Tag Archive for: Ramsey

Funding Announced for Massive Detention-Basin Complex on Cypress Creek

9/25/23 – Approximately 425,000 people live in the 204 square mile Cypress Creek watershed which has severe repetitive flooding. At a press conference this morning, County, State and Federal officials announced $50 million in funding for a massive complex of stormwater detention basins on Cypress Creek at T.C. Jester Blvd. to help protect those people.

The basins will span approximately 150 acres on both sides of T.C. Jester and include 1200-acre feet of planned stormwater detention capacity, wet bottoms, and recreational trails.

Approximate boundaries of three detention basins – one will go west of TC Jester and two more east. White area is existing basin.

Altogether, the stormwater detention capacity in this area will increase approximately 75X.

Google Earth calculation of existing and planned ponds

The existing pond covers approximately 2 acres and the new areas will cover more than 150.

Looking E over T.C. Jester. Existing 2-acre basin in foreground was site of press conference. Wooded area beyond will become two new detention basins.

Thanks to County, State and Federal Governments

The $50 million will come from three primary sources:

Harris County Flood Control District Executive Director Tina Petersen also reminded everyone of the money designated for Cypress Creek in the Flood Bond, which was considerable.

The GLO/HUD money has been requested but not yet confirmed although all indications are positive at this time. GLO Commissioner Dawn Buckingham has committed to making sure that people in all parts of Harris County benefit from the $750 million.

Timetable and Project Scope

HCFCD Director Dr. Petersen addressed the next steps in the projects. “A portion of the projects on the east side of T.C. Jester will start construction in the next 6 to 9 months. The remainder should go into construction no later than the end of 2024. So we’re going to see these projects move quickly. This type of progress would not have been possible without the critical funding that our Congressman and Representative secured “

The overall project includes three stormwater detention basins within a broader footprint. Two basin compartments are on the east side of T.C. Jester Boulevard and another is on the west side.

Excavation of the west side basin (see below) has already begun under an E&R (Excavation and Removal) Contract. A private contractor is removing the dirt, almost free of charge, then selling it at market rates to recoup costs and make a profit. An estimated 120,000 cubic yards of material has already been excavated to date.

Work to date on basin west of T.C. Jester. Looking N toward Cypresswood Drive.

The contractor began removing dirt in the general area to get a head start on construction, even before final design of the basin. The final design will begin soon.

Each basin will have a wet-bottom with maintenance berms, side slopes and high banks along the outside.

Construction for all basins should begin no later than Q4 2024. They have estimated 8-month construction timelines.

Extent of Benefits

The three stormwater detention basins will work together – taking stormwater from the main stem of Cypress Creek and holding it until water levels recede on the main stem.

The projects will also have recreational benefits such as hike and bike trails.

Director Petersen stated that the projects will primarily benefit the local area, i.e., benefits will not extend very far downstream. The 1200 acre feet will likely take several thousand homes out of the floodplain.

Even though those homes will be in the Cypress Creek area, 1200 acre feet being held back upstream is 1200 acre feet that won’t be in the living rooms of Lake Houston Area residents during the next big flood.

More to Come

Ramsey also pointed to more projects to come, though he didn’t elaborate. He said, “This is $50 million of the $100 million that will be spent over the coming months in the Cypress watershed. So hold on. We’re getting started. This isn’t the end. This is the beginning.”

Speakers at T.C. Jester Detention Basin Press Conference included U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw, State Representative Sam Harless, Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey P.E., and HCFCD Executive Director Dr. Tina Petersen.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/25/2023

2218 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.

Flood- and Garcia-Bond Updates

The Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) August update to County Commissioners on the progress of the 2018 flood bond shows a continued lopsided distribution of funds in favor of low-to-moderate income (LMI) watersheds. It also showed slowing activity overall.

Separately, the County has posted a new website and scheduled input sessions for Adrian Garcia’s proposed new $1.2 billion bond proposition(s). The dates of input sessions relative to the legislative deadline for bond language make it clear that the bond language will not reflect much voter input.

Lopsided Distribution of Funds Continues for Flood Bond

Five watersheds with a majority of LMI residents have received 39% of all the flood bond spending. LMI is defined as “below median income for the region.” Brays, Greens, White Oak, Halls and Hunting watersheds received a total of $430.4 million – an average of $86 million each. Together, the other 18 watersheds received $443.5 million – an average of $24.6 million each. Countywide projects received the rest – $217 million.

Page 9 from the August Flood Bond Update.
Data transferred from map above and arranged by total spending per watershed.

I’ve said it before. Facts do not support the political narrative that affluent watersheds get all the funding. To see what the funding in those five LMI watersheds helped buy, see the photos in these posts.

Flood-Bond Progress Appears to Slow

During the month, HCFCD:

  • Awarded only one new construction contract valued at $1 million.
  • Awarded three new agreements with other contractors but spent $0 with them.
  • Completed 19 buyouts compared to 21 the previous month.
  • Spent $2.4 million on buyouts compared to $6.6 million the previous month.

The total value of active capital improvement construction projects fell to $225.8 million from $231.9 million in July and $235.6 million in June. Out of that, the Lake Houston Area still only has $2,000 or 0.0009% of the total. Although that should improve in the future, it could also worsen, depending on election outcomes in November.

Page 12 from full update.

Total reported bond spending increased to $1.1 billion, up from $1.06 billion the previous month, an increase (with rounding) of slightly more than $40 million.

Overall progress of the bond program? 23.5% complete – four years into a 10-year program.

However, HCFCD believes it is only slightly behind schedule. The District’s key performance indicators stayed steady at .97 percent.

Major-Maintenance Flood-Bond Spending Holds Steady, but Still Lopsided

Major maintenance projects held fairly steady. HCFCD spent $78.4 million in August compared to $78.8 million in July. But there’s only one maintenance project in the entire northeastern section of the county – some drainage system repairs in the Jackson Bayou watershed with an unspecified value. It’s unspecified because the report lumps it together with two projects in the Halls Bayou watershed. The total for all three is about $1 million. Assuming each project got one third of that million, the entire northeastern section of the county received 0.42% of all the maintenance spending from the bond last month.

Active maintenance projects reported on page 11 of full report.

The largest group of maintenance projects is along Cypress Creek and its tributaries. There are 14 projects valued at $48.1 million. That’s 61.4% of the major-maintenance total.

Input Sessions for Garcia-Bond

Separately, Adrian Garcia has proposed another $1.2 billion bond – even though hundreds of millions remain from the 2015 bond. Unlike the 2018 Flood Bond, which specified projects in each watershed so people knew what they were supposedly getting, Garcia’s bond contains only three high-level categories split up into Propositions A, B, and C. They include:

  • A) Public safety: $100 million
  • B) Transportation: $900 million
  • C) Parks and Trails: $200 million

That’s right. Garcia wants to spend twice as much on hike-and-bike trails as public safety.

The county will hold four open houses in each of the four precincts during the next five weeks. It will also hold four virtual open houses. For a complete schedule, see HarrisCounty2022Bond.org.

The one input session in the northeastern section of Precinct 3 will be at the Humble Civic Center at 6PM on October 4th. Neither Kingwood, Huffman, Atascocita, nor Crosby will have its own input session.

Bond Language Will Not Reflect Voter Input

The county must post bond language by September 30 at the latest. But the input sessions run until October 20th. Early voting starts on October 24. And Election Day is November 8. So the bond language will not reflect much voter input. Neither the county, nor media, will have much time to digest voter input. It’s pure political theater.

The bond website simply says that “Input will be shared with Harris County Precinct staff as they make decisions regarding future projects.”

https://harriscounty2022bond.org

The bond website provides absolutely no detail about SPECIFIC PROJECTS or WHERE projects would be – despite promises made by the County Administrator to Commissioners Court.

In contrast, my records show that Harris County Flood Control under Judge Ed Emmett posted a comprehensive list of projects almost two full months before the Flood Bond Referendum in 2018.

Equity and Political Leaning Will Guide Distribution of Garcia-Bond Funds

Commissioners Ramsey and Cagle argued for months to delay the bond referendum until details could be nailed down, but Hidalgo, Garcia and Ellis refused.

During debate in Commissioners Court, it became clear that Hidalgo, Garcia and Ellis intend to use “equity principles” to divvy up the money, not just to prioritize the start date of projects as they did with the 2018 flood bond. Hidalgo, Garcia and Ellis even passed a motion that would give Democratic-leaning Precincts about 40% more money than Republican-leaning Precincts. For instance, Precinct 3 would be guaranteed only $220 million. That’s 18% of the total even though P3 has 47% of the county’s unincorporated area to maintain, improve and patrol.

Why Trust in Government is Eroding

During debate, Rodney Ellis even bragged about how he redefined “equitable distribution of funds” in the 2018 Flood Bond text after the election.

My takeaway: Hidalgo, Garcia and Ellis don’t want to be held accountable. They talk transparency, but this is nothing more than a slush fund. And this is why trust in government is eroding in my humble opinion.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/20/22

1848 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.

Former Commissioner Radack Files Second Redistricting Lawsuit; Hidalgo Responds to First

Former Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Steve Radack filed a redistricting lawsuit on New Years Eve last week. This lawsuit comes hot on the heels of a previous lawsuit by Commissioners Jack Cagle, Tom Ramsey and their supporters. That lawsuit is now in the Texas Supreme Court. Here’s an overview of where both cases stand. The fate of flood mitigation in Harris County could hang in the balance.

File photo from 2021 of Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis whose redistricting plan sparked two lawsuits.

Radack Lawsuit Alleges Lack of Sufficient Public Notice

The Radack lawsuit alleges that County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia passed a redistricting plan without providing sufficient public notice.

Radack claims that constitutes a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA). TOMA requires that members of the public must have 72 hours notice of provisions being considered, but the Ellis-3 redistricting plan was posted on the day of the meeting in which it was approved. The public had virtually no advance notice of the plan, and thus, no opportunity to comment on it. People first learned of the plan when Ellis rolled it out in the meeting during which he, Garcia and Hidalgo approved it.

The lawsuit further alleges that:

  • Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia planned the surprise in advance.
  • Their plan makes it impossible for Jack Cagle to get re-elected.
  • It will give Democrats a 4-1 supermajority.
  • Failure to timely post notice of the plan invalidates the vote on it.
  • In violating TOMA, Lina Hidalgo overstepped her authority and therefore does not enjoy governmental immunity.

A supermajority would give Hidalgo, Ellis and Garcia the power to shift flood-bond dollars around at will.

Radack filed his lawsuit on December 31st. The county clerk posted it on her website on Monday, January 3rd. The case landed in the 190th Court where Judge Beau Miller presides.

Hidalgo, Ellis and Christian Menafee, the County Attorney, issued public denials on Tuesday’s evening news. However, they have not yet filed a formal response to Radack’s lawsuit with the court.

Hidalgo Files Response to Cagle/Ramsey Suit Pending in Supreme Court

Commissioners Jack Cagle, Tom Ramsey and their supporters filed the first lawsuit. It is currently before the Texas Supreme Court. Their complaint focused on denial of voting rights for more than a million people. Judge Dedra Davis of the 270th District Court dismissed that lawsuit without explanation. The plaintiffs then directly filed for a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court. Plaintiffs did not have time to go through the normal appeal process.

In that case, Hidalgo filed a 185-page response on December 30th to the plaintiffs’ charges. Hidalgo contends that:

  • The county did not violate voting rights because when you redistrict precincts with staggered terms, voting rights for some will always be delayed but not permanently denied.
  • The court has no way to evaluate whether Harris County went “way beyond” what was necessary to redistrict
  • Plaintiffs took too long to seek relief.

For the full text of Hidalgo’s response, click here.

Plaintiffs in this case also filed a request for an expedited ruling. To affect the next election without delaying it, a ruling would reportedly have to come sometime in January.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/5/2022

1590 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Will Redistricting Affect Flood-Mitigation Priorities?

The recent redistricting of Harris County precincts could not have been more disruptive. More than half the county’s residents changed both precincts and commissioners. Can you say, “Tossed Salad”? It will take some time to work this out. In the meantime, “Many are asking how will new precinct boundaries affect flood-mitigation priorities?”

We’ve already seen how Commissioner Adrian Garcia tried to divert flood bond money from an area he was giving up in the redistricting process to one he was inheriting. That got voted down, but…

Priorities Already Altered Multiple Times in Past

We’ve also seen how Democrats re-ordered flood-bond priorities in 2019, shifted money from other budgets to accelerate projects in poor watersheds, and are suggesting another flood bond with new priorities based on so-called racial equity.

Officially, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) does not allocate flood-bond mitigation money by precinct. They allocate it by watershed and project – with the most money going to the most heavily flood-damaged areas.

But those who watch Commissioners Court regularly know that Commissioners control HCFCD priorities, and no project moves forward without their approval.

Lake Houston Dam Example

All this raises the question, “How will the re-alignment of Commissioner’s precincts re-align flood-mitigation priorities?”

For instance, the Lake Houston Dam was half in Precinct 1 and half in Precinct 2 both controlled by Democrats. But P2 Commissioner Garcia has given that area up. The east side of the dam will now be in Precinct 3 now controlled by Republican Tom Ramsey. Ramsey will now also control virtually all the homes around the lake with the exception of a small area in Summerwood. The flood bond allocated $20 million to help support expansion of the flood gates on Lake Houston (Project CI-028). How solid is that commitment now that Democrats have given up most of the area?

Across the county, from Cypress Creek to Armand Bayou, people have dozens of questions like that about projects affecting them. The answers will take time to sort out.

New High-Resolution Precinct Maps Finally Available

Until a few days ago, the lack of resolution and streets in redistricting maps made it difficult to tell exactly where the new precinct boundaries were.

But just last week, the Harris County Attorney posted a new high-resolution map showing new boundaries. The map also shows major streets and voting precincts (in addition to the county precincts).

The biggest changes happened on the north side of the County where Commissioner Adrian Garcia staged a strategic retreat from Republican voters to bolster his re-election chances. Also, Precincts 3 and 4 switched positions. P3 formerly on the west side of the county is now on the north and east sides. And Precinct 4, formerly on the north and east sides is now mostly on the west and north sides.

The plan, designed and approved by Democrats, will force Commissioners Cagle and Ramsey to run for re-election in areas where they are relatively little known – unless they want to move their residences. Commissioner Rodney Ellis carefully drew district boundaries so that Cagle and Ramsey would no longer live in precincts they once represented. And by law, Commissioners must live in the precinct they represent.

Ramsey and Cagle will now have whole new watersheds to learn.

Watershed Boundaries Not Yet Shown on New Precinct Map

Unfortunately, the new high-res precinct map does not show watershed boundaries, although it shouldn’t be hard to create one – for someone with better Photoshop skills than mine!

At the moment, to see how your watershed could be affected, compare two maps side by side.

The latter shows watershed boundaries if you click on the Watershed button in the left-hand column.

Most of the Lake Houston Area including Huffman, Kingwood, Humble (east of Bush Intercontinental Airport), Atascocita, Crosby and Spring will now be in Precinct 3 with Commissioner Tom Ramsey.

New Precincts adopted by Harris County Commissioners Court in 2021. Click link for high res map.

To learn more about redistricting and your new commissioner, visit the landing pages for Harris County Precinct 3 or Harris County Precinct 4.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/15/2021

1539 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.

Democrats Approve Modified Ellis Redistricting Plan Along Party Lines

In a straight party-line vote, Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis and and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia approved a modified version of a plan presented weeks ago by Ellis. It contained an even bigger surprise than in Ellis’ original plan. And it takes gerrymandering to a whole new personal level that really strikes home.

The Old Switcheroo

The plan approved on 10/28/2021 creates two safe, predominantly Democratic precincts for Ellis and Garcia while forcing Republicans Cagle and Ramsey to run in each other’s precincts where they are relatively unknown. That will mean Republicans will have to raise and spend more money to compensate for low awareness.

Ellis’ modified plan was posted just hours before today’s special meeting on redistricting. So the public did not really have a chance to review and discuss it. However, that didn’t stop Ellis from bragging about how open and transparent the redistricting process has been.

Clever Gerrymandering of Commissioners’ Homes

County law specifies that precinct commissioners must live in the precincts they represent. Currently Ramsey lives in and represents Precinct 3; Cagle lives in and represents Precinct 4. So Ellis carefully gerrymandered the boundaries of the new Precinct 3 to include Cagle’s home and the new Precinct 4 to include Ramsey’s.

That means both Republicans would have to move their homes in order to represent their current districts.

Hidalgo Calls It Payback for Not Raising Taxes

Judge Lina Hidalgo supported the last minute entry in the redistricting sweepstakes. When Cagle questioned why, she said it was payback for Republican’s walking out and blocking a tax increase earlier this year. A tax increase must be approved by a 4-1 supermajority. So when Cagle and Ramsey walked out of the meeting, Democrats did not have the votes they needed.

The map below will now define the new precinct boundaries. The other major change: Garcia’s Precinct 2 loses the heavily Republican far northeast portion of the county. That will shore up his re-election chances. Last time, he won by just 2,000 votes and his seat was widely regarded as the most vulnerable in this election, given the old precinct boundaries.

The redistricting map adopted today by Harris County. Lines represent old boundaries. Colors represent new boundaries. Ellis switched the numbers 3 and 4.

What This Will Mean

Unless Republicans can win both Precincts 3 and 4, Democrats will have a supermajority after the next election. That would basically give Democrats the power to raise taxes at will. It would also let them override the will of voters. For instance, they could shift flood-bond money between watersheds and cancel flood-bond projects, as they tried to do last Tuesday.

Cities and counties without healthy checks and balances can devolve into blatant political corruption. The next election could determine the tenor of politics in Harris County for decades to come.

The next Harris County election will be the primary in May.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/28/2021

1521 Days after 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.