Tag Archive for: HCFCD

HCFCD Updates Show Continuing Bond Slowdown

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 Harris County as a whole.

December Overview

Compared to November 2022’s update, the December 2022 update shows that HCFCD:

  • 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.

From HCFCD’s Jan. 2023 2018 Biannual Report.

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.

Political priorities, not funding availbility, are the reason for the continuing bond slowdown – at least in the San Jacinto watershed. Spring Creek residents are way behind, too.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/19/23

2000 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 Issues Reports on Late January Flooding, Tornados

Jeff Lindner, Harris County Meteorologist, has issued a report on January flooding, heavy rainfall and a significant tornado on January 24, 2023. He also released intensity tables for 24th to the 31st. They help us understand the cumulative impact of back-to-back heavy rainfalls on the 24th and 29th.

Overview

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.

From Harris County Flood Control District report.

Total Amounts

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.

To explore historical rainfall in your area, consult the Harris County Flood Warning System.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/8/23 with thanks to John Knoerzer for his images and Jeff Lindner for his reporting

1989 Days since Hurricane Harvey

New Woodridge Village Detention Basin Already 2nd Largest

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 SW toward 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
Original Detention Pond Capacity on Woodridge Village

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.

Funding and Next Steps

This is all part of a larger plan outlined in the preliminary engineering review for Taylor Gully that HCFCD shared with the public in December. The plan also calls for deepening a portion of Taylor Gully and replacing the twin-culvert bridge at Rustic Elms with an open-span bridge.

U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw has already secured $1.6 million for Taylor Gully Improvements. The City of Houston also has secured a $10.1 million loan from the Texas Water Development Board to improve drainage in the Taylor Gully watershed.

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.

All Active HCFCD Construction Projects Now in Democratic Precincts

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.

To see the complete update, click here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/27/23 based on the November 2022 HCFCD Bond Update

1978 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Commissioners Approve New Formula for Scoring Future Flood Projects

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.

worst first
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.

Evacuation Route during Harvey
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:

  1. 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. 
  2. Gives no weight to protecting critical infrastructure such as bridges, hospitals, grocery stores, wastewater treatment plants, etc. 
  3. Omits actual damage from consideration, which “ground-truths” risk assumptions (see Existing Conditions, Page 6).
  4. Eliminates consideration of partnership funds, which have provided almost one third of HCFCD funding since 2000. 
  5. 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. 
  6. 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. 
  7. 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. 
  8. 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.

Ellis Trying to Change How All Flood-Control Projects Prioritized

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.”

2019 Equity Prioritization Framework

In 2019, Ellis proposed (and the Court adopted) the “Prioritization Framework for the Implementation of the Harris County Flood Control District 2018 Bond Projects.” This framework ranked projects with a multi-factor index using the following weights:

  • 25% Flood Risk Reduction
  • 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:

  1. 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.
  2. Gives no weight to protecting critical infrastructure such as bridges, hospitals, grocery stores, wastewater treatment plants, etc. 
  3. Omits actual damage from consideration, which “ground-truths” risk assumptions (see Existing Conditions, Page 6).
  4. Eliminates consideration of partnership funds, which have provided almost one third of HCFCD funding since 2000.
  5. 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. 
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  1. Define “worst first.” While the sentiment is noble, in practice, the term has no practical definition. (Ditto for equity.)
  2. Incorporate measurements for severity of flooding and amount of damage. These really define worst.
  3. Prioritize critical infrastructure such as bridges whose loss can jeopardize the economic vitality of the region.
  4. 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.
  5. Acknowledge that HUD dollars go disproportionately and preferentially to Low-to-Moderate Income neighborhoods.
  6. 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?
  7. Publish results of the new prioritization index periodically, so we can see which projects are being eliminated and why. And so we can understand why 18 of the 20 currently active capital improvement projects are in Precincts 1 and 2.
  8. 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.
  9. Acknowledge where money has really gone historically.
  10. 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.

Public Comment Period on Taylor Gully-Woodridge Village Plan Open to December 28

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.

To fix the problem, HCFCD examined four different alternatives outlined in this presentation, but recommended Option 1. It includes building:

  • 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.

Rustic Elms Bridge on Taylor Gully
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.

To View Video of Meeting and Comment…

HCFCD wants your input. To review the hour-long video of the meeting and/or submit a public comment, see this page (F-14 Taylor Gully Flood Risk Reduction Project).

Review the entire presentation here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/15/22

1934 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Last Reminder: Taylor Gully Meeting Wednesday 6:30 p.m.

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.

Taylor Gully/Woodridge Village
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

Save the Date: HCFCD Releases Details of Taylor Gully Meeting

On Dec. 2, I printed a story about an upcoming virtual community meeting on Taylor Gully. At the time, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) had not yet released details yet on how to attend. They have now. See their press release below. Please share it with family, friends and neighbors if you live anywhere along Taylor Gully. That includes parts of Sherwood Trails, all of Elm Grove, all of North Kingwood Forest, parts of Mills Branch, Woodstream Forest, and even parts of Porter in Montgomery County. Yes, plans will affect Porter also.

Map of Project

Map of project from HCFCD.org

Virtual Community Engagement Meeting for the
Taylor Gully Flood Risk Reduction Project

HCFCD PROJECT G103-80-03.1-E001

BOND PROJECT F-14

The Harris County Flood Control District will hold a community engagement meeting for the Taylor Gully Flood Risk Reduction Project. The purpose of this meeting is to inform residents about the project’s status, share project information and gather important community input on this effort.

The Taylor Gully Flood Risk Reduction Project focuses on improvements to Taylor Gully and the mitigation required to build the project. This project will be partly funded through the 2018 Bond Program, which was approved by Harris County voters on August 25, 2018. Community engagement is a foundational component of the Bond Program, and we invite your participation and input as projects are implemented.

Register Now

The virtual community engagement meeting will be held on:

December 14, 2022, 6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. 

Join online at: PublicInput.com/taylor

Or by phone* at 855-925-2801 with Meeting Code: 3364

The 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.

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. 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.

Esta reunión de participación comunitaria se llevará a cabo en inglés; sin embargo, el Flood Control District proporcionará intérpretes de idiomas y materiales traducidos a pedido. En caso de necesidad, comuníquese al 346-286-4040 al menos tres días hábiles antes de la reunión.

*If you attend by phone only, maps and other exhibits will not be visible. However, information will be available after the meeting on the project webpage at hcfcd.org/taylor.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/8/2022 based on a press release from HCFCD

1927 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 1176 since Imelda

HCFCD Spending Slows; More Went to Buyouts than Flood Reduction

Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) released its November report on Flood-Bond progress to Commissioners Court yesterday. The report covered through October 2022. I had two major take-aways:

  • The slowdown in bond spending continues. HCFCD initiated no new construction projects during the month of October.
  • HCFCD spent more money on buyouts than flood reduction.

The major announcement: the District advertised bids for the construction of a stormwater detention basin in Inwood Forest. The project encompasses property owned by the City of Houston located both east and west of Antoine where Vogel Creek outfalls into White Oak Bayou (the old Inwood Forest Golf Course). It will eventually have a total of 12 interconnected compartments.

Funding of this project comes from the 2018 Bond, FEMA and the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM). HCFCD hopes construction will begin in winter 2022-23. But let’s look at what has happened, instead of what will.

Overview

Since the last update, HCFCD:

  • Awarded NO construction projects
  • Awarded 9 non-construction agreements totaling $33 million
  • Paid $1.2 million for professional services.
  • Completed 28 home buyouts valued at approximately $5 million
  • Spent a total of $9.9 million since the last update.

Those last two bullet points mean…

HCFCD spent more on buyouts than flood reduction in the month of October.

HCFCD uses some buyouts for right-of-way (ROW) acquisition to build detention ponds or widen channels. But many buyouts simply avoid repetitive losses. The latest update does not specify which category October buyouts fell into.

Schedule performance indicators (the SPI index) for the month remained at .95 – behind schedule. HCFCD says the bond program is 23.8% completed – an increase of 0.3% from the previous month. That’s at 50 months out of a planned 120 month program or 41.6% of the way into the bond program.

Where the Money Has Gone

Only three projects out of 181 in the Bond changed stages. One went into preliminary engineering and two went from preliminary engineering into right-of-way acquisition. All are in the Cedar Bayou watershed.

The map below shows where $1.14 billion spent to date has gone.

In table form, that looks like this. I provided three months of data so you can see whether the needle is moving in your watershed. Five watersheds received no money in October.

Spending changes by watershed for the last three months.

Spending Trend Still Down

Last month I wrote about this downward trend in bond spending at a time when it should be increasing. Notice the trend in recent months:

  • July spending was $66.4 million.
  • August spending was $20.7 million.
  • September spending was only $8.1 million.
  • October’s $9.9 million was only slightly better than September.

Project Phasing Influences Spending Rates

Projects typically go through phases that comprise different percentages of the total budget. In flood control, upfront spending on studies typically comprises only 13% of the total. The big spending – 79% – happens for right-of-way acquisition and construction. Looking back at all phases of all projects since 2000…

Right-of-Way Acquisition and Construction account for almost four out of every five dollars spent by HCFCD.

Here’s how the breakdown looks:

HCFCD spending by project stage since 2000
Data compiled from FOIA Request

HCFCD typically spends six times more on Rights-of-Way and Construction, than upfront Feasibility Studies, Preliminary Engineering Reviews and Design.

More than four years into the bond, many projects should be entering the more expensive phases. So you would expect spending to increase. And July totals reflected that. But then a precipitous decline set in.

At the current spend rate, it would take 32 years to complete the bond, not 6.

Why the Slowdown?

HCFCD has not yet explained the slowdown except to say that, during the course of major programs like the Flood Bond, sometimes you hit lulls between major projects. But this slowdown has persisted for three months. No construction projects started last month. And Inwood-Forest stormwater-detention-basin construction likely won’t start for several more months.

At this point, explanations are in order. Last month, I suggested several:

Management Turnover – HCFCD recently lost its top three leaders who architected the Flood Bond: Russ Poppe, Matt Zeve, and Alan Black.

Less Experienced Management – Poppe was replaced by an academic who formerly managed the Subsidence District which has a budget one-thousandth the size of the 2018 flood bond.

More Layers of Management – There’s now a whole new department – County Administration – between Flood Control and Commissioners Court.

Delays in Other Departments – Community Services has failed to submit a plan for how to spend $750 million allocated to Harris County for flood mitigation by the Texas General Land Office and HUD.

Drawdown of Flood Resilience Trust Funds – The County is already running out of money in the Flood Resilience Trust Fund – a backup to keep projects moving in case grants, such as the $750 million, were delayed.

Yesterday HCFCD recommended pursuing a grant for Greens Bayou that would consume the current balance in the Flood Resilience Trust.

Bottom line: County Judge Lina Hidalgo needs to provide an explanation for the slowdown. This affects all Harris County residents, not just those in particular watersheds.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/30/2022

1919 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.