The Texas General Land Office (GLO) announced today that for the first time ever since Hurricane Harvey, both Houston and Harris County have each met their benchmarks for expending disaster relief funds – in the SAME time period. They may have individually met performance benchmarks before, but never together in the same review period.
Both Harris County and Houston have semiannual expenditure benchmarks in their Community Development Block Grant Disaster Relief funding contracts with the GLO, per HUD guidance. “These milestones were set by the City and County and approved by the GLO to ensure all programs will be completed as timely as possible,” said a GLO spokesperson.
A New Era of Cooperation Yielding Results Already
Dawn Buckingham, M.D., the new GLO Commissioner credits open communications and focused cooperation. “The GLO is dedicated to helping Harris County and the City of Houston put these vital funds to good use.”
GLO Commissioner Dawn Buckingham, M.D., speaking at a joint press conference in March. Others L to R: Harris County Community Services Interim Exec Director Thao Costis, HCFCD Exec Director Dr. Tina Petersen, P4 Commissioner Lesley Briones, P2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia, P3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE, P1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, County Attorney Christian Menefee.
This is good news. In years past, the relationship between Houston, Harris County, GLO and HUD foundered over performance benchmarks, cooperation and communication. But now, new players are in place. And 5+ years after Harvey, the City, County and State all face “use it or lose it” deadlines from HUD.
More Money Hangs in Balance
While the performance benchmarks in question have to do only with unexpended, Harvey-related, disaster-relief funds, much more money hangs in the balance.
Earlier this month, HCFCD presented Commissioners Court with a proposed project list for those funds. HCFCD is reportedly still trying to define the areas benefited by each of those projects before final approval. However, HUD and the GLO seem pleased with both the progress and the collaborative working relationships that have developed.
Everyone seems to respond positively to Dr. Buckingham’s working style – described as “supportive,” yet “results oriented.”
Commissioner Adrian Garcia stated publicly, “I want to give a shout out to the GLO and Commissioner Buckingham for her support of Harris County and giving us a degree of trust.”
Commissioner Tom Ramsey complimented the fairness of project list, noting that it worked out to about 25% for each precinct. He stated, “job well done by the whole.”
Commissioner Lesley Briones said, “This is so wonderful that we were able to hit reset and really focus on the progress going forward.”
Nature Provides Its Own Deadlines
It can’t happen soon enough for Harris County residents who live under constant threat of floods. Monday afternoon, Tropical Storm Brett formed in the Atlantic. Another storm with an 80% chance of formation in the next 7 days follows closely behind. That’s up from 50% yesterday afternoon.
National Hurricane Center update as of 10:45AM EDT Tuesday, June 20, 2023
It’s too early to tell with any reliability where/whether/when either of these disturbances will make landfall.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/19/2023
2120 Days since Hurricane Harvey and Updated on 6/20/2023 with new storm information and photo.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/20230620-image0.jpg?fit=1100%2C824&ssl=18241100adminadmin2023-06-19 16:57:252023-06-21 22:08:33A First: Houston, Harris County Both Meet HUD/GLO Disaster-Relief Benchmarks in Same Time Period
On June 6, 2023, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) recommended to Commissioners Court a flood-mitigation and disaster-relief project list totaling $825 million. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocated the funds to Harris County via the Texas General Land Office (GLO). The projects will require another $145 million in local-match funds from the 2018 Flood Bond. Thus, the projects are worth close to a billion dollars.
Commissioners Court unanimously approved the project list with little discussion. Each precinct will receive a relatively equal amount of projects and funding, according to Commissioner Ramsey.
Racial composition of areas receiving mitigation benefits.
HUD normally gives priority to projects that help minority and low-income areas. However, the two major buckets have different LMI requirements. They also have different deadlines.
HCFCD must spend 100% of the Disaster-Relief (DR) funds by August 2026. And they must benefit areas where 70% of the residents qualify as LMI (below the average income for the region).
The Mitigation funds have more time and a 50% LMI requirement. No less than 50% of the $750,000,000 – from which the $502.5 is carved – must be expended by January 12, 2027, with the full balance expended by January 12, 2032.
So the DR funds have more urgency attached to them and that list includes projects closest to “construction ready.”
Reason for Backup Projects
According to HCFCD, the project list will likely evolve based on review by GLO, project schedules and project costs. Budgets are estimates based upon today’s dollars. They will change as projects advance.
Fatal flaws may also become visible as projects advance toward construction. So, HCFCD requested and received permission to substitute alternate projects as needed if the intended projects become non-viable.
1 Recommended, 1 Alternate Project in Lake Houston Area
The “recommended” list includes one primary project in the Lake Houston Area: Taylor Gully Improvements.
The project list does not include information on how much these projects would contribute to flood reduction – either locally or downstream. However, HCFCD expects to post that information to its website before the projects go to the GLO for approval in the coming months.
Partnership-Funding Gap Affected
Likewise, HCFCD did not include with this list an estimate of how much it would affect the partner-funding gap.
Some time ago, HCFCD projected that it could finish all the projects in the flood bond using a combination of:
But to finish all the projects in the Flood Bond, HCFCD “phased” some projects. It knew it wouldn’t have enough money to complete 100% of some large projects. So, several phases might have been included and others deferred.
It appears that several projects on today’s list include some deferred phases. So the “partner-funding gap” may not be reduced as much as originally thought. Net: HCFCD may or may not have to look for additional funds. The District expects it will know more after GLO approves the list.
HCFCD must also come back to Commissioners Court by July 18 with an estimate for ongoing maintenance and land management costs for all the projects.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/6/2023
2107 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Project-Recs.jpg?fit=1200%2C765&ssl=17651200adminadmin2023-06-06 19:32:252023-06-19 14:01:42Harris County Approves $825 Million Flood-Mitigation Project List For HUD/GLO Funds
Of all the things Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo could have picked on in Austin this year, she chose to get hysterical over a bill that would return the control of Harris County elections to … ta da … two elected African-American Democrats!
Hidalgo is complaining bitterly about SB 1750, a bill passed by both the House and the Senate – now on its way to the Governor’s desk and likening it to a “murder plot.”
In addition to SB 1750, Hidalgo also complains about:
SB 1933, a bill that would give the state the right to investigate election administration problems.
SB 1039, a bill designed to guarantee explanations for election irregularities – without concerned citizens having to challenge the entire election.
SB 1993, a bill allowing new elections if enough polling places run out of ballots long enough. (However, it has no chance of passing in this session.)
I won’t try to discuss every statement made in Hidalgo’s rambling rants. You can watch the videos and form your own opinions. I will, however, point out some of Hidalgo’s more exaggerated claims.
County Judge Lina Hidalgo accusing Legislature and Governor of plot to murder 5 million people
Hidalgo Likens System that Elected Her to Murder
SB 1750 would take the next election out of the hands of an administrator appointed by Judge Hidalgo, Commissioner Rodney Ellis and Commissioner Adrian Garcia. It would restore the previous system run by the County Clerk and Tax Assessor-Collector. By the way, that’s the same system that elected Hidalgo over the previous County Judge, Ed Emmett.
Yet Hidalgo says she “can’t think of something more anti-democratic” than putting elections in the hands of elected officials rather than someone appointed by her.
She also claims Austin is “declaring war on Harris County.” And that legislators and the governor are engaged in a “murder plot” against every resident of Harris County. Yep, all 5 million of them.
As if that’s not enough…
Hidalgo calls the attempted murder of 5 million people “not normal.”
Then the master of understatement accuses the Legislature and Governor of “Orwellian double-speak” and “attacking democratic ideals.”
She blasts election audits, claims they are an abuse of the system, subvert her authority, and disenfranchise millions of voters “whose voices will be silenced.” After they destroy Harris County’s economy.
“They’re coming after us,” she says. She doesn’t specify whether “they” includes people with gavels or straight jackets.
Excuse me, Judge. But how is returning local elections to locally elected Democrats attacking democratic ideals? Who’s guilty of the Orwellian double speak?
Oh wait! You didn’t personally appoint the elected Democrats! The People did. Is that why it’s “anti-democratic?”
Hidalgo’s Selective Perception
Hidalgo still hasn’t complied with lawful Texas Public Information Act requests relating to the last election by turning over the emails concerning voting problems and voting machine maintenance records.
But Hidalgo did double down on the “murder plot” accusation. She went on to say the Legislature’s common sense measures were tantamount to “a murder-suicide pact” that would take down Texas and every other state.
Of course, maybe we should cut her some slack. After all, Hidalgo is under pressure. She also informed us that she expects the County’s District Attorney, Kim Ogg (another Democrat), to hand down a criminal indictment against her soon in the $11 million Elevate Strategies scandal. An entire grand jury deliberated that issue for five and a half months. But that might have been a Democrat plot by a Republican Governor, too.
Hidalgo’s Other Gripes
Hidalgo claims SB 1750, SB 1933 and SB 1093 amount to “election suppression,” a “takeover” by the state, and “a power grab.” She also says that she’s appealing to the Federal government for help.
Judging by Hidalgo’s hysteria, she seems to equate these bills with genocide and the end of Western civilization. She also seems to believe that her power should remain absolute and beyond question.
That might explain why her administration has a problem retaining people. If Cliff Tatum, the election administrator, leaves as a result of SB 1750, that will mean 24 departments in Harris County have had at least 48 heads under Judge Hidalgo in a little more than four years. And many of the current heads have “interim” in their titles.
I have to compliment Judge Hidalgo on one thing, though. She has more imagination than Shakespeare, Orwell, and Machiavelli put together. I’m sure she would have inspired them to new heights.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/24/2023
2094 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/20230524-Screenshot-2023-05-24-at-5.32.55-PM.jpg?fit=1200%2C797&ssl=17971200adminadmin2023-05-24 19:52:072023-05-25 08:12:12Hidalgo Accuses Legislature, Governor of “Murder Plot” against 5 Million Harris County Residents
Eleven leaders have turned over in the last year including five in the last month. The:
Office of the County Administrator has a new interim Executive Director.
Economic Equity and Opportunity Office has a new interim Executive Director.
Commissioners Court Analysts’ Office has had twointerim Executive Directors in a matter of weeks.
Universal Services Department has a new interim Executive Director (effective 5/16/23).
All those “interims” hint at more changes to come. But the changes go even further down several organizational ladders.
Deeper Changes Affect Whole Departments
The new interim leader at Universal Services, Sindhu Menon, began making organizational changes one day after her appointment two days ago. The full scope has yet to be seen. So far, she has reportedly addressed some departmental cultural changes and instituted an open door policy, which employees say is a refreshing change from her predecessor.
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) also announced changes this week on 5/15/23. But the District’s head did not change. HCFCD changes are more structural than cultural.
Let’s dive into HCFCD’s latest reorg, look at how three previous reorgs under Hidalgo have affected operations, and then look at academic research on the impact of frequent reorganizations.
Latest Reorganization at Flood Control
County Commissioners appointed Dr. Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD, in January 2022. She is the department’s fourth leader under Hidalgo since Russ Poppe resigned in July 2021, less than 2 years ago. Peterson has reportedly been working on her department’s reorganization for approximately the last year.
Dr. Petersen says her goals include:
Enhancing operations
Reaffirming a commitment to administrative excellence
Efficient project delivery
Robust maintenance of infrastructure
Building dynamic partnerships.
Dr. Petersen did not respond to a question about whether the recent, dramatic drop in HCFCD spending had anything to do with the timing of her reorganization. However, all of the announced goals seem generally designed to counter the downward trend below on the right.
Source: FOIA Requests to HCFCD.
After a steady increase following the passage of the flood bond in 2018, spending is now down to approximately the 2017 level (assuming Q1 rates hold). The decrease corresponds to the department’s frequent leadership changes.
HCFCD issued the new organizational chart below this week. It is designed to accomplish Dr. Petersen’s goals, which don’t specifically include speed.
The creation of several new positions at the “chief” level
A curious multi-level relationship between the chiefs
Multiple open positions
A reshuffling of responsibilities under the chiefs
“Demotions” for many departments caused by one and sometimes two additional layers of management inserted between Petersen and people actually doing the work.
Extra layers of management have the potential to slow things down even more rather than speed them up.
Changes Compared to Previous Structure
For instance, Communications used to report to the Chief of Staff and then Dr. Petersen. Now, it reports to a Public Information Officer and an External Affairs division head before the Chief of Staff. See org chart above in the second column from the left.
HCFCD issued no public announcement explaining the changes. So, without a previous org chart, it’s hard to tell exactly what changed unless you are familiar with certain departments (as I was with communications).
The demotion of Communications is regrettable in my opinion. Communications have already slowed and this will slow them further. Consider two examples: flood-bond and website updates.
Already HCFCD has abandoned monthly flood-bond spending updates in favor of twice-yearly.
Many of the District’s web pages refer to upcoming meetings that happened years ago!
“Active Projects” have not been updated on the District’s website in five months, even though many projects have changed.
May 18th screen capture still shows active projects from January.
But the challenges don’t stop there.
Political Interference Has Slowed Flood-Risk Reduction
Irrespective of Dr. Petersen’s talents, she has little ability to control changing priorities above her pay grade. Consider these two examples.
Five items on the 5/16/23 Commissioners Court Agenda (256, 259, 260, 263 and 264) involved $250 million in grants for sediment removal awarded nearly 2 yearsago. The projects were just approved THIS week.
A quarter billion dollars has been parked on the sidelines for almost two years.
Certainly, finalizing construction plans and bidding the jobs consumed part of that time. The reorg might help with those things.
But according to three sources who asked to remain anonymous, political interference from commissioners also delayed the projects. Certain commissioners reportedly didn’t think enough of the FEMA money was being spent in their precincts.
Then there’s the $750 million in HUD/GLO Harvey mitigation funds awarded to Harris County – also two years ago. Instead of asking Flood Control how it recommended spending the money, Commissioners gave that task to the Community Services Department (CSD) which still hasn’t developed a definitive list of projects. Perhaps that’s because CSD has had six changes of leadership under Hidalgo. But CSD did cut HCFCD’s share of the pie by almost a quarter billion dollars.
The parked FEMA and HUD funds represented chances for Hidalgo to reduce flood risk by a $1 billion.
And let’s not forget the annual changes of priorities in the County’s Equity Prioritization Framework that force HCFCD staff to constantly re-evaluate more than a hundred projects.
Common Pitfalls of Reorganizations in General
Many valid reasons exist to reorganize. Likewise, reorganizations also entail many pitfalls.
Frequent reorgs can wreak havoc on an organization’s productivity by demoralizing employees.
80% of reorgs fail to deliver the hoped-for value in the time planned
10% cause real damage
Reorgs—and the uncertainty they provoke—can cause greater stress and anxiety than layoffs
In about 60% of cases, reorgs reduce productivity for a period of time.
An article in Forbes, titled “Curse of the Reorg,” details some of reasons why. It claims, “When companies announce a ‘reorg,’ internal reactions often skew more concerned than excited.”
Forbes continues, “Employees may not perceive this news as a positive change when they’re consumed by questions like: Another reorg, really? What will happen to my job? How will my team change? Will the projects I’ve been working on for months (even years) go away?”
Another article, on LinkedIn, documented how productivity dropped 50% after a reorg because of issues like those above.
Many academic articles suggest that it takes six to nine months to get past the productivity dips associated with reorganizations. One can only wonder whether the leadership changes and reorganizations throughout Harris County are happening faster than productivity can recover from them.
Only commissioners have the power to fix this problem. But service delivery doesn’t seem to be the highest priority of many of them.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/18/2023
2088 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/HCFCD-Org-Chart-Final.png?fit=1896%2C1430&ssl=114301896adminadmin2023-05-18 21:19:582023-05-19 13:30:18Flood Control, Other Harris County Departments Reorganized…Again
On April 14, 2022, I wrote about how the brain drain in Harris County government under County Judge Lina Hidalgo compromised productivity and service. At that point, Hidalgo had been in office just 3.25 years. During that time, the heads of 16 out of 20 departments had changed – many more than once. Those 16 departments had had 34 leaders under Hidalgo by then.
To make matters worse, in some cases, 100% of the group heads under the department heads also turned over, leaving whole departments rudderless and gutting institutional knowledge.
Now, a year later, Judge Hidalgo still has not staunched the hemorrhaging. It’s continuing and perhaps worsening, raising costs for you, the taxpayer.
10 New Heads in One Year, More Possible
In the year since my last report:
10 department heads have turned over.
1 of those department heads lasted just weeks.
2 departments still have not announced new or interim leaders after long periods
Commissioners Court is considering duplicating a department because the first is broken.
Elections Administrator’s Office (Clifford Tatum replaced Isabel Longoria. Tatum may be replaced if SB1750 passes.)
In the April 25 Commissioner’s Court meeting, Democrats proposed creating yet another county IT department dedicated to handling justice/law enforcement systems.
One department head who shall remain nameless is under pressure to leave because of alleged sexual harassment and employee intimidation.
The boss. According to multiple studies, most employees quit their boss, not the organization. Professionals want bosses who can teach them things and help them grow within their professions. Political appointees may not have that skill set.
Perhaps nowhere are these problems more apparent than in Universal Services, the county’s IT department. Last year, the department’s JWEB system broke down and caused the release of dozens of prisoners. That happened under a new department leader with no IT experience.
Problems with the system have reportedly continued since then, causing frustrations to mount in the law enforcement community. As a result, the County is exploring creating a new department to do what Universal Services is already supposed to be doing. See item 297 on the 4/25/2023 commissioners court agenda.
But consider several problems with this proposal:
There aren’t enough knowledgeable, qualified IT people to staff two departments.
Universal Services would have to continue hosting the system, further fragmenting responsibility.
Fragmentation of responsibilities undermines response time, which is the problem.
Most of these problems can be traced back to the replacement of a career professional by an unqualified political appointee. Qualified technical people then left in droves because of all the issues cited above.
I asked one person to describe how the turnover has affected system development and support. The source offered this description.
“There has been a lot of turnover in project management (PM), for instance. And, of course, there is a lag time while a new PM gets set up, learns the systems, and starts to become effective. In addition to that, PMs have to deal with tech staff turnover, since we keep losing developers and infrastructure people and positions. So, the new PM has to figure out how to find replacements from existing staff (and who to ask to find them), then negotiate to get them pulled away from other efforts to get on to their projects, and finally the PM gets tired of dealing with all of that in addition to hostile upper management and leaves for another department or another employer.”
As a result, no coding has yet been done on a highly needed justice IT system for 2.5 years. Worse yet, Universal Services reportedly hasn’t even locked down the system’s specs yet!
Property Appraisals Skyrocket with Increasing Costs
It’s not just county leaders and employees who suffer. You, the taxpayer, have to pay for:
Excessive personnel turnover
Higher recruitment costs
Training of replacements
Loss of institutional knowledge
Costly rookie errors
New employees figuring out where the toilet paper is
Poorer service
Reduced productivity
Without the ability to raise tax rates, where will money to pay for all that come from?
According to an analysis by O’Connor property tax consulting and appraisal services, Harris County is attempting to tax homeowners this year at 116.2% of the value of their properties.
More than 90% of Harris County homeowners received notices of assessed value that exceed the market value of their property.
O’Connor Property Tax Consulting
The excess assessments could cost Harris County homeowners $1,365,000,000, according to O’Connor.
A Never-Ending Story
In Hidalgo’s first 3.25 years, Harris County had 36 new department heads. During the year since then, we’ve had 10 more. In addition:
Four departments have leaders with “interim” in their titles.
Two departments may have vacancies at the top.
Two departments have leaders under pressure to leave.
That could soon push Hidalgo’s “turnover total” among department heads well past 50. And that will make it harder to recruit qualified talent.
Who wants a job where you measure tenure with a stopwatch?
This is what happens when you elect someone who’s never held a real job to become the CEO of a multi-billion dollar enterprise.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/13/23
2083 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Hidalgo-Keyframe.jpg?fit=1200%2C835&ssl=18351200adminadmin2023-05-13 17:39:282023-05-15 08:39:53Costly Brain Drain Continues in Harris County
Wayne Dolcefino, investigative journalist extraordinaire, has released another video about his and Jim McIngvale’s attempts to force Harris County to release public records pertaining to the 2022 election. Lina Hidalgo plays a starring role. And her performance reminds one of Shakespeare’s famous line from Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” The line implies that someone who denies something too strongly may be hiding the truth.
Fighting Disclosure Before an Accusation Has Been Made
Neither Dolcefino nor McIngvale have accused Hidalgo of trying to unfairly alter the outcome of the election. They’re just trying to learn what happened.
Yet Hidalgo and her cronies have steadfastly refused to produce public records – records that could easily prove their innocence. Instead:
Hidalgo and her team use encrypted apps to communicate, a practice outlawed elsewhere.
They tried to charge tens of thousands of dollars to copy emails that should only take seconds.
They have redacted the records they do produce so heavily as to make them incomprehensible.
For instance, in a list of phone calls, they blacked out EVERY phone number.
Lina Hidalgo, Harris County Judge and star of “What’s wrong with Sunshine?”, Dolcefino’s new video about his quest for public records.Click image to see video.
Downward Spiral of Suspicion, Distrust, More Investigation
The loss of trust seems to have resulted in a downward spiral. No telling yet where it will end. But for those old enough to remember, the spectacle is like a rerun of the waning days of Watergate. The shriller President Richard Nixon’s denials became, the more journalists investigated his denials.
And like Nixon, Hidalgo and her courtiers now resort to lame ad hominem attacks, calling those seeking the truth “losers.”
It took two years to uncover the truth in the Watergate scandal. Ultimately, the relentless exposes and investigations ended with Nixon’s impeachment, resignation, and long, slow slide into irrelevance.
(Update: 2/18/2023) And lest you think this post is politically motivated by an election denier, check out this editorial in the Houston Chronicle. “Hidalgo has concluded that Mattress Mack’s request for records is hurting democracy,” they say. “The presumption of the Texas Public Information Act has long been that public records are public property and most should be accessible to the owners.”
The editorial continues, “Harris County had the option of transparency and chose obfuscation.” The Chronicle concludes, “Texans have a right to know what their government is doing, how their tax dollars are being spent, and yes, how their elections are being run. That right is under assault…”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/16/2023
1997 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Hidalgo-Keyframe.jpg?fit=1200%2C835&ssl=18351200adminadmin2023-02-16 17:53:062023-04-16 12:58:24“The Lady Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks”
Harris County Community Services Department (CSD) has finally shared a high-level summary of how it would spend $750 million in Hurricane Harvey Flood Mitigation Funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The plan, called a Method of Delivery (MOD), was submitted to the Texas General Land Office (GLO) in December for preliminary approval, but returned to the county in January for tweaks to make it HUD-compliant.
CSD’s presentation is informational; the Department is not yet seeking approval from Commissioner’s Court. But this will be the public’s first peak at CSD’s direction.
While the presentation predictably emphasizes support for low-to-moderate income and socially vulnerable groups, it also contains some surprises. For instance, it mentions supporting activist groups, but fails to mention protecting bridges, hospitals and schools.
Damage to I-69 bridge disrupted areas to the north for 11 months after Harvey.Harvey flooded 6 of 9 buildings at Lone Star College/Kingwood. Repairs cost $60 million and disrupted classes for more than a year.
Long-Awaited
George P. Bush, former GLO Commissioner, requested a $750 million allocation for Harris County from HUD in May of 2021. HUD formally approved that amount in March of 2022. But Harris County Commissioner’s Court didn’t approve the grant agreement until August 31, 2022. And CSD didn’t submit its plan to the GLO for review until late December 2022.
The CSD plan reflects both HUD’s mission and the requirements spelled out in the State’s Action Plan. However, the GLO required CSD to make some tweaks to the initial plan to make it HUD compliant. During the tweaking process, Commissioners replaced CSD Director Dr. Adrienne Holloway with a new Interim Director, Thao Costis, the department’s SIXTH leader under County Judge Lina Hidalgo in four years. Costis previously led a non-profit group in Houston that provided services to homeless people.
“These funds intend to mitigate and build resiliency against flood risks in the region.”
Harris County Community Services Department
The Department claims it conducted ample data analysis and public input on the MOD. It says constituents lobbied for prioritizing “(1) low- and moderate-income population, (2) social vulnerability, (3) total population, and (4) National Flood Insurance Program repetitive loss properties.”
However, the presentation does not specify whether:
Repetitive losses will be weighed against previous mitigation investments. Will an area that once had high repetitive losses, but which already received hundreds of millions of mitigation dollars, still be prioritized over other areas that have received no flood-mitigation money?
Severity of flooding will be considered. Will one inch of flooding in a low-income home count for more than ten feet of flooding in a middle-income home?
Threats to infrastructure will be addressed. For instance, the loss of interstate highway bridges, hospitals and schools.
There’s no measure of “current risk,” nothing that addresses “threats to life,” and nothing that balances impacts to the community vs. impacts to individuals…at least in the summary that CSD is now sharing.
Plagued by “Vague”
CSD claims it prioritizes flood control and drainage improvements, natural or green infrastructure, water and sewer facilities, provision of generators, buyouts, and planning activities. I say “claims” because CSD did not provide a list of projects with the presentation. Nor did it provide a matrix for scoring projects.
The CSD presentation also referenced 2018-Flood-Bond Projects. But it’s not clear at this time if a potential project list goes beyond Hazard-Mitigation-Action-Plan Projects and Flood-Bond Projects … or even if there is a list. Nor does the presentation hint at which Haz Mit and Bond Projects would be included.
Finally, the summary makes no mention of any effort to ensure transparency and accountability. The public deserves to know where its money goes!
CSD says it would administer the $750 million grant and work with Harris County Flood Control District to “reduce flood risk and increase resiliency to future natural disasters for Harris County’s nearly 5 million residents.”
But we still don’t know who will get how much for what. Nor do we know what the expected benefits will be.
Partnerships
Though only Harris County and the Flood Control District are eligible to receive HUD’s $750 million, CSD states it will partner with other entities, including cities, within Harris County, that have “shovel-ready” flood mitigation projects. “Additionally, Harris County could sign [emphasis added] a Memorandum of Understanding with the Flood Control District to increase the amount of funding devoted to the 2018 Flood Control Bond,” says CSD. In other words, the County might send some of its share to HCFCD. But there’s no guarantee.
The CSD presentation shows that Harris County Flood Control will get only $326.25 million from the $750 million. The rest will go to Harris County. Out of the other $423.75 million, the county plans to spend $97.5 million on administration and planning. That would leave both Flood Control and Harris County with $326.25 million for actual mitigation work.
Word on the street in the engineering community is that the Harris County Engineer’s Office will handle the County’s portion of the money. Adrian Garcia appointees lead the Engineering Department and that would help Garcia influence where the money goes.
Inconsistencies, Typos Raise Questions
CSD’s presentation boils over with contradictions and typos that don’t speak well for “attention to detail” in a grant where $750 million is at stake. For instance, the plan says:
Projects will help the county’s entire population, but it prioritizes projects in low- and moderate-income, socially vulnerable areas.
CSD needs a 3-year extension … for shovel-ready projects.
The County will partner with other entities within Harris County, but cities and towns get $0.
I can’t wait to hear the explanations…especially how the money will help neighborhoods outside the Beltway given inside-the-Beltway priorities.
Nor can I wait to hear whether the cities in Harris County rebel against a plan that seemingly guarantees them nothing.
The presentation literally underscores CSD’s priorities:
“Once the MOD is approved by GLO, Harris County MOD entities reserve the right to partner with local governmental entities and special districts in the county to perform eligible projects, including but not limited to cities and Flood Control District. Harris County may also partner with local non-profit agency [sic] regarding public service activities that support mitigation and resiliency, particularly in areas were [sic] drainage or other mitigation activities are affecting low-to-moderate income households [sic] stability.”
Yikes! Three typos in one sentence!
Next Steps
This presentation only informs Commissioner’s Court and the Public about the grant’s status. CSD will not ask for approval of any projects on Tuesday. That will come later. The next steps include:
Public comments
Determining how to partner with other entities (Still, after almost 2 years)
Preparation of final MOD that incorporates public comments and responses
Approval of final MOD by County Commissioners (2/21/23)
GLO review and approval (March/April)
After GLO approval:
“Call for information of projects” (whatever that is)
Submit project packets to Commissioners Court
Submit project packets to GLO
Start projects (Fall 2023) six years after Hurricane Harvey!
Commissioner’s Court begins at 10AM on Tuesday. If you wish to make a public comment, here’s how to sign up to speak.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/28/2023
1978 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Flooded-Sign.jpg?fit=936%2C590&ssl=1590936adminadmin2023-01-28 20:07:262023-02-20 12:41:00County Outlines Plan for $750 Million in Flood-Mitigation Funds
Early voting turnout this year rates a D for “dismal.” At the close of polls on Wednesday 11/2/22, only 566,006 of the 2.57 million registered voters in Harris County had voted. That’s 22% with just Thursday and Friday left for early voting. By comparison, during the 2018 mid-terms (the last comparable election), 63% of Harris County voters voted early. With two days left in early voting, we can make up some ground, but not that much.
Kingwood Slightly Better than Rest of Harris County
Yet Kingwood has had only 14,000 residents vote out of the 44,000 registered in 77339 and 77345. That’s 31.8 percent so far, and much better than this year’s county-wide average of 22%. However, Kingwood’s 31.8% is still only half of the county’s 63% early-voting rate in the 2018 mid-terms.
Total 2018 Turnout Doubled Countywide Turnout to Date
During all 13 days of voting in the 2018 mid-terms (early and Election Day), 1,219,871 voted compared to 566,006 so far this year. So, 2018 turnout more than doubled turnout to date in this election.
To equal 2018 turnout, we need as many people to vote in the three days left as have already voted in the last ten!
So far this year, we’re about 250,000 votes short of 2018 early-voting totals. We only have two days of early voting left and the County is averaging a little more than 50,000 votes per day so far. So, even if we get another 100,000 in the last two days, we’ll still be about 150,000 early votes short of 2018.
And that doesn’t even include Huffman, Spring, Humble, Atascocita, or Crosby.
A Chance to Regain Fairness on Commissioners Court
If you vote in one race in this election, vote for Republican Alexandra Mealer instead of Lina Hidalgo. Mealer offers a chance to get better balance on Commissioners Court and some measure of fairness in flood-mitigation expenditures. Right now, Democrats have a 3-2 majority and consistently vote as a block in favor of their own constituents.
Since Harvey, Harris County has spent $1.6 billion on flood mitigation projects. As of today, Harris County Flood Control District shows $234 million in capital improvement construction projects underway. NOT ONE is in the Lake Houston Area. Of the 20 active projects, 18 have gone to Democrat Commissioners Garcia and Ellis. The two Republican-leaning precincts have one each.
Yet under Hidalgo all the money goes elsewhere in the name of “worst first.”
To All Who Flooded – Three More Days Left
Ten days of voting are behind us. Three are left: the rest of today, Friday and next Tuesday.
Get out the vote, folks! Walk your block. Knock on doors. Forward this link to everyone you know. And remember this dismal turnout the next time you flood. This election is the best chance you have to reduce flood risk to your family and property.
The Mealer/Hidalgo County Judge race is buried halfway down the ballot in the middle of judicial races – between family and civil court judges.
While you’re at it, remember the three county bond issues totaling $1.2 billion also on the ballot. And remember that the Dems already voted to distribute this money unequally, favoring Precincts One and Two by a wide margin. But you won’t see that on the ballot language. So much for transparency!
Yes, you will have to wait in line. But while you’re waiting, remember how long you’ve waited for flood mitigation help that has yet to arrive!
Looking east from the south side of the West Fork of the San Jacinto during Harvey
Posted on Bob Rehak on 11/3/22
1892 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/HumbleFloodFromHCFCD-e1761946748900.jpg?fit=1100%2C821&ssl=18211100adminadmin2022-11-03 14:51:592022-11-03 22:07:11So Far, Early Voting Turnout Dismal
Best-selling Florida author/journalist Craig Pittman penned a poignant post for the Florida Phoenix about the state’s problems evacuating coastal communities before hurricanes. While the article uses evacuation to make a point, it’s really about a political culture that permits developments that put people’s lives at risk. It’s a cautionary tale for Texas, especially Harris County where flooding is such a huge issue and where the current leadership seems to have lost interest in mitigating it.
The story traces the approval of a high-rise development on a Florida barrier island that sought building permits, despite warnings that population density would lead to a 96-hour evacuation time.
Florida has a 16-hour evacuation standard. But only 9 of the state’s 45 counties can meet it.
A loophole in Florida law lets developers mitigate evacuation delays with storm shelters. “They can do that by building new storm shelters, donating land for storm shelters, or donating money for storm shelters. In other words, it’s all about shelters, not about making it any easier to get off the island,” says Pittman.
“Dial a Prayer” for Buyers after Rebuilding
Then along came a hurricane named Ian – almost a Category 5 storm. Lee County (three barrier islands) didn’t issue evacuation orders until 24-hours in advance and at least 119 people died.
Pittman ends with this sage advice regarding rebuilding in the same place. “You know the elected officials will be bowing to whatever those developers want. So, here’s my suggestion. They should approve building in those areas that Ian destroyed, but with one requirement. Every single would-be buyer should get a photo showing exactly what that spot looked like after Ian hit.”
“Then, if they still want to buy there, give them the phone number for Dial-A-Prayer. They’re going to need it, because if another Ian hits, the only one who can help them is Jesus.”
Similarities with Texas: Ill-Advised Political Decisions
Houston had a disastrous experience with evacuation during 180 mph Hurricane Rita. Evacuation attempts were tied to 107 deaths of Houston-area residents alone. Now, we don’t even try to evacuate from wind anymore. But as I read Pittman’s article, I thought of posts I have written about our ill-advised development practices that put people in harm’s way or that contribute to flooding. Some of the highlights include:
Light pole along evacuation route for Hurricane Harvey. A proposed high-rise development (that failed) would have had thousands trying to evacuate through this area. Photo by Jim Balcom.
How soon we forget!
Lessons for Harris County
Five years after Harvey, we’ve squandered an opportunity. Articles like those above are becoming more common, not less. As fear of flooding has receded, so has the zeal to hold developers to higher standards. And the pace of flood-mitigation efforts has slowed. We’ve squandered our best chance – perhaps ever – to address flooding.
For example, fourteen months after the Texas General Land Office notified Harris County that it would get $750 million to mitigate flooding, the County has yet to submit a plan for how it would spend the money.
In fact, the county has yet to identify a single project in the plan. Lina Hidalgo, the Harris County judge, gave the project to her Community Services department instead of Flood Control. So far, Community Services has only identified a process for determining the plan. The department is still waiting on “direction from leadership” to identify projects that add up to $750 million.
Duh! Did someone think of listing all the unfunded flood-bond projects? This is what I mean about the loss of zeal on the part of the county leader.
The Public-Safety Threat and What to Do About It
Potential flooding is as much of a public-safety threat as crime. Harvey stole $125 billion from people and businesses. That’s more than $30,000 for every person in Harris County. It’s time we took flooding seriously again. We need to regain our sense of urgency about flood-reduction efforts. That’s why ReduceFlooding has endorsed Alexandra del Moral Mealer for County Judge. She is laser-focused on the issues that matter most in Harris County.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/18/22
1876 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Balcom-Evac.jpg?fit=1200%2C793&ssl=17931200adminadmin2022-10-18 18:05:192022-10-18 18:12:25Lessons from Florida and Ian for Harris County
The letter below expresses disagreement with two recent ReduceFlooding.com posts about a proposed Flood Mitigation Benefits Index. It is from Michael Bloom, P.E. While I disagree with almost all of his claims, I am reprinting his letter verbatimbecause I encourage healthy debate. Compare the posts and draw your own conclusions. – Bob Rehak, Host, ReduceFlooding.com.
Why are we Using the Index When it Produces Inconsistent Results that are Not Intuitive? Mr. Rehak provides an example that holds the current population and current risk the same, but changes the total prior investment amounts, as illustrated in the table below:
Prior Investment ($)
Current Population (Number)
Current Risk (% Annual Chance)
FMBI
Area A
100,000
5,000
10
2
Area B
1,000,000
5,000
10
20
Mr. Rehak looks at these results and writes: “So, spending more money to get the same results increases benefits? Shouldn’t it be the opposite? That’s both depressing and confusing. You spend 10X the money; flood risk remains the same; and the “benefit” increases!!!??? You would think spending less money to achieve identical results would be more beneficial. It certainly is for taxpayers.”
Everyone should be depressed and confused by this result if the FMBI was illustrating the results for the same location. Mr. Rehak appears to make that inference when he writes: “spending more money to get the same results increases benefits.”
But Area A and Area B are two different locations. The FMBI is just telling us what the current conditions are at two different locations in the county. One location had 10 times the prior investment than the other – but both locations still have the same current risk.
Worse, in this case, BOTH locations have risks that are ten times the current standard of care for new developments – which require structures to have less than a 1% annual chance of inundation. Clearly, both locations need more flood risk investment. The FMBIs of 2 and 20 both are extremely low, meaning they need help, regardless of the prior investments. A high FMBI indicates that no additional help is needed in that location. A low FMBI indicates that additional help is needed in that location.
The table included in the middle of my February 17, 2022, post entitled “How Should We Decide Where to Invest in Flood Risk Reduction?” presents additional examples showing how the FMBI changes from location to location with only one changed variable. It also provides narrative explanations of each sequence. Notice how the index values are greater than 3,000 (sometimes greater than 20,000 or 100,000) in locations where the current annual chance of inundation is less than 1%? Again, a high FMBI means we don’t need to make more investments in that location. A low FMBI means that location needs more help.
Isn’t the FMBI Trying to Prove Inequitable Investments in Flood Risk Reduction? To some extent, partially, yes, it is. This was always an important aspect of the FMBI, when it was originally proposed as the “Flood Benefits Index (FBI)” by Dr. Erthea Nance and Iris Gonzalez in May 2021. I have continued to advocate for its use as one of four input variables we should use to create our county-wide “heat map.” This is explained in more detail in my other article. Mr. Rehak is concerned about the taxpayer. I am also. I don’t think the taxpayers of Harris County should pay for flood risk reduction projects in areas that already have a high FMBI. Said another way, it is a waste of taxpayer money to invest in additional flood risk reduction projects in areas currently with less than a 1% annual chance of inundation.
Isn’t the FMBI Measuring per capita Investment Associated with a Certain Level of Flood Risk and Mistakenly Calling that a “Benefit?” Mr. Rehak writes: “The more people you help with any given sum, the more the benefit goes down. Voila! That makes it look as though the highly populated watersheds (that have received the overwhelming majority of prior investments) have received little benefit. And that may be the point of this formula. It will send even more money to those same areas.”
This interpretation again seems to stem, I think, from Mr. Rehak’s belief that the index will be used to compare the same location at different times – before and after various investments. This is not the proposed use of the index. The proposal is to use the index to describe the current conditions at all locations in the county at the same time.
I’m not sure I understand Mr. Rehak’s concern about the index being a per capita value. The more people in an area who benefit from prior investments the better. Wouldn’t we want to invest in areas that help the most people?
The blue-shaded area of the table in my earlier post illustrates how population differences between locations will change the index value among those locations. For convenience I’ve repeated the table below:
Hypothetical examples.
Mr. Rehak accurately notes that the index goes up in locations with fewer people and down in locations with more people; this will incentivize planners to direct future investments in those higher population areas. He writes: “The more people you help with any given sum, the more the benefit goes down.” This is true, but Mr. Rehak’s statement doesn’t connect it to the past and it omits how the index will be normalized by area size. Index values will be calculated for similarly sized areas. This will allow an apples-to-apples comparison of per capita investments. The index is intended to incentivize future investments in areas with more people in cases where risk and prior investments are equal because we want to help as many people as possible.
By Michael Bloom, P.E.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/10/2022
1776 Days since Hurricane Harvey
If you have views on this subject, please share them through the contact form on this website.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/20220709-Screen-Shot-2022-07-09-at-4.37.23-PM.jpg?fit=1167%2C1200&ssl=112001167adminadmin2022-07-10 09:35:492022-07-10 09:50:38Response to Concerns About Flood Mitigation Benefits Index (Part II)
