiles for lowest- and highest-income watersheds since 2000 showed that HCFCD spent more than $1.5 billion dollars in six low-income watersheds, but only $472 million in six high-income watersheds.
The lowest income quartile received a billion dollars more than the highest. There’s just no truth to the “rich-neighborhoods-get-all-the-funding” story.
Terminology and Methodology
Before going further, let’s clarify some terms. LMI means Low-to-Moderate Income.
High LMI means watersheds with a high percentage of low-to-moderate income residents.
Low LMI means watersheds with a low percentage of low-to-moderate income residents, which actually means High Income.
Instead of bogging readers down in confusing double negatives, I will simply use the terms “High Income” and “Low Income” for this discussion.
The numbers in the lists below represent the percentages of people with incomes below the average for the region. So, with 16% LMI, Little Cypress has 84% of residents making above the average. That’s why it ranks as “higher income” even though it has a lower LMI percentage.
To create each group of six, I started with seven. That’s because each included a statistical anomaly explained below.
Watersheds with the highest income (lowest LMI ranking) include:
Little Cypress (16%)*
Barker (22%)
Cypress Creek (26%)
Armand (26%)
Willow Creek (27%)
Jackson (30%)
Spring Creek (31%)
The seven with the lowest income (highest LMI ranking) include:
Halls (71%)
Hunting (69%)
Sims (65%)
Vince (62%)*
Brays (58%)
Greens (57%)
White Oak (51%)
*Note: For this analysis I substituted Spring Creek for Little Cypress because Little Cypress is a statistical anomaly. Harris County is buying vacant land there along creeks to prevent future flooding as part of their “frontier program.” But the small number of people who currently live in the Little Cypress watershed skews most statistical comparisons. I also excluded Vince in the low-income category because it lies almost wholly within the City of Pasadena, which is responsible for it.
Summary of High-Level Findings
The six low-income watersheds received $1.52 billion since 2000. But the six high-income watersheds received $472 million – more than billion dollars less.
Let’s also compare total spending since 2000 per square mile in each group.
Low-income watersheds got $2.8 million/sq. mi.
High-income watersheds received $0.9 million/sq. mi.
Again, the 3X advantage for the low-income quartile held up.
Finally, let’s compare average dollars per watershed for all groups since 2000 (not adjusted by square mileage). The 3X advantage held up yet again for the low-income group, which also more than DOUBLED the countywide average. See below.
These comparisons make compelling evidence that the political narrative is misleading! However, these numbers don’t tell the whole truth either.
Low-income watersheds had 7X more damaged structures in four major floods (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey) – 144,754 vs. 19,677.
If there’s one truth about flood-mitigation funding in Harris County, it’s that “dollars flow to damage.” The following tables show funding, damage and LMI% rankings for both income groups.
Only one of the watersheds in the high-income group received more funding than Hunting, the lowest in the low-income group. (I will explore this further in article #7 in this series.)
Reasons for Rankings
If you understand Houston neighborhoods, the reason for these rankings becomes apparent when you look at a watershed map. Here are the high-income watersheds…
High-income watersheds are generally newer and built to higher standards on the periphery of the City. They also generally have fewer developments beyond them to create flooding issues. Not one is predominantly inside the Beltway.
Now, let’s look at the low-income watersheds.
Each low-income watersheds IS predominantly inside the Beltway. Homes and drainage in these older areas are not built to current standards.
Role of Density in Flooding and Flood-Mitigation Funding
Another huge disparity exists between these two groups of watersheds: population density.
1,517 per square mile for the high-income group
3,912 for the low-income – 2.6X more.
Higher density brings with it more impermeable surface; more and faster runoff; more crowding of floodplains; plus, less room for detention facilities, channel expansion and wetlands. Often, wetlands are destroyed to accommodate higher density.
Very high density can also escalate flood-mitigation costs and delay flood-mitigation construction projects. Sometimes, homes or even entire subdivisions must be “bought out” to widen ditches or install detention ponds. For an example, see this post about Halls Bayou.
Also understand that when homes must give way to flood-mitigation projects, the projects often generate significant pushback from people being displaced.
Moving Forward, Let’s Ask the Right Questions
The statistics in this post disprove racial bias in funding. However, inner-city, minority residents are more susceptible to flooding than their suburban counterparts. But it’s largely because of where they choose to live for whatever reason: affordability, proximity to work, transportation, etc. Sometimes people just have no options, despite flooding. (I’ll explore this subject more in #7 of this series.)
To help residents in these low-income areas, HCFCD is already spending 3X more than it does in high-income areas. This raises the question, “Are we underfunding some watersheds?”
As development pushes past today’s high-income watersheds, they too will come under pressure from even newer developments beyond the Grand Parkway. It’s already starting to happen to the west, north and northeast. Those along Cypress Creek may first to feel the full brunt on this (see rankings above).
To solve the problems that really plague us, we need to bury the racial rhetoric, realize the true nature of the problems, and work together on solutions.
The current inflammatory “equity” discourse only seems to distract and divide people. The real question we should ask ourselves is, “How can we upgrade the drainage infrastructure (streets and storm sewers) in neighborhoods that are 60 – 70 years old?” I’ll discuss that more in the seventh article in this series.
If leaders truly want to reduce flood risk, then the discussion needs to focus on how best to support the professionals and organizations toiling to protect all residents from the next flood.
If the conversation does not change, then that will prove flood prevention is not really a priority for Harris County leadership.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/22/2021 based on data received from a FOIA request
1393 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/2021/06/Hi-Low-Quartiles-Since-2K.jpg?fit=1200%2C716&ssl=17161200adminadmin2021-06-22 11:32:182021-06-22 14:52:43Six Low-Income Watersheds Receive One Billion Dollars More than Six High-Income Watersheds
First in an Eight-Part series on Flood-Mitigation Funding in Harris County
Recently, many local leaders, citizens and media have claimed that two largely minority and low-to-moderate-income (LMI) Harris County watersheds – Halls and Greens Bayous – have gotten no flood-mitigation funding. The actual data shows the exact opposite of what many people have been told, i.e., that racial bias affects the distribution of flood mitigation funds.
Halls and Greens have received $422 million since 2000. And they received $200 million of that since Harvey. Meanwhile, Kingwood has never had one Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) capital improvement project.
FOIA Request Shows Where Money Has Actually Gone
Information, newly available through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request, reveals that Greens and Halls Bayous, have received 16% of all Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) funding since 2000 and 18% since Hurricane Harvey. That’s almost one fifth of all flood-mitigation funding for 23 watersheds in the whole county!
Data based on information provided by Harris County Flood Control in response to FOIA request
But the popular perception is that flood mitigation money is all going to affluent neighborhoods like those in Kingwood at the expense of low-to-moderate income areas, such as Greens and Halls. Local media have helped spread this misinformation:
From the twitter feed of a Houston Chronicle writer who covers flooding.
FOIA Request Reveals Flaws in Narrative
One Harris County commissioner frequently claims Greens and Halls are being discriminated against in the allocation of flood-mitigation funding. He says residents in those watersheds are at the “back of the bus” and if commissioners don’t fix that, “We’ll have blood on our hands.”
That sounded extreme. So, to see how bad the problem was, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in early March. Out of 23 watersheds:
Since 2000, Halls and Greens rank #8 and #3 respectively in flood mitigation “dollars received.”
Since Harvey, Halls and Greens rank #11 and #2 respectively
While #11 and #8 may sound “middle of the pack” for Halls, keep in mind that Halls ranks #16 in size. The entire watershed is only 42 out of 1,776 square miles that make up Harris County.
Halls actually ranks #3 among all watersheds in “dollars/square mile” since 2000 (eclipsed only by Brays and White Oak).
Since 2000, Halls has received more than $3 million per square mile. Compare that to $0.5 million for the San Jacinto watershed, a frequent target of Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis and his followers.
Here’s what all watersheds have received and where they rank, along with other measures, such as:
You can look at this data in dozens of ways. And I will. However, any way you cut it, it does not support discrimination against the poor or a racial bias in funding. If you didn’t look any further, you could use this data to support the opposite point of view, i.e., that funding discriminates against more affluent neighborhoods. However…
Spending Actually Closely Tracks Damage
Halls and Greens Bayou watersheds contain large percentages of low-to-moderate income (LMI) households. Versus other watersheds, Halls ranks #1 in LMI households (71%) and Greens ranks #6 (57%).
Of all the rankings on all the measures, the measure that seems to track most closely with funding is “properties damaged.” One would hope for that! It’s a perfectly rational, non-biased basis for allocating funds.
Data shows that the Flood Control District is spending the most money where flooding has damaged the most structures.
Dollars Flow to Damage
See below.
Flood-mitigation funding by watershed arranged from highest to lowest with spending and damage rankings.
To underscore that point, consider that:
Greens ranks #3 in funding since 2000 and #2 since Harvey. It also had the 2nd most damage in four major floods (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, and Harvey).
Halls ranks 3rd in spending per square mile since 2000 and 4th since Harvey. It also had the 4th most damage in all four storms.
Together, Halls and Greens have received $422 million since 2000. That’s hardly “nothing.” Hardly “back of the bus.” And their high rankings hardly make an argument for racial or income bias.
Crucial Role of Tropical Storm Allison
Flood-mitigation studies, funding, and construction can take years and even decades. Tropical Storm Allison, 20 years ago this month, played a role in the rankings above. Compare the watershed and rainfall maps below. The heaviest rainfall in Allison fell directly over Halls and Greens Bayous. Thus, both of these watersheds experienced major damage two decades ago.
Map of Harris County Watersheds. Note the location of Halls and Greens in the upper left quadrant of Beltway 8.
Allison rainfall map. Source: HCFCD via NOAA. Rain was heaviest within the northeast quadrant of Beltway 8. It contains Halls and Greens Bayous. The 15” band also tracked WNW across the upstream portions of Halls and Greens.
Projects Identified Earlier Are Farther Along
That actually helps explain why they rank so high in funding today. During Allison, Greens ranked #1 in damage (15,590 structures) and Halls ranked #2 (12,820).
Many projects identified decades ago, such as those in Halls and Greens, received sporadic funding before the 2018 flood bond. Surveys and engineering reports may have been completed or “rights of way” acquired. But many costly construction projects had to be postponed until money became available.
Before 2018, the Flood Control District only had $60M per year to spend across all of Harris County. Then, when voters approved the flood bond in 2018, Halls and Greens projects were “shovel ready” and could start immediately. In essence, they had a head start and it shows in funding!
That’s not to say these watersheds have gotten everything residents wanted or needed. But then, who has?
Numbers Contradict Narrative
Those who watch Commissioners Court are treated month after month to tales about how flood-mitigation spending has discriminated against people in low-income watersheds with high percentages of LMI households. Halls and Greens are repeatedly held up as examples.
The FOIA data does not support that theory. It shows that low-income watersheds are not being ignored. And higher income watersheds are not getting all the money. Anyone who says they are is not looking at the numbers.
In fact, data from the FOIA request revealed that the Kingwood area has had exactly ZERO Flood Control District capital improvement projects in the last 20 years. The often-cited Buffalo Bayou watershed has had exactly TWO capital Flood Control District capital improvement projects in the last 20 years.
Those who make allegations of racial bias ignore projects on the ground.
To learn more about recently completed projects or projects currently under construction in Halls and Greens Bayou watersheds, see these previous posts:
Tomorrow, I will examine flood-mitigation funding in six watersheds with the lowest income rankings versus six with the highest.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/21/2021based on HCFCD data supplied in response to a FOIA request.
1392 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/2021/06/Screen-Shot-2021-06-19-at-10.28.30-AM-1.png?fit=1112%2C804&ssl=18041112adminadmin2021-06-21 16:50:242021-06-22 14:57:40Surprise! Surprise! Halls, Greens Watersheds Get $422 Million of Flood-Mitigation Funding, Not “ZERO.”
