Tag Archive for: HCFCD

Harris County Approves $825 Million Flood-Mitigation Project List For HUD/GLO Funds

On June 6, 2023, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) recommended to Commissioners Court a flood-mitigation and disaster-relief project list totaling $825 million. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocated the funds to Harris County via the Texas General Land Office (GLO). The projects will require another $145 million in local-match funds from the 2018 Flood Bond. Thus, the projects are worth close to a billion dollars.

Commissioners Court unanimously approved the project list with little discussion. Each precinct will receive a relatively equal amount of projects and funding, according to Commissioner Ramsey.

Two Buckets of Money

The money comes in two buckets: Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery funds totaling $322.5 million and hazard mitigation funds totaling $502.5 million. HCFCD intends to use both primarily for channel improvements and stormwater-detention-basin projects.

Further, HCFCD has divided its project list into primary and backup recommendations.

Factors Used to Determine Recommendations

HCFCD developed the project list with the following factors in mind:

HUD normally gives priority to projects that help minority and low-income areas. However, the two major buckets have different LMI requirements. They also have different deadlines.

HCFCD must spend 100% of the Disaster-Relief (DR) funds by August 2026. And they must benefit areas where 70% of the residents qualify as LMI (below the average income for the region).

The Mitigation funds have more time and a 50% LMI requirement. No less than 50% of the $750,000,000 – from which the $502.5 is carved – must be expended by January 12, 2027, with the full balance expended by January 12, 2032.

So the DR funds have more urgency attached to them and that list includes projects closest to “construction ready.”

Reason for Backup Projects

According to HCFCD, the project list will likely evolve based on review by GLO, project schedules and project costs. Budgets are estimates based upon today’s dollars. They will change as projects advance. 

Fatal flaws may also become visible as projects advance toward construction. So, HCFCD requested and received permission to substitute alternate projects as needed if the intended projects become non-viable.  

1 Recommended, 1 Alternate Project in Lake Houston Area

The “recommended” list includes one primary project in the Lake Houston Area: Taylor Gully Improvements.

It also includes one project on the alternate list: the Woodridge Village Stormwater Detention Basin, part of which is already under construction.

Locations of HCFCD Mitigation and Disaster-Relief project recommendations

9 Upstream Projects

HCFCD is also recommending nine upstream projects on tributaries that feed into Lake Houston.

Primary recommendations include:

  • Upper Cypress Creek Floodplain Preservation
  • Part 3 of the Kluge Stormwater Detention Basin on Little Cypress Creek
  • Rehabilitation of the Kickerillo Mischer Preserve Channel on Cypress Creek
  • Boudreaux Stormwater Detention Basin Part 1 on Willow Creek
  • Channel Rehabilitation, Batch 5 on the Main Stem of Cypress Creek
  • East and West TC Jester Detention Basins on the Main Stem of Cypress Creek
  • Detention for Channel Rehabilitation on the Main Stem of Cypress Creek, Batch 5

Alternate recommendations include:

  • Boudreaux Stormwater Detention Basin Phase II on Willow Creek
  • Mercer Stormwater Detention Basin on Cypress Creek

Click here to see the full list of projects.

Project-Specific Data Available Soon

The project list does not include information on how much these projects would contribute to flood reduction – either locally or downstream. However, HCFCD expects to post that information to its website before the projects go to the GLO for approval in the coming months.

Partnership-Funding Gap Affected

Likewise, HCFCD did not include with this list an estimate of how much it would affect the partner-funding gap.

Some time ago, HCFCD projected that it could finish all the projects in the flood bond using a combination of:

  • Taxpayer approved funds
  • Partner funds already committed
  • Harris County Toll Road Authority money allocated to the Flood Resilience Trust.

But to finish all the projects in the Flood Bond, HCFCD “phased” some projects. It knew it wouldn’t have enough money to complete 100% of some large projects. So, several phases might have been included and others deferred.

It appears that several projects on today’s list include some deferred phases. So the “partner-funding gap” may not be reduced as much as originally thought. Net: HCFCD may or may not have to look for additional funds. The District expects it will know more after GLO approves the list.

HCFCD must also come back to Commissioners Court by July 18 with an estimate for ongoing maintenance and land management costs for all the projects.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/6/2023

2107 Days since Hurricane Harvey

In May, Woodridge Village Excavation Total Reached Almost 124,000 Cubic Yards


Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) Woodridge Village Excavation and Removal contract for 500,000 cubic yards with Sprint Sand & Clay is almost one-quarter complete. Sprint excavated approximately another 9,000 cubic yards in May (5.8 acre feet). That’s almost double the monthly minimum and brings the total up to 123,882 cubic yards.

Stormwater from Woodridge Village flooded hundreds of homes twice in 2019. The excavation will provide additional stormwater detention capacity to reduce flood risk downstream in the future.

May/June Photos Show Progress

The first two photos below were taken at the beginning of May and June 2023.

Sprint Sand and Clay Excavation and Removal Contract work at Woodridge Village
Looking ENE. Extent of excavation on May 2, 2023
Looking ENE. Extent of Excavation on June 4, 2023

Up until now, Sprint has been excavating from west to east. Now, they seem to be excavating primarily from south to north.

HCFCD spokesperson Amy Crouser said that, “Essentially, the contractor is free to excavate where they want within the provided footprint.”

Looking east across new focus of excavation.

Where Does Woodridge Village Excavation Go From Here?

Sprint has excavated 76.8 acre feet so far. That brings the current detention capacity (old plus new) to 348 acre feet. That’s 90% of what Woodridge Village needs to meet Atlas-14 requirements.

If Sprint keeps excavating at the current rate, it could reach Atlas-14 requirements before the end of the year.

Here’s how all that looks in a table.

Acre Feet of Stormwater Detention% of Ultimate
Site Had When Purchased from Perry Homes27147%
Has as of 6/4/2334860%
Atlas 14 Requires38566%
If Sprint Excavates All 500K Cubic Feet580100%
Calculations based on original construction plans, HCFCD monthly reports, Atlas-14 Requirements and Sprint contract.

Sprint’s contract calls for excavating UP TO 500,000 cubic yards. Any excavation beyond Atlas-14 needs would create a safety hedge against future needs should they increase. 

Sprint will make only $1,000 from its Woodridge Village excavation contract, but will make its profit by selling the dirt at market rates. It’s a good deal for taxpayers, but carries some uncertainty with it.

A lot of flexibility exists for both parties in an E&R contract. If the demand for dirt dries up and excavation slows, HCFCD and Sprint could modify the E&R contract to complete a smaller detention basin sooner. But I assume it would still meet Atlas 14 requirements at a minimum.

But simply excavating the dirt isn’t the end of the job. Harris County still needs to slope the sides, plant grass, and tie the new basin into the site’s existing stormwater-detention-basin network. 

HCFCD and Harris County Purchasing are currently evaluating consultants’ bids to draw up the final construction plans.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/5/2023

2106 Days since Hurricane Harvey

HCFCD Could Get $322 Million in Redeployed Funds from GLO

The Texas General Land Office has posted Amendment 12 to the Hurricane Harvey State Action Plan for public comment. Among the highlights: If approved, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) could get $322 million in reallocated funding from underperforming and completed programs for infrastructure projects that protect residences and businesses. The proposed amendment also includes additional changes.

Almost six years after Hurricane Harvey, the Texas General Land Office hopes to reallocate funding from programs with below-expected participation to programs showing greater-than-expected need.

The goal is to use all the money before unused funds must be returned to HUD in 2026.

Brittany Eck, GLO spokesperson
Looking north along Kingwood Diversion Ditch where hundreds of homes flooded during Harvey. The Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis rated widening this ditch as one of the two most important projects in the Kingwood area.

Where Extra HCFCD Money Comes From

Funds redirected to HCFCD include:

  • $30 million EACH (total $60 million) from the City of Houston and Harris County administered disaster recovery programs that failed to meet program contract benchmarks
  • $83.9 million from the GLO administered City of Houston Homeowner Assistance Program (HAP)
  • $178.13 million from the GLO administered Harris County HAP.

How Money Can Be Used

The GLO’s Homeowner Assistance Programs are projected to serve all eligible applicants in Harris County and City of Houston and the remaining funds are available to be redirected toward other needs.

The HCFCD program will provide disaster relief, long-term recovery, and flood and drainage improvement for local communities within Harris County impacted by Hurricane Harvey.

It will also protect assets that have since been repaired from Hurricane Harvey.

Each project must demonstrate how it will contribute to the long-term recovery and restoration of housing.

Other Reallocations

Amendment 12 ensures the $2.46 billion in CDBG-DR funds originally allocated to Harris County and City of Houston will continue to address unmet recovery needs within those jurisdictions.

Review the full text of Amendment 12 at https://recovery.texas.gov/public-notices/index.html.

Highlights include the following changes:

  • Harris County Administered Disaster Recovery Program total decreased to $887,334,984.
  • Homeowner Assistance Program increased to $49,524,866.
  • Homeowner Reimbursement Program decreased to $46,845,332.
  • Affordable Rental Program increased to $252,888,178. 
  • Single Family New Construction Program decreased to $59,560,401.
  • Commercial Buyout Program increased to $18,294,906.
  • Method of Distribution (Local) increased to $129,934,907.
  • Competitive Request for Proposal Program decreased to $74,289,859.
  • City of Houston Administered Disaster Recovery Program total decreased to $664,157,590.
  • Multifamily Rental Program decreased to $370,855,752.
  • Small Rental Program increased to $13,424,373.
  • Homebuyer Assistance Program decreased to $18,016,785.
  • Public Service reduced to $17,851,394.
  • Economic Revitalization Program increased to $21,803,775.
  • Planning reduced to $22,217,000.
  • State Administered Disaster Recovery Program increased to $4,124,897,426.
  • Harris County Flood Control District Program created with $322,033,863.
  • Infrastructure Project Delivery increased to $29,585,390.
  • Harris County Homeowner Assistance Program decreased $108,214,125.
  • City of Houston Homeowner Assistance Program decreased to $481,698,301.
  • Homeowner Reimbursement Program (GLO program completed in January 2021, administered in the 48 eligible counties outside of Harris County and Houston) decreased to $102,951,722.
  • PREPS decreased to $22,587,890.70.

A spokesperson said that the GLO left enough money in the original programs to cover completion of work already started or approved.

How to Register Your Opinion

In my opinion, HCFCD sure could use the $322 million. Project overruns and inflation have eaten into the 2018 Flood Bond funds jeopardizing many projects at the bottom of the equity priority list.

To be considered, submit your comments to cdr@recovery.texas.gov by 5:00 p.m. on June 21, 2023.

Per federal requirements, the GLO must respond to public comments before the amendment can be sent to HUD for its 45-day final approval.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/22/2023 based on a press release by GLO

2092 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Flood Control, Other Harris County Departments Reorganized…Again

Almost all Harris County departments have reorganized several times under County Judge Lina Hidalgo. By my estimate, the County’s 24 departments have had a total of 47 leaders during her administration.

Revolving Door for Department Heads

Eleven leaders have turned over in the last year including five in the last month. The:

  • Office of the County Administrator has a new interim Executive Director.
  • Economic Equity and Opportunity Office has a new interim Executive Director.
  • Commissioners Court Analysts’ Office has had two interim Executive Directors in a matter of weeks.
  • Universal Services Department has a new interim Executive Director (effective 5/16/23).

All those “interims” hint at more changes to come. But the changes go even further down several organizational ladders.

Deeper Changes Affect Whole Departments

The new interim leader at Universal Services, Sindhu Menon, began making organizational changes one day after her appointment two days ago. The full scope has yet to be seen. So far, she has reportedly addressed some departmental cultural changes and instituted an open door policy, which employees say is a refreshing change from her predecessor.

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) also announced changes this week on 5/15/23. But the District’s head did not change. HCFCD changes are more structural than cultural.

Let’s dive into HCFCD’s latest reorg, look at how three previous reorgs under Hidalgo have affected operations, and then look at academic research on the impact of frequent reorganizations.

Latest Reorganization at Flood Control

County Commissioners appointed Dr. Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD, in January 2022. She is the department’s fourth leader under Hidalgo since Russ Poppe resigned in July 2021, less than 2 years ago. Peterson has reportedly been working on her department’s reorganization for approximately the last year.

Dr. Petersen says her goals include:

  • Enhancing operations
  • Reaffirming a commitment to administrative excellence
  • Efficient project delivery
  • Robust maintenance of infrastructure
  • Building dynamic partnerships. 

Dr. Petersen did not respond to a question about whether the recent, dramatic drop in HCFCD spending had anything to do with the timing of her reorganization. However, all of the announced goals seem generally designed to counter the downward trend below on the right.

HCFCD Spending by Year since 2000
Source: FOIA Requests to HCFCD.

After a steady increase following the passage of the flood bond in 2018, spending is now down to approximately the 2017 level (assuming Q1 rates hold). The decrease corresponds to the department’s frequent leadership changes.

HCFCD issued the new organizational chart below this week. It is designed to accomplish Dr. Petersen’s goals, which don’t specifically include speed.

HCFCD org chart 5/15/23
For a printable high-res PDF, click here.

The new org chart shows:

  • The creation of several new positions at the “chief” level
  • A curious multi-level relationship between the chiefs
  • Multiple open positions
  • A reshuffling of responsibilities under the chiefs
  • “Demotions” for many departments caused by one and sometimes two additional layers of management inserted between Petersen and people actually doing the work.

Extra layers of management have the potential to slow things down even more rather than speed them up.

Changes Compared to Previous Structure

For instance, Communications used to report to the Chief of Staff and then Dr. Petersen. Now, it reports to a Public Information Officer and an External Affairs division head before the Chief of Staff. See org chart above in the second column from the left.

HCFCD issued no public announcement explaining the changes. So, without a previous org chart, it’s hard to tell exactly what changed unless you are familiar with certain departments (as I was with communications).

The demotion of Communications is regrettable in my opinion. Communications have already slowed and this will slow them further. Consider two examples: flood-bond and website updates.

  • Already HCFCD has abandoned monthly flood-bond spending updates in favor of twice-yearly.
  • Many of the District’s web pages refer to upcoming meetings that happened years ago!
  • “Active Projects” have not been updated on the District’s website in five months, even though many projects have changed.
May 18th screen capture still shows active projects from January.

But the challenges don’t stop there.

Political Interference Has Slowed Flood-Risk Reduction

Irrespective of Dr. Petersen’s talents, she has little ability to control changing priorities above her pay grade. Consider these two examples.

Five items on the 5/16/23 Commissioners Court Agenda (256, 259, 260, 263 and 264) involved $250 million in grants for sediment removal awarded nearly 2 years ago. The projects were just approved THIS week.

A quarter billion dollars has been parked on the sidelines for almost two years.

Certainly, finalizing construction plans and bidding the jobs consumed part of that time. The reorg might help with those things.

But according to three sources who asked to remain anonymous, political interference from commissioners also delayed the projects. Certain commissioners reportedly didn’t think enough of the FEMA money was being spent in their precincts.

Then there’s the $750 million in HUD/GLO Harvey mitigation funds awarded to Harris County – also two years ago. Instead of asking Flood Control how it recommended spending the money, Commissioners gave that task to the Community Services Department (CSD) which still hasn’t developed a definitive list of projects. Perhaps that’s because CSD has had six changes of leadership under Hidalgo. But CSD did cut HCFCD’s share of the pie by almost a quarter billion dollars.

The parked FEMA and HUD funds represented chances for Hidalgo to reduce flood risk by a $1 billion.

And let’s not forget the annual changes of priorities in the County’s Equity Prioritization Framework that force HCFCD staff to constantly re-evaluate more than a hundred projects.

Common Pitfalls of Reorganizations in General

Many valid reasons exist to reorganize. Likewise, reorganizations also entail many pitfalls.

Frequent reorgs can wreak havoc on an organization’s productivity by demoralizing employees.

A McKinsey survey in the Harvard Business Review (Getting Reorgs Right) found that:

  • 80% of reorgs fail to deliver the hoped-for value in the time planned
  • 10% cause real damage
  • Reorgs—and the uncertainty they provoke—can cause greater stress and anxiety than layoffs
  • In about 60% of cases, reorgs reduce productivity for a period of time.

An article in Forbes, titled “Curse of the Reorg,” details some of reasons why. It claims, “When companies announce a ‘reorg,’ internal reactions often skew more concerned than excited.”

Forbes continues, “Employees may not perceive this news as a positive change when they’re consumed by questions like: Another reorg, really? What will happen to my job? How will my team change? Will the projects I’ve been working on for months (even years) go away?”

Another article, on LinkedIn, documented how productivity dropped 50% after a reorg because of issues like those above.

Many academic articles suggest that it takes six to nine months to get past the productivity dips associated with reorganizations. One can only wonder whether the leadership changes and reorganizations throughout Harris County are happening faster than productivity can recover from them.

Only commissioners have the power to fix this problem. But service delivery doesn’t seem to be the highest priority of many of them.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/18/2023

2088 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Lauder Basin Phase II on Greens Bayou Under Construction

The long-awaited Lauder Basin Phase II on Greens Bayou is now under construction. In May of last year, the Texas Water Development Board announced a $2.2 million grant to expand the basin.

Lauder Basin Phase II
HCFCD is expanding the basin into the old Castlewood Subdivision east of Aldine Westfield Road.

Then in September, HCFCD announced that construction would be starting “soon.” Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) estimated sometime in the fourth quarter of 2022.

Construction Photos Taken 5/7/23

A visit to the job site earlier this week showed that construction is now well underway. See the photos below.

Looking NW. Phase II of the Lauder Basin under construction. Greens Bayou is in upper right. Small creek in foreground is a tributary.

Looking West. Greens Bayou flows toward camera position from upper right to lower right.
Still looking west, but from closer position reveals that HCFCD is excavating area closest to Greens first.
Looking West from farther away reveals proximity of Phase II with two ponds built during Phase I. See diagram below.

Eventually, Phase 2 should have several compartments with water-quality plantings to help filter out pollutants, and a small stream connecting the ponds. This presentation is a bit dated, but shows HCFCD’s plans for the basin as they existed in 2020.

Artists rendering of Phases I and II of Lauder Basin. Plans for Phase II have reportedly changed slightly.

Project Scope

Together, Phases I and II should provide more than 1,200 acre-feet of stormwater storage. HCFCD designed them to fill up during storms to help reduce the risk of Greens from flooding local homes, businesses and schools. After a flood, the basins release excess water slowly when the channel can safely accept it.

Phase II (651 acre feet) will actually provide more stormwater storage than Phase I (588 acre feet).

HCFCD estimates total Phase II construction costs at $32 million and predicts construction could take 2.5 years.

Spending Comparison with Other Watersheds

Greens Bayou has received more than a quarter billion dollars of projects such as these since 2000. That’s more than any other watershed in Harris County with the exception of Brays Bayou – where Commissioner Rodney Ellis lives.

Data obtained from HCFCD by FOIA request. Includes all spending from 1/1/2000 through end of Q1 2023.

Greens Bayou is one of the few watersheds where HCFCD spending did not plummet last quarter. Even as spending decreased in 15 watersheds, it rose in Greens Bayou by almost $4.8 million. To put that in perspective, it increased 11 times more than the watershed with the second largest increase, White Oak, at $431,126.

Here are the actual numbers.

Data obtained from HCFCD via FOIA requests.

No doubt, the activity you see in the photos above had a lot to do with Greens’ ranking. So, does construction on Garners Bayou, a tributary of Greens farther downstream.

Stay tuned for more news as construction progresses.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/12/23

2082 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Hurricane Hunter Expo at Ellington Draws Crowd

To kick off National Hurricane Preparedness week, the U.S. government sent two hurricane hunter aircraft to Ellington Field today. It was a rare opportunity for the public to interact with crews and support staff, and to tour some impressive displays of technology. See pics below.

Hurricane Hunter Aircraft on Display at Ellington Field

WP-3D – “Orion” by Lockheed. Introduced in 1976. the W stands for Weather. Operated by 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the U.S. Air Force Reserves.

The versatile WP-3D – “Orion” turboprop aircraft is equipped with a variety of scientific instruments, radars, and recording systems for both in-situ and remote sensing measurements of the atmosphere, the earth, and its environment. Orion aircraft collects low-altitude data to fill gaps in data not available from ground-based radar or satellite imagery.

A crew member described the aircraft as a flying MRI machine that can see into the heart of storms.

WC-130J – “Hercules”, also by Lockheed is larger and heavier.

The WC-130J is a high-wing, medium-range aircraft used in several weather reconnaissance missions throughout the year. The Air Force configured this plane to penetrate tropical disturbances and storms, hurricanes and winter storms. It is equipped with meteorological instruments and radar to obtain data on the current development, movement, size and intensity of these systems.

The aircraft carries a minimum crew of five: pilot, co-pilot, navigator, aerial reconnaissance weather officer and weather reconnaissance loadmaster. The crew collects and reports weather data as often as every minute.

Members of the public look at the impressive number of missions this hurricane hunter has flown.

Dropsonde Demo

Tube through which instrument sensors called “sondes” are dropped from WC130 into hurricanes.

In flight, the aircraft drops sondes about every 15 minutes, according to one manufacturer. “Dropsondes play a very important role in the data collection during field projects. They provide data of a near-vertical profile of very remote regions that could otherwise not be be studied. The dropsonde provides actual readings of the atmosphere as it travels downward. Because the device is in contact with the medium that it is measuring, this type of sensing is also called in-situ sensing.” They measure temperature, wind speed, wind direction, moisture, location, atmospheric pressure and more.

Emergency Management Participants

Also present were representatives from NOAA, the National Hurricane Center, the National Weather Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, the US Air Force, Harris County Flood Control District, the City of Houston Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management, the Red Cross, USAA, and more.

They passed out everything from disaster preparedness guides to hurricane guides, emergency document bags, cloud charts, and stress balls! Good times and sunburns were had by all!

Additional Preparedness Resources

From Houston, the tour moves east to New Orleans, and Mississippi before making two stops in Florida.

In addition to the list of preparedness links I posted yesterday, the handouts today reminded me that I should have posted:

The last guide goes beyond hurricanes and covers everything from chemical spills to active shooter incidents.

They’re all worth exploring. But don’t wait until a hurricane is bearing down to explore them. The sites will likely be crowded, the internet down, and response times slow. Also keep in mind that in an emergency, you may need to conserve battery power in your mobile devices. After Hurricane Ike in 2008, parts of the Lake Houston Area lost power for weeks.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/1/2023

2071 Days since Hurricane Harvey

HCFCD Incorporates $3 Billion of Studies, Projects into State Flood Plan

On Tuesday, 4/25/23, Harris County Commissioners gave Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) approval to incorporate almost $3 billion worth of studies and projects into the first State Flood Plan. The approval will make the studies and projects eligible for future funding from the State Flood Infrastructure Fund.

The San Jacinto Region 6 Flood Planning Group will first incorporate the requests into its regional flood plan. The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) will then compile a master list of projects throughout the state and rank order them.

TWDB is working toward a September 1, 2024, deadline

Being in the new state flood plan will now be a prerequisite for applying for Texas Flood Infrastructure Fund grants and loans. If you’re not in the plan, you will not even be eligible to submit an application until the next revision of the flood plan. That could take another five years. So this is a good and timely move by HCFCD.

Agenda Item 136 Contained 136 Requests

Harris County Commissioners Court Agenda Item #136 read, “Request for approval of the Flood Control District’s Flood Management Evaluations and Flood Mitigation Projects to be included in the Amended San Jacinto Regional Flood Plan, for incorporation into the Texas State Flood Plan.”

The backup states: “All identified FMEs and FMPs in the Regional Flood Plan will be incorporated into the State Flood Plan, which once adopted by the State of Texas, will enable the Flood Management Evaluations and Flood Mitigation Projects to become eligible for future TWDB Flood Infrastructure Funding.”

Here is the list of the 136 evaluations and projects added to the state flood plan. The categories include:

  • 102 “evaluations” totaling $43,150,000. Flood Management Evaluations (FMEs) include such things as surveys, studies, preliminary engineering reports, etc.
  • 34 projects totaling $2,928,966,000. Flood Management Projects (FMPs) include construction, which explains the much larger number.

All projects are technically in the San Jacinto watershed (see map below). However, Harris County breaks projects down even further by sub-watersheds. It calls one the San Jacinto, which creates some confusion. For clarity, HCFCD’s San Jacinto sub-watershed includes the East and West Forks, Lake Houston, and the main stem of the river down to Galveston Bay. HCFCD also recognizes 22 other sub-watersheds. All were included to some degree in the list of projects.

Of the 34 construction projects, HCFCD included two in the San Jacinto sub-watershed totaling $128.8 million out of the $2,928,966,000, or 4.4% of the total. They are the Kingwood Diversion Ditch ($82.3 million) and Taylor Gully ($46.5 million).

Deadlines Looming

The deadline for incorporating FMEs and FMPs into region flood plans is May 14, 2023. The 15 Regional Flood Planning Groups (RFPG) will submit their amended regional flood plans to TWDB by July 10, 2023. The TWDB must combine the approved regional flood plans into a single state flood plan and deliver it to the Legislature by September 1, 2024.

To keep with the bottom-up approach of the regional flood planning program, TWDB has elected to utilize only RFPG-reported data for ranking.

How TWDB Will Rank Items

TWDB has proposed a scoring matrix to rank FMEs and FMPs throughout the state. The criteria differ for the two categories. Proposed criteria in the:

  • FME category include flood-reduction benefits such as the number of structures, people, critical infrastructure, acres, miles of roadway removed from the floodplain, and cost projections.
  • FMP category also weighs factors such as social vulnerability; environmental benefits; flood severity; life and safety; and operations and maintenance costs.

Note, however, that the legislature may change the criteria. One flood expert said legislators are evaluating the fairness of the benefit/cost ratio, for instance.

The TWDB website contains this note. “While inclusion in the state flood plan is a requirement for eligibility for future FIF project funding, the associated rankings are not intended for allocating state funding. Future funding decisions will occur through a separate TWDB process if and when funds are appropriated by the Texas Legislature. How the state flood plan project ranking may be considered in future flood project funding prioritization and allocation processes remains to be determined although it is anticipated that the state flood plan ranking will be at least one of the considerations.”

Harris County’s prioritization framework includes many of the same factors proposed by TWDB. But the County’s weights vary radically. For instance, TWDB gives 2.5% weight to social vulnerability and Harris County gives social vulnerability 20% – eight times more. However, only TWDB criteria will affect the final statewide rankings.

Initial Funds No Longer Available

Texas initially funded the Flood Infrastructure Fund with $770 million after voters passed Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment, in 2019. All of that money has either been distributed or committed.

Future projects will require a new infusion of cash from the state legislature. TWDB declined to say what that might be. However, an interested “legislature watcher” said appropriations ranging from $300 to $700 million have been discussed to cover projects throughout the state. He suspects the final total will be a compromise somewhere in the middle of that range.

Alternative Sources of Funding

Obviously, $300 million statewide won’t cover a $3 billion ask from Harris County, not to mention projects elsewhere.

So I asked HCFCD if it was pursuing alternative sources of funding for some of these projects. HCFCD answered “yes.”

A spokesperson said, “The Flood Control District is actively working to identify funding opportunities through grants, loans and other funding mechanisms, including for some projects included on the Region 6 Regional Flood Planning Group list. Including these projects on the State Flood Plan list serves to demonstrate the need for flood mitigation projects in the region, as well as to allow for future funding opportunities.” 

Harris County Vs. Regional Projects

TWDB established 15 regional flood planning groups. Each represents a major river basin in Texas. Region 6 represents all or parts of 11 counties drained by the San Jacinto. See below.

The list of projects submitted by Harris County focused overwhelmingly on projects inside Harris county, though a few do have components that spill over county lines.

HCFCD and the San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group have both tried to reach out to municipalities, neighboring counties and MUDs throughout the entire watershed. But many reportedly don’t have experts skilled in filling out the lengthy TWDB applications. Many also don’t have the seed money to attract matching funds for flood projects. Whether that disadvantages people at the edges of the county and beyond remains to be seen. It could take years to tell.

However, HCFCD says that at this time, “We are not aware of any major projects outside of Harris County that were not included on the State Flood Plan list. ”  

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/28/23

2068 Days since Hurricane Harvey

San Jacinto Flood-Mitigation Spending Down 81% in One Quarter

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, it did. On 4/20/23, I reported about a drastic slowdown in the rate of Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) spending. Data obtained via a FOIA request indicate that with a few exceptions the slowdown has affected watersheds across the county.

Two thirds saw a decline in flood-mitigation spending last quarter. But the decline in the San Jacinto Watershed, which had the eighth most flood damage in Harris County in the last quarter century, was particularly steep.

The San Jacinto watershed decreased from $1.614 million in the fourth quarter of 2022 to $306,000 last quarter – an 81% decline in one quarter!

Admittedly, that’s over a very small base to start with. But that in itself is a testament to how little flood-mitigation activity there is in Harris County’s largest watershed at this time.

4Q22 to 1Q23 Changes

Comparing the last quarter of 2022 with the first quarter of 2023 shows that spending increased in only eight watersheds: Greens, Luce, White Oak, Armand, Goose Creek, Barker, Vince, and Spring Creek. Spring increased only from $24,000 to $37,000 in the first quarter.

Arranged in order of 4Q22 spending.

Increases totaled only $6.1 million. They were offset by $16.4 million in decreases, for a net spending decline of more than $10 million. Spending totaled only $38 million for the quarter.

San Jacinto Ranking Slips

Below, you can see how each watershed ranked solely on the basis of first-quarter spending.

Watersheds ordered by 1Q23 spending

The San Jacinto watershed slipped to 17th place in 1Q23 (down from 14th when the ranking includes spending going back to 2000).

Spending by watershed since 2000
From 1/1/2000 to 3/31/2023. Data supplied by HCFCD in response to FOIA request.

San Jac had ranked as high as 7th in post-Harvey spending back in mid-2021.

HCFCD construction in the San Jacinto watershed has seen multiyear delays in start dates while other areas received higher priority based on factors unrelated to flooding.

So-called “equity policies” instituted by a majority of Harris County Commissioners starting in 2019 have punished San Jacinto residents. That’s because the watershed contains only 31% low-to-moderate income (LMI) residents and the area is predominantly white. Under the County’s current policy…

“Socially vulnerable” areas with higher percentages of minorities and LMI residents get priority, even if they have less severe flooding.

Damage No Longer a Factor in Allocation

For instance, in five major storms since 2000 (Allison, Tax Day, Memorial Day, Harvey and Imelda), the San Jacinto Watershed had the eighth largest number of damaged structures. It also ranked fourth in the percentage of the population affected by flooding (see below).

When looking at flood incidents as a % of population, the San Jacinto has fourth highest % in Harris County.

Clearly, Hunting and Halls Bayous need all the help they can get. So do Greens and the San Jacinto Watershed. But the San Jac is getting little. Despite the percentage of residents who have flooded. Not to mention that 40% of all businesses in the Lake Houston Area Chamber of Commerce also flooded.

If I hear County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Commissioner Rodney Ellis or Commissioner Adrian Garcia talk about “worst first” one more time, I’m going to send them “GET REAL” cards. What rationale do they offer for ignoring the watershed with the deepest flooding – the San Jacinto?

worst first
Feet above flood stage at 33 gages on misc. bayous in Harris County during Harvey.

Here’s what that 20+ feet of floodwater looked like.

San Jacinto West Fork at I-69 during Harvey

If Judge Hidalgo, Commissioner Ellis and Commissioner Garcia want to see “social vulnerability,” I challenge them to visit Kingwood Village Estates, a complex 1.2 miles from the San Jacinto West Fork that caters to seniors.

Residents trying to escape as Harvey's floodwaters rose
Twelve seniors ages 65 to 95 from Kingwood Village Estates died as a result of Harvey.

I doubt Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia will take me up on that challenge. So, in the meantime, we need to accelerate flood-mitigation spending – across the board. HCFCD spent just $38 million in the first quarter in the entire county. That’s very close to the spending rate before the 2018 flood bond.

We need to determine the reasons new projects are not starting in a timely way. We’re only 25% of the way through the flood bond. We have plenty of pressing projects waiting.

Policies, procedures, practices and people that subject anyone anywhere to higher-than-necessary flood risk longer than necessary need to change. More on that in a future post.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/22/23

2062 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.

HCFCD Flood-Mitigation Spending Plummets

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) flood-mitigation spending has plummeted. Data obtained via a FOIA request shows a precipitous falloff too prolonged and too steep to attribute to hiccups on individual projects.

The historical graphs below show annualized spending projections for 2023 based on first quarter spending (i.e., multiplied by four). HCFCD says that the first quarter of 2023 “has been slower than we want to see. But using Q1 spending as a proxy for the entire year is not a meaningful projection.”

However, spending decreased from $59 million in the first quarter of 2022 to $38 million in first quarter 2023 – a 36% drop. Likewise, looking at key spending components year over year:

  • Right-of-way (ROW) acquisition fell 87%
  • Partner spending fell 74%
  • Construction spending fell 34%.

Those decreases follow other substantial decreases in the preceding two years.

It’s impossible to tell exactly what will happen in the rest of 2023. But given recent trends and acknowledging the uncertainty, it appears likely that we’re headed for the third straight year of declining flood-mitigation activity.

The Falloff in Historical Perspective

If my annualized projection is in the ballpark, spending will fall this year to its lowest level since the passage of the 2018 Flood Bond. Almost five years after the passage of the bond, many projects should be moving into the expensive construction phase. So, total spending should be increasing, not decreasing. But spending is:

  • Half of what it was during the first full year of the bond in 2019.
  • About a third of what it was at the peak of bond spending in 2020.
  • Roughly equal to spending during 2017, the year before the bond vote. 
Includes all stages of all HCFCD projects.

As a result of the drop in flood-mitigation spending, families in large parts of the county will remain exposed to high flood risks longer than necessary.

So why the drop? Let’s start by looking at the major buckets of money.

Right of Way Acquisition and Construction Account for 79% of All Spending

Historically, ROW comprises 34% of all project spending since 2000, while construction comprises 45%. All other phases combined contribute only 21% to total costs.

Total spending between 1/1/2000 and 3/31/2023 by project lifecycle stage.

Right-of-Way Acquisition

The drop in total spending appears tied to a drop in right-of-way acquisition, including buyouts.

Before HCFCD can widen channels and build detention basins, it must own the property. So it’s a leading indicator.

But right-of-way (ROW) acquisition spending has fallen from a recent peak of $172 million in 2020 to an annualized rate of about $5 million this year. That’s a 34X decrease.

After reviewing the graph above, HCFCD responded that it purchased many properties for future projects upfront in the bond program. While true, it’s also true that many projects still require right-of-way acquisitions.

A District spokesperson also pointed to the time since Harvey. “It has been several years since our region’s last major flood event, and owner participation in the buyout program has declined. In our experience, owners are most motivated to sell their flood-prone property soon after a flood event.”

Certainly, buyout difficulty increases after people repair their homes.

But the county faces organizational challenges as well that go beyond HCFCD.

  • Harris County reportedly severed its relationship with a private firm that managed flood buyouts for decades and has not hired a replacement.
  • The Harris County Real Property Division, a part of the Engineering Department, now handles buyouts, but appears to be broken, like many other Harris County Departments. (See Brain Drain in Harris County Government.) According to people familiar with the turnover, the county has reportedly replaced seasoned professionals with political hires.
  • Commissioner Adrian Garcia reportedly hates buyouts and Garcia controls the Engineering Department.

Drop in Grants, Partner Spending

Another factor has been a decrease in grants and partner spending. It dropped 74% from $20.6 million in Q1 2022 to $5.4 million in Q1 2023.

Decreases seem to be persistent. The graph below shows partner spending by month since the start of the flood bond through the end of last year.

Grants by month since start of flood bond in 2018
Data supplied by HCFCD in response to separate FOIA request.

In at least one high-profile case, $750 million in partner funding was delayed two years when Harris County Commissioners Court had the Community Services Department – NOT HCFCD – prepare a plan for spending U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Harvey flood-mitigation funds.

Harris County first learned that the Texas General Land Office (GLO), which manages HUD money in Texas, was recommending the $750 million allocation in May 2021. But Community Services won’t hold a conference soliciting projects until May 2023. And the GLO doesn’t expect a project list for approval from Community Services until June 2023 at the earliest.

HCFCD already had a list of projects ready that met HUD criteria in May 2021. HCFCD could have used all of that $750 million and then some. But with the political interference, HCFCD will now get less than half that amount for flood mitigation – $326.25 million.

HCFCD hopes to turn the decline in partner spending around. Their spokesperson said, “Looking ahead, we have worked with our federal, state and local partners to secure additional project funding opportunities, including opportunities through CDBG-MIT, CDBG-DR, FEMA, EPA, and others. This increase in funding will help to spur spending as well, especially given the timelines associated with several of the funding opportunities and partnerships.”

I pray they’re successful with that. But even if HCFCD can ramp up partner spending, sources cite several other problems.

Constant Changes in Direction

Before 2019, flood damage largely drove which watersheds received funding. But in 2019, Harris County Commissioners, led by Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis, passed an Equity Prioritization Plan. That plan has been revised constantly since then.

HCFCD claims that no projects have been cancelled or paused because of prioritization changes. That’s true. Once started, HCFCD works projects to completion. But the revisions do contribute to delays in starting projects.

It’s impossible to calculate exactly how much the revisions have slowed the total spending rate. However, former HCFCD employees have complained about wasted time and effort. “Why prioritize projects once when you can do it three or four times!”

Another former employee gave a more specific example, “The changes cause confusion and additional work as projects must be re-scored each time. A project may be just about ready to go to Commissioners Court for approval, then the criteria change so it might get pulled until it’s rescored. Then, Commissioners may ask additional questions about where that project now ranks among others. And those conversations take time. So it may take several court meetings which could take a month or more before an item can go back to Court for approval.”

No one seems very excited about such issues now. But I suspect they’ll demand answers after the next flood.

What Else Accounts for the Decrease?

In fairness, an HCFCD spokesperson pointed out that after Hurricane Harvey, emergency repairs accounted for a large portion of spending. Those exaggerated the peaks in the bar graphs above and made the drop-offs look steeper than they otherwise might. However, HCFCD did not quantify how much it spent on emergency repairs.

Posted by Bob Rehak on April 20, 2023

2060 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.

Footnote: an attentive reader might notice some variation between previously reported spending and the numbers reported here. HCFCD has transferred subdivision drainage improvement expenses to Harris County Engineering. The transfers involve both current and historical spending, so year over year totals are still comparable for other categories.

Lawmakers Propose Transforming HCFCD and Its Management

Bills proposed in both the Texas House and Senate could transform the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) into the Gulf Coast Resiliency District (GCRD). The proposed legislation would make the management of the GCRD a board appointed by the Governor instead of Harris County Commissioners Court.

Senator Paul Bettencourt introduced SB2431 and Representative Dennis Paul introduced its companion bill, HB5338, in the House. Both go back to the enabling legislation for HCFCD in 1937 and change the original language in key places. For example:

  • “Gulf Coast Resiliency” replaces “Harris County Flood Control.”
  • “The bounds of the district” replaces “Harris County.”
  • “The Board” replaces “Commissioners Court.”
  • “Presiding officer” replaces “County Judge.”

Check out the bill language yourself by clicking on the links above. Virtually all HCFCD capabilities and functions remain the same. GCRD can issue bonds, build projects, partner with other entities, and acquire property as it always has.

The big change: the governor-appointed board would manage GCRD instead of Harris County Commissioners.

Why These Bills Would Benefit Harris County

While local control is normally a good thing, excessive political interference can also hinder professionals in the performance of their duties. And in fact, that has happened in Harris County. Below, I discuss eight distinct performance-sapping issues I have observed under the current administration.

1. Limited Purview of Some Harris County Commissioners

Language in both the 1937 enabling legislation for HCFCD and the 2018 flood bond let HCFCD acquire land and build projects in neighboring counties. This is necessary because floodwaters do not respect political boundaries. We need a regional approach to solve watershed-wide problems.

However, Commissioner Rodney Ellis has blocked virtually all such efforts and his Democratic colleagues have gone along with him.

Ellis rarely misses an opportunity to express his regret over letting HCFCD purchase the Woodridge Village property on the Montgomery County line. It contributed to flooding up to 600 homes in Kingwood/Harris County twice in 2019. Since acquiring the property in 2021, the county has spent less than $1,000 to build a flood-mitigation project on it.

Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to projects inside the Beltway where most of Ellis’, Garcia’s and Hidalgo’s constituents live.

2. Undermining Regional Cooperation

Ellis’ stonewalling of projects across county lines also cut the legs out from under an HCFCD/Engineering Department program called Fix Flooding First.

The program proposed five “minimum drainage standards” for adjoining counties draining into Harris County. The only inducement Harris County could offer neighboring areas to cooperate was flood-bond money for partnership projects.

Without that incentive, neighboring counties, such as Montgomery and Liberty, have been slow to upgrade their drainage standards. And predictably, areas in outlying parts of Harris County have suffered as a result of insufficiently mitigated development projects upstream.

3. Punishing Republican Areas

Democrats Ellis, Garcia, and Hidalgo have consistently steered 2018 flood-bond money away from areas on the periphery of the county. This has punished political opponents.

For instance, not one capital-improvement construction project is currently underway anywhere in Precinct 3. P3 is the last remaining precinct led by a Republican in Harris County.

Screen Capture from HCFCD Active Capital and Maintenance Construction Projects on 4/8/2023. Purple dots represent capital construction projects. Orange represent maintenance projects. Precinct 3 is pink area.

4. Minimizing Flood Risk in Funding Formulas

Having spent billions of dollars since 2000 to mitigate flood risk in Low-to-Moderate-Income areas, Harris County’s Democratic majority now seeks to de-emphasize flood risk in its funding formula.

They have also eliminated common-sense metrics such as flood damage, deaths, depth of flooding, and protection of infrastructure such as schools and hospitals when scoring projects.

Flood risk now accounts for only 20% of project scoring. Non-flood-related factors such as income, population and ethnic origin account for 80%.

Using this system, projects in areas with 50-year flooding could get funded before those with 2-year flooding. But that seems to be the way the Democratic majority wants it.

5. Exhausting Local Dollars to Avoid Waiting on Federal Dollars

Roughly $2.5 billion – half the money for 2018 Flood Bond Projects – originated locally. And about a third of that was designated to attract matching funds. For instance, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development often pays up to 90% of projects, but it requires a 10% local match.

This leverage could have doubled the funds available for Harris County flood-mitigation projects. But two catches existed:

  • HUD prioritizes projects in low-to-moderate-income areas.
  • HUD money takes longer to work its way down from Washington to Austin to Harris County.

So the Democratic majority simply voted to eliminate any partnership funding from its scoring matrix – despite the fact that historically, almost a third of Harris County flood-mitigation funding has come from partners.

Instead of waiting on HUD, Democrats started using local money in LMI neighborhoods. Now there may not be enough money to cover projects in predominantly Republican neighborhoods like Kingwood, Spring, Cypress and Huffman.

6. Falloff in Partner Funding

When Commissioners voted to plow ahead with local dollars instead of waiting on Federal dollars, they said they would continue to seek partner funding wherever possible.

But almost two years after the GLO announced Harris County would get $750 million in funding, the County still hasn’t submitted a complete plan for how it would spend the money. In fact, it changed its plan twice in the last month.

Problems like these do not inspire partner confidence. And it shows.

Grants by month since approval of flood bond in August 2018. Data obtained via FOIA request from HCFCD.
7. Slowing Progress on Flood-Mitigation Projects

Political interference in HCFCD has led to 100% turnover in the executive ranks of HCFCD under County Judge Lina Hidalgo.

Data obtained from HCFCD via FOIA request. Decline coincides with departures of key executives.

The flood bond passed in the third quarter of 2018 when Russ Poppe, Matt Zeve and Alan Black led HCFCD.

Under their leadership, spending more than doubled in a year a half as they launched 136 projects.

Then in 2021, Poppe, the executive director, resigned after relentless backbiting in Commissioners Court over made-up equity issues. Zeve, the deputy executive director, resigned in January 2022 under similar circumstances. And Alan Black, operations manager (and later acting director), left later that year.

This slowed down HCFCD performance and placed the entire county at higher risk.

Preliminary data for the first quarter of 2023 indicate that spending could decline even more radically this year.

The turnover issue is not limited to HCFCD. It’s endemic. Under Lina Hidalgo, the heads of virtually every Harris County department have turned over – some as many as six times!

8. Equity Obsession

Commissioners had criticized the executives for not spending enough money in minority and low-income areas. In fact, HCFCD was already spending as much in eight watersheds with LMI-majority populations as they were in all 15 others combined. See below.

Flood bond spending in LMI-majority watersheds versus all others from 2018 through 2022.
Spending compiled from HCFCD December 2022 Flood-Bond Update. HCFCD has released no additional updates since then.

Still unhappy, Democrats have had to think up new ways to send even more projects to their constituents inside the Beltway.

Hence, the constant revisions to the equity scoring matrix. According to several former employees, the revisions have led to starts, stops, wasted work, frustrations and delays. These contribute to slowdowns and keep flood risk high.

Benefits to Citizens

An article by Holly Hansen in the Texan quotes Rep. Paul on why he introduced the companion bill to Bettencourt’s in the House. He cites Harris County’s mismanagement, lack of progress, and the politicization of infrastructure planning.

Solving these problems will reduce flood risk, increase productivity, and save taxpayer dollars.

Those don’t seem important under the current leadership in Harris County. Can we afford to wait another four years for a change in administration?

Normally, I favor local control. The more, the better. But with HCFCD, that local control has failed us. That’s why I wholeheartedly support these bills.

If you agree, please consider showing your support. Email Senator Bettencourt and Representative Paul.  The more they hear from people, the more motivated they will be to pass the bill.

Posted by Bob Rehak on April 10, 2023

2050 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.