Proposed Romerica Development Raises Red Flags

4/11/2025 – By Chris Bloch – The proposed Romerica development would have a negative impact on the neighborhoods of Kingwood Lakes, Trailwood, Deerwood Cove and the Barrington. The Romerica development could even contribute to flooding the intersection of Kingwood Drive and Woodland Hills Drive. 

The potential negative impacts result from a combination of factors. They include:

  • The design of surrounding stormwater infrastructure built during the 1970s
  • Increases in expected rainfall since then
  • The current outfall location of area storm and sanitary sewers on Romerica property
  • An increase in impervious cover from the proposed new development
  • The fact that the new development would be built in an area that collects water naturally
  • Fixed elevations of surrounding lakes.

During heavy rains, a combination of these factors would back water up through sewers farther and faster into surrounding neighborhoods where structures have already flooded.

Let me explain how each of these issues contributes to the others. Together, they increase flood risk for surrounding homes and would also increase the potential for floodwater blocking Kingwood Drive and Woodland Hills Drive during evacuations.

Design of Surrounding Infrastructure Outdated

Back in the 1970s, engineers did not build infrastructure to current Atlas-14 rainfall standards. Standards for expected rainfall have increased twice since then – after Allison in 2001 and after Harvey in 2017. 

So, the existing storm sewers in Kingwood Lakes and Trailwood are already overtaxed. And that has contributed to flooding of structures during heavy rains. There is simply not enough conveyance capacity in storm sewers to safely handle the volume of rainfall we now know that we will get.

Water Backing Up from Outfalls

Multiple storm sewer networks currently outfall to the Romerica property. As water levels rise at an outfall, the capacity of the sewers to convey stormwater from the neighborhoods is reduced.

During heavy rains, the lost capacity of the storm sewers causes streets and homes in the affected neighborhoods to flood.

Increases in impervious cover that come with high-density development on the Romerica property would back water up even further and faster into those sewers. That would elevate flood risk for surrounding homes.

Increased backwater levels would also result in higher water levels at the Kingwood Drive/Woodland Hills intersection. This is a critical intersection in Kingwood. High water at that location limits access into and out of much of Kingwood.

Property Already Collects Stormwater

The Romerica property is already extremely low compared to surrounding property. So, it naturally collects stormwater. During heavy rains, such as we received last May, photographs show that water reached the canopy of trees on the property.

Romerica
Looking west toward area of proposed Romerica development. Photo taken during peak of May, 2024 flood.

Elevation profiles on the USGS National Map clearly show both low elevation as well as the nature of the property in question. It’s swampy and forms a sort of natural detention basin. And that’s why Friendswood never developed it.

N to S Elevation Profile from USGS National Map shows Romerica land significantly lower than Kingwood Lakes and Barrington.
W to E Elevation Profile from USGS National Map also shows Romerica land significantly lower than surrounding areas.

Moreover, the impervious cover that comes from additional development would contribute to even higher water levels on Romerica’s property. And those higher levels would back water up – father and faster – into the storm and sanitary sewers that serve surrounding villages.

Construction of access drives and buildings on the property would reduce the volume of stormwater that can be absorbed on the property. This will result in even higher water levels on the property and Lake Kingwood.

Surrounding Lakes Not Far Below Romerica’s Elevation

Romerica property is already extremely low compared to surrounding areas. It forms a sort of natural detention basin just two or three feet above the level of surrounding lakes. So, during heavy rains, the Romerica property floods badly.

The water-surface elevation of Lake Kingwood is 47 feet. It discharges into a second lake at 46 feet. And that discharges into a third at 45 feet. Weirs control the elevation of all three lakes. 

During heavy rain events, it is common for the lake levels to rise 3 to 4 feet. And during extreme events, such as Hurricane Harvey, they rise even farther. The water surface level of Lake Kingwood during Harvey rose by approximately 12 feet!

So homes facing Lake Kingwood all flooded 6 to 8 feet. And Kingwood Lakes is much higher than Romerica!

The property of the proposed Romerica development has an average elevation less than 52 feet. During any significant rain event, the vast majority of the property will be submerged by flood waters from the stormwater discharge outlets and water spilling over from Lake Kingwood.

Romerica swamp with 5- to 12-inches of water after only two inches of rainfall in the last month.
If that swamp gets much higher, it could reduce the conveyance of this storm sewer outfall from NE Trailwood Village.

And that would back up water in those storm sewers.

What It Would Take to Develop Romerica’s Property Safely

The design of surrounding stormwater and sanitary sewers that lead to Romerica’s property did not anticipate high-density development on that property.     

Additional runoff from added impervious surface would require considerable modifications to existing utility services at the expense of the City…which doesn’t have the money.

Safe development of the Romerica property would also require:

  • A new bypass drainage channel from the west end of Lake Kingwood south to the Diversion Ditch 
  • A new storm sewer main to divert stormwater from South Woodland Hills and Trailwood into the bypass drainage ditch
  • Limiting discharges into Lake Kingwood
  • A longer weir on the west end of Lake Kingwood to help control water levels in the lake. 

In my opinion, this development should not receive a permit. Instead, the property should be developed as an additional stormwater detention facility site and drainage channel.

Chris Bloch presenting his research to the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority board and City Council Member Fred Flickinger on 4/10/25.

Guest editorial by Chris Bloch, a flood activist who has studied Kingwood drainage issues for decades. Bloch holds 12 patents which fundamentally changed the way power plants, and petrochemical plants are commissioned

2782 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.

 

Court of Federal Claims Hears Final Arguments in Addicks Barker Downstream Case

4/10/2025 – Law firm McGehee ☆ Chang, Landgraf, Feiler issued a press release today on the final arguments in the Addicks Barker Reservoirs litigation in the Court of Federal Claims. Arguments took place on April 8, 2025 and conclude the liability portion of the case. The judge advised that he intends to issue a ruling “soon.”

The plaintiffs claim the Army Corps of Engineers opened the gates of the reservoirs unnecessarily during Harvey and flooded plaintiffs homes. They also allege that the Corps’ action constituted a “taking” by the government without just compensation.

Addicks Barker Location
The Addicks and Barker reservoirs (big green areas on left) lie on either side of I-10 on Houston’s west side.

The Corps and Harris County Flood Control developed the reservoirs in response to devastating floods in 1929 and 1935. 

When constructed development had not yet reached them. Since then, it has surrounded them.

Issues in Case

The issues defined by presiding Judge Loren Smith were:

(1): Did an emergency necessitate the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) to open the Addicks and Barker reservoir gates? Or did the Corps open them as a matter of ordinary operating procedure?

(2): What would have happened if the gates had remained closed?

While the questions sound simple, the case involved hundreds of hours of lengthy depositions, trial testimony, and more than 500,000 pages of documents.

Plaintiff’s Attorneys Optimistic

According to lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Jack McGehee, his team utilized hours and hours of trial testimony, deposition testimony, the Corps’ own internal documents, and expert testimony which he says were “largely uncontested by the defense expert.”

The law firm contended, of course, that there was no “emergency” that necessitated the opening of the flood gates. In support of that conclusion, the attorney says the Corps’:

  • Various personnel admitted as much before “emergency” became an issue in the case.
  • Own reports and documentation lack reference to any “emergency”

Further, McGehee reported that both the Plaintiffs’ expert and the Corps’ expert agreed – that if the gates were not opened, then, the vast majority of the test properties would not have flooded. Further, he says, the others would have received less flooding. 

He added that that conclusion “was made abundantly clear through the 500,000 pages of documents and hundreds of hours of lengthy deposition/trial testimony.” 

McGehee added that the government’s strategy focused on the “emergency” declarations by the Corps and the federal and state government. However, the government reportedly failed to point out that these “emergency” declarations were made days prior to Harvey, and had nothing to do with the opening of the flood gates. 

These emergency declarations, he claims, concerned Harvey in general, but not the Addicks/Barker reservoirs that are the subject of this case. 

Additionally, the government emphasized how much the Addicks and Barker dams have benefited the Houston area in the past and how it was reasonable for the Corps to open the gates. 

McGehee concluded, “The government, however, did not address that these claims are not relevant in the legal analysis of a government ‘taking’ of private property. “

Legal History of Case

This case is one of two that involve alleged “takings” by the Federal government during Harvey related to the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs. Several years ago, they were split into upstream and downstream cases because the issues and facts differed somewhat.

These posts include background information on both:

24/12/9 Addicks Barker Litigation Update – about testimony in an appeal of the cases.

24/11/25 Flood Digest: Brief Summaries of Five Flood-Related News Items contains a summary of then-recent developments in the upstream case.

23/1/19 Downstream Addicks Barker Case Moves Another Step Closer to Trial

22/11/21 Government Again Moves for Summary Judgment In Addicks-Barker Downstream Cases

22/8/9 Addicks-Barker Upstream Trial Case Entering Final Phase

22/6/11 Upstream Addicks-Barker Trial Concludes, But No Ruling Yet on Damages

22/6/3 Appeals Court Revives Addicks-Barker Downstream Takings Cases

20/2/26 New Presentations on Barker-Addicks Upstream Case and State of Regional Flood Mitigation

For more updates dating back to 2017, see this page on the law firm’s site.

Almost eight years after Harvey, we still don’t have a decision in this case. That underscores the need to purchase flood insurance if you live in Harris County.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/10/25

2781 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.

Natural Resources Committee Hears Testimony on HB2068

Update: 4/10/25 – After reading this post, the media liaison for HCFCD emailed me to say, “One correction to your post today – Dr. Petersen testified as a resource on the bill, not against it.” Listen to her testimony at the link provided and you be the judge.

4/9/2025 – The Texas House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee heard testimony today on HB2068. HB2068 attempts to reconstitute the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) into one with wider authority to address flooding that originates outside Harris County.

It would also give the governor authority to appoint a board for the reconstituted district that would replace Harris County Commissioners Court, which has severely politicized flood mitigation much to the detriment of those who live on the periphery of the county.

Three people testified in person AGAINST the bill. But 192 provided written comments FOR the bill. Still, the bill’s fate is unclear tonight.

Three In-Person Testifiers All Against Bill

The committee heard live testimony from three people. All spoke against the bill. They included Stephen Costello, the City’s former Chief Recovery Officer under the late Mayor Sylvester Turner. They also included Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD and Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia.

Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia testifying against HB2068 in today’s House Natural Resources Committee hearing.

The essence of Costello’s testimony was “HCFCD is working. Don’t mess with it.” He called the District a good partner for the City of Houston. And that may be true in certain areas.

Petersen and Garcia both bragged about HCFCD’s track record under their leadership, including their ability to take politics out of decision making.

Their testimony stood in stark contrast to brutal confrontations in Harris County Commissioners Court during the last two months. Commissioners, including Garcia, have raked Petersen over the coals. They complained bitterly and repeatedly about budget shortfalls totaling hundreds of millions of dollars that have jeopardized their pet projects.

No one seems to know where the current budget or projects stand. And that has made it impossible for commissioners to prioritize projects for any budget remaining.

Regardless, Petersen touted the county’s failed IT systems as a positive. She estimated it would cost the District $75 million to replace them if Flood Çontrol were a stand-alone entity.

Petersen also failed to mention the four-year slowdown in HCFCD activity.

HCFCD annual spending trend

See the entire testimony here. HB2068 starts about 1:18 into the video.

Strange Failure to Address Author’s Claims

Rep. Dennis Paul, the bill’s author, teed up his bill by explaining how much flooding originated outside the county. However, neither Costello, Petersen, nor Garcia addressed that point.

The failure to address such an obvious point may have been a fatal flaw in their arguments. Any casual observer could see the disconnect.

In fact, 10 of the 22 watersheds in Harris County originate outside the county, including most of the largest ones. Excluding cooperative efforts with people in those areas dooms large parts of Harris County to repetitive flooding. Especially those on the periphery of the county.

watershed map of Harris County
Harris County Watershed map

Electronically Filed Comments Overwhelmingly Support Bill

Many county residents have received virtually no support from HCFCD during Petersen’s tenure because of deliberate diversions of funds to low-income areas. Residents who remain living with high flood risk did not share Petersen’s and Garcia’s appraisals of their own performance, judging by their written comments.

194 people submitted comments electronically. You can read them here. Of the 194, only two were against HB2068. The other 192 strongly favored it. Virtually all of them came from the Lake Houston Area.

However, a number of people from Porter, Conroe, and even as far north as Cleveland also favored the bill. All had been flooded. And all sought the kind of support that an expanded District could provide.

Only one other bill discussed in Natural Resources today received more comments than HB2068. It was a quarrying bill relating to the Lower Colorado River Authority. The rest received only a handful of comments. Most received 0 to 3.

That in itself seems like it would argue for closer scrutiny and debate.

Bill Not Debated in Committee, Fate Up in Air

However, at the end of the testimony, the chairman left the bill “pending in committee.” That could mean they will just let it die. Or it could mean they will debate it and pass it out of committee to the full house for a vote at a future date.

Rep. Paul’s bill does not yet have a companion bill in the Senate.

More news to follow when it becomes available.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/9/2025

2780 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Action Needed: Support HB2068 NOW!

4/8/25 – State Representative Dennis Paul has authored a bill, HB2068, which would transform the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) by reconstituting its management and potentially expanding its geographic scope. Fifteen other state representatives have expressed their support by signing on as “co-authors” of the bill. Most represent parts of the San Jacinto River Basin.

The Texas House of Representatives Natural Resources committee will hold hearings on the bill tomorrow. We need to make sure the bill doesn’t die a quiet death by never making it out of the committee for a vote by the full House. So please write today to express your support.

Why We Need HB2068

Water doesn’t respect political boundaries. Back in 1937 when the legislature created HCFCD, that wasn’t a huge problem. Most of the region’s population lived within Harris County.

But since then, the Houston area has grown to encompass all or parts of seven counties. Having the state’s only flood control district focusing primarily on the area inside Beltway 8 no longer serves the needs of the region.

For instance, in the San Jacinto watershed, an area half again as large as Harris County drains past Kingwood. Yet Kingwood has received only $230 in capital improvement construction projects from HCFCD. Ever.

But during Harvey, Kingwood also had the highest flooding in the county. And it has flooded several times since then.

Meanwhile, eight other watersheds favored by certain Harris County Commissioners have received more than $740 million…just since 2018.

Their formula for allocating funds relies heavily on race and income. The majority of County Commissioners now in control do not even include flood damage or risk in their current formula for prioritizing flood-mitigation projects.

Moreover, HCFCD under the leadership of Harris County Commissioners Court refuses to release comparative flood risk data in their possession.

Plus, certain commissioners have vowed not to allow HCFCD to spend money on projects outside of Harris County, where many of the County’s flooding problems originate.

How HB2068 Could Change That

HB2068 modifies the legislation that originally created HCFCD. The modifications do two basic things. They:

  • Replace Harris County Commissioners Court as managers of HCFCD with a board appointed by the governor. (See Section 1D Page 3.)
  • Allow surrounding counties to join the reconstituted district voluntarily after approval by their Commissioners Courts and voters.

Thus…

HB2068 would enable the reconstituted district to serve all people of the river basin and give them a way to address their flooding issues together.

Flooding does not respect political boundaries. HB2068 bridges those boundaries.

How to Express Your Support

The Natural Resources committee will meet on Wednesday April 9, 2025 to hear testimony on HB2068.

Remember public comments must be submitted before the end of the meeting. To be safe, do it now! And do it here. You are limited to 3000 characters. I suggest something that expresses the key points above under:

  • Why We Need HB2068
  • How HB2068 Could Change That.

They include 2000 characters.

If you are pressed for time, just say, “I support this bill.”

Please DO IT NOW!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/8/2025

2779 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Lake Meritage Drained into City Storm Sewer

4/7/25 – Last Saturday, 2.5 inches of rain turned the Meritage construction site in Atascocita into Lake Meritage. But by this morning, contractors were draining Lake Meritage into a City of Houston storm sewer.

Close examination of aerial photos shows a series of trenches cut under silt fences to let the water drain from the site quickly and bypass the usually slow filtration process that the fences provide.

Contractors had also cut a series of trenches within the site to move trapped stormwater toward the street. And an excavator was scooping muddy stormwater from the beginnings of a detention basin into yet another trench that led toward the exit rows.

Lake Meritage 24 Hours After Storm

Here’s what the site looked like 24 hours ago.

Meritage Phase II (right) on April 6, 2025 24 hours after 2.5 inch rain

Pictures and Videos Taken Another 24 Hours after Storm

Here’s the same area today.

Meritage Phase II (right) 24 hours after photo above.

Where did all the water go?

Interior channels brought the stormwater toward the street…
The excavator (center left) was scooping buckets of water out of the detention basin and dumping it into another channel that led toward the street.
…and a series of shovel-wide trenches let water leak out from under the silt fence.

Much of the muck flowed through a roadside swale to a storm sewer inlet. See below.

10-Second Video by Michelle Chavez, who lives next to the Meritage construction site.

But not all of the muck stayed in the swale. The next ten-second video shows part of it running down the street. There was so much at one point that contractors had to partially block it off.

Another 10-second video showing stormwater entering street. Supplied by passing motorist.
Motorist tracks overflowing silty stormwater down street for another 18 seconds until it flows into City storm sewer inlet.

When I drove by about an hour after the last video was shot, the flow through the street had ended and someone had installed a screen over the inlet that’s clearly not on the video. The screen could make them appear compliant with their Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan.

Silt Fence Repairs Not a Priority

Unfortunately, the contractors did not drain the water invading neighbors’ yards. And repairing damaged silt fences that protected neighbors from the muck was not their highest priority.

Broken silt fence and runoff on neighboring properties as of noon 4/7/25.

To File a Complaint

Practices like those above are usually discouraged by the Harris County Engineer and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

If you’re concerned about runoff that floods your property or potentially clogs your storm drains, please file a complaint.

Harris County Engineer

Phone: 713-274-3600 Monday Through Friday 8 AM to 5 PM

File a complaint online at: https://epermits.harriscountytx.gov/External_Complaints.aspx

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

For instructions to file a complaint, visit: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/compliance/complaints.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/7/2025

2778 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.

Meritage Flooding Atascocita Neighbors

4/6/2025 – After a little more than two inches of rain in a two hour period on 4/5/25, neighbors of the Meritage development in Atascocita bordering Pinehurst Trail Drive began noticing muddy runoff creeping toward their foundations.

Aerial photos taken today show that Meritage and its contractors have made some improvements to control runoff since previous storms. However, the attempts did not protect neighbors’ property during this storm, most likely because of poor execution and slow construction progress.

Failures Illustrate Need to Complete Drainage Work Faster

In Phase I, Meritage still has yet to install drainage and silt fence in areas it clearcut early in 2024.

In Phase II, dirt pushed silt fencing over in places. Muddy runoff invaded neighbors’ yards. Silty water also flooded Pinehurst Trail Drive.

These failures illustrate the need to complete drainage work faster once land is cleared.

Meritage is creating the same issues for its neighbors in Atascocita that the Perry Homes Woodridge Village development did with its neighbors in Kingwood.

Construction, in general, increases flood risk. For neighbors when construction practices are flawed or incomplete. And for larger, surrounding areas when increases in impervious cover may be insufficiently mitigated.

One-Year Rain Overcame Meritage Efforts

Before looking at photos of yesterday’s rain and its aftermath, let’s look at the rainfall totals. The closest Harris County Flood Control District gage is at West Lake Houston Parkway, a little more than a mile north. It received 2.6 inches of rain in a two-hour period on Saturday.

From Harris County Flood Warning System gage on West Lake Houston Parkway at West Fork.

That’s a one- to two-year rain according to NOAA’s precipitation-frequency estimates for this area. See the 2-hour row in Columns 1 and 2 below.

Atlas 14
Atlas 14 Rainfall Probability Statistics for Lake Houston Area

It may have rained intensely yesterday. But the rain did not come close to setting any records. It’s EXPECTED. Statistically, construction companies should PLAN on encountering such rainfalls on virtually EVERY project of this scale.

But yesterday’s experience shows they don’t. At least Meritage and its contractor(s) didn’t.

Attempts to Control Drainage Fall Short

Meritage broke this project up into two phases on opposite sides of Pinehurst Trail Drive.

  • Contractors finished clearing Phase I on the west by the end of January 2024.
  • They finished clearing Phase II on the east by early 2025.

Both sides flooded already earlier this year on February 11. The West Lake Houston Parkway gage received less than a 1-year rain that time. A public outcry caused Meritage to step up its efforts to control runoff. And they did. Somewhat.

They added more silt fencing, staked out wattle rolls to help filter runoff, and built berms in places to help protect neighbors. They also placed sand bags next to storm sewer entrances to help stop sediment before it escaped into storm sewers.

But photos and video taken after yesterday’s rain also show:

  • In Phase I:
    • Severe erosion
    • Storm sewers and drainage pipes stacked and waiting for installation
    • No silt fencing protecting wetlands
    • No paving, no visible progress toward completion in months.
  • In Phase II:
    • Dirt pushed up against silt fences, knocking them over
    • Silty stormwater in neighbor’s yards near the damaged silt fence
    • Ponding water throughout the site
    • Runoff closing off half of Pinehurst Trail Drive.

See below.

Video and Photos From Day of Storm

A reader sent me these two clips. The first shows street flooding caused by runoff from Phase II. The second shows flooding in the Phase II site itself.

Pinehurst Trail Drive on 4/5/25 Near Meritage Phase II construction site. (13 seconds).
Meritage site on 4/5/25 after a one-year rain. (22 seconds).

A neighbor, James Montgomery, whose yard flooded badly sent me these shots.

Silty water approaching pool and house from Meritage site beyond fence.
Hours later, his yard was still flooded with silty water from construction site.

Aerial Photos Taken 24 Hours Later

Here’s how homes along the northern property line of Phase II looked around noon on Sunday.

Note damaged silt fence.
Runoff from Phase II still creeping toward neighbors’ homes 24 hours after rainfall.
Ponding water in Phase II on right overflowing into swale and heading toward storm sewer (top center).
Note ponding water along entire silt fence on right. A well-constructed berm could have helped here.
Looking E at entire Phase II of the Meritage site. Despite months of ideal construction weather since last major rain in February, runoff is still not controlled.
Phase I shot shows grass around the detention basin finally taking hold. But drainage work is still far from complete more than a year after clearing.
More drainage materials stacked up near western edge of Phase I. Note lack of silt fence and silty runoff escaping into wetlands that used to occupy a much larger part of Phase I.
Entire site almost 1.5 years into development. Phase I in foreground. Phase II in upper left. Lake Houston at top of frame.

Personally, I hoped for more – especially from a company whose advertising slogan includes the words “Built. Better.” Construction opens a window of vulnerability to flooding. Companies should do everything they can to complete drainage work as fast as they can to close that window.

For More Information

Meritage builds homes in 11 states. Their website also shows they build homes in 34 communities in the Houston area alone. The posts below contain photos of and background materials about the development.

2/13/25 Meritage Site Overflows Despite Detention Basin

12/23/24 Meritage Finishes Clearing 40 Acres between Pinehurst and Kings River

10/27/24 – Concerns About Fill Height in New Atascocita Development

3/11/24 – New Kings River Development Gets a Buzz Cut

2/13/24 – Meritage Begins Clearing 40 Acres for 210 Homes, Many Over Wetlands

2/26/24 – New Kings River Development Drainage Analysis, Plans Raise Questions

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/6/25

2777 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.

FEMA Eliminating Important BRIC Grants

4/5/2025 – On 4/4/25, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced the termination of BRIC grants.

The Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Grant Program encouraged better building practices. The grants also funded mitigation projects that reduced future flood damage.

Through its project scoring matrix, BRIC grants incentivized the adoption of building codes that strengthened infrastructure and buildings against natural disasters. The codes address issues, such as elevation above floodplains and types of foundations, that help improve safety and prevent future damage.

Photo Courtesy of Denise Faulkner

Program Linked to Building Codes that Reduced Future Damage

To maximize a project’s “score” during competitive evaluation, states had to adopt, at a minimum, the International Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code (IRC) as published by the International Code Council (ICC). ICC updates the codes annually.

According to Alan Black, vice president of Quiddity Engineering in Houston, “BRIC applications receive 20 points (out of a possible 100) if the State has adopted the 2018 version (or later) of both IBC and IRC.”

However, Black also points out that Texas currently only mandates the 2012 codes as a minimum, even though municipalities may adopt higher standards. The 2012 code put many Texas applications at a competitive disadvantage.

Black says, “Unincorporated areas by state law are prohibited from adopting their own building codes, and as such, applications from these areas receive 0 out of 20 points.”

Positive Payback for Higher Building Codes

Regardless, encouraging adoption of higher building standards in densely populated flood-prone areas is positive.

John Blount, a former Harris County Engineer, studied how areas in Harris County that had and hadn’t adopted a 2009 building code update handled Hurricane Harvey.

The study found 20 times less damage in subdivisions using the newer, more stringent building codes.

Even more impressive, Blount found that not one home built to the higher standards suffered substantial damage during Harvey.

A national study published by FEMA in 2020 demonstrated the value of adopting hazard-resistant building codes. They can provide an 11-to-1 return by reducing losses and helping communities get back on their feet faster after disasters.

That’s right. Every $1 spent on mitigation in new-building-code construction saves $11 in disaster repair and recovery costs.

Black, also a former acting director of Harris County Flood Control, said that 11:1 sounded a bit high in his experience. He used a rule of thumb of 4:1 for this area.

Easily Correctable Rules May Have Doomed Entire Program

Regardless, yesterday, Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security (FEMA’s parent department), announced she was “eliminating the wasteful, politicized grant program” started during President Trump’s first term.

A FEMA spokesperson said, “The BRIC Program was yet another example of a wasteful and ineffective FEMA program. It was more concerned with political agendas than helping Americans affected by natural disasters.”

Noem is canceling all BRIC applications from 2020 to 2023 and clawing back any unspent money, according to her press release. It said, “Approximately $882 million of funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will be returned to the U.S. Treasury or reapportioned by Congress in the next fiscal year.”

Noem said she is doing this to “return FEMA to its core mission of helping Americans recover from natural disasters.”

An analogy: It feels as if she would rather reconstruct a plane after it crashed than help land it safely.

Third-party press reports shed a bit more light. Grist reported a FEMA spokesperson as saying that FEMA “was more concerned with climate change than helping Americans affected by natural disasters.” Grist also pointed out that BRIC generally shouldered 75 percent of the cost of a given resilience project, and up to 90 percent of the cost of projects in disadvantaged communities.

Scientific American reported that “President Joe Biden ordered the program to address climate change and spend 40 percent of its grant money on projects that help communities with high rates of poverty, unemployment and environmental exposure.”

“The program’s emphasis on equity is what may have marked it for demolition,” concluded Grist.

Local Impact

The cancellation of BRIC grants will reportedly crush projects underway, but not yet completed. FEMA says it is clawing back all unspent money, even if a project has already started.

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure released a report yesterday detailing how much each state would be affected by the loss of BRIC funding. Texas will lose $510,667,172, second only to California.

A FEMA spreadsheet shows that Harris County and the Harris County Flood Control District had applied for 10 BRIC grants:

Forest Shadows Subdivision Flood Mitigation BRIC
Bear Creek Village Subdivision Flood Mitigation BRIC
Project Scoping for Cypress Creek Watershed Study – Harris County Flood Control District, TX
Harris County TX Greens Bayou Mid-Reach Channel Conveyance Improvements – Segment 1 FY2022 BRIC
BRIC 2020 Buyout
Project Scoping for Cole Creek Stormwater Detention Basin Preliminary Engineering Report “ HCFCD, TX
South Post Oak Detention Basin C547-00-00 & Channel Improvement C147-00-00 in Harris Co, TX BRIC
Little Cedar Bayou Flood Risk Reduction Project Scoping – Harris County Flood Control District, TX
Cloverleaf Area Drainage Improvements – Phase 2 – Harris County Flood Control District, TX
Cypress Trace Stormwater Detention Basin C&CB Project Scoping“ Harris County Flood Control District

It’s not immediately clear how the BRIC decision will affect the fate of those projects. FEMA may have rejected some projects previously. And some, if cancelled, may have alternative sources of funding available.

Editorial Comment

If Noem felt BRIC did not meet the Administration’s objectives, it seems she could have easily modified the program rather than killing it.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/5/25

2776 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.

New Kingwood-Sized Development Upstream from Kingwood

4/4/25 – A Kingwood-sized development just upstream from the I-69 Bridge over the San Jacinto West Fork is half built out and growing quickly thanks to the construction of Townsen Blvd. which began recently in Montgomery County.

The area is bounded by the Grand Parkway, Spring Creek, and the San Jacinto West Fork. It lies almost entirely within floodways and floodplains. And it’s pockmarked by wetlands. A respected hydrologist told me that further development in that area would be “like aiming a fire hose at Kingwood and Humble.”

Townsen construction will open up many thousands of acres to new development. That has the potential to increase flood risk if newly developing areas receive insufficient mitigation. And that has many people asking questions.

Location and Size

Let’s begin by looking at maps that put the area and plans for it in perspective.

Both outlined areas include approximately 13,000 acres. Kingwood on right. SH99 is yellow line running left to right across top of frame. I-69 runs N to S between red outlines.

Construction of a major new thoroughfare in the area on the left will open up thousands of remaining acres to development. It’s called Townsen Blvd and will be four divided lanes.

Construction on the first segment began recently. And Montgomery County voters will decide whether to fund the next segment in a bond election on Saturday, May 3, 2025.

Townsen Blvd. is labeled 01 in this screen capture. Purple section is already under construction. Green section proposed next phase as part of MoCo’s 2025 Road Bond.

The green section is a major link in bigger plans that could eventually take the road across Spring Creek to hook up with Townsen Boulevard in Humble. Right now, plans show that section terminating at Rayford Road. But what about plans beyond that? The map below from MoCo’s 2021 transportation plan shows Townsen eventually pushing through to Spring Creek.

Townsen Blvd. from 2021 MoCo transportation plan is long, dotted line running through center of frame and terminating at County line.

In 2022, I wrote about a related proposal to build a bridge across Spring Creek that would connect to Townsen Blvd. in Humble on the Harris County side of the creek.

Map shown on Page 25 of Army Corps Permit Application for the bridge across Spring Creek. Deadline for an application extension expires next year.

Construction Already Starting at North End

Recently, work on the first portion of MoCo’s Townsen Boulevard started near SH99 (Grand Parkway). Photos below show contractors have only finished small segments of the first section so far. But new subdivisions and schools are already springing up adjacent to those sections and creating a stir that has area residents buzzing. See representative photos below.

Looking S from over SH99 at clearing that will become Townsen Blvd.
Reverse angle. Looking N toward SH99 at clearing for Townsen Blvd. Note new school under construction in top left. Intersecting street on left is Waterbend Cove.
Looking S along another portion of Townsen Blvd. near Lexington Blvd. intersection in distance.
Looking back N across Lexington toward SH99 shows one of many new neighborhoods under construction.
Same approximate location, but looking 90 degrees west shows lots for sale, but not yet built on.
New school will host the children of families who buy into this area.
Ground level view shows how high Townsen is being built up.
Raising the road will keep it passable during heavy storms. Note wetlands on far side.

Wetlands and Floodplains in Abundance

FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer shows that floodplains cover almost all of the area where the first two legs of Townsen Blvd. will be built. The map below is so busy that for reference, I had to superimpose a bright red line where Townsen will go.

Approximate location of Townsen Blvd shown in red. FEMA base layer did not have new street marked yet. Striped area = floodway. Aqua = 100-year floodplain. Brown = 500-year.

This map will likely get worse. It is based on data acquired after Tropical Storm Allison in 2001. Experts say the floodplains and floodway will expand 50-100% when FEMA updates the map with new Atlas-14 data developed after Harvey.

But the quantity of wetlands in this area represent an even bigger problem. See the map below from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory.

#1 and #2 mark intersections of Waterbed Cove and Lexington Blvd with Townsen Blvd. See photos above.

Wetlands are nature’s sponges. Paving them over increases runoff and the risk of downstream flooding. The developers seem to be constructing a series of “lakes” around which they’re building homes. Such lakes are really detention basins in disguise. But because of the old flood maps, uncertainty remains. Will they offer sufficient mitigation?

Is Bridge a Real Possibility?

Neighbors want to know more about impacts of the road. That will depend on how far south Townsen Blvd. goes and whether a bridge across Spring Creek is a real possibility.

I asked several officials what the probability of such a bridge is.

Jason Stuebe, Humble City Manager, said, “Honestly, I don’t have much information to share. The developer completed the portion of the roadway within Humble, stopped at the city limits and that’s about the last we heard from them.”

Eric Heppen, Harris County Precinct 3’s head engineer, said, “We heard a few … rumors but nothing formally.  To be fair, I hear rumors about it once a year at this point. Harris County has not been contacted about it and we have at least some of the jurisdictional rights over the creek. We reminded Montgomery County recently that we cannot do a joint project with them unless they adopt current Harris County Drainage Criteria.”

More impact data to follow as I learn more details.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/4/25

2775 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.

 

CSU Predicts Above Average 2025 Hurricane Season

4/3/2025 – Colorado State University (CSU) researchers issued their forecast for the 2025 hurricane season today for the Atlantic basin. Forecasters expect the season to be above average, with 17 named storms, 9 hurricanes, and 4 major hurricanes (Category 3 or higher).

The 30-year average is for 14.4 for named storms, 7.2 for hurricanes, and 3.2 for major hurricanes. 

Landfall Location Probabilities and Other Predictions

Researchers at CSU also predicted the probabilities of major hurricanes making landfall:

  • Anywhere along the U.S. coastline
  • Along the East Coast, including the Florida Panhandle
  • Anywhere along the Gulf Coast from the Florida Panhandle to Brownsville, Tx.

They predict a:

  • 51% chance for any coast (up from a 140-year average of 43%)
  • 26% chance for the East Coast (up from a 140-year average of 21%)
  • 33% chance for the Gulf Coast (up from a 140 year average of 27%)

They also believe Atlantic basin Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) and Net Tropical Cyclone (NTC) activity in 2025 will be approximately 125 percent of their long-term averages. 

Value of Long-Range Forecasts

People frequently ask CSU researchers what the value is of such long-range forecasts? Aside from people’s curiosity, they point out that it is possible to make seasonal forecasts with greater accuracy than climatology.

From CSU Extended-Range Forecast for 2025 Atlantic Hurricane Season

Accuracy of Long-Range Predictions

The models CSU uses sometimes fail, but their “hindcasts” show that their predictions correlate highly with actual storm activity. In the last 10 years, using “correlation” as a skill metric, CSU’s April forecasts have a .59 coefficient of correlation.

A correlation coefficient of 0.59 indicates a moderate to strong positive relationship between two variables.

In general, statisticians consider:

  • 0.1 to 0.3: Weak
  • 0.3 to 0.5: Moderate
  • 0.5 to 0.7: Moderate to strong
  • 0.7 to 1.0: Strong

CSU’s June forecasts have a .69 coefficient of correlation and their August forecasts rate a .84.

So, statistically speaking, they are very successful. And that’s why they are so well respected in the industry.

Chances of Texans Getting Hit

By the way, they believe that Texas residents have a 19% chance of being within 50 miles of a major hurricane landfall this season. Those chances increase to 44% for a hurricane and 70% for a named storm.

CSU looks at multiple models as well as many analog factors, such as sea surface temperatures, global winds, La Niña, El Niño, and more. Budding meteorologists can review their thinking by reading the full 41-page report here.

It’s never too early to start preparing for hurricane season. A friend contacted me today about portable electrical power packs he just purchased. He’s also buying solar panels to recharge them. The memory of power outages during Beryl still has him smarting.

To help get ready for hurricane season, see the Preparedness Tab on my Links Page.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/3/2025

2774 Days since Hurricane Harvey










Despite Funding Shortfalls, HCFCD Still Claims No Projects Will Be Cancelled

4/2/2025 – Despite massive funding shortfalls associated with the 2018 Flood Bond that have become the talk of Commissioner’s Court, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) still claims no projects will be cancelled – even after it cancelled several. See the screen capture below taken this afternoon.

From FAQs on HCFCD Website as of 4PM 4/2/25

That page has been up since at least 2022. An oversight? The County has known for years that it didn’t have enough money to complete bond projects. But instead of fessing up, they prioritized projects in Rodney Ellis’ precinct and delayed the day of reckoning…until they ran out of money for, you guessed it, Ellis’ projects.

HCFCD also cleverly called cancelled projects “completed”…because it decided not to pursue them anymore. Welcome to a world of linguistic legerdemain.

Is it intentional? You be the judge. Clearly, the pretense has persisted for years.

A History of Warnings and Missteps

2021

On 3/9/2021, David Berry, then the County’s Budget Management Director, asserted in a Commissioners’ Court meeting that the County had a shortfall of approximately $900 million to $1.35 billion needed to complete projects in the Flood Bond.

In December that year, Berry, by then the County Administrator, proposed eliminating partner funding as a factor in prioritizing bond projects. Said another way, partners who made projects possible would not see projects accelerated.

Only one problem: we expected partners to fund 43% of all flood bond projects. Basically, Berry eliminated the main incentive for MUDs and municipalities to bring money to the table.

But it pushed so-called “equity” projects to the front of the line.

2022

HCFCD updated its Equity Prioritization Framework, a controversial policy for ranking potential flood mitigation projects. It excluded flood damage from the ranking of projects. Instead, the policy gave preference to socially vulnerable areas – as defined by the CDC –regardless of flood damage.

Only a portion of potential funding partners have similar priorities. This further limited partner-funding potential.

2023

In June 2023, while speaking to a public meeting of the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force, Scott Elmer, the Flood Control District’s Chief Partnership and Programs Officer, predicted that some projects in the 2018 flood bond likely would not get done because of a funding gap.

In July 2023, Harris County put 37 of 93 subdivision drainage projects associated with the 2018 Flood Bond “on hold” because it lacked funding, often from shortfalls in expected partner contributions.

In December 2023, Jesal Shah PE, the Chief Project Delivery Officer for HCFCD, discussed the impact of inflation on the bond program with the Harris County Community Resilience Flood Task Force. He said he was re-evaluating all bond projects in an attempt to “minimize” changes.

2024

HCFCD stopped listing active construction projects on its website. The frequency of flood bond updates fell from monthly to annually. Even county commissioners were flying blind.

The July 2024 flood-bond update alluded to 33 projects that had “uncertainty about whether current funding levels are sufficient to take the associated projects through construction.”

2025

On 2/6/25, fireworks erupted in Harris County Commissioners Court today over the 2018 Flood Bond and Subdivision Drainage shortfalls. It was a rare display of bi-partisan outrage. All four commissioners and the county judge made it clear that the County didn’t have enough money to deliver flood-mitigation projects promised in the bond. Commissioners used words like, “abysmal failure,” “major crisis,” and “utter dismay.”

At the 2/27/25 Commissioners Court meeting, Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis admitted, “I know there’s not enough money to do all the projects we talked about and everybody else knows it. I’m just crazy enough to say it in public.”

And in their 3/27/25 meeting, Harris County Commissioners wrestled for more than an hour with a massive, $100-million budget shortfall for subdivision drainage improvements.

Why Claim No Projects Will Be Cancelled?

Despite all that, HCFCD still – to this day – makes the “no-cancellation” claim on its website. I believe they’re trying to postpone a day of reckoning with verbal trickery.

HCFCD’s July 2024 flood-bond update said that it marked several projects “complete” – because they saw no benefit in completing them!

That sounds a lot like cancellation to me. The choice of words indicates a desperate desire to conceal a truth. It’s Orwellian “doublespeak” at its finest!

Many more projects await that same fate. Unless you remain alert!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/2/25

2773 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.