Tropical Cyclones Costliest Type of Weather-Related Disaster By Far

Since 1980, tropical cyclones have been the costliest type of weather-related disaster in the United States, according to NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). The NCEI study includes events that caused at least one billion dollars in damages when adjusted for inflation.

Accounting for just under a fifth (17.6%) of the total number of events, tropical cyclones have caused more than half (53.8%) of the total damages.

Tropical cyclones also cause more deaths than any other type of weather-related disaster.

Types of Events Compared

NCEI monitors the following types of disasters:

  • Hurricanes
  • Drought
  • Inland floods
  • Severe local storms
  • Wildfires
  • Crop freeze events
  • Winter storms

Damages Quantified

Since 1980, the U.S. has sustained at least 341 billion-dollar, weather disasters (including Consumer Price Index adjustment to 2022). The total cost of these 341 events exceeds $2.4 trillion.

Out of that total, tropical cyclones have caused a combined $1.3 trillion in total damages—with an average of $22.2 billion per event. They leave droughts in the dust. Droughts are the second costliest.

Rank ordered based on average cost per event, they line up like this:

  • Tropical Cyclones – $22.2 billion
  • Drought – $10.9 billion
  • Wildfires – $6.3 billion
  • Flooding – $4.8 billion
  • Winter storms – $4.3 billion
  • Freezes – $3.9 billion
  • Severe storms – $2.4 billion

The table below contains additional information about the frequency of billion dollar events, their total costs, and the number of deaths they cause.

NCEI Billion-Dollar Storm Statistics

No Region Immune

All parts of the county experience weather-related disasters. The dominant types of disasters vary by region. For instance winter storms are more costly in the north, droughts in the plains, and tropical cyclones along seaboards.

Cost of Disasters Increasing


Both the number and cost of billion-dollar weather-related disasters are increasing over time. Here’s the breakdown by year.

NCEI Billion Dollar Time Series 1980 through Jan. 2023

Reasons Cited for Increases

Exercise caution when interpreting the upward slope of the graph above. It would be easy to attribute the slope solely to climate change and many people will,

But NCEI points out that increases in population, and material wealth over the last several decades are an important factor for higher damages. So are the locations of population concentrations and failure to adopt better building codes.

“These trends are further complicated by the fact that many population centers and infrastructure exist in vulnerable areas like coasts and river floodplains, while building codes are often insufficient in reducing damage from extreme events,” says NCEI.

Data Sources

In calculating the cost assessments, we receive input from a variety of public and private data sources including:

  • Insurance Services Office
  • Federal Emergency Management Agency
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • National Interagency Fire Center
  • Energy Information Administration
  • U.S. Army Corps
  • State agencies
  • Other partners

Costs Include…

Each of these data sources provides key pieces of information that capture the total, direct costs—both insured and uninsured—of weather and climate events. These costs include:

  • Physical damage to residential, commercial, and government or municipal buildings
  • Material assets within a building
  • Time element losses like business interruption
  • Vehicles and boats
  • Offshore energy platforms, electrical infrastructure, military bases
  • Public infrastructure like roads, bridges, levees, buildings
  • Agricultural assets like crops, livestock, and timber
  • Disaster restoration and wildfire suppression costs

One of the key transformations is scaling up insured loss data to account for uninsured and underinsured losses, which differs by peril, geography, and asset class.

Costs Do Not Include…

However, these loss assessments do not take into account losses to natural capital or assets, health-care-related losses, or values associated with loss of life. Therefore, consider NCEI estimates conservative with respect to what is truly lost, but cannot be completely measured.

Posted by Bob Rehak based on Information from NCEI

2034 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Why Rivers Move

Have you ever flown over a winding river and wondered why rivers move? Why do they wander across the landscape and evolve the way they do? The lower Mississippi River and its delta form a spectacular example. But others are all around us.

Take, for instance, the Trinity River where it enters Galveston Bay. Or look on any map. You will likely see landscapes carved by rivers that leave evidence of their former paths behind.

But why do rivers change course? The brilliantly simple YouTube Video by Practical Engineering below describes the basics of “fluvial geomorphology.” That fancy phrase describes the science behind the shape of rivers.

Why Rivers Move by Practical Engineering

The Mathematics of Geological Change

Back in 1944, a geologist named Harold Fisk, Ph.D., then a professor at Louisiana State, produced a report for the Army Corps of Engineers called “Geological Investigation of the Alluvial Valley of the Lower Mississippi River.”

Fisk produced gorgeous historical maps of the river snaking across miles of river valley.

Screen capture of historical river maps by Harold Fisk shown in Why Rivers Move by Practical Engineering Video.

A decade later, Emory Lane, a civil engineer and hydrologist at Colorado State University, went on to develop a unified theory of sediment transport. His theory explains the movement and shape of such rivers in an “equation” that uses just four variables:

  • Quantity of sediment carried by the water
  • Median sediment size
  • Quantity of water
  • Slope of the landscape (length divided by elevation change)

Lane’s “equation” looks like this.

Screen capture of Lane’s equation from Why Rivers Move by Practical Engineering.

That funny symbol in the middle means ‘is proportional to.’ Scientists use it to show something that varies in relation to something else.

If you change one variable, one or more other variables change to bring the river back to its “normal” state. Scientists and engineers still use this formula today.

It means that in a stable stream, the flow of water multiplied by the slope is proportional to the amount of sediment being transported times the size of that sediment. (But don’t let that scare you!)

From Stream-Table Models to Real World

In the abstract, that may be a lot for average people to wrap their heads around. So the video uses a “stream table” and balance-scale model to illustrate what happens when you change each variable. They bring the formula to life and make it easy to understand. For example…

More water (say, in a flood) can move more and larger sediment. So, the banks of a river erode.

This can threaten roads, pipelines, and property. The eventual deposition of all that sediment can also choke a channel and contribute to flooding. Or fill up reservoirs and reduce water supply.

Sound familiar? All those things happened in the Lake Houston area.

To restore balance, the river changes its slope by increasing its length. This explains the meanders found in most rivers in this region. A meandering river wanders back and forth across the landscape like a snake instead of making a straight line through it.

Wherever slight bends occur, the river scours the outside of the curve (called the cut bank). That’s because the water moves faster on the outside of a curve. The river then deposits larger particles of sediment on inside curves farther downriver (called point bars) where water moves slower.

Eventually these curves in a river become so exaggerated, that they cut themselves off, leaving oxbow lakes behind.

Screen capture of meandering river and oxbow lakes from Practical Engineering video.

This National Park Service page contains an excellent series of illustrations that show the evolution of meanders over time plus their migration across the landscape.

Lane’s equation predicts that there’s no such thing as a stable river. All rivers change all the time in response floods, drought, development, dams, sand mining, farming and more.

When Natural Systems Lose Balance…

At every point along a river or stream, erosion and deposition are constantly balancing each other.

But Lane’s equation can’t predict exactly where or when a river will move. Nor can it predict the rate of change. The Practical Engineering video points out that the rate and volume of change depend on other factors not in the equation, such as vegetation and the “pulsing” of flows as you might see downstream of a dam like the one on Lake Conroe.

The screen capture below shows what happened in models comparing a steady flow and a pulsed flow.

Screen capture shows erosion differences between steady flow (left) and pulsed flows (right) using the same volume of water.

The pulsed flow creates much more erosion and faster movement of channels. And that has many real world implications.

Who Should Watch This Video?

This 16-minute video is a real eye opener for a variety of audiences. It’s suitable for students from late middle school and up. You don’t need to be a math or science whiz to understand it. Its power is its simplicity.

Among students, the video may stimulate curiosity in earth sciences, engineering, math, economics, history and urban planning. And for adults, it shows how four variables tie them all together.

It makes a great tutorial for policy makers struggling with issues such as setbacks from rivers for homes and businesses.

In addition, everyone who lives near or is considering buying property near a river, stream or channel should view this.

The producers say the next video in the Why-Rivers-Move series will show how human changes affect the flow of rivers. Can’t wait!

My thanks to Dr. Matthew Berg, CEO of Simfero Consultants for bringing this to my attention.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/24/23

2033 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Plum Grove, Splendora, Liberty, Others Receive HUD Grants Through GLO

GLO Commissioner Dawn Buckingham, M.D., announced yesterday more than $43 million in HUD grants for 44 infrastructure projects stemming from 2019 Disasters. The $43 million is the combined total of grants made to counties and cities stretching from the Rio Grande Valley to southeast Texas.

Counties where 2019 community development block grant disaster-relief (CDBG-DR) money will be distributed for infrastructure projects.

The infrastructure-project grants will help communities recover from the 2019 South Texas Floods as well as Tropical Storm Imelda, which devastated SE Texas.

List of Recipients

The funds will be used to improve streets as well as water and drainage facilities in:

  • Counties:
    • Cameron
    • Chambers
    • Harris
    • Hidalgo
    • Jefferson
    • Liberty
    • Montgomery
    • Orange
    • San Jacinto
    • Willacy
  • Cities
    • Beaumont
    • China
    • Combes
    • Daisetta
    • La Feria
    • La Villa
    • Laguna Vista
    • Liberty
    • Mercedes
    • Mission
    • Nome
    • Old River-Winfree
    • Orange
    • Palmview
    • Pasadena
    • Pine Forest
    • Pinehurst
    • Plum Grove
    • Port Arthur
    • Port Isabel
    • Primera
    • Rio Hondo
    • Santa Rosa
    • Splendora
    • Vidor
    • West Orange
    • Woodloch 

“Here to Help”

“Consecutive disasters have devastated communities in the Lower Rio Grande Valley and Southeast Texas, but the Texas General Land Office is here to help,” said Commissioner Buckingham. “These critical infrastructure awards will divert floodwaters away from homes, increase the resiliency of communities to respond to natural disasters, and restore peace of mind when the next storm hits.”

Texas GLO 2019 Disaster-Recovery Funds

The Texas General Land Office (GLO) is administering $227,510,000 in Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) related to 2019 flooding. This is separate from the $750 million in mitigation funding related to Harvey and Harris County.

Out of the $227.5 million, GLO allocated $61,430,000 in disaster recovery funds for infrastructure projects. They will assist disaster relief, long-term recovery, and restoration of infrastructure for local communities. The rest of $227 million was allocated to grants that help individuals recover.

GLO announced the opening of the application for eligible counties and cities on March 15, 2022. Applications closed on August 1, 2022. Each applicant was eligible to submit a total of two applications. All activities had to contribute to the long-term recovery and restoration of infrastructure.

The GLO recognizes that repair and enhancements of local infrastructure are crucial components of long-term recovery and viability of communities.

To learn more, visit https://recovery.texas.gov/2018-floods-2019-disasters/programs/2019-disasters-infrastructure-competition/index.html.

Plum Grove Drainage Improvements – $1,000,000

Tropical Storm Imelda released an unprecedented 3-day total rainfall amount of 28 inches on Plum Grove. That limited the city’s ability to provide an immediate response due to the inundation of flood water. As a result, this project will provide much-needed drainage improvements within Orange Branch Creek which is located in the middle of the city and runs from the northeast down to the southeast. The project will install culverts and restore roads.

Splendora Lift Station Drainage Improvements – $596,625

Imelda flooding submerged the Pinewood Lift Station site, as well as its emergency generator and electrical switchgear located at the northern intersection of Pinewood Drive and First Street. Loss of both primary and emergency back-up power led to a sanitary sewer overflow at Pinewood lift station. Vehicular access, including emergency vehicle access, was not possible because of the depth of flooding in the area. This project includes drainage and generator improvements at the Pinewood Lift Station.

Construction will include the following activities:

  • Regrade ditch and install double headwalls
  • Install reinforced concrete pipe culverts under First Street with road restoration and ditch regrading 
  • Install new natural gas generator and automatic transfer switch
  • Install an elevated metal platform, staircase and skid for generator

Liberty Water, Sewer Improvements – $1,000,000

The project will provide for water and sewer line improvements located within the eastern side of the city along Beaumont Road, Minglewood Road, Glenn Street and Tanner Street. These should reduce overflow concerns for residents and businesses along these streets. The project will make improvements to sewer lines and water lines and remove and replace existing lift stations with gravity sanitary sewer lines.

Descriptions of Other Grants

For a full description of other grants in this batch, see the GLO website.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/22/2023 based on information from the Texas General Land Office

2031 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 1280 Days since Imelda

TWDB Needs Feedback on Ranking Method for State Flood Plan

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) is soliciting feedback on its proposed scoring matrix to rank efforts for the state’s first flood plan. Each region has submitted proposed projects. The scoring matrix will help rank order them statewide. And the deadline is April Fools’ Day.

TWDB has provided several spreadsheets that show how the criteria and weights would affect ranking of sample projects. But understand that TWDB is only soliciting comments on scoring criteria and their weights at this time, not the rankings of the limited sample. All this is DRAFT data, not final recommendations.

39 Factors in Three Different Categories and Three Groups

TWDB has proposed weighing the relative merits of 39 factors that span three categories with benefits in three more groups:

  • Flood Management Evaluations (Studies)
  • Flood Mitigation Projects
  • Flood Management Strategies

TWDB uses three types of factors:

  • Flood risk
  • Risk reduction
  • Other related factors

“Other” includes such factors as cost and environmental benefits.

The 39 factors include:

  1. Emergency Need (Y/N)
  2. Estimated number of structures at 100yr flood risk
  3. Residential structures at 100-year flood risk
  4. Estimated Population at 100-year flood risk
  5. Critical facilities at 100-year flood risk (#)
  6. Number of low water crossings at flood risk (#)
  7. Estimated number of road closures (#)
  8. Estimated length of roads at 100-year flood risk (Miles)
  9. Estimated farm & ranch land at 100-year flood risk (acres)
  10. Number of structures with reduced 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain
  11. Number of structures removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain
  12. Percent of structures removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain (Calculated by TWDB from reported data)
  13. Residential structures removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain
  14. Estimated Population removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain
  15. Critical facilities removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain (#)
  16. Number of low water crossings removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain (#)
  17. Estimated reduction in road closure occurrences
  18. Estimated length of roads removed from 100yr floodplain (Miles)
  19. Estimated farm & ranch land removed from 100yr floodplain (acres)
  20. Cost per structure removed from 100-year floodplain
  21. Percent Nature-based Solution (by cost)
  22. Benefit-Cost Ratio
  23. Water Supply Benefit (Y/N)
  24. Severity – Pre-Project Average Depth of Flooding (100-year)
  25. Severity – Community Need (% Population)
  26. Flood Risk Reduction
  27. Flood Damage Reduction
  28. Critical Facilities Damage Reduction
  29. Life and Safety
  30. Water Supply
  31. Social Vulnerability
  32. Nature-Based Solution
  33. Multiple Benefits
  34. Operations and Maintenance Costs
  35. Admin, Regulatory Obstacles
  36. Environmental Benefit
  37. Environmental Impact
  38. Mobility
  39. Regional

Factors (in Risk, Risk Reduction and Other groups) may receive weight in one, two or all three main categories (Evaluations, Projects, Strategies).

Intent: Consistency Across All Regions Statewide

The intent of the TWDB ranking method for the state flood plan is to provide a consistent approach to be used across all Texas regions. The goal: to systematically address the flood hazards with most population, properties and critical facilities at risk in the state during a 1% annual chance flood.

TWDB bases all risk on 1% annual chance/100-year flood estimates.

Areas with widely varying measurements such as population will have answers normalized. Basically, this means adjusting widely varying scales to a common scale (such as 0 to 1) to facilitate comparison.

More Background, Sample Data, Providing Feedback

All relevant ranking workbooks, documents, and the link to the online survey tool are available on the State Flood Planning webpage.

Provide your feedback on this page. It’s a four-question survey about the:

  • Plan in general
  • Evaluations
  • Projects
  • Strategies.

The deadline to submit feedback is Saturday, April 1, 2023.

Importance of Feedback

We have seen how seriously the weights given to such rankings can skew priorities. Consider, for instance, the Equity Prioritization Framework adopted after the fact by a Harris County Judge and two commissioners for proposed 2018 Flood Bond Projects (unrelated to these projects).

So, if you have reservations with the TWDB scoring system, register your complaints NOW. My biggest concerns are that it’s hard to understand. It also contains broken links and typos that get in the way of understanding.

But understanding is critical. Many of the flood-reduction projects needed on the periphery of Harris County will need be addressed by state money. That’s because 10 of our 23 watersheds originate outside the County. I guess that would fall under #39 Regional. But…

The proposed scoring matrix gives ZERO weight to Regional benefits.

That’s kind of strange for a regional plan designed to encourage solutions that cross jurisdictions. Scoring matrix penalizes people on the periphery of large urban areas like Harris County.

watersheds in Harris and surrounding counties

I’ve already sent my feedback on that one.

Inconsistencies? TWDB refers to FMS as Flood Management Strategy on its spreadsheet and Flood Management Solution in introductory text.

Another example: In its spreadsheets, footnotes describing the listing of criteria do not correspond in all cases to the criteria listed. Nor does a link work to a supposed explanation of the criteria.

And there’s no description that I could find of how all these categories, measurements and groups fit together.

Finally, it’s not clear how they will treat areas that have a 50% annual chance of flooding (2-year flood). We’ve seen in highly urbanized areas that – after spending hundreds of millions of dollars in some watersheds – the best we can do achieve in some areas is a 25-year level of service. Achieving better would require buying out thousands of homes. What will happen in such cases?

Please make the effort to provide public feedback.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/20/2023

2029 Days since Harris County

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.

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.

Street Repairs in Kingwood, Huffman Begin March 20

This is a bit off topic, but it affects tens of thousands of readers. City of Houston Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin has announced street repairs in Kingwood and Huffman beginning on March 20.

Kingwood Repairs

In Kingwood, the Public Works Department will replace concrete panels in the westbound lanes of Kingwood Drive between Green Oak and Chestnut Ridge. Repairs should last, weather permitting through May 8 and cost $175,000 from Martin’s District Service Funds. Crews will work Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Saturday from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m.

Kingwood Drive repairs will extend from Green Oak to Chestnut Ridge Drives.

Huffman Repairs

In Huffman, Public Works will rehab the asphalt streets in Lakewood Heights as part of Mayor Turner’s Street Rehab Initiative. Crews will work from Monday through Saturday from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Lakewood Heights in Huffman

More About the Work

Kingwood repairs should take through May 8. Huffman repairs should take through May 22, weather permitting.

Flagmen and orange traffic cones will help with traffic flow through both construction zones as the projects will require a one-lane closure. Two-way traffic will be maintained at all times. Businesses and residents will have access to driveways and sidewalks at all times and may experience an increase in noise levels due to trucks and equipment in the area.

For more information, please contact Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin’s office at (832) 393-3008 or districte@houstontx.gov.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/19/22 based on notices from CoH District E

2028 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Urgent Request: Support HB1093 to Improve Water Quality, Reduce Flooding, Save Tax Dollars

State Representative Charles Cunningham has introduced HB1093. The bill would ensure cleanup of abandoned sand mines in the San Jacinto watershed. It requires miners to post a bond that covers cleanup costs. So, if an irresponsible miner walks away from a mine before reclamation, the public doesn’t have to pay the deadbeat’s costs.

A bond is like an insurance policy that guarantees the performance of obligations.

Without a bond, miners who profited for years from a mine can simply walk away when they are done mining, foisting cleanup costs onto the public or leaving blight behind.

How Bad Is the Problem?

Right now, there are at least six mines on the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto that were left a mess. Such abandoned sand mines are increasingly becoming a blight that imperils water quality in Lake Houston, the source of drinking water for 2 million people.

  • Rusting equipment leaks poisons and poses safety problems.
  • Un-stabilized soil increases rates of erosion and contributes to flooding.
  • Steep banks in pits slump away in slabs threatening neighboring properties and businesses.
  • Blight reduces surrounding property values and business activity

Miners are supposed to remove equipment and structures before they abandon a mine. But not all do. See the pictures below.

Leaking equipment near Riverview Drive in Porter on West Fork. Google Earth images show this in same location since 2008.
abandoned dredge
Dredge abandoned in Humble mine in 2017.
Abandoned excavator in Porter mine on West Fork
Abandoned dredge in Plum Grove mine.
Abandoned processing equipment in Humble mine.
Abandoned processing equipment and vehicle in Humble mine since 2017.

Miners are also obligated to grade and stabilize soil before they leave a mine, then replant vegetation similar to the surrounding area to reduce sediment pollution. But not all do.

Ungraded, un-stabilized soil in East Fork Plum Grove Mine.
Ungraded soil and abandoned equipment in East Fork Mine
A flood later swept through the mine above, sending sediment down the East Fork.
Defunct sand pit in Humble. Steep slopes – ungraded and unvegetated – erode and threaten neighboring business.

Community Consequences

Most sand moves during storms. This island appeared after Hurricane Harvey between Humble and Kingwood. It blocked the West Fork by 90%, according to the Army Corps and contributed to the flooding of thousands of homes and businesses.
Confluence of the San Jacinto West Fork with Spring Creek. Images taken on different days from different angles, but in each case the dirty water comes from the West Fork, where we have 20 square miles of mines on a 20 mile stretch of the river between I-45 and I-69.

Most responsible miners will clean up on their own. But experience shows, a few bad apples will not. And when they walk away, the cost to the public can be enormous. Dredging costs alone have exceeded $226 million in the Lake Houston area since Harvey.

How You Can Help

Please help reduce this and related cleanup costs in the future. Ensure that sand miners don’t pass their remediation costs on to taxpayers.

Make sure HB1093 at least gets to the House floor for a vote this year.

In the last session, a similar bill by former Representative Dan Huberty, HB4478, never made it out of the Natural Resources committee.

HB1093 deserves a hearing. Please write the chair and vice chair of Natural Resources asking them to consider it.

The committee will likely recommend King’s HB10. It will fund the creation of 7-million acre-feet of new water supplies for rural areas.

Let’s do something that won’t cost taxpayers a penny to protect a water supply we already have. Support HB1093. And please forward this link to all your friends, family and neighbors.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/18/23

2027 Days after 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.

“Thank You, Lord!” and “Thank You, GLO!”

Today, it wasn’t Republicans vs. Democrats. It was humans helping humans. And how refreshing it was!

86-Year Old, Mobility-Challenged Woman Gets New Home, New Life

Texas General Land Office (GLO) Commissioner Dawn Buckingham and her staff gathered to turn over the keys to the newly rebuilt home of Earnestine Henry. Ms. Henry is an 86-year old African-American great grandmother who relies on a wheelchair and walker to get around. Hurricane Harvey displaced her from the 79-year old home she owned for 50 years.

Neighbors, friends and family – the entire street – all joined in the festivities. It was the 1000th such home that the GLO built in Houston and Harris County in the last two years.

When Commissioner Buckingham gave Ms. Henry a bouquet of flowers as a housewarming gift, Ms. Henry began to cry tears of joy.

Henry left, Buckingham right.

Then, the deeply religious Henry threw up her arm and went silent for a second.

Finally, she shouted “Thank you, Lord.”

She was so overcome with emotion that Commissioner Buckingham reached out to steady her in case she started to fall.

The room went silent as she sobbed and dried her tears. Everyone else dried theirs, too, including seasoned journalists. Yes, even I sniffled.

Then Ms. Henry flashed a beatific smile. The gracious and grateful octogenarian then took her guests on a tour of her new home as she thanked all the GLO staff in attendance.

She never thought she would recover from Harvey and couldn’t believe her beautiful new surroundings.

Before/After Photos

Here’s what the home looked like before the rebuild.

And here’s what it looked like today, including the handicapped ramp. All homes built through the GLO’s Homeowner Assistance plan meet the needs of the residents with mobility challenges. Not only is the homeowner’s investment protected, their safety is as well.

Ms. Henry had originally applied to the City of Houston for help after Harvey, but reportedly never heard back. Her daughter and granddaughter helped her reapply to the GLO when the GLO took over the program in 2021.

Better, Safer

JW Turner Construction built the new home, which is fully code compliant and energy efficient. The rebuild happened as part of the GLO’s Homeowner Assistance Program (HAP).

In accordance with federal law and City of Houston codes, new homes located in a flood plain are elevated to 2 feet above base flood elevation.

Property Values Increase, but Not Taxes

On average, homes rebuilt through the Homeowner Assistance Program increase the value of the property by more than $85,765. To address concerns about increased property taxes, in 2019 the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 812 to protect homeowners from drastic increases after the GLO reconstructs homes.

The GLO’s Homeowner Assistance Program reaches the hardest hit, low- and moderate-income, vulnerable families and individuals.

1000th Rebuild Part of a Continuing Effort

Of all approved applicants, nearly 90 percent identify as Black or Hispanic. 89 percent are considered low-to-moderate income. And 63 percent make less than 30 percent of the area median income.

The GLO currently has another 1000 homes under construction in the Houston area.

“No other state or territory has performed like Texas in the recovery from Harvey,” said Buckingham. “A large part of that credit goes to the GLO. In two years, GLO has rebuilt 18 times as many homes as Houston and Harris County combined.”

“Texas stands to lose billions of available federal disaster recovery dollars if we do not use them before they expire in August 2026,” she added.

“Programs administered by the GLO in assisting the poorest Texans have significantly outperformed the federal requirement,” said Buckingham. 80% of GLO disaster recovery funds help those most in need, even though the US Department of Housing and Urban Development only requires 70%.

Buckingham, upper right, applauds her team and contractors who commemorated the occasion with Ms. Henry.

Thank you, Lord, for people like Ms. Henry and all the others above. They remind us that we’re all in this together.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/16/2023

2025 Days since Hurricane Harvey

$750 Million May Be Swirling the Drain

Yesterday morning at a joint press conference, the Texas General Land Office and Harris County Commissioners pledged to work more closely together to speed up flood mitigation. But four hours later, a chaotic 90-minute discussion in Commissioners Court made me wonder whether the rapprochement would ever bear fruit. At risk: $750 million.

Almost 22 months after the Texas General Land Office (GLO) requested $750 million from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for Harris County Harvey flood mitigation, County Commissioners still haven’t agreed among themselves on which projects to support.

That’s important because GLO must determine that any proposed plan meets HUD requirements before the County can begin spending money…half of which must be spent in the next 33 months.

Harris County must spend all funds by August 31, 2027 and 50% by December 31, 2025.

Harris County Community Services Department

Given how things have gone so far, I’m beginning to wonder about those deadlines. However, hope remains. Read on.

County, GLO Pledge Cooperation

At a joint press conference early on 3/14/23 that featured four Harris County Commissioners and the new GLO Commissioner Dawn Buckingham, Buckingham emphasized the need for speed. In an effort to mend the GLO’s relationship with Harris County, Buckingham also pledged to work more closely with the county to help speed things up. To hear the entire 15-minute press conference, click here.

One of Buckingham’s top priorities is improving communication with local leaders to expedite funds available to benefit local residents.

Joint press conference between GLO and Harris County Commissioners
Joint Press Conference: Thao Costis, Interim Executive Director of CSD; Dr. Tina Petersen, Executive Director HCFCD; Lesley Briones, Precinct 4; Dawn Buckingham MD, GLO Commissioner; Adrian Garcia, Precinct 2; Tom Ramsey PE, Precinct 3; Rodney Ellis, Precinct 1; and Christian Menefee, County Attorney.

History of Grant

The Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) had projects that met the current HUD criteria for hazard mitigation funds back in 2020.

Most just weren’t competitive with other areas’ requests given the rules in the first round of statewide competition. But we’re in a different situation now. After getting so little in Round One, the GLO requested a $750 million allocation to Harris County in May 2021.

Shortly after that, Judge Hidalgo, Commissioner Adrian Garcia and Commissioner Rodney Ellis assigned planning responsibilities to the County’s Community Services Department (CSD) instead of HCFCD. But both organizations have had several changes in leadership since then. CSD has had a total of six different directors under Hidalgo so far.

It’s hard to get up much speed in a revolving door. So instead of a plan, we’ve gotten excuses.

“We’re working on it.” “We’ll have that for you in September.” “…in October.” “Before the end of the year.” “Definitely in February.” “Final plan in March.” Now it’s April!

Outline of Plan Approved Without Projects

Yesterday, Commissioners Court actually agreed on a high-level outline of the plan – but without any projects or partners defined.

CSD Interim Director Thao Costis proposed a confusing scoring matrix for potential projects and a spending breakdown that included:

  • $97.5 million for administration and planning
  • $502.5 million for 2018 Flood Control Bond Projects
  • $100 million for Partnership Projects
  • $50 million for Other County Flood Mitigation Projects.

That increased HCFCD’s allocation compared to her last presentation.

And as soon as discussion on the outline began, Commissioners started peppering it with amendments – for almost 90 minutes. In the end, it finally passed, but it was difficult to tell exactly what commissioners were voting on.

So they sent staff away to compile a marked up version of one section – partnership requirements – that reflected numerous changes requested by all commissioners. They brought the marked up version back several hours later and commissioners voted to replace the original partner section they had just approved with the marked up version. But as of this instant, the County Clerk still has not published the text of the final approved version. Good luck to the County Clerk.

Partnership Criteria Refined in Meeting

Re: partnerships, at Commissioner Ramsey’s request, the Court expanded the list of eligible entities beyond municipalities. It now includes MUDs, Public Improvement Districts, School Districts, Public Transit Providers, Economic Development Corporations, TIRZs, Management Districts and Public Ports located within Harris County.

Commissioners also preliminarily approved an amended list of draft criteria for partnership projects. According to Commissioner Ramsey’s staff, they include:

  • Preliminary engineering must be complete or almost so.
  • If right of way is needed, the applicant must already own it.
  • Applicants must adopt the minimum standards for communities in Harris County.
  • Projects can range in size from $3 – $20 million.
  • Partners must agree to cover all cost overruns.
  • Projects will be graded on:
    • Readiness
    • Percent of low-to-moderate income population
    • Efficiency (a combination of cost per person and cost per structure benefitted)
    • Ancillary benefits, i.e., protection of hospitals, schools, etc.
    • Partner’s contribution as percent of total project cost.

Next Steps

CSD will develop an application form for partners. Then:

  • CSD will invite potential partners to a workshop outlining requirements for any deal.
  • Potential partners must submit applications.
  • A consultant will score all applications and develop partnership recommendations.
  • CSD must publish the results and invite public comment.
  • Commissioners, GLO and HUD must approve projects before work can begin.

All that could take years that we don’t have.

Given the uncertainty surrounding the partner application process (which hasn’t even started yet), it’s hard to see how anyone could develop a definitive project list by April 4th, the next commissioner’s court meeting. Hats off to CSD’s Interim Director Costis if she can do it.

Frankly, the chaotic discussion surrounding the $750 million yesterday bewildered me. It was a civics lesson in the value of Robert’s Rules of Order.

The free-for-all starts at about 2:47:09 into the meeting video and goes for almost 90 minutes. Given how long it has taken to get this far and all the steps still ahead, one wonders about the county’s ability to make the final deadline.

Rays of Hope

At the press conference Tuesday morning, GLO offered to work more closely with CSD to compress timelines. Commissioners appeared to welcome the idea.

The GLO also mentioned that more funding might be possible for flood mitigation. However, Commissioner Buckingham could not give a specific figure.

As Harvey disaster relief efforts wind down, the GLO will roll any unused money into flood mitigation, so that it doesn’t have to return to Washington.

The difference between the two buckets? Disaster relief funds go to individuals for repairing damage from past floods. Flood mitigation funds go to government entities for reducing future flooding.

More about the status of disaster relief in a future post. The GLO will hold another press conference in Harris County Thursday on disaster relief efforts.

Posted by Bob Rehak on March 15, 2023

2024 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.

Into the Danger Zone

Five and a half years after Hurricane Harvey, I see people investing and building in areas near floodplains that will soon expand. I call this the “danger zone” because it’s not quite clear yet what their flood risk is or how to mitigate it.

I came across one such property last week on Townsen Blvd. in Humble, east of US59. The owners bought it 3.5 months after Harvey.

The USGS National Map shows the elevation of the site to be a little more than 63 feet. But the nearby gage at the West Fork and US59 exceeded that in 1994 (66.7 feet) and 2017 (69.6 feet).

Red dot shows location of new construction in photo below. Cross-hatched = floodway. Aqua = 100-year floodplain. Brown = 500-year. Map from FEMA. Note date: 2006.

Post-Flood Fear Can Drive Down Prices

After a flood, fear can drive down land prices near rivers and streams. Bargain hunters may then step in and snap up property. That may be what happened in this case.

As I drove past this area on 3/5/23, I saw a new commercial structure going up next to some mostly empty condos and took several pictures.

The new construction has been elevated slightly. Note the fill and angle of the driveway. Also note the abandoned building in the background.
The new building appears to be at the same elevation as these derelict condos.

Company Expansion

Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) estimates that the new commercial structure will be a 28,000 SF building, though a company blog post claims 35,722 SF. It will be owned by a limited liability company, managed by a Kingwood-based couple. They also own the Humble Sign Company on a second, adjoining parcel to the west.

That currently has a smaller 20,000 SF building with a “for sale” sign in front. So it appears that the company has outgrown its current space. That’s not surprising. Their website shows that they do excellent work.

The company hopes to be in its new space by mid 2023.

Property Bought Within Months After Harvey

The same couple bought both parcels of land in mid-December 2017, according to appraisal district records. And within a year after that, Google Earth shows that they had built the Humble Sign building.

God bless small-business people. They provide almost half of all the jobs in America.

It takes guts to bet your life savings when you start a small business. So who can blame entrepreneurs trying to save some money on land?

Humble Sign is elevating the new building slightly. (Note the fill in the construction photo above.) That’s good news. It should give them a small margin of extra safety.

Building Next to the Danger Zone

Still, building next to a floodplain that will soon expand is risky business. FEMA developed that map above in response to Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 and made it official in 2006. But Harvey triggered another update that will expand floodplains significantly.

FEMA could soon reclassify this property from the 500- to the 100-year floodplain.

FEMA has said that the new 100-year floodplain will expand into the old 500-year floodplain in most places throughout the Houston region. Not only were our rainfall assumptions off after Allison, rampant new development continues unabated and often unmitigated upstream.

So let’s pray the owners added enough fill.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/12/23

2021 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.

Nearly All Voting Problems in Republican Strongholds

A new 10-minute video by investigative reporter Wayne Dolcefino shows heat maps of Republican-leaning areas in Harris County and where voting problems occurred in the November 2022 elections. Superimposing one on top of the other shows that virtually all of the areas running out of ballot paper occurred in Republican strongholds.

Experts estimate the chances of that happening by accident at less than 1%.

Dolcefino

County Officials Still Stonewalling Document Requests

Dolcefino filed a lawsuit earlier this year because of Harris County’s refusal to provide public records relating to the election. Gallery-Furniture-owner Jim McIngvale is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

A computer expert named Russ Long from the oil and gas industry painstakingly pieced together the maps using data from other sources. Long began by sorting out the addresses of people who voted in Republican, but not Democratic primaries in 1150 voting precincts in Harris County. From that he identified the Republican-leaning precincts.

Red areas show clusters of Republican voters.

Paper Galore, But Not Evenly Distributed

Long is also a precinct captain in Cypress, TX. When he picked up ballot paper, he could immediately see that it wasn’t enough. Long told them he needed double the amount, but was told no more was available – despite the county having ordered 4 million sheets, far more than the number of registered voters in the county.

HarrisVotes.com shows that approximately 830,000 people voted early in person or by mail. About another 1.1 million voted on Election Day. Only the race for governor had more than 1.1 million ballots cast on Election Day and that total was 1,102,418. So there should have been two million extra sheets of paper.

Yet 121 polling places ran out of paper. And look where virtually all of them were!

Voter suppression in action.

Despite the problems, County Judge Lina Hidalgo, who chairs the Elections Commission, has not called a meeting of the commission since November, according to Dolcefino. Nor has the county released election records requested by Dolcefino under the Texas Public Information Act.

“The release of this information related to our election is way past due,” said Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey.

“What’s wrong with sunshine? Shine the light on it,” said McIngvale.

Early Voting Starts Next Month for Next Election

It will take months to resolve these issues in the courts or the legislature. Dolcefino emphasizes the need for full disclosure now. We have another election in May. Early voting starts on April 24th, in a little more than a month. And we’ve had five months of stonewalling since the last election.

“None of the Democratic-leaning precincts came close to running out of ballots,” said Dolcefino.

Long added, “There would have been riots in the streets if they had.”

The problems may be worse than Dolcefino is reporting. For instance, the map above shows only one polling place in Kingwood that ran out of ballot paper. But I personally know of at least two.

And Dolcefino has not yet even reported on the problems with handicapped voting. Reliable sources tell me of technology problems countywide associated with curbside voting for handicapped people. Again, I personally witnessed those at multiple locations.

Elections Administrator Hired Despite Reported Problems on Last Job

According to Dolcefino’s video, Clifford Tatum, the Elections Administrator, reportedly ran into problems with a similar job he held in Washington D.C.

Previously, the people who ran Harris County elections were elected themselves. Hidalgo changed that, however. She created an office of Elections Administration with an appointed head. Tatum is Hidalgo’s second head of that office. The first resigned after problems with an earlier election.

Many races on last November’s ballot were decided by just a few hundred votes. Without actual records, it’s impossible to tell whether ballot issues skewed election results.

We need to get to the bottom of these problems sooner rather than later. If Hidalgo has nothing to hide, why hide it?

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/10/2023

2019 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.