News Archives - Page 23 of 275

The Inequities of Equity: Ellis’ Watershed Receives as Much CIP Spending as 12 Others Put Together

7/16/25 – Brays Bayou, the watershed where Harris County Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis lives, has received virtually as much capital-improvement spending as 12 other watersheds put together. The county has 23 watersheds in all. So…

Ellis’ watershed received as much capital-improvement funding as half of all other watersheds combined.

For this analysis, I focused on Capital Improvement spending because it actually reduces flood risk. Maintenance usually keeps flood risk from getting worse.

The 12 “have not” watersheds include:

*Bottom 12 watersheds in HCFCD Capital Improvement Project Spending between 2018 Q3 and 2025 Q2*

In contrast, Ellis’ watershed benefited from $170.58 million in capital improvement spending.

Highest Flooding, Lowest Funding

Among the 12 are the San Jacinto River and Spring Creek Watersheds. They had the highest flooding in Harris County during Harvey.

worst first — *Chart showing feet above flood stage of 33 gages of misc. bayous in Harris County during Harvey.*

How to Explore the Data Yourself

I obtained the spending figures from a Microsoft Power BI table on the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) website’s Activity page.

*Capital Improvement spending from all sources between the start of the flood bond in 2018 and the end of 2025 Q2.*

To see CIP spending, select “CIP” under the Project-Group filter on the left. That removes “maintenance expenditures.” Now dig deeper.

“District Funds” Even More Skewed

As I explored the data, I found another inequity. The District has spent $281 million from its own budget since 2018 Q3 (as opposed to bond or partner funds). To see this, leave CIP selected and select “District Funds” under Fund Source.

*The seven watersheds at the bottom received a tiny percentage of Brays – Ellis’ watershed.*

Ellis’ watershed (Brays) also received the lion’s share of this pot of money – almost $58 million. More than one fifth of all District Funds spent in seven years went to the watershed Rodney Ellis lives in.

Meanwhile, the San Jacinto Watershed – the county’s largest – received only about $3 thousand. That’s 17,000 times less.

*District Funds spent in the San Jacinto watershed don’t even round to one-hundredth of a million dollars* *– only $3,430.*

Other area watersheds didn’t fare much better:

Cedar Bayou received $2.64 million
Jackson Bayou received $1.64 million
Spring Creek received $996 thousand
Luce Bayou received $137 thousand.

Ellis Hogs “Construction” Spending, Too

This skewed funding is a direct result of statistical gerrymandering in Ellis’ race-based Equity Prioritization Framework.

By almost any metric you look at, you see the same discrimination. Consider “construction” spending. Why? Money spent on upfront engineering studies and land acquisition doesn’t reduce flood risk one iota until someone actually starts turning dirt. Real reductions in flood risk begin with construction.

Ellis’ watershed received $126.58 million to date in construction spending. But the San Jacinto watershed has received only $18.49 million – one seventh of what Ellis gave himself.

It’s good to be king of commissioners court. You even get to filibuster about how Kingwood is getting all the money while Greens and Halls get none.

Download the spreadsheet on the HCFCD Activity page above the Power BI tables. Sort the 13,155 invoices paid to date since the start of the flood bond. You will see that…

Greens Bayou received $112 million capital improvement construction dollars; Halls Bayou received $27 million and Kingwood received ZERO.

No Fairness, No Future

The language and project lists associated with the 2018 flood bond were promises designed to reassure voters that the bond money would be distributed fairly throughout the county. So far, that promise has been broken.

And there’s no hint that the distribution of aid would be any better if we voted another $5 billion. This Commissioners Court has ignored the requirements in the bond language that voters approved.

And with the 2022 Bond which had a billion dollar drainage component, they first pledged an equal distribution of funds among precincts. Then AFTER voters approved the bond, they reversed their own motion.

I fear for the future of Harris County if this unfairness continues. Why would anyone vote for another bond?

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/16/25.

2879 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.

Toth, Who Voted Against Warning System, Dredging-District Bills Running Against Crenshaw

7/15/25 – Texas State Representative Steve Toth of Conroe announced today that he will run for U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw’s job next year in the Second Congressional District. But Toth, who is campaigning on protecting our security, has repeatedly voted against it.

Toth: Ultra-Right Mr. No

Toth voted against HB-13, designed to improve warnings in natural disasters, such as the July 4 Hill-Country floods this year and Panhandle wildfires last year. As of this writing, 134 are confirmed dead in the floods and close to a hundred are still missing.

Toth also voted against proposals to create a Lake Houston Dredging District three times: 2021, 2023 and 2025. The last time, State Rep. Charles Cunningham even modified the wording of HB 1532 so that it would NOT be tax-funded. But Toth still voted against it.

In the last redistricting effort, Toth helped redraw his home outside to Texas District 2, which he now wants to represent. Voter registration records indicate he lives in Texas District 8.

The ultra-conservative, far-right Toth also has a reputation for campaigning against Republicans. He previously ran against Kevin Brady of the Woodlands and lost.

A Personal Endorsement for Crenshaw

I have known Dan Crenshaw since he first ran for office and have immense respect for him. He has worked hard to protect the people of this district by securing funding for numerous flood-mitigation projects including dredging. But Toth has consistently voted against creating a Lake Houston Dredging District. He even voted against it when it wouldn’t have raised taxes. That tells me he’s out of touch with the needs of people in this congressional district. I plan on voting for Crenshaw.

Flickinger Emphasizes Vital Need For Dredging

Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger who testified in favor of Cunningham’s Dredging District Bill said: “House Bill 1532 is arguably the most important piece of legislation for the Lake Houston area passed in the last several decades.”

“HB 1532 created a dredging district, which allows us to address sediment in Lake Houston and the tributaries flowing into it proactively rather than reactively after our area has flooded.

Slightly different versions of the dredging district bill were introduced in the previous two sessions, but failed thanks in part to Toth.

Said Flickinger, “Last May’s rain event was a perfect example of how dredging improves drainage. The San Jacinto River crested two feet lower than predicted due to the dredging which had been completed over the last several years.”

Flickinger credits Congressman Crenshaw, former Representative Huberty, Senator Creighton and Council Member Martin for that. “They deserve special credit for securing the funding to complete these dredging efforts, some of which are ongoing
today.”

Toth is UN-Representative

I just don’t get why someone who wants to represent 13,000 families and 3,300 businesses that flooded in the Lake Houston area would vote against a dredging bill that helps protect them. Those 3,300 businesses represented 44% of all the businesses in the Lake Houston Chamber.

Overall, 20% percent of homes and 40% of businesses in the Lake Houston area have been affected by flooding. That last figure includes 100% of ALL businesses in Kingwood Town Center.

I know families that were destroyed financially by the flooding and people who were killed. But the man who wants to represent this area has repeatedly stood in the way of a bi-partisan, tax-neutral solution designed to protect their homes and businesses.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/15/2025

2877 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.

Correction to Revised 2025 First-Quarter Flood-Bond Update Story

7/14/25 – I incorrectly reported four totals in my 7/12/25 story about the revised 2025 first-quarter, flood-bond update. I would like to set the record straight. I would also like to apologize to people at the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) and my readers. I take great pains to present accurate, reliable information that readers can count on. And I want to correct the historical record for future reference.

What Happened

In the first iteration of the 2025 Q1 report, I found a billion-dollar discrepancy. HCFCD admitted the mistake and corrected it in the revised report.

While double checking the revised report, I thought I discovered some other inconsistencies between the high-level, summary information at the front and the backup documentation at the end. They included:

“Bond Funds”
“Partner Funds”
“Secured Funds”
“Funds Spent”

Unfortunately, the discrepancies resulted from an inaccurate automated export of data from a PDF file to Microsoft Excel. Four lines out of hundreds did not translate properly. Using different, third-party software, HCFCD did the same export/import operation and encountered the same problem.

*Highlighted and enlarged translation error from PDF to Excel. Note how expenditures became misaligned.*

So, the incredibly dedicated person I talked to manually copied and pasted hundreds of figures to double check the totals in a ten-page spreadsheet.

That led to the discovery of the translation error, which explained the inaccurate totals.

During the translation, the programs shrank the size of the type. So, the figures no longer appeared in their proper columns. They also became virtually invisible because of their small size.

New Totals Agree

After hours of checking, I’m confident that the totals in the documentation now agree with the claims in the introduction. For the record:

2018 Bond Funds = $2.5 billion
Partner Funds = $2,697,565,889 (rounded to $2.7 Billion)
Total Funds = $5,227,103,996 (rounded to $5.2 billion)
Total Spent to Date = $1,569,557,746.

Questions about Other Figures Still Unanswered

In my 7/12/25 post, I also raised other questions that HCFCD has not yet answered.

First, where does the half-billion dollar increase in work in progress during the first quarter come from? I don’t see it in construction activity on the ground, in bids, or in work approved by Commissioners Court.

Second:

Where does the $1.3 billion funding shortfall came from that HCFCD Executive Director Tina Petersen claimed in Commissioner Court?
Why did no mention of the shortfall appear in the 2024 Year-End Bond Update or either of the two first-quarter updates?

A Start on Answers

HCFCD is starting to work on answers to those questions. Regarding the $1.3 billion shortfall, an HCFCD spokeswoman said, “One of the big asks was to produce our (sometimes rough) estimates of unmet need. That fell into two categories:

Current unmet need – Funding needed to take current projects through construction, even if the bond only originally provided funds for a study or engineering work. A good example of this is the projects included in Bond ID F-14. (Planning, Right-Of-Way Acquisition, Design and Construction of General Drainage Improvements Near Kingwood.)
Future unmet need – Funding needed to take the next phase of a project through construction. Examples would include engineering work that showed we need channel conveyance improvements and a stormwater detention basin in an area, but we currently only have funding for the stormwater detention basin. Or if studies showed we could construct a four-compartment basin, but we currently only have funding for two compartments.

“That is not how we have managed the bond program to date, so it represented a shift in thinking. These were meant to be high-level estimates for discussion, not an actual estimate of need associated with the bond program.”

Working to Make Financial Reporting More Transparent

In working with HCFCD to resolve these an other questions, I found them very open and collaborative. At this point, I no longer feel they are trying to hide something.

I also have a greater appreciation for the complexities the 2018 bond program. Finding a way to summarize changes in scope on hundreds of projects and Bond IDs is difficult, especially when tracking money from multiple sources. From a communication point of view, it all comes down to inspiring trust instead of raising skepticism.

HCFCD has not yet agreed to any specific changes. But they did accept the challenge to find clearer ways to communicate.”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/14/2025

2876 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.

Revised HCFCD Report Still Contains Discrepancies Totaling Hundreds of Millions

Corrections on 7/14/25 include revisions to the four items in the bulleted list below. All of those discrepancies have been resolved. See the post that supersedes this one. However, the last two questions about the amount of new projects in Q1 and the $1.3 billion dollar shortfall remain.

7/12/25 – Harris County Flood Control District admits that it made a huge mistake in its 2025 first quarter Flood-Bond Update released two weeks ago. The report showed accounting discrepancies totaling more than a billion dollars. As a result of media attention, the District released a revised Q1 report late yesterday afternoon.

But many discrepancies still remain…both within the revised report itself and when comparing the revised report to the 2024 Year-End Report. Several numbers appear to be far off, including:

“Bond Funds” – $107 million
“Partner Funds” – $289 million
“Secured Funds” – $370 million
“Funds Spent” – $252 million.

HCFCD also claims to have put $504 million “Bond Dollars to Work” in the first three months of this year without explaining where the money went.

Nor does the revised report explain what HCFCD’s director Dr. Tina Petersen claims is a $1.3 billion shortfall in funding needed to complete the bond.

See details below.

Basis for This Post

I compared HCFCD’s 2024 Year-End Report with its Revised 2025 Q1 Report. I also compared information from different parts of the Q1 report itself.

The new first-quarter report contains two types of information: High-level summary information in the introduction and backup documentation at the end. The two don’t agree with each other.

But it’s hard to see because HCFCD doesn’t provide totals or subtotals in the 8-page backup spreadsheet. So, I exported the PDF to Microsoft Excel and totaled the columns myself. Here’s what I found.

Bond, Partner, Total Secured Funds

The backup spreadsheet shows:

*Calculated from backup documentation in Revised Q1 Report.*

Now compare that to the totals shown in the introductory graphic below. They’re in the same report!

*Screen capture from page two of revised First Quarter 2025 Bond Update.*

The bond DID include $2.5 billion worth of taxpayer funds. But the backup shows $107 million less. And $289 million less in partner funds. Plus, the total secured funds disagree by almost $370 million. Which set of figures should we believe?

$252 Million Discrepancy in Funds Spent

The backup documentation at the end of the report shows that roughly $1.317 billion has been spent to date.

But the graphic upfront claims $1.569 billion was spent. That’s a $252 million discrepancy.

*Screen capture from Page 5 of revised 2025 Q1 bond update.*

Unexplained Half Billion Dollars of Work Initiated in 3 Months

If you look at the two screen captures below, you would think that Flood Control initiated $504 million dollars worth of work in the first quarter.

Flood Bond Funds Spent or in progress — *Screen captures from 2024 Year End and Revised 2025 Q1 Reports.*

Where is it? I don’t see that big of a difference on the ground, in press releases, or projects approved by Commissioners Court in the first three months of the year. And the reports shed no light.

The difference in three months approximately equals one third of all the funds HCFCD claims to have spent in seven years.

We Need Revisions to the Revisions

Some might conclude “deliberate deception.” I have no evidence of that. But I do believe that the work shows a shocking and unprofessional level of attention to detail. Had they simply totaled the columns in their spreadsheet, they would have noticed many of these discrepancies.

I wonder whether the numbers being communicated to Commissioners contain the same misinformation. And whether Commissioners are making policy decisions based on bad information. (HCFCD claims they are not.)

Regardless, we need yet another revision to the first quarter report. Also…

We Need Independent Audit and Explanations

We need an independent audit of HCFCD accounting. We also need explanations for these discrepancies.

HCFCD admits it made a billion-dollar mistake in the watershed spending totals that I pointed out two weeks ago. You would think they would have been hyper-vigilant this time around.

I don’t know why the data quality is so poor. I have observed, however, that:

The Q1 report introduction makes Tina Petersen’s performance look much better than the backup documentation.
The billion dollar discrepancy previously reported in “funds remaining” helped Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis make a case for cutting projects that didn’t fall into the top quartile of his equity index.

Hmmmm. Those are my opinions.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/12/2025

2874 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.

Commissioners Clarify Stance on Flood-Bond Partnership-Project Funding

7/10/25 – In today’s Harris County Commissioners Court meeting, the Court clarified its stance on funding flood-bond partnership projects in the face of spending cuts announced in the last meeting.

Commissioners revisited a vote on a motion from their 6/26/25 meeting that cast doubt over completion of 80% of the projects in the 2018 flood bond. Among them were many projects that involved money pledged by partners at the federal, state and local levels.

Today’s meeting clarified that Commissioners do intend to fund partnership projects that fell below the first quartile on Rodney Ellis’ Equity Prioritization Framework. Including more flood gates for Lake Houston.

Revisiting Vote that Potentially Defunded Partnership Projects

Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey kicked off the discussion on Item 277. (Note, however, that the video, which starts at approximately 58 minutes, calls it #177.)

The debate addressed the consequences of the vote in the last meeting to focus all remaining money in the bond on the top quartile of equity projects.

Further, the 6/26/25 motion said that future phases of those projects would also be funded – even if they weren’t included in the original bond.

That motion from June was approved 4:1 along party lines. However at the time, Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey warned that it could potentially impact projects that had already received federal, state and local funding commitments. Partners included FEMA, HUD, the Texas Water Development Board, cities, and MUDs.

And, in fact, a scramble occurred among officials at all those levels as well as affected citizens to understand what the impacts were. They wanted to know whether Harris County was still committed to projects it originally had promised to help fund.

Prominent among those was the project to add more floodgates to the Lake Houston Dam. The County had pledged to donate $20 million to that project to complement more than $100 million pledged by other parties. But the project did not even receive an equity ranking.

Before the debate, Houston District E City Council Member Fred Flickinger spoke to Court about how important the gate project was. He addressed water security as well as flood safety. He also reminded commissioners about damage to the Lake Livingston dam after massive rains in May 2024. Flickinger’s message was clear: jeopardizing the water supply for more than two million people is unthinkable.

Ramsey Presents A Simplified Bond-Spending Analysis

Commissioner Ramsey presented much simpler bond-spending analysis than HCFCD had in the previous meeting.

Truth about the bond — *Ramsey’s Full Presentation*

And he arrived at very different conclusions. Ramsey made several key points.

The county needed to send a clear message about its commitment to HUD CDBG projects regardless of which quartile they fell into.
We have enough money left in the bond for many projects below the first quartile, plus contingency funds if we don’t fund future projects not in the original bond.
Decisions about funding should be on a project-by-project basis. But that may take several months to work through.

In the meantime, Ramsey made three motions to help reduce uncertainty re: the county’s commitment to certain projects. He introduced motions to fund:

All current needs of projects with CDBG commitments
Gates for Lake Houston (CI-028) and Buffalo Bayou Storage and Channel Conveyance Improvements (CI-017) for TIRZ 17
All current needs for Quartile 1

None of Ramsey’s motions received a second.

Ramsey Motions Modified by Ellis

Ellis then made a substitute motion which Ramsey agreed to:

“To fund all existing CDBG and other secured partnerships and grants tied to the Harris County 2018 Flood Bond.”

Ellis’ substitute motion carried unanimously. In other news…

Outrageous Travel Costs Approved

Also on the agenda was an $8,120 Flood Control District request for one person to attend a three day convention in San Francisco.

Ramsey made a motion to approve all spending requests except that one. However, the other commissioners and the county judge approved the junket.

The voting confused many viewers who initially thought Ramsey’s motion to kill the request was approved. That’s because of an unexplained two-part procedure for such motions.

Ramsey provided this clarification. “If we are pulling expenses out of a list of expenses, the process is for the Court to approve all expenses except the one I targeted. Then someone else makes a motion to approve the one I pulled. And that vote passed 3 to 1.”

Still confused?

All parties involved have confirmed the trip IS still on.
Commissioner Ramsey and HCFCD

The junket includes:

$3500 for three nights in a hotel when rooms could be booked through the convention sponsors for $249 per night.
$1700 for a registration fee listed at $945
$1500 for airfare that could be booked through Expedia for $185.

A HCFCD spokesperson explained that “The amount submitted was a rough estimate and is intended to provide an upper limit for approval and include buffers.”

Then she added, “All actual expenses are paid at reasonable market rates and in line with applicable public-sector pricing policies.”

No wonder we’re debating which projects to cut!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/10/2025

2872 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.

HCFCD Director Requests Hotel Allowance of Almost $1200 Per Night

7/9/2025 – Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) Executive Director Dr. Tina Petersen has submitted a travel request for approval by Harris County Commissioners on 7/10/25. She wants to attend a three-day Urban Land Institute (ULI) conference in San Franciso. Her request includes $3500 for a hotel room. That works out to $1167 per night.

Petersen filed the request just two weeks after she projected a $1.3 billion shortfall in 2018 Flood Bond funding that led commissioners to defund 80% of projects in the bond.

I called ULI to see what the price range was for hotel rooms they blocked out. High was $349 per night and low $249. Booking.com showed a price of $215 per night at the Mark Hopkins, one of the nicer, top-rated hotels in San Francisco. It’s at the top of Nob Hill with beautiful views of the Bay and a short cab ride (or walk) to the convention center.

Net: Petersen is requesting 3X to 5X more money for a hotel than she might need. See this and other items in the red box below.

Altogether the request comes to $8,120.

*From backup to travel items on 7/10/25 Harris County Commissioners Court Agenda.*

Almost 2X the Registration Fee Also

The request also lists $1700 for a registration fee. But ULI is charging $945 for people from the public sector if they are members and $1070 if they join ULI.

The pricing for non-members is more than $3000, so Petersen is using at least some modicum of restraint.

Flight Cost 8X Higher

Expedia shows roundtrip flights on all major carriers during the time of the conference ranging from $185 to $310. But Petersen has requested $1500. That’s a significant upgrade!

Astronomical Taxi, Mileage, Parking Estimates

She’s also requested $400 dollars for taxis – $133 per day. The Moscone Center where the conference will be is about three quarters of a mile from the Mark Hopkins. That’s a five minute cab ride. Or a 15 minute walk. And a three-day cable-car visitor pass for an unlimited number of rides costs only $15.

A cab to and from the San Francisco airport to the Mark costs about $130.

Then there’s her $200 reimbursement for mileage on her personal vehicle, i.e., going to/from her home to Houston’s airport. The IRS allows $.70 per mile for business expenses. So that implies she’s estimating 285 miles of travel on the Houston end of this jaunt.

That’s in addition to $200 for three or four days of parking. But parking at Bush Intercontinental is $25 per day.

And no, these costs are NOT for multiple people. Petersen’s request shows they are for one person.

What I really want to know is who signs off on these expenditures? Tina Petersen?

Putting It All in Perspective

Petersen’s taxi costs alone exceed the capital improvement construction costs of all flood-mitigation projects in Kingwood in the history of the Flood Control District; together, they total a whopping $0.00.

No wonder the Flood Control District is running out of money and Commissioners Court voted to defund 80% of the projects in the 2018 flood bond.

For what it’s worth, I’m sure Petersen is not padding her expense reports. She doesn’t need to. She makes $434,000 per year after a $90,000 raise earlier this year.

I look forward to hearing about what was learned at this conference and the benefit to Harris County taxpayers at the November 13^th Commissioners Court meeting.

I also look forward to seeing the expense report and associated receipts, which are public information, after the trip so we can see the true cost of this conference.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/9/2025

2871 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.

Sounding Off Again about Need for Sirens

7/8/25 – After the rising floodwaters of Hurricane Harvey caught many people by surprise in the middle of the night, I posted about the need for warning sirens. Now, the Hill Country tragedy on the Guadalupe is causing me to sound off again.

During Hurricane Harvey, floodwaters rose in the middle of the night in the Kingwood Area. Many people were surprised as floodwaters rose in their bedrooms. Through a breakdown in communication, people never received a warning to evacuate. Sirens could have given them time. Even at the last minute.

Instead, a dozen people died at Kingwood Village Estates during Harvey.

Previous Posts About Need for Sirens After Harvey

On April 20, 2018, I posted a personal flood-control wish list. I wrote, “Improve communication during power outages. We need a way to warn people when power is knocked out during a storm, cell towers are overloaded, and people are sleeping. Simply publishing information is not enough if people cannot receive it. Perhaps we need sirens linked to back up generators, like those used to warn people of tornadoes throughout most of the Midwest.”

Later that year on September 18, I followed up. I said we needed “Improved Inter-Agency Cooperation and Public Notification Systems – Texas House and Senate hearings held in the wake of Harvey identified these two areas as needing improvement – everywhere, not just in the Lake Houston area,” I wrote. “Evacuation warnings did not reach people in time. Many were caught sleeping as floodwaters rose in their homes.”

How do you wake people up in emergencies, especially when the power is out? “The Internet, cell towers, and power are among the first casualties of a storm,” I wrote. “Whatever happened to good old sirens?”

Many people in the Hill County are asking that same question.

Hill Country Camper’s Plea to Legislators

In the early morning hours of July 4, 2025, a rain bomb hit the area near Kerrville, TX. The Guadalupe River rose 33 feet in 1.5 hours as people were sleeping. More than 80 people died, many of them children, in the ensuing flood. As of this writing, many are still missing.

Yesterday I received a letter from someone who camps frequently in the Hill County. She wrote to state legislators. It read:

Reduce Risk of Future Flash Flooding Catastrophes

“While I appreciate the need to determine accountability for the loss of life in the current Texas floods, we could actually take one immediate action.

I ask that our state legislature appropriate / allocate funds to install flood gage sensors and public alarms in:

1. All state parks. A large number are located next to rivers and lakes. Many also have very poor connectivity.

2. Along all known, populated, flood-prone streams & rivers. Small communities are at most risk as they lack tax revenues for capital projects.

We could also require camps, campgrounds and RV parks to have functioning weather radios and some sort of public broadcast system to facilitate rapid evacuation when needed for any type of weather, fire or civil emergency.

Depending on individuals to own warning radios, listen to them and expect them to act clearly is not effective. We need something that operates like the Tsunami Warning System in the Pacific.

I believe that much of the equipment needed is widely available and not especially expensive… sensors, solar panels & fuel cells, transmitters, tall towers & sirens.

If the state takes action now, we could implement something that will lessen the trauma of the next episode.”

Signed J. Jones

Failsafe Link

I agree 100% with everything she said. Sirens are the last failsafe link in a chain of communication.

You can lose power, a cell phone signal, Internet connectivity, TV reception, etc. You might even sleep through a weather radio alert. But that siren will blast you out of bed. Believe me. I know. I grew up with them.

Those old enough may remember the Civil Defense Alert System we used to have during the Cold War. It was based on sirens designed to warn people of impending nuclear attacks and natural disasters. I am told many states still use them to warn people of threats such as tornadoes.

However, the generalized nature of sirens led to many being replaced with more specific warnings, such as the broadcast-based Emergency Alert System and the Cell Broadcast-based Wireless Emergency Alerts.

Harris County has a world-class Flood Warning System that lets you sign up for alerts in your area. But if you’re camping in the Hill Country, it won’t do you much good.

To show solidarity with all the people who lost loved ones, write your state and county representatives. Urge them to install sirens to warn people of impending natural disasters. Like the flash flood in Kerrville, they can come with little warning. But even five minutes would have allowed people to scramble to higher ground.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/8/25

2870 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Most Northpark Expansion Work Shifts West of Loop 494

7/7/25 – Most current Northpark expansion work has shifted west of Loop 494 out to US59.

Work had been underway to bore underneath the UnionPacific Railroad tracks in order to connect the drainage east and west of the tracks.

*Looking west. 5′ diameter steel pipes are being forced under the tracks to convey stormwater from one side to the other.*

However, workers in the “receiving pit” encountered more unplanned utility conflicts and work stalled.

*Utility conflicts in the receiving pit west of the tracks* *are prohibiting installation of junction box for drainage.*

The boring work on hold pending approval of a plan to remove the conflicts.

Removing Old Junction Box by Sonic

Meanwhile, the focus of work has shifted west. One storm-drain crew is working to remove an old drainage structure by the Sonic driveway. See pit in front of yellow excavator below.

*Looking west. Storm sewer work near Sonic extends up and down the block.*

Getting Ready for Fast-Track Paving

This week another crew will complete the sub grade in this same area from Whataburger to LP 494 in preparation for Fast Track paving.

*Looking east at area in front of Sonic that will receive fast track paving.*

Drainage Work in Center Will Soon Begin

*Looking W from over US59. Old west bound lanes have now been removed. Before repaving, crews must install lateral drainage.*

According to the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority’s latest update, median work between I-69 and Whataburger will also include a detention pond equalizer pipe.

*Looking east from over 59 at entry ponds.*

Eastbound Inlets and Lateral Drainage

A storm-sewer crew will soon finish placing the inlets and laterals on eastbound Northpark from Anderson to Kings Mill.

*Looking ESE over Anderson at bottom of frame. Northpark on left where inlet and lateral work is ongoing. This also shows construction work to date on the Enclave (center).*

Loop 494 Paving and More

*Work on new northbound lanes of LP 494 will continue in preparation for concrete pours on Wednesday and Friday during the week of 7/11.*

Installation of new driveways on westbound Northpark from Sherwin-Williams to Extra Space storage will soon finish. That’s good news for those merchants. See below.

*Looking E. Note new paving and driveways on left.*

But getting into and out of the Exxon Station will require some exploration for a while.

*To make room for extra lanes, the Exxon Station at Northpark and 59 will lose part of its driveway.*

Here’s a three-week look-ahead schedule that tells you, weather permitting, what should happen when. Please note, however. The last item (illumination poles on south side of Northpark from Italiano’s to east end of project) has been delayed and will not happen as scheduled.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/7/25

2869 Days since Hurricane Harvey

More Inconsistencies in HCFCD Bond Updates Demand State Audit

7/6/25 – The closer you look at the two most recent 2018 Flood Bond Updates from Harris County Flood Control District – 2024 Year End and 2025 First Quarter – the more eyebrow-raising inconsistencies you see in accounting.

Last week, I reported how “funds remaining” in the 2018 Harris County Flood Bond mysteriously decreased by a billion dollars.

Today, let’s focus on inconsistencies from the other side of the ledger – “spending.” Spending has two main components: Spent + Remaining Work in Progress. That’s because contractually HCFCD must pay to finish work under contract.

Breaking down those two components reveals another published inconsistency totaling $461 million.

Together, the “spending” and “funds remaining” inconsistencies may exaggerate a crisis being used to justify defunding projects in all but Rodney Ellis’ preferred neighborhoods. They make it appear as though we are both spending money and depleting reserves faster than we really may be. It’s hard to tell because I no longer trust the published numbers.

We need a state audit BEFORE defunding any projects.

Compare Reported Spending + Work in Progress

The graphics below come from the two reports. They summarize both money already spent and the value of remaining work in progress. At the end of 2024, Spent + In Progress work totaled $3.245 billion.

money spent and work in progress at end of 2024 — *From Page 3 of 2024 Year End Bond Update*

But during 2025 Q1, the comparable total rose to $3.749 billion.

*From Page 2 of 2025 First-Quarter Flood-Bond Update*

That’s an increase of $504 million dollars in just three months.

Pretty impressive! Especially when you consider that it’s taken HCFCD seven years to spend $1.5 billion.

Now let’s subtract money already out the door so that we can focus on the “work in progress” component only. That’s where the mystery deepens.

HCFCD Spent Only $43 Million in Q1

HCFCD says it “spent” (past tense) $1.526 billion through the end of 2024.

But by the end of the first quarter, money spent had climbed to $1.569 billion.

So, HCFCD actually spent – out of pocket – only an additional $43 million in the first quarter. Not nearly enough to account for a $504 million increase in three months. Subtracting $43 million from $504 million means…

HCFCD is claiming “Work in Progress” increased $461 million during the first quarter. But where is it?

No Proof Shown for Spending Commitments

HCFCD’s previous management used to update “active projects on the District’s website monthly. That enabled reporters like me to verify where the money was going.

In sharp contrast, HCFCD’s new management no longer lists “active projects” on the District’s website.

The 2025 Q1 update contains no backup information that shows where $461 million is being spent.

Neither does the county’s purchasing website.

Nor did a review of all Commissioners Court agendas for the quarter.

Too much just doesn’t add up. I’m not saying there’s fraud. This could just be sloth, incompetence, disorganization, the world’s worst financial reporting or the work of someone’s clueless cousin. But these numbers are being used to make policy decisions.

Long story short: We need a state audit before Rodney Ellis dismantles the 2018 bond program beyond all recognition.

Write your state representative, state senator, the Governor and the Attorney General today. It’s your tax money. Make sure you get some value for it.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/6/2025

2868 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.

Ellis Equity Cuts Likely Violate Bond Language Approved by Voters

In Harris County Commissioners Court on June 26, 2025, Democrats voted 4:1 along party lines to reallocate all remaining money in the 2018 Flood Bond to projects that scored in the top quartile of Commissioner Rodney Ellis’ Equity Prioritization Framework.

That will defund all but a handful of projects that voters approved. Is that legal?

Examination of bond language that voters approved shows Ellis and his colleagues likely violated six provisions: 14 A, B, C, D, F, and G. Let’s examine each, starting with G.

Basis for Prioritization Distorted

Paragraph 14(G) specifies an “equitable” distribution of funds. Ellis “reminds” people constantly that bond language gives commissioners the right to prioritize projects. But he never mentions how he redefined the basis specified for prioritization.

Ellis uses a self-serving definition of “equity” instead of “equitable.” His race-based formula prioritizes social vulnerability instead of flood-risk and flood-damage reduction.

Open any dictionary and you will see that equitable means fair and impartial. That’s not Ellis. His self-serving formula penalizes areas that have higher flood risk than his and that have received no or little help from HCFCD.

Funds Not Used for Purposes Described

Paragraph 14(A) says that funds must be used only for purposes described.

Yet the bond came packaged with a heavily promoted list of projects, many of which are being defunded to pay for items that were not on the list.

Due to a lack of transparency and questionable accounting, it is unclear what the bond proceeds are being spent on. That may also violate 14(A).

Not Providing Benefits Throughout the County

Paragraph 14(B) says that projects will provide benefits throughout the county. Defunding all but the highest ranked “equity” projects will effectively create “funding deserts.” Remaining projects will not benefit taxpayers throughout the county.

Commissioner Tom Ramsey said, “This decision puts voter-approved funding of over $220 million in Precinct 3 at risk. It also threatens partnerships and matching funds from local, state, and federal agencies worth another $206 million. But the court voted to do just that, thus violating 14(B).

Bait-and-Switch

Paragraph 14(C) says that projects will include those described in the bond. But Ellis’ defunding will effectively kill many. Meanwhile, Ellis plans to fund others not in the bond. Promising one thing and delivering another is called bait-and-switch advertising.

The language in 14(C) was intended to focus HCFCD on delivering promised projects, not commissioners’ pet projects. But now, we are getting Ellis’ pet projects.

Rights of Way Endangered

Paragraph 14(D) says bond money will be used to purchase rights of way for the construction of future detention basins and channel improvements. The original bond list contained money to acquire land in the Little Cypress and Cedar Bayou watersheds.

But those projects fall below the cutoff in Ellis’ gerrymandering Equity formula. In the future, it may be impossible to purchase those rights of way. And without them, growth in those watersheds may doom another generation to flooding.

Slow-Motion Project Delivery

Paragraph 14(F) specifies that projects will be undertaken in an expeditious manner. But execution of the bond program has slowed dramatically under HCFCD’s current leadership.

Declining graph — *Under the previous management team, HCFCD projects were launched quickly. Not so much anymore!*

HCFCD bid only three projects in 2024.

Slow execution has resulted in inflation undermining the bond’s purchasing power. It is unconscionable given the project output under previous HCFCD management. But Ellis doesn’t seem concerned about the slowdown or impact of inflation, either.

In fact, faced with tight Federal deadlines on HUD projects, he gave HCFCD Director Dr. Tina Petersen another 2.5 months to figure out how his equity cuts would affect projects.

Fine Print vs. Voter “Takeaway”

There may be fine print in the bond language that gives Ellis a technical “out” on some of these points. But generally, fine print does not legally excuse advertisers from creating a false or misleading impression. And this bond was heavily advertised.

In advertising law, especially under Federal and Texas consumer-protection laws:

Overall Impressions Matter:
Courts look at the net impression an advertisement conveys to a reasonable consumer. If the overall impression is misleading, disclaimers buried in fine print generally won’t cure it.
FTC Standards:
The Federal Trade Commission explicitly states that disclosures must be clear and conspicuous. Disclaimers that consumers are unlikely to notice or understand do not meet FTC standards.
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
If overall impressions mislead consumers, disclaimers hidden in fine print typically won’t absolve liability. The Texas Attorney General’s office has a clear standard: fine print does not cure deception.
Courts Generally Do Not Accept Fine Print as a Shield:
Judges typically base rulings on the takeaway of an average consumer at first glance, not careful study of fine print.

Fine print can clarify net impressions, but it does not excuse deception.

The Ballot Box Cure

On balance, I feel misled. But rather than sue, I plan to use my voice and vote in the upcoming election. That will likely produce results faster than the courts.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/5/2025

2867 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.