Tag Archive for: Harris County

Why Harris County Had 31 100-Year Floods in 100 Years

2/7/26 – According to Harris County Meteorologist Jeff Lindner, the county has had at least 31 100-year floods in the previous 100 years. That’s between 1925 and 2025. “How can that be?” you ask. “Doesn’t a 100-year flood only happen once in a 100-years?”

Short answer, NO. To increase your safety and protect your home, read on.

Main Reasons for Apparent Contradiction

Numerous reasons exist for the apparent contradiction in the headline. They fall into three broad categories.

  • Widespread misunderstanding of the definition of a “100-year flood”: the term means different things to hydrologists and to the public.
  • Physical changes to floodplains and channels since the last flood-map update: Upstream development, sedimentation, lack of maintenance, etc. can all increase your flood risk.
  • Evolving statistical estimates of floodplains: Reliable weather records only go back about 130 years in this region. Predicting future risk using such a small statistical base has inherent risks of its own.

Widespread Misunderstanding of Definition

Let’s address misunderstanding of the definition first. The term “100-year flood” emerged in the early part of the 1900s to describe a flood that has a 1% chance of happening each year at any given geographic point.

So, technically, 100-year floods could occur in back-to-back-to-back years. And they have. See Lindner’s list of Harris County’s 31 “100-year floods” below.

  1. 5/31/29: Buffalo Bayou
  2. 12/9/35: Buffalo Bayou
  3. 10/9/49: Cypress Creek
  4. 9/11/61: Sims Bayou
  5. 6/20/73: Sims Bayou
  6. 6/11/75: Sims Bayou
  7. 7/25/79: Clear Creek, Armand Bayou, Sims Bayou, Vince Bayou
  8. 9/20/79: Clear Creek, Sims Bayou
  9. 5/3/81: Vince Bayou
  10. 8/18/83: Sims Bayou, Vince Bayou, Halls Bayou
  11. 9/19/83: Sims Bayou
  12. 6/26/89: Greens Bayou
  13. 8/1/89: Sims Bayou
  14. 10/18/94: Clear Creek, Sims Bayou,  San Jacinto River, Spring Creek, Little Cypress Creek, Cedar Bayou
  15. 10/18/98: South Mayde Creek, Bear Creek, Spring Creek, Little Cypress Creek
  16. 11/14/98: Little Cypress Creek, Spring Creek
  17. 6/5/01: Clear Creek, Vince Bayou
  18. 6/9/01: Clear Creek, Armand Bayou, Brays Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Hunting Bayou, Vince Bayou, Little Cypress Creek, Willow Creek, Carpenters Bayou, Greens Bayou, Halls Bayou, Buffalo Bayou
  19. 10/29/02: White Oak Bayou
  20. 8/16/07: Vince Bayou
  21. 9/13/08: Vince Bayou, Bear Creek, South Mayde Creek
  22. 4/28/09: Bear Creek, South Mayde Creek, Buffalo Bayou
  23. 7/12/12: Little Cypress Creek
  24. 5/13/15: Armand Bayou
  25. 5/26/15: Keegans Bayou, White Oak Bayou, Buffalo Bayou
  26. 10/31/15: Cedar Bayou
  27. 4/18/16: Keegans Bayou, Spring Creek, Little Cypress Creek, South Mayde Creek, Bear Creek, Horsepen Creek
  28. 5/27/16: Spring Creek, Little Cypress Creek
  29. 8/27/17: Nearly every watershed
  30. 9/19/19: San Jacinto River, Cedar Bayou
  31. 5/2/24: San Jacinto River

Many of these watersheds have seen 5 to 10 extreme floods in the last 100-years.

“100-Year Flood” is an estimate of probability and not a guarantee of frequency.

Keep that in mind if you’re shopping for a new home or considering cancelling your flood insurance.

Physical Changes to Floodplains/Channels

The other thing to keep in mind is that floodplains constantly change. You could be high above them one year and far below the next because of changes to the terrain upstream.

I once owned a home in Dallas that went from 2 feet above a 100-year floodplain to 10 feet below it in less than three years. How? One insufficiently mitigated, new development upstream. Think it can’t happen here? Look at Colony Ridge in the East Fork Watershed. It didn’t exist 15 years ago and is now 50% larger than Manhattan.

When buying a home, consider such factors as:

  • Subsidence from excessive groundwater withdrawals in Montgomery County (MoCo) could reduce a home’s elevation relative to the Lake Houston Dam. That would reduce the safety margin between your slab and floodwaters.
  • Sedimentation could reduce the conveyance of a channel or massively block it. During Harvey, sand washing downstream reduced conveyance of the West Fork by 90%, according to the Army Corps.
  • Much of that sand came from sand mines in MoCo. Mines have deforested 20 square miles in a 20-mile length of the river between I-45 and I-69. That exposes a swath of sediment averaging a mile wide to floodwaters.
  • MoCo actually gives tax breaks to those mines that encourage deforestation, rapid sedimentation and downstream flooding.
  • Until recently, the state didn’t require minimum setbacks from the river for mines. Because of erosion, the river now runs through mines in at least six places on the West Fork.
  • MoCo is one of the ten fastest growing counties in America. Roads, driveways and rooftops increase the volume and speed of runoff, causing floodwater to peak higher and faster downstream.
  • Complicating that, MoCo has not enforced its own floodplain regulations. I have published dozens of stories about that, including the blatant transgressions that flooded 600 homes in 2019 along Taylor Gully across the county line from Perry Homes’ Woodridge Village development.
  • When most of the region adopted new drainage and floodplain regulations shortly after Harvey in 2017, MoCo took until late 2025. And their new regs didn’t meet the minimum standards adopted elsewhere.
  • One MoCo legislator fought for the right to develop new subdivisions in floodplains, even as another voted against establishing a Dredging and Maintenance District for the Lake Houston Area.

Evolving Statistical Estimates/Building Codes

Climate change aside, such factors as those above make estimating flood risk a shifting target. Worse, the small statistical base for those estimates gives them a large margin of error.

Complete rainfall records for Harris and Montgomery Counties only go back to the early 1890s. So, we’re trying to estimate 100-year rainfalls by looking at one complete 100-year cycle out of 4.56 billion years. That’s as difficult as predicting a statewide election outcome by interviewing one person!

As a result, scientists update rainfall estimates after most major storms such as Harvey and Allison. But that can take years. FEMA is just now releasing new flood maps based on high-water marks and elevation data acquired after Harvey. And MoCo’s population has grown by about a third since then – enough to skew results significantly.

As upstream counties pursue growth, downstream counties must require higher elevations in building codes. But that won’t help already-built homes in older neighborhoods. To help those residents, we must pursue expensive flood mitigation to offset the increased flood peaks resulting from upstream growth.

There’s just no option; it will never end. We can never give up trying to offset competing interests. Or we’re sunk.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/7/2026

3084 Days since 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.

Floodplain Maps for 5,316 Acres West of Kingwood Contradict Developer’s Claim

11/4/2025 – FEMA floodplain maps contradict a claim made by Scarborough Development/San Jacinto Preserve in a presentation made to the City of Houston and Harris County officials on 10/29/25.

The developer recently bought 5,316 acres, mostly in the floodplains and floodways of Spring and Cypress Creeks, and the San Jacinto West Fork. The land lies in both Montgomery County and the City of Houston’s extra territorial jurisdiction. The developer also wants to build a bridge into Harris County.

In documents obtained from the City of Houston, the developer claimed it would only be “developing land at or above the Atlas 14 100-year floodplain.” See copy in red box below.

Presented by developer to City of Houston and Harris County on 10/29/25.

However, superimposing their development plan on FEMA’s current floodplain maps developed before Atlas 14 contradicts that claim. Why?

The extent of proposed development matches the limits of pre-, not post-, Atlas 14 100-year floodplains.

Net: developing in this area is more dangerous than it may look. 500-year floodplains could soon become 100-year floodplains.

For more detail, see the discussion of Atlas-14’s history and the sequence of maps below.

A Brief History of Atlas 14

FEMA’s current floodplain maps for this area date to 2014, four years BEFORE the start of Atlas 14 in Texas. And to my knowledge, FEMA has not yet released new flood maps based on Atlas 14 for this region.

From FEMA floodplain map of Scarborough/SJP property. Effective date: 8/18/2014. Screen captured today.

NOAA began updating rainfall precipitation frequency estimates in 2004; they called the effort “Atlas 14.” But NOAA didn’t update Texas statistics until 2018. Such rainfall estimates form the basis for flood maps.

In Montgomery County (MoCo), pre/post estimates for the standard 100-year/24-hour rainfall varied by more than a third. MoCo adopted Atlas 14 values of ~16.1 inches for the 24-hr, 1% storm (at Conroe), up from the previous standard of ~12 inches. That’s an increase of 4.1 inches or 34%.

Just as important, until earlier this year, MoCo drainage regulations often let developers avoid building stormwater detention basins that would offset that additional rainfall.

Also consider that Montgomery County has been one of the fastest growing counties in the region and in America. Its population has grown by almost a third (31%) since 2018. That population growth comes with a growth of impervious cover (roofs, driveways, streets, parking lots, etc.) that doesn’t soak up rainfall.

I’m not aware of any recent studies that show the cumulative impact of additional rainfall and impervious cover together with a deficit of detention.

Given those issues, common sense says flood elevations would increase. And in fact, preliminary guidance from Harris County indicates that floodplains will expand by 50% to 100% when FEMA releases updated flood maps based on Atlas 14.

New Plans Show Development Extending to Old 100-Year Floodplain

When I first saw the developer’s new plans, the plans didn’t seem to match the claim that they would only develop land “at or above the Atlas 14 100-year floodplain.” That made me suspicious. So, I performed an experiment.

I superimposed the developer’s plans over FEMA’s current (pre-Atlas 14) map dated 2014. I then varied the opacity of the layers in Adobe Photoshop so I could see how the two matched up. Long story short, they matched perfectly. See the sequence of images below.

Layer 1: From FEMA’s Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Scarborough property is in center between Spring Creek (diagonal) and West Fork (right). Brown areas = 500-year floodplain. Aqua = 100-year. Striped = floodway.

Next, I superimposed the development plan that Scarborough presented to City of Houston and Harris County.

Layer 2: Gray areas with waffle pattern represent claimed “net developable area.” Red = property boundary.

Then, I varied the opacity of the development plan until you could see the floodplains behind it.

Composite with partial transparency of overlay

Enlargement clearly shows that development stops at the old, pre-Atlas-14, 100-year floodplain.

White lines from 2014 FEMA map form boundary between 100- and 500-year floodplains. And waffle patterns from developer’s plans stop at white lines.

New maps reflecting higher rainfall rates and more impervious cover will likely show those white lines cutting well into the brown so-called developable areas, if not eliminating some altogether.

Where Did Developer’s Claim Come From?

So, where did the developer’s Atlas 14 claim come from? I have talked to three people who were in the meeting. Not one could tell me with certainty. They all expressed reservations and doubts about it.

I have also reached out to Scarborough several times to understand their position, but they have yet to return phone calls or emails.

So, I’m going to remain skeptical until I see proof of their claim and FEMA’s new Atlas 14 maps. FEMA may release them in 2026. But the proposed maps will then go through public comment and revision cycles. That could mean they won’t become official for at least another three years.

Make This An Election Issue

In my opinion, the best use for this property would be to turn it into a state park. That would help protect areas both up and downstream. With an election coming up next year, our representatives will have their ears to the ground. The time to start a letter-writing campaign is now. Contact all candidates.

Turn this into an election issue.

Make sure we elect someone who is more interested in protecting public safety than private profits.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/4/25

2989 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 Commissioners Wrestle with $100 Million Drainage Funding Shortfall

4/1/25 – In their 3/27/25 meeting, Harris County Commissioners wrestled for more than an hour with a massive, $100 million drainage funding shortfall. But $100 million may not come close to solving drainage problems in the county’s subdivisions.

Also very worrying, Commissioners have had a hard time getting data that will tell them exactly where they stand financially and let them prioritize remaining projects.

See video here, in Departments Part 2 of 2, beginning at 6:31 PM or 6:01 on the scroll bar.

As a result, Commissioners ordered the Flood Control District and Engineering Department to return to Commissioners Court on May 8, 2025 with detailed lists of projects and their Equity Prioritization Index Scores.

Insiders at the County Courthouse say it would be too politically explosive to cancel any projects promised to voters in the 2018 Flood Bond. So, they are likely to just put projects in more affluent areas on indefinite hold, exposing them to higher flood risk for years.

Another Rambling, Disjointed Debate

Emotions got heated during the hour-long discussion as each commissioner made a case for why projects in his/her precinct should not be cut.

Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey P.E. talked about the larger percentage of unincorporated Harris County he must support compared to other precincts. He also pointed out that he already used $100 million from his own budget to push through needed subdivision drainage projects.

And Ramsey complained about problems with the equity formula used by Flood Control and Engineering to prioritize projects. Specifically, he mentioned Barrett Station, a low-income area in Precinct 3 that was deprived of funding.

Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia focused on “historical discrimination,” the County’s Equity Prioritization Index, and the highly populated areas they serve compared to outlying areas.

Precinct 4 Commissioner Leslie Briones literally talked about “getting hosed.” Her precinct received far less funding than others.

The discussion had all the charm of wolves crowding around a campfire, baring their teeth to see who will get the last scraps of meat.

Data Disaster Also At Core of Discussion

A shortage of reliable, consolidated data about subdivision drainage projects has frustrated commissioners as they seek to debate the priority of projects.

One of the motions considered during the debate on Item 28 last Thursday was integrating the county’s various financial systems. Currently, data about these projects exists on at least three different software platforms according to another county insider.

Subdivision Drainage Projects a Political Football

Voters approved a group of subdivision drainage projects totaling a little more than $425 million as part of the 2018 Flood Bond. Out of that total, the county designated $111 million in local matching funds to attract $315 million in partner funding from local municipalities.

However, over time the Subdivision Drainage Improvement costs escalated to an estimated $832 million due to inflation and the addition of projects. At the same time, not all the partnership funds materialized as expected.

So the county created a Flood Resilience Trust with surplus Harris County Toll Road (HCTRA) funds. The County also reallocated some funds from the 2015 Road Bond.

Because using Road Bond and HCTRA funding required link to transportation, at some point, Commissioners moved subdivision drainage projects from Flood Control to Engineering.

But now, some of the projects are moving back to Flood Control, because Flood Control may be able to cancel some of its projects, freeing up some money on that side of the fence. Can you say “Shell Game”?

The County Administrator’s Office compiled this 11-page outline showing how projects were moved, added, deleted or had their funding sources change over time and why. Reading it will also help you understand why Commissioners are demanding to know how much money they have to work with.

No commissioner wants to find a pet project at the end of the line when the money runs out.

Motions Approved

After an hour of discussion, Commissioners voted on and approved four motions designed to give them greater insight into where each of the subdivision drainage projects stands. In summary, the motions direct:

  1. All relevant departments to fill the previously identified funding gap of approximately $99 million for Subdivision Drainage projects out of a group of 57 projects (identified in 2023) with a Prioritization Framework rating of 7.4 or higher using:
    • $50,000,000 from the Flood Control District of 2018 Flood Bond Program funds originally allocated as matching funds for the home buyout program that are no longer needed;
    • $30,000,000 from the Flood Control District of 2018 Flood Bond Program funds originally allocated for major maintenance projects that have alternative funding sources identified;
    • $19,000,000 from interest earned on METRO fund cash balance; and
    • $14,200,000 of Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) grant funds for projects that meet the eligible use requirements.
  2. The County Administrator to work with all relevant departments to develop any longer-term options and recommendations that may be needed regarding the funding and management of the 2018 Flood Bond Program and the Subdivision Drainage Program. Target date: May 8, 2025.
  3. All relevant departments to develop a standard reporting framework for the Subdivision Drainage Program and the 2018 Flood Bond Program to ensure Commissioners Court can easily see at a minimum:
    • Status of each project
    • Expected time to completion
    • How cost has changed over time
    • Whether there was a change in scope
    • Sources of funding
  4. The County Administrator and Universal Services to improve the county’s electronic financial reporting by consolidating several software systems into one.

For More Information

For more information about Item 28 on the March 27, 2025 Commissioners Court Agenda, you can view the video. Click on Departments 2 or 2 and scroll forward to approximately 6:01 of the video. The discussion lasts an hour. The clock superimposed over the frame (as opposed to the scroll bar), will read 6:31 PM.

Here is an AI-based transcript of the discussion from a private service that I subscribe to. Warning: it has 98% accuracy, higher than county’s transcript which sometimes omits whole sections of the dialog. If something sounds off, check it against the video.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/1/25

2772 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Harris County’s New Definition of Equity

8/26/24 – On Thursday night, 8/22/24, Doctor Arelia Johnson addressed the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force about Harris County’s new definition of equity. Dr. Johnson is the County’s new Chief Equity Officer and has been in her job only three weeks. She has a PhD in sociology and criminology from Howard University. You can watch the video of her talk on YouTube. It begins at five minutes and ten seconds into the meeting. Below is a transcript of her talk up to the point where she started taking questions from the audience.

Arelia Johnson Intro slide
Introductory slide from Dr. Johnson’s talk.

Host: Whenever you’re ready Doctor Johnson, just let me know and I’ll help you advance through your slides.

Johnson: Thank you so much Amanda. This is Doctor Arelia Johnson. My pronouns are she, her, hers. And I am the chief equity officer for Harris County. And so, we’re going to talk about equity and where we are in this process of creating this foundational work and analysis. 

Racism, Sexism Declared Public Health Crisis

In June, 2020, Commissioners Court declared racism and sexism a public health crisis, and they then began to move towards creating a space for chief equity officer in 2021. The county then created its initial guidelines and definition for equity, and then more recently, we were able to update a definition that was more in alignment with the strategic planning that we’re doing. 

Current Definition of Equity

This particular definition feeds into our framework, which is three parts of the model. And we’ll talk about that shortly. But our definition as it stands right now is…

“Equity is the actionable pursuit of recognizing that there are groups who have disproportionately benefited from inequities, and others who have had the burden of solving the problems that have been created by inequities.” 

In other words…

“Equity is the actionable commitment to significantly reduce the disparity in the distribution of benefits and the actionable commitment in reducing the burdens of aligning and embedding goals, objectives, and outcomes related to inclusivity and accessibility to the historically marginalized.” 

Benefiting From or Being Hurt Disproportionally

Now, what does that mean? I’m glad you all asked. When we’re talking about equity, we have historically talked about equity in very vague, abstract ways. We have these huge aspirational goals, as if we can undo 250 years’ worth of work institutionalizing disparity.

However, we have to take a step back. And so, that’s what we’ve done as a county. We are taking a step back to figure out what can we do to recognize that there have been groups, multiple groups, who have benefited from disproportionality.

And then there have been multiple groups who have not benefited from disproportionality and who have been tasked with the burden, whether it’s the emotional labor, the physical labor, the social-political labor of solving the problems that inequity has caused and that has resulted in disparate treatment and what those consequences are. 

Equity is a conscious practice. It’s something that we are grounding in research, and it is informed by data that actively engages and addresses the historical, cultural and institutional dynamics and structures that privilege some and disadvantaged others.

Mitigating History

So, when you’re thinking about being a task force that wants to mitigate some of the flooding issues that we’re having, how do you then ground what you’re doing in research? How do you actively address the historical, cultural, institutional and structural dynamics?

And how do you know that you’re doing that? One of the tools that you can use is by actively engaging committees like this one, to where you can have a myriad of lenses and lived experiences at the table, to where you can hear from all of those different perspectives. 

There are three ways that we are looking at equity structurally, which is achieved when we take all of those dynamics that I just talked about into consideration. 

  • What is the historical context? How have certain groups been ignored or underserved or underprivileged? 
  • What are the cultural contexts? Are there biases or perspectives that are involved with dealing with the historically marginalized? 
  • What are the institutional dynamics that have traditionally privileged some and disadvantaged others?

Structural Equity

Now you’re talking about systems and systematic oppression, which does happen. It has structural consequences, especially when you’re talking about which areas are being served and which areas are going to be the hardest hit. 

Those are some of the things that we need to consider from a structural perspective. 

Structural equity also seeks to rectify underlying structures, frameworks and policies and practices. 

Procedural Equity

Procedural equity is more about the development and implementation of equitable distribution and sustainability. We want to look at standard operating procedures. 

What are those practices? How do we then create impact within those communities, not just in word but also in deed, and making sure that those populations are groups that are not otherwise considered:

  • One, have a seat at the table so they can have consideration, 
  • Two, they can also help with these efforts instead of those efforts being done for them. 

Socio-Emotionally-Intelligent Equity

And then you have socio-emotionally-intelligent equity. I think this is probably one of the things that we have to work hard because we have all been socialized and conditioned to some extent. 

This form of equity helps us to increase the capacity to recognize, understand and address and then mitigate the impacts of interpersonal, individual, structural, systemic and institutional racism and sexism on the well-being of others.

Aligning with Commissioner’s Court Priorities

We think this is really important as a county, because we want to be in alignment with all of the resolutions that are coming out of commissioner’s court. But then, we also want to be able to take a step back and be introspective and reflective when having interactions with others. 

Must Work on Unconscious Biases

Sometimes our implicit biases are our unconscious biases seep into interactions. It’s not because we intend on being harmful. Sometimes we are completely unaware that we are being harmful. 

And so, this is something that we really have to work on. And it has to be very intentional and conscious. 

Socio-emotionally intelligent equity is locational or context specific, which means that you have to recognize where you are, your generational context, your historical context, your social context, your political context, and recognize it and recognize that sometimes we assume things to the detriment of progress. 

What you may be experiencing with someone, if it looks like anger, may not actually be anger, it may be frustration or disappointment. 

And so doing all of those things, what it does for us, it helps promote a uniform starting place, which means that then we go into this place of what training looks like, what a shared language looks like, what commonality looks like. 

So, those are the three components of our equity framework and our definition. 

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/26/24

2554 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Still Have Storm Debris?

8/22/24 – If you still have storm debris from Hurricane Beryl, what you do by when depends on where you live and what you need picked up. Procedures and deadlines differ for:

  • Harris County Precinct 3 Unincorporated Areas
  • City of Houston
  • Montgomery County

This post describes what people in those areas need to do to ensure their debris gets removed. Read thoroughly and act swiftly. Some deadlines are only days away.

Beryl debris. Scenes like this were reported throughout the Houston Area and not all have been removed.

The City of Humble has completed its cleanup effort and so is not included in this post.

Harris County Precinct 3 Unincorporated Areas

The final deadline for reporting storm debris is Monday, September 2. If you still have storm debris in your yard, please be sure to place it at the curb and report it for final pickup. You can do so online or by phone.

To report online:
  1. Visit pct3.com/service-request
  2. Select “Road & Bridge Maintenance” in the service menu
  3. Type “Hurricane Beryl Debris” in the comments section
To report by phone:

Call 713-274-3100 during business hours, Monday – Friday, 7 AM – 4:30 PM.

Instructions:

Please remember to separate your debris for efficient pickup! Visit www.pct3.com or see below for separation guidelines.

From Harris County Precinct 3 Newsletter on 8/22/24.

City of Houston

The City’s Solid Waste Management Department (SWMD) collected more than 2.1 million cubic yards of Beryl-related storm debris by August 15. The Department expects to conclude the first pass of storm collections by Saturday, August 31.

In preparation for the next phase of debris collections, SWMD requests residents to place all remaining storm debris at the curbside no later than Sunday, August 25. The department will begin the second pass in earnest on Monday, September 2.

“Residents do not need to report their storm debris to 3-1-1.”

Houston Solid Waste Management Department

“Storm debris contractors will drive down every street and collect storm debris piles in all public rights of way,” explained this Solid Waste webpage.

SWMD urges residents to:

  • Separate storm debris from bulk waste, and demolition and construction debris at the curbside. Contaminated debris piles might delay collection until the next bulk waste month.
  • Ensure that tree trunks are 3 feet or less in diameter and 3 feet or less in length and tree branches are 6 feet or less in length.
  • Place debris piles within 10 feet onto private property lines as crews cannot encroach beyond that limit.

Beryl struck before the Derecho cleanup finished. Beryl alone created an estimated 4 million cubic yards of storm debris – enough to fill NRG Stadium. So please be patient.

Montgomery County

To have Beryl storm debris picked up, Montgomery County residents must register by August 30. Click this link to begin registration.

If you are still waiting on the first or second passes, make sure you RE-REGISTER and upload a debris photo.

  • Property owners must fill out a debris removal survey to ensure your vegetative debris will be picked up— tree branches, trees stumps, tree trunks, and branches.
  • Place vegetative debris as close to road/curb as possible. But do not block ditches or the roadway.

Montgomery County is only picking up vegetative debris. The county is not removing appliances, demolition debris or construction waste.

DO:

  • Ensure debris is easily accessible
  • Place it away from obstacles like trees, poles, fire hydrants, meters, mailboxes, or any other structure that could hinder removal
  • Place it in a county or city right of way.
DON’T:
  • Block roadways or ditches. Avoid blocking water flow.
  • Include non-storm-related debris: Only storm-related vegetative debris will be collected.
  • Use trash bags for tree debris.
  • Place debris on private property: Collection is limited to the County/City right-of-way.
  • Place debris in gated communities: Collection does not occur in gated communities.
  • Obstruct traffic: Avoid placing debris in a way that could pose hazards for drivers.

Make sure you follow FEMA debris removal guidelines.

Residents who live on cul-de-sacs or dead end streets require special equipment to maneuver in tighter areas. That may take longer, so please have patience.

Montgomery County’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (OHSEM) is handling the Beryl response. The information provided when you register will enhance their ability to allocate resources appropriately and expedite the debris removal process.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/22/2024

2550 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 45 since Beryl

Differences in Ways County, State Propose Ranking Flood Projects

The Texas Water Development Board is seeking public comment on its plan to allocate $375 million in funding from the State’s flood infrastructure fund for the 2024-25 state fiscal year.

That prompted me to compare the TWDB and Harris County plans for ranking flood projects. The differences remind me of how the scoring systems favor certain projects in some areas and not others.

Harris County and the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) use distinctly different priorities when considering which flood-mitigation projects to fund.

The biggest differences have to do with the weights given to severity of flooding, protection of infrastructure, social vulnerability and maintenance costs.

The state also uses “benefit/cost ratios” much like the federal government. The county, however, uses a measure called “project efficiency,” which is related but slightly different.

Differences in Ranking Projects

Here is the most recent prioritization framework that Harris County adopted in 2022 and again in 2023. And here is the draft “intended use plan” for the State of Texas 2024-25 Flood Infrastructure Fund.

Let’s look more closely at each plan and then examine their differences.

Harris County Prioritization Framework

Harris County examines:

  • Project Efficiency…
    • Using People Benefitted
    • Using Structures Benefitted
  • Existing Conditions
  • Social Vulnerability Index
  • Long Term Maintenance Costs
  • Environmental Impacts
  • Potential for Multiple Benefits

Each project is assigned a score for each criterion below ranging from 0 to 10. A score of “10” indicates the project fully met the criterion and a score of “0” indicates that it did not.

Summary of ranking matrix from page 4 of Harris County Framework. For explanations of scoring on each measure, see full document.

Proposed TWDB Matrix

The TWDB scoring matrix measures more factors and gives them different weights.

For larger, high res version and detailed explanation, see full plan.

The first thing you notice is that the table above is much wider and deeper than the County’s matrix. That’s because it lists evaluation criteria for different categories. And criteria sometimes change depending on the category.

Comparison of Differences

Social Vulnerability

Harris County gives 20% of all projects’ weights to social vulnerability. But the TWDB only gives it 5% weight. TWDB also uses social vulnerability as a tie breaker (see page 22).

Equity

Harris County has organized its flood-mitigation priorities since 2019 around equity. The proposed TWDB plan does not mention the word.

Efficiency

Harris County measures the efficiency of removing people and structures from the 100-year floodplain. The County defines efficiency as the cost of the project divided by the number of people or structures benefited. It gives them 45% weight within the final score.

TWDB also measures the number of people and structures removed from the 100-year floodplain. But unlike the county, it factors in critical facilities, the number of low water crossings, and miles of roads removed from the 100-year floodplain. Combined, they represent 55% of the weight. TWDB does not weigh cost against these measures at this point in its scoring matrix. However, it separately gives 2.5% weight to benefit/cost ratios.

Flood Risk

Harris County does not directly incorporate flood risk in its evaluations. It uses a proxy called “Existing Conditions” and gives it 20% weight. Existing Conditions measures the level of service provided by a detention basin or a channel. For instance, one with a 2-year level of service floods in a 2-year storm. One with a 25-year level of service floods in a 25-year storm, etc.

TWDB does not directly measure flood risk either. Rather it measures the number of structures, people, critical facilities, low-water crossings and road miles inside the 100-year floodplain. It’s a measure of what is “at risk.” These measures collectively add up to 100% of the score for a flood-management evaluation and 60% of the score for a flood-management strategy.

Severity

Harris County gives no weight to the severity of flooding. TWDB does. TWDB measures both the average depth of flooding in a 100-year storm and the percentage of a community’s population exposed to a 100-year flood. Together, they can account for 10% of a project’s total score.

Critical Facilities

Harris County does not differentiate among structures removed from a 100-year floodplain. But TWDB recognizes critical facilities. Such facilities could include sewage and water treatment plants; bridges; schools; hospitals; police and fire stations; and more. These affect entire communities, not just individuals.

Maintenance Costs

Harris County projects maintenance costs and gives them 5% of the weight. TWDB does NOT consider costs associated with current or future operations and maintenance activities.

No Right or Wrong Way

Neither the TWDB plan, nor the County’s plan is right or wrong. Their weights reflect the needs of different people and different organizations in different places. For instance, the state is not involved in maintenance, but maintenance historically has consumed as much as 50% of Harris County Flood Control District’s budget. So it makes sense for the county to prioritize low maintenance costs.

However, I would observe that Harris County could borrow some ideas from the state, such as incorporating measures for severity of flooding, protection of life, and protection of critical facilities. The areas that had the deepest flooding and the highest loss of life during Harvey have received little flood-mitigation assistance from Harris County compared to poor areas.

What happens when 240,000 cubic feet per second, 20-foot-high floodwaters tear through your home.
4000 Students at Kingwood High School
When sewage-contaminated floodwater invaded Kingwood High School to the third floor, 4,000 students had to study in shifts at another high school an hour away for a year.

What Do You Think?

TWDB seeks public comment on its proposed plan by January 1, 2024. What do you think? Based on your flood experience, do you think TWDB could do something better? Let them know.

Their plan includes more information than shown above. For instance, it also includes information on eligibility, minimum standards, program timeline, and financial assistance categories.

If you wish to comment email FIF@twdb.texas.gov and specify in the subject line “FIF IUP Comments.” Should you have any questions, please contact the TWDB by emailing the same address.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/11/23

2295 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Karma Strikes Again: Colony Ridge Drainage Systems Severely Eroding

October 8, 2023 – Karma is fast catching up with the corner-cutting Colony Ridge developer in Liberty County. Drainage infrastructure that doesn’t meet Liberty County regulations is fast eroding.

And tomorrow, a special session of the Texas legislature will start investigating the embattled development. The special session will focus on crime, infrastructure, illegal immigration, and more.

To offset negative publicity, the developer invited legislators to meet at his development last week and tour it.

But just before the meeting, Liberty County deputies, a narcotics unit, and SWAT team responded to an abduction at gunpoint. They also launched a manhunt for two escaped suspects in the sprawling development, which is now 50% larger than Manhattan.

On the day of the developer’s meeting, the main entrance to the development flooded. Badly. Ditches designed to keep roads clear in a 5-year storm overflowed during a 1-year rain.

The next day when the storm clouds cleared, an aerial survey showed that Colony Ridge drainage channels and stormwater detention basins were badly damaged.

Had the developer simply followed Liberty County regulations, he could have reduced or avoided the costly damage.

Missing Erosion Controls

Section 50 of Liberty County’s Subdivision and Development regulations specifies requirements for construction of drainage ditches and stormwater detention basins.

The County emphasizes the need to control erosion and sedimentation. It warns these twin threats can have very serious effects on stormwater ditches and basins. Specifically, they can:

  • Cause slope failures
  • Reduce the efficiency of drainage channels
  • Clog drainage culverts
  • Reduce channel capacity
  • Reduce maintainability of drainage facilities
  • Increase maintenance costs
  • Require more frequent repairs
  • Increase turbidity
  • Impair water quality.

To counter these problems, the regulations say…

“Interceptor structures and backslope swale systems are required to prevent sheet flows from eroding the side slopes of open channels and detention facilities.”

Liberty County Subdivision and Development Regulations, Page 100

The diagram below explains how they work.

backslope interceptor design

The regulations also specify design requirements for these structures and other erosion control measures. Altogether, Colony Ridge apparently violated requirements for:

  • Backslope interceptor and swale systems
  • Bermuda grass on side slopes of channels and ditches
  • Erosion controls around outfall pipes
  • Geo-textile bedding under rip rap
  • Pilot channels at the bottom of detention basins
  • Maintenance strips
  • Storage of excavated dirt
  • Side-slope angles

Not all locations in Colony Ridge exhibit all problems. Regardless, karma was swift. Thursday’s 1-year rain severely eroded the side slopes of channels and basins. Eroded sediment also started filling in new ditches and basins.

Repairs and compliance – if attempted – will be costly and time consuming.

Karma Hurts Residents Upstream and Down

While critics might rejoice at the karma, others will pay the price. The developer’s practices increase flood risk for people in Colony Ridge as well as those downstream.

  • In the development, erosion threatens property.
  • Downstream, sediment reduces the conveyance of streams, increasing flood risk.

TCEQ has warned the developer about his construction practices before. But many dubious practices continue. See photos below.

The first two are NASA satellite images from Google Earth. I shot the rest on 10/6/23 with one exception.

Threat to Colony Ridge Residents

When a three-mile ditch down the center of Colony Ridge was completed, it was about 120 feet wide at the yellow line.

August 2017

Today, it’s 76 feet wider.

Residents on EACH side lost 38 feet of their back yards.

This ditch has steadily widened since its construction. Without backslope interceptor swales or grass to reduce erosion, millions of cubic feet of dirt swept downstream from this single ditch.

Then, when the water slowed at the headwaters of Lake Houston, the sediment dropped out of suspension, reducing the conveyance of the East Fork San Jacinto.

Here are several shots showing what that erosion damage looks like up close from a helicopter.

The ravine forms more ravines.
No room for a maintenance road here.
Or here.

Virtually every ditch in Colony Ridge has erosion and compliance problems. Here’s another one.

No maintenance road. No backslope interceptor swales. No grass on sides of ditch. Note: home on right has no back fence. What happened to it?
Note piles of dirt stored where they can erode back down into ditches.

Even detention basins in the newer sections of Colony Ridge have erosion problems. Again, most don’t have grass on the side slopes. Nor do they have backslope interceptor swales. Many, like the one below, don’t have room for maintenance roads.

Note the erosion threat already to these recently placed mobile homes in a newer section of Colony Ridge.
Erosion will soon threaten one of the new roads in Colony Ridge. Regs specify that rip rap like you see here should have had a geo-textile lining under it to reduce erosion.
Erosion washed sediment into new basin. Also note how erosion is starting to block the outfall at the lower right.
No backslope swales here. Not much Bermuda grass either. Regs say “side slopes shall be no steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3:1).”
No grass or backslope interceptor system here. No pilot channels either.
Note piles of excavated dirt stacked on both sides of road, eroding back into ditches.

As all those ditches and basins gradually fill in, they will add to future flood risk.

But repairing such issues will be a big, costly challenge – one that the developer has ignored for years.

Threat to Downstream Residents

All this erosion also contributes to downstream flooding and likely violates Section 11.086 of the Texas water code. It states that “No person may divert … the natural flow of surface waters in this state … in a manner that damages the property of another…”

Where does all that eroded sediment eventually go? To Lake Houston, of course.

East Fork San Jacinto downstream from Colony Ridge on Thursday 10/5/23 – same day as shots above.

The river slows down where it meets the headwaters of Lake Houston. That causes sediment to drop out of suspension.

Harris County, City of Houston and the State just finished a major dredging effort on the East Fork that cost the public tens of millions of dollars.

Before dredging, it looked like this.

East Fork Mouth Bar after Imelda and before dredging. This bar grew 4,000 feet between Harvey and Imelda.

But the cost is only part of the issue. Reduction in the river’s conveyance contributed to the flooding of thousands of nearby homes during Harvey and Imelda.

Harris County Commissioners Court May Address Issues on Tuesday

Drainage is a public-safety issue. And it’s not the only one caused by the developer’s disregard for regulations.

  • Colony Ridge has filled in wetlands.
  • TCEQ has also documented problems with the Colony Ridge sewage system that led to a 48,000 gallons of fecal matter escaping into Lake Houston, the source of drinking water for 2 million people.
  • Colony Ridge does not have enough fire hydrants or water pressure to comply with the Liberty County fire code.

Harris County Commissioners Court may discuss these problems on Tuesday at the request of Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, PE. See Item 406 on the Agenda.

The developer alleges that racism motivates criticism of his Hispanic development. But racism does not explain flooding, feces and fire.

The failure of a developer to follow regulations shouldn’t pit Liberty County against Harris County, rich against poor, or Democrats against Republicans.

We all suffer equally. We all face increased risk. And Colony Ridge is one issue where we should all find common cause.

I hope that Commissioners Courts in both counties support the legislature’s investigation into Colony Ridge. I also pray that both Counties can work together to protect all residents.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/8/23

2231 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.

Texas Ranks #2 in States with Most Flood Damage

It’s easy to forget flooding in the middle of a drought. But we should never forget that Texas ranks #2 in states with the most flood damage. This and other statistics below demonstrate why we shouldn’t become complacent.

Debris pile from Imelda flood in Elm Grove Village (Kingwood).

Different Measures, Similar Rankings

Many ways exist to rank flood-prone areas and Texas ranks high on most of them.

  • National Flood Insurance Plan (NFIP) payouts? Texas ranks #2 after Louisiana between 1978-2021.
  • Most hurricanes? Out of the 300 hurricanes that made landfall in the US since 1851, Texas ranks #2 after Florida with 66 hitting the Lone Star state – 22% of the U.S. total.
  • Percentage of state’s total population living in floodplains? Texas ties for 10th according to a 2017 study. But a 2023 TWDB study shows that 20% of Texans now live in floodplains; that would tie us for 3rd if nothing else changed.
  • Most disaster declarations? Texas ranks #2 when considering all types.
  • Flood deaths? Texas ranks #1. Two hundred people died between 2010 and 2022. Over a longer period of time, 1959-2014, the state had over 850 flood deaths.
  • More Texans live in floodplains (one in five) than the entire populations of 30 other states.

Harris County Ranking

As bad as the Texas statistics are, Harris County’s are even worse.

Between 1978 and 2021, Harris County led all counties in the the entire country for NFIP claims filed (171,300), about 44% of the total claims for all of Texas.

Moreover, 42% of all Texans living in floodplains live in the San Jacinto watershed. The number of floodplain dwellers in the San Jacinto watershed alone exceeds the population of 15 states and the District of Columbia.

A Big Target

It’s important to look at many different measures, because no one measure conveys the full picture. For instance:

  • Number of hurricanes also reflects miles of subtropical shoreline.
  • The sheer size and population of Texas make it rank high on many measures. Said another way, we are a big target.
  • The high clay content of our soils discourages infiltration and encourages runoff of rainfall.
  • Dollar losses may depend as much as on affluence or population density in floodplains as the severity of flooding.
  • Dollar losses in Texas also reflect old building codes in many locations.

And then there’s the huge number of mobile homes in Texas. They are notoriously susceptible to high winds, like those often associated with hurricanes.

Their placement also makes them more vulnerable to flooding than other types of housing. A study by Headwaters Economics found that one in seven mobile homes is located in an area with high flood risk, compared to one in 10 for all other housing types.

Texas, a Leader in…

Texas leads the nation in many things: oil, gas, cotton, job creation, economic expansion and more. Unfortunately, we’re also a leader in flooding.

Better land-use and building codes could certainly help reduce the flooding. But will the state’s new flood plan recommend that? The focus seems to be on flood mitigation more than flood prevention.

The San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group recommended $46 billion worth of studies and mitigation projects in its regional plan. And the San Jacinto is just one of 15 watersheds in the state!

In sharp contrast to the magnitude of mitigation needs, the legislature voted only approximately $1 billion for flood prevention projects this year.

That’s enough to make a dent in the state’s budget, but not the problem. Perhaps we need to re-examine our priorities.

Posted by Bob Rehak on September 4, 2023, Labor Day

2197 Days since Hurricane Harvey

 

Smoking Guns Buried in Harris County 2022 Primary Election Report

This week, Harris County is releasing to the public a final report on the botched March 2022 primary election – a year after the report’s completion. That’s almost a year after a second botched election last November that has mired the County in lawsuits over election results.

For full 3 mb report, click here.

The report recommended a number of changes in election processes. Had the then newly appointed Harris County Elections Administrator Clifford Tatum implemented the recommendations before the November election, many of the problems experienced by voters might have been prevented. But no one has explained why Tatum didn’t.

Most of the problems detailed in March also happened in November.

Fifty pages of election-worker survey data buried at the end of the March election report quantifies the magnitude of the problems that voters experienced.

As you read the numbers below, keep in mind that County Judge Lina Hidalgo’s official margin of victory was 1.65%.

Key Takeaways from Data

The following results jumped out at me.

Question 18 on page 100

Quantified the percentages of poll workers who experienced the following types of equipment problems:

  • Almost one third (31.4%) of workers had problems with the Duos (machines that create both electronic and paper versions of voters’ choices).
  • One fifth (19.3%) of workers had problems with the Scanners.
  • One tenth (9.8%) of workers had problems with the ePollBooks.
Question 17 on page 99

Delved into who (among election workers) had the problems and when:

  • One third (36.5%) of workers had problems with equipment during setup and operation.
  • The degree of problems did not vary significantly by the amount of election experience that the worker had, suggesting the problems were not caused by inexperience.
  • The problems virtually doubled on Primary Election Day compared to early voting (24.2% for early voting compared to 46.3% for Election Day).
  • 45.8% of Republican election workers experienced problems compared to 29% of Democrats.
Question 10A on page 66

Measured the rough estimates of election workers as to voters who experienced problems:

  • 6.5% of election workers felt most voters had problems recording votes on new machines.
  • Another 13.5% felt “less than half” of the voters had problems recording their votes.
  • So, 20% of election workers saw more than “a few voters” experiencing problems.
Question 9 on page 65

Measured how long it took election workers to get help via phone:

  • Twice as many Republicans (21.4%) had to wait longer than a half hour on the help line compared to Democrats (11%).

This contributed to long lines during the November election.

Question 7 on page 63

Measured how long it took election workers to pick up supplies:

  • 22.7% of Republicans said they had to wait longer than an hour for their supplies compared to 13.7% of Democrats.

This contributed to many polls opening late in November.

Question 24 on Page 105

Looked at Political Affiliation of poll workers:

  • Democratic workers outnumbered Republicans by 12.1% (51.5% to 39.4%).

Vague Recommendations Don’t Get to Heart of Issue

The recommendations by the consultant performing the analysis focused mainly on processes and process improvements. Their recommendations on page 108 include:

  • Refine and prioritize desired objectives and outcomes;
  • Identify performance measures to meet outcomes;
  • Inventory the data assets available to measure outcomes;
  • Identify gaps in available data assets;
  • Establish clear lines of responsibility among EAO staff for each outcome or category of outcomes; and
  • Design processes to monitor the progress toward meeting outcomes.

Nowhere in the 114 page report did the consultant use the word “fair,” as in “conduct a fair election” to describe an outcome.

Results of word search in PDF

“B Certified”

The consultant’s report did, however, give us a clue about their company values.

A “B certified” watermark showed up on virtually every page of the ForsMarsh report. I didn’t know what that meant, so I looked it up.

BCorporation.net, a company that B-certifies other companies says, “Certified B Corporations are leaders in the global movement for an inclusive, equitable, and regenerative economy. Unlike other certifications for businesses, B Lab is unique in our ability to measure a company’s entire social and environmental impact.”

In choosing a vendor to audit the election, it would seem that Harris County selected a vendor that was more concerned with social impact than fairness. Their report demonstrates that.

Little Fanfare for Long-Awaited Report

The ForsMarsh Group delivered its report to Harris County on August 31, 2022. It’s now available to the public as the backup to Agenda Item 313 for the August 8, 2023, Commissioners Court meeting. That’s little fanfare for a long-awaited report.

By the way, #313 is a simple transmittal of the report to commissioners. No context or explanation is provided.

Too bad we didn’t have the report in a timely way before the November election last year. So much for transparency!

And little wonder that County Election Administrator Clifford Tatum is playing dodgeball with depositions. At the end of June this year, Tatum failed to appear for a scheduled deposition. And now, attorneys representing Judge Lina Hidalgo filed a motion to quash any further depositions of Tatum.

One Final Qualification and a Question

Harris County has also stonewalled production of records related to the November election. Data in the just-released report finally quantifies issues in the March primary election. However, it does not measure November election problems directly, i.e., those over which Tatum presided.

Regardless, the Primary data parallels independently compiled evidence of similar problems found on Election Day in November. That raises one final question: Nine months after the November election, why haven’t we seen an official report on it yet?

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/7/23

2169 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.

65% of Harris County Flood-Bond Projects that Lost Funding Are in Precinct 3

Harris County has put 37 of 93 subdivision drainage projects associated with the $2.5 billion 2018 Flood Bond on hold.

Reasons include:

  • Lack of funding
  • Inflation
  • Shortfalls in expected partner contributions
  • Constructibility of some projects
  • Social-vulnerability scores within the County’s Equity Prioritization Framework.

Of the 37 projects whose funding was cut, 24 were in Precinct 3 – a whopping 65 percent.

Technically, the projects have not been “cancelled.” The county has just run out of money to do them. But it has set no deadline for revisiting the projects on hold; is diverting HCTRA backstop funding for other uses; has articulated no other plan for raising additional funds; and is submitting projects for HUD funding that weren’t in the flood bond.

Here’s the explanation for the motion approved by Commissioner’s court on 2/21/23.

Did Your Project Get the Funding Ax?

The following three tables show the projects put on hold. (Note: six are duplicated between tables 2 and 3.)

Table One: Cuts based on feasibility and non-co-operating partners. Source: Harris County Commissioners Court.
Table 2: So-called Equity cuts. Source: Harris County Commissioners Court.
Table 3/Part A. More so-called Equity cuts, also approved by Commissioners Court.
Table 3/Part B.

Commissioners court cut funding for projects in all three tables.

Impact of SVI Threshold on Disproportionate Budget Cuts

The deciding factor in many cases was the area’s social vulnerability index (SVI), which measures English language fluency plus minority and ethnic concentrations.

Precinct 3 Commissioner Ramsey argued to lower the SVI requirement for these projects to 50%. That would have met HUD requirements and also meant fewer budget cuts for Precinct 3.

But his Democratic colleagues proceeded to set the threshold at 75%, resulting in the lopsided cuts. The chart below shows how dramatically that affected Equity Prioritization Index rankings in the tables above.

Ramsey Looking for Other Sources of Funding

Ramsey has been beating the bushes to find more money. Recently he got a commitment from Texas General Land Office Commissioner Dawn Buckingham to ensure $825 million in HUD funds going to Harris County Flood Control would be distributed equally among all precincts.

That should help fund several Precinct 3 projects and perhaps free up money for some of the subdivision drainage projects put on hold.

Drowning in the Semantic Wilderness

Ironically, even as others throw roadblocks in the way of Precinct 3 projects, HCFCD insists no projects will be cancelled.

Screen capture on 7/11/2023 from HCFCD webpage about the Equity Prioritization Framework as it applies to subdivision drainage projects.

But according to this motion, they will be paused, put on hold, and have their funding cut.

Harris County Engineering, Flood Control, Daniel Ramos from the Office of Management and Budget and the Harris County Toll Road Authority all recommended the funding cuts on 2/21/23.

Their rationale: It will provide funding certainty for the highest ranked projects using the Equity Prioritization Index and free up the Toll Road Funds for other uses. The toll road funds were backstopping bond funds.

The county made these recommendations even as it was planning to spend HUD dollars on projects NOT in the flood bond.

Unfortunately, six years after Harvey, no large pots of money remain out there dedicated to the storm. Ramsey has his work cut out for him against 4-1 odds.

Is Race-Based Funding Even Constitutional?

To justify the unequal cuts, the other three commissioners and county judge relied on complicated race-based formulas that favor minorities. Then they justified the funding cuts with the usual misleading “worst first” mantra when they aren’t even measuring actual flood damage.

The recent Supreme Court Ruling on Affirmative Action calls into question whether race-based funding is even constitutional.

I’m eager to hear from lawyers on the constitutionality of distributing billions of dollars on the basis of racial discriminators, such as SVI.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/11/23

2142 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.