News Archives - Page 25 of 277

Why You Still Live with Higher Flood Risk than Necessary

7/18/2025 – Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) under the county’s current Democratic leadership has not put a high priority on improving flood risk in the San Jacinto watershed. That’s despite the fact that the San Jacinto had the highest flooding in Harris County during Harvey. And almost half of the deaths due to Harvey occurred in Kingwood.

“Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is”

An analysis of spending in all Harris County watersheds shows where the focus has been to date. The table and graphs below show the county’s true priorities.

“Put your money where your mouth is” means you back up your words with action. But that is not happening with 2018 Flood Bond money. Promises made long ago have not been kept. Words do not match actions.

One caveat about the numbers below: During the initial days of the bond, HCFCD contributed money to the Army Corps to complete projects the Corps had been working on in several watersheds: Brays, Hunting, Clear Creek and White Oak. That skewed the figures below slightly.

Total and Construction Spending by Watershed To Date

The table below shows dollars budgeted to each watershed in the 2018 bond. It also shows how much has been spent in total and against construction to date. It is arranged by descending order in the “% Spent” Column. Only one watershed has gone over budget to date: Carpenters. It had three small projects. The other watersheds range from almost 90% spent to 4%.

*Calculated from original bond spreadsheet and spending through the first half of 2025 as shown on HCFCD’s website.*

Critical Role of Construction in Reducing Flood Risk

Preliminary engineering reviews, feasibility studies and design are absolutely necessary to document the need for a project, determine its scope, and bid it. But they don’t reduce flood risk one iota. They only talk about how to do it.

Only when someone actually starts turning dirt during construction does flood risk start to come down.

The bar graph below compares “total budgeted dollars,” “total dollars spent,” and “construction dollars spent” for each watershed in the 2018 bond.

Note the huge variation in all three columns. The blue “budgeted” bars show the most dramatic difference from high to low.

Beyond that, note how White Oak, Cypress, Greens and Brays are close to $200 million in spending to date and how all four have more than $100 million in construction spending.

Now compare that with the San Jacinto Watershed. It had the fifth largest budget. But…

The San Jacinto ranks second from the bottom both in terms of “% Spent” and “% of Construction $ Spent.”

Other Lake Houston Area watersheds such as Spring Creek, Luce Bayou and Cedar Bayou show similar disparities.

This is not an accident. The cherry-picked metrics in the Rodney Ellis’ Equity Prioritization Framework favor other watersheds and no longer even include flood risk.

Critical Role of Construction

Construction is the most critical component of spending. Historically, it comprises the largest share of a project life cycle.

Eight years after Harvey and seven after passage of the flood bond, we’ve only spent about 17% of the total budget on construction.

Beyond that, comparing individual watersheds with the Brays Bayou watershed shows tremendous disparities in construction spending.

Halls Bayou, for instance, has the highest percentage of people in the county making less than the median income for the region. It also suffered the most “damage per square mile” in five major storms (Harvey, Imelda, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Allison). See below how it compares to Brays, where Rodney Ellis lives.

*Halls had far more dollars allocated than Brays, but Ellis’ formula put Halls residents at the back of the bus compared to where he lives in the Brays Bayou watershed.*

Halls Bayou was budgeted to receive 55% more dollars than Brays. But it has received far less than half of Brays’ total funding to date. And far less than a quarter of Brays’ construction spending!

The San Jacinto story is similar.

The bond promised the San Jacinto watershed more than Brays. But Brays has received 4 times more total dollars and six times more construction dollars to date.

The Great Irony

We should be coming into the home stretch with this bond money. Far more than half should have been spent by now and far more construction should have been completed or in progress.

The great irony is that both total and construction spending are decreasing when they should be increasing.

I have been told by many people that capacity among construction contractors is not the issue.

*From HCFCD Activity Page. Shows spending through Q2 25. Both overall and construction spending would continue to decline even if first half spending were annualized.*

And despite having more than $3 billion left to spend, with only one watershed over budget to date by a tiny amount, HCFCD’s Director is talking about a $1.3 billion shortfall without providing any public explanation about her projections. And commissioners are using that as an excuse to cancel projects in watersheds that have received minuscule funding to date.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/20/2025

2882 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.

Is Flood-Risk Uncertainty Redlining Your Neighborhood?

7/19/25 – Eight years after Harvey, we still don’t have new flood maps. That creates flood-risk uncertainty.

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has yet to release flood maps based on Atlas-14 data developed 4 years ago. HCFCD says it is waiting for FEMA to approve its maps, but FEMA delays have dragged on for years. And FEMA doesn’t need to approve the maps for many purposes.

Meanwhile, studies have found that flood-risk uncertainty may be causing lenders to raise mortgage rates and credit requirements. It’s also causing insurers to leave markets with uncertain risk or not renew policies that may be a mortgage requirement.

The ripple effects of flood-risk uncertainty affect everyone. But they weigh most heavily on low-to-moderate income (LMI) groups with less discretionary income. Those groups may find themselves priced out of the housing market as lenders and insurers seek to cover their uncertain risks.

Worse, any resident – rich or poor – may unknowingly buy a home that they thought was flood safe only to see a flood destroy it.

Ripple Effects of Flood-Risk Uncertainty

Studies show that flood-risk uncertainty may:

Induce people to buy homes they think are safer than they really are
Cause mortgage lenders to tack extra points onto their mortgages or raise downpayment requirements
Lead lenders to force buyers to purchase flood insurance they may not need
Increase flood-insurance rates to a level that makes monthly mortgage payments unaffordable for many.

Those factors affect all income groups. But those with lower incomes and less job security feel the greatest impact and may find themselves priced out of markets.

Spreading Impacts of Uncertainty

This week, First Street Foundation hosted a fascinating hour-long webinar about how FEMA cuts will impact real estate, lending, home buying, home building, and insurance markets.

The uncertainty affects tolerance for risk in all those markets. No one knows yet how the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) will be affected.

But the absence of up-to-date flood maps, or any flood maps at all in some cases, complicates that risk. A New York Fed study in 2024 found that lenders were more reluctant to originate loans in “hidden-risk” zones. When they do, they loan less, charge higher rates, impose stricter credit requirements, and may resell the mortgages to offload risk. The study also found “This effect is weaker for high income applicants.”

I know the owner of a billion-dollar bank who has withdrawn entirely from residential mortgage lending because of the uncertainty.

Federal Government Shedding Risk

According to First Street, policy shifts at the federal level seem intended to transfer the risk of weather disasters onto property owners, investors, lenders, and local governments.

Example: Instead of subsidizing flood insurance like it used to, FEMA’s new Risk-Rating 2.0 is making NFIP rates more closely reflect losses.

On average, NFIP policy costs have increased 35% under Risk-Rating 2.0 so far. And annual rate increases are capped by law.

Meanwhile, developers continue to build in risky areas, elevating homes only enough to meet the outdated requirements of flood maps developed 20 to 50 years ago. Most people underestimate the risk associated with that.

No Legal Reason to Wait for FEMA

Some people think that only FEMA can release flood maps. That’s not true. Only FEMA can release maps used by NFIP as the basis for national flood insurance. But states and counties can release their own maps for their own purposes.

Counties elsewhere have done so to help guide development, make regulatory decisions, establish stormwater detention standards, raise building codes and improve floodplain management.

For all those purposes, HCFCD embarked on a massive effort to update the county’s flood maps after Harvey. But then the county balked for some reason.

The District, submitted its new maps to FEMA and expected FEMA to issue new preliminary flood-insurance rate maps by Spring or Summer in 2022. That didn’t happen.

MAAPnext FEMA timeline for flood map release explains uncertainty — *Screen Capture from June 2021 MAAPnext update.*

HCFCD then issued a statement in July 2022. For unspecified reasons, it said it would wait and “… follow FEMA’s formal, regulatory FIRM [flood insurance rate map] update process.” (Despite other urgent, non-insurance-related needs.)

Some claimed at the time that Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia held up release of the new maps to enhance his re-election chances. I have been unable to verify that. But one thing is certain.

Nothing legally prevents HCFCD from releasing its flood maps.

Yet as you read this, developers in Harris County and surrounding areas are filing permit applications to build infrastructure and homes in areas that will likely flood. One fought all the way to the Texas Supreme Court for the right to build in a flood-prone area.

And Ryko wants to build 7,000 homes in another flood-prone area west of Kingwood. Just one problem: the homes could be under 7 to 25 feet of water – or more – if we get another Harvey.

Unsuspecting families who buy such homes based on antiquated flood maps face huge flood and financial risk.

Shakespeare was right. “What’s past is prologue.” Of the 154,170 homes that flooded in Harris County during Harvey, 64% did not have flood insurance…largely because of unrecognized risk.

Insurance Exodus

Unrecognized risk is also wreaking havoc in the insurance market. ChatGPT produced this table of insurers withdrawing or reducing coverage in high-risk states.

*State*	*Insurers Withdrawing or Reducing Coverage*
California	State Farm, Allstate, AIG, Chubb
Florida	State Farm FL, Farmers, AAA, UPC Insurance (exited), plus others post-2004
Louisiana	~20 insurers left high-risk parishes; Lighthouse went insolvent
Across coastal/high-risk states	AIG, AXA, Chubb pulling back

In Texas, I’m not aware of any insurers leaving the state. At least, not yet. But several (State Farm, Farmers, and Allstate) have reportedly restricted coverage. They do that primarily through non-renewals at policy expiration if flood-risk changes (i.e., with new maps) or a property experiences a flood loss.

Make New Flood Maps Public Now

Concealing information from people that puts their lives and life savings at risk is just plain cruel.

To keep residents safe, give them the best available data NOW. And let them decide how much risk they can tolerate based on fact, not fiction.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/19/2025

2881 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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