FAQs About Water Propositions on November Ballot

9/27/25 – The information below comes from a Texas Water Development Board newsletter pertaining to water supply funding propositions on the November Ballot. Buried within them are some rules that could also benefit flood mitigation. I am reprinting the newsletter verbatim.

Proposition 4 and Texas Water Fund

Frequently Asked Questions

Proposition 4 will be on the ballot in November

Texans will be voting in November on a number of propositions, including Proposition 4, which if approved would allocate a portion of state sales and use tax to the Texas Water Fund. The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) assembled the following FAQs as an informational resource for Texans.

Download a printable version of the FAQs and get more information on the TWDB website.

___________________________

1. What would House Joint Resolution 7 and Proposition 4 do?

Contingent upon voter approval, House Joint Resolution (HJR 7) would require the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts each state fiscal year to deposit to the credit of the Texas Water Fund the first $1 billion of the net revenue derived from the imposition of the state sales and use tax that exceeds the first $46.5 billion of that revenue coming into the treasury in that state fiscal year. This provision would go into effect September 1, 2027, and would expire August 31, 2047.

The HJR 7 Proposition 4 ballot language is:

“The constitutional amendment to dedicate a portion of the revenue derived from state sales and use taxes to the Texas water fund and to provide for the allocation and use of that revenue.”

The availability of sales and use tax deposits into the Texas Water Fund for Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) financial assistance programs is contingent upon:

  • voter approval of Proposition 4 in the November 2025 election,
  • subsequent legislative appropriations, and
  • availability of state sales and use tax revenue that exceeds the first $46.5 billion coming into the treasury in that state fiscal year.
2. What is the Texas Water Fund and how was it created?

The Texas Water Fund is a special fund in the state treasury outside the general revenue fund that is administered by the TWDB. Senate Bill 28 and Senate Joint Resolution 75, passed in 2023 by the 88th Texas Legislature, provided for creation of the fund. In the November 2023 election, Texas voters passed Proposition 6 (associated with Senate Joint Resolution 75), creating the Texas Water Fund to assist in financing water projects in Texas.

3. What does the Texas Water Fund do for Texas?

The Texas Water Fund supports the TWDB mission of leading the state’s efforts in ensuring a secure water future for Texas. The Texas population is projected to increase

53 percent between 2030 and 2080, from 34.2 million to 52.3 million, according to the projections included in the adopted 2026 regional water plans.

The Texas Water Fund helps communities implement cost‐effective water, wastewater, and flood projects through new and existing TWDB programs. The costs associated with these types of projects can often make them difficult for some communities to implement. By providing low‐cost, flexible financing options, the funding provides economic opportunity for communities to overcome cost hurdles.

More information on funding needs for water and wastewater infrastructure across the state, as well as water supply strategies recommended in the state water plan and flood mitigation solutions recommended in the state flood plan, can be found in this infographic.

4. What can the Texas Water Fund be used for?

The TWDB may only use the Texas Water Fund to transfer money to the following funds or accounts administered by the TWDB (those in bold were added by Senate Bill 7 in 2025):

5. What statutory changes were made to the Texas Water Fund by the 89th Texas Legislature?

In 2025, the 89th Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 7, which made some changes to the Texas Water Fund statute. The legislature also passed House Joint Resolution 7, which proposes a constitutional amendment (Proposition 4) that will appear on the November 2025 ballot, to dedicate a portion of the revenue derived from state sales and use taxes to the Texas Water Fund and to provide for the allocation and use of that revenue.

Statutory changes to the Texas Water Fund by Senate Bill 7 include the following expansion of:

  • Funds and accounts to which funds may be transferred
  • Priorities for funding
  • Eligibility for the New Water Supply for Texas fund

Additional statutory changes contingent upon voter approval includes the following:

  • For the purposes of the constitutionally dedicated revenue stream, groundwater is considered brackish if the total dissolved solids concentration is not less than 3,000 milligrams per liter at the time of production from a well.
  • Of the money deposited to the credit of the Texas Water Fund (subject to expiration August 31, 2047), the TWDB shall allocate no less than 50 percent for transfer to the New Water Supply for Texas Fund and/or the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas.
6. How much money has been appropriated to the Texas Water Fund to date and what has it been used for?

The 88th Texas Legislature authorized a one-time, $1 billion supplemental appropriation of general revenue to the Texas Water Fund, as approved by voters in 2023. Of the initial amount appropriated to the Texas Water Fund, the TWDB was required to allocate no less than 25 percent ($250 million) to the New Water Supply for Texas Fund.

With the initial appropriation, the TWDB is required to ensure that a portion of the money transferred from the fund is used for the following:

  • Water infrastructure projects, prioritized by risk or need, for
    • rural political subdivisions; and
    • municipalities with a population less than 150,000;
  • Projects for which all required state or federal permitting has been substantially completed, as determined by the Board;
  • The statewide water public awareness program;
  • Water conservation strategies; and
  • Water loss mitigation projects.

To meet these statutory directives and in response to solicited stakeholder feedback, the TWDB Executive Administrator developed a Texas Water Fund implementation plan. As of September 2025, the TWDB has committed more than $735 million in funding from the Texas Water Fund through several financial assistance programs, as outlined in the plan.

7. When will new funding be available and what is the anticipated timeline?

Contingent upon voter approval, legislative appropriations, and the availability of sales tax revenue that exceeds the first $46.5 billion of that revenue coming into the treasury in state fiscal year 2028, funding may be transferred by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts to the Texas Water Fund late in fiscal year 2028 and may be available for financial assistance through the TWDB in state fiscal year 2029.

If the collected sales tax revenue does not exceed $46.5 billion in a state fiscal year, then no money would be transferred to the Texas Water Fund, and no additional funding would be made available through the TWDB financial assistance programs.

Anticipated timeline:

  • November 4, 2025: Consideration of Proposition 4 by Texas voters
  • May 2027: General Appropriations Act (90th Texas Legislative Session)
  • Summer 2028: Transfer of constitutionally dedicated funds by Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts to the Texas Water Fund, contingent upon revenue availability and legislative appropriation
  • Fall 2029: Availability of funds via TWDB financial assistance programs.

8. Where can information on sales tax revenue be found?

In January of each odd-numbered year, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts releases its Biennial Revenue Estimate for the upcoming biennium, including a projected estimate of the amount of sales tax revenue.

The January 2025 Biennial Revenue Estimate projects an estimated $94 billion in sales tax collections for the 2026 to 2027 biennium; the Biennial Revenue Estimate for the 2028 to 2029 biennium will be available in January 2027. The Comptroller’s website also features monthly updates on state revenue collections deposited to general revenue-related funds.

9. What are the Texas Legislature’s priorities for use of the Texas Water Fund?

The TWDB must ensure that a portion of the money transferred from the fund is used for the following (those in bold were added by Senate Bill 7):

  • Water and wastewater infrastructure projects, including projects to rehabilitate or replace deficient or deteriorating infrastructure, prioritized by risk or need for financial assistance, including grants for rural political subdivisions and municipalities with a population of less than 150,000;
  • Projects for which all required state or federal permitting has been substantially completed;
  • The statewide water public awareness program;
  • Water conservation strategies;
  • Water loss mitigation projects; and
  • Technical assistance for applicants in obtaining and using financial assistance from funds and accounts administered by the TWDB.

10. Where will the money for the Texas Water Fund come from and how will it be managed?

The Texas Water Fund will receive additional transferred funding from the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, subject to the availability of revenue. Money in the Texas Water Fund will be held and invested by the Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company.

The TWDB may not transfer money to a fund or account, other than the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas and the Texas Water Fund Administrative Fund, until the project application for which the money is to be used has received a financial assistance commitment from the TWDB governing Board. Additionally, the TWDB may only transfer money to a fund or account subject to legislative appropriation.

11. Is the Texas Water Fund a financial assistance program?

The Texas Water Fund is not a TWDB financial assistance program and cannot offer loans or grants directly. Rather, it will enable the TWDB to provide funding through existing financial assistance programs and the newly created New Water Supply Fund for Texas. Each program will have administrative rules, guidance documents, and in some cases an “Intended Use Plan” that outlines how the program will allocate and distribute funds.

12. Does the Texas Water Fund allow for grants in addition to loans?

Money appropriated to the Texas Water Fund will be transferred to allowable program funds and accounts, as approved by the TWDB governing Board. Once funds are transferred, all statutory and rule requirements applicable to each program will apply.

Programs that have authorization for grants (or principal forgiveness) include the:

  • Rural Water Assistance Fund
  • Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
  • Economically Distressed Areas Program
  • Flood Infrastructure Fund
  • Agricultural Water Conservation Fund
  • Newly created New Water Supply for Texas Fund.

Some programs, such as the Texas Water Development Fund and State Water Implementation Fund for Texas, do not offer grants due to statutory or constitutional limitations.

13. What is the New Water Supply for Texas Fund?

The New Water Supply for Texas Fund is a special fund in the state treasury administered by the TWDB. Of the money deposited to the credit of the Texas Water Fund from the constitutionally dedicated revenue stream before September 1, 2047, the TWDB is required to allocate no less than 50 percent for transfer to the New Water Supply for Texas fund or the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas.

The New Water Supply for Texas Fund may be used for the following purposes (additional purposes added by Senate Bill 7 are in bold):

  1. To provide financial assistance to political subdivisions of the state to develop water supply projects that create new water sources for the state, including:
    • desalination projects, including marine and brackish water desalination;
    • produced water treatment projects, other than projects that are only for purposes of oil and gas exploration;
    • aquifer storage and recovery projects;
    • water and wastewater reuse projects;
      • the required land has already been acquired;
      • a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material has been issued by the United States Secretary of the Army;
      • a permit for the storage, taking, or diversion of state water has been issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; and
    • the development of infrastructure to transport water or integrate water into a water supply system, other than groundwater produced from a well in this state that is not part of a project described by this subdivision.
  2. To make transfers to:
    • the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas or
    • the Texas Water Development Fund II.
  3. To make transfers to the Texas Water Bank Account, which was established to facilitate the transfer, sale, or lease of water and water rights throughout the state, including purchasing, holding, and transferring water rights in the name of the TWDB.
  4. To make transfers to the State Participation Account of Development Fund II.

The TWDB is directed to undertake project financing through the New Water Supply Fund for Texas that will lead to 7 million acre-feet of new water supplies by December 31, 2033.

14. Does the New Water Supply Fund allow for public-private partnerships?

Yes, financial assistance may be provided from the New Water Supply Fund for a qualifying project under Chapter 2267, Government Code, which covers public-private partnerships. The project must comply with all requirements of that chapter of the Government Code. The applicant must be a political subdivision of the State of Texas.

15. What is the Statewide Water Public Awareness Program?

Senate Bill 28 directed the TWDB to develop and implement a statewide water public awareness program to educate residents about water. The program will consider the difference in water needs of various geographic regions of the state and will be designed to complement and support existing local and regional water education or awareness programs.

In 2025, the TWDB awarded a contract to fund a statewide water public awareness campaign in the form of a grant from the Texas Water Fund. Campaign development is underway with plans to launch in 2026. The TWDB will seek feedback on other TWDB-led initiatives to further public awareness of water.

16. How are TWDB financial assistance program funds disbursed?

The TWDB follows administrative rules and, in some cases, an Intended Use Plan for each financial assistance program eligible to receive funds; these outline the intended method for allocating funds for that program. Eligible entities will apply for financial assistance, and the TWDB will evaluate projects according to specific application requirements. Funds will be disbursed for projects that meet all requirements, rank within the amount of funds available, and receive a formal commitment from the TWDB governing Board.

17. How can I stay informed?

Subscribe to our “General Information” and “Financial Assistance” email lists to receive the latest information.

Texas Water Development Board | 512-463-7847 | www.twdb.texas.gov

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/27/2025

2951 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Save the Date: Kingwood Town Hall Meeting On Tuesday, Sept. 30

9/26/2025 – On Tuesday, September 30, Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger will host a town hall meeting at the Kingwood Community Center.  The doors will open at 5:30 p.m., with informational booths from various City departments available to answer your questions. The main program will begin promptly at 6:30 p.m. Please mark your calendars for this important event!

Kingwood/Lake Houston

Tuesday, September 30

Program @ 6:30 p.m.

Kingwood Community Center

4102 Rustic Woods Drive

Houston, TX 77345

Speakers Will Include

The program will feature:

  • State Representative Charles Cunningham (including a Q&A conversation with Council Member Flickinger, moderated by Charles Blain)
  • Houston Council Member Twila Carter
  • Coastal Water Authority Board Member Dan Huberty
  • Houston Public Works
  • TIRZ 10 / Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority
  • Houston Police Department
  • Houston Solid Waste Management Department
  • Houston Health Department

This will be the perfect venue to speak with City and State leaders. Submit questions before hand here to make sure the speakers come prepared to address your concerns.

Your questions will be read aloud during the Town Hall. Your feedback is a vital part of the discussion and plays a key role in shaping the future of our community.

Council Member Flickinger encourages all residents to attend.

Visit Informational Tables from 5:30 to 6:30

Before the program, you’ll also have a chance to talk directly to the people who staff key City, State and regional services. They will include:

  • Department of Neighborhoods
  • San Jacinto River Authority
  • Houston Parks and Recreation Department
  • BARC
  • 311
  • Trees for Kingwood
  • Texas General Land Office

Perfect Venue To Raise Flood Concerns

While the town hall meeting will cover far more than flooding issues, many people will be there who can address flooding concerns.

For instance:

  • Council Member Flickinger and Dan Huberty (now a member of the Coastal Water Authority board) can answer questions about the Lake Houston Dam, including repairs, replacement and the addition of gates.
  • State Rep. Charles Cunningham can answer questions about the new Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District, the TCEQ, sand mines, a river-basin-wide flood-control district, and more.
  • San Jacinto River Authority can answer your questions about lake lowering, sand traps, and joint-reservoir-operations (Lake Conroe/Lake Houston) and the near miss thousands of us had in the May Day flood of 2024.
  • Texas General Land Office is managing the distribution of more than $850 million in US Department of Housing and Urban Development Disaster Relief and Flood Mitigation funds in the Houston area. That includes $42 million for the Taylor Gully channel improvements and Woodridge Village detention basins.
  • Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority can discuss its reconstruction of Northpark Drive, and what will become the first all-weather evacuation route from Kingwood.

Questions Work Two Ways

So, submit your questions now. They will help you understand what’s going on. And they will communicate your concerns to leaders.

As Council Member Flickinger said, “Your questions, concerns, and ideas are invaluable in guiding the decisions that impact our neighborhood and quality of life.”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/26/25

2950 Days since Hurricane Harvey

LCA Still Complaining to SJRA About Lake Lowering

9/25/2025 – At this morning’s San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) board meeting, the president of the Lake Conroe Association (LCA) protested the SJRA’s latest efforts to find a suitable compromise that protects upstream and downstream interests.

LCA argued against SJRA’s request to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to increase the maximum release rate in advance of storms from 700 to 2,000 cubic feet per second – even though the increase could help prevent unnecessary releases and conserve water – two things the LCA claims to want.

LCA president Kevin Lacy (white shirt with back to camera) addresses SJRA board today.

Why the Need for Lake Lowering?

During public comment, Kevin Lacy, LCA president, attacked the SJRA’s lake lowering policy, which has been modified several times since Governor Greg Abbott directed the SJRA to “immediately implement” policies that protected downstream residents from flooding.

The release of 79,000 cubic feet per second from Lake Conroe accounted for roughly a third of all the water coming down the West Fork at the peak of Hurricane Harvey in 2017. The resulting surge came without warning in the middle of the night.

It killed more than a dozen people; flooded more than 13,000 homes and 3,300 businesses; damaged the US59 and West Lake Houston Parkway Bridges; flooded Kingwood High School to the second floor; and ultimately cost the City of Houston an estimated $100 million in lost tax revenue. That last number is predicated on lost sales tax revenue AND a decrease of commercial and personal property taxes of 25%.

The idea behind the lake lowering strategy: create extra storage capacity in Lake Conroe to minimize the need for such massive releases in the future. That would reduce flood risk for downstream residents until the City finishes new flood gates on Lake Houston that can keep up with Lake Conroe releases. But the gates are taking much longer than originally anticipated.

Iterations of Lake Lowering Strategy

The SJRA board has modified its lake lowering policy several times in response to pushback from the Lake Conroe Association.

  • At first, the policy called for lowering the lake by fixed amounts for fixed times during the spring rainy season and the peak of hurricane season.
  • Then, the SJRA began lowering the lake by lesser amounts and for shorter times.
  • Next, the SJRA began lowering the lake only in advance of major storms on an as-needed basis.

However, the maximum pre-release rate allowed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality was 700 cubic feet per second. That was not always fast enough to lower a lake as large as Conroe significantly before storms struck.

Higher Release Rates Actually Conserve Water

So, the SJRA had to release much further in advance of storms, i.e., a week instead of 2-3 days. The excessive lead times sometimes meant that storms could veer away before they struck. Such a “false release” happened last June, according to Lacy’s testimony today.

The obvious solution was to increase the maximum allowable release rate. That would create more storage capacity faster. So, SJRA petitioned TCEQ to increase the release rate to 2,000 CFS, almost triple the previous rate, but not so much that it would flood downstream residents. And its a rate that the existing gates on Lake Houston can keep up with.

But LCA complained about that, too, even though it would minimize wasted water and inconvenience for Lake Conroe boaters.

According to Matt Barrett, SJRA’s Flood Management Division Manager, TCEQ has not yet ruled on the increased release rate.

View Live Testimony

You can view the live testimony on the SJRA website. Lacy’s public comment and the SJRA General Manager’s response take about ten minutes. Start watching at 2:13 into the video as Lacy takes his seat.

Throughout his time at the microphone, Lacy repeatedly complains about how long the City of Houston is taking to install additional floodgates on Lake Houston. Never once does he acknowledge the number of times that the lake lowering policy saved downstream residents from flooding.

Make sure you also watch the response to Lacy’s comments from Aubrey Spear, SJRA’s general manager. Spear explains how SJRA is trying to find a suitable compromise between upstream recreational and downstream flood-mitigation interests.

Spear said in regard to the increase in the release rate to 2,000 CFS, “We are committed to optimizing flood mitigation during major storm events to reduce flood impact to properties both upstream and downstream of the dam. We are adding another tool to our toolbox that could be helpful, but may never be used.” 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/25/2025

2949 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Winters Bayou Project Might Reduce Flooding, Increase Water Supply

According to ChatGPT, the 2025 Texas legislature this year devoted 2.7 times more money to increasing water supply than to mitigating flooding.

The water-supply funding aims to keep Texas growing, even as large sections of the state struggle with water shortages, drought, aquifer depletion and subsidence.

Dual-Purpose Funding

But some of the money allocated by the legislature to water supply can also be used for flood mitigation – if it serves a dual purpose, such as new reservoirs. This may be a way to reduce flooding and sustain growth at the same time.

Back in 2022, I wrote a story about a draft of the first State Flood Plan. The San Jacinto/Region 6 Flood Planning Group recommended a project far upstream on the East Fork called the Winters Bayou Detention Basin. In 2024, the North Houston Association identified it as one of the Association’s top priorities.

Location of Winters Bayou Project approximately 10 miles upstream from Cleveland on the East Fork in San Jacinto County.

They chose the site for its ability to reduce flows in downstream damage centers, limited development within the footprint, and steep terrain that allows for increased storage volume.

But detention basins don’t qualify for water infrastructure funding under Texas Water Development Board SWIFT fund guidelines. SWIFT stands for State Water Infrastructure For Texas.

However, some changes in the name and design might make the Winters Bayou Project eligible.

Winters Bayou Project Might Qualify

Of all the projects listed in the San Jacinto Watershed Flood Plan, the Winters Bayou project was one of the largest.

A 54-ft tall concrete dam would create a 1.60-mile-long impoundment that captures runoff from Winters Bayou. It was conceived as a dry dam with five reinforced 10×10 concrete culverts and twin 300′ backup spillways that could hold 45,000 acre feet of floodwater (see page 180). To put that in perspective…

45,000 acre feet is about a third of the storage volume of Lake Houston.

The Houston region continues to grow at breakneck speed. And the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District is looking for new water sources to serve the area east of Lake Houston.

The Winters Bayou project is already in the Lake Houston watershed. And the City’s Northeast Water Purification Plant on Lake Houston could purify the water.

But could a water-supply reservoir still serve a flood-control purpose? Perhaps with a different design.

The project made it into the final version of the 2024 state flood plan – as a flood-mitigation-only project. But it ranked #82 in the state. And its projected $134 million cost means it won’t be done for decades, if ever.

Perhaps given the state’s new water-supply priorities, a dual purpose reservoir would rank higher and get built sooner. Plus, the sale of water might help generate revenue that defrays expenses.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/24/25 based on a suggestion from Kingwood flood fighter Chris Bloch

2948 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Harris County Commissioners Adopt Six Motions Affecting Future of 2018 Flood Bond

9/19/25 – On 9/18/25, Harris County Commissioners reviewed a presentation about the status of 2018 Flood Bond Projects. They also.adopted six motions that will affect the future of Harris County Flood Control District and the 2018 Flood Bond. In fact, they will result in an “updated bond package.” (See Motions below.)

Highlights of Presentation

The presentation identified 75 active bond IDs out of the original 181 that are moving forward into construction. They include projects that rank in the top quartile of the 2022 Equity Prioritization Framework as well as those in lower quartiles that already had partner funding committed.

  • An additional 26 projects will be paused and reactivated if additional funding materializes.
  • 15 Projects will be closed because they turned out not to be technically feasible or because partner funding never materialized.
  • 54 projects have been marked “completed” meaning their full scope as outlined in the original flood blond has already been realized.
  • In all, 75 bond IDs that include 248 discrete projects will move forward. They include stormwater detention basins, channel improvements and bridge replacements that theoretically remove 183,000 people from the floodplain.

According to Eric Heppen, Precinct 3’s director of engineering, the engineering teams from each precinct have met weekly with HCFCD since June to arrive at recommendations that all four precincts and Flood Control could agree on. In that respect, yesterday’s meeting represents a dramatic improvement over earlier meetings that rapidly devolved into brawls.

This set of recommendations means the County is only $400 million short, not the $1.3 billion that Dr. Tina Petersen, executive director of HCFCD, previously alluded to.

Substance of Six Motions Adopted by Court

Commissioners adopted the following six motions.

Funding Allocation: 

Motion to approve the allocation of 2018 Flood Bond funds for each Bond ID and all associated projects, as presented in the Updated Bond Package and as directed by Commissioners Court, funding current and future needs for all projects in Quartile 1 of the 2022 prioritization framework and projects with secured partnerships.

Dashboard: 

Motion to direct Flood Control to maintain the public 2018 Flood Bond dashboard – which includes but is not limited to project schedules, prioritization scores, budget, location, and lifecycle stage for all projects – and to update the dashboard quarterly in advance of Commissioners Court updates, including directing the Flood Control District to continue to work with court offices and the community to improve the dashboard’s user friendliness, including but not limited to:

  • Providing Bond ID previews
  • Improved language accessibility
  • Incorporating the ability to filter projects by features such as:
    • Partnership projects 
    • Quartile score
    • Project status, and 
    • Project precinct;
  • Opportunities for the community to be engaged on testing the dashboard and relevant applications
Court Updates: 

Motion to direct Flood Control to provide quarterly updates to Commissioners Court on the progress of all bond projects including spending and lifecycle stage.

Working Group: 

Motion to direct Flood Control to convene the 2018 Flood Bond Working Group – composed of staff from the Court offices – at least quarterly in advance of Court updates:

  1. The Working Group will be consulted on the following:
    1. Project progress, schedules, and spending
    2. New partnership opportunities that may arise
    3. Unneeded/excess funds that may be freed up for reallocation
  2. For projects completing a lifecycle stage where the estimated budget exceeds 15% of the allocated amount for that project or the proposed scope materially shifts from what was originally identified and agreed to, approval by Court will be required. The Working Group will work with Flood Control to define what constitutes a material shift and transmit the agreement to Court.
Prioritization Framework: 

Move to direct the Flood Control District to use the 2022 Prioritization Framework scores to allocate any 2018 Flood Bond funds that become available to Bond IDs that are paused and other bond projects where the scope and funds identified in the Updated Bond Package need to be increased. Funds shall be considered available when the bond reserve contingency exceeds 15% of the total remaining funds left to be spent. Any deviation from the Framework shall require prior approval by a majority vote of Commissioners Court.

Prioritization Scoring: 

Move to direct Flood Control District to add 2022 Prioritization Framework scores to every Bond ID and associated projects where feasible and with the exceptions of buyout projects and countywide projects as noted in the 2022 Prioritization Framework transmittal.

Additional Information about Project Rankings and Spending

Heppen also provided two spreadsheets shared with commissioners:

In future posts, I will discuss how these changes affect Bond IDs and projects in the Lake Houston Area and elsewhere that didn’t make the cut. So check back often.

Posted by Bob Rehak

2943 Days since Hurricane Harvey

HCFCD Launches New Flood-Bond Dashboard

9/18/25 – Just-in-Time Data! Harris County Commissioners have been begging for up-to-date information about the 2018 Flood Bond since February. Today, they will see a new Flood Bond Dashboard. It should enable them to make better, more timely decisions about flood-bond projects.

At times in the last few months, Commissioners requests became both blunt and brutal. But last night, HCFCD launched a new interactive dashboard on the 2018 Bond page of their website. The dashboard shows detailed information about the overall status of the bond and each project within it.

Drilling Down Through Data

The dashboard includes two main sections.

  • The first includes summary graphs. It also provides a path to information about every bond ID and project.
  • Selecting one or more Bond IDs in the first section pulls up a map of the project(s) in the second, bottom section.

Info boxes next to the map pop up and show additional information, including which stage of the project lifecycle the project is currently at. It’s a powerful and helpful tool that HCFCD intends to continue improving.

Take a Guided Tour

Below are some screen captures that illustrate the dashboard’s functionality.

Four main buttons across the top graphic let you drill down into information about the bond and projects within it.

Financial Summary

Clicking Financial Summary shows the total of secured funds plus where they came from.

Hovering over any one of the segments in the circle graphs translates percentages to absolute dollar amounts.

Project Summary

Clicking the Project Summary Button displays information about the total number of bond IDs and their project components.

Again, placing your cursor over a segment of a graph pulls up additional information about that segment.

Watershed Summary

The Watershed Summary table lets you compare spending to date and “funds remaining” within each watershed.

Project Overviews

The last button, Project Overviews, lets you drill down into any Bond ID and its associated projects to learn more information about them. Scroll up or down to select a bond ID or multiple IDs. Then check the one(s) that interest you.

Dragging left over the right hand part of the columns reveals more hidden columns.

In addition to the columns shown above, you can find information about the status of planning, engineering, and construction, as well as an ETA for construction.

Interactive Map

When you select a bond ID and then click the Map Query Button, the system highlights the location within the county.

Clicking on the location (represented by a dot) within the map then pulls up an info box that contains a narrative about the project. The box also includes lifecycle data and a close-up map of the project and its boundaries. See below. I checked Kingwood Diversion Ditch and then clicked on “Map Query.”

If you don’t know the Bond ID, start with the map and work in reverse. Clicking on one of the many dots on the map will still pull up the info box. From there, you can see the bond ID and then find the information in the table.

Other Related Information

The dashboard is still a work in progress. It launched last night. So give HCFCD a little time to work out any kinks you may find.

HCFCD plans to update the information quarterly and also issue a new Bond Update that incorporates dashboard information.

Check out the three summary reports at the top of the page:

  • Secured Partnerships
  • Definition of Secured Partnerships
  • List of All Bond IDs

Finally: this dashboard will supplement, not replace the Microsoft PowerBI tables or Excel Spreadsheets found elsewhere in HCFCD’s Activity section.

Watch Discussion in Commissioners Court Today

Commissioners will use this information today in Court to discuss the future of the flood bond.

Reportedly, commissioners’ staffs have used this information to eliminate some projects that had no or little benefit. They will recommend redeploying funding from those to remaining projects.

They also reportedly discovered that the budget shortfall was smaller than previously discussed and that they should be able to fund every project that already has partnership dollars attached.

That sounds like good news. However, this is a political process. So, I hesitate to make any predictions. Watch the discussion of Item 117 on the Agenda.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/18/2025

2942 Days since Hurricane Harvey

With Grant Deadlines Approaching, Bid Deadlines Are Slipping

9/16/2025 – Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) could soon be caught in a time squeeze.

Deadlines are fast approaching on hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) via the Texas General Land Office (GLO). Yet HCFCD is pushing projected start dates for those projects further into the future. So, there may not be enough time to complete the jobs.

“As a rule of thumb, it typically takes two years to build a detention basin. But HCFCD has left itself with only approximately a year to build many with urgent deadlines.”

Construction Expert

And further deadline extensions likely will not be granted. When HUD granted HCFCD an extension on 10 of the 29 projects, HUD’s letter said, in essence, not to bother asking for another extension. A GLO spokesperson said, “The GLO doesn’t have the statutory authority to override HUD.”

Status of Grants and Deadlines

Yesterday, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) released the status of the 29 grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. They currently total $862.6 million.

The 29 grants fall into two categories: Disaster Relief (DR) and Mitigation (MIT).

HCFCD has an immovable deadline of February 28, 2027 for all Disaster Relief grants. That’s just 17 months away. And 9 out of the 10 that have not yet started won’t even go out for bids until next year. And one of those will be bid in the third quarter of next year, likely leaving only a few months to complete the $9 million project.

Let’s discuss the DR projects first. See the first group below.

For a printable, high-res PDF, click here.

Of the 11 projects in the Disaster Relief group, ten have already been approved and amended into the County’s contract. But only one has started construction. All the others haven’t even been bid yet. And won’t be for months.

Seven of Ten Remaining DR Projects Show Slippage in Bid Schedules

HCFCD periodically publishes “bid outlooks.” They tell potential contractors when HCFCD intends to advertise projects for bidding.

Comparing the June and August project bidding schedules shows that…

Seven of the remaining 10 have slipped three to nine months … in two months.

See table below.
Dates compiled from HCFCD Bid Outlooks for June and August (published in September).

How do you get this far and not have projects ready to bid immediately after approval? An HCFCD spokesperson said, “It’s quite a layered process” with approvals from other authorities, too, i.e., for environmental studies.

Regardless, only 17 months remain before an already extended deadline.

According to a GLO spokesperson, when HUD granted the deadline extension, the letter granting the extension basically said, “Don’t ask for another.” The GLO spokesperson also confirmed that GLO did not have statutory authority to grant an extension against HUD’s ruling.

So is there time to complete the Disaster Relief projects?

Arbor Oaks Project Illustrates Difficulty of Deadline

Only 17 months remain to bid and build 10 DR projects. And it typically takes 3 to 6 months just to:

  • Advertise a project for bids
  • Secure and review the bids
  • Get commissioners court to approve the bids
  • Finalize the contract
  • Issue a “notice to proceed”
  • Mobilize crews

That leaves roughly a year to build the projects. But the ten listed above could have even less time because of slippage in the bidding schedules.

Only one CDBG-DR job has started construction already: the Arbor Oaks Stormwater Detention Basin in White Oak Bayou’s watershed.

  • Commissioners Court approved the job for bidding on 5/8/2025.
  • HCFCD awarded the contract on 6/26/2025.
  • As of yesterday afternoon, the contractor was still mulching trees – more than 4 months after the job was first advertised.

No dirt has been removed yet. The pictures below show how the project looked on 9/16/2025.

Former Arbor Oaks subdivision near White Oak Bayou
Extent of clearing on 9/16/2025. Concrete removal was supposed to start yesterday, but did not by 2PM.
The only activity on the site was tree clearing/mulching.

The diagram below shows what contractors still must build.

Two dry-bottom and two wet-bottom basins will provide 221 acre-feet of stormwater storage. That’s a lot of dirt to move!

If HCFCD misses that February 28, 2027 deadline, the county could be on the hook for up to $34.2 million in HUD funds. And because that project got the earliest start, it has the highest likelihood of beating the deadline. What about other projects that won’t even be bid until there’s less than a year to bid and build them?

Not far away, the Mercer Basin on Cypress Creek was supposed to take one year to build on an expedited basis. However, it’s now taken two years and could take another half year to complete.

Mitigation Projects Have Deadlines, Too

Because the DR projects have the most immediate deadlines, everyone has been focusing on those first. But the second group of 18 MIT projects also have deadlines.

All MIT funding allocated to the State of Texas after Hurricane must be turned into HUD by January 1, 2033. But the GLO needs 18 months to complete paperwork and package documentation for thousands of projects for HUD’s audit. So, the deadline for sub-recipients, such as HCFCD is July 1, 2031.

But there’s another wrinkle that puts even more pressure on sub-recipients to start projects soon. HUD wants the State to spend half the funds by January 1, 2027 – two months BEFORE the DR deadline.

How Real are the Deadlines?

There seem to be two different views of deadlines.

HCFCD’s current management, like a former Mayor of Houston, appears to believe that deadlines can be indefinitely extended.

The GLO views them as a contractual obligation, which if violated, could result in the taxpayers of Texas footing the bill for unnecessary delays.

According to the GLO, HUD changed its way of doing business after previous disasters such as Hurricane Ike, when some funds sat unused for years. So, after Harvey, HUD adopted, in essence, a “use it or lose it” policy with strict deadlines. Not everyone has gotten that message yet.

The potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars for flood mitigation could make voters very unhappy.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/18/2025

2941 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.

Final Kingwood Diversion Ditch Study Up for Approval Thursday

9/15/25 – Harris County Commissioners Court is being asked to approve a contract for final engineering of new Kingwood Diversion Ditch conveyance improvements this Thursday, 2/18/25. See Item 272 on the Agenda.

The Kingwood Area Drainage analysis ranked Diversion Ditch improvements as the most important project in Kingwood. That’s in large part because improving flow through the Diversion Ditch will take floodwater out of Bens Branch which runs through Kingwood Town Center. So, it’s like a Texas twofer.

Diversion Ditch shown in white, proposed new outfall in green, and Bens Branch in red.

County Purchasing Dept. Recommending Halff

The Harris County Purchasing Department recommends Halff Associates, Inc. based on “highest overall evaluation” for their proposal. The County reserves the right to negotiate with the next highest ranking proposal if it can’t reach a suitable agreement with Halff.

Halff did the engineering work for Taylor Gully and Woodridge Village. The company also recently updated Montgomery County’s Drainage Criteria Manual and Subdivision Rules and Regulations. So, it is familiar with drainage issues in the area.

Another company, Neel-Schaffer developed the preliminary Kingwood Diversion Ditch report. However, it took almost five times longer than expected and overlooked some obvious opportunities.

Since Neel-Schaffer released its preliminary report, the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority announced plans to build 100 acre-feet of detention in the area where the Diversion Ditch splits off from Bens Branch just north of Northpark. That’s a quarter of the needed 405 acre-feet of detention right there.

Included in the Project

This is a request to authorize negotiation for an agreement that will provide final design, bidding and construction phase services for Kingwood Diversion Ditch channel conveyance improvements.

The project begins upstream of the confluence of Bens Branch and the Kingwood Diversion Ditch and ends downstream at the West Fork San Jacinto River. The total project length is approximately 4.2 miles along the Kingwood Diversion Ditch. 

Looking upstream/north at the Diversion Ditch toward Kingwood Drive from over the Walnut Lane Bridge. The “Kingwood Rapids” are just out of frame at the bottom of the frame.

Conveyance improvements will include:

  • Construction of a diversion structure to divert flow off Bens Branch into the Kingwood Diversion Ditch
  • Erosion protection against a naturally steep portion of the existing channel near Walnut Lane
  • A new outfall at Woodland Hills into the West Fork San Jacinto River
  • 405 acre-feet of stormwater detention to mitigate for impacts from the channel improvements
  • Improvements to five existing bridges.

The project area along Kingwood Diversion Ditch consists of approximately 3.86 miles inside Harris County limits and an additional 0.32 miles extends into Montgomery County.  The project falls into the second quartile of the County’s Equity Prioritization Framework.

Kingwood Diversion Ditch
Looking S at Kingwood Diversion Ditch from near the Montgomery County Line and Kings Mill.

Earlier this year, Commissioners voted to redeploy all remaining funding in Quartiles 2, 3, and 4 to complete projects in Quartile 1. However, they later reconsidered that motion. The fact that the Diversion Ditch already has federal partnership funds allocated to it thanks to the work of Congressman Dan Crenshaw, whose earmark for the Walnut Lane Bridge saved it from the chopping block.

Separately, the County expects to hear a new proposal from HCFCD Executive Director Dr. Tina Petersen this Thursday. Petersen reportedly hopes to explain less Draconian ways to address a shortfall in bond funding that could affect the fate of a large number of other projects.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/15/25

2939 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Harris County Commissioners to Discuss Future of Flood Bond on Thursday

9/14/25 – On Thursday, 9/18/25, Harris County Commissioners Court is scheduled to discuss the future of the 2018 Flood Bond. Again.

Item 117 on the agenda says, “Request for discussion and possible action regarding a report from the Flood Control District related to the 2018 Bond Program.” Unfortunately, no report is attached to the agenda. Reportedly, it is not yet ready.

What’s the Problem?

Rumors of potential shortfalls in bond funding started in 2021. Compound inflation since the start of the flood bond has reduced the purchasing power of flood-bond dollars approximately 25-30%.

That raises many questions: Do we have enough money to finish all the bond projects? If not, whose projects will be cut? What happens if you start construction, but don’t have money to finish it? Should we kill projects in some areas to construct projects in others?

No easy answers exist. Harris County Flood Control District, Engineering, the County Administrator and County Budget Director have tried all year to answer commissioners’ questions and have been meeting weekly for months to work out a plan that everyone can agree on.

Multiple Delays since February

On February 6, 2025, fireworks erupted in Commissioners Court over the inability to get data that could inform decisions about Subdivision-Drainage and Flood-Bond projects. Commissioners called it a “major crisis” and “an abysmal failure.”

They asked Dr. Tina Petersen, executive director of Harris County Flood Control, to come back in March with answers. But March turned into May, May into June, then July and August. And now, here we are in September.

What Commissioners Asked For

In February, Commissioners asked HCFCD to work with the County Engineer, Administrator and Budget Director to return to court on March 27 with “proposed options and recommendations using any and all county resources for closing the shortfall.” The analysis was to have included:

  • The entire program including all projects completed
  • Projects under construction with any potential changes in contract
  • Active projects awaiting funding
  • Remaining available funds for all projects now that the project budgets have been increased.

However, the departments could not produce the data by March 27. So, Commissioners gave them until May 8. This time, commissioners asked for:

  • Status of each project in the bond
  • Expected time to completion
  • How cost has changed over time
  • Whether there was a change in scope
  • Sources of funding

The May presentation slipped to June. Petersen still didn’t have a clear plan, but she hinted at a potential $1.3 billion shortfall. That’s a quarter of all funds raised to date – either through the bond or partner contributions.

No mention of shortfall in bond updates
In June, Petersen alluded to $1.3 billion shortfall in testimony to Commissioners.

Flood Control and the head engineers of each precinct have met weekly since then in an effort to identify a plan that everyone can agree to. The fact that the plan wasn’t attached to the agenda suggests they may not have agreed on it yet.

Uncertainty, Delays Could Jeopardize Additional Funding

Meanwhile, the uncertainty and delays could jeopardize even more funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) via the Texas General Land Office (GLO).

In 2021, GLO Commissioner George P. Bush announced a $1.1 billion allocation of HUD funds for flood mitigation and disaster relief in Harris County.

But that money is available on a reimbursement basis only…after the County completes approved projects.

Out of that that money, the deadline expires on $327 million in February 2027. That leaves little time to actually build the 11 associated disaster-relief projects before the deadline.

The Mercer Basin now under construction is similar to those. It was supposed to take a year to build on an expedited basis. We are now at two years and counting. Construction is far from complete.

And the last of the 11 projects isn’t even scheduled to go out for BID until the SECOND quarter of next year.

No Good Options

Since February, Commissioners floated one possible option to deal with a shortfall. They voted to focus remaining funding only on the top quartile of projects in the bond when ranking them using the County’s 2022 Equity Prioritization Framework.

However, they later amended that vote because it would have potentially defunded projects that already had partnership dollars allocated to them.

I expect a lot of wailing and wringing of hands on Thursday. Unless they postpone the discussion again.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/14/25

2938 Days since Hurricane Harvey

TCEQ Cites Hallett Mine for Five Violations But Issues No Fines

9/17/25 – Update – In response to a request from ReduceFlooding.com, TCEQ has now supplied its FULL report, WITH attachments. Accordingly, I have modified the copy below to delete references to the missing attachments. I have also hyperlinked the full report where the partial report was previously. Caution though: it’s almost 20 megs. I also added some comments about the previously missing water reports.

9/13/25 – During late February, 2025, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) investigated the Hallett Sand Mine on the West Fork San Jacinto and cited it for five violations. The violations included failure to:

  • Prevent the unauthorized discharge of process water
  • Maintain structural controls
  • Submit a required “notice of change” (NOC) to the TCEQ when a designated contact person left the mining company
  • Inspect structural controls every seven calendar days
  • Submit a “non-compliance notification” when it learned of the unauthorized discharge.

However, the TCEQ report mentions no fines or financial penalties. The Commission simply closed the case after the violations were resolved, even though the mine’s neighbors observed the unauthorized discharge for a full year.

In my opinion, this appeared to be the equivalent of being stopped for repeated, excessive speeding in a school zone and let off with a verbal warning.

Who’s in Charge?

According to the TCEQ report, RGI Materials Inc. operates the Hallett mine, though Hallett’s website claims Hallett is hiring for positions at the mine. Confused?

It turns out that “Hallett” is an “assumed name” of RGI. RGI was incorporated by Kurt, Jim and Jeff Rasmussen of Des Moines, Iowa, in 2001. One month later, RGI filed an Assumed Name Certificate for Hallett Materials.

RGI Materials, Inc. is the company’s legal name. But Hallett Materials is the trade name (also known as “doing business as,” DBA, or brand name) by which the public knows RGI in Texas.

The Rasmussen Group in Des Moines lists 10 other companies it operates with different publicly facing brand names. But there are likely even more companies owned by the Rasmussen family.

For instance, the Montgomery County Appraisal District shows the mine property is owned by J.R. Development, Inc. Secretary of State records show that J.R. Development also leads back to Des Moines with the local address at the Hallett mine in Porter.

So, all roads lead to the Rasmussen family. The TCEQ report even lists Karl Rasmussen 17 times!

TCEQ Does Not Make Full Report Public

The TCEQ report alleges the existence of eleven attachments, none of which were attached – even though one of the investigators told a resident adjacent to the mine that this was the largest investigation he’d ever been a part of.

The attachments allegedly included maps, correspondence, a missing report, photographs and, most importantly, water sample results.

The mine is monitored for Nitrate + Nitrite N, total suspended solids, pH, and hazardous metals including Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, and Zinc.

TCEQ Report

However, water samples tested only for suspended and dissolved solids. Compared to control samples taken outside the mine in a nearby drainage ditch, they showed high concentrations of both. One table in the water sample report indicated that sample sizes were not sufficiently large to render valid results.

Investigators Have Trouble Accessing Site

Citizens complained about process wastewater spilling from the mine onto adjacent property and then into the West Fork San Jacinto River for more than a year. The West Fork feeds Lake Houston, the source of drinking water for more than 2 million people.

Hallett Mine
Hallett Mine leakage photographed on February 23, 2025. Route to river highlighted in red.

After meeting with the mine’s operators, the investigators tried to walk to the leak, but could not reach it because the path was inundated with process wastewater.

They then tried an alternate route. But they could not reach the leak from that direction either because the berms had not been maintained.

The investigators then tried a third approach. They left the mine and doubled back to the breach from outside of the mine. At the time of the investigation, the process wastewater discharge covered more than 5 acres.

Other Troubling Discoveries

In addition to the unauthorized discharge, when the investigators asked to speak to the person responsible for discharges from the mine, they were informed that the person whose name was on the discharge permit was no longer employed there.

Moreover, the mine could not produce its “2024 annual comprehensive site compliance evaluation report.”

Neither did the mine notify the TCEQ of the discharge which had the potential to endanger human health, safety and the environment.

The mine did not maintain its structural controls.

Nor could it produce required weekly inspection reports of those controls.

Eventual Compliance Resolves Complaints to TCEQ Satisfaction

One day after the initial site visit, an investigator noted that the unauthorized discharge had stopped and that the berm breach had been repaired. See below.

Hallet leak plugged
Hallet leak plugged. Photo by neighbor.

On 4/3/25, RGI submitted documentation that it was inspecting its structural controls every seven days.

The written notice of non-compliance (required within five days of becoming aware of the non-compliance) was submitted more than a year after the unauthorized discharge started.

On March 13, 2025, RGI updated its contact information for the TCEQ.

TCEQ dropped the complaint regarding the annual compliance report after Mr. Rasmussen indicated that the evaluation was conducted in November 2024.

The TCEQ website now shows all violations resolved and the case closed as of 9/9/2025.

Screen capture from TCEQ website.

Outrage from Neighbor

One neighbor told me, “Unbelievable what they allow them to get away with. That’s why they just keep doing what they do.” 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/13/25

2937 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.