State Flood Plan Archives - Reduce Flooding

Far More Proposals in State Flood Plan Than Funds For Them

4/20/25 – There are far more flood-risk-reduction proposals (studies, projects and strategies) in Texas’ first state flood plan than funds to finance them.

Tressa Olsen, Assistant Director of Flood Planning for the Texas Water Development Board, spoke about the plan at a meeting of the Society of American Military Engineers on 4/14/25.

*TWDB’s Assistant Director of Flood Planning, Tressa Olsen.*

Altogether, the 15 regional flood planning groups in the state identified approximately 5,000 proposals with a combined price tag of $54.5 billion. But, she says, the legislature has allocated only approximately $1.4 billion since 2019 for them.

Of the $54.5 billion, more than $34 billion are in the San Jacinto river basin.

*Page 13 from Olsen’s presentation on state flood plan. To see her entire presentation, click here.*

That underscores the need for better floodplain management practices that can prevent rather than correct flooding problems – especially in the San Jacinto watershed. After more flood issues become apparent in the next big storm, it may take generations and billions of dollars to remediate them.

Right now, 14 bills pending in the state legislature mention the state’s Flood Infrastructure Fund. But most of those bills focus on prioritizing projects. Not one bill establishes a steady income stream for the Fund which helps finance mitigation projects in the State Flood Plan.

Proposed Ryko Development Makes Case For Intensive Scrutiny

Regardless, every month, it seems more and more developments are moving into floodplains and closer to rivers. Major storms can turn those rivers and streams into raging torrents that destroy homes and lives.

Last week, I focused on the proposed Ryko development immediately west of Kingwood in Montgomery County.

The company hopes to build 7,000 homes on 5,500 flood-prone acres near the confluence of Spring Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork.

*Ryko’s land lies within the area bounded by Spring Creek (left) and the San Jacinto West Fork (right).*

North of Ryko’s land, about halfway to the Grand Parkway and on property 30 feet higher than the confluence, is an existing subdivision called Bender’s Landing Estates. (See top of map below.) One resident told me that 53 homes there flooded during Harvey.

So, Ryko’s property below Benders Landing has even higher flood risk. See red outline superimposed over FEMA’s map below.

Ryko Flood risk — *Ryko property bounded by red. Cross-hatched = floodway. Aqua = 1% annual chance. Brown = .2% annual chance.* *The Houston area has had four .2% annual chance floods in the last 10 years.*

As the Federal government scales back disaster relief and flood mitigation assistance, and as the State doesn’t step in to provide steady funding for mitigation efforts in the State Flood Plan, the responsibility to prevent flooding will increasingly fall onto the shoulders of local officials.

But that will require local officials to update and integrate data on their own. FEMA is already years behind schedule in releasing new flood maps for the Houston region.

Elevation Data Acquired in 1988

“Base Flood Elevation” in engineer-speak is the expected height of a 1% annual-chance (100-year) flood. FEMA provides a Base-Flood-Elevation Viewer that estimates the height above ground for both 1% and .2% Annual Chance (500-year) Floods.

However, FEMA uses elevation data acquired in 1988 to estimate the height of base floods above ground level.

Near the confluence of Spring Creek and the West Fork, Ryko land would be under more than 25 feet of floodwater in a .2% annual chance flood. A point near Benders Landing Estates on much higher Ryko ground would be under 7.3 feet of water in the same flood.

A whole page in FEMA’s Base-Flood-Elevation estimates discusses disclaimers. “Everyone is at risk,” it says. “The chances of experiencing a flood can vary due to unevaluated conditions, such as the unstudied effects of community growth and development or intense storms uncharacteristic to historical trends.”

Extreme Risk Requires Extreme Caution

FEMA’s reports even suggest actions homeowners can take to reduce their flood risk and insurance premiums, such as elevating slabs. But by how much? FEMA doesn’t say. And elevation can be a shifting target.

One of the “unevaluated conditions and unstudied effects of community growth” is subsidence.

Harris-Galveston Subsidence District says subsidence at a gage next to Ryko’s property averages .73 inches per year due to groundwater withdrawal. Adding 7000 new homes would accelerate subsidence.

0.73 inches per year translates to approximately two feet of sinking during a 30-year mortgage. And that’s twice as much as the freeboard factor (safety margin) used to establish the elevation of foundations above expected floods in Montgomery County.

MoCo only requires foundations of new homes to be one foot above the base flood elevation (100-year floodplain), And we’ve had four 500-year floods in the area in the last 10-years. The image below shows what one of those floods did to townhomes in Forest Cove about a mile downstream from Ryko’s property.

Riverview townhome — *Forest Cove Townhome destroyed by Harvey.*

Montgomery County Commissioners beware!

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/21/25

2792 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.

San Jacinto River Basin Recommendations in State Flood Plan

The new Texas state flood plan contains approximately 4351 recommendations in 15 regions statewide. The spreadsheet runs 147 pages in 3-point type. An eagle would have trouble seeing this type!

Recommendations in the San Jacinto River Basin alone (Region 6) total 519. And they’re buried within the larger spreadsheet, making it difficult summarize and compare them, much less see how the money is being distributed locally.

State Flood Plan Costs Staggering

The costs of the state flood plan are staggering. If all projects were implemented statewide tomorrow, they would cost more than $54 billion in 2024 dollars. Those in the San Jacinto Basin would total almost $10 billion.

Three Categories of Recommendations

Recommendations fall into three categories: Evaluations (engineering studies that lay the groundwork for future construction projects); Flood-Mitigation Projects (construction); and Strategies (buyouts, elevations, etc.)

The table below shows the breakdown. Region 6 (the San Jacinto Watershed) contains a lower percentage of flood mitigation projects and higher percentages of Evaluations and Strategies than the rest of the state, which is broken down into 15 regions.

Compiled from Volume II of Texas Flood Plan

The map below shows the different regions. Most contain one major river basin.

Texas flood planning regions — *From Executive Summary of Flood Plan*

*From San Jacinto River Authority. The plan identifies many projects by watershed location.* *Use for reference.*

These three PDFs contain Region 6 projects extracted from the 147-page Volume II of the state flood plan.

High Level Observations

Evaluations

I’m still analyzing all these entries. But already several things have jumped out at me from the standpoint of a Lake Houston Area resident.

Most of our stormwater comes from Montgomery County. But in the Evaluation list, Harris County projects outnumber those in Montgomery County by more than 5 to 1.

And most of the projects in Montgomery County tend to be limited in scope. For instance, Conroe has entries for a downtown master drainage plan, an Avenue M drainage plan, a South 3rd drainage plan and more.

Conroe also broke out separate projects for developing benefit-cost analyses associated with such projects and subdivision drainage projects.

Harris County and Galveston County, on the other hand, tended to look at things from a watershed-wide point of view.

Projects

The state flood plan lists only 69 flood-mitigation construction projects in all of the San Jacinto River Basin. And of those, only eight are upstream of Lake Houston. One is already a non-starter. The land for a detention basin on Spring Creek has already been sold for commercial development.

The remaining seven projects with their priority ranks include:

Caney Creek channel improvements and detention (#52)
Widening the West Fork and shaving down its flood plains (#67)
Peach Creek channel improvements and detention (#72)
Building a 1.6 mile earthen embankment to capture runoff from Winters Bayou in the East Fork watershed far upstream in San Jacinto County (#82).
Lake Creek Detention in Montgomery County (#105)
Improvements to the Kingwood Diversion Ditch (#144)
Cypress Creek detention (#149)

Strategies

It’s hard to see how any of the 654 strategies listed for the San Jacinto Basin would help the Lake Houston Area. Some might keep flooding from getting worse.

For instance:

Coastal Prairie Conservancy proposed a project to conserve more than 1,000 acres in the headwaters of Cypress Creek.
Harris County Flood Control proposed money for buyouts and relocations.

Missing: SJRA, Payment Plan, Integration

Strangely, the 147 pages of 3 point type in the state flood plan make no reference to the San Jacinto River Authority or SJRA.

Yet, as we saw in Harvey and again last May, the SJRA has huge gaps in its monitoring network upstream from Lake Conroe. During floods, these gaps make it difficult to assess how much water is moving toward the dam.

So dam operators tend to err on the side of caution and release more water than they may need to. In May, this contributed to the flooding of hundreds of structures downstream from the dam. To me, more gages would have been an important addition to the list.

It’s also not clear how Texas will pay for all these projects.

Currently, the flood infrastructure fund dashboard is down. So there’s no telling what the fund balance is.

But let’s assume it’s a billion dollars. If the legislature voted that every other year, it would take at least a century to build all these projects with inflation factored in.

Finally, it’s not clear how all these projects work together to reduce flood risk, though many mention that they should only be considered after other projects.

Hey, it ain’t perfect. But you have to start somewhere!

For More Information

To learn more about the first Texas state flood plan, read this executive summary, or a summary of the summary which I published earlier this year.

For a deeper dive into floodwaters, check out this Texas Water Development Board page.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/15/24

2574 Days since Hurricane Harvey

More People Live in Texas Floodplains than Live in 30 States

According to Texas Water Development Board data compiled for the first state flood plan, 5.9 million Texans live in 100- or 500-year floodplains. That means more people live in Texas floodplains than live in 30 states. Yep. Thirty entire states have populations smaller than that of Texas floodplains.

Other key observations also emerge from the data:

One in five Texans lives in a floodplain
42% of those live in the San Jacinto watershed.
The number of floodplain dwellers in the San Jacinto watershed alone exceeds the population of 15 states and the District of Columbia.

Where Biggest Problems Are

No other watershed comes close to 42%. To understand where the most people live with the most flood risk, see the table below. I compiled it from reports by the 15 regional flood planning groups in Texas.

*Column 3 shows people living in 100-year floodplain (1% annual chance) and Column 4 shows the 500-year (.2% annual chance) floodplain population.*

When looking at all people living in floodplains, Texas has almost 5.9 million. The last column shows where the largest concentrations of those people reside:

Only two other watersheds, the Trinity and Lower Rio Grande, reported double-digit percentages.
Trinity had 11.7%.
Lower Rio Grande had 17%.
No other watershed even made it over 5% of the floodplain dwellers.

The pie chart below really drives home the lopsided percentage of the state’s flood-plain dwellers living in the San Jacinto basin. San Jacinto is the large green area.

*Compiled from data reported by each of Texas’ Regional Flood Planning Groups.*

The San Jacinto basin has more people living in floodplains than the next five watersheds put together.

Possible Reasons for San Jacinto Issues

The TWDB report does not explain why. Likely, a number of factors contribute to the high percentage:

The state’s largest concentration of people, jobs, industry
Rapid growth and lax enforcement of development regulations
Insufficient upstream mitigation
Proximity to coast, tropical storms/hurricanes
High rainfall rates
Low, flat terrain

Floodplain Dwellers as Percent of State’s Total Population

The U.S. Census Bureau now estimates that 30,029,572 people live in Texas. With almost 5.9 million of them living in a 100- or 500-year floodplain, that means a whopping one in five live in floodplains.

Of the 20% of Texans who live in floodplains:

8% live in a 100-year (1% annual chance) floodplain
12% live in a 500-year (0.2% annual chance) floodplain.

So, statewide, more people prefer to live in the less risky floodplains. But that’s not the case in every watershed. See the San Antonio watershed in the table above. Three times more people live in the riskier, 100-year floodplain than the 500-year.

Coastline Concentrations

The numbers also show concentrations of floodplain dwellers near other parts of the Texas coastline.

The lower Rio Grande has 13 times more people living in a floodplain than the upper Rio Grande.
The lower Colorado has twice as many people living in a floodplain than the upper Colorado.
The lower Brazos has 2.5 times more people living in a floodplain than the upper Brazos.
The San Jacinto, which is one of the state’s shorter rivers and mostly near the coastline has the highest number of people in floodplains by far.

This 2014 NOAA study showed that 40% of the U.S. population lives in coastal counties. Density is far higher in coastal counties compared to inland areas. Coastal counties have 40% of the population but only 10% of the land.

Coastal areas also face different issues than inland communities. According to NOAA, “These include increased risks from high-tide flooding, hurricanes, sea level rise, erosion, and climate change.”

Cost of Making People Safe

The San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group recommended $46 billion worth of studies and mitigation projects in its regional plan. And the San Jacinto is just one of 15 watersheds in the state!

In sharp contrast to the magnitude of mitigation needs, the legislature voted only approximately $1 billion for flood prevention projects this year.

If I’ve learned one thing about flood prevention, it’s that nothing moves quickly.

Need for More Awareness

And that gives me a sinking feeling – especially knowing how few people have flood insurance and how many more need it.

The floodplains in our area are huge. We have a lot of people. And thus, the scary numbers for the San Jacinto watershed. And also consider this. The numbers above are likely understated, because they only reflect riverine flooding and not street flooding from poorly maintained ditches.

With few affordable structural solutions in sight, TWDB should spend some of their funds on public awareness and education while we wait for projects to happen. Few people understand how much flood risk they live with…until they flood.

For the entire 63-page report, see TWDB Board Agenda/Item #8 from their July 25th meeting. (Caution: 33 meg download.)

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/29/23

2160 Days since Hurricane Har vey

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

TWDB Needs Feedback on Ranking Method for State Flood Plan

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) is soliciting feedback on its proposed scoring matrix to rank efforts for the state’s first flood plan. Each region has submitted proposed projects. The scoring matrix will help rank order them statewide. And the deadline is April Fools’ Day.

TWDB has provided several spreadsheets that show how the criteria and weights would affect ranking of sample projects. But understand that TWDB is only soliciting comments on scoring criteria and their weights at this time, not the rankings of the limited sample. All this is DRAFT data, not final recommendations.

39 Factors in Three Different Categories and Three Groups

TWDB has proposed weighing the relative merits of 39 factors that span three categories with benefits in three more groups:

Flood Management Evaluations (Studies)
Flood Mitigation Projects
Flood Management Strategies

TWDB uses three types of factors:

Flood risk
Risk reduction
Other related factors

“Other” includes such factors as cost and environmental benefits.

The 39 factors include:

Emergency Need (Y/N)
Estimated number of structures at 100yr flood risk
Residential structures at 100-year flood risk
Estimated Population at 100-year flood risk
Critical facilities at 100-year flood risk (#)
Number of low water crossings at flood risk (#)
Estimated number of road closures (#)
Estimated length of roads at 100-year flood risk (Miles)
Estimated farm & ranch land at 100-year flood risk (acres)
Number of structures with reduced 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain
Number of structures removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain
Percent of structures removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain (Calculated by TWDB from reported data)
Residential structures removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain
Estimated Population removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain
Critical facilities removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain (#)
Number of low water crossings removed from 100yr (1% annual chance) Floodplain (#)
Estimated reduction in road closure occurrences
Estimated length of roads removed from 100yr floodplain (Miles)
Estimated farm & ranch land removed from 100yr floodplain (acres)
Cost per structure removed from 100-year floodplain
Percent Nature-based Solution (by cost)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Water Supply Benefit (Y/N)
Severity – Pre-Project Average Depth of Flooding (100-year)
Severity – Community Need (% Population)
Flood Risk Reduction
Flood Damage Reduction
Critical Facilities Damage Reduction
Life and Safety
Water Supply
Social Vulnerability
Nature-Based Solution
Multiple Benefits
Operations and Maintenance Costs
Admin, Regulatory Obstacles
Environmental Benefit
Environmental Impact
Mobility
Regional

Factors (in Risk, Risk Reduction and Other groups) may receive weight in one, two or all three main categories (Evaluations, Projects, Strategies).

Intent: Consistency Across All Regions Statewide

The intent of the TWDB ranking method for the state flood plan is to provide a consistent approach to be used across all Texas regions. The goal: to systematically address the flood hazards with most population, properties and critical facilities at risk in the state during a 1% annual chance flood.

TWDB bases all risk on 1% annual chance/100-year flood estimates.

Areas with widely varying measurements such as population will have answers normalized. Basically, this means adjusting widely varying scales to a common scale (such as 0 to 1) to facilitate comparison.

More Background, Sample Data, Providing Feedback

All relevant ranking workbooks, documents, and the link to the online survey tool are available on the State Flood Planning webpage.

Provide your feedback on this page. It’s a four-question survey about the:

Plan in general
Evaluations
Projects
Strategies.

The deadline to submit feedback is Saturday, April 1, 2023.

Importance of Feedback

We have seen how seriously the weights given to such rankings can skew priorities. Consider, for instance, the Equity Prioritization Framework adopted after the fact by a Harris County Judge and two commissioners for proposed 2018 Flood Bond Projects (unrelated to these projects).

So, if you have reservations with the TWDB scoring system, register your complaints NOW. My biggest concerns are that it’s hard to understand. It also contains broken links and typos that get in the way of understanding.

But understanding is critical. Many of the flood-reduction projects needed on the periphery of Harris County will need be addressed by state money. That’s because 10 of our 23 watersheds originate outside the County. I guess that would fall under #39 Regional. But…

The proposed scoring matrix gives ZERO weight to Regional benefits.

That’s kind of strange for a regional plan designed to encourage solutions that cross jurisdictions. Scoring matrix penalizes people on the periphery of large urban areas like Harris County.

watersheds in Harris and surrounding counties

I’ve already sent my feedback on that one.

Inconsistencies? TWDB refers to FMS as Flood Management Strategy on its spreadsheet and Flood Management Solution in introductory text.

Another example: In its spreadsheets, footnotes describing the listing of criteria do not correspond in all cases to the criteria listed. Nor does a link work to a supposed explanation of the criteria.

And there’s no description that I could find of how all these categories, measurements and groups fit together.

Finally, it’s not clear how they will treat areas that have a 50% annual chance of flooding (2-year flood). We’ve seen in highly urbanized areas that – after spending hundreds of millions of dollars in some watersheds – the best we can do achieve in some areas is a 25-year level of service. Achieving better would require buying out thousands of homes. What will happen in such cases?

Please make the effort to provide public feedback.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/20/2023

2029 Days since Harris County

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.

TWDB to Host Two State Flood Plan Webinars on August 19

If you missed the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) state flood planning seminar in Tomball, you still have three more options to participate.

TWDB Planning Process

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) will offer two webinars to discuss and solicit input on state flood planning and financing programs established during the last legislative session.

Discussion during each webinar will be guided by the issues presented in this document: Implementation of Flood Legislation from the 86th Texas Legislative Session.

Webinar #1: Monday, August 19, 9:30–11:30 a.m. CT

Webinar #2: Monday, August 19, 5:30–7:00 p.m. CT

How to Register for Webinar

To participate: Visit http://texasadmin.com/tx/twdb/ to register for the webinar.

The TWDB will launch the presentation screen approximately five minutes before the start of each webinar. Questions and comments will be addressed live during each webinar; you may email your questions and comments to FloodWebinar@twdb.texas.gov throughout the presentations.

Each webinar will be recorded and may be viewed at a later date at http://texasadmin.com/tx/twdb/.

Last In-Person Meeting at Houston City Hall

The last in-person meeting will be held on Friday, August 23rd at Houston City Hall.

Houston City Hall
Council Chamber,
2nd floor
901 Bagby St.
Houston, TX 77002
9:30-11:30 a.m.

The complete meeting schedule may be viewed on the TWDB website.

If you ever wanted to influence the way $800 million is spent, here’s your chance.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/16/2019

717 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Mark Your Calendar: Important Meetings Related to Flooding

This month, you have three opportunities to attend meetings that could help reduce flooding in the Lake Houston area.

TWDB Visits Tomball to Solicit Input on State’s First Flood Plan

On Friday, August 9, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) will hold a meeting in Tomball. Purpose: to solicit public opinion on rules and guidelines for Texas’ first statewide flood plan. Here’s more information about the event and the TWDB. The TWDB is the state’s water agency. It’s primary mission is developing and maintaining lakes and reservoirs that support economic growth. This year, the legislature put them into the flood mitigation business, too. They’re looking for the best ways to spend $800 million on flood mitigation from the state’s Rainy Day Fund. TWDB will hold the event at:

Beckendorf Conference Center at Lone Star College–Tomball
30555 Tomball Pkwy.
Tomball, TX 77375
9:30-11:30 a.m.
Friday, August 9

Sign up for more information about these meetings and other flood information at the TWDB’s website. You can also contact the TWDB at (512) 463-8725 or flood@twdb.texas.gov.

TWDB Makes Repeat Appearance at Houston City Hall

If you can’t make the event in Tomball, you have another chance. TWDB will repeat the event at:

Houston City Hall
Council Chamber, 2nd Floor
901 Bagby Street
Houston, TX 77002
9:30 to 11:30
Friday, August 23

Montgomery County Will Hear Testimony on Closing Detention Loophole

On Tuesday, August 27th, Montgomery County Commissioners will consider a motion to close a loophole that allows developers to avoid building detention ponds. Expect developers to testify against closing the “flood routing study” loophole. You can testify FOR closing it, however.

The meeting starts at 9:30. Montgomery County has special sign-up procedures for citizens who wish to testify; make sure you sign up beforehand. Check the agenda beforehand to plan your time. You can also register your opinion with county commissioners via phone or email.

You don’t have to be a Montgomery County resident to testify. As downstream residents of the Lake Houston Area, you may be affected by this more than Montgomery County residents are.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/7/2019

708 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Flood Planning: How Would You Spend $793 million?

The 86th Texas Legislature charged the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) with implementing flood-related legislation, including Senate Bill (SB) 7, SB 8, SB 500, and House Joint Resolution 4. This legislation greatly expanded the TWDB’s role in flood planning and financing.

Planning the New State Flood Plan

The TWDB will administer a new state flood planning program. This program establishes a state and regional flood planning process, with flood planning regions based on river basins. The TWDB aims to have the first regional flood plans by 2023, and the first state flood plan by September 1, 2024.

Light pole near River Bend in North Shore as Harvey receded. Note the "wet marks" several feet up on pole. Photo by Jim Balcom. — *Light pole near River Bend in North Shore as Harvey receded. Note the “wet marks” several feet up on pole. Photo by Jim Balcom.*

The legislature also authorized a one-time transfer of $793 million from the state’s Economic Stabilization or “Rainy Day” Fund to create a new flood mitigation funding program that the TWDB will administer. The goal: to make drainage and flood projects more affordable and to meet immediate needs for funding. The funding will become available in 2020.

Statewide Call for Input

Says Jeff Walker, Executive Director, “The TWDB is working to get these programs up and running as quickly as possible and to hire staff for these new roles. Prior to formal rulemaking activities this fall, we are seeking input on a variety of issues, including but not limited to:

Administration of funding for flood control planning and drainage, flood mitigation, and flood control projects
Creation of regional and state flood planning process and related requirements
Potential flood planning region boundaries
State and regional flood planning guidance principles”

The information included in this PDF is intended to generate discussion and to solicit specific feedback that will inform formal rulemaking and other implementation efforts.

Written feedback is requested by August 30, 2019 and should be submitted to rulescomments@twdb.texas.gov.

Issues Being Considered

TWDB will also host stakeholder workshops around the state the first two weeks of August; these will include presentations on implementation efforts and issues for stakeholder consideration as well as opportunities for giving formal comments and for informal discussions with TWDB staff and board members.

TWDB invites you to join these discussions. In the coming months, you can help create new state programs that will better protect Texans against the loss of life and property from flooding.

Spending close to a billion dollars is not easy. Given that funding is finite and needs are not, it will require establishing rules. This PDF explains many of the issues that the TDWB will review at its upcoming public meeting in Tomball on August 9. They include, but are not limited to:

What will be the most effective form of financial assistance? Grants or loans?
Should they require local matches?
What types of projects should get the highest priority?
Should state funds complement federal buyout funds?
How can the TDWB ensure cooperation of all political entities in a watershed?
How can we avoid conflicts between state and regional flood plans?
How can we ensure that flood mitigation measures in one area don’t exacerbate flooding in another?

Regional Workshop in Tomball on August 9

The information included in the PDF linked above is intended to generate discussion and to solicit specific feedback that will inform formal rulemaking and other implementation efforts.