Tag Archive for: Harris County

Response to Concerns About Flood Mitigation Benefits Index (Part I)

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 don’t agree with all of his claims, I am reprinting his letter verbatim because I encourage healthy debate. Compare the posts and draw your own conclusions. – Bob Rehak, Host, ReduceFlooding.com.

One of my colleagues on the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force (CFRTF) – Mr. Bob Rehak, as well as Commissioner Tom Ramsey, P.E., and others have asked me about the proposed Flood Mitigation Benefits Index (FMBI). After hearing some of the questions, and reading two recent blog posts by Mr. Rehak at Reduce Flooding, one on July 2, 2022 – Questionable Validity of Flood-Mitigation Equity Formula and on July 6, 2022 – Formula for Allocating Future Flood-Mitigation Funding Deceives, I figured I should provide a more detailed explanation of the index and directly address some of Mr. Rehak’s concerns.

In addition to getting to know Mr. Rehak while attending CFRTF meetings, Mr. Rehak and I have sat down, in person, a few times since both being appointed to the Task Force in order to discuss difficult issues, in particular the FMBI. I appreciate his candor and our ability to respectfully debate things – one might say – politely argue. This post (and Part II) are extensions of those discussions so others can benefit from the exchange.

I first described the FMBI in an article I published on February 17, 2022, entitled “How Should We Decide Where to Invest in Flood Risk Reduction?” The FMBI is explained about halfway down the post. To recap, the index is equal to:

Variation on formula presented to Commissioners Court on 6/28/22. It omits the word “Density” after population. See discussion below.

The index is intended to be calculated for all locations in the county at one particular time to help define the baseline conditions. The index will be used to help plan where additional flood risk reduction investments should be made. An area with a high FMBI has already received higher per capita investments, has a low risk, and therefore doesn’t need additional help. An area with a low FMBI has received little per capita prior investments, has a high risk, and therefore does need additional help.

Responses to Specific Concerns

Which Type of Project Costs Are Included? Does including construction costs, but excluding design, right-of-way acquisition, and operational costs skew the data? Since this is an index that will be calculated for all areas of our county, costs included or excluded will not adversely impact the results.  Using the index to compare conditions in various areas within our 1,700 square mile county will still be valid if the index is calculated in all areas of the county the same way. This is an example of “normalizing” the data. It allows for an apples-to-apples comparison among and between locations. It will help us pick where to invest in the future. Since land acquisition, design, and other non-construction costs are often a similar percentage of the construction costs, their exclusion from all index calculations will keep things consistent and unskewed.

Which Agency Investments are Included? Will excluding investments from Harris County Commissioner Precincts, cities, municipal utility districts, and other entities skew the data. I actually agree with this, the investment dollars will be slightly low, but only by a little bit. I anticipate that the total amount of flood risk reduction investment dollars made by these entities will be very, very, very small compared to those made by the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) and the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Because of this difference in the size of these investments, I anticipate that the impact on the index calculation will be negligible. HCFCD has agreed to provide their investments from 2000 to 2020. Dr. Denae King and I have submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to identify all flood risk reduction investments going back to 1937 – the year the HCFCD was created to serve as the “local partner” to help secure federal investments through the USACE. These requests exclude repair and recovery dollars since those expenditures don’t permanently reduce flood risks.

What Risk is Included in the Index? Does the risk used in the calculation reflect the risk before or after mitigation efforts? The risk value used is the current risk. It is the risk remaining after accounting for all risk reduction investments “counted” in the numerator. The index reflects one point in time and should be recalculated every five years or ten years, much like the Social Vulnerability Index published by the Centers for Disease Control. The population and risk values will be based on the same snapshot in time. The investment value will be based on the sum of all investments made prior to that moment in time (adjusted for inflation).

Why Include Investments Back to 1937? Why consider investments made in areas of the county that were undeveloped back then? Won’t this radically skew the comparisons? Including all investments back to 1937 is vitally important because the vast majority of the flood risk reduction investments made in the county were made by the federal government through the Civil Works program of the USACE. HCFCD was CREATED in 1937 to be the local sponsor for USACE projects. Addicks, Barker, Buffalo Bayou, Brays, White Oak, Sims, Clear Creek, and many other projects, many of them initiated prior to 2000, all significantly reduced flood risks for structures that exist today. Even if the project was initially constructed in an undeveloped area, it still benefits structures that were built later and that exist today. That’s why the investment amount is a cumulative value (inflation-adjusted) and the risk value is today’s value. This approach won’t radically skew comparisons because all three of the values will be determined for all parts of the county in the same way.

Why only Consider Mitigation Investments? Doesn’t flood risk depend on many factors – not just mitigation investments? Yes, current flood risk depends on many factors, including development rules, building codes, finished floor elevations, development locations, and improvements to our understanding of rainfall statistics. The risk value in the index is not intended to measure the risk reduction obtained from prior investments. The risk value in the index is intended to present the current risk. The current risk reflects all factors, including prior mitigation investments, development, rainfall, and everything else. The risk value is not a measure of the change in risk, it is a statement of the current risk, no matter the cause or the contributing factors.

Why Use US Census Tracts? Don’t they change over time? US Census Tracts do periodically change, however, that will not diminish the value of the index. US Census Tracts are areas that can more closely match the scale of typical flood risk reduction projects; watersheds are too large to be informative; and smaller areas would be too complex for our planning work.

Harris County outlined in red, census tracts in blue. Map supplied by Michael Bloom.

The originally proposed FMBI used the population density in the denominator. This, admittedly, would cause issues when comparing index values between large US Census Tracts and small US Census Tracts. To address this issue, the CFRTF and the Infrastructure Resilience Team (IRT) have agreed to proceed with the calculation using just population. This will make the index a per capita value. Prorating investment amounts and risk to each Census Tract can be reasonably accomplished using area ratios or other methods. This will be useful as the CFRTF and IRT work together to prepare the 2050 Flood Resilience Plan.

How Can We Use Information From 1937 When the County is So Different Now? How can this approach work without considering the construction of Lake Houston in 1954, the interstate system, Beltway 8, and the conversion of farmland and prairies into entire communities? The risk value captures all of this. The risk value used in the index reflects the current risk of any part of the county. It will be based on state-of-the-art modeling being conducted as part of the MAAPNext project. The current risk is the current risk, regardless of past changes in the watershed.

Why are we Using the FMBI Formula to Reduce Flood Damage when it Doesn’t Measure Flood Damage? The FMBI is not a tool to directly reduce flood damage and it’s not designed to measure flood damage. The FMBI is a tool to better understand past investment patterns and current risk. The FMBI is proposed to be one of four datasets used to create a baseline conditions heat map. The other three under consideration include current inundation risk, social vulnerability index, and community resources. The baseline conditions heat map will then be used to figure out WHERE flood risk reduction and flood damage reduction projects should be located. 

How Can the FMBI Compare Benefits  without Using Before and After Comparisons? The index is not intended to compare the flood mitigation benefits of the same location at different times. The index is intended to show how different locations across the county at the same time vary when compared to each other. This will help us identify WHERE we have neighborhoods that desperately need help and WHERE we have neighborhoods that don’t.

By Michael Bloom, P.E.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/9/22

1775 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Part II will be posted tomorrow. If you have thoughts you would like to share on this subject, please send them via the contact form on this website.

RV Resort Still Leaking Stormwater into County Park

The detention basin at the Laurel Springs RV Resort was supposed to have been a dry-bottom pond. Despite one of the driest springs on record, it’s still holding water. And it’s still leaking into Harris County Precinct 3’s Edgewater Park. Despite:

History of Discharges

The leak in question is in the exact place where contractors dug a trench through the south wall of the detention pond. They discharged silt that spread out for hundreds of feet into the wetlands of the park. Then they laid pipes in the trench and covered them up.

But somehow silty, oily stormwater still seems to be escaping into the wetlands from where the pipes were.

5/15/22
Photo taken 5/15/22. Leak in same area where trench and pipes were.
Close up cropped from shot above. Note ripples on rushing water.
5/22/22
Same area photographed again on 5/22/22.
Close up cropped from 5/22/22 shot. Again note running water and oily film on it.

One wonders why the pumps in the approved drains are still not working. See bottom center in photo below.

Laurel Springs RV leaking pond
Wide shot taken from over Laurel Springs Lane on 5/22/22 showing location of approved drain (bottom center) and extent of construction.
Forms being laid for next concrete pour. Will there be enough space between RV slots to open doors? Picture taken from over railroad tracks.

Obviously, from all the standing water, they still have a little work left to do on drainage.

Still No Replacement Trees Planted

Photo taken on 5/18/2022 showing swath of trees that contractors cut in county park (left).

The developer also has a lot of work to do replanting trees. Note the wide swath outside the fence in the photo above that stretches for approximately 750 feet. That’s where the contractor destroyed trees in the county park.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/22/2022

1727 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.

Editorial: “Chaos” in Harris County Government

Two weeks ago, I wrote a post about the brain drain at the highest levels in Harris County government, and its impact on productivity and service delivery. Sixteen departments have had a total of 34 leaders under Lina Hidalgo.

Since then, dozens of people have contacted me describing the impact of turnover on programs and service.

One manager used the word “chaos” to describe the environment since Lina Hidalgo took office. All of the sources for this post have requested anonymity because they fear reprisals – a chilling comment in itself.

No doubt, many good, talented, hard-working people remain in Harris County government, but the problems described below make it harder for them to do their jobs.

Unexplained Changes in Direction

One person told me about a new Harris County juvenile center that was being planned, due to overcrowding and substandard living conditions at the old center. Then one day, “…like out of nowhere, we got a sense that the whole project was canceled. We tried to explain how far along the project was and why it was necessary. And they didn’t care. It was just like, ‘Well, we [the judge’s office] are not going in that direction.’” The source added, “We had a lot of things in motion that just came to a halt.”

The new center never did get built. It had reportedly gone all the way through the design phase, so the unexplained cancellation was costly.

Not So Resilient Resiliency Plan

Another person mentioned a county-wide resiliency plan. The heads of multiple Harris County departments had worked on it for months. At the eleventh hour, people in Hidalgo’s office with no experience rewrote everything that people with experience had developed. “It just changed completely,” said one person involved.

Transportation Plan Stalled

Yet another person told me, “In Hidalgo’s mind, if you’re building a road, you’re doing taxpayers a disservice. Philosophically, she’s into multi-modal transportation. But a lot of times, she misses the point that the county is only allowed to do what the state of Texas allows it to do. That’s where they’ve had more problems. Their thought process a lot of times was, ‘Well, if they want to sue us for that, then they can.’ We’ve seen that play out several times.” 

Other sources told me about progress on various components of Harris County’s Transportation Plan. 

  • There has also been little to no movement on the county’s Multimodal, Major Thoroughfare plan to improve connectivity.
  • The Equity Study has stalled. So has a framework to implement it. There has been no movement on equity in transportation.
  • Likewise, there has been little to no movement on Vision Zero, the county’s effort to eliminate traffic fatalities. 
  • Nothing notable has happened lately on Low Impact Development, Green Infrastructure, or other environmentally-friendly projects.

Lack of Clarity, Direction

Another major problem contributing to the chaotic work environment: lack of clarity and direction. One mid-level manager told me, “We would often be moving in a direction when everything kind of went on pause because we were waiting to see which direction to go. But we couldn’t ever narrow down a direction. It felt as if, in every single Commissioners Court meeting, we spent all day watching mommy and daddy fight. Even among the Democrats.”

Lack of Attention to Operational Details

Former managers of various Harris County departments also complained about lack of attention to operational details. 

“Ellis’ office and the Judge’s office would work together to develop these big picture concepts of where we were going. But it was never clear how we would get there,” said one person.

“We’d sit there and go, ‘Well, that’s great. But you didn’t set up any funding for it. For example, we talked about big sweeping programs like MWBE – the Minority/Women-owned Business Enterprise program. That was four years ago and it’s still not off the ground.”

Hiring People Without Relevant Experience

They hired Pamela Chan to set up the new Harris County Department of Economic Equity and Opportunity. According to one person I talked to, Chan was a “a great academic,” but had no real-world, operational MWBE experience. Another said, “the guidance and support that Chan got was like almost nil and then she’d get beat up at court.” She soon left. That department has had two executive directors in a little more than a year. 

Universal Services, the County’s information technology (IT) department, has the same problem. Its leader, Major General Rick Noriega has no IT background. Think what would happen if you put a computer programmer with no military experience in charge of a tank battalion. You’d probably have a high casualty rate. And that’s exactly what happened in Universal Services. 

100% of Group Heads Leave Within 17 Months

According to many of his employees, Noriega’s lack of IT understanding contributed to high turnover beneath him at multiple levels. And that rapidly compromised the integrity of systems. 

Noriega also pushed out people with excellent professional credentials and replaced them with political appointees in many cases.

Not long after Noriega took over the department, he lost his Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Technology Officer, and Chief of Cybersecurity (twice). 

The department also lost 100% of its group directors beneath them and approximately one third of its employees in 17 months. 

So many employees have left that the department doesn’t even put names on org charts anymore. 

Incomprehensible Org Chart Without Names Revised More than 30 Times

In fact, the department doesn’t even call organization charts ‘org charts’ anymore. It refers to them as its “ecosystem.” See below.

Harris County Universal Services Ecosystem Chart, Revision #25. For a high resolution, full-size PDF click here.

At this point, the chart above has reportedly gone through more than 30 revisions under Noriega. Yet multiple sources told me, “No one understands it.”

Toxic Work Environment Accelerates Already High Turnover

The work environment in Universal Services has become so toxic according to sources that approximately one third of the department has left in 17 months and the rate of attrition is reportedly accelerating. 

Universal Services org charts updated the day before Commissioners Court appointed Noriega the permanent department head show everyone who left since his arrival. The source told me that some positions have turned over more than once. So this 12-page chart understates the numbers involved. It shows that at least 134 people have left since Noriega assumed command. That’s out of approximately 400 to 450 total employees. The highlighted names represent people who left the organization in the last 17 months.

One third of a workforce turning over would not be surprising in fast food. But these are professional jobs with highly skilled people doing complex work that few understand.

Noriega reportedly tried to dismiss the turnover. But significantly, 100% of his group directors left, leaving much of the department rudderless, especially since Noriega did not have an IT background himself.

Page 2 of 12-page Harris County Universal Services Org Chart as of 9/21/22. Highlighted group directors have left. To see turnover at lower levels, click here.

Most employers, especially in government, try to hold attrition to 10% or less. High turnover disrupts service. It also costs time and money. This survey found that replacing workers costs an average of 33% of their yearly salaries.

If that percentage holds true in IT, losing one third of your workforce would cost one third of your payroll. 

Self-Inflicted Damage

Some damage has been self-inflicted. While most IT companies let employees work remotely, Noriega forces managers to come into the office. This policy goes against the industry norm and has reportedly contributed to several of the departures at the managerial level. 

“It’s Scary.”

One former IT employee told me Universal Services has refilled so many positions with inexperienced people that “They can’t even support the simple stuff. It’s scary.” This person called the replacements “Garcia’s puppets.” 

Commissioner Adrian Garcia recommended Noriega for the job. Another Garcia loyalist, James Henderson, is Universal Services new Deputy Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer. They have reportedly replaced many departing employees with people loyal to Garcia.

Can It Be Saved?

When the department’s crucial JWEB program went down recently, IT staff reportedly worked 8 hours on and 4 hours off around the clock trying to restore the system. But they couldn’t get it back up. So, hundreds of criminal suspects didn’t receive probable cause hearings in time and had to be released.

A former manager in the department told me, “I don’t think enough meat is left on the bone to fix what’s going on there.”

Harris County’s annual budget next year will exceed $3.5 billion. We’re one third of the way through a $5 billion flood bond. And these are the custodians of our tax dollars.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/1/2022

1706 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 Making Another Attempt to Shift Flood Mitigation Funds

Harris County is making another attempt to shift flood mitigation funds from outlying neighborhoods toward the city center. Here’s the latest proposal that will be considered by the Community Resilience Flood Task Force at a noon meeting today.

Key Concerns About Proposal

This proposal attempts to establish new rules for the Equity Prioritization Framework adopted by commissioners in 2019 and changed several times since. These new rules were provided to Task Force members only within the last few days even though the document is dated December 14, 2021, more than a month ago.

The rule changes apply mostly to the distribution of Trust Fund money established to supplement the flood bond if partner funding did not materialize as expected. However, the proposed changes could affect the distribution of flood bond funds that voters approved by 86% in 2018.

Proposal #1:

Place more emphasis on number of people, using structures as a proxy for people. Benefit = efficiency. 

Observation:

This may disadvantage LMI neighborhoods as those projects tend to cost more and the neighborhoods have more apartments. They also have large numbers of homes crowding channels and floodplains. So, buyout costs will be higher.  And historically, buyouts cost almost as much as construction. Also, apartments cost far more than single family homes. We need time to look at data on this.

Proposal #2:

Potential partner funding should not be considered in prioritization for use of trust funds.

Observation:

What if you could make trust fund dollars go nine times further? Typically, HUD grants require only a 10% match.

Proposal #3:

Use trust funds for projects, like street flooding, not even mentioned in the bond.

Observations:

  1. The County proposes using FEMA damage data back to 1977 to determine “Existing Level of Service.” This is a blatant attempt to tilt the playing field toward the inner city. In 1977, Beltway 8 and Intercontinental airport were still under construction. US59 was a 2-lane blacktop road. Outlying neighborhoods like Kingwood barely existed. This makes it impossible for any outlying neighborhoods to qualify for help with Trust Funds.
  2. Choosing 1977 as the starting point ignores 45 years of flood mitigation spending totaling approximately $5 billion.
  3. We don’t have enough money in the trust fund to complete all the bond projects. So, if we spend trust fund money on projects not in the bond – without partner help – it will mean cancelling bond projects somewhere else.
  4. Implementing this proposal will make it very difficult to get voters to approve future flood bonds.
street flooding
Street flooding is often caused by blocked drains. Rains can’t get to channels and streams. Fixing ditches has historically been the job of cities and precincts. HCFCD funds have focused on channels and streams. Street ditches were never mentioned in the bond.

How To Be Heard

Here is a presentation that the Community Resilience Flood Task Force will review at noon today. It provides a little more detail than the County Administrator’s description.

If this proposal concerns you, please send your comments to: CFRTFpubliccomment@gmail.com.

To view the meeting online, register at Cfrtf.harriscountytx.gov. It goes from 12-2 today.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/19/2022

1604 Days since Hurricane Harvey

GLO Extends Deadline for Harvey Homeowner Assistance Applications

The original deadline for Hurricane Harvey Homeowner Assistance applications has been extended from this Friday to New Year’s Eve at 5 P.M. Applications do not have to be completed by then, just started by then. So if you still hope to receive aid, move quickly. Money is running out and eligible applications will be prioritized based on who applied first.

The process involves a large number of documents and complex rules that govern eligibility. Here is the full text of this morning’s press release from the GLO. It includes information on where to apply.

What remained of a home washed downstream during Harvey. Photo by Dan Monks.

AUSTIN — The Texas General Land Office (GLO) has extended the deadline to submit applications for the Homeowner Assistance Program (HAP) to 5 p.m. Dec. 31, 2021. All potential applicants must submit draft applications by the deadline to be considered for eligibility so long as funding is available.

We encourage the community to remember that applications do not need to be fully complete to be submitted. Once application intake concludes, additional program resources will be dedicated to processing applicants for eligibility, through the permitting process and into construction. Applications can be submitted even if documentation is missing as HAP applicant coordinators continue to help applicants who are missing documentation.

The HAP regional offices will remain open, and processing of applications will continue indefinitely until program funds are fully expended. Applications will be considered for award on a first-come, first-served basis, according to the priorities outlined in the Regional Housing Guidelines.

Submitting a complete application does not guarantee eligibility nor funding availability, but applicants must submit a complete application by the deadline to be potentially considered for assistance.

Those residing inside the Houston city limits should apply at recovery.texas.gov/hap/houston, while non-Houston residents of Harris County should apply at recovery.texas.gov/hap/harriscounty. New applicants can also call the toll-free intake center line at 1-866-317-1998.

Harris County and the City of Houston received direct allocations of funding for residents in their jurisdictions. Applicants who previously applied to and are receiving assistance from Harris County and the City of Houston directly should continue to work with their program representatives.

In the City of Houston, applications being processed for eligibility already outnumber available funds, but funds remain available in non-Houston Harris County areas. HAP continues to take waitlist applications in Houston in case additional funding becomes available.

Waitlisted applications will be reviewed for eligibility in the order received based on their submission date, should additional funding be approved. Applications that are started, but not yet submitted by 5 p.m. on Dec. 31, 2021, cannot be considered for assistance.

Thus far, in all 49 counties eligible for Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the GLO has approved nearly 6,900 applications for construction, with about 850 homes currently under construction and more than 4,000 completed with keys in the hands of homeowners.

The GLO continues processing completed applications with the expectation of rebuilding up to 10,000 homes total for those needing assistance with available funds, with approximately 3,000 of those homes expected to be rebuilt in Harris County and the City of Houston.

Individuals affected by Hurricane Harvey may qualify for assistance through the Homeowner Assistance Program if:

  • They owned their home
  • It was damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Harvey
  • It was their primary residence at the time of the storm
  • Other eligibility factors also apply.

The program offers qualified homeowners assistance to repair, rehabilitate or rebuild homes damaged by Hurricane Harvey. Potential applicants should review the Homeowner Assistance Program Checklist to have all applicable documents ready prior to applying.

Interested homeowners can visit recovery.texas.gov/hap/houston or recovery.texas.gov/hap/harriscounty to find more information.

– End of Release –

For More Information About Homeowner Assistance Applications

The GLO’s main Homeowner Assistance Program website – https://recovery.texas.gov/hap – also provides links to these important documents:

Applications, including all necessary documentation, must be completed and submitted BEFORE the GLO and its partners will begin processing it for eligibility. Each application submitted must be individually evaluated to determine eligibility. If applicants or potential applicants have questions, please contact 346-222-4686 or 1-866-317-1998 (toll free).

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/15/2021 based on a Texas GLO press release.

1539 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Redistricting Drama Thickens: Ellis Requests New Map To Make All Four Precincts Democratic

At a special redistricting meeting that lasted four and a half hours Thursday night, approximately 100 people spoke out against Rodney Ellis’ redistricting plan. Only two people endorsed Ellis’ Plan and a third liked an element of it. An exact count of those who spoke for or against is difficult because the video/audio feed went down for several speakers precisely as the Harris County Republican Chair got up to speak. At the end of the meeting, no map emerged as a clear redistricting winner. But Commissioner Ellis requested the county’s redistricting mapmaker to come up with a map that created four Democratic precincts “just to see what it looks like.”

To this observer, Ellis’ request came across as a not-so-subtle threat designed to discourage the withering protests against his plan that would have created a mere 3-1 democratic majority.

He clearly hopes to make Harris County a second Big D in the state of Texas.

Meeting Gets Off to Slow Start

The hastily called and poorly organized meeting took almost an hour to get started. During the meeting, County Judge Lina Hidalgo and Commissioner Adrian Garcia claimed they had nothing to do with Ellis’ proposed map and had not submitted their own recommended maps.

One hundred people signed up to speak either in person or online. Twenty-two came from Precinct 4; most speakers had exactly one minute to address the court and dozens were cut off in mid-sentence. However, those who brought slides, maps or props, such as League of Women Voters and Houston in Action, received more time.

Persistent Themes by Public Commenters

Members of the public commented about several persistent fears they had re: the Ellis Plan. They felt:

  • Communities of interest, such as Asian-Americans would be severed.
  • Working relationships with commissioners would be destroyed.
  • Service request response time would suffer.
  • A Democratic supermajority would enable tax increases and reckless spending.
  • Senior centers such as Bayland would be disrupted.
  • It would have a negative impact on parks and recreation.
  • Drastic change is not needed
  • Doubling Precinct 4’s size would be setting it up to fail.
  • The gerrymandering is a “power grab”.
  • Citizens want Democrats and Republicans to work together.
  • The plan will have unintended consequences.
  • Ellis’ Map doesn’t come close to meeting the criteria for redistricting unanimously approved by Commissioners.
  • Commissioners should be re-elected based on the service they provide, not by gerrymandering.
  • The process behind the plan lacks transparency.
  • It’s an act of self-preservation.

Desire Not to Split Up Communities

A recurring theme among the many speakers was a desire not to have communities split up. Under the Ellis Plan, the City of Humble would have been split into two precincts. Representatives from Aldine and Barret Station also expressed wishes to have one commissioner.

Houston City Council Member Amy Peck spoke against Ellis proposed map along with former Precinct 3 Commissioner Steve Radack.

Challenger for County Judge Seat Speaks Against Ellis Plan

Martina Lemond Dixon who will challenge Lina Hidalgo in the next election also spoke against the Ellis Plan. Dixon felt it would be “dangerous” during the next disaster. She said Ellis’ plan would put a majority of unincorporated Harris County in one precinct “for the sole purpose of political power.”

Dixon also said that if the Ellis map is “adopted by a majority of this court, you will have voted to abandon the majority of voters in unincorporated Harris County. The recommended map won’t stop the current crime wave. It won’t get traffic moving. And it won’t keep the water out of our homes. It will only ensure that these problems persist.”

At the end of her one minute speech, Hidalgo told Dixon “I look forward to a spirited contest.”

Concern about Diminished Support for Community Resources

Another persistent threat among many speakers was a concern about how Ellis’ map would diminish support for community centers and parks in many areas.

Many speakers from Bayland Community Center lined up against Ellis’ proposed map. The center, along with dozens of other resources, would have been crammed into Precinct 4, without increasing the Precinct 4 budget to operate and maintain them.

Precinct 3 Commission Ramsey, who would have seen the size of his precinct cut in half by Ellis, stated that he would lose 29 parks and community centers along with 5,000 miles of roads. Ramsey pointed out that Precincts are not like Congressional Districts. Precincts do more than represent people; they actually provide services that support quality of life.

“Corrupt” and “Chaotic”

Ramsey would lose 450,000 constituents under the Ellis Plan. Ramsey called the plan “corrupt and chaotic.”

Democratic Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia bristled at that suggestion. He said that if Ramsey persisted in using that word, three fingers would be accusing him of the same thing from the other side of the table. The “three” referred to Democrats Hidalgo, Garcia, and Ellis. It seemed like a childish, schoolyard act of bullying.

But Ramsey did not back down.

Cagle Lists Numerous Concerns

Commissioner Cagle said that his overall concern was to protect his constituents. He claimed his proposed map was the closest to the status quo while still meeting constitutional and other legal requirements.

The Cagle proposal made minor “tweaks” to precinct boundaries rather than major changes. It respected population changes and diversity, but didn’t divide cities. It also kept voting locations intact and provided sufficient voting locations, unlike the Ellis Plan, which would have given Republicans fewer voting locations.

Cagle also claimed that Ellis Plan significantly changed the demographics of precincts and did not respect diversity, a claim echoed by many from the public.

Commissioner Cagle feared that adding 2000 miles of roads, 29 parks and 450,000 people to his district without making provisions for additional funding would disrupt emergency and other services. In that regard, he had a staffer drive from one end of the Precinct 4 boundaries proposed by Ellis to the other end. It took more than 5 hours – longer than it takes to get to Dallas.

In the end, Cagle called the Ellis Plan “not practical.”

Said Cagle, “We serve the people in real time, we are NOT just policy makers.”

Jack Cagle, Harris County Precinct 4 Commissioner

Ellis Calls for Quick Resolution

After several people complained about having neither the time, nor the data, to analyze proposed maps, Commissioner Ellis said, “We need to put this baby to bed.” Then he asked for a map that would make all four precincts Democratic and suggested Commissioners Court should vote on the map(s) next Tuesday.

Redistricting is not on the Court agenda that was posted this morning for next Tuesday. But it could still be added via a supplemental agenda posted at the end of the day on Friday.

Three Leading Maps Now in Contention

Below are maps produced by three commissioners as of 2:30 PM Friday, October 22, 2021.

Proposed new Harris County Precinct Boundaries in Ellis Plan
Proposed new Harris County Precinct Boundaries in Ellis Plan. Lines represent existing boundaries. Colors represent proposed boundaries.
Precinct 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle’s recommended plan.
Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey did not make recommendations beyond his own precinct’s boundaries.

Additional maps proposed by citizens and groups and other information can be found on the county attorney’s redistricting website. Here are the redistricting criteria that commissioners unanimously approved on July 20, 2021.

Meeting Adjourned with No Action Taken

Lina Hidalgo adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. with NO ACTION TAKEN. A vote on a new redistricting map has yet to be scheduled.  

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/22/21

1515 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Redistricting Countdown: What You Can Do to Help Stop Partisan Gerrymandering

Below, is a message about gerrymandering reprinted verbatim from Harris County Precinct 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle. It discusses a redistricting proposal that will be considered in a special meeting of Commissioner’s Court tomorrow afternoon at 4 PM. In addition to the issues I discussed yesterday, it addresses:

  • Creation of a supermajority as it relates to…
  • The ability to push through tax increases
  • Responsiveness to citizen requests
  • Potential loss of services and programs in Precinct 4
  • What you can do to help prevent partisan gerrymandering

But first, here are three maps:

  • Current boundaries
  • Areas that lean Republican or Democratic
  • Proposed new precinct boundaries

Together they show how gerrymandering will increase partisan advantage.

Current Precinct Map for Harris County, TX
Lines indicate present precinct boundaries. Red = Precincts voting predominantly Republican; Blue = Precincts voting predominantly Democratic.
Proposed new Harris County Precinct Boundaries in Ellis Plan
Proposed new Harris County Precinct Boundaries in Ellis Plan. Lines represent old boundaries. Colors represent new boundaries.

Mentally overlay political preferences in Map 2 and the the colored precinct of proposed precincts in Map 3. You can see how Ellis’ proposed redistricting plan would create three predominantly Democratic-leaning precincts by gerrymandering. It would also create one huge Republican-leaning precinct. Currently, we have an even split. With that, here’s a…

Message from Precinct 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle

With redistricting season in full swing, the full weight of ugly partisan gerrymandering has now descended upon Harris County. County Commissioner Rodney Ellis has proposed a redistricting map that is frankly absurd. 

This map [#3 above] attempts to wedge as many residents of unincorporated Harris County as possible into our precinct – Precinct 4. The rest of those residents, including many of you, would be spread out among the three other precincts, weakening your voting strength and your representation.

This proposed map is a bizarre jigsaw puzzle that looks like a crooked table. It leaves Precinct 4 stretching from Baytown over the top of Houston into Katy without even touching the county’s core. At present, Precinct 4 borders only one county. Under this proposal, it would border FIVE. Commissioner Tom Ramsey’s precinct area would be shrunk to nearly half its current size.

What does all this mean for you?

  1. It may mean higher property taxes. If the court majority is successful in passing this plan, they may achieve a new 4-1 supermajority that would allow them the votes needed to pass the tax increases twice denied them when I joined with commissioners Ramsey and Steve Radack to deny them the necessary quorum.
  2. For some of you, it will mean being redistricted into a new precinct, thus losing the representation and responsiveness you’ve come to expect from Precinct 4.
  3. Fewer services and programs. With one precinct responsible for the vast majority of unincorporated Harris County’s roads and parks, but provided with only one-fourth the funding, the precinct may have to make some difficult choices about which services to provide. Unincorporated residents clearly face being underserved.
  4. It could also mean the court’s new supermajority would be able to deny Precinct 4 the future funding needed to pay for the transportation and other needs such a vast precinct would require.

Citizens across our entire country have been extremely vocal about their opposition to overtly partisan gerrymandering, but this map ignores those voices. In fact, in a hasty attempt to force this plan through as quickly and quietly as possible, the court majority has scheduled a hasty public hearing for Thursday, and they may force a vote on the issue at Commissioners Court as early as next week.

I am urging you to review this proposal and make your voices heard on this crucial issue. If you wish to express your opinion, you may contact my office at 832-927-4444 or at cadir@hcp4.net. You may also reach out to:

You may also register to speak in person or virtually at the specially called meeting of Commissioners Court at 4 p.m., Thursday, Oct. 21.

Harris County Precinct 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle

The meeting will be on the ninth floor of the Harris County Administration Building at 1001 Preston in downtown Houston. If you wish to speak to the court on this issue or to watch the proceedings live online, please go to: https://www.hcp4.net/appearances/.

Sincerely,

R. Jack Cagle

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/20/21

1513 Days after Hurricane Harvey

TWDB To Vote on Accepting $63.6 million in FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Grants

In its October 7, 2021, board meeting, Texas Water Development Board members will vote on whether to accept $63.6 million in FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Grants. The federal funding comes with some strings attached: a $10.23 million local match.

For this round of funding, the TWDB selected 19 sub-applications from local government entities. After screening, FEMA eliminated 6 and identified 13 “for further review.”

Here’s a summary from the TWDB of what they will vote on.

From TWDB Agenda for October 7, 2021

What are Flood Mitigation Assistance Grants?

FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance Program provides competitive grants to local governments for projects that reduce or eliminate the risk of repetitive flood damage to buildings insured by the National Flood Insurance Program.

FEMA chooses recipients in part based on cost-effectiveness (benefit/cost ratio).

Often, local governments, such as cities or counties, bundle individual applications as MoCo did to buy out Tammy and Ronnie Gunnel’s home and dozens of others as we saw in yesterday’s post. That home flooded 13 times in 11 years and cost NFIP at least three quarters of a million dollars.

In a sense, most of these grants are designed to cut FEMA’s losses.

Summary of Each Local Application

Attachment B to the agenda gives a rundown on each of the projects under consideration. See below.

Harris County Drainage Project in Bear Creek Village

Bear Creek Village is located on the west side of the Addicks reservoir near Highway 6. This is an $11.3 million project of which the federal government would pay $8.5 million.

The Harris County project would mitigate 1,421 structures. The current storm sewer system is designed for a 3-year event and is inadequate to collect and drain extreme event runoff. The proposed drainage improvements are intended to provide an additional flow path, so that excess storm water is contained within street right-of-way to an outfall. The project will incorporate a combination of channel construction, street regrading, and enhancement of outfalls. The project has a positive Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.09.

Harris County Flood Control District Single-Family Home Acquisitions

Total cost = $16.7 million with federal government paying $14.7 million.

Harris County Flood District seeks to mitigate 61 structures: 23 Severe Repetitive Loss structures, 17 Repetitive Loss structures, and 21 at risk of continual future flooding. HCFCD would acquire and demolish structures, then convert the land to open green space. The project has a positive Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.09.

Harris County Flood Control District Commercial Acquisition

This is a $3.7 million buyout with the federal government picking up the whole tab.

Harris County Flood Control District wants to buy out a hotel on the east freeway with a severe repetitive loss history. HCFCD would demolish the property and convert the land to open green space. The project has a positive Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.84. The grant application notes that since 1979, FEMA has paid out $8 million in NFIP claims on this property.

City of Houston Single-Family-Home Elevation Project

Total Cost $1.5 million (all paid by federal government) to elevate 5 severe-repetitive-loss homes ($300,000 each). All would be elevated at least 2 feet above the 500-year floodplain. That would hopefully reduce or eliminate future NFIP claims. The project has a positive Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.1.

Jersey Village Single-Family-Home Elevation Project

Total Cost $4.9 million with federal government covering $400,000.

Jersey Village seeks elevate 16 structures: 10 are Severe Repetitive Loss, five Repetitive Loss and one at risk of continual future flooding. Elevation will raise structures one-foot above Base Flood Elevation per the City’s freeboard requirements. The project has a positive Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.32.

Montgomery County Single-Family-Home Acquisition and Demolition

Total Cost = $12.6 million with federal share of $12.4 million.

Montgomery County seeks to mitigate 40 flood prone structures (31 Severe Repetitive Loss and 9 Repetitive Loss structures) by acquisition, demolition, and the conversion of land to open green space. The project has a positive Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.36.

Tammy Gunnels’ Home in Porter is an example of a Severe Repetitive Loss Home. It flooded like this 13 times in 11 years and was bought out yesterday as part of another Montgomery County grant. Before the buyout, it cost FEMA more than 3 times its fair market value and would have continued flooding had nothing been done.
Pearland Single-Family-Home Elevation Project

Total Cost $500,000, all covered by federal government.

The City of Pearland seeks to mitigate two Severe Repetitive Loss structures by elevation one-foot above the Base Flood Elevation per the City’s freeboard requirements. The project has a positive Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.08.

Taylor Lake Village Single-Family-Home Elevation Project

Total Cost $2.77 million with federal government covering $2.75 million.

Taylor Lake Village wants to elevate eight Severe Repetitive Loss structures and one Repetitive Loss structure one foot above the 100-year flood level. The project has a positive Benefit-Cost Ratio of 3.1.

In each of the projects above, the owners have all voluntarily committed to the elevation or demolition of the structures.

Recommendation of TWDB Staff

The Executive Administrator of the TWDB recommends that his board approve all these grants. This program meets the agency’s objectives of providing financial assistance to communities to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage and to become more flood resilient.

Meeting Details

The Board meeting will be held on Thursday, October 7, at 9:30 a.m. via GoToWebinar  If you wish to address the Board, please fill out the visitor registration form and send it to Cheryl.Arredondo@twdb.texas.gov no later than 8:00 a.m. on October 7. For more information, please visit the TWDB’s website.

Posted By Bob Rehak on October 7, 2021

1495 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Update on Harris County Flood Mitigation Efforts

Today, at a meeting of the Harris County Flood Resilience Task Force, Vanessa Toro of the County Judge’s Office and Leah Chambers, Principal of consulting firm Outside Voices presented several slides about flooding and flood-mitigation efforts in Harris County that you might find interesting. Their presentation started with a series of slides that illuminated the history of flooding in Harris County; types of flooding; mitigation challenges, and mitigation efforts currently underway.

Historical Flooding and Mitigation

The first four slides address historical flooding and build on each other.

Selected historical milestones show dates and damage from several major storms in the last 20 years.
The next slide shows the major challenges in each epoch.
The third shows major mitigation efforts over time.
The dotted line shows spending by Harris County to help control flooding.

Different Types of Flooding Throughout County

The presentation then went into examples of the different types of flooding we experience. While river and bayou flooding are important to the Lake Houston Area, in other parts of the county, street flooding is a bigger issue. During high intensity rainfalls, water can’t get to the bayous.

Down in the southern part of the county, coastal flooding from storm surge is the main concern.

Each type of flooding requires different mitigation strategies.

For instance:

  • Flood professionals often address river- and bayou-flooding with detention ponds and channel widening.
  • Street flooding may require better maintenance of ditches, bigger storm drains and wider storm sewers.
  • Coastal flooding may require dikes and better building codes that elevate homes higher.

Key Challenges with Flood Mitigation

The presentation then segued into key challenges we face and how the county is trying to address them.

The first slide in this section discussed incomplete knowledge.

For instance, FEMA’s flood maps measure river, bayou, major channel and coastal flooding, but not street flooding, which is a major problem in the inner city. Hopefully, the next generation of flood maps (See MAAPNext) will help address that.

There’s a feeling that large scale infrastructure projects by themselves will not solve our flooding problems. Various groups within the county are looking at ways to supplement them. The engineer’s office is looking at subdivision drainage. Several other groups are collaborating to explore nature based solutions, flood proofing, and more.

The title of the slide above refers to difficulty of coordinating flood-control efforts across complex jurisdictional boundaries.

Different areas have different priorities, needs and timetables. No one understands that better than those who live near county lines. For instance, upstream counties often use lax regulation and enforcement as a way to entice developers – much to the detriment of those who live downstream.

Flood Resilience Efforts Now Underway

While the 2018 flood bond gets all the publicity, it’s certainly not the only Harris County effort underway to mitigate flooding. The slide below shows the variety of efforts.

They include:

  • The Community Flood Resilience Task Force, a group designed to give voice to communities in developing the next generation of flood mitigation efforts.
  • MAAPNext to update flood maps, incorporate the more data sources, and make flood-risk easier to understand.
  • Resilience Actions Inventory, an ongoing effort to catalog resilience initiatives, projects and programs throughout the county.
  • Infrastructure Resilience Team – an interdepartmental team planning resilience projects. It includes: Flood Control, Engineering, Community Services, Public Health, Emergency Management, and the Toll Road Authority.
  • New departments, such as the Office of Sustainability and the Deputy County Administrator for Resilience and Infrastructure.
  • Structural efforts that fall under the:

All these efforts may not mesh like the gears in a Swiss watch. At least not today. But it’s good to know that efforts are underway on more than one front.

For a high-resolution PDF of the PowerPoint, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/25/2021 based on information from the Harris County Judge’s Office

1788 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Help Needed: Public Comment Period Swiftly Closing on $750 Million HUD Flood-Mitigation Grant for Harris County

The Texas General Land Office (GLO) has announced that the public comment period for the first amendment to the state’s action plan for Community Development Block Grants for Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) will close in twelve days – on September 29, 2021. The GLO first posted the amendment to its $4.3 billion action plan on August 23rd.

Harris County essentially got shut out of the first round of grants last summer. This amendment would allocate $750 million to Harris County in the second round. That’s good as far as it goes, but Harris County needs more and the proposed amendment needs tweaks. Read more below.

Townhome destroyed by 240,000 cubic feet per second during Harvey.

Background

Earlier this year, the GLO held a statewide competition for approximately $1.1 billion in Harvey flood mitigation funds. Harris County received none, despite being one of the most heavily populated and impacted counties in the state.

A public uproar ensued. GLO Commissioner George P. Bush then agreed to commit $750 million to Harris County for the second round of funding.

The amendment also obligates the county to define a method of distribution (MOD) for that money within US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules.

The “amendment” has been folded into the state’s action plan. The combined document totals a whopping 1134 pages – more than 100 megabytes. You can download the entire doc from the GLO site here. You can read the relevant seven pages (Section 5.4.5) here. Or read the discussion below.

Outline of MOD Rules

The amendment is based on a Method of Distribution (MOD) program. It makes the GLO the direct recipient of HUD funds and Harris County a sub-recipient.

Harris County must define the MOD plan to allocate funds to eligible entities within rules defined by HUD.

Eligible entities include:
  • Local governments (cities/towns)
  • Special purpose districts (MUDs/improvement districts/drainage districts, etc.)
  • Ports
  • River authorities

GLO encourages prioritization of projects that meet regional mitigation needs.

Harris County’s MOD plan must benefit at least 50% LMI (low-to-moderate income) residents.

Eligible activities include:
  • Flood control and drainage improvements
  • Infrastructure improvements
  • Natural or green infrastructure
  • Communications infrastructure
  • Public facilities
  • Buyouts
  • Relocation assistance to outside of floodplains
  • Public service (housing, legal, job, mental health and general health counseling with a 15% cap)
  • Economic development
  • Elevation of critical structures
  • Planning (5% cap)
Ineligible activities include:
  • Emergency response services
  • Enlargement of a dam or levee
  • Assistance for privately owned utilities
  • Improvement of buildings used by government
  • Funding USACE projects in excess of $250,000
  • Projects involving use of eminent domain that benefit private parties
Buyouts

Have their own guidelines which are too complicated to summarize here.

Timeline
  • The clock starts ticking 4 months after HUD’s approval of Amendment #1.
  • 50% of the grant must be expended by Jan. 12, 2027.
  • 100% must be expended by January 12, 2032.

Experts say all this time may be needed given the complexity of navigating HUD processes, which are lengthier than other sources.

Discussion/Recommendations

Harris County and the Flood Control District support the amendment. It is certainly justified by the number of people in Harris County and the amount of damage inflicted by Harvey.

However, $750 million is not enough. A fairer amount would be closer to $1 billion. As the action plan points out, approximately one third of Harris County went under water during Harvey.

Alan Black, interim executive director of the Harris County Flood Control District, points out several other reasons for increasing the allocation:

The City of Houston has still been left out. Flooding in Harris County has a dual nature. “You can address the rivers and channels,” he says, “but if water can’t get to the bayous, people will still flood when water ponds in neighborhoods. Both riverine and street flooding must be addressed together.”

Black also points out that administrative fees are capped at 6%, but with HUD compliance costs, 8% is more realistic. Moreover, those administrative costs must come out of the $750 million – they are not on top of it. So the real amount of money available for flood mitigation would be reduced to about $690 million.

Finally, the Amendment also allocates approximately $450 million to Houston/Galveston Area Council, much of which would go back into the City of Houston. Black points out that flood mitigation is the Flood Control District’s core competency and that HCFCD can construct projects much faster and more efficiently than HGAC.

An estimated one third of Harris County went under water during Harvey. Photo courtesy of Sally Geis before her rescue.

With the trust fund recently created by Commissioner’s Court, plus $750 million, Black feels confident every project listed under the flood bond could be constructed.

But he worries about inflation of construction costs (which he is already seeing) and the admin costs.

Black intends to build projects as quickly as he can. If there’s a project in an LMI neighborhood that’s shovel ready, he will build it with bond money and not wait for HUD funding which could add years of delays.

That said, there are many projects that are not shovel ready that could benefit from this money. In fact, the need is greater than available funding, says Black.

Make Your Feelings Known

Please consider these points and take time to submit a public comment. Email is probably the easiest way. It doesn’t require you to wait through a meeting for your turn to speak, and doesn’t limit you to a certain amount of time.

Photo by Camille Pagel. Her children are helping to gut the kitchen instead of going to school after the Harvey flood.

How to Register Your Opinion

You can register your opinion in any one of five ways.

All public comments submitted by 5 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2021, will be considered. The method of submittal does not matter. Per federal requirements, the GLO will respond to public comments before the amendment is sent to HUD for final approval.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/17/2021

1480 Days after Hurricane Harvey