Flood Resilience Trust Archives

2024 Flood-Bond Update Shows Changed, Changing Priorities

July 21, 2024 – Last week, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) quietly shared this year’s flood-bond update with Commissioners Court. The update came during widespread power and internet outages from Hurricane Beryl that limited its visibility.

The flood-bond update details progress on the 2018 Flood Bond for the first time since the last update last October.

Combining the data in this flood-bond update with data from other sources reveals the impact of the County’s political divide and Equity Prioritization Indices. Both have affected projects in the Lake Houston area and Precinct 3 negatively.

But first some good news.

More Partner Funds Now Secured than Required by Original Bond

The total of secured funding now exceeds $5.2 billion. That includes the $2.5 billion approved by voters in 2018 plus $2.7 billion in other funding secured since then.

The additional funds include grants and matching funds from city, state and federal governments plus other local organizations, such as municipal utility districts. It also includes $87 million in Bond ID Z-07 – the Bond Program Reserve, formerly known as the Flood Resilience Trust.

Commissioners Court allocated this money to backstop bond funding before a massive infusion of funds from the General Land Office and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2022.

The total amount now available exceeds total project costs in both the original bond estimate and a slightly revised project list released in a 2021 flood-bond update.

HCFCD says it is working on revising costs to reflect inflation and the rising cost of property acquisition since then. However, it appears that HCFCD did not include inflation-adjusted project estimates in the current update.

Dollars Spent vs Dollars Secured

Regardless, we are now at a point in the bond where available cash covers the original estimates. So looking at dollars spent vs. dollars secured gives us a reasonable feel for how close we are to completing flood-bond projects in various watersheds. See the bar graph below.

*Compiled by combining 2024 Bond Update Appendix B on Page 10 with spending data obtained separately via FOIA request.* *See data in table below.*

Brays and Greens are more than 80% complete. Five others are more than 50%.

Meanwhile, 15 others are less than 50%. And of those, 10 are less than 25%. The county’s largest watershed, the San Jacinto, is only 19% complete (“spent”).

The graph above does not include Carpenters Bayou. It was an anomaly at 1762%. The 2021 bond update included only half a million dollars for a study there. But HCFCD has spent almost $9 million so far. Including Carpenters in the bar graph distorted the scale and obscured the differences between the other watersheds. However, I did include it in the table below.

*Compiled by combining Bond Update Appendix B on Page 10 with spending data obtained via FOIA request.* *County-wide projects not included.*

Next month will mark the sixth anniversary of flood-bond approval. The bond was originally intended to be a 10-year program. So, totaling all these figures, we are about 40% done in 60% of the time. There’s certainly room for improvement on that front.

Projects in some watersheds are stalled while projects in others near completion. Take, for instance, the Kingwood Diversion Ditch and Taylor Gully Projects in the San Jacinto Watershed. The Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis identified them as the top two projects in Kingwood back in 2020.

But not a shovel full of dirt has been turned yet on the Diversion Ditch project. And a $1,000 excavation and removal contract on the Woodridge/Taylor Gully project was terminated last November when only one third complete.

Partisan Changes Negatively Impact Precinct 3

Another thing to look at: changes to projects (Dollar Increases or Decreases; Project Deletions or Additions). While a certain amount of changes are normal when dealing with rough, early estimates, in this case, the changes also reflect a partisan bias.

When calculating the differences, I compared projects by Bond ID in the 2024 flood-bond update to the original bond allocations in 2018.

Harris County has three Democratic commissioners and one Republican – Tom Ramsey in Precinct 3.

Thirty projects affecting the three Democratic Precincts increased by $162.6 million – $54.2 million per precinct on average. But projects in the lone Republican precinct increased only $27 million. Thus, the three Democrats each benefited twice as much from additions as the lone Republican.
Likewise, 12 projects in the three Democratic Precincts decreased by a total of $92.6 million or $30.6 million per precinct on average. But Ramsey’s precinct lost $40.5 million.
Ramsey lost $13.5 million more than he gained.
Ellis, Garcia and Briones each gained about $8 million more than they lost.

When watersheds crossed precinct boundaries, I split dollars evenly among them. For example, if a project increased in value by $10 million and benefited one Republican and one Democratic precinct, I allocated $5 million to each. While that may not be precisely accurate in all cases, more precise data is not readily available.

To see the evolution of the bond fund through various iterations during the last six years, see the Harris County Flood Control District tab on the ReduceFlooding Reports page.

Other Items of Note

I did not include Countywide Expenditures in the calculations above even though they took a large hit. Their decrease shows up in corresponding increases for watershed projects. And I was more interested in how those were skewed.

However, one item definitely deserves future exploration: the $50 million decrease in “Federal Grant Funded Volunteer Home Buyouts.” Typically, the Federal Government grants funds for specific purposes. Where did this money go? The 2024 flood-bond update does not say.

Also of note: HCFCD currently has 20 projects in construction or turnover. The District has spent more than $2 billion in bond and partnership funds out of the $5.2 billion now available.

The latest bond update points out that of 181 original projects, 42 have been completed and closed out.

Equity Being Redefined Again

Separate from the bond update, Commissioners approved an expansion of equity guidelines last week. Item 18 on the agenda discusses an expanded definition of “equity” that will be used to allocate future flood mitigation dollars. It includes three components:

Structural Equity – righting historical wrongs
Procedural Equity – implementing procedures, policies and programs for groups previously not considered.
Socio-emotionally Intelligent Equity – mitigates the impacts of interpersonal, individual, structural, systemic, and institutional racism and sexism.

More news to follow when I figure out how all that will affect flood-control-mitigation dollars which have historically correlated to flood damage more than sexism.

At the very least, the imposition of new metrics on projects will slow down project scoring and implementation. It’s additional overhead burden on already complex processes. But my real fear? More and more of the San Jacinto watershed budget will slip away to other watersheds.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/21/2024

2518 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Harris County Taps Flood Resilience Trust For Another $64.8 Million

In the 1/31/2023 Harris County Commissioners Court Meeting, Commissioners voted to use another $64.8 million from the Harris County Flood Resilience Trust to keep 11 projects moving. All but one are in watersheds with a majority of low-to-moderate income (LMI) residents.

Projects Approved for Funding

Halls Bayou received:

$600,000 for construction of a stormwater detention basin
$1 million for channel conveyance improvements
$11.45 million for another channel conveyance improvement project.

Halls Bayou’s population is 72.5% LMI, the highest in the county.

Sims Bayou received:

$3 million for a stormwater detention basin and channel conveyance improvements
$4.4 million for another stormwater detention basin project.

Sims Bayou’s population is 60.8% LMI.

Greens Bayou received:

$2.3 million for mid-reach channel conveyance improvements
$4.5 million for the Smith Road channel diversion project
$1.8 for improvements to the Cutten Road Stormwater Detention Basin (Precinct 3)
$11.3 for the next phase of the Lauder Stormwater Detention Basin

Greens Bayou’s population is 59.8% LMI.

White Oak Bayou received:

$18 million for construction of the Inwood Forest Stormwater Detention Basin.

White Oak Bayou’s population is 51.9% LMI.

Armand Bayou received:

$6.5 million for convenance improvements along a tributary, Horsepen Bayou.

Armand Bayou’s population is 28.4% LMI.

All but one of the projects are in Commissioner Rodney Ellis’ Precinct 1 and Commissioner Adrian Garcia’s Precinct 2.

The lone project in Precinct 3 (Commissioner Tom Ramsey) will benefit Precincts 1 and 2 because Greens Bayou drains through those precincts.

About the Flood Resilience Trust

The Flood Resilience Trust uses Harris County Tollroad Authority money to backstop 2018 Flood Bond Projects that have come up short to date on Partnership Funding.

After these expenditures, $31.7 million will remain in the Flood Resilience Trust.

Of the $64.8 million approved for expenditure, $24.5 million will help make up for partnership funding shortages. The remainder will help make up for cost escalation.

For a full discussion of the expenditures and the Trust, see the table on the last page of this summary provided to Commissioners by the Flood Control District.

None of these Trust withdrawals benefit Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, San Jacinto, or Luce watersheds.

watershed map of Harris County — *Harris County Watershed Map*

$750 Million In HUD Funds Not Discussed

Commissioners did not discuss the status of the long-awaited Method of Distribution (MOD) for the $750 million grant allocated to Harris County by the the Texas General Land Office and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The MOD details the county’s plan to spend the money. Pre-approval is necessary to ensure the plan complies with HUD requirements. The County has known it would get the money for one year and nine months. H-GAC, which learned of a similar $488 million grant on the same day in 2021, got its MOD approved early last year.

Curiously, Harris County Community Services Department (CSD) learned it received conditional approval of a DRAFT MOD on January 25th, almost a full week before the January 31 Commissioner’s Court Meeting. Yet the approval was not on the agenda for discussion.

How Will Flood Bond Be Completed?

During the meeting, however, commissioners talked at length about a shortfall in partner funding and how to fill the gap.

Garcia fears there won’t be enough funding to do all the projects in the flood bond. But with the $750 million in HUD funds and money in the Flood Resilience Trust, the County could complete every project in the Flood Bond. That makes the County’s recommendation to shift money away from flood mitigation all the more puzzling. Flood Control would get only $325 million in CSD’s MOD. That wouldn’t even complete all the planned projects in the Halls Bayou Watershed.

Meanwhile, the San Jacinto had $223 million in planned flood bond projects. Of that amount, we have received only 13% so far while Brays Bayou has received 79% of its planned budget.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/6/2023 based on information provided by the Harris County Flood Control District

1987 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Commissioners Approve New Formula for Scoring Future Flood Projects

Harris County Commissioners Court approved a motion on 1/10/23 that will change the formula for scoring future flood projects. It gives two thirds of a potential project’s score to population density, building density and social vulnerability, but only 20% to flood risk and nothing to actual flood damage.

Stacking the Deck

The new formula could be used both to compare and eliminate projects. With only 20% of a project’s score determined by flood risk, fixing minor flooding inside the Beltway could soon take precedence over fixing severe flooding outside the Beltway. The formula provides only the illusion of transparency and fails to ensure fairness.

worst first — *Chart showing feet above flood stage of 33 gages on misc. bayous in Harris County during Harvey.*

During Hurricane Harvey, the highest flooding in the County occurred outside the Beltway along the San Jacinto River, Spring Creek and Cypress Creek.

Evacuation Route during Harvey — *North Shore evacuation route during Harvey. Photo by Jim Balcom.*

Regardless, despite being the largest watershed in the county and one of the most heavily damaged, few flood-mitigation dollars have come to the San Jacinto Watershed.

*Since Harvey, 4.6 more flood-mitigation dollars have gone to the Brays watershed than the county’s largest, the San Jacinto.*

Brays is the county’s most populous watershed. It’s also where Commissioner Ellis lives. Could that have anything to do with the factors and weights in the new formula for scoring future flood projects? They include:

45% Project Efficiency
- 15% Resident Benefits
- 30% Structure Benefits
20% Existing Conditions
20% Social Vulnerability Index
5% Long Term Maintenance Costs
5% Minimizes Environmental Impacts
5% Potential for Multiple Benefits

This new formula omits consideration of damage, risk reduction and partnership funding. Partnership funding has provided approximately one third of all Flood Control District funding since 2000. The new formula gives the most weight to building and population density incorporated in the Project Efficiency formula (project cost divided by # residents and structures benefitted). This 15-page PDF explains how projects are scored within each category above.

Summary of Debate with Video Timecodes

Ellis positions his proposal as a “transparency measure.” 3:04:10

Dr. Tina Petersen, head of the Flood Control District describes it as a “clear, consistent and equitable basis” for comparing projects that the flood control district is undertaking. 3:04:53

Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey says “criteria and frameworks are not necessarily a bad thing,” but then expresses a list of concerns about the proposal, none of which are addressed later in discussion. 3:06:19

Petersen responds that it’s “not perfect.” She says, “there’s no reason we can’t continue to refine this tool.” It’s very “general.” It let’s us “use what we have as a basis for comparison and continue to look forward to opportunities to refine” the tool.

Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia asks whether the proposal will add costs or time to projects. 3:11:00

Petersen says no. “The framework should not require additional costs as long as we don’t look back.”

New Precinct 4 Commissioner Asks Probing Questions

New Precinct 4 Commissioner Briones then asks “how often will it be updated?” 3:13:20

Petersen replies, “We’re not considering making any changes to the framework.” She describes the primary uses as: comparing projects and determining which are eligible for funding from the Flood Resilience Trust.

Briones asks whether the framework incorporates “severity of flooding.”

Petersen points to the “efficiency” metric as the closest thing because it incorporate the number of people and structures benefitted. But Petersen sidesteps the point of the question about “depth of flooding” raised by Ramsey earlier. 3:14:25

Briones questions why partnerships are excluded.

Petersen responds that the framework was designed for use with the flood resilience trust, on projects where partnership dollars were no longer considered a possibility. “It was intended to be a backstop for projects that do not have partnership funding.” Petersen does not mention $750 million in HUD/GLO dollars pending final approval.

Briones next asks whether the framework will provide a threshold for making go/no-go decisions on projects. 3:15:40

Petersen replies, “I want to be clear. It will be used for determining whether a project is eligible for flood resilience trust funds.”

At 3:19:30, Ellis quickly closes debate before someone asks for clarification. The measure passes.

Debate Filled with Unresolved Contradictions

Petersen sidestepped Brione’s tough questions about severity of flooding and the eliminating projects. At one point, Petersen said it was “only a point of comparison.” Later, she said it would determine project “eligibility.”

She also equivocated in her response to Ramsey’s concerns. At first she implied the framework was a first step. Later she said that she didn’t plan to change it. Even though the framework is intended for future projects, most of Petersen’s answers related to the past.

Bellwether Vote

Only one thing is certain.

We’re in for four more years of fog described as transparency!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/11/2023

1961 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.

Ellis Trying to Change How All Flood-Control Projects Prioritized

Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis has placed an item on the Commissioners Court agenda for 1/10/23 with far reaching ramifications for flood control in Harris County. It would change the way every future project is prioritized using a formula that gives almost half the weight to population and building density. Meanwhile, it ignores the amount of damage, severity of flooding, danger to infrastructure, historical underinvestment, and the difficulty of accurately estimating population in flood zones. Ellis’ recommendation could be used to permanently deny projects to heavily flood-damaged areas like Lake Houston.

Text of Motion

In Agenda Item #250, Ellis seeks: “Request for approval to direct the Harris County Flood Control District (“District”) to assign prioritization scores using the adopted 2022 Prioritization Framework for the Allocation of Funds from the Harris County Flood Resilience Trust to all new flood risk reduction projects funded by the District when requesting Commissioners Court approval to initiate the project, and to transmit those scores as quartiles to Commissioners Court.”

So what is that framework and why do we need it?

History of Recent Efforts to Prioritize Projects

Before the 2018 flood bond, Harris County flood control looked primarily at clusters of repeat damage to define and prioritize projects. That damage also formed the basis for obtaining partner funding in many cases.

However, when the perpetually underfunded Flood Control District received the huge infusion of cash from the 2018 flood bond, a problem arose. Which of the many worthy projects would be launched first? There simply weren’t enough qualified contractors to handle all needs simultaneously.

The text of the 2018 flood bond approved by voters contained a sentence that said, “…Commissioners Court shall provide a process for the equitable distribution of funds…” (See Paragraph 14-G). That became the key to the answer…with some verbal legerdemain by Ellis that turned “distribution” into “prioritization” and “equitable” into “equity.”

2019 Equity Prioritization Framework

In 2019, Ellis proposed (and the Court adopted) the “Prioritization Framework for the Implementation of the Harris County Flood Control District 2018 Bond Projects.” This framework ranked projects with a multi-factor index using the following weights:

25% Flood Risk Reduction
20% Existing Conditions (Drainage Level of Service)
20% Social Vulnerability
10% Project Efficiency
10% Partnership Funding
5% Long Term Maintenance Costs
5% Minimizes Environmental Impacts
5% Potential for Multiple Benefits
Total 100%

Commissioners, including Ellis, repeatedly affirmed their intent to complete all projects originally identified as part of the bond. The framework simply prioritized their start dates.

Commissioners also talked a lot about prioritizing “the worst first.” It was a nice sound bite, but never defined. Were the worst areas those with the most damage, deepest flooding, poorest residents, highest risk, or some combination of the above? Notice that the formula above omits flood damage, the traditional way of prioritizing funds and “ground-truthing” flood-risk estimates.

At this point, all of the projects in the bond have started. Their natural lifecycles and complexity will determine their order of completion. So, the debate has shifted from the flood bond to other sources of funding and future projects.

2021 Changes Applied to Flood Resilience Trust

In 2021, Commissioners created a Flood Resilience Trust using Toll-Road funds to backstop potential shortfalls in flood-bond partner contributions. The weighting used to allocate funds from the Trust changed significantly.

25% Structures Benefitted
20% Flooding Frequency
20% Social Vulnerability
10% Cost Per Structure
10% Partnership Funding
5% Maintenance Cost
5% Environmental Impact
5% Secondary Benefits
Total 100%

Flood Control used this formula only to prioritize the use of backstop funds in the Trust. Note this version of the formula eliminated both damage and risk reduction from consideration.

2022 Changes

In April, 2022, Commissioners modified the 2021 weights within the Prioritization Framework – still only for Flood Resilience Trust Funds – as follows:

45% Project Efficiency
- 15% Resident Benefits
- 30% Structure Benefits
20% Existing Conditions
20% Social Vulnerability Index
5% Long Term Maintenance Costs
5% Minimizes Environmental Impacts
5% Potential for Multiple Benefits

This 2022 formula omits consideration of damage, risk reduction and partnership funding. But it gives weight to population density (project cost divided by # residents benefitted). This 15-page PDF explains how projects are scored within each category above.

2023 Proposal

Commissioner Ellis now proposes applying the 2022 Resilience Trust formula to ALL FUTURE HCFCD PROJECTS.

Problems with Proposal

Flood Control would now use Ellis’ formula to decide which projects make the list, not just which go first.

Thus, the so-called “equity” formula once used to schedule projects could now be used to eliminate projects altogether.

Two thirds of the weight goes to density and social vulnerability. Only 20% relates to flooding.

The projects most likely to be eliminated would be outside the Beltway – in less dense areas that have traditionally received the least funding. In a post-bond, financially constrained environment, the weight given to density will put every project outside the Beltway at a disadvantage.

But the Ellis formula has many other problems, too. It:

Does not differentiate between types of structures while giving them almost a third of the weight. Thus, a mobile home counts for as much as a hospital or college.
Gives no weight to protecting critical infrastructure such as bridges, hospitals, grocery stores, wastewater treatment plants, etc.
Omits actual damage from consideration, which “ground-truths” risk assumptions (see Existing Conditions, Page 6).
Eliminates consideration of partnership funds, which have provided almost one third of HCFCD funding since 2000.
Gives 20% weight to social vulnerability, but ignores the severity of flooding. Thus a low-income home with one inch of flooding counts as much as an entire condo complex swept away by 22-foot deep floodwaters.
Makes awards more subjective because HCFCD has no way of estimating how many people live in apartment buildings or homes. HCFCD can count buildings in satellite photos, but the number of residents benefitted will always be a guess. Census tracts do not follow floodplain boundaries.
Undermines efforts to prevent flooding, as opposed to correcting it after people are damaged. Prevention, such as HCFCD’s Frontier Program, is always more cost effective in the long run.
Forces Flood Control to judge projects before the District has engineering and cost data in hand that would help determine whether the projects are worth pursuing. That’s because “ALL FUTURE PROJECTS” include preliminary engineering projects.

Suggestions For Improvement

Below are several suggestions to improve the formula.

Define “worst first.” While the sentiment is noble, in practice, the term has no practical definition. (Ditto for equity.)
Incorporate measurements for severity of flooding and amount of damage. These really define worst.
Prioritize critical infrastructure such as bridges whose loss can jeopardize the economic vitality of the region.
Include partnership funds. They help stretch flood-mitigation tax dollars by almost a third. Even if people sometimes must wait longer to line up partner funding, partner funding helps more people in the long run.
Acknowledge that HUD dollars go disproportionately and preferentially to Low-to-Moderate Income neighborhoods.
Publish level-of-service data, used in the “existing conditions” calculation, for all streams in the county. It seems to be secret. I’ve been trying to get it for a year. Keeping it secret undermines trust in government. How do we know money is really going to the areas with the greatest risk?
Publish results of the new prioritization index periodically, so we can see which projects are being eliminated and why. And so we can understand why 18 of the 20 currently active capital improvement projects are in Precincts 1 and 2.
Publish a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan similar to the City of Houston. Let people see what is coming, when, and for how much. That way we can hold HCFCD and Commissioners accountable. Plus, we can see their “formula” in action.
Acknowledge where money has really gone historically.
Be fair to all. The proposed formula is like playing cards with a stacked deck.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/7/23

1957 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.

County Approves Another $15 Million for Flood Mitigation in Precincts 1, 2

On October 25, 2022, the three Democrats on Harris County Commissioners Court approved the expenditure of another $15 million from the Flood Resilience Trust. All the money will be spent to avoid delays on flood mitigation projects in Precincts 1 and 2.

This follows an approval on June 28 to spend $85 million on 16 projects. Two thirds of the benefit for those also went to Precincts 1 and 2.

Not one of the 20 projects approved to date is in the San Jacinto Watershed.

Where the Money Went

Of the four flood-mitigation projects approved for trust funding in October, three were in the Halls Bayou Watershed and one was in Sims.

In June, commissioners approved 16 other projects:

One in the Armand Bayou watershed
One in Brays
Two in White Oak
Three in Halls
Four in Greens
Four in Cypress and Little Cypress Creeks
One in Buffalo Bayou

Of the 16 projects, 14 benefited Precincts 1 and 2, but only 7 benefited Precincts 3 or 4. The totals for “projects” and “areas benefited” do not equal because sometimes benefits cross precinct boundaries.

Looking at both groups of expenditures, 20 benefited Precincts 1 and 2, while only 7 benefited Precincts 3 or 4. So about one quarter of the flood mitigation benefit has gone to the Republican-leaning half of the county.

Purpose of the Trust

The Flood Resilience Trust Fund was originally conceived to facilitate:

Acceptance of a grant that requires a local match exceeding secured local funds
Awarding construction projects that exceed the amount of secured funds
A change in contract for a construction project underway that exceeds the amount of secured funds

In all of the most recent cases, the expenditures avoided delays for projects already underway. In each, partnership funds did not materialize as expected. See below.

The $100 million dollars in Trust Fund expenditures approved to date leaves a balance of only $28 million in the fund. So…

78% of the money is gone in just four months. And the Lake Houston Area hasn’t seen a penny of it. Meanwhile, multiple projects in the San Jacinto Watershed struggle to get in gear.

To see the full report on June projects, click here.

For the full October report, click here.

Fix This Discrimination

Polls are open from 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. Monday through Friday this week for early voting. Election Day is on November 8. It’s a long ballot. Make sure you vote all the way to the end, because several key races/proposals are hidden in the middle of all the judicial races. For instance, the race between Lina Hidalgo and Alexandra Mealer for County Judge comes after family court judges on the ballot.

All registered voters in Harris County may vote for County Judge. A heavy turnout in this area could swing the election. It’s close. As of this morning, however, fewer than 10,000 people in Kingwood have voted.

Also, Precincts 2 and 4 will elect Commissioners this year. (The Lake Houston Area is now in Precinct 3 and won’t vote for commissioner until 2024.)

There are also three county bond proposals on the ballot totaling $1.2 billion being pushed by Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia. Despite promises made by the County Administrator months ago, none has a defined project yet, so if you approve the Garcia Bonds, you’re writing a blank check.

Also, the three Democrats on Commissioners Court have announced their intention to distribute the $1.2 billion unequally. The two Republican Precincts would get only $220 million each or a total of $440 million. So Republican Precincts would get 36% while Democrat Precincts would get 63%.

That echoes lopsided Flood Resilience Trust and 2018 Flood Bond spending to date. Don’t miss your chance to bring fiscal control and balance back to Commissioners Court. And some flood-mitigation benefits to the Lake Houston Area.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/31/22

1889 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Tag Archive for: Flood Resilience Trust