Best Hope to Fully Fund Flood-Bond Projects Just Vanished into a Political Black Hole

Harris County’s best hope to fully fund the 2018 Flood Bond just vanished into a political black hole. Watching the video of Commissioners Court on Tuesday made one dizzy. My head was spinning so quickly with all of the contradictions, that it reminded me of a Chucky horror movie.

Almost 2 Years After Leaving the Starting Gate…

After almost 2 years, the County’s Community Services Department (CSD) still has not even started working on a process that would define where $750 million in Hurricane Harvey Flood Mitigation money would go.

But its new director, Thao Costis, did recommend taking 58% of the money away from Harris County Flood Control District. County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis, Precinct Two Commissioner Adrian Garcia, and Precinct 4 Commissioner Lesley Briones all voted FOR CSD’s vague proposal that gave $326.5 million to “Harris County” and almost $100 million to “planning and administration” with no further definition.

Ramsey Reminds Court of Purpose of HUD Money

Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE reminded his fellow Court members that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) grant was originally intended to fill a funding gap in the flood bond.

For those who may not remember, roughly a third of the $2.5 billion 2018 flood bond was designed to attract matching funds from state and federal entities such as HUD. Harris County Flood Control District hoped to double taxpayers’ money that way. The bond actually had projects in it totaling roughly $5 billion.

At the time, HCFCD saw HUD dollars as the best way to support the hard-hit Halls Bayou watershed where 71% of the residents have low-to-moderate incomes (LMI).

Not Even Enough Left for HCFCD to Complete Halls Projects

But the money remaining with HCFCD after commissioners voted to divert more than half of the $750 million won’t even be enough to complete Halls projects.

The Flood Bond included Halls projects estimated at almost $383 million. Halls has already received projects worth $48 million, leaving a $335 million need. But giving only $326.5 million to HCFCD would leave Halls more than $8 million short.

That would leave no money for flood control projects in other watersheds. They would vanish into a political black hole.

The good people of Halls Bayou have had their projects lined up for years. Yet at 6:28:40 into the meeting video, Director Costis admits, “Our focus is to get projects lined up.”

For Halls Bayou residents who follow Commissioners Court, the video of Tuesday’s meeting will have their heads spinning faster than Chucky’s.

Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have complained bitterly about projects in LMI neighborhoods having to wait for federal funding that might never arrive. Then they voted to take $425 million away from HCFCD when it did.

Partnership Funding Merry-Go-Round

Commissioner Garcia, who couldn’t wait on partnership funding to get started on projects, demanded a partnership policy. Ditto for Commissioner Ellis.

But Ellis didn’t want to back away from the county’s “equity principles, because some cities might not have a match.” This could further reduce funding.

At 6:34:20, Ellis, who often brags about transparency, introduced a motion to prioritize projects using unspecified criteria before CSD comes back to Commissioners Court on March 3 with final recommendations.

Admission of Funding Gap

Then Ellis complained, “Even with this money, we don’t have enough money to do everything in the 2018 Flood Bond.” Where’s the other $425 million going, Mr. Ellis, that you’re diverting from HCFCD? Into that political black hole?

More Delays Could Jeopardize Funding

At 6:41, Dr. Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD, complains, “We’ll need to get an extension.” That’s something the Texas General Land Office (GLO), which manages HUD grants in Texas, has feared. The GLO worries that additional delays could cause HUD to take its money back. Harris County has been dragging this process out for almost two years.

Garcia again asks, “Is a partnership process in place?” (6:41)

Costis admits, “No. We’re starting that process now.”

Hidalgo abruptly cuts off the embarrassing discussion, takes a vote, and moves on to the next agenda item at 6:43:48.

Saying One Thing, Doing Another

Actions speak louder than words, especially in politics. It’s one thing to say flood mitigation is a top priority and that you want to help the county’s less fortunate first. But the figures below clearly show that…

…Ellis, Garcia and Hidalgo help our least fortunate residents the least.

To get a clear picture of political priorities, let’s visualize flood-mitigation spending as a percentage of the total value of projects in the flood bond for each watershed. This shows important differences in the progress toward completion of promised projects. See the table and map below.

Compiled from data published by HCFCD in December 2022 Flood Bond Update and March 2021 Flood Bond Update

In case you’re unfamiliar with the location of these watersheds, see below.

Greens has received 74.9% of its funding and Brays 79.4% of its. But both have lower LMI percentages than Halls, Hunting, Sims and Vince.

For instance, Sims has the third highest percentage of LMI residents in the county (65%), but has only received 4.4% of its anticipated funding.

Eight watersheds in Harris County have majority-LMI populations. But the LMI percentages have little to do with the percentage of money actually spent out of their anticipated budgets.

Contrary to promises, some of the least affluent watersheds are being prioritized last.

Brays and Greens have received more funding to date than the other six LMI-majority watersheds put together.

This is, in large part, because Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have constantly tweaked their equity-allocation formula to ensure money goes where they want it to go.

High Price of Turnover

The Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) learned of its $488 million allocation from the GLO the same day in May 2021 that Harris County learned of its $750 million. But H-GAC developed its distribution plan and received final approval from the GLO by September of 2022. And H-GAC had to coordinate more than 100 entities!

This comparison shows the high price of turnover in the executive ranks. Costis is the sixth executive director at CSD under Hidalgo. Ms. Costis previously ran a charity for homeless people. While admirable, that’s no qualification for managing hundreds of millions of dollars. And certain commissioners have not helped the process by making it more complicated than it already is with constantly changing demands.

If Harris County wants this money, it needs to hire leaders with business acumen, wall them off from political interference, and prohibit political patronage hires. Now that would really make people’s heads spin! It would also eliminate a political/financial black hole.

Posted by Bob Rehak on February 23, 2023

2004 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.


Last Chance to Comment on Distribution of $750 Million in HUD Flood-Mitigation Funds

Tuesday 2/21/23 at 5 P.M. will be your last chance to comment on Harris County’s proposed distribution of $750 million in HUD Flood-Mitigation funds.

Harris County Community Services Department (CSD) will request Commissioners Court approval of its plan for allocating $750 million in HUD Harvey mitigation funds Tuesday. (See item 489 on the Agenda.) The Texas General Land Office (GLO) has conditionally approved the preliminary plan and sent it back to Harris County for public comment.

However, the plan still consists only of a high-level outline. The county wants to split the money between itself and Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) after allocating 13% for planning and administration.

CSD doesn’t intend to say exactly what areas will get how much for which projects until AFTER public comments.

Preliminary Plan Still Contains Little Detail

CSD has posted a 15-minute YouTube video that explains the process. See the screen captures below from the video.

Basically, CSD wants your comments on a high-level outline for dividing up the money. Below is what they recommend.

Less than half will go to HCFCD. AFTER approval tomorrow, the County will develop a list of projects for submission to the GLO. See last line in slide below.

CSD’s video discusses the criteria the county intends to use when developing a project list.

Input obtained prior to developing list.

It appears that Harris County wants all of the money to benefit low-to-moderate income, socially vulnerable neighborhoods…the same neighborhoods that have gotten the lion’s share of funding to date.

Sound familiar? Even though 50% of the $750 million can go to higher income areas, up to 100% could go to low-to-moderate income areas. And it looks like the county wants to go in that direction. Again.

Public Comments Close at 5 P.M. Tuesday

The only way to get your fair share is if enough members of the public demand a more even split. We don’t have enough money to finish the flood bond without spending all of the $750 million on flood mitigation. But CSD’s plan would give less than half to HCFCD.

We need the entire $750 million to fully fund the 2018 flood bond. Given the prevailing politics in Harris County these days, if any projects get cancelled for lack of funding, they will likely be those in middle- to higher-income neighborhoods.

Get Your Promised Share of the 2018 Flood Bond

So please protest any diversion of these funds away from flood mitigation.

By law, CSD must forward all comments received by Tuesday at 5 P.M. to the GLO and HUD for review.

So hurry. Email your comments NOW. It will only take five minutes.

Deadline: February 21 at 5PM.  

Email to: DRplancomments@csd.hctx.net

Below is a sample letter with key points to make. Feel free to cut-and-paste or adapt.

Sample Letter

To whom it may concern:

I strongly protest the outline that Harris County Community Services presented to the GLO for the distribution of $750 million in HUD CDBG-MIT Harvey flood-mitigation funds.

Since adoption of Harris County’s Equity Prioritization Framework, the County has been funneling 2018 Flood Bond money and other local funds to projects in high LMI and SVI areas. 

Now, however, without all of the $750 million going to flood mitigation, there likely won’t be enough money to finish all of the defined flood-bond projects that voters approved by 88% in 2018.

Therefore, I suggest:

  1. The entire $750 million should go to Harris County Flood Control District to complete unfunded flood-mitigation projects in the bond. 
  2. Earmark half that money for projects in watersheds with more affluent residents (less than 50% LMI) who have been largely ignored until now.
  3. Prioritize projects by:
    • The number of damaged structures during Harvey
    • Depth of flooding during Harvey
    • Remaining, unmitigated flood risk
    • Ability to reduce threats to infrastructure, such as bridges, schools, hospitals, and sewage treatment plants.
    • Lack of previous flood-mitigation investment in watershed
  4. The County, GLO and HUD need to be fair to all people of Harris County as HUD’s rules allow. Half of the flood-mitigation funding in Harris County since 2000 has gone to just four watersheds (Brays, Greens, White Oak, and Sims). Other areas have needs, too.
  5. CSD should present a detailed plan and stick to it. Vague generalities invite suspicion and undermine trust in government. 
  6. Ensure transparency. Harris County CSD has a poor record of transparency and website updates. Create a dashboard that publicly displays:
    • Encumbrances
    • Spending to date on every project
    • Who gets how much money, when, for what
    • Each project’s progress 
    • Monthly updates
  7. The MOD should include guarantees that the county will meet performance deadlines. Because of the 20 months already squandered since the County became aware of the $750 million, I question the county’s ability to spend the money by HUD’s deadline.

Thank you for considering these thoughts.

Don’t forget to add your contact information so Community Services can tell the General Land Office and HUD where the comment came from.

More Information

The GLO has emphasized the need for Harris County to act quickly. Flood Control has projects already defined that need money. HUD will take the money back if local authorities can’t spend the money within deadlines. So hurry. These projects take a long time. HCFCD has already defined projects in the flood bond. We can’t afford the time to start from scratch to figure out the distribution of $750 million in HUD Flood-Mitigation funds.

For more supporting information, including charts and graphs that you can use to create a custom letter, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/20/23

2001 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.

HCFCD Updates Show Continuing Bond Slowdown

A Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) year-end spending report shows a continuing bond slowdown. The most recent spending update to Commissioners Court reflects all activity through the end of 2022.

The big news to report is that there’s not much news to report.

The December update showed that the San Jacinto Watershed received only $76.6 thousand during the month, ranking it 15th among all Harris County watersheds. HCFCD has only spent 2.5% of all bond money spent to date in the entire county.

A separate Biannual Update shows that the paltry progress is NOT the result of available funds. The San Jacinto has about $167 million in committed funding, but has received less than $30 million from the bond so far.

But before we dig deeper into the San Jacinto, let’s look at the continuing bond slowdown in Harris County as a whole.

December Overview

Compared to November 2022’s update, the December 2022 update shows that HCFCD:

  • Has spent a total of $1.177 billion to date, up from $1.150 billion at the end of November, a $27 million increase.
  • Bought out 27 homes countywide.
  • Secured another $30 million in funding ($1.734 billion up from $1.704).
  • Saw no change budgeted active capital construction projects ($0.00, likely a reporting mistake).
  • Saw no change in budgeted active maintenance projects ($0.00, likely another reporting mistake).
  • Awarded just one construction project worth $7 million.
  • Saw its schedule performance index dip below 1.0 for 11 months in a row. (1.0 means on-schedule).
  • Completed another 0.3% of the bond, bringing the percent completed up to 24.1% with 43.3% of the time elapsed.
  • Still has NO active construction projects in the lone Republican-led precinct. All 18 are split among three precincts with Democratic commissioners.

Reporting Mistakes

Regarding those goose eggs under “active projects,” it appears that someone just picked up the active projects pages from November and changed the dates to December. However, the HCFCD website does show figures updated through January 2, 2023. Using those as the most current figures instead would mean:

  • The total budgeted for active maintenance projects FELL from $50.6 million to $37.2 million, a decrease of $13.4 million.
  • Likewise, the total budgeted for active capital improvement construction projects FELL from $239.8 million to $223.5 million, a decrease of $16.3 million.

I’m not sure which is worse. Zeros, decreases, or errors?

Continuing, Prolonged Slowdown

Another major concern is the continuing lag in the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). This is a measure of on-schedule performance. Temporary decreases can often happen between projects. However, HCFCD has fallen behind schedule and stayed behind for 11 months in a row. The last time it reported an SPI of 1.0 was in January of 2022.

At the current rate of spending, it will take HCFCD more than 20 years to finish the bond.

Slow performance means we all live with flood risk longer than necessary and pay higher flood-insurance premiums than necessary.

For all of last year, HCFCD averaged between $20 and $23 million per month in spending.

Compiled from HCFCD monthly updates.

Under previous leadership, HCFCD averaged $35 million per month and the rate was climbing, not falling.

Spending By Watershed During December

The table below shows spending in all 23 Harris County watersheds plus countywide spending for the month of December 2022 (in the “Difference” column). HCFCD reported a decrease in Countywide spending with no explanation. The District also shows NO spending at all in three watersheds.

Compiled from HCFCD Bond Updates from November and December of 2022.

The San Jacinto Watershed is the county’s largest. Floods have damaged more structures in the San Jacinto than in all but seven other watersheds. The damage total includes five major storms since 2000 – Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey, Imelda.

Yet the San Jacinto has received only 2.5% of total flood-bond spending through 2022, ranking it #15 on that scale.

To date the San Jacinto has received only 13% of the $223,256,195 allocated to it in the bond. Compare that to 79% for the Brays Watershed and 75% for the Greens.

Commissioners Court Agenda Also Shows Slowdown

HCFCD has only 11 items on the Commissioners Court agenda for Tuesday, February 21. Contrast that with engineering which has 108.

And few of HCFCD’s requests involved new flood-mitigation work.

  • Four items transitioned projects to HCFCD’s maintenance program.
  • Four items involved contract changes.
  • One involved a permit for a MUD doing environmental enhancement work.
  • One would let Pasadena build recreational facilities on HCFCD property.
  • One would reimburse Union Pacific for a preliminary engineering study that UP was doing to relieve repetitive flooding along Halls Bayou adjacent to its railroad tracks.

Bi-Annual Bond Update

For additional information on the progress of the bond, see this Bi-Annual Update issued by HCFCD in January. It contains dozens of spending breakdowns. Especially interesting are the funding-gap calculations on page 11. See table below.

From HCFCD’s Jan. 2023 2018 Biannual Report.

Note that the table above shows different “actual spending to date” figures than the monthly updates farther above.

Regardless, these figures show that lack of funding is NOT responsible for the slow progress in the San Jacinto Watershed. The San Jacinto has $167 million dollars in committed funding. We’re just not spending the money.

Political priorities, not funding availbility, are the reason for the continuing bond slowdown – at least in the San Jacinto watershed. Spring Creek residents are way behind, too.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/19/23

2000 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.

How to Find the Best Option to Mitigate Floodprone Structures

How do you find the best option to mitigate floodprone structures? What will work best in your particular situation? FEMA discusses many different options in an interesting brochure titled “Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures.”

The intended audience is for state and local officials. But don’t let that scare you. This brochure can also help home- and business owners think about their options, the pros/cons of each, their relative costs, and suitability for a particular location.

The first part of the 198-page document deals with how to use something called FEMA’s National Tool. It collects information from a variety of different sources. Planners use the data to create a “scorecard” that helps rank the alternatives.

Flood-Mitigation Alternatives Discussed

The major types of alternatives discussed in the brochure include:

  1. Drainage Improvements
  2. Barriers
  3. Wet Floodproofing
  4. Dry Floodproofing
  5. Elevation
  6. Relocation
  7. Acquisition (Buyouts)

Helpful Screening Questions

Chapter 3 contains a variety of screening questions designed to help determine the “fit” of each option for a particular location. For instance, to name a few, “What is the…”

  • Structure type
  • Condition of the structure
  • Foundation type
  • Number of stories
  • Building footprint

Example of Material in Typical Chapter

The meat of the discussion starts after that. The document contains a chapter on each of the seven major options and sub-options within them.

At a minimum, these chapters explain how flood professionals are trained to evaluate options and make recommendations in your situation.

While FEMA’s text is aimed at professionals, it’s well written, clear, and easy to understand. I won’t elaborate on each chapter, but will give you an example – Chapter 5: Barriers.

Levees and walls, two of many barriers against flooding discussed in Chapter 5.

Other sub-options include berms and temporary barriers (inflatable, floatable, and water filled).

Advantages:

  • They keep floodwaters out of the house and prevent flood damage
  • They require no significant changes to structures.

Disadvantages:

  • Barriers may not bring a substantially damaged structure into compliance with local floodplain management ordinances
  • Cost may be prohibitive
  • Large area needed for construction
  • Need for maintenance
  • Can affect local drainage, making flooding worse for others.

Whether they’re suitable in your situation will depend on:

  • The depth of flooding
  • Height of the barrier needed
  • Local building codes
  • Type of foundation (i.e., these don’t work well with basements)
  • Soil conditions (load-bearing capacity and permeability)
  • Duration of floods
  • Costs
  • Requirements for human intervention
  • Annual maintenance
  • Access to structure during normal times
  • Escape from structure if barrier is overtopped during an extreme event
  • Interior drainage (what happens if water starts filling in behind the barrier)

The brochure contains lucid and thought provoking discussions on each of these issues. If you start exploring such barriers, this brochure will help you plan discussions with contractors.

Highly Recommended

And so it goes for each of the other major types of mitigation found in other chapters. This is a valuable resource for anyone considering a major investment. It won’t help you make a final decision. But it will help you make a more intelligent decision.

So if you’re trying to find the best option to mitigate floodprone structures, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/18/2023

1999 Days since Hurricane Harvey

City Serves Search Warrant at Kingwood Central Wastewater Treatment Plant

According to a press release by Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin, the City of Houston Police served an evidentiary search warrant at the Kingwood Central Wastewater Treatment Plant this morning, 2/17/2023. Inframark operates the plant.

Looking east at the Kingwood Central Wastewater Treatment Plant. Bens Branch separates the plant from the apartments near Kingwood Town Center and the Kingwood Library (bright white roof near top of frame).

The City had received numerous complaints about foul odors in the area and found irregularities in both plant operations and corresponding regulatory compliance. Houston Police Department’s Environmental Crimes Unit and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) investigated further.

They kept their work quiet until now, fearing the possible destruction of documents by the parties being subpoenaed.

The investigation centers around allegations of falsified government documents and compliance samples.

City of Houston Press Release

Problems with Plant and Solutions

The foul odors related to an equipment malfunction at the plant during the week of January 23, 2023. The plant now operates normally. But addressing the ongoing odor issues will require improving the “transfer efficiency” of oxygen.

According to the City, the amount of air pushed into the wastewater system directly impacts the amount of odor generated. The City believes fixing the odors will require a dual strategy:

  • Short Term – Repairs to leaks in the plant’s air-distribution and header systems
  • Longer Term – Modification of the header system and the addition of another blower.

Close Monitoring

The City intends to monitor the facility closely. It says it has worked and will continue to work with the TCEQ to take all steps necessary to minimize any adverse impact to the residents of Kingwood and the environment.

No Service Disruption Expected

Kingwood residents should not experience any disruption in water or wastewater service, according to Mayor Pro Tem Martin. He emphasized that contaminated wastewater never threatened Bens Branch or Lake Houston because of this problem.

Martin thanked Houston Public Works, HPD, and the TCEQ for their swift responses.

Plant Will Eventually Be Relocated

Ultimately, the City will consolidate this plant with others in the Kingwood area on the Woodridge Village property. Harris County Flood Control and the City purchased that property from Perry Homes in 2021.

The City hopes to reduce flood risk to the sewage treatment plants by moving them to higher ground.

During Harvey, several of the plants, including this one flooded. They then contaminated nearby structures with sewage, requiring cleanup by workers in hazmat suits. Kingwood High School and Kingwood College, for instance, both required such special cleanup.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/17/2023

1998 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.

“The Lady Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks”

Wayne Dolcefino, investigative journalist extraordinaire, has released another video about his and Jim McIngvale’s attempts to force Harris County to release public records pertaining to the 2022 election. Lina Hidalgo plays a starring role. And her performance reminds one of Shakespeare’s famous line from Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” The line implies that someone who denies something too strongly may be hiding the truth.

Fighting Disclosure Before an Accusation Has Been Made

Neither Dolcefino nor McIngvale have accused Hidalgo of trying to unfairly alter the outcome of the election. They’re just trying to learn what happened.

Yet Hidalgo and her cronies have steadfastly refused to produce public records – records that could easily prove their innocence. Instead:

  • Hidalgo and her team use encrypted apps to communicate, a practice outlawed elsewhere.
  • They tried to charge tens of thousands of dollars to copy emails that should only take seconds.
  • They have redacted the records they do produce so heavily as to make them incomprehensible.
  • For instance, in a list of phone calls, they blacked out EVERY phone number.
Lina Hidalgo, Harris County Judge and star of “What’s wrong with Sunshine?”, Dolcefino’s new video about his quest for public records. Click image to see video.

The video’s title borrow’s from a saying by Louis Brandeis more than a hundred years ago, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

Downward Spiral of Suspicion, Distrust, More Investigation

The loss of trust seems to have resulted in a downward spiral. No telling yet where it will end. But for those old enough to remember, the spectacle is like a rerun of the waning days of Watergate. The shriller President Richard Nixon’s denials became, the more journalists investigated his denials.

And like Nixon, Hidalgo and her courtiers now resort to lame ad hominem attacks, calling those seeking the truth “losers.”

It took two years to uncover the truth in the Watergate scandal. Ultimately, the relentless exposes and investigations ended with Nixon’s impeachment, resignation, and long, slow slide into irrelevance.

From Transparency Advocate to Stonewaller

Ironically, when first out of college, Hidalgo worked for a group called Internews, according to her Wikipedia page. Internews advocates for press freedom around the world. One of its main missions: “Holding governments accountable by supporting investigative journalism…”

Make sure you watch Dolcefino’s 10-minute video. The denials are revealing…methinks.

(Update: 2/18/2023) And lest you think this post is politically motivated by an election denier, check out this editorial in the Houston Chronicle. “Hidalgo has concluded that Mattress Mack’s request for records is hurting democracy,” they say. “The presumption of the Texas Public Information Act has long been that public records are public property and most should be accessible to the owners.”

The editorial continues, “Harris County had the option of transparency and chose obfuscation.” The Chronicle concludes, “Texans have a right to know what their government is doing, how their tax dollars are being spent, and yes, how their elections are being run. That right is under assault…”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/16/2023

1997 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.

Houston Updating Hazard Mitigation, Emergency Plans

The City of Houston’s Office of Emergency Management is updating its Hazard Mitigation Plan and Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Hazard mitigation is about lessening the severity of future disasters. Emergency Management is about responding to disasters after they happen.

Hazard Mitigation Plan Still Needs Input

Public meetings for the Hazard Mitigation Plan Updates are complete, but you can still take an online survey through February 20.

The Hazard Mitigation Plan guides actions the City will take to reduce risk and impacts from disasters over the next five years and beyond. It also allows Houston to receive funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to reduce our community’s vulnerability to disasters.

The City’s goal is to prevent damage before it occurs, save lives, protect property, and limit the cost of recovery throughout Houston. The Hazard Mitigation Plan is important for our City to be safe and resilient.

Please take the survey. It will help the City understand our area’s priorities when mitigating hazards such as flooding. The online survey takes about only about five minutes to complete.

The Office of Emergency Management will release the draft plan in March 2023. The public comment period will extend through April. Then FEMA and the Texas Division of Emergency Management will review and approve it before the City Council adopts it. The plan should carry us through 2028.

Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Meeting, Survey

The purpose of the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) is to help prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters.

The CEMP helps the City provide services and support to residents before and after a disaster occurs.

One public meeting remains on February 23rd at 6PM. It will be at the CDC building at 3517 Irvington Boulevard, Houston, TX 77009. You can also attend virtually via FaceBook Live.

So help the City better prepare for disasters. The community meeting will provide a forum both to raise awareness and collect feedback from the community. Topics discussed during the meeting will include:

  • Emergency plan development
  • Mitigation actions resulting from a flood or hurricane
  • Evacuation routes, hubs and processes
  • How to stay involved and become better prepared.

For more information visit https://www.houstonoem.org/pages/plans-programs or call 713-884-4500.

While visiting the OEM website, make sure to sign up for emergency alerts. I did so after Harvey and have found the alerts very helpful on numerous occasions since then, including floods, tornados, hail- and windstorms.

Points to Emphasize

Two of my greatest concerns are evacuation routes and floodplain development. During Harvey, we saw how water came up quickly in the middle of the night without warning. This cut people off from emergency escape routes. All three major evacuation routes out of Kingwood (Hamblen, Kingwood Drive, and Northpark Drive) were impassable to many people.

Evacuation Route during Harvey
Hamblen Road during Harvey. Photo courtesy of Jim Balcom.
Harvey evacuation. Sally Geiss
Kingwood Drive and West Lake Houston Parkway during Harvey. Photo courtesy of Sally Geis.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/15/2023

1996 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Harris County Stonewalling Production of Documents Related to Election Irregularities

Gallery-furniture owner James McIngvale and investigative reporter Wayne Dolcefino are suing the Harris County Elections Administrator’s Office for refusal to produce documents related to the controversial 2022 Harris County Election on November 8. “If there’s nothing to hide,” said Dolcefino, “the best way to clear this up is to produce the documents.”

The lawsuit in Harris County District Court seeks the documents requested under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) and recovery of legal fees. It raises huge issues about the transparency of Harris County government in performing one of its most sacred jobs – conducting elections.

Plaintiffs Dolcefino and McIngvale at press conference with lawyer Jeff Diamant announcing lawsuit on 2/14/23.

Internal Investigation Called “Inconclusive” by Election Administrator

In a post-election assessment of the 2022 elections issued by Clifford Tatum, the County Elections Administrator, he called his own internal investigation “inconclusive” His office’s report acknowledged issues such as malfunctioning voting machines, short staffing, and lack of supplies on election day. The report also blamed the United States Postal Service for not moving mail-in ballots quickly enough. And in a first, the report blamed the Astros World Series parade for causing school district closures. The closures allegedly caused delays by presiding judges in opening voting centers located in schools.

Documents Sought

To get to the bottom of these and other issues, Dolcefino requested production of documents in the following categories:

  1. Phone records including text and phone messages for Clifford Tatum between August 1, 2022 and the present. Tatum’s emails and their attachments on Election Day. And all emails between Precinct 1 and Tatum since August 1, 2022.
  2. All documents dealing with voting machine maintenance issues on Election Day, plus all documents pertaining to inspection of their logic and accuracy before Election Day.
  3. The amount of ballot paper provided to each precinct on Election Day and the number of voters who voted at each precinct. This includes emails between the Administrator’s office and precinct judges regarding paper shortages.
  4. All election complaints, whether by email or phone, received by the Election Administrators Office and County Judge Lina Hidalgo between November 8 and the present.
  5. A list of all polling locations for 2020 and 2022 elections, plus all emails to/from Tatum re: an audit by the Secretary of State.
  6. Emails to/from Tatum between May 1, 2022, and Election Day re: maintenance of polling machines, ballot paper supplies, and changes in polling locations.

Documents Produced

According to the lawsuit, to date, the Elections Administration Office has only produced documents relating to:

  1. One portion of #3 – number of voters, but not the amount of ballot paper supplied for them.
  2. One portion of #5 – the list of polling locations, but no audit emails.

Reasons Cited for Not Releasing Documents

The Elections Administration Office repeatedly cites pending litigation as the reason for refusing to produce the requested documents. The lawsuit lays out why Dolcefino and McIngvale believe the “litigation exception” should not apply. He cites extensively from the Texas Government Code Section 552.103(A). It was intended to prevent the litigation exception from circumventing the intent of the TPIA, i.e., to make public information available to the public. 

The Elections Administration Office also claims an “audit working-papers exception” to TPIA. It allows withholding information under audit.

However, Dolcefino points out that release of the documents is discretionary. There’s no law or rule saying the county must withhold them.

Plaintiffs Claim Defendant Has Not Met Burden of Proof

However, McIngvale and Dolcefino claim that the Elections Administration Office has failed to meet its burden of proof re: the exceptions. The lawsuit says that the Election Administrator Office has blocked virtually all releases of information without valid explanations or precedents. The bulk of the 20-page lawsuit examines, on a case-by-case basis, why McIngvale and Dolcefino believe legal precedents cited by the Elections Administration office should not apply. 

They request a jury hearing on the merits of their arguments.

Says the suit, “Simply because litigation pertaining to an election has been filed or is anticipated does not permit the Harris County Elections Administrator to withhold his communications simply by benefit of his office.”

County Shortcomings Identified by State Audit

The plaintiffs’ lawsuit cites repeated and widespread failures in Harris County. For instance, in December 2022, a Texas-Secretary-of-State audit of Harris County found:

  • Mobile ballot boxes containing 184,999 cast-vote records that were included in the tally did not have a proper chain of custody.
  • Documentation for the creation of 17 mobile ballot boxes accounting for 124,630 cast-vote records could not be produced.
  • Unlike other counties, Harris County did not release a list showing polling locations comparing variance between the number of voters checked in and the number of votes cast.
  • The State’s Forensic Audit Division was not allowed to speak to pertinent Elections Administration staff until the month before the election.

Dolcefino said, “The quickest way to make all this go away is to release the documents.” 

Needed to Hold Government Officials Accountable

In my opinion, this is information that citizens need to hold their government officials accountable. As the Washington Post says, “Democracy dies in darkness.”

The preamble to the Texas Government Code holds that “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”

In my limited experience, I have found that departments that have nothing to hide willingly produce information. On the other hand, those that withhold information trigger suspicion, undermine trust, and cause more journalists to dig deeper. The resulting public outrage, often backfires on the stonewallers in the long run. 

Unfortunately, the courts move so slowly these days, this dispute may not be settled before the next election. So the information the secret documents contain may not help us conduct a better election next time. Now let’s see. Who’s responsible for courts?

To see the full lawsuit, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/14/2023

1995 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.

Action Needed re: $750 Million for Flood-Control Funding

Harris County doesn’t have enough money to complete the 2018 Flood Bond, but is not committing all of a $750 million grant from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) for Hurricane Harvey flood mitigation.

Shortfall

In the last Harris County Commissioners Court Meeting, Lina Hidalgo admitted that Harris County doesn’t have enough money to finish all projects in the 2018 Flood Bond. See the video starting at 5 hours and 10 minutes.

The $2.5 billion 2018 Harris County Flood Bond program actually contained flood-mitigation projects worth $5 billion dollars. The County anticipated using a third of the original $2.5 billion to attract matching funds from Federal, State and other partners worth another $2.5 billion. However, to date, only about $1.7 billion in partnership funds have been committed. (See page 11 of last bond update.) That leaves a shortfall of about $800 million.

Yet Harris County has had $750 million of HUD Harvey Mitigation Funds sitting on the table for 20 months now. During that time, the County has only submitted a vague, high-level outline for how it wants to spend the money with no specifics. The County wants:

  • 10% for planning and administration ($75 million)
  • 45% for the Flood Control District ($325 million)
  • 45% for “Harris County” ($325 million)
For more details on the plan which has received “conditional” approval, pending public comments, click here.

Where Will Next Half Billion Come From?

$800 minus $325 equals a $475 million shortfall. So only using $325 million for flood control projects still leaves us about half a billion in unfunded projects. The flood resilience trust won’t cover all that. And those calculations, by the way, don’t even include inflation. Project overages are running about 10% to date, according to Dr. Tina Petersen, Executive Director of the Harris County Flood Control District. As more years go by, that 10% is likely to increase given the cumulative impact of inflation.

And because of the way the county has accelerated projects in low-to-moderate income areas, if projects get cut or delayed, the projects will likely be in more affluent areas like Lake Houston.

The entire $325 million being allocated to HCFCD out of the $750 million would not even cover the $335 million of unfinished bond projects in the Halls Bayou watershed alone. Nothing would be left for anyone else.

The outline did not specify how the second $325 million for Harris County would be used. However, the County did reserve the right to shift money to cities (which already had opportunities to submit grant requests to the Texas General Land Office and the Houston-Galveston Area Council).

Get Your Promised Share of the 2018 Flood Bond

Please protest the diversion of these funds. Submit a public comment to Harris County Community Services Department (HCCSD), which prepared the plan. You must submit it by February 21 at 5PM via:  

US Mail

Attn: HCCSD Planning Section

13105 Northwest Freeway, Suite 400

Houston, Texas 77040 

Or Email 
DRplancomments@csd.hctx.net

You may also comment at in-person public hearings on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, at 10 a.m. or 5:30 p.m.:

Harris County Community Services Department

9418 Jensen, Houston, Texas, 77093

Original letters always carry more weight than form letters. But if you don’t have time to write your own, copy or adapt the one below and email it to Harris County Community Services Department. By law, Community Services must forward ALL public comments to the Texas General Land Office and HUD. They will give final approval to any plan.

Sample Letter with Key Points

To whom it may concern:

I strongly protest the outline that Harris County Community Services presented to the GLO for the distribution of $750 million in HUD CDBG-MIT Harvey flood-mitigation funds.

Since adoption of Harris County’s Equity Prioritization Framework, the County has been funneling 2018 Flood Bond money and other local funds to projects in high LMI and SVI areas. 

Now, however, there likely won’t be enough money to finish all of the defined flood-bond projects that voters approved by 88%. 

Therefore, I suggest:

  1. The entire $750 million should go to Harris County Flood Control District to complete unfunded flood-mitigation projects in the bond. 
  2. Earmark half that money for projects in watersheds with more affluent residents (less than 50% LMI) who have been largely ignored until now.
  3. Prioritize projects by:
    • The number of damaged structures during Harvey
    • Depth of flooding during Harvey
    • Remaining, unmitigated flood risk
    • Ability to reduce threats to infrastructure, such as bridges, schools, hospitals, and sewage treatment plants.
    • Lack of previous flood-mitigation investment in watershed
  4. The County, GLO and HUD need to be fair to all people of Harris County as HUD’s rules allow. Half of the flood-mitigation funding in Harris County since 2000 has gone to just four watersheds (Brays, Greens, White Oak, and Sims). Other areas have needs, too.
  5. CSD should present a detailed plan and stick to it. Vague generalities invite suspicion and undermine trust in government. 
  6. Ensure transparency. Harris County CSD has a poor record of transparency and website updates. Create a dashboard that publicly displays:
    • Encumbrances
    • Spending to date on every project
    • Who gets how much money, when, for what
    • Each project’s progress 
    • Monthly updates
  7. The MOD should include guarantees that the county will meet performance deadlines. Because of the 20 months already squandered since the County became aware of the $750 million, I question the county’s ability to spend the money by HUD’s deadline.

Thank you for considering these thoughts.

Don’t forget to add your contact information so Community Services can tell the General Land Office and HUD where the comment came from.

For more supporting information, including charts and graphs that you can use to create a custom letter, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/13/2023

1994 days since Hurricane Harvey

HCFCD Issues Reports on Late January Flooding, Tornados

Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist, has issued a report on January flooding, heavy rainfall and a significant tornado on January 24, 2023. He also released intensity tables for 24th to the 31st. They help us understand the cumulative impact of back-to-back heavy rainfalls on the 24th and 29th.

Overview

Says Lindner, “Early on the 24th, surface low pressure developed over south-central Texas. It helped draw a warm front northward. It eventually formed a line from near Sealy to Downtown Houston to Chambers County. This warm front when combined with strong lift, impressive low level wind shear, and winds changing direction, resulted in the formation of supercell thunderstorms along a line from near Victoria to Sealy to Conroe.

They trained across northwest Harris County. Rainfall amounts southeast of US59 ranged from 1-2 inches, but 2-6 inches northwest of 59.

One of the storms along the front produced a tornado over southern Fort Bend County. Another formed over northern Brazoria county near Pearland. Rotation increased as it tracked through SE Houston, Pasadena, Deer Park and Baytown.

Duration and Rates

The heaviest rainfall occurred over portions of west, northwest, and northern Harris County in a 3 to 6 hr period. Several locations in northwest Harris County recorded 1.0-3.0 inches of rainfall in an hour during the late morning hours. Additionally, as the line of storms moved eastward, numerous locations recorded 1.0-2.0 inches of rainfall in 15-45 minutes. That resulted in rapid street flooding over many portions of Harris County during the early to mid afternoon hours.

From Harris County Flood Control District report.

Total Amounts

Total 6-hr rainfall amounts ranged from 3.0-6.0 inches from north of Katy along west/north of FM 1960 into the Humble and Kingwood areas. The highest amount was at John Paul Landing Park in northwest Harris County where 5.48 inches was recorded in 3 hours. Unfortunately, most of this rain fell on grounds that were still wet from heavy rainfalls on January 8 and 9. This maximized runoff into area creeks.

Lindner points out that, “Heavy rainfall and flooding can occur every month of the year in Harris County and there have been other recent heavy rainfall events in January. Compare rainfall duration and intensity in the table below.”

“Cool season” events tend to be short in duration with the majority of the rain occurring in 6 hours or less,” says Lindner.

Interestingly, all of the January flooding events listed above had identical contributing factors: a surface warm front, high moisture levels, and training movement over the same area.

Rainfall amounts for the 1- and 3-hour time periods ranged from 2- to 10-year rains on the Atlas 14 scale. For the most part, channels could accommodate the rainfall. No widespread house flooding occurred although streams came out of their banks at numerous locations and came dangerously close to homes. See below.

Homes surround by floodwaters near West Fork San Jacinto on 1/30/23.

Tornado Impacts

The tornados were a different story, though. As they swept across the southern part of the county at 40 to 60 mph, they produced significant damage.

Lindner said, “Video obtained from the City of Deer Park indicated a tornado heavily shrouded in heavy rainfall with very little if any visibility of a condensation funnel or lofted debris. Unlike tornadoes in the Great Plains, many of the tornados along the US Gulf coast are hidden within heavy rainfall and very difficult to observe.”

Damage assessments as of February 7, from the cities impacted indicate approximately 1,635 single family homes were damaged, 855 multi family units, and 15 mobile homes. The tornados ranged from EF0 to EF2 in intensity. EF2 winds range from 111-135 mph.

Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist

For a complete listing of rainfall intensities and damage assessments at different locations through the county, see Lindner’s report here. It contains an interesting history of tornados in Harris County.

The pictures below were taken by a retired Kingwood resident, John Knoerzer, who owned a business in one of the hardest hit areas. They illustrate damage in Pasadena at one of his former employee’s home and shop.

Roof and walls torn away by winds. Note sheet metal twisted around tree in upper right. That came from a neighbors home several hundred feet away.
Sheet metal from same building shredded the power lines in this 23-second video.

Never Bet Against Mother Nature

Lindner’s report and these images provide powerful reminders of why we should never take flood or wind risk for granted. And why we need to see flood-mitigation projects through to completion.

These were only 5-year storms. But remember. Those exceedance probabilities are like odds on a Las Vegas roulette wheel. I once saw the same number come up six consecutive times!

Don’t bet against Mother Nature. Insurance gives you much better odds.

To explore historical rainfall in your area, consult the Harris County Flood Warning System.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/8/23 with thanks to John Knoerzer for his images and Jeff Lindner for his reporting

1989 Days since Hurricane Harvey