News Archives - Page 24 of 275

Unexplained Billion-Dollar Discrepancy in HCFCD Flood-Bond Reports

7/4/2025 – Let the fireworks begin early today. Comparing the two most recent flood-bond updates – Year End 2024 and First Quarter 2025 – shows that HCFCD spent about $44 million in the first quarter. But more than a billion dollars has disappeared from “funds remaining” during the same period.

*Totals should offset each other, but they don’t.*

This isn’t simply moving money from one side of the ledger to the other. Something else is going on here that’s hidden from plain view. Below is the raw spending data reported by HCFCD for the two time periods.

*Click here for a high-res printable PDF.*

As I stared at these, problem after problem emerged. For instance, HCFCD “spent” only one dollar in the Spring Creek Watershed, but “funds remaining” mysteriously went down by almost $12.5 million. It’s like that for virtually every watershed.

We need an immediate audit by an independent state agency.

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) released the reports after the last commissioners court meeting on 6/26/25. In that meeting, HCFCD executive director Dr. Tina Petersen claimed the county could be short as much as $1.3 billion to fulfill promises made to the public during the 2018 flood-bond election.

Four Democrats on Commissioners Court then used that as an excuse to reallocate all remaining funds to projects that scored the highest on Rodney Ellis’ Equity Prioritization Framework. Only the lone Republican, Tom Ramsey, raised an objection.

A Billion Dollars Goes MIA with Suspicious Timing

Interestingly, HCFCD released the two bond updates simultaneously but AFTER the court discussion. The timing precluded any public analysis of the reports before the meeting in which Commissioners reallocated all the remaining money in the bond to “equity” projects. The timing also precluded any public comment on the accounting and reallocation.

Debits and Credits Don’t Match

The two Flood Bond updates contain lists of watersheds with “money spent” and “remaining money available.” But the columns are not totaled. That’s always a suspicious practice from an accounting point of view.

So, I totaled and compared them:

HCFCD spent only $43.9 million in the first quarter. But $1.1 billion less remains in the till.

And no one thought to explain that!? Where did the money go? The public needs an answer!

Large Amounts Disappear In Virtually Every Watershed

Here’s how the billion dollars that mysteriously vaporized affected the San Jacinto Watershed.

*After spending only **$168** **thousand**, “funds remaining” decreased by almost **$143** **million** without explanation.*

Backup documentation in the report showed only one line item changed during this time period and only for $169,000. It provides no clue where $143 million went.

Other notable unexplained decreases included:

$726.7 million in Countywide Funds
$168 million in the Clear Creek Watershed
$77 million in the Buffalo Bayou Watershed
$59 million in Halls Bayou

One Billion Dollars Goes “Poof”!

Such unexplained decreases added up to the mysterious disappearance of $1,073,078,534.

Only Greens Bayou and Brays Bayou showed substantial increases. They totaled $80.3 million – not nearly enough to compensate for decreases in other watersheds. So this was not simply about moving money from one watershed to another.

Open one report and you see the cash. Open the next and you don’t. No explanation provided.

But it gets worse.

No Mention of Trouble in Bond Updates

Neither of the bond updates warns the public about any impending crisis in bond funding. Just the opposite.

The 2024 Year-End Report says…

The County is “exceeding the original goal of the program and removing any funding uncertainty.”
Page 6 of 2024 Year End Bond Update

If this were the private sector, the Securities and Exchange Commission would investigate that.

Smoke and Mirrors Should Trigger Immediate Audit

There’s too much here that just doesn’t add up. We need an audit by the Texas Attorney General or U.S. Department of Justice immediately to see if money has really disappeared. I’m not alleging fraud. This could simply be a case of incompetence, sloth, mislabeling, bad proofreading, or the sloppiest financial reporting ever.

Yet Dr. Tina Petersen, head of HCFCD, just received a salary increase of almost $90,000. She now makes $434,000. That’s $65,477 dollars more than HCFCD spent on 11 of the county’s 23 watersheds in the first quarter – combined! Altogether, those 11 watersheds received only $368,533 from HCFCD.

For More Information

Here are the full 2024 Year End and 2025 First Quarter Reports. See pages 8 and 9 in the 2024 report and page 6 in the 2025 report (shown in screen capture above).

Read them. Then write your county and state representatives today and demand an investigation.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/4/25

2866 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 Bond Updates Make No Mention of Surprise $1.3 Billion Shortfall

7/2/2025 – Part 2 of a 3-Part Series about the integrity of HCFCD’s information and its transparency. On 6/26/25, HCFCD’s director testified in Harris County Commissioners Court that the 2018 Flood Bond could have a $1.3 billion shortfall.

No mention of shortfall in bond updates — *HCFCD Executive Director Dr. Tina Petersen testifying before Commissioners Court on Flood Bond shortfall on 6/26/25.*

But two flood-bond updates (Year End 2024 and Q1 2025), strangely released after her testimony, make no mention of a shortfall and starkly contradict her testimony. The disconnect is stunning.

Bleak Testimony in Commissioners Court

Dr. Tina Petersen claimed a flood-bond funding shortfall of $1.3 billion – 25% of all bond and partner funds. Four Democratic commissioners used that to justify cutting 80% of all remaining projects in the bond.

They then reallocated all remaining money exclusively to projects with a high “equity” component. They also decided to fund those projects all the way through construction, even if the bond included only a preliminary engineering review. But…

Bond Updates Make No Mention of Shortfall, Just Sunshine Galore

In stark contrast to the bleak discussion in commissioners court, HCFCD released two Flood-Bond Updates hours after the meeting– one for Year End 2024 and the other for First Quarter 2025.

Petersen’s Year End 2024 report is full of sunshine. It never mentions a shortfall. Instead, it talks about “Achieving Funding Stability.” It brags about “closing the funding gap” and how the District can now “move forward with financial stability, ensuring we can deliver projects with confidence and certainty.”

Further, it says, “This report provided clarity and accountability across all 181 bond IDs, providing alignment between budgets, project scopes and goals of the program.”

That’s a pretty rosy picture compared to the dire report she had just delivered in Commissioners Court.

The Q1 ’25 update never mentioned an impending shortfall either.

And just this April, I captured the screen image below. At the time, HCFCD claimed no projects would be cancelled.

No cancellation — *April 2025 screen capture from HCFCD’s website page about Equity Prioritization Framework.* *HCFCD has since removed all Equity-related FAQs.*

Voters I talked to felt blindsided by this whole mess.

Suspicious Timing

The timing of the release of the bond updates is suspicious. Affected voters had NO WARNING and NO CHANCE to protest the re-allocation of the tax dollars they approved for projects in their areas.

After listening to two hours of one-sided public comments from Rodney Ellis surrogates, Democratic commissioners voted 4:1 to reallocate all money remaining in the flood bond to projects that will benefit only communities with the highest equity scores, regardless of the volume of flood damage elsewhere. The motion they adopted will penalize 1.2 million Precinct 3 residents disproportionately.

Stay tuned for more on this topic as we head into another Harris County budgeting cycle.

I suspect the Democrats are getting ready to tell us they need another flood bond if we want to complete the previous flood bond. County Judge Lina Hidalgo has mentioned it already.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/2/25

2864 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 Data Shows Spending Going Up and Down Simultaneously

7/1/25 – Caution: This post will make your head swim; but it’s better than drowning in the next flood. Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) data presented to the public differs radically from data presented to commissioners last week. One audience sees spending going up. The other sees spending going down.

Commissioners used confusing, contradictory data like this, at least in part, to cut 80% of the remaining projects in the flood bond last week with a claimed 25% funding shortfall.

Some areas will get little or no support from HCFCD while others that have already received hundreds of millions of dollars will get hundreds of millions more. My conclusion: flood-mitigation decisions have become purely political, not data driven under this commissioners court.

How Reliable is the Data?

So how reliable is the data? In this and upcoming posts, I’ll look at several different examples. Today, let’s look at two trend lines: one presented by HCFCD Director Dr. Tina Petersen last week to commissioners. The other comes from HCFCD’s public-facing website.

Here is a graph from the last page of Petersen’s presentation. It paints a pretty rosy picture. Work and spending going straight up for five years. If you’re a commissioner, you’re probably thinking, “Gee, I better get my project completed before the money runs out.”

*See graph on last page of Petersen’s transmittal to Commissioners Court.*

But buried on HCFCD’s website several layers down is this graph. It paints a bleaker picture. If you’re a resident, you’re probably asking, “With billions of dollars in the bank and inflation eating up bond dollars, why is mitigation activity slowing down? Hurry up and finish my projects!”

Another portion of the page below shows that HCFCD has only spent $1.5 billion from the bond so far, but Petersen’s presentation shows they have $5.2 billion when you include partner funds.

Declining graph — *Screen Capture from HCFCD on 7/1/25*

This is a very concerning graph that raises questions about the efficiency of HCFCD and how much of the bond has been lost to inflation.

To show the differences between the two trends, I combined them in a third graph. It’s one thing to paint rosy projections for your bosses. And it’s another to overcome years of lost momentum. But there’s an even bigger problem. Look at the years where lines overlap in the middle. The data for past spending doesn’t agree. Oops!

Series1 represents reported spending data except for 2025, where I annualized first-quarter spending.
Series 2 takes reported and projected spending from Petersen’s bar graph.

Where the lines overlap, the graphs should match perfectly, but they don’t. So I called for an explanation.

HCFCD explains the difference by saying the dark line uses calendar-year data and the orange line uses fiscal-year data. They vary by three months and $23 million. But HCFCD says that otherwise the two sources “numerically align.” I asked what that meant and was told “They match.” Ooooookayyyyy….

But according to data obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests in previous years, HCFCD spent:

$217 million in FY2023, not the $175 million shown in Petersen’s bar graph.
$254 million in FY2024, not the $210 million shown in her bar graph.

Now my head is swimming. We have THREE values that vary by $42 million for 2023 and $69 million for 2024. See below.

You could build a major project with $69 million!

Unanswered Questions and Uncertainty

An old proverb says, “A man with two watches never knows what time it is.”

Harris County Flood Control District has a real problem. Their financial projections have all the certainty of a 5-year weather forecast. They can’t even agree on LAST year’s weather.

Yet they’re making policy decisions that affect people’s lives with this data. And in the process, they’re destroying trust in government.

There may be a logical explanation. But it’s not apparent or explained anywhere with the data people see.

Why are their numbers different in different places? Who is getting the truth and who is not?

More examples to follow. This is Part One of Three.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/1/25

2863 Days since Hurricane Harvey

City Begins Clearing Blocked Ditch Under Kingwood Drive

6/30/25 – The City of Houston Public Works Department wasted no time in starting to clean out a blocked ditch under Kingwood Drive. Once they found it.

The ditch, which parallels Valley Manor Drive west of Kingwood High School, had been neglected for so long that crews had a hard time finding it.

Distraught residents were ready to call in Indiana Jones. But City Council Member Fred Flickinger arrived first.

Still contractors are in for what qualifies as an “archeological dig.” Who knows what they’ll find in there? Residents found a mummified car wreck nearby, completely encased by a jungle of vines.

Photos of Work Beginning

Valley Manor Drainage Ditch Scouting Session — *Drainage Ditch Blockage West of High School in Kingwood Drive median. Before start of project.*

*Looking S toward Lake Kingwood. Here’s what that same area looks like today after the start of cleanup.*

It’s far from done. But at least you can see what you’re up against. Contractors are reportedly trying to get clearance from the Kingwood Country Club to remove the downstream blockage, too.

*Looking N from Kingwood Country Club Lake Course toward Kings Forest.*

*Still looking N at culverts under westbound Kingwood Drive, you can see they are literally half filled with silt.*

All that silt reduces conveyance and backs water up in heavy rains. 110 homes upstream from this blocked ditch under Kingwood Drive flooded during Harvey.

Scope of Work

According to Council Member Flickinger’s newsletter, the scope of work includes clearing and grubbing approximately six acres of land, removing and disposing of debris, trash, and tires at a landfill, as well as the removal of trees.

Any trees removed for the purpose of accessing the ditch will be replanted at a later date by Council Member Flickinger’s office with the help of Trees for Kingwood.

The project is entirely on Bear Branch Trail Association BBTA property and is being closely watched by BBTA and neighbors.

The project cost is $350,568.00 and is funded through the Houston Public Works Dedicated Drainage & Street Renewal Fund (DDSRF).

The City is preserving native trees wherever possible and trying only to remove invasive species. However, some trees may need to go to allow heavy equipment room to maneuver.

Project Completion, Work Hours, Impacts

Crews are already hard at work. And the project should end by Friday, August 29, 2025, weather permitting.

Construction activities will take place Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Sundays upon approval from the project manager.

The City expects no impacts to the sanitary sewer system. During the course of the work, some minor water line adjustments will be necessary. Citizens will be notified 72 hours in advance of any water outages.

Safety Caution

Please be aware of flagmen and orange traffic cones that may be present on-site to guide traffic as needed. However, this project is not expected to cause any traffic or mobility issues, such as lane closures or a significant increase in truck traffic.

Also note: there may be elevated noise levels at times due to the use of construction equipment and vehicles in the area.

For more information, please contact the District E office at (832) 393-3008 or via email at districte@houstontx.gov.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/30/2025

2862 Days since Hurricane Harvey

With 25% Funding Shortfall, 80% of Flood-Bond Projects Cut

6/30/25 and 7/3/25 – Updated to clarify a distinction between Bond Projects and Bond IDs, and also correct several entries in tables.

6/29/25 – Analysis of documents released after the Harris County Commissioner’s Court meeting on 6/26/25, shows that because of a claimed 25% flood-bond funding shortfall, the county will stop funding 80% of Bond IDs and 75% of Bond projects. Precinct 3 will bear the most cuts.

Usually, precincts share equally, but in this case, Precinct 3, the lone Republican-led district will retain only 14% of active projects.

Before the meeting, the county had released only one blank page about what turned out to be the disappearance of more than a billion dollars.

Even worse, to make up for the claimed shortfall, Democratic Commissioners voted 4:1 along party lines to defund most of the remaining projects voters approved in the 2018 Flood Bond.

Something’s not adding up that demands an explanation.

Huh? 80% of Projects Cut after Losing 25% of Funding?

The $2.5 billion Bond was sold with a project list that totaled roughly $5.1 billion. However, partner funding more than made up the difference. Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has commitments for another $2.7 billion – bringing the total available to $5.2 billion. A $1.3 billion shortfall is 25% of that total.

Questions:

Why the shortfall?
Why the disproportionate cuts?
Why are we only learning now – seven years into the bond?
Are the proposed cuts fair?

Reasons Proposed for Shortfall

In her presentation Dr. Tina Petersen, executive director of HCFCD, attempted to explain the shortfall by alluding to:

Cost increases (i.e., due to inflation)
Grant requirements
Changing regulations
Right-of-way acquisitions
Program structure

Others have alluded to:

Scope creep
Cumbersome processes related to Ellis equity formula
Slow execution
Political interference
Need for more money in the original bond
Changes in leadership at HCFCD
Personnel turnover at lower levels
Unnecessary bureaucracy that adds cost without adding value
Covid
Low initial estimates
Addition of projects
IT system issues

Why Such Draconian Cuts?

Why are the cuts so disproportionate to the shortfall?

High on the list of possible explanations would be the motion that Democratic members of Commissioners Court approved.

It called to focus only on projects in the top quartile of Ellis’ Equity Prioritization Index.

But it also called to fully fund future costs associated with those projects. That builds scope creep into the bond.

If, for instance, the Flood Bond only included a preliminary engineering review for a project, it will now include full engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition, construction, landscaping, turnover costs and bagels.

In other words…

Funding for projects that voters approved is being cut to pay for projects they didn’t approve.

It’s a fundamental breach of public trust.

Why Are We Only Learning Now?

Since Harris County Democratic Commissioners brought in new management, HCFCD has largely gone dark. For example:

The District, once a paragon of transparency, efficiency, and speed under the previous leadership, has largely stopped updating its website as performance decreased.
Harris County Flood Control bid only three projects last year.
Active projects used to be updated weekly. Now they’ve disappeared from the website.
Bond-update frequency fell from monthly to quarterly to semi-annually to whenever-we-get-around-to-it. The last one took more than a year.
When commissioners asked for an update in February, it took HCFCD five months to produce an overly complicated report that few understood.
The County’s Flood Resilience Task Force is still waiting for flood-risk data it requested years ago.

The lack of information masks serious issues that have built for years concerning the efficiency and transparency of Flood Control.

In last week’s discussion, Judge Lina Hidalgo complained repeatedly and bitterly about her lack of understanding, a lack of transparency and her inability to get simple, straight answers.

But hey, what kind of manager puts up with that? For seven years!

Are Cuts Fair?

The County uses Rodney Ellis’ Equity Prioritization Index to rank flood-mitigation Bond IDs from 0 to 10 using a multi-factor index. Some Bond IDs contain multiple projects. But whether you assess the cuts by Bond ID or Projects, P3 still suffers the most.

After a marathon 5-hour discussion, Commissioners voted to continue funding only projects scoring above 7.5. The rest will die.

Ellis’ scoring matrix gives 65% weight to factors such as race, household income, social vulnerability, population density, and housing density.

It gives no weight to flood damage, severity of flooding, flood frequency, or flood risk.

Ellis cherry-picked statistics to gerrymander flood-control dollars, not reduce damage.

Many of the remaining dollars in the bond will go to watersheds that have already received hundreds of millions of dollars in mitigation funds. Meanwhile…

Other watersheds that have been shortchanged will now have their pockets picked.

Precinct 3 had the highest flooding in the county during Harvey.

Yet Precinct 3, the lone, Republican-led precinct, bore the brunt of the funding cuts wide margins.

*Precinct 3 projects will suffer the most.*

Here’s a breakdown of the totals by quintile and precinct. Because projects sometimes cross precinct boundaries, when a project did so, I counted it once for each precinct it benefitted.

Next, look at Bond IDs. A bond ID may contain multiple projects. And again, when a Bond ID benefited two precincts, I counted it twice. Percentages change slightly. But the same basic picture emerges…only more so:

*Precinct 3 had the most Bond IDs defunded and kept the fewest*.

Barrett Station is in Precinct 3. It’s one of the poorest areas in the county. And it had its funding cut. That shows this is more about politics than concern for the poor.

To compile these tables and the pie chart above, I counted Bond IDs and Projects in each quartile in this spreadsheet,

The funding cuts likely won’t affect a subset of 29 projects funded by HUD because those are 100% federally funded. Regardless…

The county will now pursue only one in four or five of the remaining bond projects/IDs.

Stunned citizens are struggling to comprehend the scope of the cuts, which will negatively impact roughly 80% of the county.

No wonder the county kept a tight lid on its analysis and didn’t post anything for the public to review before the meeting. Protesters might have showed up to counter two hours of testimony by Ellis’ surrogates last Thursday.

We Need to Demand…

Answers.
Action.
Accountability.
Fairness.

And we need them fast. Frankly, I’m surprised no one has filed a lawsuit yet. This feels like slow-motion voter fraud.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/29/25 and updated on 6/30/25

2861 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.

Remaining Flood-Bond Funds Going Only to Equity Projects

6/27/25 4PM – In a marathon discussion yesterday that stretched for hours, Harris County Commissioners Court struggled with how to plug a $1.3 billion shortfall in 2018 Flood-Bond funding. In the end, they voted 4-1 along party lines to apply all remaining flood-bond money exclusively to projects that ranked in the top quartile on Rodney Ellis’ Equity Prioritization Index.

*Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis arguing that remaining flood-bond funds be directed only to projects with a high “equity” component.*

This will effectively defund all projects that fall into the second, third and fourth quartiles on Ellis’ Equity Prioritization Framework.

The Motion

Commissioners voted 4:1 to use all available flood-bond funds:

“To fully fund all current and future needs for projects in Quartile One, according to the 2022 Prioritization Framework, and direct the Harris County Flood Control District to work with court officers and report to Commissioners Court a project schedule by September 18th, 2025, on all future projects with a recommendation.”

Impact of Cuts

Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, the dissenting Republican, said, “It was like a bunker-busting bomb exploding yesterday. They blew up the 2018 bond program.” The decision will eliminate funding for 44 of the 48 bond projects that Ramsey had in his precinct.

“There’s no longer any money for them,” said Ramsey.

Ramsey will lose $424 million of flood-bond funding. He added, “Projects in the top quartile eat up every remaining available dollar in the bond. Every bit of it. There’s none left. Not a single dime.”

Want to see whether a project near you was killed? Here is a list of Flood-Bond Projects divided into Commissioner Rodney Ellis’ Equity Quartiles.

Only those marked with a #1 in the Quartile Column will be pursued at this point. The rest are effectively dead unless funding can be found elsewhere.

No Projects Left in Lake Houston Area

All HCFCD flood-bond projects in the Lake Houston Area fell below Ellis’ Equity Quartile #1 into the second, third, or fourth quartiles.

Following the Democratic plan will eliminate $20 million for Lake Houston Floodgates See Project G-103-Gates.

It will also eliminate any help for the Kingwood Diversion Ditch. The Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis called that the most important project in the area. And Kingwood experienced the highest flooding in the county during Harvey.

worst first — *Chart showing feet above flood stage of 33 gages of misc. bayous in Harris County during Harvey.* *Gage on far left is Kingwood.*

This doesn’t mean those projects will automatically die. But it is a setback.

It means project leaders will have to seek funding elsewhere for money that HCFCD had already committed years ago and that voters approved.

In that regard, Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger had this to say about the Commissioner Court’s decision.

“Obviously the County’s handling of the flood bonds has been a concern for several years. Commissioner Ramsey is continuing to fight for our area to complete the necessary flood mitigation projects.

“However, regardless of the outcome at the County level, I have full confidence that the schedule I laid out in last year’s town hall meeting will in fact be held with the support of Representative Cunningham, Senator Creighton and Mayor Whitmire.”

Commissioner Ramsey also described the Gate project as his “Rubicon,” a reference to a Roman battle that represents a point of no return, i.e., a battle that must be won at all costs.

Uncertainty Surrounds 95 Active Projects

Ninety-five projects that fall into quartiles 2, 3 and 4 are listed as “Active.” HCFCD says it will move forward with any projects already in progress. But it’s unclear whether future stages will be implemented, i.e., moving from engineering to construction. We may know more in September.

HUD Project Deadlines Tightened Even More

Yesterday’s decision could affect U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) CDBG-MIT and CDBG-DR grants under review by the Texas General Land Office (GLO). Harris County Flood Control applied for 29 such grants.

HCFCD says they are moving forward with all HUD projects.

But GLO stressed the tightness of a February 28, 2027 deadline for 11 CDBG-DR projects valued at roughly $320 million. With only 20 months remaining to complete the projects, County Commissioners voted yesterday to take another three months to schedule projects.

For that group of projects, deadlines may be a bigger threat than funding. Think 17 months is plenty of time? It’s taken Harris County four years to get to this point with these projects! More uncertainty won’t speed things up.

Before the meeting, GLO Commissioner Dawn Buckingham warned county leaders to use the HUD funds “as quickly as possible.”

How Meeting Unfolded

Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, a master of political theater, packed the first two hours of Commissioners Court with surrogates during the public-comment portion of the meeting. The same people and groups that Ellis used to tarnish previous Harris County Flood Control District administrators showed up again. They even carried similar signs.

Over and over and over again, they complained about the lack of bond-program:

Equity
Results
Transparency

Dr. Tina Petersen, executive director of HCFCD, then led off the discussion with a PowerPoint presentation that she had been working to compile since February. The last slide shows how her team explored five different scenarios for maximizing available funding. (See her entire detailed report here.)

That set the stage for Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis’ 20-minute boilerplate rant about historical discrimination against poor neighborhoods and how rich neighborhoods get all the money.

Disconnect between Ellis Rant and Reality

But there’s a basic disconnect between the rant and reality. Note that of all HCFCD spending since 2000, money has gone disproportionately to watersheds with a majority low-to-moderate-income (LMI) population. Between 2000 and 2022, 61% went to the one third of watersheds with an LMI-majority population. So, poor watersheds already receive the lion’s share of funding – almost twice as much as middle and upper income areas.

Busting the Myth: In Harris county, poor, not rich neighborhoods have gotten the lion's share of flood mitigation dollars since 2000. — *Busting the Myth: Between 2000 and 2022, in Harris county, poor, not rich neighborhoods have gotten the lion’s share of flood mitigation dollars since 2000.*

Regardless, Ellis was on a roll. And by the time he was done, three of his Democratic colleagues (Hidalgo, Garcia and Briones) were demanding more equity.

They voted to ignore all five of the scenarios that Petersen spent months working on and focus only on projects that ranked high on Ellis’ equity scale.

When Ramsey pointed out that one of the poorest neighborhoods in Precinct 3, Barrett Station, was defunded, Ellis shot back that his equity formula was “agnostic” to politics. But the numbers tell a different story.

Little wonder that the county released no information on this issue before the vote yesterday. Opposition to Ellis’ ringers might have had time to organize.

Expect frequent updates on this in coming months as the situation evolves.

To view video of the discussion, look for Item 2 here. Public appearances come before Item Two, and there are several breaks during the discussion.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/27/25 at 4PM

2859 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Why HCFCD’s Report on Remaining Flood-Bond Funds is One Blank Page

6/25/2025 – On February 7, 2025, Harris County commissioners, expressed concerns about budget shortfalls in flood-bond and subdivision drainage projects. They asked Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) for an accounting of where the money went and how much was left. One hundred and thirty-eight days later, after missing repeated deadlines, HCFCD filed the report below for Agenda Item #2 – one blank page. It has nothing on it. Nada. Zip. Bupkis. Zero.

*For a souvenir printable PDF, click here.*

This is what passes for “transparency” in Harris County and the Commissioners Court’s Orwellian world of double-speak. There’s a reason for this.

They’re trying to shift funds around without you knowing.

Commissioners Secretly Debating Scenarios for Dealing with Shortfall

I would hasten to add that Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has shared information with commissioners, just not you. And according to Commissioner Tom Ramsey of Precinct 3, all commissioners are engaged in a heated debate about five different scenarios for dealing with the shortfall.

Only one scenario would treat each precinct equally – Ramsey’s. The other four would take money from Republican Precinct 3 and give it to Democratic precincts.

For instance, under one scenario, Precinct 3 would get cut by $223 million while Democratic precincts would be cut only by an average of $120 million. So…

Precinct 3 would be cut $100 million more than other precincts.

According to Ramsey, they’re using “equity” to defend allocations that have nothing to do with equity. For instance, Barrett Station, an underserved neighborhood in Precinct 3 with flooding problems, would receive nothing under the Democratic funding scenarios.

Unacknowledged Scope Creep, Bloat, and Massive Slowdown

Another complaint that Ramsey has is about “scope creep.” Some line items in the flood bond were limited to engineering studies.

However, now that those studies are complete, some commissioners want to increase those limited financial commitments to include full-blown construction costs as well. That was never originally intended.

And when you factor in 27.5% inflation since the 2018 flood bond, you can understand why Democrats are grabbing Ramsey’s fair share.

Of course, they would never acknowledge that they created Harris County’s bloated, process-bound, equity-obsessed bureaucracy that has reduced HCFCD spending to pre-bond levels – making inflation take an ever larger toll on purchasing power.

Lake Houston Floodgates at Risk Tomorrow

That has also put essential, life-saving projects at risk. For instance, on the chopping block: the project to add more floodgates to Lake Houston. The flood bond allocated $20 million that is now at risk of going elsewhere.

GLO Takes Stand Against Partisan Politics, Encourages Speed

Ramsey has drawn a line in the sand on the floodgate issue in particular and the unfair allocation issue in general. He says he has talked with Texas General Land Office Commissioner Dawn Buckingham about the money grab.

According to Ramsey, Buckingham supports a fair and equal allocation of remaining bond funds among all precincts.

Buckingham issued this statement:

“My mission at the Texas GLO is to serve those we are supposed to serve and do it well. Since becoming Commissioner in 2023, I have put politics aside and done what is right for Harris County. Flood waters do not respect political boundaries, and neither should prioritization of resilience efforts. I encourage the Harris County Commissioners’ Court to put aside partisan politics and focus on maximizing effectiveness of the funds available as well as putting them to work as quickly as possible.”

Democrats may have a majority. But Ramsey likely has a bigger stick. Harris County cannot afford to lose Buckingham’s support at a time when her team is reviewing $850 million in Harris County grant applications with tight federal deadlines.

Will the other precincts share the pain? Will they vote for an equal allocation of the remaining funds? Or will they try to steal from Ramsey’s fair share?

How Did We Get Here?

The County’s complete and utter lack of transparency raises the question, “What are they trying to hide from us?” They have clearly forgotten that this is our money, not theirs. Where is it going? Why? Why can’t HCFCD move faster? And how are we to know whether remaining dollars are going where they are most needed? (HCFCD doesn’t publish flood risk data either.)

And most important: How are we to hold executives and elected officials accountable? We can’t without information.

This is the opposite of transparency. Secrecy will increase flood risk for large segments of Harris County’s population that have received little to no help from HCFCD up to now. Like the Lake Houston Area.

Watch the 6/26/25 commissioners court meeting. The meeting starts at 10AM. Don’t miss Agenda Item #2. And remember that blank page and broken promises during the next election.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/25/2025

2857 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.

“I Know There’s a Drainage Ditch in There Somewhere”

6/24/25 – Representatives of the City of Houston District E Office, Houston Public Works, Kings Forest, and the Bear Branch Trail Association (BBTA) met this morning west of Kingwood High School. Purpose: to discuss clearing a drainage ditch that had been neglected for so long, it became seriously overgrown. So overgrown, in fact, that the ditch was almost impossible to see.

“*Let’s send out a special recon unit.*“

Can You Spot the Water?

And then! Aha! Water! Can you see it below? It’s almost up to the level of Kingwood Drive…when it hasn’t rained for eight days. That’s how blocked the ditch was by vegetation!

*See reflection to right of tree near bottom of frame.*

One hundred and ten homes adjacent to this ditch flooded, not including the community meeting room. So did Kingwood High School. And Kingwood Drive which is a major evacuation route.

All that vegetation increases the risk of future flooding by backing water up.

Residents have been lobbying for years to get the City to address this issue. Now, it’s finally happening!

The Plan to Clear It

I don’t have anything in writing yet, but I think Public Works agreed to start from the downstream side which you see immediately below. The vegetation blocking the outflow needs to be removed and the culverts need cleaning out.

*The ditch outfalls onto the Kingwood Country Club Lake Course and Lake Kingwood.*

More vegetation in the median also blocks the flow and will be cleared.

*Can you even see where the ditch crosses the median?*

Next, they will work back north to clear the entrance to the culverts under the westbound lanes.

Then, they will continue working their way up the ditch removing blockages, including several trees that fell during Beryl last year.

After removing those, Public Works will ensure that the storm sewers leading from neighborhoods to the ditch are also clear and graded properly. Sediment currently blocks the outfalls backing water up into storm sewers and neighborhoods.

BBTA and Kings Forest representatives plus their residents emphasized that they don’t want the entire greenbelt scalped. They just want to remove enough vegetation to restore the flow as designed.

Chris Bloch of the BBTA Board hacked his way through the underbrush to help document the blockages. He said that Public works told him they hope to have the work started by the end of June and completed in July before the start of school.

Public Works also promised to evaluate the roadside ditches in Kings Forest to restore conveyance. But that will be a separate project.

Thank You!

Thanks to Houston District E City Council Member Fred Flickinger, and his staff members Dustin Hodges and Demari Perez. Thanks also to BBTA Board members Chris Bloch and Lee Danner for their assistance in documenting issues and granting access to their property.

Finally, thanks to the staff of Houston Public Works who showed up in the heat and humidity this morning. They braved poison ivy and mosquitoes the size of B-52 Bombers to help protect residents.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/24/25

2856 Days since Hurricane Harvey

West Fork Pit Captures Still Not Addressed After a Year

6/23/25 – Two West Fork pit captures caused by floods in early 2024 are now more than a year old and untouched.

“Pit capture” is when a river punches through the dikes of a sand mine and starts flowing through it.

Photographs taken on 6/22/25 from a rented helicopter show that the San Jacinto West Fork continues to flow into and through the two sand pits. Their dikes have not been repaired. And the river has rerouted itself through the pits which are on private property. See below.

*Entry Breach at former Hallett Pit now owned by Riverwalk Porter LLC. West Fork now flows into pit (upper left) rather than following its normal course (bottom right).*

*At the other end of the pit, the river flows back to its original channel (lower right).*

Here’s a video shot in May 2024 while flying from one end of the mile-long pit to the other.

At the northern end of the Hallett mine, the West Fork has captured another pit.

*Water flows toward camera position through two dike breaches, instead of taking the long (slow) way around the curve.*

*Looking downstream. Closer shot of entry point shows accumulated sediment in pit has already broken the water surface and that vegetation is taking over the old river bed.*

*Made of sand, this dike was never very high, wide or strong. Little wonder the river breached it and captured the pit.*

Best management practices recommend minimum 100-foot-wide, reinforced dikes to eliminate problems like this. That obviously wasn’t the case here.

So, do pit captures encourage or discourage downstream sediment buildups that contribute to flooding?

Industry Says Sediment Falls into Pits. But Does It?

The sand mining industry would have you believe that the pits capture all sand that flows into them. That may be true in certain instances and not in others.

It depends on speed of the water. During the May 2024 flood, I used a drone to measure the speed of floodwaters moving through one of the pits at 5 MPH.

The table below shows particle sizes that water moving at various speeds can transport.

Sediment Size	Diameter (mm)	Approx. Critical Flow Velocity for Initiation
Clay/Silt	<0.004	~0.5 ft/s (~0.34 mph)
Very Fine Sand	0.004–0.062	~1.5 ft/s (~1.0 mph)
Fine Sand	0.062–0.2	~2 ft/s (~1.3 mph)
Medium Sand	0.2–0.5	~3–4 ft/s (~2–2.7 mph)
Coarse Sand	0.5–2.0	~4–5 ft/s (~2.7–3.4 mph)
Very Coarse Sand	2.0–4.0	~5–6 ft/s (~3.4–4.1 mph)
Small Gravel	4–16	~6–7 ft/s (~4.1–4.8 mph)
Medium Gravel	16–64	~7–10 ft/s (~4.8–6.8 mph)

Conclusions:

Sediment deposited in pits is not permanently trapped.
Floods can churn up and flush out stored sediment.
Sediment transport becomes episodic and pulse-like.

Modeling studies show that even in pits 20-25 feet deep, floodwaters at 5 MPH can mobilize and carry away all but the largest gravel. Consequently, experts say sand-mining pits do not serve well as permanent sediment sinks. But are they adding to the sediment load downstream?

How Pit Capture Can Add to Sediment Loads Downstream

Numerous studies have examined whether pit capture makes downstream sedimentation better or worse. Generally, they indicate that pit captures tend to make downstream sedimentation worse—especially over the long term.

To summarize, these sources generally conclude that pit capture:

Increases downstream erosion through “hungry water” effects.
Results in channel instability and sediment pulses.
Worsens downstream sedimentation, contrary to any short-term sediment-trapping benefit.

Therefore, management efforts typically and strongly recommend preventing pit capture through:

Better engineering practices
Increased setback distances
Reinforced berms
Strategic sediment management planning.

For More Information or a Summer-Science Project

For those interested in learning more or for a summer-science project, consult the following:

Peer Reviewed and Technical Studies:

Kondolf, G.M. (1997). “Hungry water: Effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels.” Environmental Management, 21(4), 533–551.
Kondolf, G.M. (2001). “Geomorphic and environmental effects of instream gravel mining.” Landscape and Urban Planning, 28(2-3), 225–243.
Kondolf, G.M. et al. (2007). “Two Decades of Geomorphic Effects of Gravel Mining in the Tuolumne River, California.” Environmental Management, 40, 571–584.
Collins, B.D., & Dunne, T. (1990). “Fluvial geomorphology and river-gravel mining: A guide for planners, case studies included.” U.S. Geological Survey Special Report 98, California Department of Conservation.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2004). “Gravel Mining and Channel Stability: An evaluation of gravel extraction impacts on salmon habitat.”NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-66.
NMFS (2011). “Channel Processes and Sediment Transport: Implications for Salmon Habitat Restoration.” NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-115.

Texas-Specific Agency Reports:

TWDB (2020). “Lake Houston and San Jacinto River Watershed Study: Sediment Management and Flood Risk Assessment.” Texas Water Development Board, Austin, TX.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) (2019–2022). Multiple investigation and enforcement reports documenting pit breaches and sediment spills from sand mines along the San Jacinto River (publicly available through TCEQ’s Central File Room and online database).
TCEQ (2021). “Best Management Practices for Sand Mining in the San Jacinto River Watershed.” RG-555. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Austin, TX.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) (2018). “Impacts of Gravel and Sand Mining on Instream Habitats and Fish Communities in Texas.” TPWD Inland Fisheries Division Technical Report IF-TM-2018-01.
SJRA (2021). “San Jacinto Regional Sediment Management Plan.” Harris County Flood Control District and SJRA joint publication.
Army Corps and HCFCD. “West Fork San Jacinto River Emergency Dredging Project Final Report (2019).”
“San Jacinto River Master Drainage Plan – Appendix F: Sediment Management (2021).”

Background and Context:

Langer, W. H. (2003). “A General Overview of the Technology of In-Stream Mining of Sand and Gravel Resources, Associated Potential Environmental Impacts, and Methods to Control Potential Impacts.” USGS Open File Report OF-02-153.
Bull, W.B., & Scott, K.M. (1974). “Impact of mining gravel from urban stream beds in the Southwestern United States.”Geology, 2(4), 171–174.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/23/25

2855 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.

The Wilderness Among Us

Houston, unlike most major cities, still boasts of vast wilderness areas nearby – largely because of the epic flooding problems they have. The wilderness among us somehow manages to attract people to an environment plagued by heat, humidity, frequent flooding and roaches as large as Buicks.

Wilderness is restful. It rejuvenates the spirit. It anchors us.

But in our zeal to live near wilderness, we destroy the very thing that attracted us.

You lose beauty, solitude and the sense of peacefulness that come from watching a deer born in your yard or an eagle land on your tree.

Lawn fawn — *Photographed minutes after birth…outside my front door.*

Two-Hour Helicopter Flight Reveals Hidden Problems

Today, a rented helicopter took me over one of the largest remaining wilderness areas in north Houston. It’s property owned by developers between Spring Creek and the West Fork, south of the Grand Parkway and north of Humble.

Ryko Flood risk — *Floods in this area could reach as much as 25 feet above the land surface according to FEMA.*

Regardless, people have plans to develop this property.

*Looking northwest at the confluence of Spring Creek (left) and the San Jacinto West Fork (bottom).*

*Farther west, we encountered this view at the northern end of Townsen Boulevard in Humble. Looking N across Spring Creek running left to right above the middle of the frame.*

*As I snapped this shot, I pondered nature’s uniformity in randomness.*

I couldn’t understand why such a large area so close to a major population center remained undeveloped. Then we flew north over it. Below are several representative shots.

*The property is riddled with swamps and wetlands.*

*Wading birds such as egrets, great blue herons, roseate spoonbills, ibis and more live here.*

*Swamps stretched for miles. However, we did see dozens of deer stands in some of the higher areas.*

*One hydrologist said homes in these areas should be built on stilts, like on the Bolivar Peninsula, to remain flood safe.*

But homes are not being built on stilts.

*As we flew north, we saw civilization consuming wilderness like a giant maw*.

A Park Could Overcome Potential Problems

I’m not saying all the land above has flooding problems. Some areas may be high enough to weather the storm, especially on the northern end. But I see several big problems with all that swampy land to the south.

If developers, regulators and unsuspecting buyers pretend those wilderness areas will not flood, someone could be killed.
Repeat flooding could cause the area to deteriorate and adversely affect the value of homes on higher ground.
Areas downstream will be adversely affected by increased runoff.
Wildlife will be forced to move elsewhere, eliminating one of the primary attractions of the area.
Early buyers who wanted to live next to wilderness will be forced to move….again.

I wish the undeveloped swamp land could be turned into a nature park where people and wildlife could make peace with each other. And actually increase home values.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/22/25

2854 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.