Watersheds with Low Voter Turnout Get Most Flood-Mitigation Funding

Sixth in a series of eight articles on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County

In August of 2018, Harris County voters approved a historic flood bond of $2.5 billion. Afterwards, KTRK ABC13 created an interactive precinct-by-precinct voter turnout map for the referendum.  Now, with spending data for flood mitigation projects in hand, we can see that, in general, but not in every case:

  • Watersheds with the highest turnout are getting the least money
  • Those with the lowest turnout are getting the most money.

Ironically, the worst-damaged areas generally had the lowest turnout.

Four Maps Tell Story

Let’s start by looking at four maps. They show: 

  • Location of six low-income watersheds used in a quartile analysis
  • 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:

Location of Lowest 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. 

In fact, Kingwood precincts had five of the top eight turnout percentages in the county. But Kingwood has NEVER received even ONE Harris County FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT capital improvement project.

Damage Concentrations

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

Certain Harris County commissioners have fought to prioritize funding for minority and low-income neighborhoods. And in the next Commissioners Court meeting on Tuesday 6/29/21, they’re pushing to expand that prioritization framework to include future projects and funds. See Item 191 on the agenda.

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.

For More Information

For more information, see: 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/26/2021

1397 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.

Racial Rhetoric Distracts from Focus on Real Solutions to Flooding Problems. Here is Why.

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:

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. 

Benefit/Cost Ratios (BCRs) also factor in such things as:

  • The number of structures damaged
  • Threats to infrastructure
  • Proximity to employment centers
  • Need for economic revitalization
  • Percentage of low-to-moderate income residents in an area
  • Number of structures that can be removed from the floodplain by a project.

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

As a consequence, it also becomes harder to implement flood mitigation projects. For instance, HCFCD had to buy out whole subdivisions to make room for giant detention ponds in the Halls Bayou Watershed. This is just one reason why these projects cost so much money and take so much time.

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. 

For More Information

For more information, see: 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/24/2021

1396 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.

Low-Income Watersheds Get Three Times More Flood-Mitigation Funding Per Square Mile

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.

So, the hardest hit watersheds already receive the most funding. By a wide margin. And they have since at least 2000.

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. 

For More Information

For more information, see: 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/24/2021

1395 Days since Hurricane Harvey

*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.”

Six Low-Income Watersheds Receive More Funding than 15 Higher Income Watersheds Combined

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 2nd most 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).

Residents still believe they received “nothing,” but I photographed eight large detention ponds recently completed or under construction. Four are right next to US 59.

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 money in 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. 

For more information, see: 

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.

Six Low-Income Watersheds Receive One Billion Dollars More than Six High-Income Watersheds

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. 

However, that argument ignores dozens of other factors that enter into grant funding. 

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?

Analysis Reveals Funding Favors Low-Income Neighborhoods

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:

  1. Little Cypress (16%)*
  2. Barker (22%)
  3. Cypress Creek (26%)
  4. Armand (26%)
  5. Willow Creek (27%)
  6. Jackson (30%)
  7. Spring Creek (31%)

The seven with the lowest income (highest LMI ranking) include:

  1. Halls (71%)
  2. Hunting (69%)
  3. Sims (65%)
  4. Vince (62%)*
  5. Brays (58%)
  6. Greens (57%)
  7. 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. 

For More Information on Flood-Mitigation Funding

For more information, see: 

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.

Surprise! Surprise! Halls, Greens Watersheds Get $422 Million of Flood-Mitigation Funding, Not “ZERO.”

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:

  • Watershed area
  • Population
  • Density
  • LMI population 
  • Spending per capita
  • Spending per square mile
  • Structures damaged in floods
Current as of end of March 2021. Note: data excludes maintenance spending. Spending shows only capital-improvement flood-mitigation projects. To see the original HCFCD data, click here. For a high resolution, printable PDF of my summary sheet above, click here.

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!  

Also, in 2019, commissioners adopted an “equity” prioritization plan that accelerated spending in LMI watersheds. So, Halls and Greens got an extra boost. 

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 6/21/2021 based 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.

What’s Going On in Your Neighborhood?

Ever drive down a road, see someone clearing land, and wonder what was going in? Every wonder what the boundaries of your Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) were? Do you know where the boundaries of your City, Council district, and the City’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) are?

Plat Tracker is Gateway to Understanding Developments Around You

Here’s a quick and easy way to find the answers to all those questions and more. It’s the Houston Plat Tracker website.

The colored parcels represent land being developed.

Clicking on any one of the colored parcels in the map pulls up information about it.

Clicking on the parcel shows plat application number, name and when it is being reviewed.
Turn layers on and off to see the boundaries of City Council Districts, the City limits, the ETJ, TIRZ districts, management districts, historical districts and more.

Plat Tracker also contains powerful measuring and drawing tools.

Zooming into that big purple area north of Huffman in the maps above and then outlining it, showed that the two developments, called Timbers and Los Pinos, comprise more than 6,000 acres!

Plat Tracker has a gallery of 29 different base maps. They include road maps, satellite images, and more. The possibilities are almost endless.

Plat Tracker satellite view. Notice how those two new developments will take advantage of the Grand Parkway as it goes in. Also notice how Colony Ridge in the upper right is getting as big as Kingwood.

Plat Tracker is one of the best ways I know of to see and understand the region’s relentless expansion. Check out all the features on the Plat Tracker website.

You can use what you find on Plat Tracker to get even more information on the City’s Planning Commission website as projects come up for review.

Other GIS Websites Offered By City of Houston

Also check this gateway to other GIS (geographic information systems) that the City offers. The City offers 26 GIS maps that show everything from pothole repair requests to flood hazards, parks, transportation, recreational facilities, land use, controlled airspace, and more.

Flood hazards in the upper Lake Houston Area.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/20/2021

1391 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Why Harris County’s Northern Watersheds Are Different

Every once in a while you see something that distills the essence of a problem…and perhaps a solution. This map hit me between the eyes with the force of a 2×4. It shows the physical and political boundaries of every Harris County Watershed.

Flood Control Out of Bounds

Notice how three watersheds on the northern side of Harris county extend far outside it: Spring, San Jacinto and Luce. The vast majority of each watershed lies in upstream counties such as Montgomery and Liberty. I visually guesstimate about three quarters of each lies outside Harris County.

Watershed map of Harris County shows physical boundaries of Spring, San Jacinto and Luce extend far outside county lines. The same is true for other watersheds on the Harris County periphery.

These watersheds have physical problems that only political solutions will help.

Without the cooperation of county engineers, floodplain managers and commissioners in those upstream counties, there will be no permanent solutions to flooding problems downstream. New developments without enough detention pond capacity can send water downstream faster than we can expand ditches and streams here.

If every new development built enough detention capacity to hold back large rains, no one downstream would face increased flooding risk. The mantra of floodplain managers everywhere is “retain your rain.” It’s a good motto to live by. Those who live upstream today will fight these battles thirty years from now when development extends beyond them. Eventually, everyone is downstream from someone else. We all need to learn to live together.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/17/2021

1388 Days since Hurricane Harvey

GLO Letters to HUD, Green, Garcia Tell Another Side of Mitigation Funding Story

Two letters from Texas General Land Office (GLO) – one to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the other to US Representatives Al Green and Sylvia Garcia – explain the GLO’s awards in a recent competition for $1.1 billion in Harvey mitigation funding.

GLO Commissioner George P. Bush sent the first letter to HUD on May 27, shortly after the GLO “snubbed” (according to Mayor Sylvester Turner) Houston and Harris County. Outraged politicians at City Hall and the County Courthouse organized a protest campaign targeted at the HUD and the GLO. These two letters lay out a slightly different mitigation funding story than the one peddled to Houston media outlets by the City and County. Most media coverage trumpeted how Houston and Harris County got “zero” out of competition because of political warfare between Republicans in Austin and Democrats here.

The facts in these two letters got very little play in Houston media.

Bush Letter to HUD Requests $750 Million Direct Allocation for Harris County

Bush’s letter explains to HUD how the GLO organized and scored grant applications in the competition. The letter also explains how:

  • GLO received more than $6.5 billion in grant requests for $1.1 billion during floods in 2015, 2016, and 2017.
  • Money was awarded based on a numeric scoring system approved by HUD
  • Harris County was one of dozens of counties affected by the three storms
  • Harris County and Harris County communities were awarded $90.4 million and $26.7 million for a total of $117,213,863.96 in the first round of mitigation competition.
  • He (Bush) is submitting a “new action plan amendment” to that will direct $750 million to Harris County.
  • GLO recognizes the great need for mitigation funding in Harris County.
  • GLO supports a direct allocation to Harris County (non-competitive)
  • He (Bush) requests speedy approval of the action plan amendment/direct allocation.

Hmmmmm. $117 million is a little more than zero. However, the point to remember here is that Harris County Flood Control got zero. The $117 went to cities within Harris County to improve resilience.

Havens’ Letter Cites HUD Restrictions, Slow Rate of Drawdown for Previous Programs

Deputy GLO Land Commissioner Mark Havens penned the second letter to Green and Garcia on June 10, 2021. It begins by making some of the same points about $6.5 billion in applications, HUD-approved rules, etc. But then, in regard to the rules he adds something new in the debate.

HUD did not allow damage from Hurricane Harvey to be used as a metric for allocating CDBG-MIT (Community Development Block Grant Mitigation) funding!

Mark Havens, Deputy land commissioner

Deputy Commissioner Havens also points out that:

  • The previous HUD secretary was adamant that a direct allocation didn’t go to Houston and Harris County, and that all counties should be eligible for funds.
  • If you add the $117 million mentioned above to the $750 million direct allocation requested by Bush, Harris County would actually get $867 million which the County could then share with the City of Houston as it saw fit.
  • Harris County also set aside $120 million in infrastructure funding out of the original $2.5 billion allocated to the County and City in the first round of Hurricane Harvey funding.
  • The City also received a direct allocation of $61,884,000 in mitigation funding out of the original $2.5 billion.
  • Out of the $2.5 billion, only $91,225,206 – or 3.6% of the total has been drawn down to date.
  • If the City and County don’t dramatically speed up the distribution of these funds, the funds will be returned to HUD.
  • HUD not yet responded to the request for the $750 million direct allocation.

For More Information

For the full text of:

To see the full text of other documents relating to this issue, see the links this post.

Flood mitigation should be non-partisan. This is about helping people whose lives were destroyed by flooding, not finger pointing. I’m not taking sides. I’m just trying to help give you the information you need about mitigation funding to intelligently question the officials you elected to serve you.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/15/2021

1386 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Russ Poppe, Head of Flood Control District, Resigns

The Houston Chronicle reported this afternoon that Russ Poppe, the Executive Director of the Harris County Flood Control District, submitted a letter of resignation and plans to leave his office on July 2.

Poppe helped former County Judge Ed Emmett sell the historic $2.5 Billion Harris County Flood Bond in 2018 with a whirlwind, barnstorming tour of all 23 watersheds. After voters approved the bond, Poppe, in essence, became the head of multi-billion enterprise overnight.

Russ Poppe

Summary of Work to Date on Flood Bond Projects

His focus immediately turned to hiring staff and contractors to begin hundreds of projects identified in the watershed meetings. In April, he provided an update on the projects’ progress through the end of the first quarter of 2021.

The highlights included:

  • Planning 181 projects
  • Completing 19
  • Managing 141 active projects
  • Accepting 25 grants totaling approximately $960 million with Bond funds providing around $259 million in local matching funds
  • Executing 326 engineering agreements totaling $241 million
  • Awarding 39 construction agreements totaling $296 million
  • Procuring 19 staff augmentation agreements providing 113 contract staff members
  • Acquiring nearly 340 properties at a value over $208 million for construction projects, floodplain preservation, and wetland mitigation banks
  • Making $115 million available to the Office of the County Engineer to manage and construct drainage improvements in nearly 100 subdivisions across Harris County
  • Conducting 140 community engagement meetings with over 11,413 attendees
  • Completing nearly 630 home buyouts at a value over $130 million with over 680 additional in process for a buyout (since Hurricane Harvey)
  • Completing a repair program worth more than $125 million to address damages to District infrastructure caused by Harvey

At the end of March, only 21 bond projects had not yet been initiated. All in all, a pretty amazing record in less than three years.

In addition, Poppe made countless trips to Austin and Washington to lobby for funding. He reportedly had strong relationships in both places and helped attract $495 million in US Army Corps funding for Harris County projects currently being deployed. He also helped attract $260 million in funding for projects on Clear Creek and was head of the San Jacinto River Planning Group.

Navigating the Political Process

Most who watched Poppe in action at Harris County Commissioner’s court meetings were impressed by his calm, steady demeanor in a tumultuous political environment.

Shortly after the flood bond was sold to the public, Lina Hidalgo was elected County Judge in a blue wave of straight-ticket voting. That gave Democrats a majority in Commissioners Court and they systematically started replacing the heads of departments.

Despite his successes, Poppe came under fire from Democrats for not attracting partnership funds fast enough. That supposedly threatened projects in low-to-moderate income areas. Anyone who watched Commissioners Court regularly witnessed constant backbiting in recent months.

In March, it reached a crescendo. Democrats demanded that Poppe identify the next seven years of partnership funding in 90 days. Commissioner Rodney Ellis threatened “we’ll all have blood on our hands” if those projects in Halls and Greens Bayous don’t get completed. The implication was that Poppe was dragging his feet in adopting the Democrats “equity” plan.

FOIA Request Shows Poor Watersheds Already Far Ahead

To see if that last point was true, I started investigating those watersheds. I also submitted a FOIA request for HCFCD spending by watershed over several different time periods, including since Harvey and since 2000. I have now correlated that with other information and have spent months analyzing it. (It will soon turn into a series of articles.)

Suffice it to say that Poppe and his team were not dragging their feet.

A quartile analysis showed that the poorest watersheds were already getting twice as much flood-mitigation funding compared to the richest.

You’d think that would make Lina Hidalgo, Rodney Ellis, Adrian Garcia, Shiela Jackson Lee and Al Green happy. However, it appears to this observer that the Democrats have driven out a tremendous asset who was working hard to please his political bosses. In my opinion, they should have just declared victory and let Poppe do his work.

It will be hard to find a replacement as qualified as he is. At their June 29 meeting, Commissioners will have three options:

  • Take no action
  • Name an interim director
  • Appoint a new director

Make sure you watch that meeting. The fate of the flood-mitigation in Harris County is at stake. Poppe was highly respected according to multiple sources and will make a tremendous asset to some organization. People of Poppe’s calibre rarely make moves like this without having a plan in mind. I hope he decides to stay in the region.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/12/2021

1383 Days since Hurricane Harvey