Tag Archive for: equity

Flood-Mitigation Funding Flows to Damage, Not High-Income Neighborhoods

Last in an eight part series on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County

For two years, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia have alleged that rich watersheds get all the flood-mitigation funding, while poor and minority watersheds get none. But data suggests that is far from the truth.

Three months ago, the din from Ellis and Garcia reached a crescendo. I became so alarmed about the allegations of racism in flood-mitigation funding, that I submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request to Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) for historical funding data by watershed. I also requested related data such as watershed size, damaged structures, the number of low-to-moderate-income (LMI) residents, and more.

Data Contradicts Ellis/Garcia Narrative

My analysis contradicted the carefully crafted Ellis/Garcia narrative. I found the exact opposite of what they claimed.

The most dollars flow to low-income watersheds which, coincidentally, have the most flood damage.

The strongest correlation I found with flood-mitigation “funding” since 2000 was “damaged structures.” And the percentage of low-to-moderate income residents in a neighborhood correlates very strongly to damage per square mile.

When you think about this, it makes sense. We put the most flood-control dollars in areas that flood the most.

Damage Per-Square Mile Correlates Highly with LMI %

To understand patterns in the data, one must start by evaluating damage “per square mile.” That’s because high- and low-income watersheds differ radically in size and number.

  • Harris County has only eight low-to-moderate income watersheds, but 15-high income watersheds.
  • The low-income watersheds are half the total size – 600 square miles vs. 1176 square miles.

When looking at damage on a per square mile basis, the highest concentrations occur in low-income neighborhoods.

LMI percentage and damaged structures per square mile have a 0.82 coefficient of correlation. Mathematicians consider that very strong. 1.0 is the highest you can get, a perfect correlation.

Damage includes structures flooded in four major storms since 2000 (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day and Harvey).

Low-income watersheds cluster on the left and high-income watersheds on the right because of “Damage,” not racial discrimination in mitigation funding. Mitigation dollars already overwhelming flow to minority and low-income neighborhoods as they have for decades.

Flood-Control Dollars Flow to Damage

There’s also a strong relationship between total funding and total damage. Notice how the shape of the curves align closely with a few exceptions.

Total funding since 2000 and the number of damaged structures show a 0.84 coefficient of correlation. Mathematicians consider that very strong.

You can see a general downward trend in both blue and orange, indicating a strong correlation. This relationship supports other statistical analyses in this series. (See links to previous articles listed below.)

At the highest level, when you look at the data from multiple perspectives, one thing stands out: 

Dollars flow to damage, not affluent watersheds.

Possible Causal Links Between LMI Percentage, Damage and Funding

Touring lower income watersheds by car or helicopter helps explain why those watersheds have so much more damage and consequently receive so much more funding. In general, they:

  • Are much more densely packed with buildings, a consequence of more than twice the population density (3,900 residents/square mile compared to 1,600).
  • Have more impervious cover, so water can’t soak in as quickly or as much
  • Tend to crowd floodways and floodplains, which have expanded over time with upstream development
  • Are downstream from rapidly growing areas.
  • Are 70 to 80 years old and therefore built to lower development standards
  • Have many homes that sit almost at street level instead of being elevated above it.
  • Have many clogged roadside ditches and storm drains, due to poor maintenance by county precinct crews and the City of Houston’s Public Works Department. (Water has a hard time getting out of neighborhoods.)
  • Have more structures per acre.

Re: the last point, in Kashmere Gardens (an LMI neighborhood), I found six homes on a third of an acre worth more than my house on a full acre in Kingwood. The density can offset higher home values in suburban neighborhoods when calculating Benefit/Cost Ratios for FEMA or HUD.

Flood-Mitigation Funding by Watershed Since 2000

Here’s how much money each watershed received for capital improvement projects since 2000. No maintenance dollars or dollars committed to complete projects are included – only dollars “out the door” as of the end of March 2021.

The graph above dramatizes two things: 

  • The wide variation from high to low. Luce Bayou received only $4.5 million while Brays received $510 million. That’s 113 to 1.
  • A few watersheds received multiples of the average and median, while far more received a small fraction.

Funding Data Disproves Racist Allegations

Remember that the next time you hear the allegations of racial discrimination from Ellis and Garcia. This discussion shouldn’t be about race. It should be about fixing flooding problems.

The government is not funding flood-control projects in rich areas that didn’t experience flood damage. It funds them in areas that had the MOST damage. Those just happen to be in minority and low-income neighborhoods. And it is critical that people focus on WHY those structures flooded if we are to find solutions. 

Implying that they flooded because of racial bias is misdirection. The racial allegations divide and distract people. They also keep HCFCD, from focusing on real solutions to our flooding problems. That harms all voters in Harris County.

If commissioners continue to focus on race, it will prove they care more about political gamesmanship than fixing drainage.

While that may win them re-election, we all lose.

For More Information

For more information, see: 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/28/2021

1399 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.

Watersheds with Low Voter Turnout Get Most Flood-Mitigation Funding

Sixth in a series of eight articles on flood-mitigation funding in Harris County

In August of 2018, Harris County voters approved a historic flood bond of $2.5 billion. Afterwards, KTRK ABC13 created an interactive precinct-by-precinct voter turnout map for the referendum.  Now, with spending data for flood mitigation projects in hand, we can see that, in general, but not in every case:

  • Watersheds with the highest turnout are getting the least money
  • Those with the lowest turnout are getting the most money.

Ironically, the worst-damaged areas generally had the lowest turnout.

Four Maps Tell Story

Let’s start by looking at four maps. They show: 

  • Location of six low-income watersheds used in a quartile analysis
  • Location of six six high-income watersheds used in the same analysis
  • Voter turnout for the 2018 Harris County flood-bond referendum
  • Damage from Harvey

Ironically, low-income watersheds had the lowest turnout for the 2018 flood-bond referendum and they’re getting the vast majority of flood mitigation funding.

Previous articles in this series have shown that, out of 23 watersheds in Harris County, six low-income watersheds:

Location of Lowest Income Watersheds

The low-income watersheds are all located primarily inside the Beltway.

Most of Greens Bayou is inside Beltway 8, though a portion of it wanders just outside.

Location of Watersheds with Highest Income

Now let’s look at the location of the six high-income watersheds.

High-income watersheds are all outside the beltway.

Who Approved that $2.5 Billion Flood Bond?

Now look at the voter turnout map below from the 2018 flood bond referendum. 

  • Light areas had the lowest voter turnout. 
  • Dark areas had the highest voter turnout. 

Note the area inside the yellow outline. It contains all the watersheds that Commissioners Ellis and Garcia complain about the most as having the least funding: Greens, Halls, Hunting, White Oak and Sims.

To see turnout in both absolute numbers and percentages in individual precincts, go to the interactive version of this map. Click on the visual above or here.

Some precincts in those watersheds had 0 voters. That’s right. No one showed up at the polls. At all. Many precincts had less than 1% turnout. Those light tan-colored areas generally had 1-5%. 

The darkest areas, such as those around Kingwood, had turnout in the 20 to 30% range – generally 5-20 times higher than in the neighborhoods where most of the money is going. 

In fact, Kingwood precincts had five of the top eight turnout percentages in the county. But Kingwood has NEVER received even ONE Harris County FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT capital improvement project.

Damage Concentrations

Compare damage in Harvey (below) with the area outlined in yellow in the map above.

When you consider these four maps together with the historical funding data discussed in previous posts (see links below), they show that most of the money is already going where most of the damage was. 

But large pockets of damage exist elsewhere that get comparatively little to no funding.

For instance, in the map above, note the curving arc of damage along Cypress Creek in the northern part of the county which extends into the Humble/Kingwood area.

People in those damaged areas turned out in high percentages for the flood bond. But they are seeing the vast majority of flood-mitigation projects being built in neighborhoods that didn’t even bother to vote in many cases. That doesn’t bode well for future bonds referendums.

Misleading Statements Undermine Trust in Government and Future

Some political leaders are telling poor people that flood-mitigation projects are all going to rich neighborhoods and the Houston Chronicle blindly repeats what they say without checking the real numbers. Or even bothering to mention projects already completed.

Twitter feed of Chronicle writer who wrote the article above.

But as I’ve shown in previous articles (see links below), depending on how you measure it, up to three quarters of the money is actually flowing to poor neighborhoods.

Funding in six highest and lowest income quartiles.
Funding in six low income watersheds compared to 15 higher income watersheds

Certain Harris County commissioners have fought to prioritize funding for minority and low-income neighborhoods. And in the next Commissioners Court meeting on Tuesday 6/29/21, they’re pushing to expand that prioritization framework to include future projects and funds. See Item 191 on the agenda.

Yet poor people believe all the money is going to rich watersheds – because that’s what their leaders tell them. And rich people see the lion’s share of the money going in the opposite direction.

Everyone believes someone else is getting the funding. So who would vote for another flood bond at this point? No one.

How are you going to convince people that taxed themselves $2.5 billion – and think they aren’t receiving any benefit from it – to vote for the next bond?

We need to restore trust in government by giving people accurate information, not misleading them with racial rhetoric for political gain. More on that tomorrow.

For More Information

For more information, see: 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/26/2021

1397 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 Issues Flood Bond Update as of March 30, 2021

In the March 30, 2021 Harris County Commissioner’s Court Meeting, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) gave a Flood Bond update. Here’s where projects in the 2018 Flood Bond program stand.

Overview

In the 30 months since the bond was approved by Harris County voters, the Harris County Flood Control District has used bond funds to:

  • Accept 25 grants totaling approximately $960 million with Bond funds providing around $259 million in local matching funds
  • Execute 326 engineering agreements totaling $241 million
  • Award 39 construction agreements totaling $296 million
  • Procure 19 staff augmentation agreements providing 113 contract staff members
  • Acquire nearly 340 properties at a value over $208 million for construction projects, floodplain preservation, and wetland mitigation banks
  • Make $115 million available to the Office of the County Engineer to manage and construct drainage improvements in nearly 100 subdivisions across Harris County
  • Conduct 140 community engagement meetings with over 11,413 attendees
  • Complete nearly 630 home buyouts at a value over $130 million with over 680 additional in process for a buyout (since Hurricane Harvey)
  • Complete over $125 million repair program to address damages to District infrastructure caused by Hurricane Harvey

19 Projects Completed, 372 Underway

The flood bond update shows that of the 19 projects completed so far, investigations, analyses and studies comprised 15.

Altogether there are 372 individual HCFCD projects in progress related to the Bond Program. The table below shows the stages of those projects.

88% of all projects identified in the flood bond are currently underway and at some state of completion.

Only 21 Projects Not Yet Started

Only 21 Bond projects have not yet started. They are all in the fourth quartile of the bond prioritization framework and will begin between July 2021 and March 2022. Of those, two are in the San Jacinto watershed: CI-61 (East Fork, West Fork, and Lake Houston Dredging) and F-15 (General Drainage Improvements near Atascocita).

Dredging included a $10 million match with estimated partner funds of $40 million.

FEMA/Army Corps, TWDB and City of Houston funds have covered dredging in the river to date.

Status of Lake Houston Area Projects

Other projects in the Lake Houston Area at least partially underway.

Luce Bayou and Huffman

Project underway include right-of-way acquisition, design and construction of general drainage improvements in the Luce Bayou Watershed and near Huffman (total $20 million). Luce Bayou right-of-way acquisition and floodplain preservation ($10 million) has also started.

Gates on Lake Houston Dam

Design and construction of additional gates on Lake Houston ($20 million) is nearing completion of the design phase. The City of Houston has taken the lead on that project but has made no announcements on it recently.

Other Projects Lake Houston Area Partially Underway
  • The San Jacinto Watershed Study ($625,000)
  • Funding for future partnership projects based on the SJR watershed study ($18.75 million)
  • Investigation of potential detention sites around the Glendale Dredge site in Partnership with the City of Houston ($50,000)
  • Conveyance improvements along Panther Creek ($10 million)
  • General drainage improvements east of Lake Houston ($10 million)
  • General Drainage Improvements near Kingwood ($10 million)

One Third of Projects Now Past Design Phase

One third of all projects have already begin work outside.

Ellis Not Content with 40% of Construction Going into Two Bayous in His Precinct

40% of all projects under construction are in Greens and Halls Bayou Watersheds, the two Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis cares most about. He wants to slow down projects in other areas to focus more on projects in his area.

For a discussion of how the meeting went, check back tomorrow.

For the full Flood Bond update, click here. For future reference, this link is also posted on the Reports page under the Harris County Flood Control District, tab.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/30/21

1309 Days after Hurricane Harvey

How to Find Active HCFCD District Capital and Maintenance Projects

If you’ve been wondering what Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) is up to, check out this interactive GIS Map on HCFCD.org. It shows all active capital and maintenance projects, their exact locations, and budgets. It’s one of several interactive GIS maps that can give you critical information about flood risks, flood maps, mowing schedules, and more.

Active Projects for January 2021

The map below shows active HCFCD projects for January 2021. HCFCD says it updates the maps in the first week of each month. Projects that start after that may not show up until the following month. Active projects include both capital (new construction) and maintenance projects.

Click on the map to launch the app. Click on any project listed on the left or corresponding number on the map to review project description, budget and location in all Harris County Commissioners Court Precincts.

You will find both the legend and filters in the upper right corner. Red circles represent capital projects and black circles represent maintenance projects. To focus only on one type, click the layer icon in the far upper right. Press one type of project or the other to deselect it.

Active project viewer on HCFCD site. Note: not all of these projects involve flood-bond dollars.

What Capital Projects Include

Capital projects include major projects that reduce flooding risks and damages by:

  • Increasing stormwater conveyance capacity in bayous and drainage channels
  • Excavating stormwater detention basins.

Stormwater detention basins reduce flooding risks and damages during heavy rain events by safely storing excess stormwater and slowly releasing it back to the bayou when the threat of flooding has passed. 

More About Maintenance Projects

Maintenance projects include repair projects aimed at returning flood damage reduction channels and other infrastructure to their original designed level of performance by: 

  • Repairing sinkholes, slope failures and other damage caused by erosion 
  • Removing sediment that can reduce stormwater conveyance capacity. 

Smaller maintenance projects grouped together under one construction contract are often given both individual Project Identification Numbers and an umbrella number that begins with the letter “Z,” since there is often more than one watershed involved in the group. “Z-packages” have numbers such as Z100-00-00-X223. 

What Map Does NOT Include

This map does not include flood damage reduction studies or projects in other preliminary phases; smaller maintenance projects performed by Flood Control District work crews; or completed construction projects.

Equity?

One of the first things that strikes me about the January map is the lack of projects in the northeastern portion of the county. To be fair, two small maintenance projects have started in Kingwood since the map above was compiled. But still, a glance at the map shows that projects are heavily skewed toward the south, central and western sides of the county.

Example: The construction projects now underway on Brays, White Oak, and Hunting Bayous total more than $100 million. But there are ZERO construction projects underway in Kingwood, Humble, Huffman, Atascocita, Spring, Tomball, and Crosby – all areas hard hit by Harvey.

Fairness to all?

Commissioner’s Court has pushed the Flood Control District to start projects in lower income areas first based. A majority of commissioners worry that low income residents are less able to recover from floods. They also worry that money in the flood bond won’t cover all projects identified in the 2018 flood bond. Some have even talked about floating another bond.

Good luck with that if they don’t adopt a more equitable definition of “equity” which the 2018 flood bond promised!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/25/2021 based on public information provided by HCFCD

1145 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Harris County Commissioners Vote to Explore Using Flood-Bond for Maintenance, Possibly Floating Another Bond

At the October 27, 2020 Harris County Commissioners Court meeting, Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia introduced a motion from the floor to explore using flood bond funds for maintenance projects. The motion was not on the agenda, nor did he circulate it before the meeting. It caught some commissioners off guard. Minor changes in wording between what the motion said, and how Garcia and Commissioner Rodney Ellis described it, will keep court watchers guessing about their true intent.

Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia

In the end, the motion passed. It didn’t commit commissioners to anything more than conducting a survey and exploring options. However, last Tuesday’s discussion gives voters a peak over the horizon. It reveals what commissioners think and how desperate some are to find new sources of revenue rather than reign in runaway spending.

Garcia Explains Rationale for Motion

View the discussion yourself online. Click on Departments (Part 4 of 5). Start at approximately 4:21 into that segment. Below is a close transcription.

Adrian Garcia: The flood control district has developed the future operations and maintenance needs for the projects that the district will be constructing using the bond program. The overall need for the next 10 years is ninety seven million, with an average annual budget increase need of approximately 10 million per year. Major infrastructure that the control district owned and maintained are detention ponds, earthen channels, concrete channels, and outfall. It’s extremely important that the county funds the proactive maintenance and deferred maintenance for all Harris County owned infrastructure.

I see the spreadsheet that the district has submitted for their 10-year, cost-increase projections for bond projects and growth only as of 10/16 of this year. I am curious as to why some of the heavy equipment, the vehicles, management software implementation, the customer service, the (garbled) software, large repair projects, why these couldn’t be paid out of the bond funding [Emphasis Added, see below] versus using general-fund dollars?

And so I’d like to propose a motion that would touch on the customer-service satisfaction aspect of the flood control district. (Interruption) …

…so the customer-service satisfaction model, the risk-based model and the deferred-maintenance model.

Garcia Proposes Motion

Adrian Garcia:  And so my proposed motions would read that Harris County flood control district should perform a customer satisfaction survey for deferred maintenance and services to develop the maintenance cycle and overall maintenance budget needs.

The flood control district should develop an overall condition assessment for the infrastructure and based on the risk of failure and risk of potential flooding, the flood control district should develop a prioritized criteria and maintenance-needs budget and the Harris county flood control district needs to take a comprehensive look at the condition of all existing infrastructure and identify maintenance needs that have been deferred for years due to budgetary or any other reason. There are many areas where repair work can be significantly large and may also qualify for a capital project. And the Budget Management Department needs to evaluate if we can fund this through a bond program [Emphasis Added, see below].

So that’s the motion I’d like to propose.

Judge, just make sure that we’re not forgetting how to maybe better deal with the O&M (operations and maintenance) side of the Flood Control District’s operations.

Ellis Wants Maintenance Tied to “Equity” Scheme

Rodney Ellis: Second.  It also brings to my mind the question of, “How much of the flood bond money was spent before we adopted the equity guidelines?” 

Harris County Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis

Matt Zeve (Deputy Exec Director, HCFCD): Yes, sir, Commissioner. My staff and I are working on getting those numbers over to you by the end of the week, plus all the other questions that you asked us to dig into. We plan to have that over to you before the end of the week.

Rodney Ellis: And Commissioner (Garcia), I only ask because it relates to the issue. Let’s say if a half a billion, five hundred million was spent before we adopted equity guidelines, I know the city is trying to get us to do some swap. They don’t have equity guidelines as it relates to that … some other project in another county … and I’m going to propose that they give us a recommendation or I’ll come up with one so that we make up a project that will fund it in the absence of equity guidelines, possibly in an equitable way. And money was taken off the top while we were coming up with guidelines, and I want to compensate for that going forward. And that ties in with what you’re doing today.

Hidalgo: So there’s a motion and a second… 

Cagle Objects Because Motion Isn’t in Writing

Cagle: Was it sent around, Judge? (Meaning, “Was the motion circulated so that commissioners could see in writing what they were voting for?”)

Adrian Garcia: It’s coming around now, Commissioner.

Cagle: I’ll hold off until I see it. 

Hidalgo: We can circle back (before taking a vote).

One Hour Later, Motion Passes

Approximately an hour later, at time code 5:23:50, Hidalgo finally circles back to Garcia’s motion.

Commissioner Jack Cagle asks Commissioner Garcia if he discussed his motion with the leaders of the flood control district. Answer: “Some of it.”

Cagle then states, “It’s asking for an assessment. I don’t have an issue with that.”

Commissioner Radack asks whether it could be implemented without coming back to court.

Robert Soard, speaking for the County Attorney’s office, says that any action on the survey would have to come back through Commissioner’s Court for a vote.

Garcia restates the motion, but this time the wording differs slightly: To direct the Harris County Flood Control District to perform a customer satisfaction survey for deferred maintenance and services (i.e. mowing, desilting, etc.) to develop the maintenance cycle and overall maintenance budget needs, to develop an overall condition assessment for the Infrastructure and based on the risk of failure and risk of potential flooding, HCFCD should develop a prioritization criteria and maintenance needs budget and to take a comprehensive look at the condition of all existing infrastructure and identify maintenance need that has been deferred for years due to budgetary or any other reason. There are many areas where repair work can be significantly large that may also qualify for a Capital Project and Budget Management Department need to evaluate if we can fund these through a Bond Program.

Ellis seconds it again. The motion passes.

Text of Flood Bond That Voters Passed

The words “maintenance” and “operations” appear nowhere in the bond language approved by voters.

Under Texas law, bond funds from the 2018 referendum can only be used for purposes approved by the voters.

However, as Commissioner Garcia alludes to in the final sentence of his motion, some maintenance projects are so large that they could legitimately be characterized as capital projects. In fact, the 2018 Flood Bond contained three such projects:

  • F-53 $40 million for “Rehabilitation of Channels Upstream of Addicks Reservoir to Restore Channel Conveyance Capacity”
  • F-52 $20 million for “Rehabilitation of Approximately 20 Miles of Channels Upstream of Barker Reservoir to Restore Channel Conveyance Capacity”
  • CI-012 $60 million for “Major Maintenance of Cypress Creek and Tributaries”

Before the 2018 Bond Election, Harris County Flood Control had only a $120 million budget for maintenance, half of which it spent on capital projects. So you can see that those three maintenance projects would have consumed the entire annual maintenance budget by themselves. Clearly, they fall into a gray area.

The three projects above fall under language in the flood bond that allows “channel improvements.” Also HCFCD publicized them as potential projects before the vote.

Is It Wise to Pay for Maintenance With Bond Money?

Ordinarily, it’s a bad idea to pay for maintenance out of 30-year bond funds.

Mr. Garcia’s introduction of the motion mentioned things not in the motion. For instance:

  • Vehicles
  • Software
  • Customer service

The County should never, in my opinion, pay for those with a 30-year bond. Neither should the bond pay for mowing, which WAS in the motion.

It’s literally like taking out a mortgage to cut your grass. A week later, you’re back where you started and saddled with 30 years of debt.

A New Bond?

Above, I bolded “THE BOND” and “A BOND.” At first, Commissioner Garcia said he wanted to use money from THE BOND (meaning the 2018) bond to pay for some maintenance items. But his actual motion refers to “A BOND.”

That’s certainly a strange way to refer to the historic flood bond passed in 2018. It sounds as though he’s laying the groundwork to float another flood bond.

Rodney Ellis’ rush to second the motion supports the second interpretation. For months, Ellis has consistently carped that there won’t be enough money in the 2018 bond to do all the projects that need doing.

Ellis, Equity Flap and Elm Grove

That’s why Commissioner Ellis redefined “equity” earlier this year. The 2018 Flood Bond specified “equitable distribution of funds.” 88% of people throughout the county voted for that language – thinking they would get their fair share of flood bond money. However, Commissioner Ellis redefined the word to favor the socially vulnerable and penalize others.

Now, Ellis seems to be linking help for Elm Grove to the City of Houston’s adoption of “equity guidelines” comparable to his. He said, “I’m going to propose that they give us a recommendation or I’ll come up with one…” Then he added, “That (meaning equity) ties into what we’re doing here today.” Literally, they are conducting an inventory of maintenance needs and developing a prioritization framework for it.

That framework will no doubt be used to ensure distribution of maintenance dollars according to Mr. Ellis’ definition of equity.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/3/2020

1162 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia Approve Community Flood Resilience Task Force Even As Supporters Turn Against It

Tuesday, 8/11/2020, Harris County Commissioners Court approved creation of a new Community Flood Resilience Task Force by a 3-2 vote along party lines.

Three Vote FOR Despite Protests from Supporters

Judge Lina Hidalgo, Commissioner Adrian Garcia and Commissioner Rodney Ellis voted FOR the measure despite every speaker complaining about some aspect of it. Even those who had lobbied for a year to create the task force spoke against the final bylaws.

Two Vote AGAINST; Cite Timing, Procedural Issues

Commissioner Radack voted against it, citing a soon-to-be-released Army Corps study that could make the task force obsolete.

Commissioner Cagle also voted against it. He cited some troubling procedural issues having to do with public notice. The motion was placed on an emergency agenda late in the day on Friday – without backup. That meant the public could not see what it was about.

Then the task force bylaws changed several times over the weekend. And even during the meeting. This gave commissioners no time to review the measure they were voting on or to consult affected constituents.  

Ambush Agendas Undermine Transparency

Cagle’s concern highlights a growing trend in Commissioner’s Court these days: ambush agendas.

The emergency agenda is posted late in the day on Friday. This increases the chances that people will miss it and reduces their time to respond or request explanation before the court takes action. Some might say that it’s being used as a tactic to minimize opposition.

Likewise, this administration uses supplemental meetings the same way. Hidalgo called a meeting on August 3rd at 4 pm to consider changing the election process. Without posting any explanation.

Such meetings also catch opponents off-guard. Between special meetings and emergency agendas, the public had only ten days for comment on the task force proposal that will guide $2.5 billion in spending. That is not enough to study an idea, understand it, and mobilize protests (if called for).

During testimony on the measure, it became apparent that those who favored the motion received revised bylaws over the weekend. However, those speaking against did not. 

Such steamroller tactics make a mockery of transparency. Especially when there is no need to rush the measure through after so long.

A New Form of “Co-Government”

During the discussion, Judge Hidalgo’s comments made it clear that she sees the task force as a:

  • New form of “co-government”
  • Tool to oversee and overrule professionals in her own Flood Control District
  • Way to identify “the next big thing” in flood control.
  • Pattern for similar task forces in other departments, such as Transportation and Elections.

Avoiding Geographic Representation When Solving Geographic Problem

I previously posted about this subject more than a year ago. I spoke against the measure based on the fact that it represents only some people, not all. It excludes representatives from each watershed in Harris County, in favor of poor communities and communities of color – regardless of how much floods have damaged other communities.

Also, instead of having flood experts, the task force has equity and resilience experts.

Only three of the 17 people on the task force would have scientific or technical expertise, but they would be overseeing scientists, engineers and technical experts.

Both equity and resilience have been redefined to favor the “socially vulnerable.”

Index to Meeting Video

Video of the meeting shows how this went down. I urge you to look at it instead of simply accepting my summary. However, for easy reference, here is a recap of key thoughts with approximate time codes. 

In the left hand window, click on: on II. Emergency/Supplemental items (Part 3 of 3). Then scroll to 5:16:35 where you should hear Judge Hidalgo announce “Item 8: Task Force Bylaws.”

5:16: 53. Hidalgo summarizes the process, which started a year ago. She mentions other cities with similar task forces, and describes this one as a “best practice.”

15:17:31 Hidalgo describes the function of the group as oversight – to ensure that projects go according to the prioritization schedule approved by the three Democrats.

15:17:40 “Most importantly,” she says, “It will help the county look forward and tell us what the next big thing is going to be.” She claims they had multiple comments from hundreds of people and distilled their input.

County Judge Lina Hidalgo conducting discussion in online meeting.

5:18:07. She tells commissioners they got an edited version of the task force bylaws because she still doesn’t know which department the group will go in.

5:18:28. She says, “But I don’t want to hold this any longer just because we haven’t settled on the place.” (That’s the closest explanation we have as to why this appeared on the emergency agenda.)

5:18:40 Garcia congratulates Hidalgo for “engineering” the proposal.

“Which Version Are We Voting On?”

5:19:43 Cagle interrupts to ensure “we’re voting on the right version.” He complains about getting material over the weekend, which was then revised during the meeting they are now in.

CEER Calls Proposal “A Step Backward”

5:20:30. First speaker, Iris Gonzalez of CEER (Coalition for Environment Equity and Resilience) says the proposal addresses “communities that have been left behind.” But then she says, “We’re really disappointed in the language.”  She also asserts that other groups in her coalition are also disappointed. She concludes by stating the bylaws fail to implement the full intent of the resolution passed a year ago. “This seems like a step backward,” she says.

Katie Prairie Conservancy Voices Multiple Complaints

5:23:18: The President of Katie Prairie Conservancy complains about one issue after another. She wants:

  • “Direct access to commissioners court on a regular basis” 
  • “Supervision of flood management activities.” 
  • “Membership of task force to represent the diverse communities that make up Harris County.”
  • Nature-based solutions for generations to come. 

She says, the task force could be effective, but only if it has authority.

5:26:25 Radack thanks the Conservancy for its work.

5:29. Garcia does, too. 

Residents Against Flooding Says Task Force Needs More Specialists

5:32:30 Cynthia Neely, from Residents Against Flooding, said she got copy of the revised bylaws Sunday afternoon. (Even though people speaking against the proposal, like me, did not). The task force, she says, needs more members of groups like Residents Against Flooding. She also demands specialists representing green infrastructure, natural sciences, soil, wildlife, etc.

Sierra Club Voices “Deep Concerns”

5:56 The Houston Sierra Club said it “…has very deep concerns about the Infrastructure Resilience Team and Task Force.” Specifically, it has no one with a  background in green infrastructure, green space, natural sciences, or wildlife. The speaker proposes amendments to the language.

ReduceFlooding Complaints

5:38:55 Bob Rehak (me) speaks for ReduceFlooding.com. I complain that the task force bylaws:

  • Represent some, but not all people
  • Allow diversions of bond money to non-flood issues
  • Define the words resilience and equity in a self-serving way that’s contrary to common understanding.

I also request that the measure be killed or put on the ballot in to November to give voters a chance to confirm that they agree with the new, unconventional definitions of resilience and equity that skew distribution of flood bond dollars unequally.

Cypress Creek Complains About Representation, Balance

5:42:31 Jim Robertson, Cypress Creek Flood Coalition, wanted representatives for each watershed and better balance between community and technical representation. He also wanted more than ten days of public comment and input.

Radack Complains about Timing

5:45:31. Commissioner Radack expresses concern about what a new Army Corps report coming out soon will say. He worries that it could “devastate” some members of  the task, so he advocated not doing anything at this time.

Historical Discrimination Against Lake Houston Area

5:49:48 Rehak (who was cut off before commissioners could ask questions) comes back to answer one from Cagle. Cagle asks why I felt the Lake Houston area has historically been discriminated against in the allocation of flood dollars.

5:50:15 Rehak replies that in the entire history of the flood control district, the Humble/Kingwood area has never received one federally funded HCFCD project. Also, “The Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium reported that the San Jacinto River Watershed has 3% of the region’s population, historically has received 0% of the region’s flood mitigation funding, and yet sustained 14% of the region’s damages during Harvey. We received 4 to 5 times more damage per person than other parts of Harris County, in large part, because of this historical neglect. That’s why the Humble/Kingwood area voted overwhelmingly for the flood bond when we saw the equity language in it. In fact, we had five of the top eight precincts in the county in terms of turnout. Now we’re being neglected again with these bylaws because of very unusual definitions of equity and resilience that help only a few, not everybody.”

Hidalgo Wants Model for “Co-Governing”

5:51:45 Hidalgo thanks everyone and says, “We’re trying to create a model for co-governing which everyone can see is like being passed around like a hot potato a little bit. I don’t want to keep holding this up.”

5:52:24 Hidalgo runs through comments received during the process because there “are so many different perspectives.” 

“We wanted this to be a community task force.” But then, “We decided against including someone from each of the 22 watersheds because it would have become too large.” 

“We have this huge charge to reimagine our flood future.” 

“We need to move away from piecemeal approaches and be able to answer the question “What is success?” (Editorial Comment: To me, success is NOT flooding.) 

Hidalgo Planning for Next Bond Election, Transforming Government

“We need people to help us PLAN for the NEXT bond election and the next big thing, she says.

“We could keep debating this forever, so I propose we vote on this today. It’s impossible to make everybody happy.” 

“We also need to create community groups like this for Elections and Transportation.”  

“This is the best shot we’ve got,” she says.

5:58:23. Ellis asks which department will house the task force?

5:58:30 Hidalgo talks about the options, but concludes it “doesn’t need to be decided today.”

Ellis Takes Credit for Equity Bias

6:00:16 Ellis says he favors the proposal. He claims he put the equity language on the bond ballet because of FEMA’s cost/benefit language. It supposedly favors rich neighborhoods (though statistics don’t back that up). “We know which neighborhoods have been neglected historically,” he says. Meaning HIS.

Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis taking credit for redefining equity.

6:01 Ellis says, “There are some who would advocate just dividing 2.5 billion equally among the four precincts. Well, that’s not equity.”

“So I was glad to put that language on the ballot.”

“This was a worst/first strategy. I’m proud to implement it.”

6:02 Ellis seconds Garcia’s motion to adopt the Task Force Bylaws.

Final Wrangling

6:02:15 Hidalgo restates the motion on the agenda.

6:03:20 Hidalgo calls for a vote.

Garcia, Hidalgo and Ellis vote YES.

Cagle and Radack vote NO.

Cagle again complains about not getting enough notice.

Hidalgo says “We sent an email Sunday with the backup. So it’s just not accurate to say it was a surprise.”

6:04: Motion to create task force is approved.

Re-Purposing Government On the Fly

If you care to watch the entire meeting you will witness county government being re-purposed before your eyes. And it’s a real eye opener.

Remember this when they try to push the tax increase through. It will come up again in September. Will it be on an emergency agenda over the weekend with little public notice and no backup? Will we have more non-elected representatives determining how public funds are spent?

Forget Shakespeare. THIS is high drama.

For a complete copy of the final task force bylaws, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/13/2020

1080 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Harris County Could Shift Billions of Flood-Bond Dollars Tuesday without Public Vote

Tuesday, Harris County Commissioners Court could vote on a proposal to create a Community Flood Resilience Task Force (CFRTF). The Task Force has the potential to shift billions of flood-bond dollars from Republican-controlled Precincts 3 and 4 to Democratic-controlled Precincts 1 and 2. It should be noted that resilience appears nowhere in the flood bond language that voters approved, so this may not even be legal.

County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Commissioner Rodney Ellis and Commissioner Adrian Garcia are using the committee and unusual definitions of “equity,” “equitably,” and “resilience” to justify the shift. Their efforts could kill much-needed flood-mitigation projects in areas such as Elm Grove and the wider Lake Houston Area. Mr. Ellis especially has been openly hostile toward helping Elm Grove.

Secrecy Surrounds Creation of Task Force

The CFRTF proposal has been placed on the Emergency/Supplemental portion of the agenda with no public explanation of what commissioners would actually vote on. See Item #8. It reads only: “Request by the County Judge for discussion and possible action on reconstituting the Harris County Flood Control Task Force as the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force and amending the bylaws accordingly.”

The current version of the Task Force by-laws is not posted online, but I have obtained a copy via a FOIA request. The wording of the bylaws has changed from the version posted on July 24. A distinctive bias runs through the wording that’s contrary to the wording approved by Harris County voters in 2018.

2018 Flood-Bond Election Called for Equity

Because not one joint USACE/HCFCD project had ever been conducted in the area, Lake Houston Area leaders actually argued to include this language in the flood bond. It is now being turned against the area.

Harris County voters approved the flood bond in 2018 with the understanding that flood-bond dollars would be distributed “equitably.” The approved language specifically required that. Since then, however, Commissioner Rodney Ellis has led a concerted effort to redefine the word equitably so that flood-bond dollars can be shifted disproportionately to low-income “communities of color.”

Recognized Definitions of Equitable and Equitably

Most people likely define equitably as fairly or impartially.

  • Webster’s Third International Dictionary defines it as equality – “without prejudice or favoritism.”
  • The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “unbiased, impartial.”
  • Roget’s Thesaurus lists two pages of synonyms, most centered around the idea of “a level playing field.”
  • Black’s Law Dictionary has pages of definitions, most centered around the idea of “fairness.”

Ellis’ Definition of Equity

Mr. Ellis defines equity as righting the wrongs of the past, especially in regard to racial injustice. His definition relates to fairness only if you define equity, not in terms of the present, but of the past. He talks a lot about reparations for slavery. However, he ignores:

I doubt this is what voters had in mind two years ago when 88% voted for the flood bond.

They more likely felt they would see their fair share of flood-bond projects going to their neighborhoods, not making up for social injustices.

Making up for for social injustices is NOT how the bond was sold. HCFCD identified projects in every watershed based on 22 community input meetings.

Task Force To Ensure “Equitable Resilience”

Judge Hidalgo, Commissioner Ellis and Commissioner Garcia intend to use this supposedly impartial task force to advise them on flood-control decisions. However, the flood-control experts and engineers don’t get to vote. They will only advise 17 political appointees. The appointees must have, according to the proposed bylaws, “a demonstrated knowledge of or interest in equitable approaches to flood resilience and the socioeconomic, demographic, and environmental factors that affect the relative resilience of communities in response to flooding.”

Of the 17 members:

  • At least two must represent low-income communities.
  • At least two must represent communities of color.
  • At least three must have expertise in flood resilience.
  • At least one will be a City of Houston representative with responsibilities related to resilience.

The task force will also include at least one person from each of eight competency areas, six of which are based on the idea of equity (See appendix A, page 12):

  1. Housing equity
  2. Health equity
  3. Equitable infrastructure
  4. Equitable urban planning and transportation
  5. Environmental equity
  6. Equity and social justice

The other two competencies are:

  1. Flood risk mitigation
  2. Authentic connections to local communities with “lived experience” (whatever that means).

A minimum 14 out of the 17 positions on the task force will ensure Hidalgo’s, Garcia’s and Ellis’ definitions of equity and resilience based on “social justice” are implemented.

Note that resilience, like equity, has become political code for programs that benefit primarily the socially vulnerable. (See the resilience study produced by the City of Houston.)

Double-Speak Definitions Enshrined in Bylaws

Article II (Definitions) Paragraph 3 even spells out what’s meant by the term “equitable resilience.” It “takes into account issues of social vulnerability,” say the bylaws.

The bylaws then go on to say equitable resilience “…starts from people’s own perception of their position within their human-environmental system and accounts for their realities and their need for a change of circumstance to avoid imbalances of power into the future.”

Talk about political double speak! What does that even mean?

I think they’re saying that decisions will be made on subjective, not objective, criteria.

Also note Definition #6 – Flood Resilience Projects. The word mitigation (as in flood mitigation) appears nowhere in the definition.

In fact, the phrase “flood mitigation” appears nowhere in the entire 12-page document. Neither does the word “equal.” However, resilience appears 63 times. But “resilience” never appears once in the bond language that voters approved.

Resilience, like equity, does not apply to the entire county. Most people probably see resilience as a positive word that helps everyone. It doesn’t. The Ellis/Hidalgo/Garcia definition helps only a subset of people.

More Double Speak

A footnote on page 3 says “It is not within the scope of the CFRTF to alter or re-prioritize 2018 flood bond projects, except that the CFRTF should evaluate and provide feedback on whether those projects are being implemented in accordance with the [Harris County Commissioners] court-approved equitable prioritization framework and schedule.”

In other words, the task force can only make sure the equity priorities that Ellis, Hidalgo and Garcia approved are being implemented. These aren’t advisors; they’re enforcers.

Troubling Questions

  • Why are technical experts on flood mitigation being replaced by “equity” experts?
  • Why is the judgment of experts on flood mitigation being replaced by political appointees who don’t represent the spectrum of views in Harris County?
  • Why are changes that could fundamentally alter the nature of government and the allocation of tax dollars being considered on an “emergency” agenda?
  • Why has the voter-approved definition of “equitable” been replaced by one that’s inequitable?
  • Why are hundreds of millions of tax dollars moving to Precincts One and Two, denying other precincts their fair share?
  • If the Community Flood Resilience Task Force is so important, why is it not being put on the ballot for November?

Of all these questions, perhaps the last is the most critical. Voters deserve a say in how their $2.5 billion is spent. Not just a subset of voters. All voters.

Please email the county judge (CRTF@cjo.hctx.net) before Tuesday’s meeting and demand that creation of the resilience task force be put on the ballot for November. We need to clear up any confusion about what we approved in the flood-bond referendum of 2018 and how voters want bond dollars allocated.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/9/2020

1076 Days after Hurricane Harvey

Harris County Changing How It Will Choose Which Flood Projects to Support; Welcome to the “Equity Bias”

Imagine you pull up to a stoplight and two needy people approach you for a handout. You want to help, but have only $1 in your pocket.

Do you give the dollar to the person who has not eaten for the longest time? Or to the person from the zip code with the highest percentage of minorities and lowest average household income?

As you may have guessed, the people at the stoplight are a metaphor for flood victims.

More Needs than Dollars

Harris County doesn’t have enough dollars to build every flood mitigation project that everyone needs. Flood mitigation requires tough choices.

So the County is setting up a supposedly unbiased task force to decide whom to help. But its composition will be biased toward people who believe flood bond money should favor low income, minority neighborhoods, i.e., the constituents of the three politicians pushing the task force (Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia).

Stacking the Jury

Look at the proposed overview and bylaws for the Community Resilience Task Force. You will see that they embed the concepts of equity, social justice, and social vulnerability into every recommendation the task force will make. For flood mitigation. Housing. Health. Construction. Urban planning. And more. For the next 30 years!

Proposed bylaws for the task force explicitly state that the members MUST demonstrate:

  • An interest in “equitable” flood mitigation.
  • Interest in socioeconomic and demographic factors that affect resilience.

So they are baking “equitable” into the job descriptions.

Difference Between Equitable and Equal

“Equitable” treatment sounds like “equal” treatment. But it’s not.

Treating people equally means treating them identically. Treating people equitably means treating them differently, but fairly.

For instance, handicapped people get to park closer to the door. That’s fair…based on need.

But what happens when you start making flood mitigation decisions on the basis of race, income, and social vulnerability? Is that fair to more affluent communities destroyed by flooding?

Flood Spending Based on Race and Income?

Ms. Hidalgo, Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Garcia define “equitable” so preference goes to the “socially vulnerable.” Their argument goes like so.

Because poor people have a harder time recovering from floods, they should get more protection from flooding. They can’t afford to flood (…as if anyone can).

Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia all advocate the use of a CDC social-vulnerability index and LMI (low-to-moderate-income) data to prioritize flood projects.

They argue in meeting after meeting that FEMA bases grant decisions on a benefit/cost ratio (BCR) that favors neighborhoods with more expensive homes. That’s true, but…

Socially Vulnerable Neighborhoods Already Receive Preferential Treatment

They never mention that Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grants for mitigation (CDBG-MIT) and disaster recovery (CDBG-DR) already favor poorer (LMI) neighborhoods.

Nor do they mention that the County has already received a BILLION dollars in CDBG-DR funds. Or that the Texas General Land Office is sitting on top of approximately $4.2 billion in CDBG-MIT funds that it’s trying to distribute. The vast majority of those funds must go toward LMI/socially vulnerable neighborhoods. (The exact percentages vary by storm and type of grant. But they often range up to 70%.)

Problems With Basing Flood-Mitigation Decisions on LMI Data

There are two more problems with basing flood-mitigation decisions on racial and LMI data.

  • First, it ignores need. Shouldn’t projects that help the largest numbers of people or the worst flooding be mitigated first?
  • Second, LMI data only comes by zip code. Zip codes can mask huge disparities in wealth. So even if you feel poor people deserve more flood protection than the middle class, it’s hard to ensure that result with zip code data. Elm Grove, for instance, is an LMI neighborhood embedded within an affluent zip code.

Mr. Ellis argued that his Precinct One constituents, who are 76% African-American and Hispanic, would not get their projects because money they deserved more was being spent in affluent Kingwood.

He did not mention Army Corps of Engineers grants to HCFCD for work on four bayous in his precinct. Nor did he mention that in the entire history of Harris County Flood Control (which dates back to 1937), not one federal dollar has ever been funneled through HCFCD by the Corps for work in the Lake Houston Area.

4 Out of 5 Flood Bond Projects in SVI Neighborhoods

How much have Ellis, Hidalgo and Garcia skewed flood bond spending to date?

During the Commissioners Court meeting on June 30, 2020, Harris County Flood Control was asked to prepare a report to document the status of flood bond risk reduction projects in socially vulnerable neighborhoods. See Item 2E on Tuesday’s Commissioners Court Agenda. It shows a startling fact.

Out of the 145 active bond projects, 79% are located in high or moderately high SVI areas.

Letter from HCFCD to Commissioners Court

The distribution looks like this.

79% of Flood Bond Projects are located in the most socially vulnerable neighborhoods; only 21% in the least socially vulnerable neighborhoods. Source: Memo to Commissioners Court from HCFCD.

If you live in a “socially vulnerable” neighborhood, you’re 4X more likely to have a flood bond project near you.

And those are just the projects based on Flood Bond money. The Flood Control District is also pursuing additional CDBG grants and Army Corps funding to help fund even more projects in socially vulnerable areas. Those projects are not reflected in these percentages.

Rushing Through Public Comment Period

One measure of how much Ellis, Hidalgo and Garcia want to institutionalize their own definitions of equity is that they’re giving only six more days for public comment with little public warning.

You can bet that the commissioners court meeting on the 28th will be packed with surrogate speakers for Ellis, Hidalgo and Garcia who favor the “equity bias.” They’ve shown up in Commissioners Court for months.

Why wouldn’t they? It’s worked. They now have 4 out of every 5 flood bond projects going into their neighborhoods and they could get even more if this task force goes through in its current form.

Meanwhile, the San Jacinto watershed, says the Greater Houston Flood Mitigation Consortium, received 0% of the mitigation budget prior to Harvey, yet had 14% of the region’s damages during Harvey. 

How Do We Decide What’s Fair?

So, should projects go to neighborhoods that:

  • Had the fewest flood mitigation projects?
  • Flooded the worst?
  • Help the greatest number of people for the dollars invested?
  • Are the poorest?

Or should the money be split equally or on some other basis?

Personally, I think decisions like these should be left in the hands of engineers, not partisan politicians.

Register Your Opinion

The County Judge’s office is inviting the public to share their thoughts and ideas on the proposed draft bylaws of the Task Force. You can register your opinion from now until July 30th, 2020, via one of the following methods:

  • Email CRTF@cjo.hctx.net and submit comments digitally, beginning July 21
  • Join a virtual focus group via Zoom. After registering, participants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
  • Offer input during the July 28th Commissioner’s Court

Posted by Bob Rehak on July 24, 2020

1060 Days since Hurricane Harvey

For more information on the “equity bias,” see this series on “Where Flood Mitigation Dollars Have Really Gone”

Or this series on “The Equity Flap”

The Biggest Stories of 2019

With 2019 almost behind us, we should look back to see what we accomplished on flood mitigation. Tomorrow, I’ll take a look at the stories that will likely define 2020.

Limited Dredging

In 2018, FEMA and the Army Corps announced that they would dredge 2.1 miles of the San Jacinto West Fork when they were given authority to dredge 8 miles. Questions immediately started to swirl about why they were not dredging all the way to Lake Houston. The answer was “part of the mouth bar was there before Harvey and we can only spend disaster relief funds on what Harvey deposited.”

The mouth bar as it existed shortly after Hurricane Harvey. Photo taken 9/14/2017.

After arguing for more than a year with the City about how much sediment FEMA deposited, the Corps finally decided to dredge 500,000 cubic yards from a 600 acre acre in front of the mouth bar. They finished on or about Labor Day. Then the dredging contractors waited several more weeks to see if there would be an additional assignment. There was not. They then departed in October.

Regardless, they left the biggest blockage in the river. Imelda washed a tremendous amount of sediment downriver. In mid-October, RD Kissling sent me a photo from his kayak. He as standing in water less than knee deep 700 yards south of the mouth bar. It’s important to understand that sand bars are like ice bergs. You only see the tip above water. Most of the bar exists below water. And much of this mouth bar remains to be removed.

We need to cut a channel through this area to the lake to restore conveyance of the river. If Harvey couldn’t blow this dune out of there, nothing will.

To learn more about this controversy, search this site using the key words “mouth bar.”

Flood Mitigation Legislation: A Big Win

No one budgets for disasters, such as Hurricane Harvey. So after the disaster, cities and counties had to scramble for grant money to even qualify for matching funds from the Federal government. More than two and a half years after the event, money is finally starting to trickle down to the areas that need it to implement flood mitigation projects. That’s thanks in large part to Senator Brandon Creighton who authored Senate Bill 7.

SB7 creates dedicated Texas Infrastructure and Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Funds for flood control planning and the funding of flood planning, mitigation, and infrastructure projects. The Texas Water Development Board is finalizing rules for the distribution of those funds right now. SB500, a supplemental appropriations bill, includes funding for SB7 and an amendment that would dedicate $30 million for dredging at the confluence of the San Jacinto and Lake Houston. State Representative Dan Huberty authored the amendment to SB500 that provides the $30 million.

For more information about legislation affecting this area, see the Legislation page of this web site or search using the key words “SB7” or “SB500.”

Sand Mining Legislation: One Small Gain, Some Big Losses

Activists statewide pushed for legislation to reign in the excesses of an out-of-control aggregate industry. Here in the Houston area, State Representative Dan Huberty introduced HB 907. It passed and doubles the penalties for not registering a sand mining operation. It also increases the frequency of inspection from every three years to two years and established a registry of active sand mines.

Picture of the West Fork of the San Jacinto the day it turned white (11/4/2019). The TCEQ later issued a notice of enforcement to the Liberty Materials mine upstream for dumping 56 million gallons of white goopy pollution into the West Fork. Water samples indicated 25 times the normal amount of suspended solids.

That was the only bill that the high powered lobbyists of TACA (the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association) would allow to pass. That’s mostly because their members are already registered.

However, other important bills died in committee due to the lobbying power of TACA.

  • HB 908 would have provided for penalties up to $50,000 for water code violations and every-other-year inspections.
  • HB 909 would have created best management practices for sand mines.
  • HB 1671 would have extended water quality protections to the West Fork of the San Jacinto currently enjoyed by the John Graves District on the Brazos and attached penalties for non-compliance with best practices defined under HB909.
  • HB 2871. Would require sand mines and other aggregate production operations to acquire a reclamation permit and to file a performance bond ensuring reclamation.

For more information about sand mining in the Lake Houston area, see the Sand Mining page of this web site. You can also search on the key words “sand mining, TACA, Triple PG, TCEQ, breach, Liberty, and white water.”

High Rises Near the Floodway of the West Fork

Early in the year, two investors from Mexico announced plans to build a series of high rises surrounded by more than 5000 condos in the floodplains and wetlands near River Grove Park. Their company, Romerica, proposed to build the high rises on land that was deed restricted to single family residential development. They even proposed underground parking!

Artist’s conceptual drawing of a high-rise development called The Herons: Kingwood.

The tallest buildings would have been 500 feet and located on the edge of the current floodway. That floodway will almost certainly expand in light of new Atlas-14 rainfall data. The developers also announced a marina that would have held 640 40-foot boats and 200 jet skis. There were no evacuation routes that would have remained above water in the event of a flood.

A massive public outcry arose. More than 700 people and organizations filed letters of protest with the Army Corps, TCEQ and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. In the end, regulators showed good judgment and common sense. The Corps withdrew Romerica’s permit application.

The developer’s web site now says the project is on hold, pending improvements to the West Fork and Lake Houston.

For more information on this development, see the High Rises page of this web site or search for the key words “Romerica, high rises, eagle, or The Herons.”

The $2.5 Billion Flood Bond Equity Flap

When the wording for Harris County’s historic $2.5 billion flood bond offering was worked out in early 2018, leaders from the Humble/Kingwood area in Precinct 4 argued to include the notion of an equitable distribution of funds. Why? Historically the Flood Control District had focused more on projects in other parts of the county, especially Precinct 1, that Precinct 4.

Humble/Kingwood voters turned out in record numbers to support the bond. It passed. But when it came time to implement the projects, Commissioner Rodney Ellis from Precinct 1 tried to redefine equity to mean reparations for historical discrimination, i.e., slavery.

In one meeting after another, Ellis’ ringers showed up in commissioners court to complain about discrimination in the distribution of funds for buyouts, construction spending, and more. Yet in every category, Ellis’ precinct already had the lion’s share of funding.

This is an on-going controversy that affects everyone in the Lake Houston area. Ellis is looting transportation dollars from Precinct 4. You have to hand it to Ellis. Even if he doesn’t know what equity means, he knows how to work the system.

For more information on this topic, search this site using the key words “equity or Ellis.”

Proposition A

In 2010, voters managed to get a referendum on the ballot that would create a dedicated fund for drainage improvements. It passed by a narrow margin. Almost immediately, city officials started using the money it raised for other purposes.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that the language in the summary of the referendum on the ballot was misleading. It failed to disclose that the money would be raised through a new tax. So the Court ordered a revote.

In 2018, the Mayor “resold” the fee by saying, “If you want a lockbox around the money, vote FOR Proposition A. If you don’t want a lockbox around the money, vote AGAINST it.”

It was another artful dodge. There was nothing in the language of the bill to create a lockbox. The language in Prop A was almost identical to the original bill. But the funding formula was even looser!

Unaware voters once again approved the fee. And the Mayor continued to divert money from the fund. These diversions became a central element in the Mayoral campaign this year after thousands of people flooded in May and again during Imelda.

Nevertheless, the Mayor won re-election.

To learn more about this topic, search this site using the key word “Proposition A.”

10 New Gates for Lake Houston

The flood gates on Lake Conroe can release water 15 times faster than the gates on Lake Houston. During Harvey, that bottleneck contributed to the flooding of thousands of homes. A study showed that additional gates would have lowered the water level by almost two feet in the event of another Harvey. During smaller storms, the gates would also help pre-release water faster to create a buffer against possible flooding.

Lake Houston can shed water at 10,000 cubic feet per second. Lake Conroe can shed it at 150,000 cubic feet per second.

The City of Houston applied for a grant from FEMA and the Texas Division of Emergency Management to add ten new gates. FEMA approved the project. It’s happening in two phases. The first includes design and an environmental survey. The second includes construction. Each will take 18 months. We’re now six months into Phase One.

Details of dam improvement project.

For more information on this topic, search this site using the key word “gates.”

Temporary Seasonal Lowering of Lake Conroe

After Harvey, people in the Lake Houston area started pleading for more upstream detention, dredging and gates. Dredging started immediately. The project to add more gates to the Lake Houston spillway has also started. Upstream detention is still years way. The San Jacinto Watershed Study is only now beginning to identify possible locations.

To help provide Lake Houston area residents with an additional buffer against flooding while officials worked on these mitigation measures, the SJRA Board voted to lower the level of Lake Conroe seasonally and temporarily. One foot during the rainiest months in Spring and two feet during the peak of hurricane season.

Many lakefront property owners on Lake Conroe, however, claim the lowering hurts their property values and damages their bulkheads. Buses full of protesters showed up at the December SJRA Board meeting wearing red shirts that say, “Stop the Drop.” So many came that two busloads full of people had to be turned away.

Angry Lake Conroe residents showed up at the last SJRA board meeting in busloads.

Net: the policy to lower Lake Conroe temporarily is under assault. The SJRA will likely vote on whether to continue the policy in February. The SJRA will hold two additional meetings at the Lonestar Convention and Conference Center in January and February to give everyone who wants to provide input a chance to do so.

For more information on this topic, search this site using the key words “lake lowering.”

Flooding from Upstream Development

By far, the biggest and saddest story of the year had to be the flooding of Elm Grove Village, North Kingwood Forest, and even many homes in Porter. Not once, but twice this year. In each instance, runoff from Perry Homes’ newly clearcut 268-acre Woodridge Village development spilled over into surrounding streets and homes. Perry Homes filled in natural streams and wetlands without an Army Corps permit. And they still have not even installed 25% of the detention capacity required for an area that large.

The evacuation of Elm Grove after Perry Homes clearcut 268 adjoining acres.

They haven’t even finished the detention ponds they started, in direct violation of a promise to the City of Houston. In fact, Perry Homes has shown no interest in resolving the problems it created. They have scarcely done any work on this site since August. Meanwhile hundreds of residents live under the heightened threat of flooding.

This is another issue that will carry over into 2020.

For more information on this topic, search this site using the keywords “Perry Homes, Woodridge Village, Figure Four Development, PSWA, Elm Grove, Spurlock, cease and desist, detention, what went wrong, North Kingwood Forest, or drainage criteria.”

There’s your digest of the biggest stories of 2019. 2020 to follow.

Posted by Bob Rehak on December 19, 2019

842 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 92 since Imelda

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.

Harris County Precinct 4 METRO and Mobility Funding Also Under “Equity” Attack in Commissioners Court

The equity flap continues. In its June 25th meeting, Harris County Commissioners Court voted 3-2 to take a portion of METRO funding AWAY from Harris County Precincts 3 and 4. This vote impacts Precinct 4 constituents by $3,069,709 in road construction funds this year alone.

This attack was just a beginning. Commissioners Ellis and Garcia stated in a joint press conference that they seek to also go after portions of Precinct 3’s and 4’s Mobility Funds…based on…you guessed it…equity. Watch the video above all the way to the end. An estimated $6 million per year is at stake in Precinct 4.

Basis for Equity

The current formula for distribution of METRO and mobility funds accounts for the number of road miles each precinct must maintain.

However, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, once again, is trying to redistribute funds based on “equity,” which he defines as more for people who are “historically disadvantaged.” Specifically, he often refers to slavery when he talks about equity. Mr. Ellis represents a precinct that is roughly 39 percent African American, 37 percent Latino, 18 percent Anglo, 5 percent Asian and 1 percent other.

Compared to precinct 4, Precinct 1 also has 38% of the lane miles, 42% of the asphalt roads, one third of the unincorporated land mass, and one fourth of the housing starts.

I don’t dispute the existence of “historically disadvantaged” ethnic groups. However, I do question why road funds should be distributed by race. It seems other factors such as need, area covered, growth rate, or population served relate more directly.

Highest Percentage of Unincorporated Population in Precinct 4

Historically speaking, the county’s mission is to provide services to unincorporated areas.

So let’s start this discussion by looking at the percentage of county residents within each precinct who live in unincorporated vs. incorporated areas, such as the City of Houston. Here we see that Precinct 4 must support virtually triple the the number of unincorporated residents that Precinct 1 supports. Residents who live in unincorporated areas have support other than the county to help meet their needs.

Precinct 4 must support virtually triple the the number of unincorporated residents that Precinct 1 supports.

Highest Percentage of Road Miles in Precinct 4

Another way to look at need is by the number of road miles that each precinct must maintain. Here we can see that Precinct 4 has more lane miles, thoroughfare miles, and open-ditch asphalt roads to support than Precinct 1 by wide margins.

Highest Percentage of Growth in Precinct 4

Growth rates also factor into need in a very direct way. Here again, we can see that Precinct 4 is growing faster than Precinct 1 by many measures.

  • Change in “total population” percentage (incorporated + unincorporated)
  • Change in unincorporated population percentage
  • New housing and apartment starts
Residents inside the City receive county funds, too. Precincts receive them based on a weighted formula.

Precinct 4 Also Has Larger Area to Cover than Precinct 1

From the table above, we can see that Precinct 4 also has about 6.51% more square miles to service than Precinct 1.

What Funds Go For

Precinct 4 maintains over 2,600 road miles and 327 bridges in a 72% unincorporated area. 

Precinct 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle said, “These Mobility Funds maintain and construct roads that keep traffic moving. They also provide roadway access for a prompt response for law enforcement, fire and emergency medical services that will ensure the continued safety of all residents.” 

The ditches that parallel those roads also play a huge role in carrying water away from neighborhoods, thus reducing the risk of flooding.

Subversion of Language

The inclusion of equity in the flood bond language seems to have opened a Pandora’s box. When I listen to Commissioner Ellis and when I look at hard data, I get the feeling that the meaning of “equity” is being distorted as part of a crass money grab. This isn’t equity. It’s Commissioner Ellis seeking reparations for misdeeds of generations past.

To me, equity in this context means a fair, just, impartial, or balanced distribution of funds.

Equity should be based on objective measures, such as area served, population served, or miles that must be maintained. Those should be debated openly.

The way Commissioner Ellis uses the word, however, the outcome becomes the opposite of equity. Money is not distributed based on per capita, per road mile, or per square mile. It’s based on racial preference and results in an inequitable distribution of funds based on other objective measures.

It’s hard to reason with someone flaming about racial injustice 200 years ago. And Mr. Ellis, like most demagogues, knows that. He also exploits it. I just hope he doesn’t kill growth in Harris County while he’s doing it. Because that’s where he’s headed…including (insiders say) redirecting money from the flood bond.

Voice your opinion at the next Commissioners Court meeting on Tuesday, July 9

Commissioners Court meetings are open to the public and begin at 10:00 a.m. at 1001 Preston Street, Suite 934, Houston, Texas 77002. However, if you wish to speak, you must complete the online appearance request form found at:

https://appearancerequest.harriscountytx.gov/ 

It is now very typical for Commissioners Court to go beyond 6 hours.

Those who do not state an agenda item when they sign up are usually forced to wait until the end of the session. However, you can insert the agenda item in the “Subject Matter” box when you sign up. This should increase the probability of you speaking earlier. 

Agenda item 19.e.1.b Mobility Funding includes this topic   You can also put any additional description that you want in the subject description box.

Here is the link for a copy of the agenda: https://agenda.harriscountytx.gov

If you are unable to speak in person, contact Judge Hidalgo to express your concern. Make sure you read this four part series on equity first.

  •  Email: Judge.hidalgo@cjo.hctx.net
  • Phone: 713-274-7000
  • U. S. Mail:     
    The Honorable Judge Lina Hidalgo
    1001 Preston, Suite 911
    Houston, TX 77002

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/7/2019

677 Days since Hurricane Harvey