The rate of excavation for another stormwater detention basin on the Woodridge Village property picked up 47% in the last five weeks. That’s compared to the weekly average since Sprint Sand and Clay began excavating last year under the terms of its Excavation and Removal (E&R) contract with Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD).
March 6, 2023, Sprint has excavated 93,023 CY, according to HCFCD.
Dividing the difference by five weeks, yields an average of 2,532.6 CY per week.
The weekly average since the start of excavation 54 weeks ago equals 1722.7 CY.
So, the February/early March data is an increase of more than 800 cubic yards per week compared to the long-term average, a 47% increase.
Demand for dirt under E&R contracts varies with with housing starts and road construction. Housing starts have slowed greatly in recent months as interest rates have increased to cool inflation. It’s not clear yet whether the increased rate of excavation represents a temporary blip or the beginning of a turnaround in the market for dirt.
Then and Now Photos
Here’s the extent of excavation on the new pond as of January 24, 2023.
Woodridge Village Detention Basin #6 at the end of January 2023.Contractors have not yet connected the new basinto others.
Here’s how the new basin looks today from approximately the same location – much longer!
Same location at start of March.Sprint has not yet reached the end of S1, the detention basin on the right.Looking south toward Kingwood. Sprint has the width of four or five more houses to go before it reaches as far as the end of S1. The tree line in the background is the Harris/Montgomery County line.
Increased Rate is Welcome News
The increase in the excavation rate is welcome news for residents who flooded twice in 2019, thanks in large part to Woodridge Village construction practices. Perry Homes left the aborted development about 40% short of Atlas-14 requirements. Since then HCFCD and the City of Houston bought the site and are working on ways to reduce flood risk.
E&R contracts give HCFCD a low-cost head start on mitigation as engineers finalize plans. Knowing that they will need additional stormwater detention capacity, HCFCD established a flexible contract with Sprint for only $1,000. It lets Sprint remove up 500,000 CY and sell the dirt at market rates. This virtually eliminates a major construction cost and provides major savings to taxpayers.
Sprint is obligated to remove a minimum average of 5,000 CY per month and must place the dirt outside of the 100-year floodplain. The contract lasts three years.
Sprint will excavate within the red line. If they move the total 500,000 cubic yards, they will more than double stormwater detention capacity on the site.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/6/2023
2015 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 1264 since Imelda
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/2023/03/20230304-DJI_0190.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2023-03-06 15:31:292023-03-06 15:37:48Rate of Woodridge Village Excavation Increases 47%
Harris County’s best hope to fully fund the 2018 Flood Bond just vanished into a political black hole. Watching the video of Commissioners Court on Tuesday made one dizzy. My head was spinning so quickly with all of the contradictions, that it reminded me of a Chucky horror movie.
Almost 2 Years After Leaving the Starting Gate…
After almost 2 years, the County’s Community Services Department (CSD) still has not even started working on a process that would define where $750 million in Hurricane Harvey Flood Mitigation money would go.
But its new director, Thao Costis, did recommend taking 58% of the money away from Harris County Flood Control District. County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis, Precinct Two Commissioner Adrian Garcia, and Precinct 4 Commissioner Lesley Briones all voted FOR CSD’s vague proposal that gave $326.5 million to “Harris County” and almost $100 million to “planning and administration” with no further definition.
Ramsey Reminds Court of Purpose of HUD Money
Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE reminded his fellow Court members that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) grant was originally intended to fill a funding gap in the flood bond.
For those who may not remember, roughly a third of the $2.5 billion 2018 flood bond was designed to attract matching funds from state and federal entities such as HUD. Harris County Flood Control District hoped to double taxpayers’ money that way. The bond actually had projects in it totaling roughly $5 billion.
At the time, HCFCD saw HUD dollars as the best way to support the hard-hit Halls Bayou watershed where 71% of the residents have low-to-moderate incomes (LMI).
Not Even Enough Left for HCFCD to Complete Halls Projects
But the money remaining with HCFCD after commissioners voted to divert more than half of the $750 million won’t even be enough to complete Halls projects.
The Flood Bond included Halls projects estimated at almost $383 million. Halls has already received projects worth $48 million, leaving a $335 million need. But giving only $326.5 million to HCFCD would leave Halls more than $8 million short.
That would leave no money for flood control projects in other watersheds. They would vanish into a political black hole.
The good people of Halls Bayou have had their projects lined up for years. Yet at 6:28:40 into the meeting video, Director Costis admits, “Our focus is to get projects lined up.”
For Halls Bayou residents who follow Commissioners Court, the video of Tuesday’s meeting will have their heads spinning faster than Chucky’s.
Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have complained bitterly about projects in LMI neighborhoods having to wait for federal funding that might never arrive. Then they voted to take $425 million away from HCFCD when it did.
Partnership Funding Merry-Go-Round
Commissioner Garcia, who couldn’t wait on partnership funding to get started on projects, demanded a partnership policy. Ditto for Commissioner Ellis.
But Ellis didn’t want to back away from the county’s “equity principles, because some cities might not have a match.” This could further reduce funding.
At 6:34:20, Ellis, who often brags about transparency, introduced a motion to prioritize projects using unspecified criteria before CSD comes back to Commissioners Court on March 3 with final recommendations.
Admission of Funding Gap
Then Ellis complained, “Even with this money, we don’t have enough money to do everything in the 2018 Flood Bond.” Where’s the other $425 million going, Mr. Ellis, that you’re diverting from HCFCD? Into that political black hole?
More Delays Could Jeopardize Funding
At 6:41, Dr. Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD, complains, “We’ll need to get an extension.” That’s something the Texas General Land Office (GLO), which manages HUD grants in Texas, has feared. The GLO worries that additional delays could cause HUD to take its money back. Harris County has been dragging this process out for almost two years.
Garcia again asks, “Is a partnership process in place?” (6:41)
Costis admits, “No. We’re starting that process now.”
Hidalgo abruptly cuts off the embarrassing discussion, takes a vote, and moves on to the next agenda item at 6:43:48.
Saying One Thing, Doing Another
Actions speak louder than words, especially in politics. It’s one thing to say flood mitigation is a top priority and that you want to help the county’s less fortunate first. But the figures below clearly show that…
…Ellis, Garcia and Hidalgo help our least fortunate residents the least.
To get a clear picture of political priorities, let’s visualize flood-mitigation spending as a percentage of the total value of projects in the flood bond for each watershed. This shows important differences in the progress toward completion of promised projects. See the table and map below.
In case you’re unfamiliar with the location of these watersheds, see below.
Greens has received 74.9% of its funding and Brays 79.4% of its. But both have lower LMI percentages than Halls, Hunting, Sims and Vince.
For instance, Sims has the third highest percentage of LMI residents in the county (65%), but has only received 4.4% of its anticipated funding.
Eight watersheds in Harris County have majority-LMI populations. But the LMI percentages have little to do with the percentage of money actually spent out of their anticipated budgets.
Contrary to promises, some of the least affluent watersheds are being prioritized last.
Brays and Greens have received more funding to date than the other six LMI-majority watersheds put together.
This is, in large part, because Commissioners Ellis and Garcia have constantly tweaked their equity-allocation formula to ensure money goes where they want it to go.
High Price of Turnover
The Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) learned of its $488 million allocation from the GLO the same day in May 2021 that Harris County learned of its $750 million. But H-GAC developed its distribution plan and received final approval from the GLO by September of 2022. And H-GAC had to coordinate more than 100 entities!
This comparison shows the high price of turnover in the executive ranks. Costis is the sixth executive director at CSD under Hidalgo. Ms. Costis previously ran a charity for homeless people. While admirable, that’s no qualification for managing hundreds of millions of dollars. And certain commissioners have not helped the process by making it more complicated than it already is with constantly changing demands.
If Harris County wants this money, it needs to hire leaders with business acumen, wall them off from political interference, and prohibit political patronage hires. Now that would really make people’s heads spin! It would also eliminate a political/financial black hole.
Posted by Bob Rehak on February 23, 2023
2004 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/Waterrshed-Spend-2022-copy.png?fit=1200%2C927&ssl=19271200adminadmin2023-02-23 21:44:492023-02-25 16:32:07Best Hope to Fully Fund Flood-Bond Projects Just Vanished into a Political Black Hole
A Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) year-end spending report shows a continuing bond slowdown. The most recent spending update to Commissioners Court reflects all activity through the end of 2022.
The big news to report is that there’s not much news to report.
The December update showed that the San Jacinto Watershed received only $76.6 thousand during the month, ranking it 15th among all Harris County watersheds. HCFCD has only spent 2.5% of all bond money spent to date in the entire county.
A separate Biannual Update shows that the paltry progress is NOT the result of available funds. The San Jacinto has about $167 million in committed funding, but has received less than $30 million from the bond so far.
But before we dig deeper into the San Jacinto, let’s look at the continuing bond slowdown in HarrisCounty as a whole.
Has spent a total of $1.177 billion to date, up from $1.150 billion at the end of November, a $27 million increase.
Bought out 27 homes countywide.
Secured another $30 million in funding ($1.734 billion up from $1.704).
Saw no change budgeted active capital construction projects ($0.00, likely a reporting mistake).
Saw no change in budgeted active maintenance projects ($0.00, likely another reporting mistake).
Awarded just one construction project worth $7 million.
Saw its schedule performance index dip below 1.0 for 11 months in a row. (1.0 means on-schedule).
Completed another 0.3% of the bond, bringing the percent completed up to 24.1% with 43.3% of the time elapsed.
Still has NO active construction projects in the lone Republican-led precinct. All 18 are split among three precincts with Democratic commissioners.
Reporting Mistakes
Regarding those goose eggs under “active projects,” it appears that someone just picked up the active projects pages from November and changed the dates to December. However, the HCFCD website does show figures updated through January 2, 2023. Using those as the most current figures instead would mean:
The total budgeted for active maintenance projects FELL from $50.6 million to $37.2 million, a decrease of $13.4 million.
Likewise, the total budgeted for active capital improvement construction projects FELL from $239.8 million to $223.5 million, a decrease of $16.3 million.
I’m not sure which is worse. Zeros, decreases, or errors?
Continuing, Prolonged Slowdown
Another major concern is the continuing lag in the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). This is a measure of on-schedule performance. Temporary decreases can often happen between projects. However, HCFCD has fallen behind schedule and stayed behind for 11 months in a row. The last time it reported an SPI of 1.0 was in January of 2022.
At the current rate of spending, it will take HCFCD more than 20 years to finish the bond.
Slow performance means we all live with flood risk longer than necessary and pay higher flood-insurance premiums than necessary.
For all of last year, HCFCD averaged between $20 and $23 million per month in spending.
Compiled from HCFCD monthly updates.
Under previous leadership, HCFCD averaged $35 million per month and the rate was climbing, not falling.
Spending By Watershed During December
The table below shows spending in all 23 Harris County watersheds plus countywide spending for the month of December 2022 (in the “Difference” column). HCFCD reported a decrease in Countywide spending with no explanation. The District also shows NO spending at all in three watersheds.
Compiled from HCFCD Bond Updates from November and December of 2022.
The San Jacinto Watershed is the county’s largest. Floods have damaged more structures in the San Jacinto than in all but seven other watersheds. The damage total includes five major storms since 2000 – Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey, Imelda.
Yet the San Jacinto has received only 2.5% of total flood-bond spending through 2022, ranking it #15 on that scale.
To date the San Jacinto has received only 13% of the $223,256,195 allocated to it in the bond. Compare that to 79% for the Brays Watershed and 75% for the Greens.
Commissioners Court Agenda Also Shows Slowdown
HCFCD has only 11 items on the Commissioners Court agenda for Tuesday, February 21. Contrast that with engineering which has 108.
And few of HCFCD’s requests involved new flood-mitigation work.
Four items transitioned projects to HCFCD’s maintenance program.
Four items involved contract changes.
One involved a permit for a MUD doing environmental enhancement work.
One would let Pasadena build recreational facilities on HCFCD property.
One would reimburse Union Pacific for a preliminary engineering study that UP was doing to relieve repetitive flooding along Halls Bayou adjacent to its railroad tracks.
Bi-Annual Bond Update
For additional information on the progress of the bond, see this Bi-Annual Update issued by HCFCD in January. It contains dozens of spending breakdowns. Especially interesting are the funding-gap calculations on page 11. See table below.
Note that the table above shows different “actual spending to date” figures than the monthly updates farther above.
Regardless, these figures show that lack of funding is NOT responsible for the slow progress in the San Jacinto Watershed. The San Jacinto has $167 million dollars in committed funding. We’re just not spending the money.
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/SpendingByWS-thru-22.12.31.png?fit=1114%2C1146&ssl=111461114adminadmin2023-02-19 22:18:222023-02-22 05:33:11HCFCD Updates Show Continuing Bond Slowdown
Says Lindner, “Early on the 24th, surface low pressure developed over south-central Texas. It helped draw a warm front northward. It eventually formed a line from near Sealy to Downtown Houston to Chambers County. This warm front when combined with strong lift, impressive low level wind shear, and winds changing direction, resulted in the formation of supercell thunderstorms along a line from near Victoria to Sealy to Conroe.
They trained across northwest Harris County. Rainfall amounts southeast of US59 ranged from 1-2 inches, but 2-6 inches northwest of 59.
One of the storms along the front produced a tornado over southern Fort Bend County. Another formed over northern Brazoria county near Pearland. Rotation increased as it tracked through SE Houston, Pasadena, Deer Park and Baytown.
Duration and Rates
The heaviest rainfall occurred over portions of west, northwest, and northern Harris County in a 3 to 6 hr period. Several locations in northwest Harris County recorded 1.0-3.0 inches of rainfall in an hour during the late morning hours. Additionally, as the line of storms moved eastward, numerous locations recorded 1.0-2.0 inches of rainfall in 15-45 minutes. That resulted in rapid street flooding over many portions of Harris County during the early to mid afternoon hours.
Total 6-hr rainfall amounts ranged from 3.0-6.0 inches from north of Katy along west/north of FM 1960 into the Humble and Kingwood areas. The highest amount was at John Paul Landing Park in northwest Harris County where 5.48 inches was recorded in 3 hours. Unfortunately, most of this rain fell on grounds that were still wet from heavy rainfalls on January 8 and 9. This maximized runoff into area creeks.
Lindner points out that, “Heavy rainfall and flooding can occur every month of the year in Harris County and there have been other recent heavy rainfall events in January. Compare rainfall duration and intensity in the table below.”
“Cool season” events tend to be short in duration with the majority of the rain occurring in 6 hours or less,” says Lindner.
Interestingly, all of the January flooding events listed above had identical contributing factors: a surface warm front, high moisture levels, and training movement over the same area.
Rainfall amounts for the 1- and 3-hour time periods ranged from 2- to 10-year rains on the Atlas 14 scale. For the most part, channels could accommodate the rainfall. No widespread house flooding occurred although streams came out of their banks at numerous locations and came dangerously close to homes. See below.
Homes surround by floodwaters near West Fork San Jacinto on 1/30/23.
Tornado Impacts
The tornados were a different story, though. As they swept across the southern part of the county at 40 to 60 mph, they produced significant damage.
Lindner said, “Video obtained from the City of Deer Park indicated a tornado heavily shrouded in heavy rainfall with very little if any visibility of a condensation funnel or lofted debris. Unlike tornadoes in the Great Plains, many of the tornados along the US Gulf coast are hidden within heavy rainfall and very difficult to observe.”
Damage assessments as of February 7, from the cities impacted indicate approximately 1,635 single family homes were damaged, 855 multi family units, and 15 mobile homes. The tornados ranged from EF0 to EF2 in intensity. EF2 winds range from 111-135 mph.
Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist
For a complete listing of rainfall intensities and damage assessments at different locations through the county, see Lindner’s report here. It contains an interesting history of tornados in Harris County.
The pictures below were taken by a retired Kingwood resident, John Knoerzer, who owned a business in one of the hardest hit areas. They illustrate damage in Pasadena at one of his former employee’s home and shop.
Roof and walls torn away by winds. Note sheet metal twisted around tree in upper right. That came from a neighbors home several hundred feet away.Sheet metal from same building shredded the power lines in this 23-second video.
Never Bet Against Mother Nature
Lindner’s report and these images provide powerful reminders of why we should never take flood or wind risk for granted. And why we need to see flood-mitigation projects through to completion.
These were only 5-year storms. But remember. Those exceedance probabilities are like odds on a Las Vegas roulette wheel. I once saw the same number come up six consecutive times!
Don’t bet against Mother Nature. Insurance gives you much better odds.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/8/23 with thanks to John Knoerzer for his imagesand Jeff Lindner for his reporting
1989 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/20230130-DJI_0904.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2023-02-08 11:53:382023-02-08 12:13:53HCFCD Issues Reports on Late January Flooding, Tornados
As of January 30, 2023, Sprint Sand and Clay had excavated 80,360 Cubic Yards of dirt from a sixth Woodridge Village stormwater detention basin under an Excavation and Removal Contract with Harris County Flood Control District. Even though the new basin is not yet complete, it is already the second largest on the site.
Sprint’s $1,000 contract gives it the right to excavate up to 500,000 cubic yards and sell the dirt at market rates to make its money back. The purpose: to get a head start on construction of another basin that could eventually double Woodridge Village stormwater detention capacity so that it will exceed Atlas-14 requirements and create a safety margin to accommodate future development.
Reason for Project
Perry Homes sold the failed development to Harris County Flood Control District in 2021 after it contributed to the flooding of hundreds of homes in Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest twice in 2019.
Excavation began in early 2022. By the end of that year, Sprint had removed 73,745 cubic yards of soil. January’s total means Sprint is about one-sixth of the way toward its goal.
The basin already holds a considerable amount of runoff as the pictures below show. The pictures were taken on 1/24/23 after a five-year rain (3.6 inches in two hours). That’s about half the volume that fell on May 7, 2019 when Woodridge Village first flooded Elm Grove and North Kingwood Forest. But at that time, only the long narrow detention basin on the lower right had been completed.
Looking NE across the main part of Woodridge.Basin in foreground is the one under construction. Reverse angle, looking SWtoward Woodland Hills Drive and Kingwood Park High School.
New Excavation Already Second Largest on Site
80,360 cubic yards equals 49.8 acre feet. Woodridge Village’s five original basins had the following capacity:
N1 = 13.2 acre feet
N2 = 154.7 acre feet
N3 = 42 acre feet
S1 = 18.6 acre feet
S2 = 42.5 acre feet
That means the new basin already ranks as the second largest on the Woodridge Village site.
Only N2 has more capacity at the present.But eventually, the new basin could double its size.All basins will eventually converge into the basin in left foreground above. From there, water exits into Taylor Gully.Despite the 5-year rain that fell only hours before these photos, Taylor Gully never came close to overflowing on January 24th because of the controlled release rate.
More capacity will mean the site can safely handle much larger rainfalls.
Current detention pond capacity equals 271 acre feet. When complete, the new basin will add 309 acre feet, more than doubling the site’s stormwater detention capacity.
Next up: final design of the improvements before construction can begin.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/31/23
1981 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 1230 since TS Imelda
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/2023/01/20230124-DJI_0770.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2023-01-31 12:48:072023-01-31 12:56:39New Woodridge Village Detention Basin Already 2nd Largest
According to Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) latest flood-bond update, 19 of 19 active capital improvement construction projects are now in Democratic precincts (1, 2 and 4). None is in the County’s lone Republican-led Precinct 3, the county’s largest.
Moreover, the update also shows that the San Jacinto watershed now has NO active maintenance OR construction projects.
Latest Update Restates Numbers for 12 Months Ending 11/22
Every month, Harris County Flood Control District issues an update on 2018 Flood-Bond projects. The updates typically cover:
Newsworthy items from the previous month
Performance metrics
A master schedule of all projects
Funding and spending to date by watershed
Active Maintenance Projects
Active Construction Projects.
This month, the update also includes restated figures for 2022 reports. The last page corrects several figures in previous monthly reports. Some of the reports contained incorrect figures related to confusing labels.
The corrected figures show that from December 2021 through November 2022 (the last month covered in this report), HCFCD:
Awarded 7 constructsruction contracts valued at a total of $60 million.
Awarded 91 other agreements for things, such as engineering studies and design, valued at a total of $140 million
Spent a total of $1.151 billion on all bond projects since 2018. That includes:
$602 million of bond funds
$392 million in grants
$157 million of other local funds
Completed 24.1% of the bond projects in 44% of the time allotted.
Gives itself a schedule performance index of .95
Completed 913 buyouts for $174 million total (Average = $190,000 each)
No Active Construction Projects Shown in P3
Under Active Capital Improvement Construction Projects, HCFCD shows none (zero, nada, zilch, bupkis, diddly-squat, zip, i.e., nothing at all) in Precinct 3, the county’s largest precinct and one of the most heavily flood damaged.
Note absence of active construction projects in Precinct 3 (pink), the county’s largest. All active construction projects are now in the three Democratic precincts.
However, elsewhere on the Commissioner’s Court agenda for Tuesday, Rodney Ellis is asking for $2.66 million for hike-and-bike trails around Willow Water Hole on South Post Oak in his Precinct 2. See Item 303. Precinct 2 Commissioner Ellis is reportedly an avid bicyclist. He lives near there.
No Active Construction OR Maintenance Projects in San Jacinto Watershed
Also, the update shows NO active construction or maintenance projects anywhere in the San Jacinto Watershed, the county’s largest and one of the most heavily flood damaged.
Updated Spending Totals by Watershed
Here are the latest spending totals by watershed per the update.
Spending by watershed through November 22
In tabular format, they stack up like this:
Totals by watershed from inception of bond through end of November, 2022.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/27/23 based on the November 2022 HCFCD Bond Update
1978 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Screenshot-2023-01-27-at-8.48.56-PM.png?fit=1910%2C1240&ssl=112401910adminadmin2023-01-27 21:34:392023-01-28 18:00:15All Active HCFCD Construction Projects Now in Democratic Precincts
Harris County Commissioners Court approved a motion on 1/10/23 that will change the formula for scoring future flood projects. It gives two thirds of a potential project’s score to population density, building density and social vulnerability, but only 20% to flood risk and nothing to actual flood damage.
Stacking the Deck
The new formula could be used both to compare and eliminate projects. With only 20% of a project’s score determined by flood risk, fixing minor flooding inside the Beltway could soon take precedence over fixing severe flooding outside the Beltway. The formula provides only the illusion of transparency and fails to ensure fairness.
Chart showing feet above flood stage of 33 gages on misc. bayous in Harris County during Harvey.
During Hurricane Harvey, the highest flooding in the County occurred outside the Beltway along the San Jacinto River, Spring Creek and Cypress Creek.
North Shore evacuation route during Harvey. Photo by Jim Balcom.
Regardless, despite being the largest watershed in the county and one of the most heavily damaged, few flood-mitigation dollars have come to the San Jacinto Watershed.
Since Harvey, 4.6 more flood-mitigation dollars have gone to the Brays watershed than the county’s largest, the San Jacinto.
Brays is the county’s most populous watershed. It’s also where Commissioner Ellis lives. Could that have anything to do with the factors and weights in the new formula for scoring future flood projects? They include:
45% Project Efficiency
15% Resident Benefits
30% Structure Benefits
20% Existing Conditions
20% Social Vulnerability Index
5% Long Term Maintenance Costs
5% Minimizes Environmental Impacts
5% Potential for Multiple Benefits
This new formula omits consideration of damage, risk reduction and partnership funding. Partnership funding has provided approximately one third of all Flood Control District funding since 2000. The new formula gives the most weight to building and population density incorporated in the Project Efficiency formula (project cost divided by # residents and structures benefitted). This 15-page PDF explains how projects are scored within each category above.
Other Problems with Formula
The formula for scoring future flood projects, proposed by Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis has many other problems. It also:
Does not differentiate between types of structures while giving them almost a third of the weight. Thus, a mobile home counts for as much as a hospital or college.
Gives no weight to protecting critical infrastructure such as bridges, hospitals, grocery stores, wastewater treatment plants, etc.
Gives 20% weight to social vulnerability, but ignores the severity of flooding. Thus a low-income home with one inch of flooding counts as much as an entire condo complex swept away by 22-foot deep floodwaters.
Makes awards more subjective because HCFCD has no way of estimating how many people live in apartment buildings or homes. HCFCD can count buildings in satellite photos, but the number of residents benefitted will always be a guess. Census tracts do not follow floodplain boundaries.
Undermines efforts to prevent flooding, as opposed to correcting it after people are damaged. Prevention, such as HCFCD’s Frontier Program, is always more cost effective in the long run.
Places 45% of the weight on cost data that has not yet been determined when deciding whether to explore projects further.
Ellis’ proposal passed 3-1 yesterday. Commissioners Rodney Ellis, Adrian Garcia, and Lesley Briones voted for it. Commissioner Tom Ramsey voted against. County Judge Lina Hidalgo was absent. Commissioner Ellis ran the meeting.
To see the discussion on Ellis’ proposal, click on “Departments 2 of 2” in the meeting video and scroll forward to 3:03:53. The discussion lasts 16 minutes. Below is a summary of key points and their time codes.
Summary of Debate with Video Timecodes
Ellis positions his proposal as a “transparency measure.” 3:04:10
Dr. Tina Petersen, head of the Flood Control District describes it as a “clear, consistent and equitable basis” for comparing projects that the flood control district is undertaking. 3:04:53
Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey says “criteria and frameworks are not necessarily a bad thing,” but then expresses a list of concerns about the proposal, none of which are addressed later in discussion. 3:06:19
Petersen responds that it’s “not perfect.” She says, “there’s no reason we can’t continue to refine this tool.” It’s very “general.” It let’s us “use what we have as a basis for comparison and continue to look forward to opportunities to refine” the tool.
Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia asks whether the proposal will add costs or time to projects. 3:11:00
Petersen says no. “The framework should not require additional costs as long as we don’t look back.”
New Precinct 4 Commissioner Asks Probing Questions
New Precinct 4 Commissioner Briones then asks “how often will it be updated?” 3:13:20
Petersen replies, “We’re not considering making any changes to the framework.” She describes the primary uses as: comparing projects and determining which are eligible for funding from the Flood Resilience Trust.
Briones asks whether the framework incorporates “severity of flooding.”
Petersen points to the “efficiency” metric as the closest thing because it incorporate the number of people and structures benefitted. But Petersen sidesteps the point of the question about “depth of flooding” raised by Ramsey earlier. 3:14:25
Briones questions why partnerships are excluded.
Petersen responds that the framework was designed for use with the flood resilience trust, on projects where partnership dollars were no longer considered a possibility. “It was intended to be a backstop for projects that do not have partnership funding.” Petersen does not mention $750 million in HUD/GLO dollars pending final approval.
Briones next asks whether the framework will provide a threshold for making go/no-go decisions on projects. 3:15:40
Petersen replies, “I want to be clear. It will be used for determining whether a project is eligible for flood resilience trust funds.”
At 3:19:30, Ellis quickly closes debate before someone asks for clarification. The measure passes.
Debate Filled with Unresolved Contradictions
Petersen sidestepped Brione’s tough questions about severity of flooding and the eliminating projects. At one point, Petersen said it was “only a point of comparison.” Later, she said it would determine project “eligibility.”
She also equivocated in her response to Ramsey’s concerns. At first she implied the framework was a first step. Later she said that she didn’t plan to change it. Even though the framework is intended for future projects, most of Petersen’s answers related to the past.
Bellwether Vote
Only one thing is certain.
We’re in for four more years of fog described as transparency!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/11/2023
1961 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Balcom-Evac.jpg?fit=1200%2C793&ssl=17931200adminadmin2023-01-11 15:13:312023-01-11 16:46:45Commissioners Approve New Formula for Scoring Future Flood Projects
Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis has placed an item on the Commissioners Court agenda for 1/10/23 with far reaching ramifications for flood control in Harris County. It would change the way every future project is prioritized using a formula that gives almost half the weight to population and building density. Meanwhile, it ignores the amount of damage, severity of flooding, danger to infrastructure, historical underinvestment, and the difficulty of accurately estimating population in flood zones. Ellis’ recommendation could be used to permanently deny projects to heavily flood-damaged areas like Lake Houston.
Text of Motion
In Agenda Item #250, Ellis seeks: “Request for approval to direct the Harris County Flood Control District (“District”) to assign prioritization scores using the adopted 2022 Prioritization Framework for the Allocation of Funds from the Harris County Flood Resilience Trust to all new flood risk reduction projects funded by the District when requesting Commissioners Court approval to initiate the project, and to transmit those scores as quartiles to Commissioners Court.”
So what is that framework and why do we need it?
History of Recent Efforts to Prioritize Projects
Before the 2018 flood bond, Harris County flood control looked primarily at clusters of repeat damage to define and prioritize projects. That damage also formed the basis for obtaining partner funding in many cases.
However, when the perpetually underfunded Flood Control District received the huge infusion of cash from the 2018 flood bond, a problem arose. Which of the many worthy projects would be launched first? There simply weren’t enough qualified contractors to handle all needs simultaneously.
The text of the 2018 flood bond approved by voters contained a sentence that said, “…Commissioners Court shall provide a process for the equitable distribution of funds…” (See Paragraph 14-G). That became the key to the answer…with some verbal legerdemain by Ellis that turned “distribution” into “prioritization” and “equitable” into “equity.”
20% Existing Conditions (Drainage Level of Service)
20% Social Vulnerability
10% Project Efficiency
10% Partnership Funding
5% Long Term Maintenance Costs
5% Minimizes Environmental Impacts
5% Potential for Multiple Benefits
Total 100%
Commissioners, including Ellis, repeatedly affirmed their intent to complete all projects originally identified as part of the bond. The framework simply prioritized their start dates.
Commissioners also talked a lot about prioritizing “the worst first.” It was a nice sound bite, but never defined. Were the worst areas those with the most damage, deepest flooding, poorest residents, highest risk, or some combination of the above? Notice that the formula above omits flood damage, the traditional way of prioritizing funds and “ground-truthing” flood-risk estimates.
At this point, all of the projects in the bond have started. Their natural lifecycles and complexity will determine their order of completion. So, the debate has shifted from the flood bond to other sources of funding and future projects.
2021 Changes Applied to Flood Resilience Trust
In 2021, Commissioners created a Flood Resilience Trust using Toll-Road funds to backstop potential shortfalls in flood-bond partner contributions. The weighting used to allocate funds from the Trust changed significantly.
25% Structures Benefitted
20% Flooding Frequency
20% Social Vulnerability
10% Cost Per Structure
10% Partnership Funding
5% Maintenance Cost
5% Environmental Impact
5% Secondary Benefits
Total 100%
Flood Control used this formula only to prioritize the use of backstop funds in the Trust. Note this version of the formula eliminated both damage and risk reduction from consideration.
2022 Changes
In April, 2022, Commissioners modified the 2021 weights within the Prioritization Framework – still only for Flood Resilience Trust Funds – as follows:
45% Project Efficiency
15% Resident Benefits
30% Structure Benefits
20% Existing Conditions
20% Social Vulnerability Index
5% Long Term Maintenance Costs
5% Minimizes Environmental Impacts
5% Potential for Multiple Benefits
This 2022 formula omits consideration of damage, risk reduction and partnership funding. But it gives weight to population density (project cost divided by # residents benefitted). This 15-page PDF explains how projects are scored within each category above.
2023 Proposal
Commissioner Ellis now proposes applying the 2022 Resilience Trust formula to ALL FUTURE HCFCD PROJECTS.
Problems with Proposal
Flood Control would now use Ellis’ formula to decide which projects make the list, not just which go first.
Thus, the so-called “equity” formula once used to schedule projects could now be used to eliminate projects altogether.
Two thirds of the weight goes to density and social vulnerability. Only 20% relates to flooding.
The projects most likely to be eliminated would be outside the Beltway – in less dense areas that have traditionally received the least funding. In a post-bond, financially constrained environment, the weight given to density will put every project outside the Beltway at a disadvantage.
But the Ellis formula has many other problems, too. It:
Does not differentiate between types of structures while giving them almost a third of the weight. Thus, a mobile home counts for as much as a hospital or college.
Gives no weight to protecting critical infrastructure such as bridges, hospitals, grocery stores, wastewater treatment plants, etc.
Gives 20% weight to social vulnerability, but ignores the severity of flooding. Thus a low-income home with one inch of flooding counts as much as an entire condo complex swept away by 22-foot deep floodwaters.
Makes awards more subjective because HCFCD has no way of estimating how many people live in apartment buildings or homes. HCFCD can count buildings in satellite photos, but the number of residents benefitted will always be a guess. Census tracts do not follow floodplain boundaries.
Undermines efforts to prevent flooding, as opposed to correcting it after people are damaged. Prevention, such as HCFCD’s Frontier Program, is always more cost effective in the long run.
Forces Flood Control to judge projects before the District has engineering and cost data in hand that would help determine whether the projects are worth pursuing. That’s because “ALL FUTURE PROJECTS” include preliminary engineering projects.
Suggestions For Improvement
Below are several suggestions to improve the formula.
Define “worst first.” While the sentiment is noble, in practice, the term has no practical definition. (Ditto for equity.)
Incorporate measurements for severity of flooding and amount of damage. These really define worst.
Prioritize critical infrastructure such as bridges whose loss can jeopardize the economic vitality of the region.
Include partnership funds. They help stretch flood-mitigation tax dollars by almost a third. Even if people sometimes must wait longer to line up partner funding, partner funding helps more people in the long run.
Publish level-of-service data, used in the “existing conditions” calculation, for all streams in the county. It seems to be secret. I’ve been trying to get it for a year. Keeping it secret undermines trust in government. How do we know money is really going to the areas with the greatest risk?
Publish a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan similar to the City of Houston. Let people see what is coming, when, and for how much. That way we can hold HCFCD and Commissioners accountable. Plus, we can see their “formula” in action.
Be fair to all. The proposed formula is like playing cards with a stacked deck.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/7/23
1957 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Ellis.jpg?fit=1200%2C809&ssl=18091200adminadmin2023-01-07 19:13:032023-01-08 10:27:15Ellis Trying to Change How All Flood-Control Projects Prioritized
Last night, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) revealed its long-awaited recommendations to reduce flood risk along Taylor Gully. The recommendations involve channel improvements, another Woodridge Village stormwater detention basin, and a new bridge at Rustling Elms.
HCFCD is seeking public comment on the plan through December 28, 2022.
Outline of Recommended Alternative
Excessive runoff from Woodridge flooded hundreds of homes in Elm Grove, North Kingwood Forest, and Mills Branch twice in 2019 after a developer clearcut 270 acres without sufficient mitigation.
A concrete-lined, low-flow channel within the existing channel to expand conveyance from 350 feet downstream of Creek Manor Drive to 1500 feet downstream of Mills Branch Drive. The concrete portion would be four feet deep and 20 feet wide.
An additional dry-bottom, 412.5 acre-foot detention basin on the northern portion of the site.
A new clear-span bridge at Rustling Elms to replace the current bridge over two culverts.
Four-foot-deep, 20-foot-wide concrete channel-in-a-channel (not drawn to scale) would expand conveyance without expanding current width of main channel.Scope of recommended alternative. Does not show work on E&R contract already underway or replacement of Rustling Elms bridge. But those would be included.
The recommended alternative would not require any right-of-way acquisition. Translation: no buyouts required.
166% Increase In Stormwater Detention Capacity
Not shown in the diagram above is the stormwater detention basin that Sprint Sand and Gravel is currently working on. Under the terms of their excavation and removal contract with HCFCD, the contractor has up to three years to excavate 500,000 cubic yards. A spokesperson for HCFCD said, “We expect that they will excavate the full amount. The E&R area, like the existing Perry Homes basins, will eventually connect to or become part of the Woodridge detention-basin network to complement the recommended alternative.”
Five hundred thousand cubic yards equals 309 acre feet. With the new pond, that would add 721 acre-feet of stormwater detention to the existing site. The site currently has 271 acre feet of detention. So, the detention volume would increase 166%. It only needed to increase 40% to meet Atlas-14 requirements. Net: the recommended fix should create a considerable margin of safety.
Not Included in Recommendations
The plan does NOT include any improvements near White Oak Creek at the downstream end of Taylor Gully. HCFCD determined that flooding at that end of the channel was caused by backup from White Oak and Caney Creeks.
Area circled in red floods from water backing up from White Oak Creek, not Taylor Gully.
However, discussion during the meeting suggested that the recommended detention basins further upstream on Taylor Gully could help that area to a minor degree. The plan primarily addresses flooding along and either side of the channel highlighted above to the left of the red circle.
Bridge Replacement
Because of the concrete-lined, low-flow channel conveyance improvements that are a part of the recommended alternative, the existing culverts at Rustling Elms Drive (below) would need to be replaced. See below. An open-span bridge like the one in the background would likely replace it. The current bridge built over culverts (below) backed water up considerably during the 2019 floods and contributed to flooding homes for several blocks on either side of it.
The bridge at Rustling Elms (foreground) caused backups after Woodridge was clearcut. This would be replaced.
Comparison of Alternatives
HCFCD recommended Alternative #1 because it removes the most structures, acres and roadway from the floodplain for the second lowest cost. Compare the alternatives below. For a fuller description of each alternative, including those not recommended, see the complete presentation.
Alternative #1 is recommended.
What Comes Next?
The sequence below outlines project steps. We are currently discussing the preliminary engineering phase. After public comments have been incorporated in that report, HCFCD will deliver it to commissioner’s court and begin final design.
After close of public comments, they will be incorporated into plan transmitted to Commissioners Court.
Then, the final design will begin for all improvements. Once complete, the final design will dictate final costs and timing.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/20221215-Screenshot-2022-12-15-at-3.38.50-PM-2.jpg?fit=1200%2C667&ssl=16671200adminadmin2022-12-15 16:43:582022-12-16 09:47:09Public Comment Period on Taylor Gully-Woodridge Village Plan Open to December 28
Harris County Flood Control District will hold a virtual Taylor Gully meeting Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 6:30 p.m. Purpose: to discuss the findings of its plan to reduce flood risk along Taylor Gully. Register at: PublicInput.com/taylor.
To learn more about the project scope, see this post. It discusses the related effort to virtually double detention capacity on the Woodridge Village Property that HCFCD purchased in 2021. Up to six hundred homes flooded in this area twice in 2019.
About Taylor Gully
The headwaters of Taylor Gully originally started where Woodridge Village is today, just north of the Harris/Montgomery County Line (tan area in map below). From there, it cuts through Elm Grove, Mills Branch and Woodstream Forest before joining White Oak Creek which then joins Caney Creek and the East Fork San Jacinto.
Project being discussed Wednesday night
Taylor Gully Meeting Details
The virtual community engagement meeting will be held on:
December 14, 2022, 6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. Register/Join online at:PublicInput.com/taylor Or join by phone* at 855-925-2801 with Meeting Code: 3364
The Taylor Gully meeting will begin with a brief presentation to share project updates, followed by a moderated Q&A session with Flood Control District team members. Residents will be able to submit questions, comments and input before, during and after the meeting, which will be considered during project development. Any comments not addressed during the Q&A session will receive a response at the conclusion of the public comment period.
Meeting Followup
Even if you are unable to attend the live meeting, residents are encouraged to register for the meeting to receive future project updates. A recorded version of the meeting will be available on the Flood Control District’s website and YouTube channel after the event.
Special Needs?
Meeting accommodations can be made for those with disabilities. If needed, please contact 346-286-4040 at least three business days prior to the meeting. For questions, please contact the Flood Control District at 346-286-4000, or fill out the comment form online at hcfcd.org/taylor.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/13/22
1932 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 1181 since Imelda
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/20221206-Taylor-Gully.jpg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=112001200adminadmin2022-12-13 18:13:402022-12-13 18:13:44Last Reminder: Taylor Gully Meeting Wednesday 6:30 p.m.
