A USAF mission into Elsa along with radar data and surface observations from Barbados indicate that Elsa is now a hurricane. However, uncertainty remains about the storm’s track and intensification.
Elsa in the center of the image is skirting the northern coast of South America and about to cross over the windward islands. Note the small core near the center.
Just yesterday, the NHC showed Elsa remaining a tropical storm all the way to Florida. Now, the National Hurricane Center shows hurricane conditions are quickly spreading into the Windward Islands. Various watches and warnings are in effect for portions of the Caribbean Islands (See graphic below).
86 MPH Winds Reported
According to Jeff Lindner, Harris County’s meteorologist, Elsa has taken advantage of favorable conditions in the last 24 hours. Both the Air Force and land observers reported sustained winds of 86mph this morning. That makes Elsa a hurricane. Radar indicates good banding features and a small, central core.
Elsa continues to race WNW near 30mph which is extremely fast for a hurricane.
However, the system has thus far kept its low- and upper-level centers aligned.
Track
A strong sub-tropical ridge of high pressure to the north of the hurricane, will influence the track for the next 48 hours. Then Elsa will approach a weakness in the ridge and the forecasts become more uncertain.
One model shows the storm nearly dissipating over the Dominican Republic by Sunday. However, others show Elsa turning more north. Increasingly, this appears to be the more likely outcome. However, the spread is very large from east of the Bahamas to near the northern Yucatan at days 4-5 so confidence remains lower than average on the track.
Two models show Elsa making a beeline toward the central Gulf, but most take it east.
Intensity
Conditions seem favorable for increasing development. But the fast forward motion of Elsa could become a negative factor. Models show a large spread in intensity guidance, but most keep Elsa near the intensity it is now. As it approaches the Gulf, it should be a strong tropical storm or weak hurricane, but some forecasters see it growing much stronger.
NHC continues to lean toward the lower end of the guidance spectrum, but continues to indicate that Elsa could become stronger than forecasted – especially over the NW Caribbean Sea early next week.
On Tuesday, 6/29/21, Harris County commissioners voted unanimously to shift Harris County Toll Road Authority and other county funds into a trust designed to help bridge potential shortfalls in partnership funding. The amount would be $40 million per year. As a result, construction of Flood Bond Projects can continue without interruption or delay for at least the next six years. If more partnership funding materializes during that time, funds deposited in the trust could help cover non-bond projects farther into the future.
The issue of a potential shortfall in bond funding boiled into headlines back in March. Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis demanded to know where the money would come from to finish construction projects in Halls and Brays Bayou Watersheds if partnership funds did not materialize as planned. He gave Budget Management and the Flood Control District three months to develop a plan for backstop funding.
As of June 2021, HCFCD Needed to Find Additional $951 Million
When considering all flood-bond projects – not just those in Halls and Greens watersheds – the situation looks like this as of the end of June. See explanation of chart below.
As of 6/28/21, without any additional partnership funding, the potential need could be $951 million.
In 2018, voters approved a $2.5 billion flood bond that included $5 billion worth of projects (first column). Part of the $2.5 billion voters approved (third column) was designed to help attract another $2.5 billion in partnership funding. But only $1.25 billion has materialized so far (fourth column). With other transfers already made (fifth, sixth and seventh columns), that leaves a need of $951 million.
The county intends to step up the search for partner funding. But if that funding does not materialize, it has also created a Flood Resilience Trust. The Trust would:
Backstop the 2018 Bond Program
Mitigate risks of increased construction costs
Potentially fund future flood risk reduction projects beyond the 2018 Bond Program
The Trust does not eliminate the need for partner funding. If partner funds materialize as hoped, HCFCD can use any excess money in the trust to construct future flood mitigation projects beyond the bond program.
The graphic below shows that $489 million has already been identified and allocated to the trust from various sources. The new element added on Tuesday (column six) includes $343 million in HCTRA funds. With rounding and other funds, that would help create a proposed Flood Resilience trust of $833 million to help cover the $951 need.
$40 Million Transfer Per Year from Toll Road Funds
Approximately $40 million per year would be transferred into the trust (red line in chart below). That should cover any unsecured spending through about 2027. By then, hopefully, HCFCD will have identified more partnership funds.
Commissioners spent a considerable amount of time debating the legality of transferring toll road funds to flood mitigation projects. The consensus: toll road development has impacted flooding in Harris County. Flood Control identified a $15 billion need to mitigate increased stormwater runoff caused by historical development of roadways. So, it should not be hard to find a transportation connection to most flood control projects that would satisfy auditors.
Equity Prioritization Framework Will Apply to Trust
The pie chart below shows the weights that will be given to various factors when deciding which projects to develop first with the additional funds.
They seem substantially similar, but the names of some factors have changed. For instance:
“Cost per structure” has replaced “project efficiency.”
“Flooding Frequency” has replaced “Existing Conditions/Drainage Level of Service.”
“Structures Benefitted” has replaced “Flood Risk Reduction.”
Cost per structure is not home value. It is the cost of the project divided by the number of homes benefitted.
“Structures Benefitted” counts the number of structures only, not the the value of those structures.
Thus, this factor gives more weight to densely developed urban areas.
Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have complained bitterly and repeatedly that FEMA Benefit/Cost Ratios for flood mitigation projects include a weighting factor for home value that theoretically gives higher preference to affluent neighborhoods. But that’s only one of many factors that FEMA considers.
This report from William & Mary’s law school explains that “impoverished communities may receive a Federal cost share of up to 90 percent of the total amount approved under the Federal award to implement eligible approved activities in accordance with the Stafford Act, but these communities must meet stringent criteria to receive funding.”
Regardless, I see no weight given to more valuable homes in Harris County’s prioritization guidelines. In fact, the density factor and social vulnerability combine for 45% of a project’s total score.
The biggest problem with this framework is that it doesn’t differentiate between street flooding and bayou flooding. Additional flood control projects for the bayous may not help homes that flood due to water collecting in streets.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/1/2021 based on information provided by Harris County Flood Control and Budget Management departments
1402 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/20210701-Screen-Shot-2021-07-01-at-12.57.11-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C665&ssl=16651200adminadmin2021-07-01 14:42:442021-08-24 14:51:31Harris County Creates Trust To Fully Fund Flood Mitigation Projects Without Partner Assistance For At Least Next Six Years
In its 5 a.m. Thursday update of the Atlantic Basin, the National Hurricane Center upgraded tropical depression 5 to Tropical Storm Elsa.
Elsa is the earliest-known fifth named storm on record for the Atlantic basin in the satellite era (1966-present), breaking the record formerly held by Edouard on July 6, 2020.
Notice the beginning of an eye in Elsa at the 5 o’clock position and slight rotation.
Eastern Gulf Probabilities
At 5 a.m. Thursday 7/1/2021, forecasters believe that the eastern Gulf has up to a 30% chance of experiencing tropical-storm-force winds by late this week or early next.
The tropical cyclone’s cloud pattern became a little better organized overnight. Convective banding features are becoming more evident over the western and southwestern portions of the circulation.
Upper-level outflow is well-defined to the west of the system, and restricted over the eastern semicircle. The current intensity is 35 knots, making the cyclone a tropical storm.
The storm has been accelerating westward overnight, and the initial motion is around 22 knots. A strong subtropical ridge should steer the system quickly to the west-northwest for the next 3 days or so. However, there is significant uncertainty in the track forecast from days 3-5.
Disagreement Among Models, High Uncertainty
The ECMWF model turns the cyclone northward after interacting with Hispaniola while the other models such as the GFS, HWRF, and U.K. Met take Elsa across western Cuba and into the southeastern Gulf of Mexico. The official forecast is similar to the previous one last night. However the discrepancy in the models makes confidence in this track lower than usual.
Some intensification is likely for the next day or two, since Elsa is expected to be in an environment of warm sea-surface temperatures, fairly low vertical wind shear, and high mid-level relative humidity.
However, potential interaction of Elsa with the mountainous land masses of the Greater Antilles later in the forecast period could disrupt the circulation somewhat. Therefore the official intensity forecast, like the previous one, is quite conservative.
Key Messages
Tropical storm conditions are expected beginning early Friday in portions of the Windward and southern Leeward Islands.
Heavy rainfall from the system will move quickly across the Windward and southern Leeward Islands, including Barbados, on Friday. Isolated flash flooding and mudslides are possible.
There is a risk of wind and rainfall impacts in portions of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, Cuba, the Turks and Caicos and the southeastern Bahamas through early next week. Interests in these areas should monitor the system’s progress and updates to the forecast.
Interests in Florida should monitor updates to the forecast for this system, but it is too soon to determine what if any impacts could occur there next week given the uncertainty in the long-range forecast.
There is no forecast threat to the Houston area. Just beware in case you are traveling in the Caribbean or to Florida this week or next.
Posted by Bob Rehak at 6am on 7/1/2021 based on NHC information
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
