On January 9, 2023, FEMA released a Simplified Procedures policy for Public Assistance grants to speed up recovery for applicants. Small projects are now defined as those up to $1 million.
The new policy should reduce administrative burdens and enable communities to recover more quickly after presidentially declared events by streamlining documentation requirements.
FEMA will accept estimates with summary information and the applicant’s certifications for damage and work, instead of requiring applicants to provide full or detailed documentation.
FEMA Press Release
FEMA conducted a review in 2020. It showed that if a $1 million threshold were applied, 94 percent of projects would be considered small and help put additional recovery dollars in the hands of applicants faster and accelerate closure of projects.
FEMA intends to continue adjusting the threshold annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. It also intends to review the base threshold every three years.
The new policy is not directly aimed at individuals, but at state and local governments and certain types of private nonprofit organizations. Public Assistance grants cover such things as:
Disaster-related debris removal
Emergency protective measures
Repairs to damaged or destroyed infrastructure (i.e., roads).
FM1010 Washout during Harvey at Rocky Branch in Plum Grove near the East Fork. Still not repaired after 5.5 years.
Depending on repair cost and other factors, the road washout above is an example of the type of project that might benefit from the new policy. However, it’s not clear whether the simplified procedures apply retroactively to damage from past disasters or only future disasters. More details will follow.
Applicant has legal responsibility to perform the work
Cost is reasonable.
Once FEMA and the state review and approve the government agencies’ or nonprofits’ RPAs, applicants work with their FEMA representative to develop a damage inventory.
FEMA obligates funds to the state once a project meets Stafford Act eligibility requirements. The state is the official recipient of FEMA federal assistance. The state is then responsible for disbursing the money to applicants.
FEMA will hold a series of webinars in coming weeks to explain more about the simplified policy. Additional details are not yet available.
Getting aid to people faster after a disaster is necessary. This is a very complex subject. I wish all forms of disaster relief, including hazard mitigation, could be simplified. We’re still waiting on the Harris County, the GLO and HUD to agree on a plan for spending $750 million in mitigation funds related to Hurricane Harvey – 5.5 years after the event!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/12/23 based on a FEMA Press Release
1962 Days after Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/20201025-DJI_0919.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=19001200adminadmin2023-01-12 13:04:432023-01-12 13:20:54FEMA Simplifying Procedures for Small Public Assistance Grants
On December 6, 2022, The Washington Post ran an article titled “America Underwater: Extreme floods expose the flaws in FEMA’s risk maps.” The lengthy story by Samuel Oakford, John Muyskens, Sarah Cahlan and Joyce Sohyun Lee cross-referenced photos and videos with FEMA flood maps from areas around the country that flooded last summer.
The basic premise: FEMA’s flood maps “are failing to warn Americans about flood risk.” The authors then claim, “The resulting picture leaves homeowners, prospective buyers, renters and cities in the dark about the potential dangers they face, which insurance they should buy and what kinds of development should be restricted.”
There’s certainly room for improvement in FEMA flood maps.
However, the authors blame climate change for the inaccuracy far more than other contributing factors which are far more obvious.
FEMA is supposed to update flood maps every 5-10 years. It’s hard to imagine climate change invalidating them in that time period.
Climate is an average of weather occurring over much longer time periods. Depending on whether you talk to a meteorologist or a geologist, the time period could range from 30 to millions of years.
At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth’s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. The last period of glaciation, often called the “Ice Age,” peaked about 20,000 years ago. At that time, the world was on average probably about 10°F colder than today.
Interestingly, one day after The Post article, the New York Times ran a story about the DNA of animals found frozen in the permafrost of northern Greenland, just a few hundred miles from the North Pole. The 135 different species scientists found there paint a picture of an arctic once lush with life typical of warmer climates today.
And to what degree can climate change explain flood map inaccuracy? Many more obvious reasons exist that are less of a stretch for any inaccuracies.
Reasons Listed in Post Article for Inaccuracy of Maps
Here’s a list of the references in The Washington Post story used to explain inaccuracies found within FEMA maps. I’ve broken them into two groups so you can see the weight they gave to climate change.
Climate-Change References:
“As climate change accelerates, it is increasing types of flooding that the maps aren’t built to include.”
“Extreme precipitation events are growing increasingly common.”
“A warming climate allows storms to carry more moisture, producing greater rain or snow in a short period of time.”
“Climate has changed so much that the maps aren’t going to keep up.”
Maps are out of date, some decades-old “in a changing climate.”
“The effects of a changing climate.”
Climate change impacts are getting worse.
Climate change is “pushing FEMA’s maps beyond their limits.”
A gap exists between the data that goes into FEMA maps and current climate conditions.
Climate change baseline is changing.
“Climate change velocities are high.”
“Maps do not take climate change into account.”
“Overestimating the rarity of some events even before climate change…”
Other Possible Explanations Mentioned by The Post:
“Communities may resist expanding designated flood zones because it adds costs and can hamper development.”
Not all areas that flooded are mapped yet.
“Local communities often resist the expansion of federal flood zones”
“Maps do not forecast flooding. Maps only reflect past flooding…”
“Local governments have been opposed to any maps that show an increasing risk.”
Relatively high imperviousness of gentrifying areas.
Maps don’t reflect intense bursts of rainfall in a short period and the resulting street flooding.
Impervious surface is replacing porous surface.
Maps cover mainly coastal and riverine flooding.
“Rain combining with melted snowpack.”
FEMA flood maps don’t even attempt to model urban flooding
“City neglected drainage problems.”
Local opposition to expanding the floodplain.
No sense of urgency to update maps.
“Multiple compounding factors contribute to the flooding”
Floods Can Also Be Explained Without Climate Change
The second group of references in The Post article seems far more immediate, compelling and easily provable when explaining any inaccuracy found in flood maps. They’re certainly typical of what I have found in the Houston area.
For the past five years I have been researching instances of flooding in and around Harris County. I published more than 250 articles on different aspects of the 2019 Elm Grove floods alone. And I don’t recall one person ever blaming those on climate change.
Elm Grove did not flood during Harvey, but did flood on two much smaller rains in 2019. The difference? Clearcutting and insufficiently mitigated upstream development. Contractors clearcut approximately 270 acres immediately north of Elm Grove without building sufficient detention capacity before the rains fell.
Regardless of your position on climate change, this discussion dramatizes the needs to:
Understand your local flood risk and the factors that affect it
Buy flood insurance.
Hopefully, Harris County Flood Control District’s MAAPnext project will address data deficiencies discussed in The Post article. But it will be years before those maps become official. And when they do, the landscape will have already changed.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/12/22
1931 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.
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) has completed condemnation proceedings on the last unit in another townhome complex on Marina Drive in Forest Cove. They will schedule the units for demolition as early as next week.
Forest Cove Townhomes destroyed by Harvey on Marina Drive could soon be demolished. Red rectangle contains censored graffiti.
Amy Stone, a spokesperson for HCFCD said, “There were nearly 90 units in that community! All required appraisals, offers, negotiations, closings and demolitions.”
I previously reported that some owners abandoned their properties and that HCFCD could not locate them. Those units had to go through condemnation proceedings before demolition could begin.
Stone reports that two complexes remain. HCFCD closed on the last unit in one last month and completed the site inspection last Thursday. “We are waiting for the asbestos survey report to come back. We should have a demolition date by next week,” said Stone.
Asked about the other complex, Stone reported, “1020 Marina Dr. will be demolished once the last unit is purchased. This unit is currently in condemnation.”
HCFCD and FEMA like buyouts to be voluntary wherever possible. But in the case of missing owners, condemnation may be necessary. This is a big reason why buyouts take so long. HCFCD cannot demolish a building until they own all units within it.
Some Investors Never Learn
So here we are…1744 days since Harvey made the buildings structurally unsound.
Multi-family housing represents a poor choice for homes in such high risk neighborhoods. But before these units are even demolished, Chinese investors seek to build more, even closer to the river, about a mile downstream. Residents who bought condos in this area before Harvey tell me that they have spotted developers pitching this idyllic location to busloads of Chinese tourists in the area below.
I’m guessing Forest Cove is not on the tour.
Condos under construction in Kings Harbor last year. San Jacinto West Fork is just feet away.
Posted by Bob Rehak on June 8, 2022
1744 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/20220224-DJI_0339-copy.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2022-06-08 20:09:272022-06-08 20:09:30Forest Cove Townhome Complex Ready for Demolition
Perhaps no flood-mitigation project has generated more interest in the Lake Houston Area recently than the addition of more flood gates to the Lake Houston Dam. In recent months, as engineers worked on the project’s benefit/cost ratio, information about the project became hard to find. That fueled rumors.
But Tuesday night, at the Kingwood Community Center, Mayor Pro Tem Dave Martin put many of those rumors to rest. He denied the project was on hold, reaffirmed the City’s commitment to the project, and outlined the three main issues that engineers are currently grappling with.
Issues Still Being Evaluated
The main issues include:
Safety concerns about cutting into the concrete of a dam that’s almost 70 years old.
Getting the benefit/cost ratio up.
Finding a suitable alternative that significantly reduces flood risk within the budget.
Martin elaborated on each. Regarding:
Safety concerns – He described the risks of cutting into it to install crest gates. Among them, he said engineers worried about structural stability of the dam after construction. Accordingly, they are recommending significant reinforcement of the concrete. He also hinted that contractors might not bid on the project for fear of the potential liability.
Benefit/Cost Ratio – He said that the higher-than-expects costs on of some alternatives drove the BCR down, and that that was driving the exploration of additional alternatives. He did say, however, that FEMA allows including “social benefits” when the BCR is between .75 and 1.0. The inclusion of social benefits still must yield a BCR of 1.0 or greater. On a separate note, a federal employee told me that the Biden administration may change this policy. So significant uncertainty still exists re: calculation of the BCR.
Budget – He implied that some alternatives under consideration became non-starters because of high costs and inflation.
Alternatives Still Under Consideration
So, the search for a suitable alternative that meets all objectives continues. Among the options still in the running, Martin mentioned crest gates on the west side of the dam and adding a tainter gate to the earthen, eastern portion.
Schedule for adding gates to Lake Houston, first shown in July 2021. Also shown on 4/19/2022. Martin emphasized the schedule has not changed, but could.
The release of 80,000 CFS from Lake Conroe contributed almost a fifth of the water going over the spillway. Lake Conroe gates can release 150,000 CFS while Lake Houston’s can release only 10,000 CFS. The disparity in release capacity caused many to ask whether more gates on Lake Houston could reduce flooding.
Martin pointed out that when water gets high enough in Lake Houston, it can escape over a 2,000-foot-wide spillway. However, more gates could play a role in a pre-release strategy.
Pre-releasing water from Lake Houston in advance of major storms, as the City does now, creates extra capacity in the lake so that it can absorb more water without flooding homes and businesses. This strategy (coupled with the seasonal lowering of Lake Conroe) has worked effectively since Harvey and prevented flooding on more than one occasion.
Time Vs. Release Capacity Vs. Water Preservation
However, right now, it takes so long to release water from Lake Houston that storms can sometimes veer away and miss us after the lowering starts. Thus, water could be wasted. But bigger gates would let dam operators release the same volume of water in less time, so operators would not have to start releasing water so far in advance. In other words they would have a higher degree of confidence that the the storm would not veer away and that release was worthwhile.
Martin reassured people that:
Smaller (i.e., less costly) floodgates can lower Lake Houston sufficiently if given enough time
The lake usually refills quickly
Even if it doesn’t, the City can always call for the release of water from Lake Conroe.
We should know within a few months whether Black & Veatch, the engineering company leading the project, has succeeded in designing additional gates within the budget that meet all other objectives.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/20210709-Screen-Shot-2021-07-09-at-3.28.06-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C414&ssl=14141200adminadmin2022-04-21 13:12:152022-04-21 16:15:03Martin Updates Community on Additional Gates for Lake Houston
By accident, I stumbled across some powerful historical flood loss visualization tools on Harris County Flood Control’s MAAPnext site today. They can help you understand the capricious nature of storms as well as political claims about which neighborhoods flood the most.
About MAAPnext
In 2019, using two FEMA grants and Flood Bond money, Harris County Flood Control District launched its MAAPnext project. MAAP stands for Modeling, Assessment and Awareness. The goal: to use new methodologies and technologies to improve understanding of flood risks throughout Harris County. The project goes far beyond updating Flood Insurance Rate Maps in the wake of recent storms. It also includes:
Interactive historical flood loss visualization tools
Water surface elevation change grids (maps showing difference between effective and revised floodplains)
Flood depth grids (for various flood frequencies including 10%, 4%, 2%, 1% and 0.2% annual chance events)
Percent annual chance grids (giving you your exact probability of being flooded within a mapped floodplain)
30-Year chance grids (showing your home’s exact chance of flooding within the life of a 30-year mortgage)
Water surface elevation grids (showing the water surface elevation in various flood frequencies)
Not all of these maps have been released yet. For instance, MAAPnext/FEMA will release new preliminary flood insurance rate maps for public comment this fall. However, I did find three fascinating interactive maps showing the history of flood losses in Harris County.
Historical Flood Loss Tools
Cumulative Losses since 1978
The first map provides a visual representation of where all flooding claims have occurred throughout the county since 1978. A property’s flood risk can be a influenced by many factors but it’s important to remember that it can flood anywhere in Harris County. The darkest areas have the most cumulative flood losses. The lightest areas have the least.
Total flood losses in various census tracts within Harris County since 1978.
To understand exactly WHERE and WHEN these flood losses happened, you need to go to the next two series of maps.
Historical Inundation Map
The Historical Inundation Map shows the extent of flooding in five different major storms since 2015. These include only streams with gages, not all Harris County channels. Zoom and scroll into an area of interest and then select the storm of interest from the layer menu.
Extent of flooding along the West and East Forks in the Memorial Day 2016 flood.
You can toggle layers rapidly to see how floods compared to each other.
Flood-Loss History by Event
The map above shows the spread of flood waters in various events. However, to see the relative damage in census tracts, you need to go to the map called “Flood Loss History by Event.” Again, you’ll need to toggle layers to select the event of interest. The darker the colors, the more damage.
Tax Day 2016 Storm Damage
Selecting the Tax Day 2016 layer shows that most damage from that storm occurred in NW Harris County.
Hurricane Harvey 2017 Damage
Selecting the Harvey layer shows that that storm affected the entire county with some watersheds experiencing more losses than others.
Imelda 2019 Damage
Distribution of damage in Harris County from Tropical Storm Imelda
For More Interactive Exploration…
The four maps above only scratch the surface of what you can find on the MAAPnext site. To explore the distribution of damage in various storms, visit the page called Understanding Your Flood Risk.
Media accounts of major storms might lead you to believe that major storms affect all parts of the county equally. But they don’t. Who floods depends on upstream rainfall totals, dam releases, proximity to floodplains, development regulations, elevation above the flood plain and more.
The most interesting aspect of MAAPnext is that it will eventually incorporate all of these factors and give you an individual risk rating for your property or one that you are considering buying.
If knowledge is power, this is power cubed, because it let’s you look at flood risk in multiple dimensions.
Be Patient
I can’t wait until the project is fully finished. Check back often and click around this site as new features seem to be bolted on periodically. The bolted-on comment relates to my only complaint. All information (and there’s a lot of it) is grouped under five pages in ways that are rarely intuitive and often invisible from the highest levels. For instance, to get to the historical flood loss maps, you have to:
Click on the home page
Click on a link embedded in one of the visuals called “Flooding is Our #1 Disaster.”
It will take you to a page called (strangely enough) “Understand Your Flood Risk.”
Scroll down past 7 other topics to the bottom of page to find the interactive maps.
Presumably, helping people understand their flood risk is the most important objective of this site, but the page by that name appears nowhere in navigation. That said, have fun exploring. You’ll find many other hidden gems on this site.
How soon we forget. Hurricane Harvey was just 4.5 years ago. Since then I have documented dozens, if not hundreds of questionable practices that erode margins of flood safety.
It Didn’t Have to Be That Bad
Harvey was the largest rainfall event in the history of North America. However, with better regulations and construction practices, it didn’t have to be as destructive as it was.
Lax regulations;
Willful blindness;
Development and construction practices that pushed the safety envelope;
Relentless destruction of forests and wetlands near rivers and streams;
And homebuyers who didn’t realize their true flood risk…
…made Harvey’s destruction worse than it otherwise would have been.
No one factor by itself would explain Harvey’s destruction. But put them all together, and it’s like “death of a thousand cuts.”
The sheer volume of material – more than 1,000,000 words on this site – makes it difficult for people to see the big picture sometimes. To put 1,000,000 words into perspective, the average novel contains only about 100,000. So I’m condensing the website into a book that includes the themes below.
No One Wins Arguments with Mother Nature
During an interview with Milan Saunders and his daughter Lori, Milan said, “No one wins arguments with Mother Nature.” How profound! It doesn’t matter how many surveys, studies and engineer stamps you have on your home’s title. If you don’t:
Large islands built up during Harvey blocked both drainage ditches and rivers. Below, you can see a large sand island (top) built up at the confluence of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch where it reaches the San Jacinto West Fork at River Grove Park. This sand bar reached 10-12 feet in height above the waterline and helped back water up into Trailwood, the Barrington and Kingwood Lakes and Kings Forest. Before the Army Corps dredged this island, River Grove flooded five times in six months. It hasn’t flooded since.
The Kingwood Diversion Ditch and West Fork San Jacinto were almost totally blocked by sediment dams deposited during Harvey.
The second photo above was taken a few hundred yards downstream on the West Fork from the first. It shows “Sand Island” – so nicknamed by the Army Corps. It took the Corps months to dredge this island which they say had blocked the West Fork by 90%.
A certain amount of this sedimentation can be explained by natural erosion. But mankind also contributed to the sheer volume by other practices which I will discuss below.
Influence of sand mines of West Fork San Jacinto water quality.
End the War on Wetlands
Wetlands are nature’s detention ponds. During storms, they hold water back so it won’t flood people downstream. But we seem to want to eradicate wetlands. The images below show the Colony Ridge development in Liberty County. Wetlands (right) are being cleared (left) to make way for the world’s largest trailer park. The acceleration of runoff wiped out FM1010 during Harvey. The road still has not been repaired.
Colony Ridge in Liberty County.
Conservation Costs Much Less than Mitigation
Halls Bayou at I-69 near Fiesta. Image on left shows whole subdivisions that that to be bought out before detention ponds on right could be built.
Respecting Individuals’ Property Rights While Protecting Others’
In Texas, it sometimes feels that an individual’s right to do what he/she wants with property trumps others’ rights NOT to flood. You may think you’re protected by all those public servants reviewing and approving plans. But what happens when developers and contractors decide to ignore the approved plans? Here’s a prime example: the Laurel Springs RV Resort near Lakewood Cove.
About 10% of all the water coming down the West Fork at the peak of Harvey came from Crystal Creek in Montgomery County. But the wetlands near the headwaters of Crystal Creek are currently under development. And the developer is avoiding building detention ponds with a “beat-the-peak” survey. This loophole allowed by Montgomery County says that if you get your stormwater to the river faster than the peak of a flood arrives, then you’re not adding to the peak of a flood and you don’t have to build detention ponds. So developers conduct timing surveys to reduce costs and maximize salable land.
What happens when upstream areas develop without consideration for the impact on downstream property owners.
Of course, speeding up the flow of water in a flood is the opposite of what you want to do. To reduce flooding, you should hold back as much water as possible.
The graph on the right shows what happened on Brays Bayou without suitable detention upstream. Floodwaters peak higher, sooner. Harris County has spent more than $700 million in the last 20 years to remediate flooding problems along Brays.
How much will we need to spend when more areas like Mavera get built upstream on the West Fork?
How Quickly We Forget!
FEMA’s Base-Flood-Elevation Viewer shows that in that same area, developers have already built homes that could go under 1-5 feet of water in a 100-year flood. These homes are actually in a ten-year flood zone. And yet more homes are being built nearby. On even more marginal land!
In recent years, the price of land as a percent of a new home’s cost has risen from a historical average of 25% to approximately 40% today. This puts pressure on developers to seek out cheaper land in floodplains, reduce costs by avoiding detention pond requirements, pave over wetlands, and reduce lot sizes resulting in more impervious cover. All contribute to flooding.
Of course, smart homebuyers would not make such risky investments. But few lack the expertise to gauge flood risk. Educating such homebuyers will be one of the major objectives of the book I hope to write.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/23/2022
1639 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/RJR_4245.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2022-02-23 18:55:302025-08-19 22:13:53How Soon We Forget!
US Fish & Wildlife Map Shows Wetlands Dot Development
From US Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory. Madera will stretch past the left/right edges of this picture north of SH242 (the east/west highway near bottom.) FM1314 bisects picture from N to S in middle.
FEMA’s Base Flood Elevation Viewer Shows Flood Risk
Note that this survey shows only about a quarter of Madera (see below). The survey stops abruptly on the western margin. So, it is hard to say with certainty how bad flooding is throughout the rest of the site.
Yellow outline shows approximate outline of FEMA BFE survey shown above within Madera tract(black/white outline).
Option to See Depth of 100-Year Flood Waters
Also note that the purple area shows only the extent of 100- and 10-year floods. However, within the FEMA BFE viewer, you also have the option to select a layer that illustrates the depth of 100-year floodwaters. See below. (FEMA does not offer the option to show the depth of 10-year floods.)
FEMA’s estimated Base Flood Elevation Viewer showing extent of 100-year flood on left and depth on right.
Limitations of BFE Viewer
Of course, FEMA shows “estimated conditions” before developers bring in fill and alter drainage. But notice how a pre-existing development near Madera would fare in the same 100-year flood. You can see the close up below just above SH242 near the right edge of the image above.
FEMA shows that most homes in this development are still in the flood zone and would still flood to a depth of 1-2 feet in a hundred-year flood.
The street leading out of the development to SH242 could be under more than FIVE FEET of water in places!
FEMA Base flood Elevation Viewer
FEMA’s “Estimated Base Flood Elevation” is “The estimated elevation of flood water during the 1% annual chance storm event.” Structures below the estimated water surface elevation may experience flooding.” A 1%-annual-chance flood is also known as a 100-year flood. FEMA defines properties with a 1% annual chance of flooding as having “high flood risk” and says they have a 26% chance of flooding during the life of a 30-year mortgage.
Purposes of BFE Viewer
The agency developed its Base Flood Elevation viewer with several purposes in mind. To:
Inform personal risk decisions related to the purchase of flood insurance and coverage levels.
Inform local and individual building and construction approaches.
Prepare local risk assessments, Hazard Mitigation Plans, Land Use Plans, etc.
Provide information for “Letter of Map Amendment” (LOMA) submittals.
A LOMA lets the developer of a subdivision change the depiction of how flooding affects his/her subdivision. It’s the key to offering up-to-date risk assessments.
Full BFE Reports Available
FEMA also lets you download or print full BFE reports that give more specific estimates of flood depth at exact points, not just within a wide area.
FEMA’s BFE Viewer also gives you the option to print out a detailed flood-risk report by clicking on a point.
At the point shown above, you could expect 4.2 feet of water above the land surface in a 1%-chance flood. For the full report, click here.
Here’s what that point looked like last Saturday (1/22/22) from the air.
Madera development today at FM1314 and SH242, the point shown in BFE report above.
Cross-check this area on the maps above for wetlands and swamps! Then you can see why it’s so soupy.
BFE, Fill Not Mentioned in Drainage Analysis or Construction Plans
Text searches of Madera’s construction and drainage plans showed no references to “BFE” or “base flood.”
It seems unlikely that a “cut and fill” operation could excavate enough dirt from Madera’s drainage channel (dotted blue line with red parallel lines) and detention ponds to raise the whole site out the hundred-year flood zone. Five feet is a lot of fill for a 1700 acre site.
To raise a site this large, contractors would likely have to bring in fill from outside the property. But a text search from the word “fill” did not turn up any exact matches either.
So maybe they’re just planning to create the world’s biggest drain and hope to carry water off before it can reach homes.
However, a summary of the Madera master drainage plan notes…
“Coordination with MCED [Montgomery County Engineering Department] andadjacent property owners is recommended … on the potential need for inundation easements.”
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/20220125-Screen-Shot-2022-01-25-at-3.52.07-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C600&ssl=16001200adminadmin2022-01-27 06:08:242022-01-27 06:22:32New MoCo Development Being Built on Wetlands in 10-Year Flood Zone
A myth being promulgated in Harris County Commissioners Court and certain low-to-moderate income (LMI) watersheds these days goes something like this:
The FEMA Benefit/Cost Ratio (used to rank grant applications for flood-mitigation projects) favors high-dollar homes.
That disadvantages less affluent, inner-city neighborhoods compared to more affluent suburbs.
Therefore, less affluent neighborhoods get no help and the more affluent neighborhoods get it all.
This post busts that myth. But it won’t stop activists from demanding more “equity.”
If you look at all flood-mitigation spending in Harris County since 2000, on average, less affluent watersheds already receive 4.7X more partner funding per watershed than their more affluent counterparts.
Analysis of data obtained via FOIA request
Myth Ignores Other Factors, Frequently Leaps to Wrong Conclusions
Like much of political discourse these days, the myth focuses on a narrow sliver of truth, ignores other factors, and frequently leaps to the wrong conclusions.
An analysis of Harris County Flood Control District data going back to the start of this century shows how far off the myth can be.
Today, I focus on partner grants because they represent such a huge percentage of the flood-bond budget and because there is so much misinformation floating around about them.
And I will look at partner funding from the standpoint of outcomes, not just processes (as in the myth).
Methodology for Analysis
For this analysis I obtained Harris County Flood Control District spending data between 1/1/2000 and 9/31/2021 via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. I requested the data by watershed, decade, pre-/Post Harvey, source of funding (local vs. partner), and type of activity (i.e., engineering, right-of-way acquisition, construction and more). I cross-referenced this with other data such as flood-damaged structures, population, population density, and percentage of low-to-moderate income (LMI) residents.
When considering grants, the percentage of LMI residents in a watershed takes on special significance. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants often require high percentages of LMI residents in the area under consideration.
In the charts below, you will see references to watersheds with LMI populations above and below 50%. Above 50% means more than half the residents in the watershed have an income LESS THAN the average for the region. Below 50% means more than half the residents earn more than the regional average.
Harris County has 23 watersheds. Eight have LMI percentages above 50% (less affluent). Fifteen have LMI percentages below 50% (more affluent).
When reviewing the charts below, pay particular attention to the italicized words: Total, Partner, and On Average. They represent three different ways to look at the same question: Do housing values disadvantage an area when applying for grants?
For this analysis, I focused only on the long term, since decisions on more than a billion dollars in flood-bond grants are still outstanding.
FOIA Analysis Contradicts the Popular Myth
One of the first things you notice when you look at watersheds above and below 50% LMI, is that the eight least affluent watersheds have gotten more than 60% of all dollars actually spent on flood mitigation since 2000.
Less affluent watersheds, despite being half as numerous, received 60% of all dollars since 2000.
Because the allegation was that partnership grants favored affluent areas, I then analyzed whether partner dollars went mostly to affluent or less-affluent watersheds. The answer is less affluent…overwhelmingly.
More than 70% of all partner dollars in the last 22 years went to the eight less-affluent watersheds.
The last observation by itself is telling. But because of the widely different number of watersheds in each group, I also wanted to calculate the average partner dollars per watershed in each group. This blows the “rich neighborhoods get all the grants” argument to pieces. Less affluent watersheds got, on average, 4.7X more.
Dividing the total partner dollars by the number of watersheds in each group shows that less affluent watersheds average 4.7X more than affluent ones.
This busts the myth. But digging even deeper into the data reveals two things: wide variation between sources of funding and withinLMI groupings.
USACE Funding Skews Partner Totals
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) accounts for much of the partner funding. USACE has provided significant funding for projects in the Sims, Brays, White Oak, Hunting, and Greens Bayou watersheds. The Clear Creek watershed will also soon see work on a new USACE project. USACE has completed its planning process and proved positive benefits to national economic development. That made projects worthy of Federal investment.
Halls Bayou: Digging Deeper
The Halls Bayou watershed also went through the USACE planning process, but the results did not show enough flood-damage-reduction benefits to outweigh the costs of the proposed projects. Thus, the Halls Bayou watershed currently has no USACE-funded projects.
Despite that, Halls has received more partner funding than 16 other watersheds since 2000. Only two watersheds in the affluent group of 15 received more partner funding. See the table below.
Total and partner spending by watershed since 2000 arranged in order of highest to lowest LMI percentages.
USACE also evaluated the more affluent Buffalo Bayou; results showed that costs outweighed the flood-damage-reduction benefits there.
Despite Halls having the highest percentage of LMI residents in Harris County, Halls has received more total funding and 2.5X more partner funding than Buffalo Bayou in the more affluent group.
FEMA Considers More than Home Values, Not All Grants Come From FEMA
While it’s true that FEMA considers housing values as a factor in benefit/cost ratios, benefit/cost ratios (BCRs) also consider factors such as:
The number of structures damaged
Threats to infrastructure
Proximity to employment centers
Need for economic revitalization
Percentage of low-to-moderate income residents in an area
Number of structures that can be removed from the floodplain by a project.
USACE funds dozens of different types of flood-mitigation programs. Many support national defense, the national economy, strategic interests, the environment, commerce and navigation.
So don’t settle for soundbites. They often mislead.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/30/2021
1584 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Screen-Shot-2021-12-29-at-4.53.47-PM.png?fit=1366%2C740&ssl=17401366adminadmin2021-12-29 21:28:052021-12-30 14:37:20Equity Myth Buster: “Rich Neighborhoods Get All the Flood-Mitigation Funding”
On December 13 – 1567 days after Hurricane Harvey – President Biden issued an executive order to improve disaster relief by the federal government. The order covers a range of other government services, too. It aims to improve service service to citizens with the ultimate goals of improving customer satisfaction and restoring trust in government.
The White House says 25 million individuals, families, and small businesses live through a Federally recognized natural disaster each year. This should be great news for all of them. In the last four years, I have posted about the disaster called disaster relief more than once.
FEMA Mandate: Streamline Applications and Rules Re: Documentation
Specifically, the order states that theDepartment of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) shall “design and deliver a streamlined, online disaster assistance application. It also requires FEMA to “work with States to proactively update existing rules and policies on supporting documentation needed for disaster assistance processes to reduce burden and increase accessibility.”
Forest Cove Townhome destroyed by Harvey. What happens when 240,000 cubic feet per second roar through your home. When residents evacuated, survival was uppermost on their minds, not finding documents they might need for disaster-relief applications.FEMA chose this location to film a video about the destructiveness of Harvey.
HUD Required to Inventory Ways to Improve Customer Service
Unfortunately, the Order only mentions Housing and Urban Development (HUD) once and doesn’t offer many specifics. It requires HUD to submit a report to the Office of Management and Budget that assesses improvements needed in the department’s customer experience management and service design capabilities to comply with the order. The report must also prioritize improvements within available and budgeted resources.
Types of improvements mentioned throughout the order include:
Streamlining and improving accessibility
Improving digital experiences
Eliminating unnecessary administrative burdens on customers
Ensuring accessibility for those with disabilities
Ensuring access for those with limited English proficiency
Coordinating between agencies to reduce the need for customers to interact separately with multiple agencies.
“After a disaster,” it says, “more survivors will be able to focus on helping their families, businesses, and communities because of streamlined assistance processes, rather than having to navigate a complex Government bureaucracy to get the help they need.”
“Disaster survivors will no longer need to navigate multiple assistance forms across multiple agencies to get the help they need, saving time and energy to allow them to focus on their recovery and well-being.”
“Survivors will have access to more flexible mechanisms to provide supporting documentation, such as virtual inspections and submitting photos of disaster damage from a mobile phone.”
The press release concludes: “The Government’s primary mission is to serve. By placing people at the center of everything we do, the Government will be able to deliver timely, modern, and secure services to you – the people. We will rebuild trust in our Government, ensure no one is left behind, and inspire others to join us in serving future generations of Americans.”
President Clinton had similar ambitions in the early days of the digital revolution. His plan helped transform government, but there’s still a long way to go. This sounds like a good deal if it works. But it will be a massive undertaking that takes place in stages over years, not overnight.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/16/2021
1570 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/SJR_305_019.jpg?fit=1800%2C1200&ssl=112001800adminadmin2021-12-16 19:39:412021-12-16 19:41:04Biden Orders Simplification of Disaster Relief
A recent study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) demonstrated the value of adopting hazard-resistant building codes. They can provide an 11-to-1 return by reducing losses and helping communities get back on their feet faster after disasters. Not to mention saving lives. This 12-page brochure summarizes the 189-page study.
What FEMA Found
FEMA found that only about a third of counties and municipalities across the U.S. have adopted modern building codes; 65% have not. People living in those places, says FEMA, are bearing a dangerous, costly, and unnecessarily high level of risk in the face of natural disasters.
Weighing Costs Vs. Benefits Makes Compelling Case
The additional cost of building features such as roof tie-downs, window protection, strengthened walls, is on average less that 2% of total construction costs. Yet FEMA’s study found that areas with modern building codes will avoid at least $32 billion in losses from natural disasters when compared to jurisdictions without modern building codes.
That likely underrepresents savings, because the study focused only on buildings constructed since 2000, which represent only about 20% of buildings in the country. It also did not include “indirect losses” such as business interruption, time off the job to rebuild, and tax revenues lost.
Forty to sixty percent of small businesses do not reopen after a flood or hurricane which affects the overall viability of the entire community.
The next part of the brochure talks about the escalating threat of natural disasters and breaking the chain of destruction.
FEMA found that every $1 spent on mitigation in new building code construction saves $11 in disaster repair and recovery costs.
For instance, spending $4,500 to elevate a new home, and install roof-tie downs and storm shutters could save $48,000 during the life of a 30-year mortgage.
A 1% cost premium will provide the roof tie-downs, window covers and other features that help a house survive high winds during a hurricane. In addition, 1.2%–1.7% cost increase over standard construction costs will raise the ground floor, generating the “freeboard” needed to withstand most floods.
How to Help Your Community Get Better
The final part of the brochure provides a roadmap for getting cities and counties to adopt better building codes.
For its part, FEMA is starting to provide grants to cities that have adopted contemporary building codes through its BRIC program (Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities). Here’s this year’s Notice of Funding Availability.
It appears that Texas could qualify for a billion dollars in BRIC grants if the State adopted current building codes.
Many people just assume that local officials have their backs and are doing the right thing when it comes to adopting the latest building codes. But obviously, if two thirds aren’t current, that’s a bad assumption. Building codes may not be the highest priority of officials. So how can you know which standards your community goes by?
The Department of Homeland Security has developed a new website called InspectToProtect.org. Putting your address, city or zip code in the search bar. The site will then search its database and tell you where you stand.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Screen-Shot-2021-11-22-at-3.32.08-PM.png?fit=1374%2C642&ssl=16421374adminadmin2021-11-22 16:13:282021-11-23 22:21:20FEMA Study Shows Better Building Codes Provide 11-to-1 Return
