8/15/2026 – The lawsuit between the Army Corps of Engineers and residents upstream of the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs has been delayed again. The government is still deciding whether to file another appeal to the United States Supreme Court. It was supposed to have made a decision by August 7, 2026.
However, the government advised at that hearing that it could not make a decision re: the appeal and asked for yet another extension. The appeals court granted a further extension to September 4, 2026, postponing a decision once again.
The law firm McGehee ☆ Chang, Feiler, which represents the upstream flood victims, said “We are disappointed by the continued delay. That said, this is a significant case requiring extensive deliberation within the government.”
History of Case
For a complete history of the case, see the Addicks-Barker page on the law firm’s site. This 10-page brief provides a chilling recreation of events during Harvey. Judges in the case expressed their displeasure re: the government’s request for extensions as early as December 20, 2017.
One case eventually split into two because of different issues involving up- and downstream residents. I have covered the both cases since 2020.
The initial trial phase of the upstream case drew to a close in the second half of 2022. The judge ruled the government was liable for damages. But the government appealed on December 29, 2022. Three years later, on December 29, 2025, the Court of Appeals, after 13 months of deliberations, affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the issue of liability. It agreed that the government is liable for taking of the Upstream homeowners’ property.
The homeowners contended that when the reservoirs were built, the Corps didn’t buy enough property within them. Private developers then built homes within the reservoirs. The government warned as early as 1973 that it knew of the problem and that homes could be flooded.
Flooded Homes in Addicks Reservoir during Harvey
And then it happened.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/15/2026
3273 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Flooded-Homes-Addicks-Reservoir.jpg?fit=1200%2C765&ssl=17651200adminadmin2026-08-15 17:01:122026-08-16 08:52:12Addicks-Barker Upstream Lawsuit Delayed Again
8/14/26 – Yesterday, someone asked me why flood mitigation takes so long. It’s a simple question that ultimately demands another question. How can we speed it up? Let me outline what I’ve learned about the “why so long” issue before wading into whether we can speed it up.
The process isn’t always linear. Surprises in one step may require adjustments in another. And there are many steps.
Flood-mitigation-process diagram produced by ChatGPT.
Overview of Key Steps in Mitigation Process
Cities and counties generally have the responsibility for flood prevention and mitigation. But they rarely have the money. Unless you live in a place like Harris County, flooding happens infrequently enough that officials generally don’t budget for disasters. They have other urgent needs and limited cash. Even in Harris, needs outstrip available funding.
So when disasters do happen, local governments look for financial assistance. That assistance could come from state or federal sources. But states and the federal government don’t just hand over piles of cash and say, “Go to it.”
Note: the steps below are not necessarily in chronological order depending on findings in other stages.
Feasibility Studies
First, local authorities must prove that they have a valid, constructible solution to a recurring problem. They start with a feasibility study. This usually involves establishing the magnitude of the problem and looking at alternative solutions to see if any are a) effective and b) affordable before investing more time and money.
Proving “No Adverse Impact”
Next, comes engineering and design. Local authorities must move a project far enough along to prove that the proposed solution does not create an adverse impact downstream. Simply getting rid of the water faster upstream, for instance, may create higher flood peaks downstream.
Finding the Local-Match Money
State and federal authorities almost always demand that cities and counties have “skin in the game.” So, the local authorities must put up a “local match,” usually 30% of estimated grant costs. Raising that 30% may require selling bonds. Which may require a bond referendum/election like Harris County had in 2018.
Benefit/Cost Analysis
Assuming local authorities can scrape up enough money for the local match, they must then actually apply for the grants. This will likely require a deeper level of engineering than the high-level feasibility study had. It will also require a BCA (benefit/cost analysis) to ensure the benefits exceed the costs. And that may require actual design.
Grant Applications
Applying for grants can be quite costly and time-consuming. The local authorities must first determine where a request is most likely to succeed (FEMA, HUD, EPA, etc.). To complicate matters, such agencies usually have multiple programs geared to different needs.
Environmental Studies
But that’s not all. Local authorities must also conduct environmental studies. An environmental study evaluates how a proposed flood-mitigation project could affect natural and human resources such as: wetlands, waterways, wildlife, water quality, cultural resources, and nearby communities. It also identifies regulatory requirements and measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts.
Regulatory Approval/Permitting
Then come the regulatory approvals. If the solution impacts “waters of the U.S.”, for instance, it will need to be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Congressional Appropriations and Rules
After a disaster, Congress must appropriate money for disaster relief and flood mitigation. But the money doesn’t go directly to cities and counties. It goes to states…after FEMA and HUD write rules for how the money can be used.
State-Level Administration
State authorities, such as the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) and Texas General Land Office (GLO), then review grant applications and determine whether projects comply with all relevant rules attached to funding.
If they do, the state agency then contracts with cities or counties which are considered sub-recipients. The state may have more applications than funding. So, it must prioritize projects, just like cities and counties do. This process requires:
An application period long enough for all interested parties to develop and submit requests
A review period to establish compliance with federal rules for the money
Time for public comments
Ranking of applications received
Coordination with federal authorities.
Bidding and Construction
Once state and federal authorities approve a project, local authorities must actually build it. This can take several years. Groups, such as Houston Public Works or the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD):
Determine specs for the project
Get approval to proceed from their oversight bodies such as Houston City Council or Harris County Commissioners Court
Seek qualified bidders
Give them time to compile and submit bids
Evaluate the bids and determine the winning bidder
Negotiate the contract
Get the contract approved by the relevant oversight body
Receive “authorization to use government funds” (AUGF) by TDEM or GLO
Build the project.
Aligning Dominos
Getting all the dominos aligned with all the supporting studies and documentation can take years. The money involved can be hundreds of millions…or even billions. So, the rules are both rigorous and onerous. And there are multiple audits along the way designed to prevent fraud.
But nobody has deeper pockets than the federal government. Typically, FEMA pays for 70% of each project. HUD ranges up to 90-100%. So, that makes the wait worthwhile.
Can We Speed Things Up?
As a former business owner, if I were looking for ways to speed up this convoluted process and reduce overall administration costs, I would examine two areas:
Reducing the number of layers or steps where possible
Improving efficiency within each step.
It would be difficult to reduce the number of layers and steps.
If you tried to cut out state agencies, you would lose local expertise and reduce local control. That might not be politically palatable. You would also likely just wind up transferring state costs to the federal level.
Reducing steps, such as “bidding” would likely be an invitation to fraud – also not politically palatable.
The Need to Spread Risk
The multi-level system we have spreads risk, much like an insurance company would. So, cutting out the federal government and funding everything locally or at the state level would also be difficult.
The National Hazard Mitigation Association points out that inland riverine flooding has affected 99% of U.S. counties in the past 20 years. Such flooding has also caused more than $45 billion of damage since 1980.
Flooding happens sporadically. Years can roll by without a disaster. Then suddenly you get a Hurricane Harvey. That’s when you need help from neighbors. And almost every community will need help sooner or later.
Prevention Easier, Less Expensive Than Correction
There may be room to improve efficiency within each step. However, that could only be determined on a case-by-case, location-by-location basis, as we saw recently with HCFCD.
Only one thing is certain. Prevention is far less expensive and less time-consuming than correction. Preventing floods through measures such as better building codes and floodplain preservation is always a more cost-effective solution than correcting flooding after the fact.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/14/2026
3272 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Flood-Mitigation-Process.png?fit=1254%2C1254&ssl=112541254adminadmin2026-08-14 18:20:122026-08-15 11:32:50Why Flood Mitigation Takes So Long
8/13/26 – The American Flood Coalition (AFC) is a nationwide advocate for flood-risk reduction at the local, state and federal levels. August 2026 is a landmark month for federal disaster recovery, according to the group.
CDBG-DR Simplification
On July 10, Congress passed a bipartisan proposal to authorize the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program for three years.
AFC’s advocacy arm, American Flood Coalition Action (AFCA), has long called on Congress to authorize CDBG-DR. It provides flexible funding for states and communities to rebuild housing, repair critical infrastructure, and address other long-term needs as they recover from floods, wildfires, and other disasters.
But until now, HUD had to write new regulations each time Congress funded the program. That added delays and complexity for communities on the long road to recovery.
However, for the first-ever, this authorization will:
Ensure consistent rules for the next three years.
Establish an Office of Disaster Management and Resiliency within HUD.
Require coordination and data sharing between HUD and other federal agencies like FEMA and the Small Business Administration.
Create a long-term disaster recovery fund at the U.S. Treasury.
AFC says it will continue to share updates as this major win for disaster-impacted states and communities is implemented. You can sign up for their newsletter here.
CDBG-DR programs finance many flood-mitigation projects in Harris County. So, we may directly benefit from these changes.
Flooding during Harvey at Kingwood Village Estates where 12 people died near Bens Branch. It is part of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch project which is now in final engineering and still seeking funding.
Farm Bill Advancing in Senate and House with AFC Priorities
In June, the Senate Agriculture Committee released its draft Farm Bill. The draft includes three AFCA policy priorities:
Strengthening the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program to fund both post-flood recovery and proactive watershed upgrades that reduce future disaster risk.
Expanding the Regional Conservation Partnership Program’s purpose to include flood prevention.
Tripling mandatory funding for the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program, which helps state and local governments protect and restore watersheds.
The House passed its version of the legislation in April, which incorporates three additional AFCA priorities:
Allowing EWP project sponsors to begin pre-approved emergency watershed protection measures after a disaster and count costs as part of their cost share without having to wait for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approval, speeding up recoveries.
Directing USDA to conduct a national agricultural flood vulnerability assessment.
Increasing the federal cost share for the Watershed Rehabilitation program.
While the House and Senate still need to reconcile their respective Farm Bills, these steps would help farmers and farmland communities advance flood-smart agriculture and bolster their resilience to floods and extreme weather.
Embracing flood-smart agriculture helps reduce flood risk throughout a watershed. When farmers adopt practices that slow runoff, increase soil infiltration, and store water, they protect their own fields while serving as critical flood infrastructure for entire watersheds.
For instance, AFC research in Iowa found that wider use of multi-cropping upstream in the Cedar River Watershed could reduce flooding by up to 30%. Such nature-based solutions benefit all residents of a watershed.
8/12/2026 – On 8/11/26 in a two-part meeting, the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) voted to increase groundwater pumping and ignore subsidence…at least for now. The first part of the meeting included a discussion of how they arrived at their recommendations and public comments on “Desired Future Conditions” (DFCs). The second part included formal ratification of the DFCs by the LSGCD Board.
To those unfamiliar with LSGCD politics, it was an afternoon/evening filled with bizarre, unexplained contradictions.
Bizarre, Unexplained Contradictions
For instance, the LSGCD:
Reviewed a presentation which stated their legislatively defined mission is striking a balance between “the highest practicable level of groundwater production” and other factors, such as recharging of aquifers and “control of subsidence.” They then decided to:
Left their DFC unchanged because new modeling showed they could double groundwater production without endangering future supplies. But then they failed to explain how they tweaked a USGS model to obtain those results.
Claimed to welcome public comment. But then they attacked the qualifications of the commenters including people with PhDs and MUD directors.
Received a grand total of six public comments in 90 days, but acted as though they were sick and tired of hearing the same old stuff.
Claimed the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District chose not to work with them, when they limited subsidence districts to making three minutes of public comments.
Read a high level summary of public comments submitted earlier without addressing any of the concerns those comments expressed.
Said no other groundwater conservation districts adopted a subsidence metric…without addressing the reasons why.
Claimed they were no longer “averaging” well declines. But then they adopted a DFC based on a closely related word “median.”
In the end, the LSGCD board adopted a DFC that says, “In Montgomery County, no less than 70 percent median available drawdown remaining in 2080 in the Gulf Coast Aquifer between 2018 and 2080.” See below.
What does that mean? LSGCD wants to manage groundwater pumping so that, in the median well used in their calculations, at least 70% of the aquifers’ usable vertical water column remains available compared to the baseline determined in 2018.
It implies that they plan to pump no more than 30% of the water out of the aquifer(s). But the word “median” means that not every well must adhere to the 70% limit. Half of the 12,000+ wells that LSGCD tracks will draw more…sometimes far more. And half will draw less. That’s what “median” means.
And that’s important in a county where the southern half is growing quickly and the northern half remains largely rural. The DFC by itself doesn’t tell you how many feet groundwater levels could fall in The Woodlands, Conroe, Magnolia, Porter, etc.
Nor does it tell you how over-pumping in those areas could affect subsidence. That is a major change in policy emphasis. Lone Star says it has spent millions on drilling, coring and laboratory work since 2023. But it does not support adopting a subsidence metric at this time. Instead, it simply intends to continue monitoring subsidence. But once subsidence happens, it’s impossible to reverse.
Meanwhile, a 2022 report (which LSGCD participated in) anticipated 3-4 feet of subsidence by 2080 in southern MoCo…and that’s at the old pumping limit which LSGCD hopes to increase dramatically.
For the San Jacinto watershed, even relatively small amounts of differential subsidence matter more than they would in a steeply sloped watershed.
Kingwood, Spring Creek, the West Fork, Lake Houston and much of northern Harris County have an extremely flat slope. Subsidence doesn’t necessarily cause flooding by itself, but differential subsidence can alter:
A few tenths of a foot may be immaterial in some settings. But…
A foot or more of differential elevation change across a low-gradient drainage system can become hydrologically meaningful.
And this creates a governance problem. LSGCD can authorize groundwater pumping in Montgomery County whose hydraulic and subsidence effects do not necessarily stop at Spring Creek, while Harris County bears some of the downstream flood-risk consequences.
The regional aquifer system is interconnected. A county-by-county median statistic can conceal substantial regional drawdown. A DFC based on countywide median remaining well drawdown contains no explicit constraint on resulting land subsidence.
Before concluding that the recommended 200,000 acre-feet-per year is benign, LSGCD should produce maps of modeled 2018–2080 drawdownand modeled subsidence in feet for southern Montgomery County and northern Harris County, ideally centered on Spring Creek/Kingwood. That would turn this somewhat abstract “% remaining” statistic into something much more meaningful. But Lone Star didn’t show that yesterday.
However, a new interactive map produced by Harris-Galveston Subsidence District this year is based on new satellite data. It averages subsidence in the last four years and computes a centimeter/year rate. It’s amazingly detailed and corroborates the 2022 blueish map above. See below.
The colored map shows that large parts of southern Montgomery County and northern Harris County bordering Spring Creek are subsiding at a rate greater than 2 centimeters/year. By the end of the planning period in 2080, that translates into approximately 3.5 feet.
Much of Kingwood and Humble are also subsiding at rates that could negate the safety margin (feet above floodplain) for many homes built close to floodplains. That’s because the Lake Houston Dam is sinking at a tiny fraction of rates upstream. Therefore, subsidence is essentially tilting the lake upstream toward homes that were once above the floodplain.
Note that these subsidence rates were determined under LSGCD’s old pumping rates. The proposed new rates would accelerate subsidence even more.
Impacts on Future Growth/New Development
Notice the big white area (not subsiding) north of the county line near the middle of the colored map above. That’s the 5,300 acres where Scarborough hopes to build 7,000 homes. They would all be on well water. And that would dramatically increase subsidence in the areas around them.
So, if you haven’t already signed the petition against this development, please do so now.
For More Information
To view videos of yesterday’s meetings, visit the LSGCD Meetings Page. Also see public comments submitted by:
8/10/26 – The watchdog group “Montgomery County Concerned Citizens” led by former MUD Director Paul Cote has raised several red flags about issues that affect the future of the county’s groundwater supplies. They include:
Dropping water levels in Montgomery County wells, which is leading to subsidence
A proposed increase in the allowable groundwater pumping THREE TIMES HIGHER than the recharge rate of MoCo aquifers
A MoCo policymaker who may not meet eligibility requirements to serve on a groundwater board.
Water-levels in the Jasper aquifer in Montgomery County dropped as much as 256 feet near The Woodlands. Source Harris Galveston Subsidence District 2025 Annual Groundwater Report.
Groundwater as a Safety Net
These controversies come amid a cautionary tale out West. Lake Mead, the nation’s largest reservoir which sits behind the Hoover Dam, has fallen to all-time record lows. The New York Times reported yesterday that a continued drop could imperil water supplies.
Groundwater forms a critical backup to surface-water supplies. And if groundwater becomes exhausted, it could eventually expose residents to draconian water-usage restrictions.
In Montgomery County, the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) supposedly regulates groundwater withdrawals to prevent such problems.
Leadership of LSGCD Board
However, Cote says the LSGCD board is heavily influenced by members who profit from groundwater, either directly or indirectly. And they are advocating for tripling groundwater withdrawals.
According to Cote who was a MoCo MUD president for ten years, the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) Board has ignored urgent concerns regarding falling water tables and subsidence for years. Subsidence reduces the ability of aquifers to recharge because clays become irreversibly compressed.
Filing Deadline for LSGCD Board Ballot is 8/17/202
“This continued disregard for public interest is unacceptable,” said Cote. “To restore integrity to Montgomery County’s water management, we need new voices to step forward immediately.“
The deadline to file for the LSGCD Board ballot is August 17, 2026, at 5:00 PM.Here’s how and where.
Four seats are up for election: Places 2, 3, 4, and 7 (representing Precincts 2, 3, 4, and The Woodlands Township).
Please consider running or sharing this with qualified individuals. “Our county’s water governance depends on leaders who respect the community they serve,” said Cote. Email MCCC2025@gmail.com if you have any questions.
Comments on proposed DFCs may be submitted by email to info@lonestargcd.org, with the following email subject: “Public Comments on Proposed DFCs – [Submitter Name/Company Name]”.
A public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, at 4:00 P.M. starting with a Show Cause Hearing followed by a Hearing on Contested Matters and then the Public Hearing on Proposed DFCs. The meeting will be at the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District office at 655 Conroe Park North Drive, Conroe, Texas 77303.
A Permit Hearing and Regular Board of Directors Meeting will be held afterwards at 6:00 pm.
Related Issue: SJRA Groundwater Committee
Cote has also submitted a formal letter to the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) requesting the suspension of Mr. Michael Stoecker from the Groundwater Reduction Plan (GRP) Review Committee until his eligibility is publicly proven. Stoecker represents the LSGCD committee. But the GRP Contract requires the appointee to represent an active “Private Well Owner.”
However, Mr. Stoecker sold his water utility business in May 2024, months before his appointment. This transaction stripped the business of its active status under the agreement. Furthermore, when pressed via public information requests, LSGCD failed to provide official documentation proving Stoecker’s continued eligibility for the committee.
About Montgomery County Concerned Citizens
Montgomery County Concerned Citizens, led by Mr. Cote, is a grassroots network of residents, municipal utility leaders, and public officials dedicated to promoting transparency, accountability, and informed public engagement on water issues that affect Montgomery County’s future. The group serves as a forum for water-related education, discussion, and collaboration among citizens and local leaders.
Their mission: to empower residents through education, encourage active participation in local government, and advocate for responsible water policies that protect the county’s natural resources, infrastructure, and quality of life. The organization works to ensure that public decisions are made openly, responsibly, and in the best interests of current and future generations of Montgomery County residents.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/10/2026
2368 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Water-Level-Declines-.jpg?fit=1100%2C605&ssl=16051100adminadmin2026-08-10 17:08:022026-08-10 17:26:07MoCo Groundwater Issues Coming to Head
8/8/26 – The major action these days on the Northpark Drive Expansion project centers around the Loop 494 intersection. While Northpark is open and flowing in both directions, Loop 494 is totally blocked off and will remain so for the next month as contractors work on the bridge.
However, there’s good news to share. There entire Northpark drainage system from I-69 past Russell Palmer Road is now complete.
Intersection Closure
Concrete barriers prevent drivers on Loop 494 from crossing Northpark in both directions. To continue north or south on Loop 494, drivers must go east or west on Northpark to the nearest crossover, and double back. See below.
Connecting the drainage on both sides of Northpark was more difficult than expected. However, that is now complete – and not just from the Shell Station on the north side to the dry cleaners on the south.
“The entire Northpark drainage system for Phase I is now complete.”
Ralph De Leon, Project Manager
Last drainage link in entire Northpark Phase I system, south of Shell Station.
De Leon described completion of the drainage system as a “huge milestone.”
Bridge Construction
The contractor has to build three huge bridge columns immediately east side of the intersection. These particular columns are the largest and deepest because of their location near the middle of the bridge. The contractor will use the intersection as the construction zone during installation.
They really have no other choice. Because of other work on the abutments, they are hemmed in on both sides. And specialized trucks that will haul off the mud from the hydro-excavation are huge. They will be staged at the intersection.
Height of the cranes used in the excavation also presents a logistical problem.
Crane used for hydro-excavation. Beginning of west bridge abutment to its right.
In a worst-case scenario, if tipped, they could fall within the safety zone of the UPRR Tracks or even on the tracks themselves. That adds another level of complexity to the operation.
Bridge Caps on Columns
Additionally, contractors must build bridge caps on top of the columns to support the bridge beams. By this time, Loop 494 should be reopened, but contractors will have to narrow it to two lanes.
Cap currently under construction close to east abutment. Others near intersection will be much larger.
Danger to School Buses
Even though De Leon hoped to have the intersection totally open before students returned to school, he said, “We couldn’t have school buses running through the construction zone. It’s too dangerous.”
De Leon has communicated with both New Caney ISD and Humble ISD since the beginning of the project.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/DSC_5580.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2026-08-08 18:01:322026-08-08 18:07:51Northpark-494 Intersection Still Closed, But Drainage Now Complete
8/7/26 – Yesterday, Harris County Commissioners discussed the largest tax hike in Harris County history. Before raising taxes a penny, they should examine the efficiency of the departments they oversee.
Harris County Commissioners discuss budget proposals on 8.06.26
Since 2022, I have posted about slowdowns in Harris County flood-mitigation projects as one deadline after another slipped. It started with wholesale management changes made by the Democratic majority on Commissioners Court.
The slowdowns became so serious in the case of HCFCD that the department head recently resigned under pressure. As statistics below show, she left her successor, Marcus Stuckett, with huge challenges.
The problems at HCD have not yet received the attention that HCFCD received. But they are also serious.
Both groups must use grant money by strict deadlines or lose it. And both are far behind schedule.
They raise the questions, “Will tax increases continue to fund inefficiency? And if so, are increases really necessary?”
CDBG Projects Bring Efficiency Issues into Sharp Focus
At HCFCD, the potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds brought the former Executive Director’s efficiency into sharp focus. She failed to advance projects in a timely manner. And that is jeopardizing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding. Harris County taxpayers backstop those funds.
Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, PE fought to expose HCFCD’s problems, even as Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia fought to keep in place the very people covering the problems up.
So, where exactly do things stand? How bad is the problem?
GLO awarded HCD $204 million dollars on 8/31/2022. To date, HCD has expended $69 million (34%). They must expend the remaining two thirds by August 31, 2027. So…
HCD has expended only 34% of the funds in 80% of available time.
Their $204 million includes 10 neighborhood drainage infrastructure projects valued at $168 million. Of the 10:
Construction is complete on one
Six are in various stages of construction (46-89% complete)
One is being advertised for bids
Two are still in design.
GLO also awarded HCD $37.5 million for 30 planning studies. Of those:
One was withdrawn
One is complete
The remainder are just starting or in various stages of completion ranging from 1% to 50%.
These also have deadlines of August 31, 2027.
HCFCD CDBG Mitigation Grants
HCFCD received an allocation of $546 million in CDBG Mitigation (MIT) funds in 2023. To date, it has expended only $25 million. HCFCD must complete construction and GLO must receive final billing by 3/31/28 – only 20 months away. Thus, under Dr. Tina Petersen…
HCFCD managed to spend 5% of its MIT money in 64% of available time.
HCFCD CDBG – DR Grants
GLO also approved an HCFCD allocation for $322 million in CDBG-Disaster Relief (DR) funds on 11/27/23. Almost 34 months later, HCFCD has expended only $15.6 million. So…
HCFCD has spent less than 5% of DR funds in 84% of available time.
Summary Table
This table summarizes the status of CDBG projects.
According to the GLO, only seven of 29 HCFCD DR and MIT projects are actually in construction.
HCFCD’s report submitted to Commissioners Court this week shows 12 “in construction.” However, only seven of the 12 have any work billed against them. Delays in contractor mobilization may account for the difference.
So, where do we go from here?
The Bundle Jumble
Before Dr. Tina Petersen resigned, she tried to cobble together a plan that would get HCFCD past the $322 million DR hurdle.
She reached agreement in principle* with both the GLO and Harris County Commissioners Court to apply work billed to date in all four categories above against the $322 million DR obligation. That would give the county a little more breathing room.
In a best-case scenario, the county might bill enough to meet the entire $322 million obligation and lose nothing. In a less-than-best-case scenario, the county would narrow its losses.
Will It Work?
To date, the county has spent only $109 million in all four programs together. That covers only about a third of the $322 million.
What happens if HCFCD’s new management and HCD can’t spend another $213 million in the next six months? Potentially, HUD could start clawing back money from the GLO and the GLO could start clawing it back from the County.
But Harris County has already encumbered money for its suppliers. So, the buck stops with Harris County taxpayers.
Remember as you follow the county’s budget debate in coming weeks to ask whether you’re paying for additional services you want or simply funding inefficiency.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/7/2026
3265 Days since Hurricane Harvey
*When I asked the GLO for the wording of the agreement, a spokesperson said, “It has not been finalized yet. We are still getting details we need to write the amendment.”
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/CC-260806.jpg?fit=1100%2C610&ssl=16101100adminadmin2026-08-07 20:02:552026-08-07 20:21:52Largest Tax Hike in Harris County History Raises Efficiency Question
8/6/2026 – One of the strongest El Niños ever is suppressing tropical activity in the Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf. El Niños create wind shear that disrupts the formation of tropical storms and hurricanes. As a result, forecasters have lowered their estimates which were already below normal to begin with.
NOAA Updates Seasonal Forecast
In an email this morning, Jeff Lindner, Harris County’s meteorologist, wrote, “Updates to the seasonal Atlantic basin hurricane outlooks this week continue to indicate a high chance of below to well below normal activity across the Atlantic basin as we move through the peak of the season (August-October).”
That’s welcome news. “The main driver of the highly negative conditions is the continued increasing El Niño event well underway in the waters of the eastern and central Pacific Ocean. There, sea surface temperatures are currently running (1-3º C above normal values),” said Lindner.
El Niño Region 3.4 (the dark area off the western coast of South America) tends to correlate highly with weather impacts in North America, including shifts in the jet stream. Niño 3.4 is currently averaging a sea surface temperature anomaly of +2.3º C.
One of Worst El Niño Events since 1950
“That already approaches some of the maximum El Niño events since 1950,” added Lindner. “With the likely peak of this event around December or January…it is now fairly likely that one of the strongest El Niño events in modern times will occur.”
El Nino events, especially of this magnitude, tend to produce tremendous wind shear values across the deep tropics in the Caribbean and tropical Atlantic. They effectively tear apart any tropical system attempts at development.
“Wind shear values of 40-60 kts have been common across the Caribbean so far this hurricane season,” said Lindner. “They extend eastward into the tropical Atlantic and are some of the strongest on record in this part of the basin.”
In addition to the high wind shear values, Lindner also cited dry sinking air that continues to dominate much of the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean. He noted slightly more favorable conditions north of the Bahamas and through the northern Gulf.
Sea surface temperatures are running near normal to slightly above normal in some parts of the Atlantic basin. High negative wind shear values and dry sinking air are resulting in lower than average instability and a general overall lack in thunderstorm activity.
“One of the Quietest Seasons since 1997”
Accordingly, the seasonal outlook numbers for the basin remain well below the average of 14 named storms. Two “tropical storms” have already occurred (Arthur and Bertha) both of which impacted the northern Gulf coast and suffered greatly under adverse conditions keeping their intensity low and organization poor.
The basin is on track to be one of the quietest seasons since 1997 (another powerful El Niño year).
Lindner says there will be small windows of favorable conditions, most likely in August and September. For instance, areas in the middle Atlantic north of the highly unfavorable deep tropics could produce a few storms if tropical waves can reach those areas.
Budding meteorologists may be interested in reading NOAA’s entire seasonal outlook updated today. It’s a deep dive into the science of tropical forecasting.
It Only Takes One
Remember! Just because the outlook numbers are lower than average, does NOT mean there will not be any additional tropical storms or hurricanes or potential threats this year. So remain prepared.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/6/2026 based on information from Jeff Lindner
3264 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ct5km_ssta_v3.1_global_20260805.png?fit=1787%2C1054&ssl=110541787adminadmin2026-08-06 15:20:072026-08-06 15:24:47Tropical Forecast Lowered for Remainder of 2026 Season
8/5/2026 – In 2020 – three years after Hurricane Harvey – the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) applied for $500,000 grant from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to study Joint Reservoir Operations between Lake Conroe and Lake Houston. They hoped they could reduce flooding through better coordination of releases from the two dams.
March 2026 Public Input Session in Humble
Earlier this year, SJRA held a public input session at the Humble Civic Center where it outlined the goals of the study and listened to dozens of downstream residents still harboring PTSD from flooding and angry about delays.
At the event, SJRA said it would present its conclusions this FALL in The Woodlands. Now, five months later, the schedule has slipped to Spring 2027. See the screen capture below from SJRA’s website.
Matt Barrett, PE, SJRA’s Water Resources and Flood Management Division Manager, offered this explanation for the delay in an email.
Barrett said, “We are budgeting more time for reviews due to the number of partners involved. A couple other items that impacted the schedule and may delay the report are the modeling for the pre-release analysis, as well as required coordination with the ongoing Lake Houston Gates Project. We also expect a fair amount of stakeholder engagement.”
At the July SJRA Board Meeting, General Manager Aubrey Spear said that the Joint Operations study could not be done before the gate design was completed. Spear said he would have more information at the October SJRA Board Meeting. Mr. Sprear’s comments about the study begin at about 14:30 into this video and last for about 3 minutes.
Mr. Spear addressing SJRA Board Members at their 7/23/26 meeting.
Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger said today that the part of the Gates project that the SJRA needs to finish its work should be ready in 4-6 weeks.
Before Mr. Spear concluded his remarks at the SJRA Board Meeting, he spent another minute addressing the status of SJRA’s long-delayed sand-trap study, which has been sitting on the shelf for more than four years.
No SJRA Study Results Implemented Yet
SJRA has conducted a number of studies since Hurricane Harvey. They include a:
Study for building regional detention basins on Birch and Walnut Creeks, (far upstream on Spring Creek).
Yet nine years after Harvey, to my knowledge…
No drainage recommendations from any of these studies have ever been constructed.
The 661-page Birch and Walnut Creek study took so long that recommendations could not be implemented. By the time it was finished, the land had been sold to developers. A large solar farm was already built on one of the parcels needed when the SJRA Board reviewed the results and decided to take no action.
I hope the same does not happen with the Joint Ops study. Downstream residents desperately need something actionable this time from the SJRA.
One expert familiar with the issues involved told me, “Frankly, there’s no reason this study could not have moved forward long ago. It’s about procedures and operations. If the design of the gates changes, just update the procedure manual.”
Plea for Downstream Involvement
At every SJRA Board meeting, one or more residents from Lake Conroe speak during the public comments to oppose any pre-release. Downstream residents rarely if ever appear. So, the “no pre-release” mantra goes unchallenged. The SJRA Board needs to hear opposing points of view if downstream residents ever hope to see recommendations from the Joint Ops study implemented.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/5/2026
3263 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/SJRA-Board-Meeting.png?fit=1646%2C914&ssl=19141646adminadmin2026-08-05 17:02:142026-08-06 08:54:08SJRA Announces More Delays on Joint Reservoir Operations Study
7/4/2026 – Yesterday, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) posted Amendment 22 to its Hurricane Harvey $5.6 billion State Action Plan for public comment. That began a 30-day public comment period is required under federal law. The GLO administers disaster aid for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development in Texas.
Cover of Amendment 22 to GLO’s Harvey Action Plan
Allocation and Language Updates
The proposed amendment updates funding allocations and administrative language to better align available resources with current program needs. It also supports the effective and strategic expenditure of federal disaster recovery funds. And it ensures continued implementation of Hurricane Harvey recovery programs.
Table 1 (pages 11-13) summarizes the financial impact of the changes.
State of Texas – Total + $3.1 Million
State of Texas – City of Houston Homeowner Assistance + $1.7 million
State of Texas – Affordable Rental – $2.4 million
State of Texas – Housing Project Delivery + $3.8 million
City of Houston – Total -$3.1 million
City of Houston – Single Family Development – $1.4 million
City of Houston – Economic Revitalization – $1.7 million
City of Houston – Multi-Family Rental +$12.7 thousand
City of Houston – Public Services –$12.7 thousand
Two financial changes to City programs offset each other.
Two more, totaling $3.1 million, will send money back to the State. Using that, plus a decrease of $2.4 million from the State’s own Affordable Rental program, the State will bump up the totals for its Houston Homeowner Assistance Program and Housing Project Delivery.
On pages 7-8, you can find an index to text changes in the 493-page Action Plan. But at the end of the day, most could have been handled in a casual conversation around the water cooler.
Usually they amount to less need than anticipated in one category, so they shift money where the need is greater than anticipated.
The totals all offset and balance each other, like debits and credits. But hats off to GLO for its transparency and thoroughness.
Submit all comments to cdr@recovery.texas.govby 5:00 p.m. on September 2, 2026. Per federal requirements, the GLO must respond to public comments before the amendment can be sent to HUD for final approval.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/4/2027
3262 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Amendment-22-Cover.jpg?fit=1100%2C771&ssl=17711100adminadmin2026-08-04 17:48:102026-08-04 17:48:11Public Comment Period Opens for Amendment 22 to GLO’s Harvey Action Plan
