News Archives - Page 30 of 282

Revised HCFCD Report Still Contains Discrepancies Totaling Hundreds of Millions

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

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

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

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

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

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

See details below.

Basis for This Post

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

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

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

Bond, Partner, Total Secured Funds

The backup spreadsheet shows:

*Calculated from backup documentation in Revised Q1 Report.*

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

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

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

$252 Million Discrepancy in Funds Spent

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

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

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

Unexplained Half Billion Dollars of Work Initiated in 3 Months

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

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

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

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

We Need Revisions to the Revisions

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

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

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

We Need Independent Audit and Explanations

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

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

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

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

Hmmmm. Those are my opinions.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/12/2025

2874 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Commissioners Clarify Stance on Flood-Bond Partnership-Project Funding

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

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

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

Revisiting Vote that Potentially Defunded Partnership Projects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ramsey Presents A Simplified Bond-Spending Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of Ramsey’s motions received a second.

Ramsey Motions Modified by Ellis

Ellis then made a substitute motion which Ramsey agreed to:

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

Ellis’ substitute motion carried unanimously. In other news…

Outrageous Travel Costs Approved

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

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

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

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

Still confused?

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

The junket includes:

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

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

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

No wonder we’re debating which projects to cut!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/10/2025

2872 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

HCFCD Director Requests Hotel Allowance of Almost $1200 Per Night

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

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

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

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

Altogether the request comes to $8,120.

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

Almost 2X the Registration Fee Also

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

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

Flight Cost 8X Higher

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

Astronomical Taxi, Mileage, Parking Estimates

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

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

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

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

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

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

Putting It All in Perspective

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/9/2025

2871 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Sounding Off Again about Need for Sirens

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

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

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

Previous Posts About Need for Sirens After Harvey

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

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

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

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

Hill Country Camper’s Plea to Legislators

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

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

Reduce Risk of Future Flash Flooding Catastrophes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed J. Jones

Failsafe Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/8/25

2870 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Most Northpark Expansion Work Shifts West of Loop 494

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing Old Junction Box by Sonic

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

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

Getting Ready for Fast-Track Paving

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

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

Drainage Work in Center Will Soon Begin

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

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

*Looking east from over 59 at entry ponds.*

Eastbound Inlets and Lateral Drainage

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

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

Loop 494 Paving and More

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/7/25

2869 Days since Hurricane Harvey

More Inconsistencies in HCFCD Bond Updates Demand State Audit

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

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

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

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

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

We need a state audit BEFORE defunding any projects.

Compare Reported Spending + Work in Progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HCFCD Spent Only $43 Million in Q1

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

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

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

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

No Proof Shown for Spending Commitments

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

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

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

Neither does the county’s purchasing website.

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

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

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

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/6/2025

2868 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Ellis Equity Cuts Likely Violate Bond Language Approved by Voters

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

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

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

Basis for Prioritization Distorted

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

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

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

Funds Not Used for Purposes Described

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

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

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

Not Providing Benefits Throughout the County

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

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

Bait-and-Switch

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

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

Rights of Way Endangered

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

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

Slow-Motion Project Delivery

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

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

HCFCD bid only three projects in 2024.

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

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

Fine Print vs. Voter “Takeaway”

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

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

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

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

The Ballot Box Cure

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/5/2025

2867 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

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.

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