Despite occasional hurricanes and biblical rainfalls, there’s no place I’d rather live than the Lake Houston Area. Where else can you find all the amenities of Houston next to so much nature? Below are some of my favorite photos taken here over the years.
Fawn born on lawn outside my officeGreat egret returning to nestThe 5,000 acre Lake Houston Wilderness ParkHawk feeding outside my office.Painted bunting outside my office Roseate Spoonbill, East End Park, KingwoodAlligator at River Grove Park in KingwoodDuck at Cedar Landing in HuffmanGreat egret in breeding plumageRoseate spoonbillsDucks at Cedar Landing in HuffmanSnow geese taking wing over lake during fall migrationWest Fork San Jacinto at River Grove Park, looking east toward Lake Houston
And then there are the spectacular sunrises and sunsets. Dr. Charles Campbell, who specializes in functional medicine, took the two photos below. And good medicine they are!
Sunrise over the East Fork San Jacinto RiverSunset over Kingwood Lakes
I hope you find these images as restful and as spiritually rejuvenating as I do.
This area is worth preserving and protecting. Where else can you live next to beauty like this – inside the city limits of one of America’s largest cities?
Peace to all. And happy holidays.
Posted by Bob Rehak on December 22, 2023
2306 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/20050601-DSC_0004.JPG.jpg?fit=1100%2C731&ssl=17311100adminadmin2023-12-22 16:26:132023-12-23 08:49:06Happy Holidays from the Lake Houston Area
12/20/23 – Legal woes are mounting for Colony Ridge. Today, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed suit against the controversial Liberty County developer and the companies they own or control.
The government filed a complaint against land development companies Colony Ridge Development, LLC and Colony Ridge BV, LLC, affiliate mortgage company Colony Ridge Land, LLC (collectively, the Colony Ridge defendants), and loan origination company Loan Originator Services, LLC.
The Bureau and DOJ allege that defendants violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) by targeting consumers of Hispanic origin with a predatory loan product.
The Colony Ridge defendants violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA) by making deceptive representations to consumers.
Colony Ridge Development and Colony Ridge BV violated the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA) by making untrue statements, omitting material facts, failing to provide required accurate translations, and failing to report and disclose required information.
Defendants violated the CFPA by virtue of their violations of ECOA and ILSA, respectively.
Defendants’ conduct violated the Fair Housing Act.
Goal of Lawsuit
The joint complaint seeks, among other things, injunctions against defendants to prevent future violations of Federal consumer financial laws, redress to consumers, damages, and the imposition of civil money penalties.
DOJ and CFPB contend that the defendants operated an illegal land sales scheme and targeted tens of thousands of Hispanic borrowers with false statements and predatory loans.
Revolving Door Foreclosures that Targeted Hispanics
The joint DOJ/CFPB press release said that Colony Ridge “sells unsuspecting families flood-prone land without water, sewer, or electrical infrastructure, and that the company sets borrowers up to fail with loans they cannot afford. Roughly 1-in-4 Colony Ridge loans ends in foreclosure, after which the company repurchases the properties and sells them to new borrowers.” It amounted, say the plaintiffs to a “set-up-to-fail scheme that has led thousands of families to lose their dreams of homeownership.”
CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said, “Our investigation uncovered that Colony Ridge is baiting borrowers with lies, saddling families with predatory loans for homesites that the company knows have repeatedly flooded with raw sewage and lacked basic utility infrastructure.”
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General said, ““Today’s complaint alleges that Colony Ridge targeted Hispanic consumers with predatory loans, misled borrowers about the water, sewer, and electrical infrastructure on its lots, and exploited language barriers by conducting most of its marketing in Spanish while offering important transaction documents only in English.”
Foreclosure and property deed records from September 2019 through September 2022 show that Colony Ridge initiated foreclosures on at least 30% of seller-financed lots within just three years of the purchase date, with most loan failures occurring even sooner.
“Records also confirm that Colony Ridge accounted for more than 92% of all foreclosures recorded in Liberty County between 2017 and 2022.”
CFPB/DOJ Joint Press Release
The Entire Laundry List
The complaint cites a number of specific practices. It alleges that Colony Ridge:
Misleads borrowers about infrastructure on the lots it sells: Colony Ridge has falsely represented that lots in the Terrenos Houston subdivisions were sold with water, sewer, and electrical infrastructure already in place. ” It is only after applicants pay a non-refundable deposit that Colony Ridge discloses the properties may not provide those services and makes that disclosure only in English.”
Sells lots that flood with rain and raw sewage. The complaint alleges that Colony Ridge employees fail to inform borrowers of flood risk when lots have repeatedly flooded in the past, or falsely tells them the lots have not flooded. In fact, in parts of the subdivision, rain causes significant flooding, causing raw sewage to run through or around borrowers’ property, and damaging their personal belongings
Churns through borrowers in a cycle of foreclosure: When families fall behind on payments and enter foreclosure, it allows Colony Ridge to “flip” the properties by repurchasing and reselling them, often at higher prices. Foreclosure and property deed records show that Colony Ridge flipped at least 40% of all the properties it sold between September 2019 and September 2022, selling approximately 8,237 properties twice, 3,267 properties three times, and 2,067 properties four or more times in three years.
Targets Hispanic consumers with predatory loans: Through direct-to-consumer marketing on websites, social media engagement, and telemarketing, Colony Ridge targets Hispanic consumers. Colony Ridge then exploits language barriers during its sales process and uses high-pressure sales tactics to push borrowers to obtain their loan products quickly. The loans have exorbitant interest rates. Between 2017 and 2021, interest rates on Colony Ridge’s loans ranged from between 10.9% to 12.9%, while a standard 20-year fixed rate loan averaged 2.35% to 4.05% during the same timeframe. And in extending the loan, Colony Ridge and Loan Originator Services did not collect information needed to determine if applicants can afford the loan.
Exploits language barriers at borrowers’ expense: While Colony Ridge conducts most of its marketing activities in Spanish, when it comes to the actual transaction, it offers important documents only in English. Failing to offer borrowers accurate translations of contracts, deeds, and other documents in the language in which it conducts the sales and exploiting borrowers’ limited English proficiency violates federal law.
Nine stories since 2020 by investigative reporter Wayne Dolcefino about various aspects of Colony Ridge.
A story in Houston Landing about revolving door foreclosures. A team of reporters found that Colony Ridge sold over 35,000 properties. Nearly half (15,759 properties) ended up back in its hands. Some of the properties had as many as 9 different owners in the last decade.
A Daily Wire story exposing alleged corruption between Colony Ridge insiders and a municipal management district. The municipal management district, run by one of the developers, granted nearly $20 million in contracts to companies controlled by other family members and insiders.
Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey brought many of the drainage issues in front of Harris County Commissioners Court last October. No action has yet been taken at the county level.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/20/23
2304 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/2020/12/20201207-Aerial-Dec-2020_1210.jpg?fit=1200%2C813&ssl=18131200adminadmin2023-12-20 17:55:232023-12-20 18:24:45DOJ, CFPB Sue Colony Ridge for Bait-and-Switch, Predatory Lending, More
A new study of “climate migration” by the First Street Foundation looks at how flood-risk information affects real-estate sales. It found that the availability of high-resolution data affects home buying, sometimes in surprising ways.
The foundation’s mission is to make climate-risk data accessible, easy to understand and actionable for individuals, governments, and industry. It estimates different types of climate risk from flooding to fire, wind, drought and more – from the state to the county, zip code and street-address levels.
First Street’s most recent study is called “Climate Abandonment Areas.” But most of the important findings have to do with flooding. First Street published the study in the journal Nature-Communications on December 18, 2023.
Cover photo from First Street Foundation Climate Abandonment Areas Study.No credit listed.
Key Findings
Among First Street’s key findings:
Flood risk is a house-by-house issue, not a state-by-state issue. People may still move to states with high flood risk, but increasingly they’re using flood data to avoid risky neighborhoods and properties.
In the U.S., 34.5% of the population and 41.9% of the housing stock have been impacted by flooding.
Nationally, 7.4% of census blocks are beginning to lose population because of flood risk. Within them, 3.2 million people (35.5% of the decline) moved away because of flooding between 2000 and 2020.
Dr. Jeremy Porter, Head of Climate Implications Research at First Street, said “the downstream implications of this are massive and impact property values, neighborhood composition, and commercial viability both positively and negatively.”
As people leave to avoid flood risk, property values decline, affecting cities’ tax bases. Further, the population left behind tends to be older and poorer.
The study defines 9% of the census blocks in Harris County as “Climate Abandonment Areas.” It further claims Houston has passed a tipping point where more people are moving out than in, it says, because of flood risk.
Many areas have “pull factors” such as jobs that offset the number of people leaving. But their growth would be even higher if flood risk were lower. Said another way, areas with high flood risk grow more slowly if they grow at all.
Population losses are greatest among areas that flood frequently, i.e., a 5-year flood risk.
High-resolution information about flooding progressively reduced consideration of homes with high risk by 24.6% after 9-weeks of study.
Confusing Definitions, Frames of Reference
While this purports to be a study about how “climate change” affects “climate migration,” the numerous counter-intuitive climate-change references constantly obscure the findings.
For instance, the authors start out talking about wildfires, severe storms, flooding, drought, tropical storms and winter storms. But then they talk primarily about flooding in relation to people moving a matter of city blocks.
As a consequence, it gets confusing. “It appears that they are trying to fit a trend to the climate change agenda,” said one of the leading hydrologists in Texas.
One must read carefully to determine the frame of reference for each claim.
Good News, Bad News
The good news is that First Street data shows people seem to be paying more attention to flood risk when they purchase homes – assuming that good data is available.
The bad news is that good flood-risk data is often not available. Across our region, for instance, many areas remain unstudied. And recent data often remains unreported, i.e., in Harris County.
In the meantime, developers continue to build in floodplains. And new developments often don’t yet have listed addresses. So it’s hard to for homebuyers to estimate risk – even when using First Street’s models.
The hydrologist mentioned above felt First Street overcomplicated the issue. “This isn’t about climate change; it is about common sense. People built in places they shouldn’t have built decades ago and after enough disasters, people have had enough. They are moving. Floods have happened since the dawn of time and certainly before ‘climate change.’ Common sense tells you that people move when they have been hit hard and often enough.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/19/2023
2303 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/20231219-Screenshot-2023-12-19-at-4.52.33%E2%80%AFPM.jpg?fit=1100%2C681&ssl=16811100adminadmin2023-12-19 18:36:582023-12-19 18:53:12How Flood-Risk Information Affects Real-Estate Sales
According to a December 15 press release by the Texas Water Development Board, Phase 1 of Houston’s new Northeast Water Purification Plant expansion is nearing completion. Phase 1 will supply 80 million gallons per day of treated surface water to the residents of Harris County, Fort Bend County and City of Houston.
Two more phases remain. Phase 2A will deliver another 80 million gallons per day to the same areas. Phase 2B will deliver 160. So the entire complex, when complete, will deliver another 320 million gallons a day. That’s in addition to the 80 million gallons per day the original plant delivered before expansion.
Goals of Plant
The Texas Water Development Board provided $1.9 billion for the Northeast Water Purification Plant expansion project, making it one of the largest in the country.
The plant has two goals:
Provide water for a population that increases by almost a million people per decade.
Reduce groundwater usage and subsidence.
Completion Estimated in 2025
The TWDB did not provide a date for expected completion of the next two phases, but at a May 2023 community meeting, project managers estimated a completion date in 2025.
Artist’s rendering of completed project, looking NNW. Expansion area outlined in orange.Satellite photo from May with substantially complete phase outlined in red.Phase 1 in center of plant now substantially completed. Original plant is on far right.Photographed in August 2023.Phases 2A and 2B still under construction. Photographed in August 2023.Looking south.Entire plant. Looking east across older area toward new construction. Lake Houston at top of frame.Plant’s new Intake Facility.Those twin pipelines are big enough to drive pickup trucks through.
The Luce Interbasin Transfer Project is associated with the expansion of the treatment plant. The channel from the Trinity River will ensure a steady supply of water in Lake Houston as Montgomery County’s growth demands more water from Lake Conroe.
Inflation has reduced the 2018 Flood Bond’s purchasing power. The general rate of inflation during the last five years adds up to 20%. That could potentially eliminate one fifth of the projects in the flood bond.
It’s a serious concern for the people whose mitigation projects have been put at the end of the line by the County’s Equity Prioritization Framework. Some residents may never see any benefit from their tax dollars, which are going to other areas.
Here’s how Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) will look at projects that now have an uncertain future.
Local Costs Consistent with General Rate of Inflation
In a presentation to the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force, Jesal Shah PE, the new Chief Project Delivery Officer for HCFCD, discussed the issue of inflation. Shah, a Houston native, has been in his job since May, 2023. He previously led flood-risk reduction planning, design, engineering, and construction efforts for the government of British Columbia.
Shah cited 15-20% increases in construction, material, and right-of-way acquisition costs for Harris County flood-mitigation projects.
This and other screen captures below arefrom Shah’s presentation to Flood Task Forceon 12/14/23.
Summary of 2018 Flood-Bond Funding To Date
The 2018 flood bond contained $2.5 billion in funding for approximately $5 billion worth of projects. Partnership funding, i.e., grants, were supposed to make up the difference.
And at this point, all of the partnership funding has been secured thanks to an infusion of $825 million in Community Development Block Grant funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Texas General Land Office (GLO).
“Anticipated”should now be removed from this slide.
That’s very good news.
63% of Bonds Sold Already
Shah says that the County has sold $1.575 billion worth of bonds to date, almost two thirds of the original $2.5 billion.
Of the two thirds, about half the money has been spent or “encumbered.” Encumbered means the money is committed to projects and difficult to move. For instance, a project may be in construction, but not yet completed.
The other half has been committed to projects, but not yet encumbered. For instance, bonds may have been sold, but the construction job may not have been awarded yet.
See below.
Securing the partner funding is huge good news. But the impact of inflation is worrisome. To help deal with that, the County is re-evaluating all projects associated with the flood bond.
How Projects are Being Re-evaluated
Shah cited three types of projects listed in the original bond. Those with:
Well defined scope and accurate estimates.
Clear scope but inaccurate estimates. For instance, the Lauder basin has almost tripled its original cost estimate.
Vague scope and unreliable estimates.
See examples below.
To complicate matters, some backstop funding from the Flood Resilience Trust is no longer available because of new “guidance” from Commissioners Court. That will eliminate $343 million in funding flexibility.
And keep this in mind. The bond program is far from complete. We could easily see another 15-20% of inflation before its over. So what to do?
Sharpening the Pencil
Shah’s team is dividing the remaining bond projects into two piles.
Those with clear scope and funding will be completed.
Those without clear scope or funding will be re-evaluated.
Shah hopes to present an updated project list to Commissioners Court sometime during the second quarter of 2024.
Shah has already taken a first pass at re-evaluating the bond’s project list. Of the 181 projects identified in the bond:
30 have already been completed or eliminated.
63 will continue moving forward.
88 (almost half) will need more funding or more clarity (i.e., more engineering studies/tighter estimates) to move forward.
The slide below shows the guiding principles for evaluating the 88 projects that need more funding or clarity.
Lack of Balance Could Jeopardize Future Bond Offerings
One possible way to mitigate the toll of inflation involves phasing projects in areas that have already received large amounts of funding so that projects in areas that received little funding could move forward.
For instance, in a project that involves multiple stormwater detention basins, one or more of the basins could be delayed until the next bond. Meanwhile, delaying that basin could free up money for a basin in a different watershed.
However, during Q&A, Shah said he has no plans to phase projects.
A lack of equitable distribution could jeopardize future bond offerings.
And many areas have received little funding from this bond.
More than a 100 to 1 difference exists between projects on the left and right.
In the future, voters who saw no benefit from the 2018 flood bond might, once again, feel victimized by bait-and-switch tactics.
Selling future bonds will require restoring faith in the fairness of government. And that will require spreading bond funds around so that everyone – in all parts of the county – sees some benefit from them. That’s my humble opinion.
When HCFCD presents its updated project list to Commissioners Court in the second quarter of 2024, it will be interesting to see whether Commissioners and the County Judge agree with it.
John Whitmire’s landslide election in the Houston Mayor’s race may send a message to them. Whitmire is a Democrat who campaigned across the aisle and received heavy Republican support.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/16/2023
2300 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/20231214-Screenshot-2023-12-14-at-6.16.06%E2%80%AFPM.jpg?fit=1100%2C704&ssl=17041100adminadmin2023-12-16 14:47:262023-12-17 10:47:10HCFCD Grappling with Inflation’s Impact on Flood-Bond Purchasing Power
For residents of flood-prone areas such as Northpark South, only the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) stands between a river and ruin.
But ironically, efforts to staunch financial hemhorraging are making NFIP flood insurance unaffordable for many with low incomes. That creates an uncertain future for developments and people in or near floodplains.
Moreover, Congress must reauthorize NFIP before midnight on Feb. 2, 2024, to avoid a lapse in authority to sell flood insurance and borrow funds.
Approximately six million homes sit in special flood hazard areas nationwide. The National Association of Realtors estimates that should a lapse in the NFIP’s authorization occur, it threatens 1,300 property sales each day.
Hurricane Harvey inundated the area below with approximately eight feet of floodwater. Now, Century Land Holdings of Texas is clearing this risky area bordering the San Jacinto West Fork to build more than 230 homes.
This 50-acre patch of dirt is a symbolic battlefield in a growing debate over NFIP, which Congress must renew or reform next year.
Jobs vs. Jitters
A coalition of developers, home builders, realtors and mortgage lenders sees the NFIP’s nationally subsidized insurance rates as a tool to sustain employment, grow the economy, and enlarge the tax base of communities.
Others believe the subsidies encourage dangerous development in flood-prone areas by giving homebuyers a false sense of security.
Finding the right balance between encouraging responsible development and mitigating flood risks is a complex task for policymakers. Perhaps nowhere do the issues come into sharper focus than in Northpark South. Even the entrance to the subdivision was under eight feet of water. That would make evacuation difficult for anyone caught napping when the waters rise.
Contradictory Lawsuits Against FEMA
Contradictory lawsuits symbolize the two sides in this debate. An article in Government Executive noted that FEMA is being sued for making flood insurance too expensive AND too cheap!
The second lawsuit alleges taxpayer-subsidized, discounted coverage encourages floodplain development in high-hazard areas by providing insurance policies that obscure risk to property owners.
“This FEMA-incentivized development puts people in danger, harms communities, and destroys ecosystems.”
The contradictory allegations in the lawsuits underscore the need for careful policymaking around flood insurance.
Battle over Risk Rating 2.0
What triggered these lawsuits? FEMA has tried to navigate these dangerous waters by introducing a new system called Risk Rating 2.0. Risk Rating 2.0 reflects risk to individual properties from multiple sources of flooding, instead of aggregating people in broad flood zones. It also takes into account factors such as building codes and elevation that can mitigate flood risk.
Risk Rating 2.0 is an attempt to eliminate the subsidy aspect of flood insurance by quoting rates on an actuarial basis. Reportedly, some homeowner’s flood insurance rates have fallen, but others are rising and will continue to rise for years to come as risk becomes fully priced into policies. Texas and other Gulf Coast states are in the highest premium increase group, according to GAO.
Right now, law caps annual rate increases under Risk Rating 2.0. But the Congressional Accounting Office says caps only perpetuate an unfunded premium shortfall. GAO estimated it would take until 2037 for 95 percent of current policies to reach full-risk premiums, resulting in a $27 billion premium shortfall by then.
GAO also believes that discounted premiums hide fiscal exposure, address affordability poorly and hinder private-market growth.
In the meantime…
People who buy homes in Northpark South may find insurance affordable today and then find themselves quickly priced out of the market because of risk.
Higher premiums give policy holders a greater incentive to mitigate flood risk. But they’re also causing many homeowners to cancel policies.
One Congressional aid I talked to worried that if not enough people buy flood insurance, places like Northpark South will become “instant slums” after the first time they flood.
The reality: those who most need flood insurance can least afford it.
The GAO report comes as close to riveting reading as any government document I have ever read. Among other things, it points out how FEMA’s Community Rating System may send contradictory risk signals to potential buyers.
Approximately 236 homes and an 11.2 acre detention basin will be nestled between sand pits and occasional raging floodwaters.Northpark is the divided street in the background.Kingwood is beyond.
When Congress takes up NFIP next year, debate could lead to additional reforms. Watch closely. No one can predict the outcome at this point. Lobbyists are choosing up sides … between property rights and protection. Between a river and ruin.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/14/23
2298 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/2023/12/20231213-DJI_0385.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2023-12-14 13:08:102023-12-14 13:42:45Between a River and Ruin
The Texas Water Development Board is seeking public comment on its plan to allocate $375 million in funding from the State’s flood infrastructure fund for the 2024-25 state fiscal year.
That prompted me to compare the TWDB and Harris County plans for ranking flood projects. The differences remind me of how the scoring systems favor certain projects in some areas and not others.
Harris County and the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) use distinctly different priorities when considering which flood-mitigation projects to fund.
The biggest differences have to do with the weights given to severity of flooding, protection of infrastructure, social vulnerability and maintenance costs.
The state also uses “benefit/cost ratios” much like the federal government. The county, however, uses a measure called “project efficiency,” which is related but slightly different.
Let’s look more closely at each plan and then examine their differences.
Harris County Prioritization Framework
Harris County examines:
Project Efficiency…
Using People Benefitted
Using Structures Benefitted
Existing Conditions
Social Vulnerability Index
Long Term Maintenance Costs
Environmental Impacts
Potential for Multiple Benefits
Each project is assigned a score for each criterion below ranging from 0 to 10. A score of “10” indicates the project fully met the criterion and a score of “0” indicates that it did not.
Summary of ranking matrix from page 4 of Harris County Framework. For explanations of scoring on each measure, see full document.
Proposed TWDB Matrix
The TWDB scoring matrix measures more factors and gives them different weights.
The first thing you notice is that the table above is much wider and deeper than the County’s matrix. That’s because it lists evaluation criteria for different categories. And criteria sometimes change depending on the category.
Comparison of Differences
Social Vulnerability
Harris County gives 20% of all projects’ weights to social vulnerability. But the TWDB only gives it 5% weight. TWDB also uses social vulnerability as a tie breaker (see page 22).
Equity
Harris County has organized its flood-mitigation priorities since 2019 around equity. The proposed TWDB plan does not mention the word.
Efficiency
Harris County measures the efficiency of removing people and structures from the 100-year floodplain. The County defines efficiency as the cost of the project divided by the number of people or structures benefited. It gives them 45% weight within the final score.
TWDB also measures the number of people and structures removed from the 100-year floodplain. But unlike the county, it factors in critical facilities, the number of low water crossings, and miles of roads removed from the 100-year floodplain. Combined, they represent 55% of the weight. TWDB does not weigh cost against these measures at this point in its scoring matrix. However, it separately gives 2.5% weight to benefit/cost ratios.
Flood Risk
Harris County does not directly incorporate flood risk in its evaluations. It uses a proxy called “Existing Conditions” and gives it 20% weight. Existing Conditions measures the level of service provided by a detention basin or a channel. For instance, one with a 2-year level of service floods in a 2-year storm. One with a 25-year level of service floods in a 25-year storm, etc.
TWDB does not directly measure flood risk either. Rather it measures the number of structures, people, critical facilities, low-water crossings and road miles inside the 100-year floodplain. It’s a measure of what is “at risk.” These measures collectively add up to 100% of the score for a flood-management evaluation and 60% of the score for a flood-management strategy.
Severity
Harris County gives no weight to the severity of flooding. TWDB does. TWDB measures both the average depth of flooding in a 100-year storm and the percentage of a community’s population exposed to a 100-year flood. Together, they can account for 10% of a project’s total score.
Critical Facilities
Harris County does not differentiate among structures removed from a 100-year floodplain. But TWDB recognizes critical facilities. Such facilities could include sewage and water treatment plants; bridges; schools; hospitals; police and fire stations; and more. These affect entire communities, not just individuals.
Maintenance Costs
Harris County projects maintenance costs and gives them 5% of the weight. TWDB does NOT consider costs associated with current or future operations and maintenance activities.
No Right or Wrong Way
Neither the TWDB plan, nor the County’s plan is right or wrong. Their weights reflect the needs of different people and different organizations in different places. For instance, the state is not involved in maintenance, but maintenance historically has consumed as much as 50% of Harris County Flood Control District’s budget. So it makes sense for the county to prioritize low maintenance costs.
However, I would observe that Harris County could borrow some ideas from the state, such as incorporating measures for severity of flooding, protection of life, and protection of critical facilities. The areas that had the deepest flooding and the highest loss of life during Harvey have received little flood-mitigation assistance from Harris County compared to poor areas.
What happens when 240,000 cubic feet per second, 20-foot-high floodwaters tear through your home.When sewage-contaminated floodwater invaded Kingwood High School to the third floor,4,000 students had to study in shifts at another high school an hour away for a year.
What Do You Think?
TWDB seeks public comment on its proposed plan by January 1, 2024. What do you think? Based on your flood experience, do you think TWDB could do something better? Let them know.
Their plan includes more information than shown above. For instance, it also includes information on eligibility, minimum standards, program timeline, and financial assistance categories.
If you wish to comment email FIF@twdb.texas.gov and specify in the subject line “FIF IUP Comments.” Should you have any questions, please contact the TWDB by emailing the same address.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/11/23
2295 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/KHS-e1702338318946.jpg?fit=1100%2C616&ssl=16161100adminadmin2023-12-11 17:47:242023-12-12 07:12:39Differences in Ways County, State Propose Ranking Flood Projects
In the 2023 runoff election for Mayor of Houston, John Whitmire won by a landslide. Kingwood voted for Whitmire at much higher rates than the city as a whole. He won 91.4% of the votes in Kingwood – a 10.6 to 1 margin of victory over Sheila Jackson Lee, compared to 1.9 to 1 for the City as a whole.
Most of Undecideds Sided with Whitmire
Whitmire enjoyed a 7% lead over Lee in early polls, but picked up most of the undecideds. He finished with a convincing 65.26% to 34.74% victory, not quite a 2:1 margin.
Citywide, Whitmire won by a margin of 60,275 votes. In Kingwood, he beat Jackson Lee by 8,734 votes – 14.5% of his citywide margin.
That’s remarkable for two reasons.
Kingwood has only 3% of the City’s population (about 70,000 out of 2.2 million).
Kingwood had 5% of the total voters in the runoff.
Among the City’s 1.2 million registered voters, turnout was a meager 16.92%. But among Kingwood’s 44,000 registered voters, turnout was 23.86% – 7 percentage points higher.
Ten of Kingwood’s 12 precincts had turnout in the top quintile of all precincts.
So, Kingwood had higher turnout than most areas and those who voted preferred Whitmire overwhelmingly.
Meaning of Whitmire Win
Whitmire ran a positive campaign focused on crime, the economy, drainage/infrastructure, city services and bringing Houston together.
Kingwood is traditionally Republican. Kingwood’s overwhelming endorsement of the moderate Democrat may herald a sea change in local politics. Here, in this election, in this place, at this time, voters buried partisan politics and reached across the aisle to support centrist viewpoints that benefit the majority.
Precinct-By-Precinct Rundown
Kingwood has 12 voting precincts.
Kingwood voting precincts. 948 is all commercial and had no registered voters.
Here are the totals for each candidate in each precinct from HarrisVotes.com. See how your neighbors voted.
Whitmire vs Lee in Kingwood
Precinct
J. Whitmire
S. J. Lee
Total
JW Win %
199
717
69
786
91.2%
340
620
74
694
89.3%
357
664
78
742
89.5%
459
1,029
106
1,135
90.7%
469
883
56
939
94.0%
546
833
39
872
95.5%
563
829
80
909
91.2%
590
668
43
711
94.0%
612
775
84
859
90.2%
635
530
77
607
87.3%
670
999
81
1,080
92.5%
758
1,094
120
1,214
90.1%
Kingwood Total
9,641
907
10,548
91.4%
Citywide Total
128,908
68,633
197,541
65.3%
Kingwood Tallies & Totals vs. Citywide in Whitmire/Lee runoff.
It appears to me that Sheila Jackson Lee’s winner-take-all politics of polarization backfired on her this time. I haven’t yet had time to check other Republican-leaning areas, but in Kingwood, it seems that Republican’s arms didn’t stretch to her extremes.
The Candidate Now Has a Mandate
While Whitmire could have won the City convincingly without Kingwood, he won it dramatically with Kingwood. He will start the job with a broad mandate.
Whitmire still has huge challenges to face. Now comes the hard part of governing a city saddled with debt.
This is a week for good news and bad. Yesterday, we locked in another $50 million for the Lake Houston Gates Project. But one of the key people who helped us secure that funding is himself locked in a runoff election for City of Houston Mayor. And turnout so far has been abysmally low.
Whitmire Helped Secure $50 Million for Gates from State
More about the good news first. Yesterday, the Texas Water Development Board officially confirmed a $50 million grant to help build additional floodgates on the Lake Houston Dam. That will clear the way for final design, approvals and construction.
State Senator John Whitmire, candidate for City of Houston Mayor, helped secure that money. According to Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin, who has shepherded the gates project since Hurricane Harvey, Whitmire reportedly talked several reluctant senators into supporting the grant. Whitmire has been in the Texas Senate for 40 years and sits on the Finance Committee.
So Whitmire already has some skin invested in the gates project. If elected Mayor, he could provide necessary consistency for the project as it moves forward during the next four years.
Martin also reminded me that future FEMA grants for Lake Houston will depend on a maintenance dredging program. So, we need a mayor who can work with the state legislature to help secure future dredging grants. And Whitmire has relationships with all the key players in Austin.
Turnout Abysmally Low
Now, for more on the bad news. Turnout in the Houston runoff election so far has been “sluggish” according to the Houston Chronicle.
I personally would call it “somewhere south of abysmal.” Only 131,887 people in a City with roughly 1.75 million adults voted early. So, less than 10% of Houston adults have voted so far in what could be the most consequential election of this generation!
Why Mayor is Crucial
After Harvey, the Lake Houston Area Task Force identified more gates for Lake Houston as one of the three most crucial projects to reduce flooding in the area. In case you’re new here, this is what the San Jacinto West Fork looked like during Harvey.
Looking south toward Humble along US59.Water here was more than 20 feet above flood stage, the highest in Harris Countyand knocked out the southbound bridge for almost a year.
The flood affected 16,000 homes and 3,300 businesses in the Lake Houston area. That included 44% of all the businesses in the Lake Houston Chamber and 100% of all the businesses in Kingwood Town Center, which still hasn’t fully recovered. At the time, many people said, “If it happens again, I’m leaving.” That said…
It will likely take four years to complete the gates – the entire term of the next mayor. We need a mayor who will remain committed to the project.
The Mayor has the power to prioritize the project…or not.
This election could determine the future direction of our community and the City for decades to come.
Four 500-Year Storms in Eight Years
And lest you think a 500-year flood only happens once every 500 years, I would remind you that four hit this area in the last eight years: Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey, and Imelda.
We Have Power to Swing This Election
Now for the final piece of good news. So few people are voting throughout the City that Kingwood has the power to swing this election on Saturday.
Only 8,381 people have voted so far at the Kingwood Community Center – in a community of more than 70,000 people. While that’s one of the highest totals in the county, it still leaves the citywide outcome in doubt.
So please vote. Get your neighbors to vote. And get your neighbors to get their neighbors to vote. Etc.
When I voted early, I got to the polling place and back before my screen saver kicked in. It took less than 20 minutes round trip. With so much at stake, there’s just no excuse not to vote.
Voting Times, Places, Ballots, Etc.
Remember, races for several council positions and city controller remain open. View your sample ballot here.
Misleading statements. Broken promises. Redefining commonly accepted meanings of words. Math that doesn’t add up. Gobbledygook explanations. These practices have all become “business as usual” in Harris County Commissioners Court. And they come with a high price tag.
Bait-and-Switch Bonds
To get the 2022 Road and Parks Bond approved, County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Commissioner Adrian Garcia, and Commissioner Rodney Ellis voted to allocate a minimum of $220 million to each precinct. They heavily promoted the guaranteed minimum in pre-referendum advertising, online and in community meetings.
Screen capture from County bond web site shows two promises were broken.
A short while after voters approved the bond, the Democrats voted to shortchange Precinct 3 by $32.5 million – even though P3 has 47% of the county’s roads and 35% of the county’s parks. They also voted to give $110 million to Harris County Engineering for administration.
Commissioner Ramsey has been trying to win back the amount P3 voters were shortchanged. But in a 10/31/2023 meeting, Commissioners Garcia and Ellis implied that their portions of funding were already spent, so they couldn’t be reallocated.
Said Garcia, “Right now, of the allocation that I’ve got, my guys have already let that out the door. Yeah.”
Ellis replied, “Yeah, we’ve already committed our funds as well.”
However, when I asked the Harris County Engineering Department for a list of projects funded by the 2022 Road and Parks Bond, they could find no records responsive to my request.
Reviewing bids approved by Harris County’s Commissioners Court between January 1 and November 6 of this year showed that Ellis has spent less than a million dollars on road improvements. Ellis and Garcia together spent less than $7.7 million on road projects. So how did $562 million get “out the door”?
They may have “plans” for spending $562 million, but so far, they’ve only actually spent somewhere between $0.00 and $7.7 million from the bond.
Their choice of words implied that even if they wanted to achieve a fairer balance, it was too late. Did they chose those words accidentally or intentionally?
In the same meeting, Judge Hidalgo and Budget Director Daniel Ramos tried to explain why they shortchanged Precinct 3 in the first place.
Lina Hidalgo’s Explanation
Hidalgo said, “What I have here, and maybe Ramos can jump in, is that we approved 220 to each precinct and the remaining balance according to SVI, because we hadn’t thought about … there’s overhead costs of 110 million. And I think that just literally nobody thought about it. I asked my team, ‘Go back at the notes and see if you know anybody had that anywhere and just hit it or whatever.’ Well, it’s not anywhere. So then by the time January rolled around, the budget folks or whomever came back and said, you know, we actually have to shave 110 off the top. And so, then we changed it from 220 to 175, given that we shaved 110 off the top. So, it’s 175 minimum for each precinct and the rest according to SVI.”
SVI refers to the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index.
Issues with Hidalgo Explanation
First, she broke a promise to voters. But there are several other problems:
If overhead costs were really $110 million, you would reduce the minimum for each precinct by $27.5 million, not $45 million. Said another way, $45 million per precinct adds up to $180 million, not $110.
Why are we paying current employee salaries out of bonds that will require interest payments for a decade or more? Especially when the County said it wouldn’t use any bond money to fund day-to-day operations. (See screen capture above.)
The much larger flood bond in 2018 had zero for administrative overhead (although admittedly there were $10 million worth of legal and accounting fees associated with buying the bonds).
Ramos Explanation
Budget Director Daniel Ramos then said to Hidalgo, “You’re correct. So, I believe in January, sorry, the first or second quarter, this new constituted body came back and changed the formula. One: to carve off 110% or, sorry, 10% off of the 900 million for roads and parks to allocate to the county engineer and then precinct 2 put up a motion to do 70, a little over 70%, which is the 175 number plus, and the remainder, which is 29.8%, give or take, for SVI. And that’s where we are today. And that vote passed four zero …”
Problems with Ramos’ Explanation
While purporting to support Hidalgo, Ramos’ explanation contradicts hers. Seventy percent of 220 is 154, not 175. The bond was for $1.1 billion, not $900 million. And his explanation has the feel of a major-league curve ball.
The 2022 Road and Parks Bond was a classic bait-and-switch scheme. And it’s not the first time such deception happened.
Flood-Bond Deception
The same leaders did the same thing after the 2018 flood bond passed. Ellis even bragged openly in commissioners court about how he tricked voters.
The three Democrats promised to focus flood control spending on the hardest hit areas first. But they have not. They defined “worst first” to mean the “poorest” watersheds, not those that had the “most severe flooding.”
Such explanations and actions undermine the credibility of elected officials and trust in government.
These are not little, white lies. They are whoppers involving billions of dollars.
Worse, because of inflation, affluent areas that desperately need flood mitigation may get none. Twenty-percent inflation since 2020 has trimmed $1 billion off the purchasing power of the 2018 flood bond.
So areas that ranked low on the Democrat’s Equity Prioritization Framework may get little or no help from the tax dollars they approved.
Loss of trust could jeopardize future bonds. After the bait and switch with the 2018 Flood Bond, the 2022 Road and Parks bond received far less support, even with the guaranteed minimum per precinct.
To come together, leaders must stop misleading. They must promise what they will deliver and deliver what they promise. Or we’ll all wind up in the semantic rubber room wondering what’s real and what’s not.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/7/23
2291 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/20231207-Screenshot-2023-12-07-at-11.22.17%E2%80%AFAM.jpg?fit=1100%2C616&ssl=16161100adminadmin2023-12-07 14:55:372023-12-08 06:57:04Editorial: What Happens When Leaders Become Misleaders
