News Archives - Page 7 of 275

Northpark Drive Expansion Project News: Stormwater Detention, UPRR Crossing and More

2/8/26 – The Northpark Drive Expansion Project has several new developments this month to report.

Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority will consider a motion this Thursday to begin engineering work on a linear stormwater detention basin.
Contractors will soon begin to clear out the ditch behind the businesses on the north side of Northpark.
Paving near the intersection of Northpark and US59 has been completed. Traffic should have returned to normal by Monday February 9, 2026, morning rush hour.
All parties met with UnionPacific Railroad (UPRR) to work out details of a plan to create surface roads across their tracks in preparation for bridge construction.
Drainage connections across Northpark are also being scheduled in preparation for bridge construction.

For more details on each, see below.

Stormwater Detention Basin

Last year, Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority/TIRZ10 announced plans to build additional detention basin capability along the Kingwood Diversion Ditch. It would relieve some of the pressure on both the Kingwood Diversion Ditch itself as well as Bens Branch.

The Diversion Ditch splits off Bens Branch just south of the new St. Martha Catholic Church on Woodridge Parkway. The portion of the Northpark Drive Project east of the Diversion Ditch (not yet started) will require the extra stormwater detention capacity. But accelerating the project will provide additional flood protection for Kingwood residents now.

This map from the 2/12/26 Board Packet shows where the project will go.

*Area of investigation for* *detention along Diversion Ditch*

It appears that engineers will explore linear detention down to the first bend in the Diversion Ditch. It also appears they will consider expanding the ditch to the east.

The big wooded area marked “Detention Basin” north of Northpark will not be clearcut, according to TIRZ Project Manager Ralph De Leon. He says much of the area is already below the level of the Diversion Ditch. Engineers are looking at the concept of vertical detention. He said the giant trees can suck water up into their trunks and release it gradually. Plus, the friction they provide against stormwater will slow it down. It’s a green solution.

*Looking south at Diversion Ditch and area for planned detention. St. Martha behind camera position. Northpark crosses l to r through middle of frame.*

To learn more about the proposal, see these pages extracted from the board packet. The meeting will take place at 8AM on Thursday morning at the Kingwood Community Center for those who have public comments.

Ditch-One Clean Out

De Leon also says that contractors will soon begin clearing out the first 900 feet of Ditch One. That’s the ditch that runs behind Public Storage and Dunkin’ Donuts. Ditch One supplements the drainage capacity running down the middle of Northpark from the entry ponds at 59.

Northpark Drive drainage improvements — *Route of Ditch One from Entry Ponds to Diversion Ditch (center) and Bens Branch (r).*

ditch one — *Looking W toward Public Storage. Ditch severely needs cleaning out to restore capacity.*

“The ditch cross section will be regraded. And hydro mulching will be put down as needed to prevent erosion,” De Leon says. “When complete, this will look like a typical grass-lined ditch.”

Intersection of Northpark and US59

Freezing weather caused the delay of new concrete for small area at Northpark and US59. However, contractors completed it last weekend. Traffic was reportedly restored by Sunday night at 10PM. The new paving will let two lanes of traffic turn right simultaneously from northbound 59. That should eliminate some long delays for inbound commuters.

*Looking W at Northpark from over 59. Photo taken before new paving. Repaving the area in the right foreground will let two lanes of traffic turn right from northbound 59 (bottom right).*

UPRR Meeting on Signals, Feeder-Road Crossings

The UnionPacific signal crews finally met with De Leon, contractors, the City, Montgomery County, TXDoT, project engineers and consultants last week on Tuesday.

“The goal was to introduce the separate crews to each other so we can better coordinate our collective efforts.”
Ralph De Leon, Project Manager

Contractors should start dirt work on all four quadrants of both feeder roads – east and west of the rail tracks – this week. For safety reasons, multiple crews will have to be sequenced instead of having them all work simultaneously in the small area.

The UPRR Signal Crew will reach Northpark this week. They will first relocate the existing power supply and traffic control signal box.

Harper Brothers Construction will then build both feeder roads “over the tracks” with the exception of 4 feet next to the tracks.

Then a separate UPRR crew will use that space to make final connections to the rails.

Altogether, it should take UPRR about 2 weeks to remove existing signals, then install temporary and permanent signals.

Once all that is done, Third Coast, a TIRZ contractor, will install temporary traffic signals at 494. That should take about two weeks.

“To do all this safely takes time,” says De Leon. He expects traffic to move permanently to the new feeder roads by late May or early June 2026.

At that point, they can begin building the bridge in earnest

Cross-Northpark Drainage Connections

De Leon also says work will begin soon on two cross-Northpark drainage connections near Loop 494. One will connect the area by the dry cleaner on the SW corner with the Shell station on the NW corner. Another connection will be on the east side of 494 in the general area of the planned bridge.

Rather than close Northpark traffic again, a decision was made to defer the installation until the center/existing roadway crossing at the rail tracks was permanently abandoned, i.e., until after the new surface roads are built.

For More Information

For more specifics, consult this three-week look-ahead schedule posted on 2/5/26 or visit the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority website.

When complete, Kingwood will have it’s first all-weather evacuation route.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/8/2026

3085 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Why Harris County Had 31 100-Year Floods in 100 Years

2/7/26 – According to Harris County Meteorologist Jeff Lindner, the county has had at least 31 100-year floods in the previous 100 years. That’s between 1925 and 2025. “How can that be?” you ask. “Doesn’t a 100-year flood only happen once in a 100-years?”

Short answer, NO. To increase your safety and protect your home, read on.

Main Reasons for Apparent Contradiction

Numerous reasons exist for the apparent contradiction in the headline. They fall into three broad categories.

Widespread misunderstanding of the definition of a “100-year flood”: the term means different things to hydrologists and to the public.
Physical changes to floodplains and channels since the last flood-map update: Upstream development, sedimentation, lack of maintenance, etc. can all increase your flood risk.
Evolving statistical estimates of floodplains: Reliable weather records only go back about 130 years in this region. Predicting future risk using such a small statistical base has inherent risks of its own.

Widespread Misunderstanding of Definition

Let’s address misunderstanding of the definition first. The term “100-year flood” emerged in the early part of the 1900s to describe a flood that has a 1% chance of happening each year at any given geographic point.

So, technically, 100-year floods could occur in back-to-back-to-back years. And they have. See Lindner’s list of Harris County’s 31 “100-year floods” below.

5/31/29: Buffalo Bayou
12/9/35: Buffalo Bayou
10/9/49: Cypress Creek
9/11/61: Sims Bayou
6/20/73: Sims Bayou
6/11/75: Sims Bayou
7/25/79: Clear Creek, Armand Bayou, Sims Bayou, Vince Bayou
9/20/79: Clear Creek, Sims Bayou
5/3/81: Vince Bayou
8/18/83: Sims Bayou, Vince Bayou, Halls Bayou
9/19/83: Sims Bayou
6/26/89: Greens Bayou
8/1/89: Sims Bayou
10/18/94: Clear Creek, Sims Bayou, San Jacinto River, Spring Creek, Little Cypress Creek, Cedar Bayou
10/18/98: South Mayde Creek, Bear Creek, Spring Creek, Little Cypress Creek
11/14/98: Little Cypress Creek, Spring Creek
6/5/01: Clear Creek, Vince Bayou
6/9/01: Clear Creek, Armand Bayou, Brays Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Hunting Bayou, Vince Bayou, Little Cypress Creek, Willow Creek, Carpenters Bayou, Greens Bayou, Halls Bayou, Buffalo Bayou
10/29/02: White Oak Bayou
8/16/07: Vince Bayou
9/13/08: Vince Bayou, Bear Creek, South Mayde Creek
4/28/09: Bear Creek, South Mayde Creek, Buffalo Bayou
7/12/12: Little Cypress Creek
5/13/15: Armand Bayou
5/26/15: Keegans Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Buffalo Bayou
10/31/15: Cedar Bayou
4/18/16: Keegans Bayou, Spring Creek, Little Cypress Creek, South Mayde Creek, Bear Creek, Horsepen Creek
5/27/16: Spring Creek, Little Cypress Creek
8/27/17: Nearly every watershed
9/19/19: San Jacinto River, Cedar Bayou
5/2/24: San Jacinto River

Many of these watersheds have seen 5 to 10 extreme floods in the last 100-years.

“100-Year Flood” is an estimate of probability and not a guarantee of frequency.

Keep that in mind if you’re shopping for a new home or considering cancelling your flood insurance.

Physical Changes to Floodplains/Channels

The other thing to keep in mind is that floodplains constantly change. You could be high above them one year and far below the next because of changes to the terrain upstream.

I once owned a home in Dallas that went from 2 feet above a 100-year floodplain to 10 feet below it in less than three years. How? One insufficiently mitigated, new development upstream. Think it can’t happen here? Look at Colony Ridge in the East Fork Watershed. It didn’t exist 15 years ago and is now 50% larger than Manhattan.

When buying a home, consider such factors as:

Subsidence from excessive groundwater withdrawals in Montgomery County (MoCo) could reduce a home’s elevation relative to the Lake Houston Dam. That would reduce the safety margin between your slab and floodwaters.
Sedimentation could reduce the conveyance of a channel or massively block it. During Harvey, sand washing downstream reduced conveyance of the West Fork by 90%, according to the Army Corps.
Much of that sand came from sand mines in MoCo. Mines have deforested 20 square miles in a 20-mile length of the river between I-45 and I-69. That exposes a swath of sediment averaging a mile wide to floodwaters.
MoCo actually gives tax breaks to those mines that encourage deforestation, rapid sedimentation and downstream flooding.
Until recently, the state didn’t require minimum setbacks from the river for mines. Because of erosion, the river now runs through mines in at least six places on the West Fork.
MoCo is one of the ten fastest growing counties in America. Roads, driveways and rooftops increase the volume and speed of runoff, causing floodwater to peak higher and faster downstream.
Complicating that, MoCo has not enforced its own floodplain regulations. I have published dozens of stories about that, including the blatant transgressions that flooded 600 homes in 2019 along Taylor Gully across the county line from Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village development.
When most of the region adopted new drainage and floodplain regulations shortly after Harvey in 2017, MoCo took until late 2025. And their new regs didn’t meet the minimum standards adopted elsewhere.
One MoCo legislator fought for the right to develop new subdivisions in floodplains, even as another voted against establishing a Dredging and Maintenance District for the Lake Houston Area.

Evolving Statistical Estimates/Building Codes

Climate change aside, such factors as those above make estimating flood risk a shifting target. Worse, the small statistical base for those estimates gives them a large margin of error.

Complete rainfall records for Harris and Montgomery Counties only go back to the early 1890s. So, we’re trying to estimate 100-year rainfalls by looking at one complete 100-year cycle out of 4.56 billion years. That’s as difficult as predicting a statewide election outcome by interviewing one person!

As a result, scientists update rainfall estimates after most major storms such as Harvey and Allison. But that can take years. FEMA is just now releasing new flood maps based on high-water marks and elevation data acquired after Harvey. And MoCo’s population has grown by about a third since then – enough to skew results significantly.

As upstream counties pursue growth, downstream counties must require higher elevations in building codes. But that won’t help already-built homes in older neighborhoods. To help those residents, we must pursue expensive flood mitigation to offset the increased flood peaks resulting from upstream growth.

There’s just no option; it will never end. We can never give up trying to offset competing interests. Or we’re sunk.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/7/2026

3084 Days since 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.

Lake Houston Gates Project Reaches 30% Design Benchmark

2/6/26 – The project to add more gates to the Lake Houston Dam has reached the 30% design benchmark, according to Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger. The 30% milestone is widely regarded among engineers as the point where the design becomes real enough that you can start working out the final details, including costs, geotechnical work, and permitting.

The plan calls for adding 11 new tainter gates to the eastern, earthen portion of the dam. They could release 78,000 cubic feet per second – as much as Lake Conroe released at the peak of Hurricane Harvey.

site of proposed gates for Lake Houston on east side of dam — *Eastern portion of Lake Houston Dam/Spillway where gates would go.*

Flickinger added that the design team is already engaging with regulatory agencies, including the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE-Galveston), and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), to discuss project details and streamline permitting review schedules.

Significance of 30% Benchmark

The 30% completion benchmark is a widely recognized milestone in engineering and infrastructure project development. It marks the transition from conceptual planning into a sufficiently defined design that supports credible cost, schedule, and constructability judgments.

Decision-makers quote it because it is the earliest point at which a project begins to behave like a real, executable asset rather than a rough idea.

While definitions vary slightly by agency, 30% usually falls at the end of preliminary engineering (PE) or schematic design.

Typical deliverables include:

Horizontal and vertical alignments
Right-of-way footprint
Identification of utility conflicts
Substantial completion of hydrology and hydraulics models
Definition of drainage pathways
Identification of jurisdictional constraints (e.g., wetlands)
Likely permitting strategy
Elimination of potential fatal flaws
Engineer’s opinion of probable costs (much tighter than possible before 30%)

In this case, according to one engineer who previously worked on the project, they would also include pre- and post inundation maps and identification of the extent of areas benefitted.

First Defensible Go/No-Go Decision Gate

Why does the 30% point get quoted so often? According to ChatGPT, it’s the first defensible “go/no go” gate. Before 30%, optimism drives a project. At 30%, physics drive it.

At the 30% point, uncomfortable truths surface and cost escalation becomes visible.

Uncertainty gives way to measurable reality
Optimism encounters hydrology, soil, and gravity
Financial exposure becomes calculable
Scope reality emerges

In professional terms, it is the first point of engineering credibility. Before 30%, you deal with selection risk (Do we have the right idea?). After 30%, project managers deal with execution risk. For instance:

Will regulators approve it?
Will available funding meet Benefit/Cost requirements?
How will it affect downstream residents?
Will it meet needs outlined in the SJRA’s Joint Reservoir Operations Study, which is still incomplete.
How will construction of new gates dovetail with dam repairs?

Flickinger Already Met with Mayor About Next Steps

The City still hasn’t released details of its 30% plans for the gates.

However, City Council Member Fred Flickinger said, “Now we know how much more money we need to find to get this project done.” He has already talked to the Mayor’s staff about going to Austin to get it.

There’s still a long way to go. But we have reached a significant milestone and, according to Flickinger, all energies are headed in the right direction.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/6/26

3083 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Caught on Camera: TXDoT Contractor Dumping Fill in Floodplain

2/5/26 – For months, Huffman residents have complained about TXDoT contractors dumping fill in the floodplain of Cedar Bayou. This morning, I caught the dumping on camera. The fill comes from two stormwater detention basin sites. One is almost complete. The other one is larger and still being excavated. Both sites are adjacent to the FM2100 reconstruction project.

Dumping Without Permit

Dumping fill in a 100-year floodplain violates county regulations.
Regulations Effective July 9, 2019

Dumping fill in unincorporated areas of Harris County, such as this one, also requires a permit, which the contractors do not have. Harris County Precinct 3 has tried to stop the illegal activity, according to Eric Mullen, Precinct 3’s head engineer.

Jason Haines, a project manager for Precinct 3, says this fill does not have a permit. He also has tried to stop the dumping. But the contractors have not complied. He says that compliance will require either: removal of the fill or removing an equivalent amount somewhere else in the floodplain.

The visual below shows where the fill is coming from and going to. In both cases, it’s coming from outside the floodplain and going into one.

*Luce Bayou cuts across left, Cedar Bayou cuts across lower right. Aqua area = 100 year floodplain.*

Reducing the volume of a floodplain forces stormwater to go elsewhere, i.e., into someone else’s home or business. That’s why the regulations exist.

This morning, I photographed a parade of dump trucks being filled up at the triangular site above and depositing their loads in the floodplain. The activity has been going on for months, according to local residents Max Kidd and his wife.

Below is a small sampling of hundreds of photos I took today and on two previous occasions. They have GPS coordinates embedded in them so you can verify their locations in software, such as PhotoGeoTag.

*Triangular site adjacent to FM2100, which TxDOT is excavating*. *Approximately 26 acres.*

*This dump truck with the blue cab was being filled up at the triangular site.*

I then followed that blue truck to the dump site, a farm just south of the Luce Inter-basin Transfer Canal.

*Same truck with blue cab pulls into position to dump its fill through a door opening beneath the trailer.*

*As it drops its load, a bulldozer immediately starts smoothing it out so the next truck can deposit its load.*

*I watched this for hours, shuttling from Point A to Point B and back again.*

*The elevation of the fill is quite high compared to the height of the bulldozer.*

*The presence of lights indicates the activity may continue after dark.*

*Load after load…all in the floodplain.*

And it’s not just this one mound.

*Additional fill deposited on another part of the same property but not yet spread. Luce Inter-basin Transfer Canal at top.*

*Residents say dirt from this detention basin was also deposited at the same site although I have no pictures of the actual dumping.*

It’s the Principle that Counts

*The dump site (l) is less than a mile from the Huffman High School and Middle School (r), making them more vulnerable to reduced floodplain capacity.*

Note: all floodplains above are based on 2007 pre-Harvey data. The floodplains should get even wider and deeper when FEMA releases the new flood maps.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/5/2026

3082 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.

Romerica Withdraws Plat Application for Proposed Floodplain Development

2/4/26 – Yesterday, the Houston Planning and Development Department called to say that Romerica has withdrawn the variance request for its plat application from the Houston Planning Commission’s agenda for 2/5/26. So, if you were planning to go downtown to protest it tomorrow, there is no longer any need.

Kingwood Residents Concerned about Floodplain Development

Local residents in Kingwood Lakes, Barrington and Trailwood Villages became concerned when they discovered that Romerica was back with the third-iteration of plans to build in the floodway and floodplains of the San Jacinto West Fork. Romerica was seeking plat approval to build a 500,000 square-foot, two-hotel complex with 125 large-luxury villas in a swamp.

The company claimed it would elevate all structures and 6000 feet of roads 60 feet wide on the northern-most part of their property.

But their preliminary drainage analysis also showed them bringing in fill dirt. And Romerica’s ambitious plans indicated they would have to bring in far more dirt than their drainage analysis indicated.

During the debate about their plans with Houston Public Works, it became clear that Romerica had not complied with regulations requiring them to post signage at the entrance to their property that notified the public of their plans.

Unanswered Questions, Concerns

Yesterday, I received a phone call and email from John P. Cedillo in the City’s Planning and Development Department.

His email said, “The application for River Grove GP [General Plan] has been withdrawn by the applicant and will not be considered at the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on February 5. The applicant will need to re-submit and re-start the process including the notice requirements, such as notice letters and notice signs erected for the site.”

In my opinion, this is good news. Many questions remain about Romerica’s plans. For instance, they claimed the hotel would be a Fairmont. But after days of trying, I could not find anyone at Fairmont who would confirm that.

A source in the hotel business told me that the reputational damage to a hotel chain would be so great if one of its properties flooded that they typically have higher standards than even city and county regulators. That’s especially true of high-end international chains, such as Fairmont. Word of a flooded Fairmont Hotel would spread around the world overnight because they draw international clients.

Another source called the proposed development “on the wrong side of the tracks.” That was not a slur against Kingwood, just an acknowledgment of market potential for the planned location. He said that all chains look at traffic counts as their first location-screening tool. “If it’s not on or near an interstate freeway, they don’t want to hear about it,” he said.

Even though plat approvals have to do with street layouts, residents were concerned about the potential to make flooding worse in the area at the south end of Woodland Hills Drive – especially in an area where the thoroughfare itself, i.e., the evacuation route, would be under water in a 100-year flood.

In fact, it last went under water in May 2024.

Romerica in May 2024 Flood — *Romerica proposes to build where water reached treetops to the right of Barrington in May 2024*.

Ronnie Bulanek, a Barrington resident said of Romerica’s latest setback, “It is great news. It will/should be very difficult to develop the land in question without dramatic consequences for the neighboring communities. Until the Lake Houston dam and other flood mitigation issues are completed nothing should be developed in this parcel.”

For More Information

Romerica is the same company that previously proposed building 50-story high-rises next to the floodway of the West Fork. The Army Corps nixed that plan.

Romerica later proposed building homes on stilts. But the company ran into challenges with the Planning Commission then, too.

For more information on Romerica’s proposal, see their presentations which include schematics:

Chris Bloch, a flood activist who has studied Kingwood drainage issues for decades, had these concerns about the proposed development along South Woodland Hills.

Those concerns were only exacerbated when Bloch obtained Romerica’s preliminary drainage analysis the day of the last Planning Commission Meeting on 1/22/26. It raised more questions than answers. Luckily, the Planning Commission deferred action on Romerica’s variance request at that meeting, too. District E City Council Member Fred Flickinger had it pulled from the Commission’s agenda.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/4/26

3081 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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

Toth’s Lies and 2025 Voting Record Exposed

2/3/26 – On 2/1/26, I printed a story about Steve Toth’s shocking voting record in 2021 and 2023. He called me dishonest, claiming I misrepresented his votes on five of the first six bills he checked on my list. See his text and my response below.

Toth claims Rehak dishonest — *Screen capture from 2/2/26 of text exchange with Steve Toth re: his first 6 votes on 2021-2023 list.*

Twenty-four hours after my offer above, Toth has not asked for one legitimate correction. Nor has he sent me a rebuttal. So…onward to Toth’s 2025 voting record.

Overview of Toth’s 2025 Voting Record

In 2025, Toth continued voting against a majority of Republicans on common-sense issues. See the list below. I boiled it down from 53 pages of NO votes on important measures. Toth changes his votes frequently. But as in my previous post, I only included FINAL votes…or the way he clarified he intended to vote.

In my opinion, Toth doesn’t deserve to be called a Republican; he’s an anarchist disguised in Republican clothes who consistently votes against the safety and welfare of his constituents.

For starters, in 2025, Toth voted against flood mitigation, free speech, food banks, cybersecurity, conservation, grid reliability, open meetings, transparency, ethics, border security, fraud protections, and disclosure of campaign finance information.

Groups Toth Voted Against

Despite what he claims, Toth also voted against groups such as law enforcement, first responders, consumers, patients, motorists, veterans, educators, CPAs, dentists, dental hygienists, farmers, restauranteurs, insurers, aviators, heath-care providers, seniors, schoolchildren, whistleblowers, correctional officers, manufacturers, attorneys, college students, utility employees, people who work from home, flood victims, crime victims, and rural Texans.

Toth Even Voted Against Voters

Why? By voting NO on virtually everything, Toth improved his so-called “conservative rating.”

Toth’s trolls make you think he walks on floodwater – while you’re neck-deep in it. They ignore Toth’s own record, while blasting his opponent, Dan Crenshaw with lies and half truths.

If you want to know what Steve Toth stands FOR, look at what he voted AGAINST.
Bob Rehak

For instance, he’s voted multiple times against measures to control fraud, sexual abuse and family violence.

Toth NO Votes on 2025 Bills

For more information about each bill below (including the full text), visit the Texas Legislature Online website. In 2025:

Steve Toth Voted AGAINST	BILL #
Land, water and wildlife conservation	HB 4212
Disclosing social-media impacts on minors	HB 499
Improving public access to occupational therapy	HB 932
Simplifying licensing of CPAs	SB 522
Improving access to dentistry and dental hygiene	HB 1803
Speeding up permits for people working from home	HB 2464
Verifying a purchaser’s age for liquor sales	SB 650
Making social-media companies investigate explicit deep-fake images	HB 3133
AI protections for consumers	HB 149
Banning e-cigarettes disguised as school supplies and toys	SB 2024
Requiring hand-counted ballots to be machine readable for tally verification	HB 3113
Disclosure of campaign finance information	HB 4406
Timely filing of campaign finance reports	HB 1804
Accurate and complete voter registrations	HB 2785
Legible ballots	HB 3697
Letting voters use cell phones while standing in long lines outside	HB 3909
Publishing regulations for placement of political signs	HB 3918
Fining lobbyists who violate restrictions on political contributions	SB 2781
Helping electricity providers recover faster from weather disasters	SB 1963
Protecting oil/gas infrastructure from natural disasters, cyberthreats, and terrorism	HB 1169
Recognizing importance of natural gas during electricity shortages	HB 5224
Inspecting well sites for wildfire susceptibility	HB 3334
Fire safety standards and emergency operations plans	HB 3824
Nuclear energy workforce-development program	SB 1535
Grid-reliability measures that protect customers from outages	SB 6
Recognizing the strategic importance of the Panama Canal	SCR 37
Curbing mass importation of foreign shrimp	HCR 76
Moving NASA headquarters to Houston	HCR 141
Making first responders’ emergency-communication equipment interoperable across Texas	HB 13
All appropriations for 2026-2027	SB 1
Job creation and economic development in Texas	HB 1268
Developing an artificial-intelligence group within the State’s information resources group	HB 2818
Selling surplus DPS vehicles to economically disadvantaged school districts	HB 1851
Planning for severe weather	HB 2618
Bullet-resistant windows for police vehicles	HB 2217
Putting teeth into the state’s open-meetings law	HB 3711
A statewide inventory of equipment available to respond to wildfires	SB 767
Using captured floodwater to expand water supplies	SB 1967
Aerospace, aviation, and space exploration initiatives	HB 5246
Quantum computing	HB 4751
Exempting non-profit food-bank trucks from gasoline taxes	HB 4226
Creating a Texas Severance Tax Revenue and Oil and Natural Gas defense fund (Texas STRONG)	HJR 47
Sharing information about cybersecurity threats and best practices	HB 876
Modernizing manufacturing	SB 2925
Attorney education re: open meetings	HB 4991
Hedging state funds against inflation	SB 21
Making Texas R&D more competitive	SB 2206
Artificial Intelligence regulation	SB 1964
Cybersecurity and AI training for state employees	HB 3512
Establishing a Texas Cyber Command at UT	HB 150
Strengthening education-to-workforce pipelines	SB 1786
Free EMS courses for Texas paramedics	HB 1105
Property tax exemptions for charities supporting medical education	HB 4240
Rights of students to protest peacefully	SB 2972
Nutrition counseling for Medicaid recipients	HB 26
Reducing insurance losses by making property more wind resistant	HB 1576
Reducing Texas windstorm-insurance costs	HB 2518
Requiring written, detailed explanations of auto-repair costs	HB 722
Requiring health benefit plans to cover telemedicine costs	HB 1052
Covering general anesthesia costs for pediatric dental services	SB 527
Insuring first responders on deployment across Texas	HB 4464
Reducing recidivism of juvenile drug addicts	HB 1831
Alzheimer’s and dementia training for guardians	HB 3376
Penalizing fraudulent use of gift cards	SB 1809
Training correctional officers in de-escalation and crisis-intervention	HB 2756
Prohibiting government retaliation against whistleblowers	HB 1232
Prosecuting the fraudulent use of credit cards	HB 272
Studying ways to prevent theft of petroleum products in Texas	SB 494
Letting the PUC screen criminal records of employees and contractors	HB 4344
Combatting human trafficking	SB 610
Preventing interference with utility employees performing their duties	HB 1160
Requiring assisted-living facilities to be licensed	HB 2510
Increasing the minimum duration for emergency-protection orders	SB 2196
Protecting animal-control officers removing carcasses from roadways	SB 305
Creating liabilities for online impersonators who harm others	HB 783
Alleviating court backlogs with retired judges	HB 1664
Protecting family-violence victims from their alleged abusers	HB 4027
Updating laws that reduce electronic card-skimmer fraud	SB 2371
Penalizing those who publish personal information of others with the intent to threaten or harm them or their families	HB 3425
Clarifying conduct that constitutes exploitation and coercion of children, the elderly, and disabled	HB 1347
Increasing penalties for assaulting utility employees performing their duties	SB 482
Requiring convicted child sex traffickers to pay restitution to victims	SB 1804
Making road-rage shootings an aggravated-assault offense	SB 3031
Combatting misuse of AI to generate false harmful, intimate visuals	SB 441
Increasing penalties for driving while intoxicated in school zones	SB 826
Letting municipalities suspend or revoke certificates of occupancy for hotels involved in human trafficking	HB 5509
Creating a Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District	HB 1532
Establishing qualifications for county fire marshals	HB 3687
Increasing higher-education tuition exemptions for military service members	HB 290
Studying obstacles that Texas veterans face when accessing veterans’ cemeteries	HB 1875
Studying ways to improve mental health services for vets	HB 1965
Studying ways to deliver veterans’ benefits more efficiently	HB 2193
Studying ways to use government-surplus real estate to house veterans and low-income families	HB 158
Coordinating activities for the 200th anniversary of Texas’ independence	SB 1350
Training appraisal-district board members	HB 148
Requiring landlords to inform tenants of flood risks in writing	SB 2349
Addressing fraudulent property claims and providing a remedy for affected owners	SB 1734
Streamlining college admissions	SB 2314
Improving early learning for children with disabilities or developmental delays	HB 2310
Providing instructional materials for career education in health care to ISDs	HB 2189
First-aid training on “airway clearance” in public schools	HB 549
Civics instruction in high schools	HB 824
Grants for Texas-history education	SB 519
Preventing sexual abuse of students by school employees	HB 4623
Telemedicine for rural Texans	HB 18
Establishing a Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and supporting dementia research	SJR 3
Emergency contraceptives for sexual assault victims	HB 220
Requiring assisted-living facilities to adopt power-outage emergency plans that include climate-controlled areas	HB 3595
Tracking distribution of opioid antagonists to help prevent drug overdoses	HB 4783
Minimum training requirements for day-care centers	HB 4665
Helping opioid-users on Medicaid who are pregnant	HB 5155
Educating college freshmen about fentanyl and other drugs	HB 3062
Increasing accountability for nursing homes in the Medicaid program	SB 457
Creating regional mobility authorities	HJR 144
Requiring the Texas Transportation Commission to back projects that improve border security	HB 3849
Prohibiting trains from blocking roads for 30 minutes or more	HB 4207
Requiring seatbelts in older buses to protect schoolchildren	SB 546

I Believe NOTHING Toth Says Anymore

I no longer believe anything the do-nothing Mr. Toth and his hired trolls say. Toth paints himself as a conservative purist…while lying about his opponent who gets results for his constituents. Toth also lies about his own record. That’s yet another reason why I’m voting for Dan Crenshaw and I hope you do, too.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/3/26

3080 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.

Steve Toth’s Shocking Voting Record on Flooding and Other Issues

2/1/26 – State Representative Steve Toth is running against U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw in the Republican primary for the second congressional district of Texas.

To date, Toth has run a largely negative campaign, smearing Crenshaw with half-truths and lies. When I posted a positive story about Crenshaw’s work in Congress to reduce flood risk, dozens of hired Toth trolls flooded Facebook with false negative comments about Crenshaw – all unsubstantiated.

Usually, when candidates have nothing positive to say about themselves, they tear down opponents. That made me curious. So, I investigated Toth’s voting record in Austin. Toth voted NO on every bill below. And…

On every vote, Toth went against a majority of Republicans voting YES.

Because bill descriptions can get quite long, I summarized them. However, using the bill numbers and their years in the table below, you can easily look up everything about them in the Texas Legislature Online website. (So far, I’ve only gotten through the 2021 and 2023 sessions.)

Steve Toth Voted NO on…

Steve Toth voted NO on all of these bills. What would you have voted?

*Steve Toth:*	*Bill #*	% Other Republicans Voting FOR
Voted against a hotline to report workplace violence	HB 915 in 2023	83%
Voted against allowing people to affiliate with the political party of their choice.	HB 1635 in 2023	94%
Voted against handicapped parking at polling places	HB 386 in 2023	92%
Voted against simplifying disclosure of election information	HB 4053 in 2023	53%
Voted against the Texas Ethics Commission educating people about its work, which includes campaign finance disclosure	SB 62 in 2021	57%
Voted against sexual harassment prevention	SB 2233 in 2021	81%
Voted against expanding water infrastructure	HJR 169 in 2023	91%
Voted against oil well cleanup	HB 3973 in 2021	53%
Voted against hurricane protection for the Gulf Coast	SB 1160 in 2021	76%
Voted against military law enforcement	HB 3452 in 2021	80%
Voted against economic growth	HB 1392 in 2023	90%
Voted against highway improvements	HB 1392 in 2023	90%
Voted against cybersecurity protection	HB 4018 in 2021	70%
Voted against disaster response loans	HB 2812 in 2021	77%
Voted against training for drug overdose treatment	SB 998 in 2023	89%
Voted against “Made-in-Texas” labeling standards	HB 2194 in 2023	83%
Voted against basic standards of care for dogs and cats bred in captivity	SB 876 in 2023	72%
Voted against child-labor penalties	HB 2459 in 2023	75%
Voted against penalties for importing invasive snake species	HB 2326 in 2021	63%
Voted against tax relief for farm families	HB 3241 in 2023	98%
Voted against online consumer protection	HB 3745 in 2021	80%
Voted against preventing sexual-harassment in the workplace	SB 45 in 2021	67%
Voted against uniform election dates	HB 2133 in 2023	88%
Voted against higher qualifications for sheriffs	SB 1124 in 2023	77%
Voted against making it easier for people with disabilities to vote	SB 477 in 2023	69%
Voted against financing water projects	SJR 75 in 2023	94%
Voted against improving electric reliability	HB 1607 in 2021	68%
Voted against consumer protections for electricity customers	HB 16 in 2021	68%
Voted against making it easier to buy solar products	SB 398 in 2021	75%
Voted against making it easier for energy companies to repay repair expenses from Winter Storm Uri	HB 4492 in 2021	78%
Voted against property tax relief	HJR 102 in 2023	56%
Voted against reporting cybersecurity breaches	SB 271 in 2023	98%
Voted against pay parity for Texas police officers	HB 2297 in 2023	98%
Voted against the economic stabilization fund	HJR 82 in 2021	83%
Voted against disclosure of occupational licenses	HB 2404 in 2021	95%
Voted against improving state information technology	HB 4018 in 2021	70%
Voted against mental health funding	HB 15 in 2023	63%
Voted against the Texas University Fund	HJR 3 in 2023	88%
Voted against providing opioid intervention on college campuses	HB 3338 in 2023	80%
Voted against bonds for a Brain Institute of Texas	HJR 5 in 2021	56%
Voted against a Texas Epidemic Public Health Institute	SB 1780 in 2021	71%
Voted against combatting human trafficking	HB 3772 in 2023	59%
Voted against closing massage parlors involved in human trafficking	HB 3579 in 2023	80%
Voted against training hotel/motel employees to recognize human trafficking	HB 390 in 2021	78%
Voted against improving preparedness for wind/hail storms	HB 4354 in 2023	85%
Voted against requiring insurers to disclose prescription drug coverage	SB 622 in 2023	73%
Voted against access to fertility preservation services for cancer patients	HB 1649 in 2023	63%
Voted against requiring health plans to cover ovarian cancer screening in annual exams	HB 428 in 2021	79%
Voted against allowing clinicians to dispense cancer drugs	HB 1586 in 2021	73%
Voted against updating voyeurism laws to account for hidden cameras	HB 2306 in 2023	98%
Voted against making criminal sentencing data available to public	HB 3937 in 2023	77%
Voted against classifying highway obstruction by street gangs as a criminal offense	HB 1442 in 2023	81%
Voted against a task force to prevent organized retail theft	HB 1826 in 2023	93%
Voted against minimum salaries for county sheriffs	HB 626 in 2023	94%
Voted against requiring perpetrators of certain felonies to provide DNA	HB 3956 in 2023	88%
Voted against requiring correctional officers to wear body cams	HB 1524 in 2023	63%
Voted against increasing fines on those engaged in anti-trust activities	HB 5232 in 2023	99%
Voted against cracking down on the use of AI to generate false sexualized images of people	HB1896 in 2023	98%
Voted against speeding up DNA analysis	HB 3957 in 2023	93%
Voted against dismissing controlled-substance cases even when tests proved no controlled substance was involved	HB 3686 in 2023	92%
Voted against creating a centralized portal for DPS lab records	SB 991 in 2023	92%
Voted against expanding the definition of stalking to include previous family violence	SB 1717 in 2023	67%
Voted against handgun proficiency instruction for security officials	HB 3424 in 2023	88%
Voted against limiting physician liability for medically necessary procedures when patients give informed consent	HB 3058 in 2023	87%
Voted against reimbursing counties for GPS monitoring in family violence cases	HB 1906 in 2021	65%
Voted against preventing financial abuse of nursing home residents	SB 270 in 2021	95%
Voted against increasing punishments for criminal offenses against public servants	HB 624 in 2021	84%
Voted against creating a new offense for boating with a child while drunk	HB 2505 in 2021	84%
Voted against ensuring accuracy of DPS databases of street-gang members	HB 1838 in 2021	72%
Voted against increasing the penalties for assault against a process server	HB 1306 in 2021	91%
Voted against installing climate control systems in prisons	HB 1971 in 2021	77%
Voted against making retaliation against a public servant a second-degree felony	HB 285 in 2021	94%
Voted against creating an offense for providing false or misleading information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System	SB 162 in 2021	83%
Voted against restricting the use of choke holds by police	SB 69 in 2021	91%
Voted against prohibiting entity names that falsely imply governmental affiliation	HB 1493 in 2021	83%
Voted against making ballot language consistent with election orders	HB 4704 in 2023	76%
Voted against giving surviving spouses and children of those who died while serving in the US Armed Forced free access to state parks	HB 1740 in 2023	97%
Voted against increasing homestead exemptions for surviving spouses of members of US Armed Forces	HB 4181 in 2023	92%
Voted against mental health services for vets and their families	HB 1457 in 2023	78%
Voted against 100% property tax exemptions for totally disabled vets	HB 1613 in 2023	93%
Voted against employment training for vets	HB 739 in 2021	68%
Voted against limited property-tax exemptions for homeowners with intellectual or developmental disabilities	HB 3640 in 2023	93%
Voted against allowing local tax exemptions for day care facilities	SJR 64 in 2023	59%
Voted against protecting landlords that evict illegal massage operators	HB 3536 in 2023	74%
Voted against economic development programs that allowed ISD tax abatement agreements	HB 5 in 2023	85%
Voted against tax abatement for physicians who offered free services to the indigent	HJR 25 in 2021	89%
Voted against pre-kindergarten	HB 1615 in 2023	74%
Voted against sharing existing school-training courses with employees of child-care facilities	HB 1905 in 2023	60%
Voted against CPR instruction for grades 7-12	HB 4375 in 2023	93%
Voted against “career-investigation days” for high school juniors and seniors	SB68 in 2023	98%
Voted against school-crossing-zone protections for high schools	HB 1263 in 2023	95%
Voted against allowing accredited armed-forces instructors to teach in K-12 public schools while they complete civilian educator-prep programs	SB 544 in 2023	96%
Voted against prohibiting parents who injured officials at sporting events from attending future events	HB 2484 in 2023	89%
Voted against “digital citizenship” instruction	HB 129 in 2021	58%
Voted against child-abuse, family-violence, dating-violence and sex-trafficking education	SB 9 in 2021	65%
Voted against workplace-violence-prevention policies	SB 240 in 2023	69%
Voted against requiring health plans to apply third-party payments that would reduce prescription costs	HB 999 in 2023	92%
Voted against extending Medicaid coverage for pregnant women	HB 12 in 2023	90%
Voted against allowing Physician Assistants from certain other pre-approved states to practice in Texas without a new license	HB 2544 in 2023	87%
Voted against reporting maternal mortality data to Dept. of State Health Services	HB 663 in 2023	87%
Voted against requiring assisted-living facilities to provide Alzheimer’s training to staff	HB 1673 in 2023	82%
Voted against prohibiting nursing home facilities from misappropriating federal grants made to residents on Medicaid	HB 1290 in 2023	95%
Voted against improving public access to occupational therapy	HB 1683 in 2023	93%
Voted against including the names of people found guilty of child abuse or neglect in a central registry	HB 2572 in 2023	66%
Voted against prohibiting the state from retaliating against employees who report a criminal offense	SB182/Amendment 1 in 2023	52%
Voted against expanding disposal programs for expired prescription drugs statewide	SB 2173 in 2023	60%
Voted against a program to improve health outcomes for pregnant women and their children	HB 1575 in 2023	87%
Voted against a training program for those investigating child abuse/neglect	SB 1447 in 2023	64%
Voted against providing luggage for transporting belongings of foster children	HB 3765 in 2023	74%
Voted against aid for human-trafficking victims	HB 2633 in 2021	71%
Voted against waiving driver’s license fees/costs for foster or homeless children	SB 2054 in 2021	87%
Voted against a bill prohibiting construction of new assisted living facilities in Harris County 100-year floodplains	HB1681 in 2021	61%
Voted against a bill increasing penalties for felons in unlawful possession of a firearm	HB4843 in 2023	82%
Voted against a motor-fuel tax exemption for food-bank trucks	HB 3599 in 2023	97%
Voted against creating a Texas Space Commission	HB 3447 in 2023	86%
Voted against record-keeping requirements for used catalytic converter sales	HB 4110 in 2021	63%

Actions Speak Louder than Hired Trolls and Campaign Platitudes

By voting NO, Toth boosts his “conservative” rating among some right-leaning think tanks. He touts that rating heavily, but…

Understanding what Toth voted NO on gives you deeper insight into the man and his values.

Toth Voted No On Flood-Mitigation

Toth represents the sand-mining areas in Montgomery County. They send much of the sediment downstream that reduces conveyance of our rivers and streams. Yet he has done nothing I have seen to help control them.

Even worse, he voted NO on Charles Cunningham’s bill (HB 1532) to create a dredging district for the Lake Houston Area in the last session.

He also voted NO on HB 1681 in 2021, a bill that prohibited building assisted-living facilities in Harris County’s 100-year floodplains. (See red entry above.)

One third of all the people in Harris County who died as a result of Harvey lived in one such facility near Kingwood Town Center – in a 500-year flood plain.

After the Camp Mystic tragedy last year when more than 135 people died in flash flooding, Toth even voted for the right to continue building kids camps in floodplains.

Get Out the Vote

Make sure you vote in the upcoming primaries. And make sure you get all your friends and neighbors out to vote, too. This will literally be a life-and-death election for the Lake Houston Area.

I’m voting for Crenshaw. I hope you do, too.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/1/2027

3078 Days since 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.

How Crenshaw Saved Kingwood Project from Chopping Block

1/30/26 – A four-million dollar earmark secured by U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw for widening the Walnut Lane Bridge in Kingwood saved the entire $44 Million Kingwood Diversion Ditch Project from being killed by the Democratic members of Harris County Commissioners Court.

U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw gives the thumbs up to the Walnut Lane Bridge project. Widening the bridge is necessary to widen the Kingwood Diversion Ditch (background) which will also help reduce flood risk along Bens Branch.

Crenshaw requested the funding in 2023. Congress awarded it in 2024. Then in 2025, the Democratic members of Harris County Commissioners Court passed a motion to reallocate all funding from projects that fell below the top quartile of their equity prioritization framework to projects in the top quartile. That was because inflation had eaten up 25-30% of the purchasing power in the 2018 Flood Bond.

Ramsey to the Rescue

At the time, Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE warned that killing projects in Quartiles 2, 3 and 4 could have dire unintended consequences. The Diversion Ditch project fell into Quartile 3.

After the Democrats saw how much partnership funding they would lose by killing projects in the lower quartiles, they relented. In their next meeting, they voted to exempt projects in the lower quartiles that already had partnership funds committed.

That breathed new life into the Kingwood Diversion Ditch project because it included widening of the Walnut Lane Bridge which Crenshaw had already secured funding for.

Multiple Benefits: A Texas Twofer

But the project will benefit far more of Kingwood than just the people who live in Diversion Ditch floodplains. It will also benefit people who live near Bens Branch. That includes the Villages of Bear Branch, Kings Forest, Hunters Ridge, Town Center, Kings Harbor and Kingwood Greens.

That’s because widening the Diversion Ditch will take excess stormwater out of Bens Branch and allow water to move safely down the Diversion Ditch. The planned improvements will take Bens Branch from a 2-year level of service to a 100-year level.

Bens Branch and Kingwood Diversion Ditch — *Kingwood Diversion Ditch in white, new outfall in green, and Bens Branch in red.*

That means homes in the Bens Branch floodplains should be safe in anything up to a 100-year storm. Currently, the stream is at risk of flooding parts of its watershed every two years.

Twelve seniors died along Bens Branch in the Harvey flood who lived at Kingwood Village Estates. That’s a third of all the people in Harris County and a fifth of all the people in the state who died as a result of Harvey flooding.

When the Diversion Ditch project is completed, Crenshaw will have helped protect people and property values in approximately half of Kingwood.
Bob Rehak

Crenshaw Support Crucial on Other Projects, Too

The Kingwood Area Drainage analysis found that, based on the number of people who benefit, the Diversion Ditch project is one of the two most important in Kingwood. Another is the Taylor Gully/Woodridge Project which Crenshaw also secured funding for.

In fact, Crenshaw secured funding for 10 Lake Houston Area Projects in 2024 alone.

Editorial Comment: I interviewed Crenshaw in 2018 when he first ran for Congress and have followed his work in Washington ever since. The man is a warrior, scholar and leader. He fights tirelessly to improve the lives of his constituents. He studies issues. And thoughtfully and patiently explains them. There’s no way he could have known what Commissioners Court would do in 2025 when he proposed the Walnut Lane Bridge funding in 2023. Regardless, his proactive effort will improve the safety of tens of thousands of his constituents.

For more information including a timetable for the Kingwood Diversion Ditch Project, see this recent post.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/30/26

3076 Days since Hurricane Harvey

HUD Clears GLO of Discrimination in Distribution of Harvey-Mitigation Funds

1/29/26 – An investigation by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) found the Texas General Land Office (GLO) did not discriminate against minorities or low-to-moderate income Texans in the distribution of Hurricane Harvey Flood Mitigation Funds. The investigation reviewed more than 80,000 pages of documents.

Two Houston groups – the Northeast Action Collective and Texas Housers – claimed the GLO ignored Houston and Harris County in the distribution of the first tranche of Harvey aid. Houston and Harris County got $0 from the first $1 billion. But the Northeast Action Collective and Texas Housers ignored the fact that ALL of the next $750 million went to Harris County.

Moreover, the GLO announced the $750 million a full month BEFORE the two groups filed their discrimination complaint in 2021.

GLO Cleared

The investigation began on June 25, 2021. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity found that “no reasonable cause exists to believe the GLO has violated the Fair Housing Act, Title VI, or the Housing and Community Development Act through its administration of the 2019 CDBG-MIT funds, including the Hurricane Harvey State Mitigation Competition.”

Complainant Allegations

Complainants alleged discrimination on the basis of race and national origin, and that scoring criteria systematically and deliberately advantaged white communities while disadvantaging low- and moderate income (LMI) African-American and Hispanic communities.

GLO Defense

Looking only at the first billion dollars, GLO presented evidence that roughly 1.2 million of the 1.5 million Texans who benefited from the approved projects were Hispanic, Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, or Native American. The GLO also showed that 100% of the awards went to projects in majority LMI areas.

GLO also argued that complainants could not look only at one portion of the grants. Or look only at the first round of Harvey Grants and ignore 2015 and 2016 grants.

Findings

HUD found that the GLO substantially exceeded HUD’s requirement to direct at least 50% of funds to Most Impacted and Distressed (MID) areas. In 2015, 2016 and the first round of Harvey, GLO directed roughly 60% of all HUD funds to MID areas.

GLO later cancelled the second round of Harvey competition and allocated $750 million exclusively to Harris County. The County’s population is 42.9% Hispanic and 18.6% Black – a total of 61.5%. With other minorities, that brought minority beneficiaries for all phases to more than 66%.

CDBG grant spending recommendations — *Location of HUD/GLO projects in Harris County as of 2024.*

Thus the complainants failed to show a disproportionate impact on minorities. Northeast Action Collective and Housers failed to assess the share of total beneficiaries that were black, white or Hispanic compared to the racial demographics of eligible areas.

Even when looking at just Round One of the Harvey competition, “no reasonable cause exists to believe the GLO’s administration had a disparate racial impact on funding.”

The complainants focused on Houston and Harris County not winning any awards during the Harvey Round One competition. Another section of the 22-page legal brief deals with why. To a large degree, not winning any awards in Round One resulted from the Benefit/Cost Analyses of submitted projects. Smaller jurisdictions just had lower costs per beneficiary. (See page 13.)

For instance, one project submitted by the City would have benefitted fewer than 10,000 people, but cost $94 million. In other words, the City was seeking 18% of Round One funds to benefit less than a half-percent of the City’s population.

HUD determined that “Houston’s poor performance in the Harvey Competition is attributable, at least in part, to its expensive, low-impact project proposals.”

Conclusion

“The facts of this case do not suggest that GLO intentionally discriminated against any racial or ethnic group through its administration of the CDBG-MIT funds,” said the final ruling.

The complainants have 30 days to file an appeal. Click here to read HUD’s complete 22-page finding.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/29/26

3075 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.

Update on Two Kingwood Flood-Mitigation Projects

1/28/26 – People living near the Kingwood Diversion Ditch and the Woodridge Village/Taylor Gully area have been asking what happened to their flood-mitigation projects. Good news: Both are moving forward. Here’s some historical context, where the projects currently stand, and what comes next.

Kingwood Diversion Ditch

The Kingwood Diversion Ditch splits off Bens Branch between Northpark Drive and the new St. Martha Catholic Church. It runs down the western side of North and South Woodland Hills past the fire station on Kingwood Drive. Then it continues south past Trailwood, Deer Ridge Park and finally joins the San Jacinto West Fork at River Grove Park. Along the way, it goes under four bridges.

Neel-Schaffer completed a preliminary engineering study in early 2025. The company recommended widening the Diversion Ditch and building a new outfall to West Fork west of River Grove Park. They projected the cost to be almost $41 million, but it would reduce the floodplain size by 177 acres and remove 34 structures from the floodplain.

*Diversion Ditch shown in white, proposed new outfall in green, and Bens Branch in red.*

The improvements would divert enough stormwater from Bens Branch to take it from a 2-year level of service to a 100-year level. That’s good news for the merchants in Kingwood Town Center. They all flooded during Harvey and 12 seniors died at Kingwood Village Estates.

The project almost died last year when Democratic County Commissioners voted to redeploy all remaining flood bond funds to the highest scoring projects on their equity prioritization framework. However, they later reconsidered that motion. The Diversion Ditch already had federal partnership funds allocated to it thanks to the work of Congressman Dan Crenshaw. His earmark for the Walnut Lane Bridge saved it from the chopping block.

Now the project is moving again. In late 2025, Harris County awarded a contract to Halff Associates, Inc. for the final engineering and design of the project.

In its January 22 board meeting, the Texas Water Development Board authorized an agreement with Harris County Flood Control District for a $5 million grant that State Representative Charles Cunningham obtained during the 89th Legislative Regular Session. (See item 12.)

HCFCD spokesperson Emily Woodell said the District expects the design work to start by March 1. She also says that additional funding will come from EPA grants to cover design and the 2018 bond to cover construction. Woodell expects construction to begin in late 2027.

Woodridge Village/Taylor Gully

The Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis ranked the Diversion Ditch and the Woodridge Village/Taylor Gully Project as the two most important projects in Kingwood because they help the largest numbers of people.

The 270-acre Woodridge Village Project is the aborted Perry Homes development purchased by Harris County and the City of Houston in 2020. It lies north of Sherwood Trails and Elm Grove in Montgomery County. Except for a few acres on the extreme western end, virtually all of it drains into Taylor Gully.

Perry’s contractors clearcut the Woodridge site starting in 2017 and sloped it toward Taylor Gully. Then before they installed detention ponds and drainage systems, runoff from the site flooded up to 600 homes twice in 2019. Residents had not even finished repairing their homes from the first flood in May, when they flooded again in September. A massive class action lawsuit resulted in a substantial settlement for the victims.

Taylor Gully Flooding May 7 2019 — *Taylor Gully flooding near Rustling Elms on May 7, 2019.*

Before purchasing Woodridge Village from Perry, HCFCD stipulated that they had to finish building all of the stormwater detention basins planned as part of the buildout. However, those detention basins only brought the property up to pre-Atlas 14 standards. They fell 40% short of Atlas 14 requirements.

Shortly after the purchase, HCFCD started building an additional detention basin to bring the total detention capacity onsite up to and beyond Atlas-14 requirements. Sprint Sand and Clay began the work under an excavation and removal (E&R) contract. E&R contracts give HCFCD a head start on production. They let contractors begin removing dirt for a nominal fee and then sell it on the open market to make up their profit margin.

However, when HCFCD applied for a HUD CDBG-MIT grant through the Texas General Land Office, HCFCD was forced to pause the project. That’s because projects cannot change while the GLO and HUD consider a grant request.

Scope of project outlined in preliminary engineering review. Compartment 1 is in current bid and will take project up to and slightly beyond Atlas 14 requirements. Compartment 2 will be treated as a separate project in the future if/when needed.

HCFCD applied for grants to:

Expand a portion of Taylor Gully and line it with concrete.
Build another stormwater detention basin on Woodridge Village holding 412 acre-feet.
Replace the culverts at Rustling Elms with a clear-span bridge.

Fast forward: GLO and HUD approved grants for $42 million in October, 2025. HCFCD put the project out for bids. And proposals are due by Feb. 16, 2026. See screen capture from County purchasing below.

*Screen capture supplied by Precinct 3 Engineer Eric Heppen*

Even though the bid above is listed as “channel conveyance improvements,” according to Woodell, it also includes the Woodridge Village Stormwater Detention Basin(s). “Since Woodridge mitigates Taylor Gully, those two projects have been combined forever after,” she said.

The HUD/GLO deadline for finishing the project is March 31, 2028. That’s do-able if everyone hustles.

Additional funding for this project came from U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw. He secured federal funding for Taylor Gully improvements in March 2022. And Representative Charles Cunningham helped secure state funding through the TWDB.

Press conference on status of Lake Houston Area flood-mitigation projects. — At a September 2024 press conference where Woodridge meets Taylor Gully. Left to Right, Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE, US Rep. Dan Crenshaw, HCFCD Exec. Dir. Dr. Tina Petersen, Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger and State Rep. Charles Cunningham.

More news to follow when we see the bids.

Posted by Bob Rehak on January 28, 2026

3074 Days since Hurricane Harvey