Tag Archive for: Tina Petersen

HCFCD Director Tina Petersen Keeps Her Job … For Now

5/15/2026 – At their 5/14/2026 meeting, Harris County Commissioners discussed the job performance of the Flood Control District Executive Director, Tina Petersen, Ph.D. After coming out of executive session, Commissioners announced that they were taking “no action” re: Dr. Petersen.

Petersen has come under increasing pressure to produce results on $322 million worth of projects funded by HUD Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Relief (CDBG-DR). They have a looming February 28, 2027 deadline. And Petersen’s own data shows many of the projects will miss that deadline, thus jeopardizing federal funding.

Dr. Petersen under pressure as she addressed commissioners

Hidalgo Putting Petersen’s Performance Back on Agenda

Despite taking “no action” on Petersen this week, in a lunch-time press conference yesterday, County Judge Lina Hidalgo, said she was putting Petersen’s performance back on the agenda for the June Commissioner’s Court meeting.

Here is a transcript of the Petersen portion of Hidalgo’s press conference.

Addressing schedule slippage on CDBG-DR projects with tight deadlines, Hidalgo said, “The best I can do is place my trust in somebody else that might bring a different kind of energy, a sense of urgency and a new relationship with our partners at other levels of government.”

Hidalgo referred to Petersen’s “unforced errors” and added, “Every day that passes is a day in which perhaps we’re not working as quickly as we could be working.”

When asked about the probability of meeting the General Land Office deadline of February 28, 2027, Hidalgo replied,

“Given where we are and given the reports we have so far, I don’t see how they [the DR projects] will be done on time.”

Lina Hidalgo

Referring to other leaders at the federal and state levels who will have to make a decision about granting an extension, Hidalgo said, “If they’re anything like me, they will want to see a change [in leadership] as well. So that’s where I’m coming from.”

“I don’t think she’s the right person to continue to see this through. I don’t think that gives us the best shot at inspiring the confidence that the other levels of government will need to bet on Harris County,” Hidalgo added.

Ramsey Remains “Extremely Concerned”

Later, back in the meeting, Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey announced that he “remains concerned” about whether Petersen is achieving results and being transparent.

“There have been some delays internally in terms of when we get projects out, when we get projects bid. That’s very clear and we can go through a lot of detail related to that,” said Ramsey. “I think the GLO’s concerned that we’re not doing our job. So that concerns me. I get concerned when they tell me that they’re having trouble getting data.”

Ramsey expressed concerns about how transparent HCFCD was being regarding the status of projects. In referring to a detailed report that commissioners demanded from Petersen in the previous meeting, he said to her, “I shouldn’t have had to come to Commissioner’s Court to get support from this court to ask you to provide information to the GLO.” Then he added, “Every bit of data that we requested … was specifically needed by the GLO and they were not getting it.” 

Speaking to Petersen, he said, “I’m not going to take for granted what you’re telling me. It’ll be verified by Administrator Carter [the country administrator] in great detail in the coming days.”

Ramsey concluded, “Clearly, this is urgent. I’m glad you were able to do a report that we asked for, but I remain extremely concerned.”

Petersen’s Presentation Focused Largely on Need for Deadline Extension

At the end of the meeting, Petersen appeared before commissioners, ostensibly to update them on the status of the CDBG projects. She did produce a series of one-page information sheets that show a timeline for each CDBG-DR project.

However, she did not go into details on those. Nor did she explain any “unforced errors” as Hidalgo called them.

Instead, she focused largely on how frequently she had requested deadline extensions. In her half hour at the podium, Petersen mentioned a need for deadline extensions or more time approximately 30 times.

I felt she was claiming that there was never enough time to do these jobs. What do you feel? Here are:

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/15/26

3181 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.

Houston Chronicle Misses Many Points on HCFCD Leadership Discussion

The Houston Chronicle published an editorial about the leader of the Harris County Flood Control District, Tina Petersen, Ph.D., this morning. Harris County Commissioners will discuss her job performance tomorrow in executive session. The move was prompted by the detailed disclosure on May 1, 2026, of the status of Community Development Block Grant Projects (CDBG).

Petersen spread sunshine in the form of vague generalities about the projects at Commissioners Court until Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey started demanding detailed information. The results were shocking. Especially for 11 CDBG projects with a deadline of 2/28/27 – roughly nine months away. The projects usually take 1-2 years to complete. Recently, one took FOUR years!

Point/Counterpoint

Because the Chronicle is a copyrighted publication, I will quote only the passages that struck me as “off the wall,” then state why I disagree with them.

What Harris County Needs?

The Chronicle headline read: “Harris County needs stable leadership at Flood Control — not backroom politics.”

My headline would have read, “Harris County needs results, accountability and transparency from Flood Control – not excuses.”

Worse Time?

Their editorial board recommends keeping her and says that this discussion “couldn’t come at a worse time.” Actually, it could in my opinion. It could come when there’s no longer any hope of saving hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding.

At the moment, there may still be time to turn some of the projects around. The editorial board seems to assume that if a project is in construction, the GLO will automatically grant an extension. But the GLO has repeatedly said that any extension(s) would depend on how close any given project is to completion.

The Chronicle also doesn’t consider what would happen if a project were started, but not completed in time – a nightmare scenario from a financial point of view.

All But Two Projects under Contract?

The Chronicle claims, “All but two [emphasis added] of those projects are under contract for construction, putting the flood control district in a good position to formally request an extension on the federal funds…”

HCFCD’s own spreadsheet shows that four construction contracts have not been awarded yet – Genoa Red Bluff, Kluge, Isom Street and Dinner Creek Stormwater Detention Basins.

Worse, nine of the 11 projects have not yet billed a penny. Only two have billed anything and one of those is seriously behind schedule,

The Chronicle should understand that “under contract” does not mean “under construction.” It can take contractors months to mobilize for construction.

Undermine Progress?

The Chronicle claims, “A leadership change at this juncture would likely undermine that progress.”

What progress are they referring to?

Responsible Governance?

The Chronicle believes that changing leadership “would be a return to the bad old days of Commissioners Court, defined by opaque maneuvering, where political relationships often took precedence over responsible governance.”

Do you mean like when they hired Petersen?

To my way of thinking, responsible governance is governance that delivers results. The Chronicle seems to defend the squandering of tax dollars. A change in leadership would show GLO and HUD that Harris County does not accept failure and misdirection.

Lost Confidence?

The Chronicle stated, “This turmoil is what we feared would happen after County Judge Lina Hidalgo stated she “lost confidence” in Petersen.

I believe Hidalgo had valid concerns. The flood control district was not being transparent enough in providing timely updates. It was not providing actionable data to commissioners and the public regarding projects that were in jeopardy of losing funding.

Scapegoating?

“We don’t think the current executive should be scapegoated,” says the Chronicle, “… and neither should any county resident who cares about keeping floodwater out of their living room.”

Huh? Since when is making a leader accountable for the performance of her team “scapegoating”? And how are county residents being scapegoated? They’re the victims here.

Productive Relationships?

The Chronicle also believes that Petersen “helped rebuild productive relationships with the General Land Office and Department of Housing and Urban Development…”

Name your sources, Chronicle! Put quotes around their praise so that other media can verify what they said. Vague generalities got us into this mess.

Reasons?

“If there’s a reason to fire Peterson, tell the public what it is,” said the Chronicle editorial. 

Duh again! She is failing and jeopardizing hundreds of millions of dollars. Here’s the link to her own spreadsheet again. If the Chronicle leadership missed deadlines and financial projections by years, how long do you think it would be before Hearst pulled the plug?

What happened to transparency, accountability and results? Do those no longer count in the Chronicle’s world?

You might also want to check previous department head turnover, Chronicle. Four years ago, 16 of 20 department heads turned over with whole layers of management underneath them. Where were you then, Editorial Board?

Non Sequiturs?

The Chronicle editorial claims that if local leaders remove Petersen, it could lead to HCFCD “being put under state control.”

This may have something to do with legislation proposed in 2025 that died in committee. The Chronicle doesn’t give specifics. It just says, “The state Legislature has proposed a bill that would put the district under state control.” What does that have to do with Tina Petersen’s performance?

Here’s another non sequitur, Chronicle! Rep. Dennis Paul did introduce a bill (HB2068 in 2025) that would have created a river-basin-wide flood-control district. The Chronicle correctly stated that the bill would have had directors appointed by the governor. But the Houston Chronicle omitted the fact that it only would have been created after voters in individual counties approved it. Please explain how voter approval infringes on local control in your minds?

And by the way, “legislatures” don’t introduce bills; “legislators” do. Just FYI.

Rash Decisions?

“We urge Commissioners Court to table any rash decisions on flood control leadership on Thursday,” says the editorial.

News flash, Chronicle! This train has been coming down the tracks for years.

Open Discussion of Personnel Matters?

The editorial concludes with the admonition that any discussion of Petersen’s future “should be discussed openly…”

Such public discussions can result in people becoming virtually unemployable for the rest of their careers, which is why state law allows and county policy encourages such discussions in Executive Session.

But you’re entitled to your opinions. And I respect your right to voice them. Please just make sure they’re based on facts.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/13/26

3179 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.

Harris County Commissioners Will Discuss HCFCD Executive Director in Executive Session

5/9/2026 – During the 5/14/2026 Harris County Commissioner’s Court Meeting, Commissioners will discuss Harris County Flood Control District Executive Director Dr. Tina Petersen in Executive Session with an eye to taking possible action.

Item #490 on the Agenda reads:

Request by the Commissioner of Precinct 3 for an Executive Session pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551.074(a) for discussion and possible action regarding the Executive Director of the Harris County Flood Control District.

Section 551.074 allows commissioners to conduct sessions in private when deliberating the employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee.

Performance Issues

Petersen’s performance has come under increasing scrutiny in the last few years as HCFCD projects have bogged down. For instance:

  • Construction of the Mercer Basin in Rodney Ellis’ Precinct One was started in 2022 on an expedited basis. But what should have taken one year took four. The project just finished. (See Item 389).
  • Funding for the reconstruction of Poor Farm Ditch in West U and South Side Place was announced in June 2023. But bid approval is on the May 14, 2026 agenda. (See Item 275).
  • The construction contract for the Woodridge/Taylor Gully project was awarded in March 2026. Seven weeks later, Item 124 on the agenda shows that HCFCD is just now requesting access to the site. As of yesterday, no construction equipment was onsite yet…not even a construction trailer.
  • Item 390 shows thathundreds of millions of dollars of CDBG-MIT and CDBG-DR projects have slipped so badly, they likely won’t meet state and federal deadlines. Of the 11 projects in the DR category only two are in construction and one of those is already seriously behind schedule. Construction bids have not yet been awarded on four others totaling approximately $90 million. Less than 9.5 months remain before deadlines kick in on projects that typically take one to two years.

Despite all that, Item 473 on the agenda shows that Petersen is requesting renewal of a $12 million contract to provide “program management, project management, construction management and inspection services for the development and implementation of CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT projects.”

$90,000 Raise Last Year

Despite her department’s less-than-stellar performance, Commissioners awarded Petersen a $90,000 raise last year. That brought her salary to approximately $434,000 per year.

The big question at this point is…

“Will commissioners start projects they may not have money to finish?”

The $868 million in CDBG-DR and -MIT projects is on a reimbursement basis only when the job is done. Commissioners could spend a lot of money and if the projects don’t get done, they might not get reimbursed.

Will 5/14/26 be Dr. Tina Petersen’s “Day of Reckoning” that Commissioner Ellis warned about last month?

The irony here is that we had management at flood control that was doing an excellent job…until Democrats on Commissioners Court pushed them out. You can see on the graph below what has happened since.

HCFCD 2026 Q1 spending
From HCFCD.org/Activity as of 4/1/2026. Spending by project phase since start of 2018 Flood Bond Program.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/9/2026

3175 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 Document Shows It Misled Commissioners, Public on CDBG Funding Worth Hundreds of Millions

5/4/2026 – On May 1, 2026, Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) finally submitted a detailed spreadsheet demanded by Harris County Commissioners. It shows key milestones in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects receiving $868 million in federal funding.

The data raises two red flags:

  • Only 11 of 28 projects will meet deadlines
  • Construction bids far below initial estimates could leave tens of millions of dollars on the table.

Here is the detailed spreadsheet. The data directly contradicts rosy, high-level claims made by Dr. Tina Petersen, HCFCD’s executive director, in Commissioners Court on January 8, 2026. At that time…

Petersen assured commissioners that HCFCD was “ahead of schedule.”

So, let’s look at the deadlines with the detailed information now in hand. This story has the sad feeling of a football game with the home team down 30 points and only three minutes left on the scoreboard clock.

Deadlines Looming

The 28 CDBG projects are split into two groups with different deadlines:

  • 11 CDBG-Disaster Relief (DR) worth $322 million
  • 17 CDBG-Mitigation (MIT) worth $546 million.

DR projects have, by far, the tightest deadline – February 28, 2027. MIT projects have longer; 50% of that money must be spent by March 31, 2028, with the remainder spent by 2032. So, let’s look at DR projects now and save the MIT discussion for another day.

New Doc Predicts Only Five DR Projects Will Beat 2/28/27 Deadline

Of the 11 DR projects, HCFCD now predicts that only five will beat their deadline. (Estimate “substantial completion” dates shown in parentheses below.)

  • Brookglen Stormwater Detention Basin (SWDB) (12/21/2026)
  • Keegans Bayou SWDB (12/18/26)
  • Arbor Oaks (10/25/26)
  • Lauder SWDB (12/26/2026)
  • Jackson Bayou SWDB (9/3/2026)

Of these five projects, HCFCD is only actually moving dirt on two so far.

  • Arbor Oaks (30% complete with 51% of construction days elapsed)
  • Brookglen (8% complete with 9% of construction time elapsed).

Can they be completed in time? The Arbor Oaks job is a cautionary example. Contractors have completed only 30% of the job in half the allotted time.

Six DR Projects Now Predicted to Miss 2/28/27 Deadline

According to HCFCD’s latest spreadsheet, the six projects below will miss their deadlines. Construction bids on four of the six have not even been awarded yet (Genoa, Kluge, Isom, Dinner).

  • Genoa Red Bluff Regional SWDB (11/72027)
  • East TC Jester SWDB (3/4/2027)
  • Kluge SWDB (6/10/2027)
  • Greens Bayou Midreach Channel Conveyance Improvements (5/11/27)
  • Isom SWDB (6/19/2027)
  • Dinner Creek SWDB (3/24/28)

HCFCD is not moving dirt on ANY of the projects in this second group yet, though a construction trailer is on the East TC Jester Site and clearing reportedly started last week.

Less than 10 months remain on the game clock for the 11 DR projects.

How Reliable are Completion-Date Estimates?

But how much can we depend on HCFCD projections given delays and promises to date? We should remember that under Petersen, HCFCD attempted to build the Mercer SWDB on an expedited basis in ONE YEAR. It took FOUR!

Is There Flexibility in Deadline?

The Texas General Land Office (GLO), which administers US Department of Housing and Urban Development CDBG funds in Texas, has given itself a year after 2/28/27 to close out all DR jobs.

GLO might be able to give up a few months of that year – if projects are close to completion. For instance, several projects in the second group are currently projected to miss the deadline by less than three months.

However, GLO needs the rest of that year to do its work. Beyond that year, it would literally take an act of Congress to extend the deadline. Good luck with that, given the current political gridlock in Washington.

All Construction Bids Lower than Estimates So Far

Close examination of the HCFCD CDBG spreadsheet shows that ALL DR construction bids so far have come in lower than engineers’ estimates. This could create a budget surplus.

A GLO spokesperson says that in cases like that, the money could be shifted to other projects within the group that might have a deficit. Potentially, extra projects might also be possible.

However, at this stage of the game, finding a shovel-ready project that could be bundled into the DR group would be difficult. Any surplus would likely be grouped into a Disaster Recovery Reallocation Program (DRRP) at some future date.

We saw this recently when the GLO allocated unspent funds from disasters before Harvey to Harvey-related projects. That sweetened HCFCD’s DR pot by more than $100 million.

At this very moment, county and GLO officials are scrambling to identify eligible projects. However, construction experts I talked to doubt there’s time to do them before the deadline – even if one or more could be identified.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/4/2026

3170 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 Construction Spending Continues to Plummet

10/26/25 – Harris County Flood Control District construction spending has plummeted in recent years along with total spending. And a leading indicator – construction contract awards – doesn’t show much hope for improvement anytime soon.

Numbers Tell the Story

I’ve posted before about the decline in total spending. It ramped up sharply after voters approved the flood bond in the third quarter of 2018. But then it started dropping relentlessly. The decline largely coincided with a management change made by the Democratic-controlled commissioners court.

From HCFCD Activity page as of 10/25/25. *2018 included only one quarter. **2025 includes three quarters.

The last bar on the right includes only three quarters. But at the current rate, 2025 will equal about $166 million – down about a third from 2024.

Total spending includes many activities besides construction. But flood risk isn’t reduced until construction is finished. And we see a similar decline in construction spending that started when HCFCD management changed at the start of 2022.

From HCFCD Activity page as of 10/25/25. *2018 included only one quarter. **2025 includes three quarters.

But the graphs above only show activity in the rear-view mirror. Looking forward, the picture is equally bleak.

Approved Bids: A Leading Indicator for Construction

Few new projects have had construction contracts awarded in the past year. Of the 16 construction contracts awarded in the previous four quarters, 14 have been for maintenance to existing assets.

Only two, both in White Oak Bayou, have been for new capital assets – the Yale and Arbor Oaks Stormwater Detention Basins. See below.

Page 2 of HCFCD latest Bid Outlook, transmitted to Commissioners Court for 10/30/25 meeting.

All of the rest simply restore functionality. So…

The prospects for flood-risk improvement in the immediate future look bleak for the vast majority of the county.

HCFCD awarded the construction contract for Arbor Oaks in Q2 this year. But excavation had not yet started as of late September 2025.

Deadline Rapidly Approaching for Grants Totaling $321 Million

The Texas General Land Office (GLO) and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) approved 11 projects for Community Development Block Grants in the Disaster Relief category (CDBG-DR).

The 11 projects including Arbor Oaks total $321 million dollars. But to get the money, HCFCD must complete the projects by February 28, 2027, to meet HUD’s deadline.

However, construction will need to be completed by December 2026 – thirteen months away – because it generally takes two to three months to administratively close out CDBG grants.

But according to HCFCD’s most recent bid outlook, flood control won’t even advertise eight of the 10 remaining projects until next year. And another slipped off the radar altogether.

CDBG-DR projects approved by HUD, but not yet bid by HCFCD. SWDB = Stormwater Detention Basin. CCI = Channel Conveyance Improvements.

Phase II of the Brookglen Stormwater Detention Basin received authorization to use government funds in August 2024. Yet HCFCD doesn’t even anticipate advertising it for bids until November 2025 – 15 months. That’s more time than HCFCD has to complete construction.

Little time remains to complete projects of this magnitude. And HCFCD has not explained how it will complete them before the deadline. HUD has already said they will not grant any more extensions.

This represents a real risk. Harris County residents could lose $321 million of Federal funding for important flood damage reduction projects.

Hidalgo Says Audit Revealed Contracting Irregularities

Meanwhile, according to a Houston Chronicle story published on 10/22/25, Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo “called for renewed scrutiny of the Harris County Flood Control District after a recent audit found transparency issues in its contracting process.”

The Chronicle reported that Hidalgo said, “What we found was there was no paper trail. There was no qualifications, information, selection committee, evaluation scoring — no documentation whatsoever.”

The Chronicle story added, “Flood control initially promised to reform its contracting process by August 2024, but has since asked for multiple extensions.”

Sound familiar?

No Apparent Sense of Urgency

HCFCD had only four items on the agenda for the 10/30/25 Commissioners Court meeting. Not one of the four items had to do with any of the ten CDBG-DR projects above. One involved a contract name change; the other three involved small property acquisitions.

HCFCD has billions of dollars waiting to be used. But at this moment, not one new capital improvement project is being bid.

All open HCFCD bid opportunities as of 10/26/25.

And yet earlier this year, HCFCD’s executive director received a pay increase of $90,000 to $434,000.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe in “pay for performance.” I wonder what metrics Hidalgo used to recommend such a bump in pay. How can someone get paid so much to accomplish so little?

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/26/25

2980 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 Data Shows Spending Going Up and Down Simultaneously

7/1/25 – Caution: This post will make your head swim; but it’s better than drowning in the next flood. Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) data presented to the public differs radically from data presented to commissioners last week. One audience sees spending going up. The other sees spending going down.

Commissioners used confusing, contradictory data like this, at least in part, to cut 80% of the remaining projects in the flood bond last week with a claimed 25% funding shortfall.

Some areas will get little or no support from HCFCD while others that have already received hundreds of millions of dollars will get hundreds of millions more. My conclusion: flood-mitigation decisions have become purely political, not data driven under this commissioners court.

How Reliable is the Data?

So how reliable is the data? In this and upcoming posts, I’ll look at several different examples. Today, let’s look at two trend lines: one presented by HCFCD Director Dr. Tina Petersen last week to commissioners. The other comes from HCFCD’s public-facing website.

Here is a graph from the last page of Petersen’s presentation. It paints a pretty rosy picture. Work and spending going straight up for five years. If you’re a commissioner, you’re probably thinking, “Gee, I better get my project completed before the money runs out.”

See graph on last page of Petersen’s transmittal to Commissioners Court.

But buried on HCFCD’s website several layers down is this graph. It paints a bleaker picture. If you’re a resident, you’re probably asking, “With billions of dollars in the bank and inflation eating up bond dollars, why is mitigation activity slowing down? Hurry up and finish my projects!”

Another portion of the page below shows that HCFCD has only spent $1.5 billion from the bond so far, but Petersen’s presentation shows they have $5.2 billion when you include partner funds.

Declining graph
Screen Capture from HCFCD on 7/1/25

This is a very concerning graph that raises questions about the efficiency of HCFCD and how much of the bond has been lost to inflation.

To show the differences between the two trends, I combined them in a third graph. It’s one thing to paint rosy projections for your bosses. And it’s another to overcome years of lost momentum. But there’s an even bigger problem. Look at the years where lines overlap in the middle. The data for past spending doesn’t agree. Oops!

  • Series1 represents reported spending data except for 2025, where I annualized first-quarter spending.
  • Series 2 takes reported and projected spending from Petersen’s bar graph.

Where the lines overlap, the graphs should match perfectly, but they don’t. So I called for an explanation.

HCFCD explains the difference by saying the dark line uses calendar-year data and the orange line uses fiscal-year data. They vary by three months and $23 million. But HCFCD says that otherwise the two sources “numerically align.” I asked what that meant and was told “They match.” Ooooookayyyyy….

But according to data obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests in previous years, HCFCD spent:

  • $217 million in FY2023, not the $175 million shown in Petersen’s bar graph.
  • $254 million in FY2024, not the $210 million shown in her bar graph.

Now my head is swimming. We have THREE values that vary by $42 million for 2023 and $69 million for 2024. See below.

You could build a major project with $69 million!

Unanswered Questions and Uncertainty

An old proverb says, “A man with two watches never knows what time it is.”

Harris County Flood Control District has a real problem. Their financial projections have all the certainty of a 5-year weather forecast. They can’t even agree on LAST year’s weather.

Yet they’re making policy decisions that affect people’s lives with this data. And in the process, they’re destroying trust in government.

There may be a logical explanation. But it’s not apparent or explained anywhere with the data people see.

Why are their numbers different in different places? Who is getting the truth and who is not? 

More examples to follow. This is Part One of Three.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/1/25

2863 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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.

Harris County Names Dr. Tina Petersen New Head of Flood Control District

Yesterday, 1/25/22, Harris County Commissioners Court named Dr. Christina Petersen as the new head of the Flood Control District. That position had been open for seven months since Russ Poppe resigned last July. Below is a brief bio of Petersen distributed by David Berry, the new Harris County administrator.

Dr. Christina Petersen, new head of Harris County Flood Control District

Petersen Background

“Dr. Christina “Tina” Petersen will serve as the first female Director of the Flood Control District in its 85-year history. She joins Harris County from the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, where she has served as Deputy General Manager for the past 3 years and oversaw the District’s Regulatory Planning, Scientific Research, and Water Conservation Programs. She earned her Bachelor’s degree in Biology and Environmental Studies from Baylor University and her Master’s and doctoral degrees in Environmental Engineering from the University of Houston. She is a registered Professional Engineer in Texas and has over 15 years of experience working with local city governments as well as water authorities, State agencies, and cities across Texas to deliver complex water supply and water quality projects.”

I’m trying to learn more about Dr. Petersen’s background. What I didn’t see in this was any mention of hydrology experience. Nor did I see any mention of private-sector experience. More news to follow.

Other Related Appointments

Meanwhile, Berry’s press release also listed:

  • Dr. Milton Rahman, who will serve as the new County Engineer. Dr. Rahman is a Professional Engineer, Project Management Professional, and Certified Floodplain Manager.
  • Lisa Lin, the first director of the Sustainability for Harris County.
  • Daniel Ramos, the new Executive Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Posted by Bob Rehak based on a press release by Dave Berry, Harris County Administrator

1611 Days since Hurricane Harvey